Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

If Proposition 8 passes, the law will change to designate an entire class of people as unequal to, as less than, every other class of people. In the eyes of the law, gay people will be seen as inferior to everyone else. And when opponents of gay rights see the idea that gays are inferior validated by the government, it will allow them to continue on their path of dehumanizing gays and lesbians. That’s what denying a class of people an equal right does. It dehumanizes them, and it is dangerous. It is the dehumanization of a group that creates a culture in which people feel that it is okay to yell epithets at others in public; that it is okay for kids to be bullied and beaten at school; that it is okay for a jeering mob to incite a gay 17-year-old to commit suicide by jumping off a building. (Read the news.) These things happen because gays are demonized. And gays are demonized when they’re made out to be an inferior class of people. And they are made out to be an inferior class of people when they are not allowed the same rights as everyone else.

IN ADDITION, PROPONENTS OF PROP 8 CONTINUE TO LIE IN THEIR TELEVISION ADS:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right–the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

AND, ADDITIONALLY:

Fiction: Civil unions and domestic partnerships give gay couples the same rights as married couples.

Fact: In the few states in which civil unions or similar domestic partnerships exist, same-sex couples are granted the same rights as married couples but only on the state level. There are hundreds upon hundreds of federal benefits that do not apply to those couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Please do not allow blatant discrimination to be written into the law. California is better, smarter, and more humane than that.

Yes on Proposition 8!

Check out these two websites for videos on Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage.

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/videos.html

http://www.protectmarriage.com/resources

Honestly why don’t you just leave well enough alone. Saying that gays and lesbians don’t deserve equal rights is exactly like saying that people from a different race or different sex don’t deserve equal rights. I believe that people who fight for equal rights for gays are doing the right thing because all people deserve to have equal rights no matter who they are or what way of life they live. A few key points of mine would include 1) Why do you care what gay or lesbian people do with their lives. If they want to get married than what right do you have to say that they can’t? 2) Who exactly has the right to say that marriage is between just a man and a woman? 3) (I would say this is the would be my most important reason to this) Why is the U.S. wasting time with such a pointless law anyways. Why does the government try to waste time trying to pass a bill to deny human rights when there are more important issues to take care of, like taking care of the government debt or finding ways to permanently stop internet child stalkers.

There are more important things in this world than trying to keep everyone from having equal rights and I suggest that the government just let this one go and move on to trying to get our country fixed.

Vote No on Prop 8

So what you’re saying is if something projects a different moral view than yours than its wrong?

No, no, Flap, you are totally right. Prop 8 IS about about imposing a moral view of the world that is different from mine.
I believe in equality for everyone and in fair treatment under the law.

You don’t.

Umm…
I understand your frustrations with Pro-8 bigots, but please read who my previous comment was directed to.

I don’t want to raise my children to believe that it is Ok to Legally impose restrictions on people who have committed no crimes. I don’t want to see my grand children to think that it is Ok to hate “those people”
You talk about morality, but bigotry IS immoral and discrimination is illegal BECAISE it is immoral.

I don’t wand any law to force those kinds of ideas on me, on my children, or on their children.

I work late dear…
I’m here now.

@22

We are talking about amending the California Constitution. This will not apply.

Flaps last blog post..Sarah Palin Watch: The Dishonesty of CNN

I’m sorry, what will not apply?

Yes, a state constitutional amendment that goes against federal law
not to mention moral propriety.

Segregation is not Ok in the nation
It is not Ok in the state
It’s just not Ok

While the tenth amendment gives states individual rights to govern as they see appropriate, it does not give us the right to act completely independent of federal laws. Even within the freedom of state laws we can not remove ourselves from the nation.

If you do not want gays to have the same rights as straights then prop 8 is clearly about equality.
If you would allow gays to have the same (state) rights, but you want to keep the title of marriage separate from them, then it is about segregation, which has been found, on a NATIONAL level, to be unequal.

That is why Daemon and I continue to play the equality card.

How is it not an equality issue when the federal government, as you just quoted here, says that marriages between gays are not the same, nor will they be afforded the same rights as marriages between straights?

Sorry but your argument then makes no sense.

Just get married in your church and in California you have the same rights anyway and leave the law the way over 60% of Californians voted for it.

It is just the other way around. The homosexual community is trying to force its POV on us.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

How did I not know the insults were going to come?

Please read the terms of use above.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

But, it is not ok here to insult me or others.

Either act civilly or leave.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

Alot of folks view their religion as very important in their lives and do not hide behind their faith.

Comparing slavery or civil rights and gay marriage is a fallacious argument.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

Sure curbside… Here I am to defend your original post @36 (though I agree that your argument was not well formed) and then you get all irate and irrational on me. At least you ended on a high note about gay rights being equivalent to civil rights…

But, the people have a direct right in amending the Constitution and we will do this.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

Well, then we will see who wins on November 4th and in the Legislatures across the USA.

Flaps last blog post..Links for 2008-10-21 [del.icio.us]

Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt, but…

Frankly, I am nearly exhausted over the issue of equal rights, being associated with Prop 8. I believe that this argument, is for the purpose of the opponents to Prop 8, to derail the original reason that Prop 8 even exists!

Prop 8 exist, because 4 arrogant judges, misused their judicial powers, and overturned the voice of 61% of the good citizens of California. In 2000, Prop 22 was voted on and passed by the majority, via proper protocol. Our votes and our will, have now been completely disregarded and rejected; by those who claim authority to do so. Many feel that what these judges have done, is illegal. I am one of those.

The people of California, by their individual votes — declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state of California. Been there, done that.

Lets stop right here. Our right to VOTE in this country is one of ALL our greatest privileges and RIGHTS! Why do you ignore this, over a selfish desire to move your own personal cause? It is a trap. Do people not see, that if we ALL standby, and allow such an abuse of powers – that nobody wins!

You cannot snatch away, that which you never had. Same-sex marriage is not a right. Marriage is the right of two people of opposite gender. To those who hold a faith-based position – this is serious business. However – Californians have told you that.

Now… lets get back to WHY PROP 8? We are standing as Californian for our RIGHT TO VOTE, and have that vote honored, protected, and ultimately STAND.

tDMg

The ENTIRE California Supreme Court agreed to make a ruling over the issue of 22’s validity only after previous cases had already moved through two levels of lower courts. It wasn’t as if just one or two of them woke-up one morning and said “hey, I think I’ll overturn an initiative today”
What’s more, these weren’t just four random “fringe politics” judges; it was a majority vote by the state’s Supreme Court; a court by the way, whose justices are first appointed by an elected official (Voted for by majority), after which, they are themselves VOTED in.
Because your Votes indirectly influence who is selected, and directly influence who is ultimately picked, these seven judges of the Supreme Court accurately represent the will of the state in which they serve.

Born and raised in San Diego, Ca, went to school in San Jose, Ca… work in Milpitas, (you guessed it) Ca.
I have never lived anywhere else.

What made you think Georgia?

It wasn’t me.
My #57 was predominantly directed to #55 by the way.

I know I haven’t been on in awhile and thats cause I was busy getting my life on the right path. I also know that I may be young and not have an extensive knowledge of the world or the governments that run it, but from the knowledge that I have gained, not only from this forum, but from the ongoing debates not just about rights for homosexuals, but past cases relating to this one, such as rights for African Americans and the rights for women, I have come to understand that despite what most people may say about how they aren’t racist or that they don’t look down on people who they find “inferior”, I believe that these statements are false, and that they don’t want to admit to themselves that, even on a small level, they could be racist or in the very least have some racist thoughts. Like Kathy said in an earlier note, the Jim Crow laws proclaimed that African Americans were in fact our equals, but it still forced them to be segregated from the Americans who looked down upon them and thats exactly what prop 8 will do should it be allowed to pass.

