That is because Proposition 8 is the very first time in our nation's history that one group of people has succeeded in putting a measure on the ballot that seeks to eliminate the fundamental marriage rights of another group.

It's an effort to start something very dangerous in our country -- something that flies in the face of the very bedrock of our democratic society and of the reasons why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

Of course, the Mormon church has a right to its own beliefs, but it should not try to buy an election and impose those beliefs on the entire state of California.

Thou shalt not lie, Dean.

Lorri, I agree with part of the first paragraph of your point today. If Proposition 8 passes, the California Supreme Court will probably not void the same-sex "marriages" that occurred between June 15 and Nov. 4.

The truth is, according to a study posted on the state Department of Education's website, 96% of California's public school districts voluntarily provide sex-education instruction. Those districts are required to teach respect for "marriage and committed relationships," pursuant to state Education Code Section 51933. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex "marriage," it will certainly be taught in virtually all of our public schools that same-sex "marriage" (mom and mom or dad and dad) is the functional equivalent to traditional marriage (mom and dad).

This so-called fundamental right to same-sex marriage you refer to was actually fabricated by four hyper-activist justices of our state Supreme Court this past May. In so doing, they blatantly violated the legal principle of separation of powers by legislating the homosexual agenda (a new morality?) from the bench, thumbing their noses at 61% of Californians who defined marriage traditionally just eight short years ago.

Unlike same-sex "marriage," women's suffrage did not change the definition of the word "vote." Title IX didn't change the definition of "sports." Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, radically redefines the very term "marriage" -- what it means at its very core.

Officials are gearing up for the day next month when gay and lesbian couples can begin tying the knot in Connecticut.

The state Department of Public Health is having new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse." The new forms are expected to be shipped out to city and town clerks later this week.

The state Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.

It's unclear how many couples will get married.

"I would bet that the majority of those people would change the civil unions to marriage," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a pro-gay marriage organization.

There is no residency requirement for marriage in Connecticut.

Turnout for Tuesday's election is expected to be vast, but one group will be grievously underrepresented in many states. As many as 5 million felons are barred from exercising the most important duty of citizenship even though they have served their sentences or been released on parole.

A disproportionate number of them are African Americans.

But even without evidence of racial skewing, laws that prevent felons from voting after they have been released contradict the notion of rehabilitation and send a message to former inmates that they are literally second-class citizens.

As The Times recently reported, several states have eased or eliminated restrictions on voting by former prisoners convicted of felonies.

But 12 states permanently prohibit some felons from voting, and 35, including California, bar voting by ex-inmates as long as they are on parole. An argument can be made that this patchwork of protections is an acceptable manifestation of federalism. But state restrictions on felons' voting rights also affect elections for Congress and for president.

It's intolerable that a citizen's ability to help choose the president, the one official who serves the entire nation, depends on whether a particular state decides that a felony conviction requires the revocation of voting rights.

But history suggests that restoring federal voting rights for felons probably would have a ripple effect.

Treating offenders who have served their time as criminals for life is cruel and counterproductive.

• 
  
• If Proposition 8 fails, the California Supreme Court’s usurping of our rights will be allowed to stand, and neutered marriage licensing will continue in California.
• San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom may get a boost in his quest to become California Governor
• Same-sex couples (and possibly a few Chuck and Larrys) from out of state will come to California to get marriage licenses, and will return to their home states and demand that the people of their home state be forced to recognize their marriage licenses.  Marriage neutering activists and homosexuality advocates will use the disputes to try to get the Supreme Court of the United States of America to create a national "right" for same-sex couples to get state-issued marriage licenses and be recognized as married by the federal government, thereby overturning DOMA and any state laws and constitutional amendments.
• Over-the-top tacky gender-bending circus-like celebrations and same-sex ceremonies will be prominently featured in the media – at the top of newscasts, on the front page of newspapers, etc.  These ceremonies happened before, and there are many tacky bride-groom ceremonies, but they weren’t featured prominently in the media (with very rare exceptions).  There will be much mocking of traditional religion and weddings.  (By the way, many same-sex couples will find these offensive, too.)  The tackiness has been deliberately kept out of the media until the election.
  
