then you might have a valid comparison.

What on earth does Proposition 8 has to do with women?

You think that the Catholic Church has discovered its oposition to non-traditional marriage to distract from the sexual abuses? Has the Church ever gave a hint of tolerance in that area?

To refer to the deteriorating of the institution of marriage and suggest the folly of defending traditional marriage, is the equivalent of pointing out the lack of ethics in many of our leaders and find it questionable any effort to return to ethics.

But I am glad to read your lucid piece, Mr. Rodriguez. I read *The Hunger of Memory* years ago and it made a huge impression on me.

Thanks for the illumination you always provide in your Salon pieces.

At the root of homophobia lie perceptions of masculinity, namely the need for men to differentiate themselves from the 'lesser' state of being a woman.

Proposition 8 is as discriminating against men as it is to women, so again why singling out women? Ms Athropia answer, unless she can prove that only these so call "men" voted in favor of Proposition 8, how can you assume that women did not vote "yes" and if the did what is your theory?

Hattie: The writer says "American bishops have been anxious to change the subject. And what better strategy -- in an era of sexual scandal -- than a crusade to "preserve" marriage by precluding any but a heterosexual and sacramental definition of marriage?

My second comment: "You think that the Catholic Church has discovered its oposition to non-traditional marriage to distract from the sexual abuses? Has the Church ever gave a hint of tolerance in that area?"

You may not agree with my comment but I have difficulties understanding why you have difficulties with it.

The third comment refers to the examples given of single mothers and divorced mothers that do a good job raising their children. You can find countless examples

of good mothers that dealt with their children by themselves. Again what has to do with the implication that is something wrong with the defenders of traditional marriage? Moreover, why bringing children into the discussion?

I think that you're missing one hugely important word: choice.

Try talking with women that can't have kids (childless) and some that don't want any (childfree). I discovered the difference soon after I learned with relief as a young teen that I'd been rendered infertile... Adults baffled me with shows of profound pity, as did articles saying that most like me (plus society in general) felt they weren't 'real' women with worthwhile lives.

In closer parallel: I'm a single woman that has told past partners that I won't marry until a longtime close gay friend can too. Thing is, that's a choice on my part, one I can go back on at any time I choose; I could marry any random drunken slob willing to agree while carrying pre-signed divorce papers and singing about how I will never have kids. My friend lacks that choice: no matter how committed or long-lasting the relationship, he's simply not allowed to wed.

As long as marriage is an institution made by the state, it should be a civil right that is accessible for everyone. If it is a religious institution, then it should only be available for religious people, and the state should have a civil union. But weirdly enough a lot of my atheist friends are marrying too.

I hope that the hypocrisy of America will end soon, but as long as religious leaders stir up hate it will be a long way to go.

Gee, maybe it's just me, but this article is a real stretch, trying to connect a lot of dots that have nothing to do with each other. If submitted in a college composition class, it would earn a very low grade.

It would be so funny and ironic, if it weren't so sad: Prop 8 is being pushed by two religious groups, whose records on marriage/family can be summed up as polygamy and paedophilia, forced marriages and rape.

I can not accept that these are the people who have a say in what is constitutional or not. It soils the Constitution.

These people should not have a say in anything that pertains to marriage or human rights, especially. They should be glad that they are not behind bars and should enjoy their freedom and rights in silence, instead of trying to take away those of other people.

Plus, the fact that the rights of a minority group are being decided by a majority vote of the population is anti-democratic. In a democracy, minorities’ interests are protected by the law, not voted on by the majority in universal suffrage or referendum.

Anyway, what is going to happen now is this: because marriage is not an equal right for all, it is marriage itself that is going to decline and die. People will marry less and less; the interest toward marriage will disappear. If the problem is not solved, so that EVERYONE can enjoy the institution, if it isn’t open to everybody, the institution itself is condemned and going to disappear. Young generations are not going to stand for this. If it's not open to everybody, I don't want it either.

These people - the polygamists and the paedophiles - are not killing the gay/lesbian right to marry. They’re killing marriage itself.

Like brackish water that provides a survivable environment to fresh and saltwater fish alike, so America is a place where the rich variety of God's choicest creation, mankind, can live together, disagree amicably, strive together to reach accommodations for differences, explore the limits of diversity, faith, freedom, and speech. Before you bash Catholics and Mormons, before you marginalize and deligitimize, please consider all the best people you've known from those groups. (Judge Sotomayor was educated at Catholic schools, yes?) Give them the benefit of the doubt. Be patient when there are differences. Try to understand the other side of the argument. Has the Gay community been mistreated in America? Sure. So have Catholics and Mormons. Victims tend to behave badly. Passion is surely blind in one eye. I would like to read better articles somewhere, anywhere, where graciousness is the guiding light, and generosity of spirit is the touchstone of comment. Where is the magazine, where is the forum for a kinder, wiser discussion of these issues?