Well I still believe that prop 8 should not be allowed to pass because should it be allowed to pass it will eliminate the rights of thousands of same sex couples all across California. You say that prop 8 will not affect the rights of gay couples, but thats far from the truth. From all the research I have done I have come to believe that prop 8, otherwise known as the “California Marriage Protection Act” would ‘eliminate rights of same-sex couples to marry’.

Honestly flap you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you may be.

You keep talking about how prop 8 will no have an affect on gay domestic partnership rights, which is essentially true, but domestic partnerships are not the same thing as marriage nor is it an acceptable substitute as argued by those who aren’t in favor of prop 8. Even our own gov. says that this bill is a waste of time, and is backed by organizations such as ‘Equality For All’ and ‘Equality California’, while those in favor of the prop 8 law include ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ and ‘Focus on the Family’, which shows that those who are against prop 8 want whats best for the equality of our nation, as opposed to those who support prop 8, in which their agenda is just to push another needless law onto our society and prevent gay couples from having the same rights that straight couples have.

lived in California all my life

I don’t believe that my exact location is any of your business and anyway, thats not what this forum is about

And anyway Flap, what right do you or the government have to say who marriage is reserved for?

you certainly have a lot of crazy theories don’t you flap?

1) I do live in California

2) I am old enough to vote

3) No one is paying me to do this

never even been to jersey buddy

well why is Kathy’s ip address from somewhere else when she lives in cali?

Flap I guess by now it’s pretty obvious and you should just admit that you were wrong this entire time. I could easily tell from how you started changing the subject rather quickly and also your abrupt end to the conversation entirely shows me that you have no more arguing points left from which to draw and instead of taking the honorable route and admitting your defeat, you choose to take the low road with your tail between your legs

If you didn’t notice, you’re the one who keeps using the same old points, while the rest of use are out actually researching this topic

You know, the people who made the point earlier about talking to you is like talking to a wall were only partially right. I for one think you’re as stubborn as a mule, no matter how wrong you know you are, you choose to continue this pointless argument, despite the lack of facts that you present, or the lack of knowledge you posses.

And flap, I finally understand why exactly you made this forum. You wanted to use this to try and recruit people to your side to vote yes on prop 8 and prevent homosexuals from having the same rights that we do, but like all others in favor of discrimination, you kept spinning the issue, saying that prop 8 will have no effect on the rights of homosexuals at all, and if a group of anti-homosexual people are trying to pass a bill that will have no effect on the rights of homosexuals at all then when even pass it. Its because prop 8 will have a drastic effect on those rights, but you choose to turn a blind eye to it. It is even obvious in both pro prop 8 and anti prop 8 arguments. Those who are in favor of prop 8 choose not to present facts, but instead try to manipulate the minds of parents by saying that the acceptance of gay marriage will have a drastic effect on classroom education, when in fact both sides know that gay marriage will have no effect what-so-ever on classroom education. Now as far as the anti prop 8 side, it should be obvious. Unlike those who support this bill,

Let me catch up with the mass of recent posts and I will be able to talk about the topic at hand

I know this is an emotional issue, but because you and I are so very polarized on the emotional side of it, the only way we are ever going communicate rationally is by trying to leave emotion out of it. The innate right to marry is an emotional issue for the both of us and we could spend all our time and energy arguing over who is morally allowed to own that right.

Even if you don’t believe they have the right to marry simply because you did not vote to allow them to have the right I would like to make the distinction between the traditional, legal, and literal definition of marriage.

“Traditionally” marriage has been between a man and a woman, but marriage is currently, and never has been before, LITERALLY defined as such within the California Constitution.
Prop 8 is trying to change the literal, legal DEFINITION of marriage to reflect the historical PRACTICE.

I am talking strictly about words and laws – not emotion.

Marriage has, on numerous occasions been defined as a fundamental right.
At the time they weren’t talking about gay marriage, so it was both implied and infered that the laws were referring to straights, but no laws until recently actually, explicitly, stated this.

You obviously see a difference between gay people and straight people
Or at least between gay marriage and straight marriage
But let’s just talk about the law alone

If there is no legal distinction between domestic partnership and marriage (as far as benefits go), but there IS a difference in title, how is that not segregation?

All the Noise, Noise, Noise!

No matter how loudly and often supporters of same gender marriage attack proponents of traditional marriage, the simple irrefutable fact is that same gender marriage and traditional marriage are not identical, and never will be. Period. Regardless of what happens in the California election.

And no matter what proponents of traditional marriage say, opponents will scream its opposite. I am amazed at the sheer volume of hateful and intolerant comments made by opponents of Proposition 8. To me, this speaks volumes about where bigotry, discrimination, and hate truly exist – in the hearts of people who express themselves with such rage and venom, regardless of their political or sexual persuasion.

So what really is the core issue? Is it equal rights? Is it social acceptance of homosexuality? And what about the children?

Equal Rights

In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George overturning the voter approved statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he stated that “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.”

Furthermore, in that same opinion, he also wrote, “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman . . . and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex.” Hmmmm . . .

The California Family Code, in Section 297.5, paragraphs a, b, and c (which are identical, except for the references in parentheses) clarifies the legal rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners are entitled to in California. “Registered (and former registered, and surviving registered) domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses (and former spouses, and a widow or widower).

California’s voter information guide contains arguments and rebuttals for both sides of the argument. In the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition 8, opponents wrote, “California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.”

What are these differences? Be specific people, don’t just throw up a smoke screen, wave your arms, and cry foul. If you want to solve the equal rights problem, say exactly what the specific needs are so that legislation can be passed that will provide the specific liberties being sought. Equality California is a leading organization founded in 1998 to pursue equal rights for homosexual people in California. The organization’s website states that, “In the past 10 years, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. In the past decade, EQCA has successfully passed more than 45 pieces of civil rights legislation for the LGBT community – more than any other statewide LGBT organization in the nation. Most sections of California law prohibit discrimination based on a long list of protected classes, including sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. LGBT Californians are protected from discrimination in securing employment and housing, accessing government services and participating in state-funded activities. LGBT people are also protected under the state’s hate crime law.” This organization, and many others like it, is not going to go away, so it is safe to assume that they will continue to pursue equal rights for LGBT individuals in California until true legal equality is achieved. No problem. It’s already in process.

Social Acceptance of Homosexuality

Opponents of Proposition 8 claim that they are not looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality, they simply want homosexuals to be free to marry the person they love. If true equality under law can be achieved for both traditional married couples and civil unions between same gender couples, and if there are only nine differences that remain to be legislated, then the discrimination argument can be resolved equitably in the near future. Same gender couples can then truly receive all the benefits and responsibilities of traditionally married couples in every respect EXCEPT in name. Will that be acceptable to the LGBT community? If so, then let’s settle this mess and get on with other pressing business. If not, then it reveals the lie about what is opponents of Proposition are really seeking – societal acceptance of homosexuality. And on this subject, the people have every right to vote and determine what society should accept or not accept without being called a bigot or homophobe.