• Bisexuals, polygamists, and close relatives (like those who are experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction – look it up) will pursue their "right" to have state-licensed marriages that reflect their "loving relationships".  If they are unsuccessful, it will not be because their cases are any less valid than those of same-sex couples – it will be solely because their lobbying groups won’t be as powerful.  Single people may sue for the same benefits offered to married couples.
• People may use this precedent of a "right" to a state-issued license to file lawsuits for other state licenses and state and federal benefits (think veterans benefits for conscientious objectors).  Again, whether or not they are successful will depend on the strength of their lobbyists.
• Adoption agencies will no longer be able to give preference to homes where a child with have a mother and a father.  This will be enforced by homosexuality advocacy organizations filing lawsuits or complaints with the state.
• Anyone who provides a service only to married or marrying couples (photography, counseling, fertility treatments) will not be able to refuse a request from a same-sex couple, even if providing the services violates the person’s deeply held beliefs.  This will be enforced by homosexuality advocacy organizations filing lawsuits or complaints with the state.
• Likewise, churches, synagogues, or any religious institution will be unable to refuse to provide services or hosting services to same-sex couples without punishment from the state.  Those who argue that the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t been forced to have women priests, and therefore this prediction isn’t true, are downplaying the determination and power of the homosexuality advocacy organizations.
• Public schools, or any schools receiving any sort of public funding, will be unable to portray natural marriage as ideal or different from court-created neutered marriage, or portraying marriage as the ideal context for reproduction.  This may discourage the use of terms "bride and groom" and "mother and father".  Students may suffer punishment for suggesting that marriage means uniting the sexes.  This will be enforced by homosexuality advocacy organizations filing lawsuits or complaints with the state.
• It will be easier to deny decent fathers access to their children against their will, as the mother’s same-sex partner will be able to use their marriage license in court to get parental rights transferred.  The same works in reverse to deny a mother access to her children.  Remember, what the marriage neutering activist have told us is that it is only necessary for a child to have two parents, not a mother and a father.  Anyone who scoffs at this because it doesn’t happen already with stepfathers and stepmothers are underestimating the determination and power of the homosexuality advocacy organizations.  Judges who refuse to grant such a transfer will be smeared as "homophobes".
• Cohabitation will increase, marriage rates will decrease, and more children will be born and raised out of wedlock.  The number of same-sex marriage licenses and children in homes headed by same-sex partners will not be enough to offset this.  These things will happen because there will be one less societal influence that links marriage and reproduction.  Official state policy will indicate that marriage, as an institution, is only about the sexual attraction and desires of the adults.
• Any marriage statistics that do not make a distinction between natural marriage and court-created marriage as long as they are state-licensed may show a reduction in the social benefits of marriage to the voluntary participants (spouses) and the involuntary (children).  In other words, sociologists will be less able to demonstrate the “benefits of marriage”.  This is because many of the benefits of marriage are the result of uniting the sexes.  Same-sex couples will bring their higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, and substance abuse into the marriage statistics.

• 
  
• If Proposition 8 passes, the California Supreme Court’s usurping of our rights will be overturned by the people of California, who will be voting to restore natural marriage licensing and their voting rights.  Same-sex couples will still be able to register as domestic partners, which the state of California treats as spouses. Same-sex couples will still be able to live (and be treated by others) as though they are married.
• San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will suffer a blow in his quest to become California Governor
• Marriage neutering advocates will still press ahead to force a change in marriage licensing in California and across the nation.  They will still have Connecticut as a state where they can do this.  Also, they will likely file legal motions on November 5 to somehow subvert the new amendment to the California constitution. It may involve same-sex couples who already have their licenses.  It could possibly involve asking state and county officials to violate the amendment.  The state legislature may take steps to pass an amendment to repeal the new amendment.  The matter could go to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
• You will still see same-sex ceremonies in the media, but the spin will be that they are going ahead despite the “bigotry” of California voters.  On election night and for days afterwards, you’ll probably be subjected to lots of close-ups of crying people on your TV screen and the front page of your newspaper.
• There may be minor rioting (not unprecedented) and disruptive demonstrations by marriage neutering advocates at county offices where marriage licenses are issued.
• Homosexuality advocates will still try to force adoption agencies not to give preference to married couples, but the agencies may be able to fend off the attacks thanks to Prop 8.
• Homosexuality advocates will still try to force anyone who provides a service only to married or marrying couples to provide services to them, too, but there may be some defense provided by Prop 8.
• Same goes for religious institutions.
• Homosexuality advocates will still push their agenda ahead in the schools, but parents may have some ability to remove their children from such indoctrination, with help from Prop 8.
• As a state, we will be reaffirming the value of both mothers and fathers and marriage to children, and the uniqueness of marriage as a societal institution.

In a chilling statement, Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and thoughtful gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, said that when push comes to shove and religious- and sexual-liberty conflict, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

Do you really think that people will believe your incredible claim that there is "ongoing homosexual indoctrination" in any kindergarten class, let alone that such indoctrination would be required if Proposition 8 fails? That's ridiculous.

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with education, and you know it.

All the voters have to do is read the language of the measure itself. Proposition 8 is about one thing and one thing only: eliminating rights and treating one group of people differently under the law.

That's just wrong.

