14
10
2008
Protect Traditional Marriage: YES on California Proposition 8
Posted by: Flap in Gay MarriageMarriage is between a man and a woman.
Vote YES on California Proposition 8.
The protect marriage web site is here.
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Protect Marriage, Proposition 8
October 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
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.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Love the way you gay marriage proponents like to spin the equality issue. It is not about equality but expanding homosexual acceptability in society. The rest is just noise.
Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Period.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
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
October 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Thanks Joe for the links.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
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
October 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8 is not about equal rights. It is about imposing a moral view of the world that is different than mine.
It is also asking me to forsake my religious freedom and beliefs.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
So what you’re saying is if something projects a different moral view than yours than its wrong?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Because when it comes down to it, does gay marriage really affect anyone except those who are getting married? Cause it’s the same concept as it is for straight people getting married. Say there’s a straight couple who wants to get married. A straight couple that you’ve never heard of, never met and they’re getting married will have no affect your life. Well now take the exact same scenario, except it’s a gay couple, not a straight couple. If they’re marriage has no effect what-so-ever on your life, than why should you deny them getting married?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
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.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
First of all, don’t try and figure out how I am when you don’t even know me. Second, I do believe in equality for everyone which is why I don’t believe that prop 8 should be allowed to pass, because if it does, than we would be denying rights to thousands of gay and lesbian couples across the country, so to say I don’t believe in equal rights for people is obviously wrong, when I’m one of those who believe that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual preference, should be treated equally.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Umm…
I understand your frustrations with Pro-8 bigots, but please read who my previous comment was directed to.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
@10
Proposition 8 is not about equal rights. It is about imposing a homosexual agenda on me, my children and grandchildren.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
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.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Thank you Kathy, those were exactly the words that needed to be said about this law, and you are right. It’s wrong to push unneeded restrictions on society, and that it’s never ok to discriminate against anyone.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
The California Supreme Court imposed their will on the people of California. Voters previously had voted to outlaw gay marriage.
Proposition 8 does nothing to change the law for gay domestic partnerships. It does not change any rights for gay folks. It simply returns marriage to the traditional definition of that between a man and woman.
Remember Proposition 22?
Also, I would love to discuss this with the both of you but it is dinner time and then my daily marathon training. So, I can resume tomorrow morning. OK?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I’d be happy to resume this chat tomorrow, but I would like to end with this:
Jim Crow laws did not CHANGE laws for “colored” folks either, it just restricted them by making sure that the “traditional” power structure remained the status-quo.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
As I say again. Proposition 8 is not an equality issue. Rights of gay domestic partners remain the same.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
You can keep saying that all you want, but Kathy is right. Just as Jim Crow laws restricted rights on African Americans, Prop 8 will do the same to homosexual couples. You say that prop 8 won’t affect the rights of homosexual partnerships, but they will, because all they want is the same rights as straight people and to be recognized as being married, but prop 8 takes that right away from them.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Dameon,
You have the right to your opinion but not to the facts. Proposition 8 will have no effect on gay domestic partnership rights.
Hence not an equality issue.
The California Family code is quite clear on that issue. Family Code §297.5
October 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Dameon and Kathy, you never came back to discuss gay marriage and California’s Proposition 8.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I work late dear…
I’m here now.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Even if State benefits (and only state benefits by the way as gays, even married ones, are denied the same federal support that their hetero counterparts receive without question) even if state benefits for civil unions are equal to that of marriage, the mere fact that the TITLES are different means that the CLASS is different.
Having a special classification (read lower) for a special class of people (read lower) is bigotry. Creating and enforcing laws that separate one “type” of people from another, solely based on group membership, IS segregation.
We abolished segregation half a century ago, yet there were plenty of people then who supported segregation under the guise of “protecting tradition” just as Prop 8 supports it now.
Separate is not equal.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
@22
We are talking about amending the California Constitution. This will not apply.
Flaps last blog post..Sarah Palin Watch: The Dishonesty of CNN
October 21st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
@23 Kathy,
Sorry have to run out and so I am done for tonight. I am up early Pacific time tomorrow.
Flaps last blog post..Sarah Palin Watch: The Dishonesty of CNN
October 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I’m sorry, what will not apply?
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 am
The Federal issues that you raise. California’s Proposition 8 is a state constitutional amendment.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
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
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
What about the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? Here is a little summary:
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
No segregation here.
