To gain official recognition, the new province must still get approval from two-thirds of the 38 provincial Anglican leaders who represent 77 million Christians worldwide. If approved, it would be the first such province based on theology, not geography, a dramatic departure from Anglican policy.

"This is a reformational movement," said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the Common Cause Partnership, which is spearheading the effort. "We believe that Anglicanism is a beautiful thing. Here in America it got on a track that was taking it farther and farther away from its core beliefs. We're attempting to return to that."

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church declared Thursday that church members who joined a newly formed conservative denomination "are no longer Episcopalians," even as she predicted that the exodus had largely run its course and would not trigger further large-scale defections.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has announced that church leaders can bless the unions of same-sex couples as a matter of policy.

The rite endorsed by Bruno also allows the blessing of other relationships, such as those between two senior citizens who do not wish to legally marry because they might lose health insurance or Social Security benefits.

It's the same sentence as in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different.

This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.

We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.

The state of [neutering] marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the [affirmation of] marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution.

Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to…marriage.

It's a rare and drastic step, invoking the constitutional-amendment process to strip people of rights.

All the more reason for voters to weigh carefully what would be wrought by this measure.

In a meeting with The Times' editorial board, supporters argued at length that children are best off when raised by their own biological, married mothers and fathers. Even if that were true -- and there is much room for dispute -- this measure in no way moves society closer to such a traditional picture.

Gay and lesbian couples already are raising their own children and will continue to do so, as will single parents and adoptive and blended families.

Using the supporters' own reasoning, it would be better for same-sex parents to marry.

Still, there are differences. Some are statutory -- domestic partners must share a residence, while married couples can live separately

-- and others are pragmatic -- studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: "[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry -- traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment -- by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people's will on marriage before -- in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that.

Still, tensions were evident between liberal bishops from North America and conservative ones from the "Global South." The archbishop of Sudan demanded the resignation of Gene Robinson, the openly gay New Hampshire bishop whose ordination in 2003 was the casus belli of the crisis. A female bishop from the United States suggested that "many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife."

The dispute among Anglicans may seem a strictly religious argument, turning on whether biblical prohibitions of homosexuality should be interpreted literally or softened, as scriptural condemnations of divorce have been without much protest from conservatives.

In the culture wars, there is no separation of church and state.

The Dykes on Bikes tossed bouquets as they led the city's 38th annual gay pride parade down Market Street.

In an interview Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the measure "a waste of time."

"I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman," Schwarzenegger said. "But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else."

Overseas, gay pride marches in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia and the Czech Republic city of Brno came under attack Saturday by extremists who threw rocks and eggs.

No serious injuries were reported.

Did Rosales wake up and decide "I am and always will be straight"? I doubt it, and there is no reason to think that a homosexual would do that either.

Finally, Rosales' completely ludicrous argument that now people are going to rush their horses down the aisle is not only ignorant, but insulting. Moreover, there is no likelihood of this happening soon because as far as I know, horses can't give consent.

Has Rosales met many animal-sexuals lately?

It all boils down to this: it is time for everyone, especially the government, to get out of individuals' private lives.

At the end of the day, nothing about gay marriage will alter Rosales' or any other straight person's life.

All it will do is ensure basic human (Yes, homosexuals are human) rights and further equality in our nation.

And, hopefully, years from now, kids will learn about this time and wonder why this was such a big deal.

As a gay man, I can testify from first-hand experience that I was born this way.

And his statement that "same-sex coupling is unnatural and is never an expression of love" reveals a disturbing lack of understanding of human relationships and love.

Two gay men and two lesbian women in a committed relationship is an expression of love, regardless of whether anyone else finds it distasteful.

The fact that this issue (an initiative to legally ban gay marriage) is on our ballot (again) poignantly demonstrates the stubbornly oppressive attitudes of fringe Religious organizations.

Why not a law against consuming pork? Eating pork is against the religions of many Californians – so why not a law to ban all from doing so?

Rosales should be mindful that the Bible was used to defend the institution of slavery.

The Bible was used to defend the laws forbidding interracial marriage.

There are so many things threatening this planet right now that deserve our attention. Why then are the morally righteous so obsessed with trivial matters like gay couples?

Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights from its base in Washington, D.C., featured on its website a photo of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin of San Francisco, who have lived together since the Eisenhower administration.

In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the Constitution.

"There is no question the images helped," Smith said. "They showed gay and lesbian couples are like other couples. They get married, they have children.”

Eight years ago, when an initiative to ban gay marriage was on the California ballot for the first time, Pastor Jim Garlow of the 2,500-member Skyline Church in San Diego County barely mentioned it from his pulpit.

The dueling messages of the state's clergy reflect passionate divisions in many faiths about the question.

Although pastors cannot urge parishioners from the pulpit to back specific candidates for office, the law does allow advocacy for legislation or initiatives.

I suggest that Pastor Jim Garlow tend to the business of his own congregation and his own faith.

Pandey confirms a truth about marriage that eludes Garlow: Values and customs regarding marriage are primarily cultural, not religious, and change over time.

Just as prejudices against interracial marriage are disappearing, so will biases against same-sex marriage. Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) overturned a long-standing ban on the ordination of gays and lesbians Friday, providing yet the latest example of a religious denomination struggling with how, and whether, to incorporate homosexuality into church life.

At the same time, the church's national governing body, meeting in San Jose, refused to alter its definition of marriage, calling it a "covenant between a woman and a man." The actions by the General Assembly came the week after same-sex marriage became legal in California. They also follow the decision of a gathering of Methodists from Southern California and Hawaii, who went against their national church by voting to support same-sex couples who marry and the pastors who welcome them.

Some parishes have left the Episcopal Church, prompting predictions that the issue may tear the denomination apart. In the Presbyterian Church (USA) -- the nation's largest Presbyterian group, with 2.3 million members -- Friday's actions were likely to deepen theological fissures.

The General Assembly voted in favor of the ordination measure 54% to 46%, but its decision must still be approved by a majority of the nation's 173 regional presbyteries over the next year. Several prominent church leaders predicted it would fail.

Even so, gay rights advocates applauded the Presbyterians' decision to amend their constitution, saying the step would end discrimination that has long kept gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people from church service.

"I feel proud of my church today," said Lisa Larges, national coordinator for That All May Freely Serve, an organization that advocates for gay equality in the Presbyterian church.

The measure approved Friday was sponsored by the Presbytery of Boston. It deletes language, approved by the General Assembly in 1996, that requires church elders, deacons and ministers to "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."