it is past time that we redefine marriage right out of civil statues and make civil union the only legally binding method joining of two lives. marriage should be relegated to a religious ceremony with no legal standing like baptism or confirmation. the change would allow all people to enjoy the legal and social parts of being unionised while the religious types can defend the sanctity of their marriages by not offering it to those they disapprove of.

For the United States of America to put up or shut up.

The hoary old line about "bringing freedom to the world" is already strained, but how utterly hollow it sounds when we allow bigotry to be enshrined in our own constitutions, and pass laws that grant special rights to a select group of citizens.

People should remember this the next time one of our "leaders" wants to start tossing bombs around the world in the name of democracy.

Polygamy, slavery, a widow must marry her brother-in-law .... makes you really wonder why the Mormon church was so freaked out by this.

To be serious, this crap from gay haters about preserving traditional marriage really sums up how out of touch they are with plain old common sense. It's bad enough they confused marriage as a legal institution governing inheritance, power of attorney, etc, with marriage as a religious matter. Besides the afore mentioned polygamy etc, what about Catholics not divorcing -- not only has the state redefined that, but the various difference Christian sects (and probably non-Christian ones too) are all at odds over divorce. How do they think government should reconcile that?

And how two guys or two gals getting married has anything to so with anybody else's marriage -- you'd think they government had a quota on marriages the way they carry on.

It's bigotry pure and simple.

This is probably the best (and most dead-on) speech I've heard in response to Prop 8 and its passage. I think I love Keith Olbermann more every day.

Although conservative, Andrew Sullivan has a good take on the issue as well. His tone varies somewhat from Olbermann's, but he raises some excellent points that should serve as comfort to us all. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-chill.html

The raw emotion, the distilled logic, the heartfelt smack-down of the selective "Christian" morals used to defend the proposition, the appeal for everyone to respond to their better natures, it was all very spot on.

And delivered exactly two weeks too late to make a difference.

Still, it needed to be said. We were all so busy staring into the bright lights of the Obama campaign that we were blinded to what was going on in California. Now we are blinking and trying to bring it into focus. Thank you Mr. Olberman for helping us to see clearly again.

How about NO government-sanctioned marriage, and civil unions for benefit purposes? Leave marriage for churches to fight about - the Episcopal Church alone is a fair amount of entertainment.

Very beautiful and heartfelt. I wished it could still do something. Maybe it can: if at least one person now feels ashamed of having cast a ballot to support Proposition 8, that will already be something.

Family court, adoption, life insurance, DNR orders, mortgages, custody agreements, power of attorney, hospice care........

That's what this is about. Nothing more nothing less.

I'm grateful to Olberman but wish he had pointed out that marriage has served different purposes at different times and places. Modern Western marriage is already quite untraditional because it centers around romantic love, not property and inheritance. The modern acceptance of no-fault divorce, equally untraditional, by heterosexuals testifies to this fact; we all know love can be an impermanent thing. And few deny gay people are just as capable of romantic love as everyone else. He might also have pointed to those who oppose same-sex marriage based on Christianity and its supposed "sanctity" in that religion that no less an authority than Paul in the New Testament regarded it as a distant second best to celibacy, to be resorted to only by those would otherwise be sexually promiscuous.

While it is completely reasonable what you suggest (making marriage a religious-only affair) the American people aren't a reasonable people. That sensible suggestion is too easily distorted into claims that you might want to undermine the bedrock of society, and take away "decent people's" right to marry.

While our constitution is decidedly secular, part of this nation's legacy is that many of the original settlers were European religious freaks, who weren't comfortable in their home countries. Looking at the decidedly mild and reasonable face of European christianity today, I can't help but think that in some ways we got the losing end of that arrangement. None the less, we Americans are all one people, even those bigoted against gays, and we have to find ways to live together in relative peace.

There is a longing for some idealistic past in many people, regardless of whether or not that past existed. As those notions become increasingly out of step with the modern world, people feel they are losing something, and they have decided to make a stand and fight. Gay marriage is one of those stands, and it has to be approached carefully to avoid sending these already agitated people into a complete frenzy. In part because its compassionate to try not to upset them even though they are wrong, and in part because the backlash it can produce is likely not worth the cost.

On the bright side, I see the glass half-full: our country has made tremendous strides towards the acceptance of gays in a relatively short period of time. Few other disliked minorities have made progress as quickly. This takes time, in comparison to other equalism movements, we are doing quite well. This proposition is a setback, but only a temporary one - you can take heart in that.

Personal disclosure: I was once against gay marriage.

Well, not really, but my sister and I had this conversation some 20 years ago (why, I don't recall), and I was against it, because honestly I hadn't thought about it. It's not that I had a problem with it; I just assumed that gay people didn't want to marry, that they left that only to us breeders.

Needless to say, ultimately it made no difference. If gay people want to get married, why shouldn't they? Keith hit the nail on the head in his brilliant commentary: What's it to you?

Because your God thinks it's an abomination? Well, here's a newsflash: You are not God; it's not your call. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I know what God thinks, but I do know that your God also said essentially judge not, lest ye be judged.

It might not happen immediately, but this segregation will not stand the test of time. The first time it passed in 2000 with more than 61 percent of the vote; this time 52 percent; the next time it will fail.

Intolerance doesn't live forever.