Not an equality issue.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am
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.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
And, you continue to be wrong. In California, California Proposition 8 does nothing to change domestic partnership rights.
Are you both seminar type blog commenters?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
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?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
I did not say that 8 would change the rights of “domestic partnership”
I said that CALLING it “domestic partnership”" instead of “marriage” is segregation.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
This post discusses California’s Proposition 8 not federal issues.
Seminar commenter? From what website are you drawing your talking points?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m already late for work
We’ll talk tonight
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
Have a good day, Kathy!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
since when is one religion’s view better than another? my religion says that it’s ok for gay marriage. I think some of you are trying to force your POV on others. religion causes hatred and wars not toleration. anyways, no one is saying your church has to accept it. it’s a state thing… let’s keep separation of state and church. that’s what this country was founded on. that’s why people left europe and started a new country. you seem to forget that.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
nah… you’re the one with the rigid mindset. Can’t argue with a wall. You would have probably fought for the South during the civil war, finding some passage in the Bible that supported slavery.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
It’s an insult to the LGBT community to be treated as less than equal.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
well, it wasn’t meant as an insult. if you took it that way, I apologize. you can delete them if you wish. people who have made up their minds completely won’t change them and like the old saying goes “it’s like talking to the wall”. Also, people use religion to hide behind to hinder human rights would have used the same during the time of slavery. just a comparison here….
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Comparing slavery or civil rights and gay marriage is a fallacious argument.”
in your opinion, not mine.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
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…
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
To flap and the question you asked @33
I would like to say that I am not a cut-and-paste kind of girl. I may go and look for specific dates or section codes when relating legal facts, just as you did with the family code, but that is strictly for technical data. For instance, I am more familiar with federal and constitutional law than I am with the history of California’s discrimination and non-discrimination laws, so I may have to do more research on them if you want me to refrain from evoking the US constitution when talking about the state constitution of California.
That said, the ideas and opinions I have shared with you are my own, and not taken from anywhere but my own head.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I understand there is a federal argument and it will be argued in the federal courts when Proposition 8 passes but for this discussion on Proposition 8 the federal law is not at issue.
Then, there is the argument of federalism vs. state’s rights and the 23 plus states that have already constitutionally upheld traditional marriage of a man and woman and/or banned gay marriage.
Proposition 8 whether decided yes or no is just the start of legal challenges.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Let’s set aside the federal/state argument then and focus on the equality issue.
You keep arguing with me that because state law gives them the same state rights, that no one is actually taking away any rights. If you go back and read my posts, notice that I never said that Prop 8 was “taking away RIGHTS” from gays.
To avoid this misunderstanding I will, from now on, say that Prop 8 simply wants to take away the TITLE of marriage from gays, not the rights.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
A court imposed title after a vote of the people of California said yes to the traditional definition of marriage.
Hence, the Constitutional amendment.
4 Justices of the California Supreme Court vs 62 % of the California voters.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
You see it as judges ignoring citizens, I see it as judges upholding the constitution, hence the desire to change it now.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I am not arguing against the right to vote for a constitutional amendment
I am arguing against the reasoning behind the vote and its legality and morality.
Voting to change the constitution is one thing, voting to do so to create an amendment in support of inequality is quite another
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
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]
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I don’t think that is an accurate gage of morality, but rather one of current public opinion.
Even if Prop 8 passes (which I think it will, as much as I hate it), the true test of it’s morality will be if it survives the test of time (which I think it will not).
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
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
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
@55 Well said.
I, also, voted yes on Proposition 22 and it passed overwhelmingly.
Then, the Mayor of San Francisco and the homosexual lobby developed a plan for the courts to legislate gay marriage.
This is wrong on so many levels.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
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.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Kathy, I know. I have been voting in California for over 3 decades now, was born and went to school here.
You live in Georgia, right?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
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?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I thought I saw someone on this topic from there. Sitemeter records visits by ip address and region.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
It wasn’t me.
