Surely, if we don't have access to all communications made by and between public-servant lawmakers working with compulsory tax money - and we don't, despite sunshine and open-government laws - then there isn't a right to have access to the internal communications of a citizen-led ballot campaign funded with private, donated money.

That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.

The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey.

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous.

Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn?

Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?

They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.

The editorial board is essentially noting in this commentary that common government should not be held hostage to the feelings or convictions of a minority segment of the represented. It is too bad that they can't recognize this principle when it comes to the demands of marriage neutering advocates.

To me, this dispute clearly goes into the larger issues of what the government's role in our lives should be in addition to marriage licensing. It goes into charity, social care, and employer-employee relationships. The move involved in our lives the government becomes, the more we have an interest in laws and court decisions that don't appear to have a direct connection to us.

So why didn't the activists put a marriage neutering amendment on the ballot in the first place? I think we have 31 answers to that question, don't we? It will be interesting to see if the vote goes differently in 2010, without Obama voters and increased conservative activity.

Education unions support marriage neutering. The same groups pushing for marriage neutering have long pushed the rest of their agendas in public schools, often deciding to go ahead without parental approval and leaving it up to parents to find out, object, and pull their individual students out of the situation - and even then the parents face hurdles.

Their polling - according to them, anyway - shows that a small majority of California voters are in favor of neutering marriage. Say, didn't the polls that right before the voters adopted the California Marriage Amendment? The poll also shows a stronger sentiment, though, against having the issue back on the ballot in 2010 - in other words, strongly against an attempt to repeal the Amendment.

And though there is little empirical evidence that "families and the institution of marriage" will be "strengthened" by same-sex marriage, those in the "strong grip" of tradition and religion are asked to believe that gay marriage is an inalienable right, benefiting both the institution of marriage and culture itself.

When will there be vigorous dialogue on the efficacy of same-sex marriage as a greater good for the body politic?

Keep your "closely held beliefs" to yourself, and stop enshrining them into law.

Supreme Court stated marriage was a right in Virginia v Loving, over 40 years ago

I was NOT using my morals as the standard for everyone, but here YOU are using YOUR morals as the standard that SHOULD be held by everyone, as if I think something different than you I'm automatically a bigot. How dare you! I have the right to hold my opinion and the right to defend it. It is MY OPINION. You have the right to your opinion as well.

Anything the State licenses, it can regulate.

Many young people start off their adult lives with very liberal notions (I was very liberal in my early 20's). Once they get a little older and start careers (paying taxes), start a committed relationship (slow the party mentality), get married, have kids, send those kids into school, etc., etc., the realities of this world set in and they move more towards a conservative position.

Thus, I wouldn't count on the "next generation" to be anymore helpful than the "counter-culture" generation of the 60's & 70's because they are the ones rejecting homosexual marriage at the ballot box.

To timecronk (or should I say "time warp?"), I have to disagre with you about marriage being defined by god. Your imaginary friend has nothing to do with marriage.

It was, and always has been a LEGAL contract between TWO persons and their government.

Keep church and state separated, as the framers of our Constutition (many of whom were staunch anti-Christians, and believed in Deism) intended it...

By all means start to get real tired of this 'crap'. It'll make it that much easier for those of us who have any sense of justice to run the bigots and fundamentalists over like so much roadkill.

Washington state voters appeared to approve giving gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships the same practical rights as married couples.

Newly approved federal law recognizes that crimes committed because of the victim's sexual orientation are hate crimes

next on the federal agenda is ending employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Lifelong marriage traditions and deeply held religious beliefs have a strong grip on many voters.

Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to wait for an entire generation to reach voting age in order to receive equal rights.

More than 200 people are marching north on Vermont Avenue from Santa Monica Boulevard to protest Proposition 8, the measure that banned same-sex marriages in California.