We've been through this type of emotional issue before with the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding interracial marriage.

We needed the court to protect a minority's rights.

Some do not consider gays to be a minority deserving of protection.

In contrast, our state Supreme Court, in its carefully worded opinion, said this is indeed a group worthy of protection.

Lopez's sarcasm reaches its pitch when he states, "I always envy those who know precisely what Jesus would do." But teaching God's will is precisely what pastors are called to do. For those who do not attend church at all, it seems to come as a surprise that an evangelical pastor's teachings are based on the Bible.

After reading Lopez's column, I believe what we need is a proposition on a future state ballot that would amend the California Constitution to not allow Christians to get married.

While California voters remain closely divided on the question of gay marriage, a majority oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Recent polls commissioned by groups for and against the initiative have showed it passing, though most political analysts put less faith in polls funded by partisans than in those conducted by independent groups like the Public Policy Institute.

The California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, ruling that the state Constitution's promise of equal protection affords gays and lesbians the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Campaign contributions from out of state are flooding into California -- in part because the state is considered a bellwether, and what happens here could shape the future of gay marriage across the country.

At the beginning of May, Edwards, the rabbi of the Beth Chayim Chadashim synagogue in Los Angeles' Fairfax district, had a single wedding on her calendar. Then the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in mid-May.

Between mid-June, when gay couples could legally begin marrying, and the first weekend of November, she will have performed more than 40 weddings. All but one are same-sex unions. And that's not counting her own wedding in July to her longtime partner, Tracy Moore, a fundraiser for public radio, which was presided over by a rabbi and State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.

"Even though I've just been crazy busy, it feels like such an extraordinary moment in time and it feels like such a blessing to be with these couples," said Edwards, 56, whose temple -- better known as BCC -- bills itself as the first synagogue for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jews. (The congregation has straight members as well.)

The rush to the altar is triggered by the possibility that voters might approve Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would override the court ruling and ban legal gay marriage.

The California Supreme Court ruling that the state cannot prohibit same-sex marriages doesn't require religious organizations to recognize them.

"I have been swamped," said Rabbi Denise Eger at Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood. Eger, who in June presided over the ceremony of Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, the first official gay wedding in Los Angeles, estimates she will have done more than 50 weddings by next month.

Edwards and Eger are rabbis in the Reform movement of Judaism, which recognizes same-sex marriages, as does the Reconstructionist movement.

Conservative and Orthodox branches of Judaism do not officially sanction gay marriage, but Conservative rabbis are allowed to marry same-sex couples if they wish.

The Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church in Los Feliz, has also been busy performing same-sex weddings.

In general, Edwards won't legally marry same-sex couples just because she can. She has counseled some couples to wait and "not get caught up in the thrill of it."

Cynthia Kern and Jane Boisseau, who live in New York, have been together 25 years, and Boisseau is a friend and law partner of Dean Hansell, a longtime member of the BCC congregation. Edwards and the couple planned the wedding by phone and e-mail.

"One of the things I appreciated was that she asked so many questions about our history, our relationship, our son," said Boisseau, who has a 7-year-old, Jeremy Kern, with Cynthia, a New York state judge.

On the morning of their wedding, a dozen boisterous family members and friends sat in a semicircle of chairs at the temple as the two brides stood under a chuppah, the traditional Jewish wedding canopy.

Edwards, in a teal silk pantsuit and dark round-framed glasses, blended the personal with the political. "This ceremony takes place because of this," she said, holding up a document. "A California marriage license." The guests applauded.

"The license has always been something you sign over in the other room with very little fanfare," she said describing what happens when a man and woman wed. "Especially for, I think, gay and lesbian clergy, the irony of signing other people's licenses when we ourselves couldn't get married was painful -- and why we didn't make a big deal out of it.”

As a Catholic, I wish that the church hierarchy would have had the courage to respond so quickly and unequivocally when confronted with priests who were sexually abusing children. These men did much worse than openly disagree with the church, and, in far too many cases, went unpunished or were protected.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Sanders stands by his family and honors his daughter, exactly what a father should do, and it is labeled a betrayal.

Exactly who are these 200 "pro-family" pastors who would condemn an honorable, courageous and loving parent, and what golden rule are they following: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you, unless their politics differ from yours"?

Purposely violating or encouraging the violation of church law while still claiming the title of "pastor" in the United Methodist Church is far more hypocritical than a perceived conflict between church law and a slogan.

The truth is, the California-Pacific conference, and many of the ministers within the conference, only care about their specific agenda and not the greater church.

It is for this reason that after 10 years as a United Methodist member, I have decided to leave the church.

It is distressing that a denomination that advertises that it is a church of "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors." is closed to gays and lesbians.

When same-sex couples wed in California and Massachusetts, they do so believing that their marriage licenses mean that their relationships finally count in the eyes of the state.

Unfortunately, they won't count in the eyes of the U.S. Census Bureau.

The campaign against same-sex marriage in California was treading water until it got help from an unexpected corner: a Republican mayor choking up and announcing he would not betray his gay daughter.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders had promised to oppose same-sex marriage. Then, last fall, hours before he was supposed to veto a City Council motion supporting gay marriage, he called a news conference at which he broke into tears.

One of his daughters is gay, he said, and he just couldn't tell her she did not have the right to get married.

"My opinions on this issue have evolved significantly," Sanders said. "I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important . . . less deserving of the rights and responsibilities . . . simply because of their sexual orientation."

