Churches have the right to marry (or even perform a "binding" ceremony) as they please. Given the commitment to religious freedom, I think that's just fine.

Government "of and by the people" has the obligation to be egalitarian in its treatment of its members, and I see no reason why government should be able to legally discriminate in who can legally (not religiously) marry.

Most legitimate studies demonstrate clearly sexual orientation is a naturally occurring characteristic. It makes no sense to to eliminate barriers against interracial marriage, as was de jure in many states until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and still prohibit people form marrying because of their sexual orientation.

In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court in 1948 ruled against anti-miscegenation laws, stating that they were based on racial distinctions that were "by their very nature, odious to a free people". So is prohibiting marriage between any free person ("party") and another.

California Proposition 8 would rescind the current state of law and impose a discriminatory burden on a significant number of citizens - it must be defeated, as surely as a proposition introduced to allow slavery or to rescind Perez vs. Sharp should.

I am a gay male professional, and this question underscores the importance of the need to constantly educate others, even those who otherwise are strong supporters of equality, on what equality really means. I believe that some supporters (and most non-supporters for that matter) have problems with same sex marriage simply because they really have not thought the issue through completely and because the marriage model that they are accustomed to is the male/female model. My partner of 27 years and I are marrying in California later this month. When we sent out wedding announcements, we were surprised to find that some of our supportive heterosexual acquaintances were uncomfortable with how to process this news. Each of these stated that it was the first time that they had received an announcement regarding a same sex marriage, and their awkwardness as to how to respond to such an announcement was apparent. Again, these are people who have accepted us as a couple and who generally are supportive of LGBT equality. What my partner and I learned from this is that cultural biases have deep and subtle foundations. Questions such as this one constantly will be raised until there is a culture shift, and must be answered through constant dialogue, through exposure that promotes processing and by letting people see how opposition to same sex marriage affects real lives.

These arguments are emotionally exhausting. Maybe some straight people just want to hold on to whatever privilege they have and need an excuse, no matter how irrational. My thanks to Luke!

I think the key statement in the original email is this:

"Proposition 8 is solely an issue about the definition of marriage; it is not about rights."

It is impossible to separate civil marriage from rights. The issuance of a marriage license enables access to hundreds of rights, privileges, and responsibilities at the state level, and 1,138 rights, privileges, and responsibilities at the federal level (at last count by the GAO). These rights touch upon dozens of areas such as taxation, inheritance, immigration, social security benefits, and so much more.

Most heterosexual couples don't even think about these things, because they are so accustomed to having them that they are taken for granted and become almost invisible.

But ultimately, people get married because they love each other. They wish to solidify that commitment and have that commitment be known and recognized by society. They wish to protect and provide for each other, especially during the bad times. Same-sex couples want to get married for exactly the same reasons that opposite-sex couples do.

Since we're all tax-paying citizens, we should all be entitled to the same rights, including the right to marry and the all the subsequent rights that accompany a marriage license. Seems pretty clear to me.

I support a constitutional ban on divorce. Isn't that the real threat that is more likely to destroy the American family, not gay marriage?

At the end of the day, will my marriage to my partner in Indiana damage the marriage of a couple in Florida? Not likely. In fact, it's not even likely that it will affect the family who lives next door.

The desire to ban gay marriage seems based in religious belief systems, in that, those who oppose gay marriage believe homosexuality is a sin. So I would like to hear one reason why we should ban gay marriage that is not based on religious beliefs. One that does not start with the sentence 'in the Bible it says...'

Societal norms are what dictate what is okay and not okay. 40 years ago interracial marriage was banned and the courts over turned that. How upset do you think people were at the courts at the time? How have things changed in perceptions since then? How is gay marriage any different? Most of us don't think twice about interracial marriage and the reality is, in 40 more year's, people will not think twice about gay marriage.

Sometimes religious belief systems are flat out wrong...anyone know of someone recently stoned for their sin? How about anyone burned at the stake for having a belief system that's different? Know anyone with emotional issues that is being accused of being possessed by evil? Last time you went to church, did you sacrifice an animal? No? That's because we learn and grow in society and in our religious beliefs. We adapt to changes in our understanding of the world and God. Many people will say that is a bad thing, but how many of those same people think some of the early practices of the Church are truly barbaric?

Change is a natural part of human history and that is likely to be the most consistent thing you can count on. It's why God made us to adapt and evolve.