My #57 was predominantly directed to #55 by the way.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@59 Kathy
From your ip address:
OrgName: Earthlink, Inc. OrgID: EARTH-19 Address: 1375 PEACHTREE STREET Address: LEVEL A City: ATLANTA StateProv: GA PostalCode: 30309 Country: US NetRange: 66.245.0.0 - 66.245.159.255 CIDR: 66.245.0.0/17, 66.245.128.0/19 NetName: EARTHLINKDSL-3BLK NetHandle: NET-66-245-0-0-1 Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: ITCHY.EARTHLINK.NET NameServer: SCRATCHY.EARTHLINK.NET Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE RegDate: 2002-03-08 Updated: 2007-06-22
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
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.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
California’s Proposition 8 is a California Constitutional amendment not a Jim Crow law or anything of the sort.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
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’.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Dameon who is feeding you the talking points?
They are incorrect.
From comment 19
Proposition 8 restores the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
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.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Dameon,
Thank you for acknowledging the facts.
Not from California are you?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
lived in California all my life
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Where?
Because your ip address is not from california.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I don’t believe that my exact location is any of your business and anyway, thats not what this forum is about
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Why did you lie?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
And anyway Flap, what right do you or the government have to say who marriage is reserved for?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I have the right under the laws of the United States and California.
Is someone paying you to write comments here?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
you certainly have a lot of crazy theories don’t you flap?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Why did you lie about living in California?
You cannot vote on Proposition 8, can you?
I ask again: is someone paying you to comment here?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
1) I do live in California
2) I am old enough to vote
3) No one is paying me to do this
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Your ip address says that you are not in California.
Just like Kathy.
CustName: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc
Address: 1800 Bishops Gate Boulevard
City: Mount Laurel
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08054
Country: US
RegDate: 2004-10-20
Updated: 2004-10-20
NetRange: 67.174.192.0 - 67.174.255.255
CIDR: 67.174.192.0/18
NetName: BAYAREA-15
NetHandle: NET-67-174-192-0-1
Parent: NET-67-160-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2004-10-20
Updated: 2004-10-20
RAbuseHandle: NAPO-ARIN
RAbuseName: Network Abuse and Policy Observance
RAbusePhone: +1-856-317-7272
RAbuseEmail: abuse@comcast.net
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
never even been to jersey buddy
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yeah right……
Why is your ip address from there?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
well why is Kathy’s ip address from somewhere else when she lives in cali?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Because maybe she got caught lying?
Both of you are seminar commenters and I am done with you.
Off to moderation you go
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
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
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
No, I am just tired of your banal comments.
Contribute something besides the same old talking points and we can discuss something.
Otherwise we won’t.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
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
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Yawn…….
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
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.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Here come the insults, right on cue.
Read the terms of use above.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
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,
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
those on who are against it present you with the facts. They explain how pro-8 supporters use their own kids to push this bill on us, and how such a bill is not only pointless, but will take away the rights of thousands of gay couples all across the state of California. So if it takes a bunch of brain-washing and manipulation to push people to support such a drastic bill, then there must be something wrong with it that were not being told
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I have been blogging for many years. Please see the archives.
Proposition 8 will not affect any rights.
Prove it to me. What is your evidence?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
you mean other than the fact that the bill will appear on the ballot as ‘Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.’
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
@90
You keep saying take away rights.
Prove it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
please read post 92
also heres a link that in the first paragraph it says that this prop 8 will appear on the ballot as ‘Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.’
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Nothing at the link.
See comment @18 and @19
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the California constitution which if passed into law would be known as the California Marriage Protection Act. This California ballot proposition will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot along with eleven other statewide propositions. Proposition 8 is one of four ballot measures which propose to amend the California state constitution and appears on the ballot titled as Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Any other rights?
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
@ 96 Do you know WHO changed the wording on the BALLOT? Jerry Brown - a homosexual! Hello? It’s called “distortion”.
Prop 8 and Equal Rightss last blog post..Comment by Your Natural Remedies
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
A contrived “right” by the California Supreme Court which can be changed by the people through a Constitutional amendment.
Dameon, I ask again: any other rights?
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Hello boys, just logged on
You may remember Flap that I do work late, and I hope you’ll note that all of my posts occur after 6pm PACIFIC time.
Now when you first thought that I was from Georgia (I’m not), I thought you were simply thinking of someone else
When you then posted all of poor Itchy’s (still not me by the way) information without a word, I thought your site meter was wrong
Now though, when you ALSO accuse Dameon of being an out-of-stater and me of lying, I believe that you simply want to discredit the people who are arguing against you.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Let me catch up with the mass of recent posts and I will be able to talk about the topic at hand
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Seriously? You are Moderating my comments now?