His voice continuing to shake, he said his daughter Lisa and several of his senior staff members were gay or lesbian.

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

The Field Poll of 672 likely voters found that 51% oppose Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and woman. Forty-two percent of voters support the November ballot measure.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said the results indicate a substantial change among voters since 2000, when Proposition 22, a similar ballot measure, was approved with 61% of the vote.

Proposition 22 and other laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation were found to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May, and gay couples began holding weddings last month.

"We think this bodes quite well for us," said Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage campaign. She noted that a Field Poll released in May showed that 54% of Californians opposed Proposition 8, and said the new results "show the opposition has lost a few percentage points and indicates they are losing momentum."

Ministers in Santa Monica, Claremont, Walnut Creek and other cities have already performed ceremonies for gays and lesbians or are planning to do so.

In addition, 82 retired pastors in Northern California signed a resolution in June offering to perform such [ceremonies] on behalf of ministers who feel they can't do so themselves.

Pastors have been emboldened by United Methodist assemblies in California that declared their support last month for the state Supreme Court's recent ruling [neutering marriage licensing].

The regional assemblies -- composed of lay leaders and clergy from California and other states -- also urged pastors and congregations to "welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture" for gay couples.

"I'm tired of being part of a church that lacks integrity," said the Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen of Santa Monica's Church in Ocean Park, who plans to conduct weddings for two gay couples in August and September. "I love my church, and I don't want to leave it. But I can't be part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out."

The two bishops who oversee United Methodist churches in California -- Mary Ann Swenson and Beverly J. Shamana -- have cautioned ministers against taking matters into their own hands.

The turmoil in the Methodist church is occurring in variations across the Protestant landscape, with some religious authorities glimpsing what they believe are the seeds of rifts, perhaps even schisms, in mainline denominations.

At the heart of the dispute is the Book of Discipline. The book calls the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching and says "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."

In addition, it excludes "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" from the ministry.

But as defenders of [mock] marriage note, the text also says that "certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons."

Some conservative United Methodists believe that the debate over church rules ignores a deeper issue -- the Bible's prohibitions against homosexuality. "We have lost any ability to have a biblical discussion on the topic," said the Rev. John McFarland, senior pastor of Fountain Valley United Methodist Church.

"This is my flock," she said, adding that the men have been together 40 years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation.

"Californians do not want their Constitution to single out people to be treated differently," said the statement from Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Marriage Equality and the American Civil Liberties Union.

If approved by voters, Proposition 8, called the "California Marriage Protection Act," would add a provision to the state Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

After Wednesday's decision, Kevin Norte, a lawyer who helped inspire one of the legal arguments for removing the ballot initiative, sent friends a note asking that in lieu of a wedding gift they donate to a campaign to defeat the initiative.

Kevin and his longtime partner, Don Norte, went to Tiffany's for wedding rings on the day the court overturned the marriage ban. They plan to exchange vows this week.

"I am getting personal because I will do almost anything to save my marriage," wrote Norte, a Republican. "Wouldn't you?

Proponents of same-sex [“]marriage[“] are calling for a boycott of two prominent San Diego hotels because their owner, Doug Manchester, contributed more than $100,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Manchester, San Diego's most prominent hotelier, who goes by the moniker "Papa," donated $125,000 to pay for signature gatherers to get the measure on the ballot.

The dust-up in San Diego -- which follows a march last month against another Proposition 8 supporter, Carlsbad car-dealership owner Robert Hoehn -- is another indication that same-sex [“]marriage[“] is a combustible political topic and is viewed by [neutered] marriage advocates as a civil rights issue.

Now supporters of [neutered] marriage [licensing] are asking the state high court to take the initiative off the ballot, partly on grounds that voters who signed petitions were misled about the measure's potential effect.

The suit, which also contends that the measure would be an illegal constitutional revision, is considered a long shot by some legal analysts.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose office approved the summary accompanying the petition, urged the court Tuesday to reject the argument that signers were misled. In preparing a petition's title and summary, he argued in court papers, the attorney general "should not be required to speculate about how the law might be affected by pending litigation."

"As it stands now, the measure would make a very dramatic change in the law," Uelmen said.

It would say to thousands of married couples, 'Your marriage is no longer recognized.' "

The lawsuit contends that petition signers were also misled by a statement that the measure would have no cost. Some economists have projected that same-sex weddings would inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the California economy.

To be a revision, Stern said, the proposal must fundamentally alter the state constitution, as in, say, a major restructuring of government. He noted that courts in Oregon and Alaska have rejected claims that marriage initiatives were constitutional revisions.

The California Supreme Court has not indicated what action it will take on the suit. It could issue a brief order, hold a hearing and make a full-blown ruling or reject the case now but permit advocates to bring the challenge after the election.

The Los Angeles Police Department engaged in religious discrimination by disciplining an employee for off-duty remarks made about homosexual acts, an LAPD sergeant has alleged in a lawsuit filed against the city and the department.

In a fall 2006 eulogy delivered at a fellow officer's funeral, Sgt. Eric Holyfield, who also is a pastor, said homosexual acts were "sinful" and an "abomination" and would lead to condemnation in hell, or the "lake of fire," if one did not repent, according to a lawsuit he filed June 19 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

After those comments, LAPD passed him up for promotions and pay raises in retaliation, Holyfield alleges in the suit, saying that he was discriminated against for his religion and that his 1st Amendment rights were violated.

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."