My Thoughts, Exactly:

“Homophobe!” “Hate monger!” “Right wing fanatic!” “Religious wingnut!” “Mean spirited, jerk!” “Hairy-handed Neanderthal!” “Intolerant bigot!”

There, I think those are most of the nasty names I’m likely to be called for supporting Proposition 8. So be it. Because not only will this proposition determine the definition of marriage in the largest state in America, it will determine whether activist judges or the citizens of California get to decide vital social-moral issues.

Prop 8 is necessary because last May four California Supreme Court justices chose to flip the judicial bird to the people of our state who in the 2000 election voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 22 and against so-called “gay marriage.” Should it pass, Prop 8 would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to being between one man and one woman and — this time — no court could reverse the result. That’s all it does.

Contrary to what furious opponents of Prop. 8 (petulantly calling it “Prop. Hate”) are screaming, the ballot measure is not about hate and intolerance. Rather, it’s the only way to prevent the will of just four judges from redefining marriage to make gender irrelevant. As is evident by newspaper letters-to-the-editor, predictable L.A. Times editorials and apoplectic callers to talk radio, any hate associated with this proposition comes clearly and consistently from opponents of the measure.

Granted, if Prop. 8 passes and traditional marriage is restored, I don’t know what the legal status of newly married same sex couples will be. While I have compassion for their predicament, these couples knew they were entering into a potentially short-lived arrangement that would almost certainly be put to another vote in the upcoming election. It’s not for nothing that ten states pleaded with California to delay any pending same sex marriages until after the November elections. But the state Supreme Court and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused, knowing that by allowing marriages to take place, any future proposition would appear to be taking already established rights away from same sex couples married in the interim. Shameful.