The real danger to religious freedom lies not in treating everyone equally under the law, but allowing any one religious belief to be imposed on everyone else.

Thousands of religious leaders, churches and synagogues oppose Proposition 8 -- and they would never do so if their own religious freedom was endangered.

Our state is great enough to treat everyone fairly.

When the law required that public school sports programs for girls be treated fairly, it didn't stop the boys from playing sports.

When my loving parent walked me down the aisle last month and I legally married the woman I have shared my life with for almost 17 years, it didn't hurt your marriage or anyone else's.

It didn't take away any church's tax-exempt status, and it didn't have any impact whatsoever on curriculum in California public schools.

I know a man in Riverside named Harvey who goes ballistic whenever I broach the subject of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriages in California.

His eyes narrow, his voice rises and he gets absolutely squeaky with rage over the possibility of Gus and Homer getting married.

Harvey, being an evangelical Christian, cannot stand the idea of two men walking down the street holding hands, much less indulging in more intimate expressions of love in the privacy of their bedroom. He considers himself a real man and would gladly beat the crap out of both Gus and Homer if they weren't bigger and stronger than he is.

Gays seem to be the only ones who actually want to be married anyhow.

Harvey, by the way, considers Palin a great American even though she does happen to be a woman and he doesn't feel women should vote or lead. I keep in touch with him because it gives me inroads into the blurry thinking of the religious right.

I'm more pantheist than theist, which includes believing there is something almost godlike in the glory of rain and sunset, in love and an aqua ocean, and in little children and puppies.

I write today to try to understand how people could be for Prop. 8 which will ban same-sex marriage.

Although the pursuit of happiness is one of the foundations of America, we are trying to take it away from one group, gays and lesbians.

I spent six years serving in the U.S. Army with three and a half of those years overseas.

Now both sides have spent millions on this campaign, money that could have been spent in much better places. Imagine this type of money being poured into veterans homes or to help some of the 73,000 homeless in Los Angeles.

The supporters of this bill say it will protect their children from hearing about it in school, which in turn might make them gay.

Marriage should simply be the union of two people, that's it.

If gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage, what's next?

Is there another group with a small enough minority that we can pass laws against that they won't be able to stop?

This proposition is a threat to religious liberty: a tenet of our nation to separate church and state.

In fact, what Prop. 8 will do is take away my right to marry couples who under my Christian belief system are fit to marry and blessed by God.

Every person in this state should be allowed to marry who they choose.

If a pastor chooses not to marry a gay person, that's fine. Don't do it.

It would impose one group's religious beliefs on everyone else by writing those beliefs into the state Constitution.

The current legality of same-sex marriage infringes on no one's religious freedom: those who believe it is wrong are free not to practice it and to teach their children that it is wrong.

If Prop. 8 were to pass, however, those who believe that same sex marriage is a good thing would be forbidden by law from practicing that belief.

There are many things that we disapprove of, and that we teach our children not to do, that are perfectly legal.

Unlike selfishness, rudeness, or meanness, however, same sex marriage hurts no one. Its proponents cannot generate a single argument or example to show that it does.

There is not currently any guarantee of same-gender marriage in the California Constitution. Thus, the Proposition merely clarifies the intent of the original drafters of the Constitution, who obviously had no reason to believe that their intent would ever need to be clarified. It does not "take away" any right enumerated in the state constitution.

And by the way, the Constitution of California specifically provides for amendment by majority vote. Thus, contrary to your self-serving but incorrect comments, amendment by majority vote is actually a "constitutional right" in this state, whereas, same-sex marriage is not a right set forth in the Constitution of this state.

Excuse me but wasn't it the District Court of Appeals that tried to impose their own beliefs on the majority of Californians (61 percent) who already voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?

I really don't care about what homosexuals do in private. I don't want to know. Heck, I don't really care if they all want to get married or why. I really don't want to know.

I do know that I voted yes on Prop. 8 today, and it had nothing to do with how I feel about the definition of the term "marriage." It had everything to do with four activist judges in this state nullifying the votes of millions of California voters who pay their salaries. The people of California voiced their opinions eight years ago and we are tired of the liberals' strategy of continuing their attack on us through the court system until they get their way.

Those efforts come after more than 250 California rabbis urged voters Friday to reject the measure. The rabbis -- primarily from the Reform and Conservative movements and representing about 40% of the state's Jewish clergy -- said the proposition's definition of marriage would disenfranchise gays who crave the same freedoms as heterosexuals.

"Prop. 8 is unnecessary," Rabbi Denise Eger said during a news conference at Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood.

"It's unfair. And it's wrong."

One Christian group is gearing up for what it hopes will be a huge rally for Proposition 8 -- including 12 hours of prayer and fasting -- at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium on Saturday.

