SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 3, 2008

Calif. Gay-Marriage Advocates Get Personal

Gays, Advocates Encouraged To Tell Co-Workers And Neighbors Why Their Votes Matter

  • Play CBS Video Video Calif. Gay Marriage Under Fire

    Proposition 8 seeks to overturn the California Supreme Court's decision that gay marriage is legal. And, as John Blackstone reports, millions have been raised on both sides of the controversy.

    • Photo

       (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian)

    • Bob Sodervick, right, waves the gay pride flag outside of City Hall in San Francisco, where same-sex marriage is currently legal. Proposition 8 seeks to change that. Photo

      Bob Sodervick, right, waves the gay pride flag outside of City Hall in San Francisco, where same-sex marriage is currently legal. Proposition 8 seeks to change that.  (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

    Previous slide Next slide
(CBS/AP)  As California voters prepare to decide Tuesday whether to eliminate the marriage rights same-sex couples won five months ago, gays and their allies have been encouraged to tell co-workers and neighbors why legalizing the unions matters to them.

Same-sex couples who have married since June knocked on doors in neighborhoods across the state on Sunday to share stories with the voters they hoped to persuade to defeat Proposition 8.

In recent weeks, other gay opponents of the ban, including a Roman Catholic priest, a former Republican mayor and a small-town newspaper editor, came out of the closet to show how the issue cuts across religious and social lines.

Proposition 8 has turned into this year's most expensive election question aside from the presidential race. Religious and civil rights groups have poured money and effort into the drive, making it one of the nation's most closely watched races.

When California's Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal, most polls showed majority support around the state. That is not the case anymore, reported CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

"I am really worried," Willie Brown, a former mayor of San Francisco told CBS News.

Brown, one of the wise men of California politics, said the battle over Proposition 8 is raising passions, and money, across the country.

During his 23 years as a priest in the San Joaquin Valley, the Rev. Geoffrey Farrow offered solace to a mother who did not know how to relate to her lesbian daughter and to an 11-year-old boy who thought he might be gay.

Yet it was not until some parishioners confided they were confused about how to vote on Proposition 8 that Farrow, 50, decided he had an obligation to minister to a bigger audience - even if it meant publicly disagreeing with his bishop and other church leaders.

"By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote yes on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament," Farrow began a homily he gave Sunday, Oct. 5. "They are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today."

He asked his parishioners to consider that their votes "can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime." Then he concluded by observing that he was prepared for any consequences of his words.

Farrow had revealed in response to a reporter's question just before the Mass that he was gay, but he did not disclose his sexual orientation to his parish.

Within days of his homily, Farrow was relieved as the St. Paul Newman Center's pastor and suspended without pay for contradicting church teachings and bringing scandal to his parish. He has retained a lawyer for a disciplinary hearing; the diocese has not commented on the case.

Former Folsom Mayor Glenn Fait has found a colorful way of describing his allegiance to the Grand Old Party.

"I like to say I'm a Lincoln Republican when it comes to civil rights, a Teddy Roosevelt Republican when it comes to the environment and a Reagan Republican when it comes to the economy," said Fait, a former city councilman and mayor of the Sacramento suburb made famous by the Johnny Cash song about the prison there.

His political experience and affiliation, as well as his background as a lawyer, made him a good No on 8 ambassador, Fait knew. But he had another card to play, and he laid it on the table in a quarter-page advertisement in his hometown newspaper Oct. 22.

"As a gay man, I have a personal interest in Proposition 8. My civil rights are at stake," wrote Fait, 65. "That is one reason I ask the people of Folsom to vote no."

Scott Shackford has spent the last six years in Barstow, in the high Mojave Desert between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The editor-in-chief of the Desert Dispatch has lived as openly gay for most of his adult life.

"Small, modestly conservative towns like Barstow know what it's like to feel powerless in the face of the majority," he wrote in an opinion piece published Oct. 23 in which he urged his readers to vote no on Proposition 8. "I come to you now from a position of powerlessness."

The column was the third Shackford, 37, had penned on a gay rights issue in the past four years.

While writing about Proposition 8, Shackford said he had to persuade the community that while he respected the fear associated with same-sex marriage, giving him a new right did not take threaten anyone else's freedom.

