Where is the tolerance in this commuity? Hate??? I have yet to hear one person who is not for gay marriage use the word HATE! Can someone give us a time and place and the person who said that they hate Gay's/ marrige?
As in calling someone to be annoyance to make a point, is childish and inmmature! This is a victim mentality,a powerless person who has to force down another to make them self's feel ok, safe, right or better! To harass someone on there religious/political belief and choice in the marriage issue is intollerant! To make them wrong on what they know or feel is right! During the parade, there was little to no support for all the boycott floats/participants in the parade. A few yells and clapping here and there, but the majority ignored the call! Get a clue folks, even there are those of us who are gay who will support prop 8.. Are you going to call us hatters to... When is the local No on prop 8 office going to make public all those who have contributed to there cause? What are you affraid of? Why not lead as an example? If your cause is so right would you not want these people made heroe's in your movement?

Paul:

If you are gay and supporting Prop 8, I'll call you a hater, or possible a mad hatter. I personally don't understand how any homosexual would be against equality and fairness in law. If you don't want to be married, then don't get married. Just don't remove my rights to do what I want.

Plus we all know that divorce and adultery are the real threats to traditional Marriage, not some homosexual agenda.

How about you tolerate my gay marriage, and not vote to put discrimination into the California constitution? There are hundreds of gay families in CA, why would you want to remove the protections of marriage from them? Many will be raising families, just like every other married couple.

Time to take your stuff out of A-1 Self Storage (http://a1storage.com/).

Pickets would be reasonable as well.

The Casters are putting their money where their mouths are. What could be more American than that? Anyone who has the opposite view is free to do likewise.

This isn't about "hate". It's about how the state of California chooses to define marriage. If memory serves, a majority went with the traditional definition when the issue was put to a public referendum.

And the Atty General's re-titling of the measure isn't just inflammatory, it is also factually incorrect. No such "right" to marry has existed; the aforementioned referendum sought to create one, but a majority of Californians said 'no'.

In addition to calls, e-mails to A-1 and Hyatt hotels directly asking why they discriminate will raise the heat a bit on these rich bigots to back off or face the backlash on the bottom line.

Pete,

where is the discrimination? Are the Casters NOT renting to gay people? If so, you have a case. Otherwise, you have folks whose definition of marriage differs from yours.

Ironically, their view was echoed by a wide majority of Californians had when the issue was put to a public vote. Does that make the majority of the state bigoted, too?

Obviously, you are free to not do business with them or anyone else whose politics you disagree with. Just as obviously, the Casters must be aware of the possibility of backlash given the volatility of the issue.

If you want to oppose them, contribute to the group that supports your point of view and convince peers to do likewise. Name-calling, in the end, will hurt your cause at least as much as it may help it.

Jennifer Kerns is quoted in the article as a spokeswoman for 'ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8', but the question I'd like to ask is:

Is Jennifer even married?

Does she have children?

She's being quoted here as the lead spokeswoman of a campaign to deny the benefits of marriage to real parents raising real kids.

I'm straight, married, and like to think my wife and I are raising a couple of great kids. If you're going to convince me to deny the benefits of marriage to gay parents, I need to hear from someone who brings some actual personal experience with caring for a family of their own.

I suspect that Jennifer Kerns is, in fact, single.

If so, how about Jennifer leaving the business of "protecting marriage" to those of us who've actually chosen marriage?

So you slam Jennifer because maybe she is single? What does that have to do with the issue and why would being single exclude one from participation?