Prop 8 was not about anyone's rights.  It was not about banning anything.  It was about affirming a previous initiative, Prop 22 of 2000, containing fourteen words that were agreed to by over four million California voters, which defined marriage in the State of California.  In order to do this, and to insulate the traditional definition of marriage from further compromise by the courts, Prop 8 provides the following fourteen words to be added to the State Constitution. 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'  That’s it.  That is all Prop 8 said, and that’s what California voters, by majority vote, have added to their State Constitution.  It became necessary when four activist, unelected judges took it upon themselves to disenfranchise those four million voters by declaring Prop 22 invalid.  The issue is whether the traditional definition of marriage continues to best serve the culture of America today, or if it should be scrapped in favor of whatever anyone wants to call marriage.

  That's the issue, and voters of California have clearly spoken, twice.  Marriage is now and always has been a legally recognized union of a man and a woman, who ostensibly commit themselves for life to each other and to the offspring of their union.  It's the foundation for a family and the basic building block of human society.  In fact, the vast majority of Americans consider marriage a Sacrament instituted by God Himself which binds a man and a woman together for life.  For thousands of years, entire cultures have depended on this model of marriage for their very existence, and ninety eight percent of the people of America--even those in California--realize the importance of keeping the definition intact.

  I should mention, the original wording on the Prop 8 ballot contained the same, simple fourteen words previously approved by Prop 22 in 2000.  It was the opponents of Prop 8, who persuaded Attorney General Jerry Brown and Secretary of State Debra Bowen to change the measure to add: "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY", terminology clearly intended to inject a strong element of negative bias against the measure in the very ballot voters would be using to express their opinion on the issue.  This is the source for the 'ban on same-sex marriage' characterization.  If you want to call Prop 8 a "ban", call it the Brown-Bowen Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, but please make it clear that the people of California did not impose a 'ban'.  What they did do was:

(1) Override an arbitrary and outrageous decision by four presumptuous Federal judges, which had negated the will of over four million      California voters who previously approved Prop 22 of 2000.

(2) Reaffirm the traditional definition of Marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

(3) Enshrine that definition into their State Constitution

Passage of Prop 8 did not 'strip legal rights' from homosexuals.  Under California law, domestic partners already have all of the benefits of married couples.  The only thing it denied them is the legitimacy they think the institution of marriage would give to their otherwise licentious and socially destructive lifestyles.  For them, ‘Married’ replaces ‘abominable’ with ‘acceptable’, and they intend to gain that acceptance by any means necessary, including intimidation, character assassination, terrorism and even brute force, all of which has been demonstrated.   

In the interest of honest and objective journalism, I would like to see all future references to Prop 8 read, “The California Constitutional Amendment Affirming the Traditional Definition of Marriage”.  After all, that’s precisely what it is.