"As a gay person, you have to be able to live in the same world as these people, and they have to be able to live in the same world as you," he said.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from U.S.

Add a Comment See all 111 Comments
by dralex999 November 3, 2008 8:08 AM EST
I''m from Wyoming, I wanna marry my sheep !!!
Reply to this comment
by dralex999 November 3, 2008 8:11 AM EST
I''m from Texas, I wanna marry my Longhorns !!!
Reply to this comment
by dralex999 November 3, 2008 8:14 AM EST
I''m from Arkansas, I wanna marry my cousin !!!
Reply to this comment
by drivelphobe November 3, 2008 8:45 AM EST
Homosexuals do not have a "right" to marry. Marriage is one man, one woman period. I am disgusted that this Geoffrey Farrow is concerned about the "few" in the pews who might be damaged instead of society in general.

This in-your-face, confrontational demand for forced acceptance of queer lifestyles will only create more hate and intolerance than they can handle. I will not accept marriage of queers and I am feeling more resentful the more they keep pushing.

They should live their lives quietly and be thankful every minute they are able to do that. If this marriage law is left on the books, another societal divide will bring more problems than they can imagine. This country is turning into an abyss of despair for the masses and the result is predictably civil unrest and chaos.

Any law that attempts to force citizens to accept something as egregiously offensive and repugnant as same gender marriage, will only fan the flames of social resistance.

Proposition 8 must pass or this issue will lead to more problems than one can imagine.
Reply to this comment
by tjm509 November 3, 2008 9:15 AM EST
The very moment we start denying any rights to any group, the very rights we enjoy are at jeopardy. Life - Liberty - and the Pursuit of Happiness, or did Bush/Cheney put that one in the shredder too?
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 9:27 AM EST
socialismsux: what makes you think that *** have no morals?
Reply to this comment
by roadsterboy November 3, 2008 9:31 AM EST
I''m from West Verginnia and I married my sister! wooo hooo and I cling to my guns and religion str8 from my trailer. You betcha, now go fetch me a beer b i t c h.
Reply to this comment
by xzonz November 3, 2008 9:36 AM EST
If a union gives the couple rights then i think that a union is good enough for those who are gay and want to formalise/legalise their relation. Marriage is the very core of xhristianity and it would be wrong to legalise gay marriage.infact staright couples who cannot get married at a church do have civil unions, it doesnt make them less married than those who have a church wedding more especially if they are ethists. lets leave marriage to be defined as a union btwn a man and a woman and for the churches.
Reply to this comment
by wl7bzh November 3, 2008 9:38 AM EST
Just curious-I wonder if the current flood of economic, weather, and social problems in California has caused a reevaluation of the gay marriage issue?

We knew there was a problem with easy mortgages, but we chose to ignore it-the result is obvious.

So many decisions lately were incorrect because we gave into political expediency. Now everybody is trying distance themselves from involvement in those decisions.

What will be the result of the decision on prop 8?

I can''t wait for the sociopaths'' twisted response to my open ended question.
Reply to this comment
by mensarino November 3, 2008 10:37 AM EST
Be very careful not to give the keys to the kingdom to theocrats who would,if they could, dictate the way people live their lives.
This approach would be the American version of the Taliban.
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 10:42 AM EST
Very encouraging to see that there are still some people who believe in morals and principles in Cali

Socialismsux: Sort of implies that those who do not agree with you have no morals
Reply to this comment
by piercetheval November 3, 2008 10:53 AM EST
...Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right!

...I got no problem with ''Civil Unions''...just don''t use the term ''Marriage''...it mocks God...not a very good idea.

...what part of the word "NO" don''t you people understand!
Reply to this comment
by imsmiley12 November 3, 2008 11:04 AM EST
this isn''t about right or wrong...it''s about whether or not two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives as a set should have the legal grounds to do so...regardless of traditional gender roles. if this was your son/daughter and they couldn''t get decent health care but they''re partner could...wouldn''t you want them to be married so they could have the best available? This country threw the bible out a long time ago...let it die in peace.
Reply to this comment
by wl7bzh November 3, 2008 11:28 AM EST
It is not the business of the people of a state to have to vote to allow them the right to marry it should be a given civil right to marry just as a heterosexual has that right, but such above named groups have made it a reality.