Let the voice of the people decide! But separate the two issues – equal rights and societal acceptance. Opponents KNOW that if the issues were separate, they would FAIL. Many people are just plain disgusted with and tired of hearing about gays and homosexuality. They object to being told, “It’s going to happen now, whether you like it or not.” Thus, opponents focus the spotlight on the “fairness” and “equality” arguments, and sweep the issue of societal acceptance under the carpet. Yet the societal acceptance is insidious. It has the real potential to create problems that are just beginning to be seen in places that have legalized same gender marriage.

The Future

All over the Internet, you can read articles claiming that proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics and outright lies about its implications on children to win its passage. In researching this subject, I found that there have been many efforts over the years to pass California laws having to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. Some few have passed, but the majority failed. I am surprised that few have publicly observed that the failure of most of these measures to pass was likely related to California’s recognition at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. In other words, that definition, which became California law when voters passed it overwhelmingly in 2000, was an important bulwark in the legal defense of striking down proposed legislation that would mandate same gender education of our young children. That fence has been blown down now, as it were, by the May 2008 judicial fiat. If Proposition 8 does not pass, will the proposals for new legislation mandating exposing our children to increased education about LGBT issues cease? What does history already show? Any rational adult will recognize that if anything, such efforts will ONLY INCREASE, and find greater likelihood of passage. Scare tactics? We are talking about the future of our children here.

To those who say that children in schools will not be affected by the defeat of Proposition 8, I say, what makes you a prophet? After the recent catastrophic global economic meltdown, former financial demigod Alan Greenspan has now admitted a fundamental error in his beliefs about the issue of deregulation in our banking and financial system that was a major factor in the economic collapse. OOPS! That mess has been totally devastating to millions of people, and will take years to clean up. We are all affected, and will be for many years to come. The multitudinous ramifications of legalized same gender marriage won’t be fully understood or visible for years, but by then it may be too late to prevent major problems that can affect everyone in California. To even think otherwise is to be blind to real life. Take a look at what is already happening where same sex marriage was legalized years ago, and you can see some of the harbingers.

Discrimination, which is often used to mean unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, is wrong. But the word discrimination also means to discern qualities and recognize the differences between things. By this definition, we all discriminate every day as a necessary part of making decisions. And recognizing the qualities and differences between traditional and same gender marriage should not mean that we are all forced to equalize them. Some allowances should be made for the differences. In this regard, California already has the most tolerant and non-discriminatory laws regarding same gender couples that can be found anywhere in the U.S. Proposition 8 will not change this. If there are more laws that need to be passed to provide true equality, then let’s get them out in the open, deal with them, and stop the arm waving and name calling. California has already proven that it is willing to provide equal rights. We can maintain this tradition without redefining marriage for everyone just because a tiny fraction of the population really, really wants to.

I believe we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of same gender persuasion (see, no name calling or rage), but without accepting same sex unions as being socially equal to the institution of traditional male-female marriage. That’s why I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.

When writing law, you need to be extremely careful about what you mean, and what you actually say. You can not be allowed to make a rulling on law based on something that was never actually written.

@107 I stated that “Even if you don’t believe they have the right to marry simply because you did not vote to allow them to have [it]… marriage [strictly between a man and a woman] is currently, and never has been before, LITERALLY defined as such within the California Constitution.”
@109 I conceded that, when marriage laws were first written, “at the time they weren’t talking about gay marriage, so it was both implied and inferred that the laws were referring to straights, but no laws until recently actually, explicitly, stated this.”

This is what 8 is trying to change

Acknowledgement of differences
I have said before that I see no differences between straight marriage and gay marriage because I see no difference between straights.. Their “gayness” means only that they are attracted to different people than I am. Now, maybe you are right in that, that alone does make them different than me, but I don’t see differences as deficits.

And I do not believe that have to be the same as me to be my equal.

@121
How then can you still claim that this is not about equality, when you do not see them as equal?

@124 you just said that gay marriage and straight marriage are not the same and, because of this, should not be treated the same. Is it so far a stretch for me to believe that unequal treatment is, by very definition … umm… unequal?

Flap,

I didn’t miss the point, it just doesn’t make sense.

I’ve been legally married for the last 4 months to someone who happens to be my same sex. Has your life changed at all? Things any different?

I’ll tell you that during the previous 6 years that my wife and I wanted to marry and couldn’t, we did notice the difference.

Same-sex marriage is legalized and what happens? For you, nothing changes and you still get to live your life the way you’d like and are not affected in any way, and I get to live my life the way I’d like. Wait, what’s that called? Oh yeah, freedom.

Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone

Diane,

Thank you for your comment. I am just as passionate about the issue as the seemingly more aggressive No on Prop 8 supporters. The vote next Tuesday will decide if I get to stay married to my wife.

I was so upset when the school from the Bay Area decided to take their students to a gay marriage. The timing of it was horrible and it was such a bad decision. Though on a side note, every parent had to sign a permission slip for their student to go. But, what makes me sad is that the children have found themselves at the middle of this issue. While we need to consider the children of the country and how they will be effected when we vote on every proposition and politician next week, the fact that they’re the basis for the Yes on Prop 8 argument is troublesome.

As a student for 19 years, I was never taught about marriage in school. Today, as a teacher in California, I have never discussed the issue. My students don’t know I’m gay. To discuss personal issues like that, whether it’s regarding straight or gay relationships, is inappropriate. Not to mention that vast amounts of curriculum that we’re inundated with. The idea that teachers will all of a sudden begin to push a pro-homosexuality agenda if same-sex marriage continues to be legal is unsettling. The fact that this has become the basis for the Yes on Prop 8 argument, I feel, is also without merit and is done to confuse voters.

I agree with you that both sides should have been truthful throughout. What’s happened on my side of the argument, is that No on Prop 8, specifically those who are gay, are feeling like they’re being attacked and pinned against a wall and thus feel the need to lash out. While I don’t condone it, I have to be honest and say that I’ve felt a similar type of rage when I hear the argument that my devotion and marriage to my spouse is not as valid as a straight marriage. But, for me and other No on Prop 8 supporters to ask for an open mind on the issue from people who are not comfortable with the idea, and then to disregard your points of view is ridiculous. Bottom line, the animosity and disrespect that’s come from either direction has been discouraging and it doesn’t help either side with their efforts.

There is not more to this “gay agenda” than for acceptance. You’re right. Ultimately, we want to be accepted by our families, friends, coworkers, and anybody else in our lives. Right now we are judged for something that is a part of the core being of our identities, and what that does to our self-esteem is outrageous.

While I respect that we can agree to disagree, I cannot be expected to back down on the issue when my marriage is on the line. You and other voters get to decide if I get to stay married. Does that seem right to you?

Thank you again for your nice comments and respectful arguments.

Kims last blog post..Football smootball…

BeetleBabee,

I disagree with your premise that different moral views cannot coexist.

Thank God for you that you were born straight. But your attitude that your marriage is somehow “dominate” of mine is shallow and nieve. This would be similar to thinking you are better than someone who is another race or sex, though you had nothing to do with your own race or sex.

I am an American. You are an American. We deserve the same rights, period. You shouldn’t get a one-up because of your genetic makeup. Nobody’s taking anything away from you.

For those who are married and against same-sex marriage, is your marriage really about love? Do you love your spouse because they have a penis or vagina? Of course not, just like my marriage isn’t based on that. If it is about the pureness of love, then I don’t understand why there could be any issue with me loving another woman.

If you’re interested in protecting marriage, try focusing on your own and not destroying mine.

Note: I apologize that I’m not being as “polite” today, but the elitist comments today are tough on my stomach.