Some churches have steered clear of the same-sex marriage issue for fear of alienating members.

Farrow agreed to meet me for lunch in the middle of a schedule that's gotten very busy since he became persona non grata to his employer. He's been asked to appear all over the state for rallies against Prop. 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Farrow conceded that he has considered church teachings "monstrous," especially given the history of violence and suicide victimizing gays. But he said he has always believed in the church, if not in the men who led it.

I asked if he'd had any relationships while serving as a priest.

Yes, he confessed. He seemed near tears and stopped short of sharing the details. But he said it had ended.

I wondered again how anyone could go through such an ordeal and remain committed to a church that considers it a sin for a gay person to act on biological urges.

"The Bible is not a book, it's a library written over 15 centuries," Farrow told me, suggesting that Christianity has and should continue to evolve.

"People who approach scripture in a literal fashion are attempting to manipulate God himself."

To Farrow, condemning gay and lesbian marriage is as offensive as the condemnations of interracial marriage not too many decades ago.

" 'Think about the children,' they said, and they're doing the same with this," Farrow said indignantly. "If a child is raised in a home where he's loved, that's a good home."

Schubert noted that foes raised almost $4 million at a gala Tuesday at billionaire Ron Burkle's Green Acres estate that, the e-mail says, was attended by "Hollywood liberals." Schubert is seeking another $2 million to compete with the opposition, and offered this plea:

"Through the grace of God, one of our most fervent supporters has agreed to make a sacrificial gift to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you and others can donate, up to a total of $1 million. That means that every dollar you give will buy two dollars in advertising time.

For gay folks, then, it is all the more stinging an irony that the one place where same-sex couples are invisible is in the advertising war over Proposition 8.

Given California's power to shape national trends, the stakes for both sides could not be much higher.

One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. "Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry," says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once ("Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it's wrong to treat people differently under the law") and never uses the phrase "gay marriage" or even the word "gay."

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior "No on 8" official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that "from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people." Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire.

So the "yes" ads changed the subject, focusing on alleged (and disputed) follow-on effects of same-sex marriage rather than on the thing itself.

Well, one might feature someone like my friend Brian, who married his partner, Doug, on Saturday. They already had a domestic partnership, but that could not begin to match the power of marriage, sealed before parents and friends in a ceremony in San Francisco. "It's how you say this is forever and do it publicly," Brian says. "It's very different from getting a form notarized at Mailboxes Etc."

Marriage is unique because of the high social expectations that go with it.

Chief among those expectations is that spouses will do whatever is necessary to care for each other -- which is valuable, because census data show that almost a third of California's gay couples have only one wage-earner, and almost a fifth have at least one disabled partner (about the same, by the way, as for straight married couples).

By supporting and reinforcing the care-giving commitment, each marriage, gay no less than straight, creates social capital for the whole community.

Brian and Doug don't have kids, but a fourth of California's gay couples do, according to census data.

An ad might show some of those kids watching as their parents, previously denied marriage, tie the knot.

If they could cast ballots, how many of the more than 50,000 children being raised in California's same-sex households would vote to deprive themselves of married parents?

Or an ad might feature a gay teenager celebrating his parents' 20th wedding anniversary and dreaming of his own someday.

Ellen DeGeneres, the comedian and TV personality, made an unofficial anti-Proposition 8 ad calling her marriage "the happiest day of my life."

Apple Inc. said Friday that it was donating $100,000 to fight the proposed ban on same-sex marriages in California, taking a rare political stand that may win over some customers and irk others.

The computer and gadget maker joined such companies as Google Inc., Qualcomm Inc. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in declaring opposition to Proposition 8, which would define marriage as only between a man and woman.

In a statement, the Cupertino, Calif., company said it saw same-sex marriage as a "civil rights issue" for its employees, not just a political one.

As of Friday, supporters of Proposition 8 had raised $27.5 million, with about 19% of the money coming from outside California. Opponents have raised $31.2 million, with 34% of the money coming from outside the state.

"They're a church and in their name they have the name Jesus Christ. Can you imagine Jesus Christ doing something like this?" Bruce Bastian said. "There is nothing in Jesus' teachings that justifies what the church is doing."

Bastian, 60, is gay and lives in Orem, Utah. A founder of WordPerfect Software, he is one of five wealthy individuals who have given $1 million or more to defeat Proposition 8.

"To me this is the civil rights movement of the 21st century," Bastian said.

On the flip side is Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich. He has given $1.06 million to defeat Proposition 8, after donating $950,000 to battle similar ballot measures in 2006.

A billionaire heir to a medical supply fortune, Stryker is a major Democratic donor, having given more than $2 million in Michigan since 2007 to boost Democratic candidates and $400,000 to a political action committee that assists gays running for office.