Posted by obiden08 at 07:29 AM : Nov 03, 2008


The questions had no opinion either way-they were merely verbal Rorschach or inkblot tests to see what someone would read into them.

Someone with an anti homosexuality bent would have read something else into them.

Like inkblot tests you saw what you wanted to see.
Reply to this comment
by wl7bzh November 3, 2008 11:49 AM EST
wl7bzh,
Ok thank you it was just really ambiguous and I didn''''t know which way it was leaning or if it was leaning at all.

Posted by obiden08 at 08:46 AM : Nov 03, 2008

It was intended to be ambiguous-read the last line in the original post indicating that the open ended questions were made for the purpose of eliciting an extreme response.
Reply to this comment
by piercetheval November 3, 2008 12:17 PM EST
We don''''t live in archaic times anymore and the people that have taught you that Gay is amoral or dirty in some way are all dead along with their views..
-------------------------------------------------------- posted by obiden08

...it is God that taught me about how wrong it is...and God ain''t dead... but you are definately ''Dead Wrong'' in your thinking!

...good luck with theat fire and brimstone thing...c-ya, wouldn''t want to b-ya!
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 12:22 PM EST
Fire and Brimstone thing? Piercetheval, do you believe that is literal?
Reply to this comment
by caldwellptr November 3, 2008 12:37 PM EST
There was a time once that Republicans stood for being fiscally conservative and for less government. It is a measure of our times that so much support is out there for an amendment to make government presence in our daily lives even greater.

Please vote No on Proposition 8 in California
Reply to this comment
by hippychicky-2009 November 3, 2008 12:40 PM EST
...Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right!

...I got no problem with ''''Civil Unions''''...just don''''t use the term ''''Marriage''''...it mocks God...not a very good idea.

...what part of the word "NO" don''''t you people understand!
Posted by piercetheval

What happened to seperation of church and state???? We are all equal under the law.
Reply to this comment
by piercetheval November 3, 2008 12:41 PM EST
...I take the Covenant literally and believe God when he tells us there will be consequences!

...by the way did you happen to notice all the fires around Calif this past spring and summer that occured right after the Gay Marriages here commenced?
I *** sure don''t want to be within a hundred miles of San Francisco if this thing passes...which I don''t beelieve it will... it just maybe, and probably is, a moot point...but worthy of my disdain!
Reply to this comment
by piercetheval November 3, 2008 12:46 PM EST
What happened to seperation of church and state???? We are all equal under the law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hippychicky at 09:40 AM : Nov 03, 2008

...It''s obvious you don''t understand the difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union.
...one more time...Marriage is a Religious Rite!
You are correct in saying the gov''t has no say in such matters. If YOUR church or religion wishes to perform "Marriage Ceromonies" for Gay or Lesbian couples...go for it!

...All weddings performed outside of Church or without a minster of that particular Faith are nothing more than ''Civil Unions''...the gov''t has no right to call it a "Marriage" in the first place.
Reply to this comment
by balz2dwall November 3, 2008 12:46 PM EST
Of course, no one has detailed the obvious implications of Prop. 8 passing. How can the California State Constitution contain an equal protection clause AND a clause denying rights to certain people? And what does this mean if Prop 8 passes?
California will have no other choice but to NOT recognize marriage in any sense of the word to meet the requirements within the State Constitution. All the legal rights "marriage" carries will be moved under civil partnerships/unions for all couples - heterosexual and homosexuals alike. "Marriage" will become nothing more than a religious ceremony between the Church, Deity, and Couple with no inherent legal rights associated. Thus, the State will have created a State Constitutional Amendment which makes a law which forbids a CHURCH from performing "marriages" between same-*** couples - thus it violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - thus its an unconstitutional law and will be thrown out - regardless of how many people voted for it.
Reply to this comment
by hippychicky-2009 November 3, 2008 12:47 PM EST
Posted by piercetheval