There are a couple of things i would like to address…

First off, the reason why the first grade class went to a gay wedding as a field trip, was because one of the brides was their teacher. If you have a problem with gay marriage being taught in school, then either send your child to private school or get over yourself. If anything, the fact that Gays are allowed to marry would teach our impressionable children that everyone, no matter their race, religion, or sexual preference is equal under the law.

After all, marriage is not a sacred institution as some people suggest, it is a contract; a legal, binding agreement. “Marriage” is just a word. It is defined by the dictionary as “a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.” The fundamental fear of change is something that imbeds in the Republican mind. The fear of words. When we were little, we heard the saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Obviously, some of us did not get the message. Words are words. Love between two people is what matters. The problem in this country is divorce and all that homosexuals want to do is get married.

Another argument that just kills me is that “God defined marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.” Actually, that is wrong. Those who wrote the bible defined marriage as that. Neither Jesus nor God wrote the bible. Prejudiced and imperfect men wrote the bible. My favorite argument is the one that says that being gay is a choice. Then, wouldn’t being straight be a choice? Ponder that. People don’t just wake up one day and say “ooh i am gay.”

Last time i checked, gays pay taxes just like the rest of us. They should have the same rights as those who are straight. It is not for the people of California to decide whether or not to give certain rights to certain people. In my mind, looking back at history, you can substitute the word gay for the word jew or the dreaded “n” word. We have throughout history fought several wars to prevent prejudices such as the flat out hatered of homosexuals. This, in my mind, is another war; however, this war can not be fought with guns or weapons but only with people speaking the plain and simple truth. All humanity is created equal.

One other thing. Having a field trip to a wedding is misguided at best. I don’t care if the teacher is the one getting married or not. If a teacher were getting a breast reduction/augmentation would they have a field trip to that? I, unfortunately, don’t know all the facts on this case. But, it sounds like someone wanted to go to the wedding but didn’t want to or couldn’t take a day off work so they decided to take the class. Does anyone have more information on this particular case? Has the class taken field trips to traditional weddings, Jewish weddings, Muslim weddings, polygamist weddings, vegas weddings, or was this just a ploy? I wouldn’t want my kid taking a day off of school to go to anything like this. Vote no on 8. Vote yes on fixing our school system and getting teachers that start to teach kids. Union NO! Selfless teachers YES! Legalize drugs now! No on 8!!

I am so sorry, I have been so busy, that this is the only time I have to post. The campaign is coming to an end and the last few days are vital.

Kathy, thanks for acknowledging Hayward. Kim you didn’t, so is by what you stated @142 ‘the timing was horrible’ Do you mean to say it would all be fair game after the elections? I do know about the consents to the fieldtrip– IT WAS SAN FRANCISCO after all, but they still should have been in school, and I don’t think it was a ‘teachable moment’ as the article stated. Unfortunately, now, no one can deny Hayward. Your right, what horrible timing! As the grassroot effort marches forward in full throtle, everyone knows, rendering the latest dirty commercial by the No campaign mute. See, people cannot be discounted. They will investigate, and find out, and there are plenty of people ready to inform them in every neighborhood up and down California. The untruthful, deceitful and dirty attacks are left to be just that, dirty.

You now something else that puts the voters out, the independent voter guides that my neighbors and I received this week. My good neighbor Nick, older greek gentleman, was undecided on the issue, as was his wife (they didn’t want to amend the Constitution). He came by this morning and brought over the guide and told me “You are not a ‘monger’ or a ‘liar’ Diana, why are they expecting any tolerance from anyone? I guess I am one too since in 2000 I voted yes on 22? you can count on our votes for Yes on 8″.

The ballot guide read “The monger are at it again, don’t let them fool you …..” That will not play well with the 61% yes on 22 voters from 2000. Why resort to the scare tactics? Honestly, why are we being placed in this category for opposing a proposition and executing our basic liberties? I have yet to call anyone anything throughout this whole thing. I’ve been out there and could easily use ugly words to hurt the opposition, but I choose not to.
I bet if you showed more people your case, Kim, it would be more real, truthful and a more successful campaign. Why is it that they don’t show a loving homosexual couple? Is it again a ‘social acceptance’ thing?

Kathy, in regards to my friend(s), gay or straight. Promiscuous or celibate, catholic or protestant, I don’t sit my children down every time they come over to judge them for having diferent views or belief. We just enjoy them as people. We have friendships, and when the time is appropiate, in my judgement (probably at 8 or 9), I will talk to my boys about those differences. AND that, is why my vote has been casted as, Yes on 8. I don’t trust proven liars. I will protect my children over anything. Sorry Kim, believe me, I respect your relationship. But shame the the ulterior motives of the movement.

James, pardon me, but if you vote No on 8, your child will eventually experience what the children in Hayward did. All documented, all fact. Follow the second link at my comment #140. Under California code children will be taught about marriage, and if the law remains as is, without the passing of Prop 8 your boy and mine will experience these teachings. I am not being a deceitful monger, I promise.

Diana, do you really think that the same-sex couples who value marriage and are fighting to have the same rights that most straight people take for granted is going limit your ability to teach your children what you feel is right?
I want to teach my children that everyone is the same. Could you not argue that putting this law in the constitution impedes my ability as a mother to teach this to my children?

Also, I asked Flap about that list @138 but got no reply. I’ll now ask you. I do understand the objection when it comes to religious schools, but do you really feel it is appropriate for doctors and civil workers, in a non-religious, strictly professional setting, to deny services or medical treatment to homosexuals?

And about the Boy Scouts: The Scouts sued the city, not the other way around.
Furthermore, they were asking a publicly owned facility to allow them to discriminate based on sexual preference. Whether or not the Boy Scouts should be allowed to do this does not matter; this discrimination is not something the CITY is allowed to do.
Because the Scouts were operating on City property (free of charge by the way), the Sea Scouts were, in effect, asking the marina to break the law, which could have opened up the City (not just the Scouts) to lawsuits.
What, exactly, is sacred about that?

I was also a sea-scout by the way, and they are for ages 14-20 so we’re not talking about young tykes.

Flap,

Yeah, it is still undecided. But, the fact that it could be threatened is the reason for my somewhat aggressive contention.

Besides, I have a lot of friends who are not yet ready to commit themselves to a marriage, but I want them to be able to do when they finally decide that they’d like to do so.

Thanks for your comment though.

Kims last blog post..Football smootball…

if u r wondering what prop 8 is, it is a proposition in california to overturn the legalization of gay marriage in california, as well as nullifying all gay marriages that have taken place since it was legalized. and dont give me that bullshit about destroying the sanctity of marriage. america has already made a mockery of the institution of marriage. for christ sake, we have elvis impersonators in vegas performing McDonalds marriages in drive-thru chapels! The current divorce rate in america is 50%, and still ultra conservatives insist they are trying to protect marriage? when half the people who do it dont even believe in it? just say it for what it really is. You are trying to force your beliefs on the rest of the country. america is run by MAN (i mean man as in mankind, as in human, dont give me that sexist bs cause anyone who knows me knows i am not). now im not saying i dont believe in god. i do. but these ultra conservatives believe that god should run the country. but if we ran our country according to what “GOD” says, we would be no different than the extremest 3rd world countries we are at war with. america is about freedom. the pilgrims came here to ESCAPE religious persecution, not to religiously persecute. and i state again, i do believe in god, but not so much in man. cause when it comes down to it, it is a matter of interpretation, as well as dictation. god wont come down here and run our country. it comes down to man. and it would be a man interpreting the bible and dictating the laws. (DICTATORSHIP=NOT GOOD) please people, live and let live. if you are that upset about gay marriage, and are that hardcore about your religion and using it to take away freedom from others, think of it as more room in “YOUR” heaven for you.