I did a little check to see if YOU were from California yourself… you are, at least according to FaceBook. In fact I have family in your area.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Kathy,
Sitemeter could be wrong or I could be wrong but for now Dameon remains on moderation because he has a habit of hurling the insults and calling me names.
I will check again in the morning about your ip address.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Just so you know Dameon, because Flap took issue with people saying that rights were being taken away, so much that he and I were having the same difficulties you and he were, I promised that I would refer to prop 8 as taking away TITLE of marriage.
What’s more, when Flap agreed with you that this was THE right that was being taken away. This was kind of a big step in the argument, but instead of pointing it out, you glossed over it by attacking him personally.
I hate it when people resort to that kind of thing; it makes them sound like a nut.
I hate it even more when I actually agree with them, because it makes ME sound like a nut.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am
I agreed to what right?
There is a right to gay marriage? Who says?
Tell me, Kathy, how that ballot language appeared on the California ballot and election materials.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
They currently have the right to marriage
Speaking clinically, and without stepping into the emotional minefield of whether or not they have an INNATE right to marry, they currently hold the LEGAL right to do so.
You said it was a “contrived right” but it is a current legal right nonetheless. @99 you conceded that this was the right that was being taken away.
This came after several days of denying that any rights were being taken away because you were focusing on the domestic partnership rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am
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.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
-late for work, talk to you tonight.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:31 am
@99
I said a “contrived” right.
You avoided answering how that “contrived” right appeared on the ballot.
In California, gay marriage is not prohibited as a matter of law set by the California Supreme Courts interpretation. Is this a right?
Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage?
The answer is no. I welcome your arguments to the contrary.
You are correct in that Proposition 8 does not affect gay partnership rights. Those rights as established by legislated law are not affected.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
First, if you’ll re-read my 106 you will see that I already quoted you as saying that it was a “contrived right”.
Second, I do in fact believe that marriage is a fundamental right.
If it is not fundamental, then maybe the state of California should also vote on whether or not you or I should be allowed to marry (not each other of course)
What obviously I do NOT believe, is that it is a fundamental right for straight people alone.
I make no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage, because I make no distinction between gays and straights.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
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?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Why do straight people have the fundamental right to marry?
October 25th, 2008 at 6:57 am
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.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Separate but kinda equal is NOT equal. Prop 8 does take away rights like long-term care insurance, state veteran benefits for widowed spouses, shared property and marriage.
************** VOTE NO on PROP 8 **************
October 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
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
October 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
To Steve who, oddly enough, uses the very same wording you do Flap
Equal rights
… there are two water fountains, they are in the same town, they are made by the same fountain-making company, they allow people to enjoy the same local water, but one is for one group and the other for another.
Regardless of the same benefits to different groups receive, and I would argue ESPECIALLY if the receive the same rights but are kept separate from one another, how is how is their separation NOT segregation?
In this way, why should having the same rights but not the same title be acceptable?
If marriage is ok only for straights and domestic partnership is ok for gays, I have a question: Because marriage is talked about in high school (not exactly young children here), do you have a problem with them being taught about domestic partnership as well?
The future
When have there been California laws trying to mandate teaching about homosexual marriage in schools? Which laws? What year?
You are angry at the people who claim (to see the future) that children will not be taught about gay marriage, yet you yourself claim to conceive a future in which they will.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am
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.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
With November 4th around the corner, we’ve been bombarded with an overwhelming number of campaign ads. While they are annoying, I feel the need to follow in their footsteps and speak up so that you can make a more educated decision when you head to the polls.
I am gay and have been with my wife for 8 years. We made personal life commitments to each other in 2007 and then committed to each other legally in 2008 after same-sex marriage was granted by the California Supreme Court.
I think it’s overly dramatic to claim that Proposition 8, which denies same-sex marriage in California, promotes or supports hate towards homosexuals. I really believe that most who are against same-sex marriage simply don’t understand it.
The supporters of Prop 8 use the saying that they’re trying to “Protect Marriage.” It’s not about taking rights away, they affirm, but protecting their own rights. I promise you, we don’t want to take anything away from straight couples who have found love.
My devotion to my wife doesn’t take anything away from the commitment you’ve made to your significant other. It would not weaken or cheapen what you have. Instead, denying same-sex marriage or allocating us a “civil union” cheapens our commitment.
