By Kathleen Gilbert

SAN DIEGO, California, October 28, 2008 ( – Members of the San Diego City Council voted 6-2 to declare the city officially opposed to Proposition 8, the hotly contested ballot initiative designed to protect the true definition of marriage in California.

Council members Toni Atkins, Kevin Faulconer, Donna Frye, Ben Hueso, Jim Madaffer and Scott Peters opposed the ballot measure in Monday’s vote. Council members Brian Maienschein and Tony Young were in favor.

“It really is wrong to deny civil rights to a person or group just because of what traditions might accept,” said Councilman Jim Madaffer.

Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who “married” her lesbian partner last month, agreed. “Democracy includes us [homosexuals] too,” she said.

The crowded council chamber hosted an open forum before the vote, with seven out of twelve voicing their support for the marriage amendment, according to the Union-Tribune. 

Prior to the vote Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary bishop of the San Diego diocese, had written to Mayor Jerry Sanders and the city council warning that the city would be ignoring the wishes of the majority of San Diegans if they chose to officially oppose Proposition 8.

“Those of us who favor preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman in California are wondering what ever happened to our democracy,” said the bishop.

“Have you taken a survey of the citizens of the San Diego area? The movement in support of Prop 8 began here in San Diego and has spread like an October wildfire all throughout the state,” Bishop Cordileone said. 

He also complained that elected officials have blatantly ignored acts of vandalism and violence against supporters of marriage.

“Why are our thoughts and feelings not worthy of equal consideration to theirs, especially when we can offer many rational, cogent arguments to justify our position? We support marriage because marriage benefits everyone; we abhor violence and unjust treatment against people who disagree with us.

“Nonetheless, we are accused of discrimination. Who, though, is being discriminated against now?” (To see the bishop’s letter in full, see the California Catholic Daily article:

The council vote adds more fuel to the debate over California’s Proposition 8, which seeks to restore protection to true marriage as approved by the majority of Californians in a 2000 referendum.  A court decision earlier this year altered California law in spite of the 2000 vote, imposing homosexual “marriage” as a “civil right.”

Vandalism over the proposition is on the rise as election day nears. reports an incident Sunday night, in which the property of two San Jose marriage supporters was vandalized. The damage may cost hundreds of dollars to repair.  Vandals spray painted a car and a Proposition 8 sign, and drew “no on 8” on the garages of both homes.

More businesses have come out in opposition to Proposition 8, including Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which donated a quarter of a million dollars to the “No on 8” campaign.  According to, thousands of PG&E customers who favor marriage have since cancelled service, and thousands more are expected to cancel before election day.  The computer giants Google and Apple have also recently poured money into opposing Proposition 8. (

Pastor Rick Warren of California’s Saddleback mega-church recently restated his support of Proposition 8.

“For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity – has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” wrote Warren. 

“There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.” 

See Proposition 8 website:

See related coverage:

Apple, Google Both Come Out Corporately Against Traditional Marriage Definition Ballot Measure

Battle in the Home Stretch: New Poll Shows California Marriage Amendment Edging Ahead


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.