Again this is not a religious issue. This is a civil rights issue. You can list scripture and be disdainful all day long, but it doesn''t change the facts. Equal under the law means just that.
Reply to this comment
by eus109937 November 3, 2008 12:54 PM EST
Marriage in the great State of California is a legal contract between two people and the State of California. Over 1,000 laws, rights, and obligations come with the legal marriage contract. Civil marriage in California has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with the law. All residents of the State of California must stand before the law as equals. VOTE NO ON 8 to preserve marriage.
Reply to this comment
by rillifane November 3, 2008 12:55 PM EST
Marriage is a religous act that has civil consequences. Some churches accept Gay marriage and others do not. It is not the business of the state to determine which religion is correct. Therefore the state must accept as valid the acts of every church, including those that will perform Gay marriages or accept none of them. If the state chooses to recognize only civil marriage then it has no basis for discriminating unless it can show a compelling state interest in doing so. Since not one single word about religion or the bible or the flying spaghetti monster can be included in this statement of of a compelling state interest, there is no statement possible. Again, the state is therefore compelled to accept Gay marriage.
Reply to this comment
by cav281 November 3, 2008 1:34 PM EST
How about what the founders of this country thought? Separation of church and state. Ever heard of that? Take your religion out of my government and stick it somewhere else (I have a few suggestions as to where).
Reply to this comment
by voidmaster-2009 November 3, 2008 1:44 PM EST
Regardless what you may believe spiritually, how does same-*** marriage harm you in any way?
Reply to this comment
by voidmaster-2009 November 3, 2008 1:50 PM EST
Apparently, no one has an answer.
Reply to this comment
by sevenrepeat November 3, 2008 2:19 PM EST
It disturbs me to see some people saying that this isn''t an issue of "rights", that''s it a matter of the definition of the word marriage and pushing an agenda. How about we start stripping you of some rights and see how you fair without them. It is matter of equality. I pay my taxes and work just like everyone else but you''re telling me I can''t marry. Open your eyes, treat everyone with respect and treat everyone equally.

I''m voting NO on 8!
Reply to this comment
by sevenrepeat November 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST
Oh yeah, and "reaffirming traditional marriage" when the divorce rate is at 50% and teens are forced by their parents to marry because of pregnancies? Is this the reaffirmation of marriage? You have disrespected the contstitution of marriage. Let people who don''t have the privilege treat it with the respect it deserves.
Reply to this comment
by tejasdemo November 3, 2008 2:24 PM EST
Posted by sevenrepeat at 11:19 AM : Nov 03, 2008

But marriage is tough and menopause is a total freak show...are you ready for that ?
Reply to this comment
by germanmom November 3, 2008 2:37 PM EST
I agree with piercetheval, it''s not a good idea to mock God.
Reply to this comment
by rushman71 November 3, 2008 4:38 PM EST
What is the purpose of a gay marriage? You have your civil unions already, but now it''s time to make a man''s man his wife? Come on, now!!! This is totally unethical and inhumane. Next they will want to marry their dog, or their cat, or their cow!!! I am not homophobic, but people need to come back down to earth. Marriage has always been, and should always remain, between a man and a woman. PERIOD!!! Thank God I don''t live in California anymore!!! Land of the super-freaks!!!
Reply to this comment
by questionnews November 3, 2008 4:44 PM EST
Just Curious.

Will this mean that lifers in prison would be able to marry their cell mates?? They''re already "Husband & Wife" for all intent & purpose anyway.