If your beliefs on homosexuality are shaped by the Bible, it should still not influence your vote. I could make arguments about the Bible and how it’s been edited or other “rules” it includes that people are not passionate about. But bottom line, the freedom of religion allows you to believe in the Bible. If you choose to do so, I respect that.
But for America to be what it is, and for YOU to continue to have the freedom to worship who you choose and to believe the written words of the Bible, there has to be liberty. There has to be the allowance of people to be who they are and then expectations to respect each other and their differences. The separation of church and state requires that religious beliefs not be the basis for decisions when it comes to how I live my life as an American. Denying me the ability to marry whom I choose is a violation of my civil rights and it legalizes discrimination.
While it is about legal rights, tax filing, and medical decisions, it’s really about love. Marriage is the ultimate expression of a person’s love for another. Some may use the argument that the institution of marriage has been cheapened by the divorce rate and the “Marry a Millionaire” shows, but I respect and believe in it. I honor the commitment that I made to my wife.
This past week in the San Francisco Chronicle, a 29 year old woman by the name of Myrna Elias was quoted as saying, “A lot of friends had a hard time coming out to their parents and others, and I’m sympathetic to what they went through. But I can still love those persons and still be for Prop 8.”
If you vote yes on Prop 8, you are supporting an idea that ignores my core identity and declaring that my commitment to my wife is deficient. You may not be promoting hate, but I cannot see how you can claim to love me.
I ask you to please respect me and my liberties as an American and vote NO on Proposition 8. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. If you’re interested in discussing the topic further, please feel free to contact me and I would love to do so.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
October 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
[...] Fullosseous Flap’s Dental Blog [...]
October 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
@112
The Bible and most other religions hold so. Marriage is between a man and woman.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
@110
And, this is the basic difference in our arguments: I do not accept your premise that there is no difference between homosexual and traditional marriage.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@121
How then can you still claim that this is not about equality, when you do not see them as equal?
October 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
@120 & 110
I don’t disagree with either of you in regards to most organized religions being against homosexuality. The only thing is that separation of church and state requires it to not be a part of the equation when it comes to civil liberties. I’m sure both of you are happy that you are able to worship who you choose. These same civil liberties protect you right now, and they should protect everybody else who happens to not feel the same way as you do as well.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
@122
You are making the equality argument which I reject. I reject your premise and certainly your conclusion based on the false premise.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
@123
The first amendment text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The controlling part of the religion clause here is: “prohibiting the free exercise therof…”
The consequences of Proposition 8 failing would certainly do that for many people.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
@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?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
@120
Also supported by the bible is a marriage of one man and two women, one man and 700 women, as well one man, one woman and a handful of slave concubines.
Divorce on the other hand is forbidden, and while I do believe the divorce rate in this country is a sad thing, should we create a constitutional amendment revoking the ability to divorce because the bible says it’s wrong?
The bible (and other religious texts) say many things that people feel should not be legislated by government. They also say things which even the faithful ignore altogether because they feel they are wrong to believe. If just one thing in the bible is wrong, might not another be wrong as well?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Now, you are reaching.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Flap (response #125) -
Love that you quoted the First Amendment, however, the fact that you’re using it to as an argument that you should be able to impose your religious views on others confuses me.
Your citizenship as an American is independent of your religious affiliation and the decisions you make in your own personal life (in which you follow your religious beliefs) should have nothing to do with the decisions you make as an American for EVERYBODY in the country. I’m sure you’d be screaming for separation of church and state if your religion was being castigated.
Because we are citizens of the United States, I truly believe that you should be able to believe how you wish. You should honor the same for me.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
October 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@129
You missed the point.
And, the homosexual community is not forcing their views on me and my family?
Give me a break.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@125
You are right that government should be kept out of your religious practices, but shouldn’t your religious beliefs then be kept out of government?
Those who oppose 8, support gay marriage. That’s it. Gay marriage does not keep you from your church, it does not limit your right to worship, it will not take away your belief, nor will it affect your ability to marry the opposite-sex partner of your choice and to share that belief with your children.
People of other faiths do not believe what you do
They do not practice what you practice
Many of their beliefs go against your own
Do you feel you have the right to tell them what they can and can not believe based solely on your own religion? Do you feel you have the right to regulate the faiths of others?
Why do you feel you have that right when it comes to the marriages of others?