James @160, I guess you have not read the rules of this blog, you should not use offensive language.

Where in the entire 14 word amendment does it state those marriages will be nulified? I don’t care what happens in Vegas in drive-thru chapels, etc. My marriage is sacred, and in fact eternal under my believes, don’t now about yours, but in my life it is. Unfortunately as you were unaware of the situation in San Francisco, you are unaware of the importance of this proposition and the effect it ALREADY has had. If my gut feeling is correct, the outcome of Thursdays election will show it was the other party (and the four brilliant justices) trying to impose their ‘believes’ and lifestyle on us. Correct me if I’m wrong but it is the oposition’s own label to themselves that it’s a lifestyle.

I don’t believe I threw the bible in here at any point. This is about good american standards, values and morals instilled in me by Mom and Dad. That’s what I am trying to preserve! James, last time I checked the reason I am working hard at this IS to protect those basic rights the pilgrims and the founding fathers laid out. Your absolutely correct, there is no dictatation in a democracy, we will all find out the will of the people on November 4th. I think you are silly in you last statement too, I am not a heaven hogging person, The way I se it there’s enoegh room in “MY” heaven for us all!

Kathy @154,

NO, it won’t limit my ability to teach my children, but it will give power to the school districts to definitely use California tax payer dollars to instill an ‘ally to gays” mentality in my child while celebrating “Coming Out Day” — just writing that makes me go nuts. You keep on skipping the Hayward school actions, why?

I know it’s a sensitive matter for you, but along with 23 other states, if the proposition passes, you will tell your children that you have all the rights afforded to you by the State of California in your union to your partner. Some of which the majority of other states don’t even provide. Another thing, and I will try to be careful here stepping away from legalities, wouldn’t you want to (or at some point have to) explain the anatomical and biological differences to your child? You are in fact, different than what society deems couture, and your spouse cannot reproduce with you. Do you think your or your partner’s biological child will want to know where he/she came from? Wouldn’t you? The reason I ask is because I have clear memories of my childhood, and the nature of a child is to be curious. Since I have to explain to my child our differences from gays, wouldn’t you? This is complete off the subject, but I wonder..? Things wont be just fine and peachy o Nov 5th for either side, your child and my child will eventually question what they hear in school from each other. We can’t cover this up with laws and rights, that is the fundamental truth of this very bad dream. But conditioning children to be allies just goes to far. Tolerance was building, I don’t know about that if schools keep undermindind parents.

About the NPR list; your statement ‘…..deny services or medical treatment to homosexuals’, you mean deny acceptance by an individual when the services could be performed by another at the same facility. There were other civil workers that could issue the license. The specialist, who was asked to perform an ‘elective’ in vitro procedure, passed it on to his partner. This come again to social acceptance and imposing views, lifestyle and believe on the rest of society. The services are available to you whether or not the proposition is passed. I am a notary public, I am not practicing, but I am licensed. If a same sex couple comes to my door and asked that I execute their license, I would not. There is a ton of NP’s that would, but I would not. If that statement just cost me my license, it’s okay. The practice would go against my core believes and I’ll stand by them.

About your latest post #163, You are stretching it there quite a bit. I think the population that would cause harm to a homosexual in this day and age is miniscule. Not regular, sane people, not anyone I’ve ever come across, and recently, I’ve met MANY A MANY Pro 8 people. No one wants to hurt you. On the contrary, some opponents of P8 have become dangerous and thats scary to us. I am not exaggerating, I’m being honest and it comes from personal testimony. I’ll tell you something, I am a little worried about a possible out lash from a minority in your group on 11/4, and again I agree with in saying there are differences within one’s group.

I don’t believe there is any segregation coming out of P8, you are still going to my bathroom and drinking from the same water fountain, if we both get on a bus you can even take the front seat. You have the exact same rights that I have with my partner. The law is beautiful here in California and it protects both of us. When we start mucking with the basis of society however, it will undoubtedly have a domino effect, every aspect in it of itself will be affected, religion, freedom of speech, education, everything. The majority of us in California believe it to be that way (at least in the latest poll). I still think it’s a social acceptance issue, and the failure of Prop 8 would not bring it closer to being accepted. Anyone stating that no, no it has nothing to do with school, or religion or free speech is naïve at best. All of this is intertwined; if marriage becomes a fundamental right (which I do not think it is) than wouldn’t it have to be taught in schools?

On the friendship with gays, well again, I have to say I have enormous respect for many gay people; there are some truly brilliant minds in that sector. Geez, my hair stylist is gay, and I would not change him for the anything. I deeply respect their intellect and yours. I just have a different opinion on gay marriage.

Well I have been following his career and I think that he will make a good governor.

There are no ways about that, he is some one who can do a lot

Letsfixlosal.com responses last blog post..Queen of the Capital

To Preston: Equal rights: The gay community not only already have equal rights, they have a level of prestige that the rest of us don’t have. They are absolutely not treated as an inferior group, nor will they be if Prop 8 passes. Example; my heterosexual friend, who is married, was on an adoption list and saw several lesbian couples receive children before her. She was told that the agency was so worried about being accused of discrimmination and being dragged into court that they deliberately placed children with gay couples first and heterosexual couples second. My friend finally took herself off the list after years of waiting because it was obvious they were never going to give her a child. Based purely on the fact that these couples were gay, they received special treatment. Homosexuals are not treated as second class citizens and I am tired of hearing that. They use the legal system to extract special treatment not equal treatment.

Kim,

WHY DID THEY USE THE WORD ALLY (Hayward, CA – School Celebrating Coming Out Day” Oct 23, 2008), who are the children allying to and who are they fighting against? There are many other words that could have been used, but they chose a word that translates to there having to be an opposition. Could it be their very parents? It was wrong, ON SO MANY LEVELS SO WRONG, and then Jack O’Connell continues with his blatant lies. Just comes to show how the entire campaign lacks cohesiveness and truthfulness (They can’t even keep it together till after the elections, I though the wedding in SF was a blooper, but I guess not… so eager to show true intentions or I guess what they call it is Gay Pride, right?).

About the NO on 8 dirty tactics, how about the NAACP President coming out against 8. Like the CA Teachers Union speaking against it without consulting the teachers, Alice Huffman, NAACP President did the same thing. Why? Let me tell you, She owns a company by the name of A C Public Affairs Inc. This company was paid over $198,000. by the No on 8 campaign. This might explain the disconnect between the African American community who supports 8 and the NAACP’s coming out against it. How dirty is THAT!!!!

Why be so dirty? Win at any cost, eh?

I’m sorry, I did not assume you were gay; I got confused and thought I was responding to Kim who has stated she is gay. And no, as I’ve seen it, most of the people that are angry about this are not gay, they always state ‘I’m really not gay, but I’m angry’, which I just don’t get. Why the anger? You were living quite well and with all your rights (ohh, I mean your gay friends were living with all their civil rights, right).

About the civil worker; the reason he was able to continue his functions was because the county deemed there are other clerks who could officiate, very simple.

About your ability to have children and your decisions at age 10 are interesting yo say the least. I think you are reading these comments and fishing for rhetoric answers. I hope your condition is real. I too have a condition that I thought would render me unable to conceive, but with hope and faith I did, twice. You should try it, children are truly a gift from God and with faith, unless you don’t have any, many thing can come about. But that is a personal choice you have. If you want in-vitro and would like to boycott the doctor who refused services to the homosexual couple you could always see his partner. That simple.

