'Yes' on Prop. 8

I read with surprise the opposition of the Tribune to Proposition 8 (Oct. 9), the proposition that provides that only marriage between a man and a woman would be valid and recognized in California. The shallow logic presented in the editorial is that because a vocal minority want gay marriage sanctioned by the state, why shouldn't they have it?

This argument ignores the fact that in 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California supported the same exact definition of marriage, as only being between a man and a woman, not to mention that for hundreds of years society has been based on traditional marriage. In the recent vice presidential debate, both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Because of four activist judges on the California Supreme Court, Californians are forced once again to vote in support of traditional marriage.

Allowing gays to marry will not give them any more rights than they already receive. Section 297.5 of the California Family Code provides that persons who register as "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses." Proposition 8 will not change that; gays will still be able to live their chosen lifestyle. The desire of gays to marry is to legitimize their relationship and destroy what marriage has traditionally stood for.

Many may say, as the editorial implies, that there is no harm in allowing gays to marry. In Massachusetts, where gay marriage is now legally recognized, Catholic Charities recently closed its adoption program because the state mandated that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer was ordered by the state's Human Rights Commission to pay $6,637 because she declined to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs.

There is the very real possibility that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refusal to perform gay marriages because of religious beliefs. Because of Section 51890 of the California Education Code teachers would be required to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage, which would have to include discussions of gay marriage.

Marriage would then be reduced to a contractual relationship, not a celebration of a union between husband and wife.

If you agree that marriage should exist only between a man and a woman, vote "yes" on Proposition 8.

Bryan Chase
Glendora

Editorial misses mark

I think that the San Gabriel Valley Tribune's position of "no" on Prop. 8 has missed the mark. The opening paragraph reiterates what seems to be the latest argument to allow same sex marriage: "if two people love each other, and want to sanctify that love through ceremony and California law, who are we to stand in there way?"

One reason I am voting "yes" on Prop. 8 has to do with the term marriage itself. When one talks about getting married, there is the implication of more than just uniting two people; marriage also implies procreation. By its very nature, a same-sex union in and of itself cannot produce shared offspring. Society may choose to alter the definition of marriage, but even if society does change the definition of marriage, same-sex unions will remain barren between the two participants.

James Christensen
Chino

Preserve marriage

The problem with voting "no" on Prop. 8 will manifest in a few years when California public education will reflect the court ruling making gay and straight marriage equal. All forms of sexual "expression" will have to be taught on an equal basis.

Gender-friendly curriculum will be mandated, as well as equal time for gay historical characters.

I noticed that the writer of the editorial puts limits on marriage between two people who love each other. But what about the man or woman who has the desire to marry several partners?

Voting "yes" on Proposition 8 will preserve marriage and protect children.

W.A. Stephens
Covina

Restore marriage

Homosexuals have the right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 by more than 61 percent, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a women are valid and recognized in California."

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, we need to pass this measure to restore the definition of marriage.

Prop. 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits as married spouses."

Voting "yes" on Prop. 8 will not only restore the definition of marriage, but will protect our children, (from kindergarten age and higher), from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs.

Vote "yes" on Prop. 8 to restore marriage, and to protect our children!

Sandra O'Dell
La Verne