Those who support gay marriage don’t want to limit your faith, just your ability to legislate marriage.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
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
October 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Not all religions condemn gay marriage, and not all churches refuse to solemnize same-sex unions. Aren’t you prohibiting the free exercise of these institutions, when you tell them who can and can not marry?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It is called imposition upon me a definition of marriage that says same sex marriage and traditional marriage are the same under the law.
Certainly, it affects me, my children and grandchildren by potentially curtailing religious freedom of speech and expression. infringing on the rights of religious organizations to speak out against positions they view as harmful and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs. Link: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/
It affects society and how many states have already passed Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? 21 and three to be voted upon November 4.
This is why we will change the California Constitution on November 4 and override the 4 Justices who overturned the original vote of the people.
But, the homosexual lobby will not stop there. Lawsuits in states and federal courts will continue for decades.
And, no it is not called freedom. It is called an end run around the law.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Flap,
I really do respect your religious beliefs. I believe that you should be able to teach your children the way you wish, always considering your own values. Thank God that America allows you to do that.
I also believe you should be able to speak out and express yourself, just like everybody in the U.S., and I respect that you take the time to do that and stand up for what you feel is important.
I know I’m not going to change your mind. I can only ask that you always consider that we as humans are always influenced by our own experiences and the values and beliefs that have been passed down to us. And because of that limited background, we are always going to be biased in some sense. I recognize that my own upbringing and what I’ve been through has shaped my own thoughts and because of that, I try to always look at the other side of things.
Please don’t label this effort as “the homosexual lobby.” We’re not trying to impose anything on you, I promise. We don’t want to take over the world. I don’t want to affect you or your family’s life.
The four Justices in California objectively looked at the issue, as they should in their position, and were willing to step up and make the decision because they felt it was a matter of civil rights. Throughout history, we’ve needed the justice system to step up and initiate civil movements when the popular “vote” or feelings supported opposing views.
In summary, you should be able to believe how you choose and should be able to speak up about it. I just hope that one day we can actually meet so that you can understand that my love and devotion for my wife is nothing but pure. And I hope you’ll think again about the groundwork of America, how the reason that you’re able to live and raise your children the way you’d like is the same exact argument that I should be able to live the way I choose.
Have a good night.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
October 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
@132
The vast majority of the world’s religions do not accept the definition of marriage to be other than that of a man and woman.
I thought you were arguing the equity via law argument and not the acceptance of homosexuality via religion?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
@134
Thank you for your respectful post and, also, have a good night.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
@131
This link explains some of the legal consequences if Proposition 8 fails: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Also, this link: http://whatisprop8.com/Legal-Battles
There is more to the issue than what you portray. There is an agenda for control and the homosexual community is driving the action.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
@138
In the case of the religious schools, I can understand your point. I would have to read the specific cases to determine whether or not I would agree with it, but in either case, I can completely understand it.
But do you really feel that it is ok, in a non-religious, professional setting, for civil servants or medical professionals to deny services to homosexuals?
October 28th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Good morning everyone,
I have been blogging in other sites and I love the respect and common decency shown throughout the discussion here. The hate language used towards me for stating my point of view is really quite offensive. It even extends to the streets of my beachside community, and it shows the true lack of tolerance from the opposition. I am honestly not used to that kind of treatment. Specially for exercising my right to free speech and by placing a bumper sticker on my vehicle that simply states ‘Yes, on 8′.
I am in no way an extremist to either end, I follow the issues closely, try to be objective and of course always think of the consequences to my family and community.
Now to my point, as like Kim @118 in defense of No on 8, would like to state my reasons for being an avid and active supporter of Proposition 8. I am an average woman, with a husband who I love, treasure and to whom I have been married for almost 5 years. We have two terrific boys, a 3 year old and a six month old. As a mother I dream [and honestly fear] the day that I will walk them through those gates that will lead them to their first classroom experience. I will be handing over, the precious, clean and impressionable minds of my beloved little ones over to the education system of the State of California.