There are many steps and requirements through adoption processes, religious charities or not. If you qualify at any of the adoption agency you seek out, great. But Catholic Charities is a faith based organization, with fundamental belief which they could not change. I don’t know what their policy is in a single person requesting a child, just don’t know. All I know is that because a gay couple decided to insist on bringing politics into religion matters, many children in Mass. will not get a chance for a family. Very sad indeed. Yet another reason to vote, YES ON 8.

About the friendship part, if the person gave me their friendship and I respond in the same way, that’s it. I wont continue explaining this over and over again, it’s now over-kill. Maybe you could not be my friend, but they can. That definitely goes against your argument about stamping out hate, if we can find common ground, what is wrong with that? I’m sure on any other day and twice on Sunday you and I might find common ground to start a friendship. I don’t dismiss people that easily, it would make me a hollow person, and I’m not. There are many facets to me. You should get to know me, I’m quite nice! Have some tolerance. Yesterday, as I was driving home from our Yes on 8 rally, a small group of gay students were at a corner with homemade ‘no’ signs, they saw my sticker, one of them said “We love you any way, and I returned the gesture by stating ‘so do we’. That’s the honest truth. I don’t live of hate, I hope he meant, too. I don’t think I’d make it through a single day on hate, I live on love, for my children, for my husband and for humanity. But we are all very different and I can live with that and with our democratic system that will allow us to vote this issue on Tuesday.

Marriage is not a fundamental right, you have to breath, eat and well you know, but you don’t have to get married in the State of California. So please, stop comparing this to the civil rights movement, you offend many (see the NAACP article). Now I must go to bed, tomorrow we start the last four days of our grassroot effort. Goodnight.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING AN ALLY?
As if “ally” is a dirty word
It means UNITY
The capitols in the following dictionary definitions have EMPHASIS ADDED

Merriam Webster
Main Entry: 1al•ly
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English allien, from Anglo-French alier, from Latin alligare to bind to, from ad- + ligare to bind

: to UNITE or form a connection or relation between : associate
intransitive verb
: to form or enter into an alliance

Dictionary.com
1. to UNITE formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually fol. by with or to)
2. to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or FRIENDSHIP.
3. to enter into an alliance; join; UNITE.
4. a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose
5. Biology. a plant, animal, or other organism bearing an evolutionary relationship to another, often as a MEMBER OF THE SAME FAMILY
6. a person who associates or COOPERATES with another; supporter.

It is about UNITY
NOWHERE does it say that parents are bad of wrong
NOWHERE is it defined fighting an opposition

You are fighting against UNITY
Can you see now why I feel that being AGAINST unity means that you SUOOPRT separation and how that might translate in my mind into supporting segregation which is nothing more than the legal and social separation of groups?

Kim is exactly right @169 about freedom of religion
Not all religions condemn gay marriage and not all churches refuse to solemnize same-sex unions. Aren’t you prohibiting the free exercise of religion within these institutions when you tell them who can and can not marry?
Aren’t you also infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs when you make them follow your own?

What Kim is wrong about, is that she currently HAS the right to marry. She does not have to want it or look for it, she currently HAS that right.
Prop 8 is TAKING IT AWAY.

This amendment, is the very first in the HOSTORY of the California Constitution that actually takes rights AWAY from people.

Kathy,

One last thing, No comments on the NAACP scandal, right?

Alice Huffman has, apparently, long supported gay rights.
The funding she received into her private consulting company should have remained that PPRIVATE. I agree that she should not have spoken on behalf of the NAACP, and doing so was underhanded.
But she also has a history of taking large “consulting fees” for political causes. So whether this means SHE is corrupt, or the people paying for her advice are, isn’t clear to me.

As far as teachers go, all but one of the teachers I know and work with are against it. So at least in my area, they are being accurately represented.
Speaking of which…
I also don’t think the Yes on 8 side has exactly been above board in all their advertising either; and confusing the issue with scare tactics is a low thing to do. Not one single ad I have seen for “yes on 8″ has actually been about marriage; and I’m frankly getting a little tired about them talking about education and “protecting” the children from a diverse education. Prop 8 does not actually prevent that.

The marriage component in the health and safety education for school is not strictly about marriage, but about relationship differences between couples. Same-sex relationships, whether they are marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil or religious unions would still fall under that category. So even if 8 passes there is nothing in it that will keep schools from talking about same-sex marriage (as many people are already married); nothing that would prevent talking about domestic partnership (as that would still be legal); nothing that would prevent any school or teacher from addressing gay marriage or partnership in other states or countries.

IF the reason for prop 8 is to prevent gay marriage being taught in schools, then you would still have to propose a law specifically to prevent it being taught because that’s not a part of 8. If marriage is strictly a “family issue” to be discussed at home, then you still need to petition to eliminate teaching of marriage in schools altogether because that’s not a part of 8 either.

The ONLY thing that 8 actually does is limit an individual’s access to rights, not the educational systems ability to teach about them.

Prop 8 is not about education; it doesn’t talk about education, it doesn’t actually affect education; Prop 8 only affects marriage, and even then, only for some.

But like you said “win at any cost”.

The proponents of Proposition 8 have a poor grasp of our constitutional form of government. It is true that this is a democracy. However, it is also true that the rights of individuals are protected by the US Constitution from infringement by governmental action, including propositions adopted by a majority of voters to amend a state constitution. Where a governmental action serves to deprive an individual of a “fundamental right,” it is to be subjected to “strict scrutiny” to determine whether the objective of the action is of greater importance than the right in question, and whether that objective might be achieved by less intrusive means. The fact that there may be a “rational relationship” between the objective and the governmental action taken is insufficient to maintain the validity of the action.

It is the role of the courts to determine which of these two standards of review apply, and the outcome they dictate when faced with a challenge to the constitutionality of a governmental action. A finding that a governmental action is subject to “strict scrutiny” (as opposed to a “rational relationship” analysis) almost always leads to a holding that is unconstitutional.

Given the importance the proponents of Proposition 8 place on “marriage” as an institution in our society, they can hardly deny that it is a “fundamental right.” In any case, they would be faced with the reality that the US Supreme Court made precisely such a finding in Loving v. Virginia in overturning an anti-miscegenation law as an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

Having widely contended that Proposition 8 is necessary to “restore” the meaning of “marriage,” its proponents cannot be heard to argue that same-sex couples presently lack the right to marry. Similarly, it would be ridiculous for them to contend that Proposition 8 would not serve to deprive same-sex couples of that “fundamental right.” The undeniable truth is that there are thousands of lawfully married, same sex couples in California today who would would be stripped of the lawful status of their marriages. And there are many thousands more who would be denied the right to marry in the future.

This means that, if adopted, Proposition 8 will necessarily be subjected to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review. And an application of that standard will inevitably lead to a finding by the courts that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This is because the real objective of the proposition — i.e., to impose the views of a portion of the population regarding the meaning of “marriage” on everyone — will not be deemed of equal weight to the “fundamental right” of all individuals to marry. The other stated objectives of the proposition — e.g., to protect our children from being instructed in school that a “marriage” between a same-sex couple and a man and a woman are of the same value — will be rejected because they are “red herrings.” That is, they will be rejected because their are less intrusive means of achieving such objectives. For instance, a law could be passed that prohibits public schools from providing instruction on the meaning of “marriage” without depriving same-sex couples of their lawful right to marry.

In the end, Proposition 8 will lead to an important judicial precedent that will expand recognition across this nation of the “fundamental right” of same-sex couples to marry. It would be so much better if we short-circuited the litigation process that will bring about that result by extending love and tolerance to our fellow human beings.

Al,

Wow. You’re voting yes because you think I’m a slut, a pedophile, and would be a bad parent. And you believe that because of an obvious bias study written by someone is ultra conservative Orange County.

I’d like to think that most people will base their conclusions on actual people in their lives. And if you think you don’t have gay people in your life, you just haven’t noticed because they fit in and they’re just as normal as you.

I take offense to your conclusions. You’re calling me and other homosexuals perverse.

And are you really trying to point out that homosexuals sleep around more? Really?

Kims last blog post..It’s a big week…

I think your eyes need to be opened a little wider Al
And Kim, just a correction:
This “item” that he so gleefully posts is not a study. Don’t you dare give it that much respect.
It’s not published in any academic or peer-reviewed journal; it’s not published in a NON-academic journal; it’s not actually published at all. It’s one chick writing a mission statement about why it’s ok to discriminate, and posting it online.
Further, she often uses sources that are themselves, non-academic, not to mention, severly outdated. What’s more, many of the sources that are actually current are not actually about the United States

So if you’re looking for a nonacademic source because you think you might want to know what a skewed sample of gay men may have done in Holland in 1977 in order to use it as an excuse to take away marriage rights from modern-day Californians, look no further.
If, on the other hand, you want people to actually give your view proper consideration, post something worth considering.

Hi Kim and Kathy.

No, I did not say nor did I imply that every so-called gay person is a slut, a pedophile, or a bad parent. I apologize if you took it that way. I was just trying to be honest in expressing my concerns about the propagation of the lifestyle as it relates to marriage.

I am sorry that you took/take offense to my comments. However, if I were a betting person, yes, I would bet that homosexuals “sleep around” more. We could probably easily find some data on that if it were pertinent. We could probably even take a small sample within this audience, although the integrity of the answer might be in question.

If you have an 8-year relationship, then it appears that you indeed have a more solid relationship than the average.

If you like, we could do our own “study” and ask the additional questions:

1. Do you consider yourself heterosexual or homosexual?

2. Have you ever had sex with a person only once?

3. How many sex partners have you had?

4. How many of your sex partners were strangers?

5. Have you ever had a “threesome”?

6. Have you ever taken part in an “orgy” or had group sex?

7. Have you ever taken part in sadomasochism?

X. (We’ll skip the urination and bestiality questions)

9. Have you ever paid for sex?

10. Being 21 or older, have you ever had sex with partners that were 16 or younger?

11. Do you feel positive or negative about same-sex sex with partners 16 or younger?

12. At what age did you first have homosexual or heterosexual intercourse?

I would be curious to see the results of such a current study with the people in this discussion. Of course, it is a small sample and, unfortunately, the people most likely to not answer the questions would probably be the ones with higher numbers. Also, this website would be prone to all kinds of abuse. However, we could probably limit the study to only people who have commented thus far. If someone “spoofed” someone else ID, then that person would know.

In any case, this is certainly a divisive issue, and that is very unfortunate. I do not make these posts “gleefully”, and I will not gloat if by some chance Proposition 8 passes today. I have no ill feelings about homosexuals in the same way that I have no ill feelings about people who smoke cigarettes – they are people with rights, but I don’t agree with the act, I don’t think it is healthy, I don’t want to be near that person during the act, and I don’t want to see that act permeate society and infringe upon the rights of others or overrun a restaurant (or the institution of marriage) in a detrimental way.

Kim, by the way, I do know a number of homosexuals (and smokers) and we get along fine.

I respect everyone’s civil rights. It is not a “right” to change the definition of marriage any more than it is a right to change the definition of “adult”.

By the way,
Marriage is not currently defined as “between a man and a woman” people assume that it is, but nowhere in law, is it literally defined as this.
So in actuality, it is PROP EIGHT that is changing the definition of marriage.

It’s a little less offensive, but a little more convoluted.
Homosexuality is addictive? I tell you what, let’s test that. I will start smoking (something which I can’t stand) and you will start having sex with men. After just six months (which is roughly the time it takes to form a nicotine addiction) we will stop. I BET you that
1. Even not being interested, I could start smoking cigarettes before you could start sleeping with men
2. I’ll crave another cigarette before you crave another man (assuming you are really straight to begin with)

Lung cancer is caused by smoking is 90% of the time
I don’t know where you get your data but this is yet another case of not questioning your information. I hope the CDC is good enough for you, because here are the stats for America and Canada:

AIDS contracted by homosexuals 58%
Aids contracted by African Americans 49%
Aids contracted by all non-whites 70%

Why don’t we deny blacks and other minorities the right to marry?
Because it would be wrong?

Oh.

Sorry Al. Didn’t mean to assume you were a man… Al
You didn’t use “animal lover” in your first post. In fact, you didn’t start using it until after all the talk about sexual perversion. I just assumed you were having a laugh.

I don’t despise you, just your method of debate.
If anyone bothers to actually read the entire page at http://www.aidslifecycle.org, it says that 90% of new cases IN SAN FRANCISCO are of gay and bisexual men. It goes on to say that, for the entire state of California it’s 73%, which exceeds the national level of 59%.
“National”, not world (which I specifically stated in my original post)
The number I calculated FROM THE CDC came to 58 and some-odd decimal; I rounded down. I was off by one percent; you were off by THIRTY-one percent.
That’s not even close to “about”

I talked about reproductive rights and about the inability to have a child or the choice not to have a child earlier in this blog, so I won’t go into that again.

Slaves were denied the right to marry, freed slaves were denied the benefits of marriage, and any non-white American citizen was, until 1967, denied the right to marry whites. 1967! Some states went so far as to legally prohibit blacks from marrying ANYONE who wasn’t ALSO black.
While you are right that this denial of rights does not make any sence, at the time, the source most often cited as the reason for denying these rights was The Bible.
But like you said, it’s probably best not to get into THAT discussion.

Kathy, do you have a guess?

My first inclination is not to reveal that information. However, if you have a viable reason for asking, then I might consider it.

Animal Lover (AL)

Actually 197, the states have a surprising flexibility when it comes to our ability to self-govern; but you are right that this can be challenged by citing the civil rights act of 1964. Also, because marriage is not recognized in California, it would ignore legally-married same-sex couples from other states, should they decide to MOVE to California. One of the things about that aforementioned freedom to self govern, is that we must also respect the laws of other states. Dissolving a legal same-sex marriage from another state would be a violation of article 4 section 1 of the US Constitution.
Now, I don’t know if this can be used to fight Prop 8 or if this violation will have to be fought on a case-by-case basis, but it is a clear point of legal contention.

I’ll have to read it again, but I thought that this affected FEDERAL benefits given to married couples. This indicates that no state government can force the federal government to recognize or provide federal benefits to same-sex couples. I assume that STATE benefits are not actually affected by the DOMA
I fully admit I could be wrong, but please tell me where to look if I am.

If I’m right, then article 4 section 1 which specifically talks about individual and interconnected STATE rights and recognitions, could still be illegally affected by Prop 8.

