Hey, hey, hey!

As a Californian who invested mightily in the No on 8 campaign, I demand that you take back that comparison of my state with Colorado.

Yes, I'm saddened that, by a 2% margin, my state eliminated the right of same sex marriage. But I heartily defend the other 48% of voters who fought (obviously not hard enough) against it, including our Senators and Congresspeoples, our mayors, and even our Governator (who didn't really fight it, but did disapprove of it). Come to any, you know, populated part of the state, and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the electorate in these places was against 8.

Yes, California is a very divided state, with our "un-American" cities and coasts and capital, and then those great swaths of desert and farms that, while approving Prop. 8, were still rather split.

I'm mostly saddened that a 50.1% of our electorate can amend our state constitution, making it something of a joke by referendum. Can't we, two years form now in an off-cycle election, just amend our Constitution again and repeal it? We'd only need to gain 2% in two years. Given the trends in attitudes towards gay marriage in our state, it seems pretty inevitable that there's be a majority approval in the very near future.

But Maajour, please don't hate California just yet. "My California" is just as outraged as you are. Give us a few more years to erase our collective insult. I promise we'll make good. In the meantime, I'll bake you muffins.

"He will, no doubt, throw his supporters some bones -- like fetal cell research,"

Actually, there really isn't any fetal cell research going on -it's embryonic stem cell research. There's a big defference between an embryo and a fetus, not the least of which is that you can't get useful stem cells from a fetus. A single embryo can also grow into 4 to theoretically 16 individual organisms. A fetus is already a single organism.

Yes, I'm pedantic AND a developmental biologist.

Oh, and he'll also probably throw his supporters some other bones, like a practical economic bailout, tax relief for an endangered middle class, and a rational foreign policy that's not based on wacky bible-believing end-daysocentric ideology (Rahm Emanuel notwithstanding), and an executive branch with an understanding of that, whatsitcalled, Constitution thingy.

Marriage is a religious institution that somehow was taken over by the state. The correct thing is that federal law should recognize only civil unions; and marriage be left to the different religions and denominations thereof.

No, marriage is a civil contract that religion decide to get involved with.

Your plan does have the merit of allowing gays to marry, as there are quite a few religious denominations that already perform gay marriage. However, it would completely bar atheists from marrying. You'd be trading sexual-orientation discrimination for religious discrimination.

He does not support marriage but rather civil unions for gay persons. Barack stated that gays should have equal rights under the separate umbrella of "civil unions."

It reminded me of a time when the Supreme Court ruled that "equal but separate" was constitutional when segregating blacks from white schools. Colored bathrooms were also legal as long as they were equal, but separate.

Marriage is a religious institution that somehow was taken over by the state. The correct thing is that federal law should recognize only civil unions; and marriage be left to the different religions and denominations thereof.

A friend recently asked me what Barack's position was regarding gay marriage. He does not support marriage but rather civil unions for gay persons. Barack stated that gays should have equal rights under the separate umbrella of "civil unions."

It reminded me of a time when the Supreme Court ruled that "equal but separate" was constitutional when segregating blacks from white schools. Colored bathrooms were also legal as long as they were equal, but separate.

Somewhere along the way, America decided that "separate but equal" was actually, discrimination.

A friend recently asked me what Barack's position was regarding gay marriage. He does not support marriage but rather civil unions for gay persons. Barack stated that gays should have equal rights under the separate umbrella of "civil unions."

It reminded me of a time when the Supreme Court ruled that "equal but separate" was constitutional when segregating blacks from white schools. Colored bathrooms were also legal as long as they were equal, but separate.

Somewhere along the way, America decided that "separate but equal" was actually, discrimination.

Californina recently allowed the citizens to legalize discrimination by barring equal access to marriage. When does the federal law supercede the citizens desire to discriminate against minorities?

Can states impose colored bathrooms by way of the Proposition ballot? Can states revive separate but equal schools for blacks and whites? Can we just get a prop on the ballot to legalize slavery? Repeal women's voting rights?

Barry Goldwater was correct when he said that gays have a constitutional right to be gay...whether we like it or not.

My respect for California just plummeted. What was once a haven for the outcast, the liberals, the amazing and the best of the best, is now nothing better than the thugs from Focus on the Family. I am really disenchanted. The land of golden....you mean Golden, Colorado. Nothing spectacular about California anymore. They might as well call themselves Alabama or Texas Bush Country. Hello this is Dr. Dobson...your on the air with GodCamifornia! Whites and born-agains only please.

What a disappointment to the rest of the nation. Hopefully Barack will see or find his way to stand up for the downtrodden and the outcast to legalize equal rights (not seperate) for all the population.

Wanda Sykes said it best. The thing that hurt my marriage the most, was, my divorce! If you want to protect marriage, then outlaw divorce. Besides, she said, if you are against gay marriage, THEN don't marry a gay.

"It shows how strong a hold on our foreign policy that the lunatic right still has, that Obama and Biden, had to go over there and pledge our fidelity to an unstable Georgian leadership, and now we've pledged what, another nearly $1 billion to these crazies?"

What you don't realize, and refuse to realize, is that Obama is not going to vary from the path set for him by those that run the central banks. You will be in ignorant bliss believing that Bush was the problem, hence your fatigue, however, it will become plain to those not delirious that Obama is implementing the same policies as Bush. Obama and Biden, contrary to your belief, did not "[have] to go over there and pledge our fidelity to an unstable Georgian leadership." They chose to -- they chose to obey those who are really running things.

He will, no doubt, throw his supporters some bones -- like fetal cell research, and maybe a liberal seeming judge or two, but the bulk of his work will remain voluminous, in the background, and mostly on the military plain as was Bush's.