Reply to this comment
by lilac5220 November 3, 2008 4:49 PM EST
No matter how much people with alternative lifestyles would like us to look past the simple truth... it still remains the simple truth...
God does exist, he is on his throne,and NOTHING gets by him. Deep down inside, we all know this. Bury it deep enough, though, and suddenly, it''s all about "my rights" and "I deserve". I am not going to argue about whether homosexuals have the "right" to marry. It is not something that should even be brought to light. As stated before, God is on his throne, and I for one, know the day is coming when he says "enough!"
Whether you believe that or not does not matter unless you are one who does not see. The FACT,the REALITY, still remains. HE is the great I AM! Not you.
He stated in his word that it is an abomination to him and destroyed two cities( Sodom and Gomorah)for the sexual immorality taking place. Do not disguise what is really going on here with the word "marriage".
What''s next?
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 4:50 PM EST
rushman: how is it either unethical or inhumane?
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 4:52 PM EST
lilac: what you see as "truths" others do not. Making a huge assumption that those who outwardly do not believe somehow do believe "deep down". Whereas, the same could be said of Theists
Reply to this comment
by lilac5220 November 3, 2008 4:53 PM EST
Honest Abe: I guess time will tell all...huh?
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 4:54 PM EST
germanmom: what if it isn''t god that is being mocked, rather it is human''s idea of god''s nature?
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 5:06 PM EST
lilac: not necessarily
Reply to this comment
by questionnews November 3, 2008 5:15 PM EST
Alternative lifestyles & what people do in their own homes is no biggie to me, but there are a few things that need to be worked out.
First at rhetorical question. Why are public facilities such as the showers at the YMCA or your local fitness center separated into male & female rooms??
Because men & women do not want people staring & oogalling them in a sexual way.
At the local gym that me & the wife used go to there are quite a few Gaay & Leesbian members that use those places as a way to check out new prospects. When I inquired with the manager about this he said that they do not cater or advertise to Gaay & Lesbian people & everyone is welcome. Knowing that these people take advantage of these facilities to get a free show of people they want to nail seems like a pretty scummy thing to do. At two separate times the wife had very masculine women solicit her for s.ex
while she was in the shower.(ya, they were naked too) I tried not to laugh when she told me, but she was very offended by it. I got to thinking how that scenario would be any different than if a man entered the womens shower & did the same thing. And it isn''t!! What is the solution to this problem??
Reply to this comment
by rushman71 November 3, 2008 5:48 PM EST
honestabe8: Because, they are not passing the dubbie, dude!!! I''m seriously baked, maaaaaaan!!!! What are we talking about.........Oh,yeah....... brownies!!!!
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 November 3, 2008 6:35 PM EST
rushman: seriously, how is it inhumane?
Reply to this comment
by patrik1974 November 3, 2008 7:00 PM EST
Top ludicrous arguments against gay marriage:
1) If you allow Gay marriage, then soon you will be able to marry a dog. Do I really need to explain why this is dumb, take a logic class and get back to me?
2) Marriage is to procreate. What about those who are married who don%u2019t want or can%u2019t have children, should they be able to marry?
3) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Think you should find a new history book; look at medieval Europe or Rome, to name a few.
4) It is against God%u2019s will. Which God would that be your God, or the American God? Until God speaks directly about gay marriage, this is just speculation.
Finally, if you were gay, wouldn%u2019t you like the same rights as your straight friends and family?
Reply to this comment
by hippychicky-2009 November 3, 2008 7:02 PM EST
Posted by Questionnews

Really was that a serious question...are you stating that g*ys should be segregated from straight society??
Reply to this comment
by myopinion381 November 3, 2008 7:05 PM EST
hippychicky - That''s exactly what I was going to ask him. Should be interesting to see if he responds.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt November 3, 2008 7:14 PM EST
Top ludicrous arguments against gay marriage:
1) If you allow Gay marriage, then soon you will be able to marry a dog. Do I really need to explain why this is dumb, take a logic class and get back to me?

Yes, Einstein, explain it to me. In light of the current movement in Australia to categorize a chimp as being a "human", tell me why it is so off the wall to think that once you start to change the defenition of marriage you will ever be able to stop the changing to accomodate anyone who wants it changed. Tell me how you can be so sure it will never lead to someone wanting to change the defenition of marriage to incorporate an animal.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt November 3, 2008 7:15 PM EST
2) Marriage is to procreate. What about those who are married who don%u2019t want or can%u2019t have children, should they be able to marry?


Just because you can does not mean you have to and does not mean you cannot use common sense to know when you should not.

You are striking out quickly here richard.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt November 3, 2008 7:17 PM EST
3) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Think you should find a new history book; look at medieval Europe or Rome, to name a few.

Dictionaries define marriage as one man and one woman.

Are you stating we should do what other nations do? Historical Japan has men seducing young boys, do you promote we do that too?

Strike 3 there richard.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt November 3, 2008 7:18 PM EST
4) It is against God%u2019s will. Which God would that be your God, or the American God? Until God speaks directly about gay marriage, this is just speculation.

God, if you believe in Him, does state it in the Bible. You might not believe in Him or the Bible but it does state it in the Bible.
Reply to this comment
See all 111 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs