Skip Nav
JK Rowling
32 Ways Harry Potter Taught Us the Magic of Love
Relationships
85 Types of Kisses Everyone Should Experience at Least Once
New Year
8 Ways Sex Will Be Different in 2016

Pro-Gay Marriage Ad Hopes to Sway Undecided Voters

Sam and Julia Thoron have been married for 46 years, and all three of their children can legally marry in California. But in November, voters in the golden state can take away the right to marry from the Thoron's gay daughter, by passing Proposition 8. The Thoron's story is starring on California TV as the first ad against the proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Despite Brad Pitt's generous donation to help save same-sex marriage, those working to pass the constitutional amendment have outraised the pro-same-sex marriage set. Twenty percent of California voters still don't know how they will vote on the marriage measure. Do you think Sam and Julia's simple message will persuade voters to vote no on Proposition 8, and preserve same-sex couples' right to marry?

Around The Web

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Of course you can have it both ways. That's why the founding fathers gave us a judicial branch in the first place.
LoveSarah LoveSarah 7 years
I completely agree with Yesteryear. Religion SHOULD NOT dictate the law. Gay Marriage should be allowed. We should let people be happy, and I don't think it is the governments right to tell us who we can and can not marry.
LoveSarah LoveSarah 7 years
I completely agree with Yesteryear.Religion SHOULD NOT dictate the law.Gay Marriage should be allowed.We should let people be happy, and I don't think it is the governments right to tell us who we can and can not marry.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
So should we have the government make all of our decisions for us? YOu can't have it both ways. Either we give up our freedoms, and allow the government to make our decisions for us, or we the people decide, and the "minority" needs to make a better argument.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
It allows the majority (voters) to trample the rights of the minority.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
So the government is leaving it up to the people to decide. Where's the problem with that?
True-Song True-Song 7 years
I knew I'd get a Mich stamp of approval on that one.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"In any case, marriage is basically a contract. And the government shouldn't prevent any two people from entering into a contract together."Yes. Perfect!
Michelann Michelann 7 years
"In any case, marriage is basically a contract. And the government shouldn't prevent any two people from entering into a contract together." Yes. Perfect!
True-Song True-Song 7 years
In any case, marriage is basically a contract. And the government shouldn't prevent any two people from entering into a contract together.
True-Song True-Song 7 years
Right. And btw, Meriam Webster defines marriage as a union between members of the opposite sex or a union of members of the same sex. But the dictionary just documents the words we use, it doesn't make decisions about what they mean, just writes em down.
True-Song True-Song 7 years
Again, what basis is there for the right of men and women to marry each other? And if there exists such a right, then the 14th amendment guarantees that all persons must be treated the same under the law, so the right extends to gays as well.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Where are you getting that definition? If you read the previous comments, you'd know that marriage has a great history of being between one man and multiple women. That's not "one man, one woman". I believe that if our society gives two individuals the right to merge their property and gain social and economic benefits, then equal protection under the law would tell us that <b>any</b> two individuals should be given that right.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Where are you getting that definition? If you read the previous comments, you'd know that marriage has a great history of being between one man and multiple women. That's not "one man, one woman". I believe that if our society gives two individuals the right to merge their property and gain social and economic benefits, then equal protection under the law would tell us that any two individuals should be given that right.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (By definition)I asked that we leave the rights aspect out of it because that is the point we are arguing about. Do homosexuals have the "right" to get married? What argument can you give me that it is their right?
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (By definition) I asked that we leave the rights aspect out of it because that is the point we are arguing about. Do homosexuals have the "right" to get married? What argument can you give me that it is their right?
True-Song True-Song 7 years
>Now, prove your case that the term "marriage" isn't between one man and one woman, without talking passionately about someone's rights. One, prove a marriage is between one man and one woman only. Two, why in the world would talking about someone's rights be off limits?
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
The separate but equal was proven to be an incorrect statement, so yes, a judge was correct in ruling that that was bad law. Now, prove your case that the term "marriage" isn't between one man and one woman, without talking passionately about someone's rights.The biggest problem I get about this is it isn't happening fast enough for some people. IMO that's just too darn bad. This country's government was designed to move incredibly slowly. That way, over the long run, decisions aren't made in haste, and mistakes are compounded.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
The separate but equal was proven to be an incorrect statement, so yes, a judge was correct in ruling that that was bad law. Now, prove your case that the term "marriage" isn't between one man and one woman, without talking passionately about someone's rights. The biggest problem I get about this is it isn't happening fast enough for some people. IMO that's just too darn bad. This country's government was designed to move incredibly slowly. That way, over the long run, decisions aren't made in haste, and mistakes are compounded.
True-Song True-Song 7 years
Right, it is definitely one of the most important functions of that branch. I mean, in a lot of states, women's suffrage was put to a vote and lost!
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Torg, I'm typically against the judicial branch having much of a say in anything. Legislating from the bench is not okay with me. However, I think protecting the rights of the minority from being trampled on by the majority is one of their most important functions. In this case, I think you're right.
True-Song True-Song 7 years
What if a majority of voters decide black children should go to different schools? Is a judge right to rule otherwise?
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
"I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that if the majority of Americans vote to deny a certain group a right, it's okay?"If the majority of Americans in the state of California decide that a marriage is between one man and one woman, then the supporters of same sex marriage have failed to make their case.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
"I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that if the majority of Americans vote to deny a certain group a right, it's okay?" If the majority of Americans in the state of California decide that a marriage is between one man and one woman, then the supporters of same sex marriage have failed to make their case.
ilanac13 ilanac13 7 years
see this is one of the most frustrating things ever - you can't take away the right for people to marry whomever they want. it's not going to affect others if 2 people get married and they deserve the same opportunities that we all get. sometimes i think that it does help to have 'normal' citizens (non-celebs) talk about how this would affect their lives in order to really get through to the voters. i know that i'm not swayed by a celeb's donation but rather by the stories of normal people.
Latest Love
X