90 Million dollar spent on a campaign, now you are arguing it’s validity? Why didn’t all the opposers sit tight to fight this battle after, or better yet fight it on the basis of it being unconstitutional before going on the ballot, oh, wait they did, and the ballot measure went forward. Why don’t California Equality and the other gay advocates place their own initiative on the ballot? Wait, no, that wouldn’t work either because at this time, you don’t have the vote of the people. You know it wont go far, 30 States are quite clear on the issue now. 300 people yelling and screaming HATE at one of the most respected religions wont get you any ground either, the Yes on Moral Values Communities is just getting stronger over all of this, it was proved by the grassroot effort performed. Although ‘No on 8′ liars were standing at almost every polling place trying to confuse the voter, I was called a Lesbian. That is really low, prove your point with facts, inform the voter, and if you prevail, it will be the law of the land. The shenanigans and tantrums being thrown will not go far in any arena.

.

Future Police State Emerges on Prop 8 Protest (11.08.08)

http://framingtheworld.com/videos/othervideo.html

I also touched on the wording used in the voter guide about the “activist” judges @57. While I agree that this is only a SLIGHT mischaracterization…

I also commented to you directly about the phone calls (and flyers) that implied that Obama supported Prop 8 when he actually opposed it.
But I take it that you didn’t feel that that was a lie or an attempt to confuse people either.

.
By the way, the percentage you have is 96% OF MIDDLE schools and HIGH schools.
Read the study.
You already said that you would talk to your children about gay marriage at age at 8 or 9 but you object to discussing this topic with HIGH-SCHOOLERS?
Do you honestly believe that someone who is preparing for college can not “handle” the concept of homosexual relationships, much less lasting, committed ones?

And by the way, according to the Education Code Section 220 within the health and safety education “It shall not teach or promote religious doctrine nor reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by the non-discrimination policy”

Which means it could be argued that gay marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships would still be REQUIRED to be included in any HIGH school that included relationships as part of their health and safety education.
And like I said above, Proposition 8 wouldn’t affect it anyway.

Diana,
Do you know what the out-group homogeneity bias is?
It is where a person sees their own group as being a diverse aggregate of varied individuals, but members of an “outside” group to be highly similar to one another.
My GROUP didn’t do that. Those INDIVIDUALS did.

I didn’t talk about acts of discrimination against homosexuals (discrimination which you yourself condone, provided of course that it’s for “moral” reasons)
I didn’t talk about acts of violence against homosexuals
I also didn’t talk about the specific instances of people leaving Yes on 8 flyers INSIDE polling booths
The REASON I didn’t talk about this in regards to the CAMPAIGN itself was because I know they are acts of individuals and not necessarily representative of you, nor of the group as a whole.

The reason I did not address the anthrax hoax is because it obviously was NOT done by the condoned and coordinated No on 8 campaign, but by one or two nut-jobs who deserve to be prosecuted. I do not consider them to be “my” group any more than I consider people who commit hate crimes against homosexuals to be a part of “your” group.

As far as the specific ad you mentioned goes, many people (both straight and gay) feel that prop 8 was an invasion of individual rights as well as a circumvention of current law. They felt, and still feel, that religious groups have no place in regulating legal practices of private citizens. The ad was using an ANALOGY of an invasion of the family home and destruction of property to convey the emotions associated with the GENUINE dissolution of marriage and elimination of rights which were felt by many to be as a result of an invasion by outside forces.

As a persuasive argument, I think the ad was ineffective and childish
As an analogy, I do NOT think it was inaccurate.

Truthfully though,
I simply didn’t want to get into a discussion with you about religion because one, I didn’t want to “go there”, and two, I didn’t think I could do so calmly. Now that I’ve waited a bit, I feel free to say that I took issue with your “most respected” religion comments, and wondered if you were talking about Christianity in general or Mormonism in particular.

I’ll cut this short because, I have got to keep moving forward, this was a few months of my life and I must trudge onward and it will be my last reply, at least for now— My little boys need me.

I can assure you that we would not be black listing gays if we would have lost, we would have gone straight to court. What a waste of resources and time- and I suspect will ultimately do nothing for the cause.

Yes, I meant the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, I am a member. I am a Colombian-American who was born in the church and have seen the fruits it has produced through its short history here and abroad; as well as in my life personally. I don’t know where the ‘most respected’ quote came from, I could not find it in my last comment, but since you mentioned it, sure, the LDS church is well respected and now recognized for it’s massive humanitarian efforts and well-known members world wide. However, Prop 8 was not a Mormon movement, as I know you are all well aware of.

We clearly see thing very differently and I for one respect that. Something that a lot of people in this world and in particular some groups in California do not. I am entitled to express my views, volunteer and give of my means in however way I deem it proper. A little obscure fact about the LDS teachings (if you are not looking for it) is that we all have something called AGENCY, we each govern ourselves individually. We don’t get guilt trips, or have pressure from above, that’s the beauty of it. I always get a little sad when I see people who are angry at the church, not because they are, but because there is so much sadness within them. We learn to be a happy people, to live through adversity and challenges, we choose … as we all ultimately do to be happy or angry irregardless of what has been served to us. That is why it’s sad to see these people living a life of anger and hate. As much as the groups try to repel hate, it is obvious that it is consuming them.

You will continue fighting for what you think is right, as will I, for now, as far as discussing this over and over again will produce no fruits, hence a waste of our time. However, if need be, I will step forward over, and over again.

You a long with many believe that because we have a difference of opinion regarding a ballot measure it give protestors the right to inflict chaos on society and in particular, a religious group. You are giving us too much credit, the LDS population in California is less than two percent. Why focus on us? Because we are a well organized society? Because we stand for what we believe in? Because we exercised civic duty? I will not take a single step back, these are my belief and these are my rights. We will hold our ground. You just wont see us standing in a corner in Laguna Beach shouting this, we don’t have to.

You said it, ‘Legal’, it is now the law in California, and in another 29 states that marriage is defined as between one man and one women. The ‘King and King’ book is very offensive to the very core of my moral values. Homosexuality IS WRONG in those values. I along with many others will teach our children that. However, aside from this, we have shown and will continue to tolerate, for we must share this land. Social acceptance will not come from HATE which is spewing all over the place. No more mr. nice gay? Interesting, what will come next, mr. mean gay? Wait, yes, we have been seeing he/she lately. Whether this proceeds and is beat by the new Imperialism that is taking over our local and national government, I cannot foretell, I can just continue living joyously next to my family. I will not hold any hate in my heart and soul over any of this, it was never about that, and it will never be. I believe in GOD, you might not, I have faith in HIM, and you might NOT. That might ultimately be the only major difference between us. I have fought the good battle, after that, it is all in HIS hands, no matter what. I can now go to sleep -happily.

WE WERE PART OF A

C O A L I T I O N

IF WE ONLY HAD 2% BACKING THE PROPOSITION, DO THE MATH …. UHHH WE WOULD HAVE LOST AND WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. SILLY, SILLY UNFOUNDED ARGUEMENTS AND POINTS. IT WAS IN FACT ALMOST 53% OF THE POPULATION (IF NOT MORE DUE TO CONFUSION) THAT SAID “NO, YOU CAN’T”.

Woh woh, I can see this is a touchy issue. But I always thought people had the right to do what they want, within reason? I guess “reason” is different for each person. Remember to respect each other’s point of view, even if you don’t like it. That’s what America and freedom is all about.

Check out the three articles about this at http://www.squarewondotorg.wordpress.com. It has Parts I, II, and III. Here’s a link to part II

http://squarewondotorg.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/prop-8-and-circular-reasoning%E2%80%94part-ii-defining-the-%E2%80%9Cright%E2%80%9D-in-question/>a/>

It touches on the procreative natural law in Part I, legal due process arguments in Part II, and Part III, coming out tomorrow, addresses the public benefits of traditional marriage.

Yo you are a legend. Superb read