So in come the recent developments and actions by the 4 California Supreme Court Judges. It did not take long for me, an ‘Average Joe’ (laugh, it’s funny) to by just scratching the surface, see the consequences and unmistakable experiences my children will have to endure if this proposition fails to pass. Here, let me just show you;
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319
I in no way, have ever considered home schooling, I don’t think I could, and with the cost of private schools, ahh, no. My husband and I have worked hard to live in a good community where our tax dollars would provide award winning education to our children. However, with the documented Parker case in Massachusetts, the events in Hayward ( http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829 ) and the first grade fieldtrip in San Francisco to a lesbian wedding how could I trust the very system I am contributing to? Kim, respectfully, I don’t agree with your statement “My devotion to my wife doesn’t take anything away from the commitment you’ve made to your significant other. It would not weaken or cheapen what you have.” Let me just tell you, I deeply value my parental rights, to the point that I consider them what I value most in my relationship with my husband, and that is, the way WE have agreed to raise our boys. It would definitely weaken my family values.
I don’t know you, you seem, well, quite frankly, too serene for what’s at stake here- and out of all that have blogged here in the opposition, you are the only one that has come out to say you are gay. As a compliment, you are the nicest one. I’ve noticed most of the bloggers, here and elsewhere, are for the most part straight and angry for their friends. Maybe they can learn from you that a little civility goes a long way. So with that said, I don’t know if you have considered the ulterior motives of the movement by entities such as Equality for All’ and ‘Equality California’. They have been pressing ferociously to bring about social acceptance of homosexual behavior. Let me tell you, irregardless of the bible, I have a set of standards and morals in which I was raised by, call me ‘old folk’, ‘ignorant’ and everything else that I’ve been called in the last 6 weeks (which by the way I am not), but I fully intend to raise my children in that same manner. I’ll even stretch to say 98% of the community will agree with me and are and will raise their children in that same way. You will even agree, you will respect the way I will bring up my kids. Except that the heads of your cause don’t want to stop at giving you your marriage license. (PLEASE SEE FLAPS NPR ARTICLE AT @131.)
I feel deeply for you, if truly all you ever wanted was that marriage license. I commend you for finding happiness; so many people out there lack it, specially the very opponents of Prop 8. There is so much hate and anger spewing from them, I don’t understand it. It wasn’t their right to take, the people had already voted on the issue in 2000. A truthful campaign might help the cause, but the dirty uncivilized trickery is really, well, quite low. And people have taken notice. I am not trying to make you straight, you are who you are. I am who I am. I respect that. However, due to the clear and open agenda of the gay and lesbian movement, I cannot compromise to anything else. All the rights are there, in law books in black and white. I hope that Newsome and Co. didn’t count on millions of mothers and fathers in California to sit idle while 2% of the community tried to impose their lifestyle on the other 98%. In the simplest of form and calculation it could not happen. Tsk tsk tsk, shame on them! Confusing people! It will not work, give Californians a little credit.
I will teach my children about sexuality, homosexuality, abortion and the latest of issues when I DEEM IT PROPER and APPROPRIATE. My ex-boss, a good friend, and by the way, very gay, understands my point of view and I understand his, he is a bachelor and really has no interest in getting married. With other friends, I have simply learned to agree to disagree. Novel idea isn’t it?
October 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I agree that the school in Hayward was out of line namely because:
Children are not required to learn about marriage until high school
Parents have strong opt-out rights to school content
Also, the first grade field trip to the wedding was conducted after notification was sent, after permission slips were signed and after parents were given the full option to opt-out (only two did by the way, and their choice was accepted)
The Parker family was told about the book bag before it was sent home and bringing it home was not a requirement.
California is not Massachusetts
The live and let live sentiment of agreeing to disagree doesn’t exactly apply when the caveat is “as long as we get what we want”. Now, you could make the argument that opponents to 8 are saying the same thing, so at least we are equal in that respect.
Gays are part of society. They exist in the world and will continue to exist (and be accepted by others) whether or not 8 passes. And while you should be the one who decides when some topics are broached, you can not keep your children in a bubble.
Do you avoid inviting your good, very gay friend over for dinner so as not to expose your children to his effects too early?
That last comment was snarky and I apologize, but I really do want to know. If you do avoid it, what exactly do you think his presence in your house will do? If you do invite him, do you fear that your acceptance of your good friend might lead your children to think that you accept gays?
You at least seem to be able to accept him for who he is, yet personally condemn him for what he does. Don’t you think the rest of society can handle that?
October 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
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…
October 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Most people just want to get along, but for some, getting along is not enough. One of the deceptive ideas in the culture wars is “So what if you’re apples and we’re oranges, can’t we all share the fruit bowl together?” In the battle of ideas, two diametrically opposing views of society cannot co-exist peacefully side by side…. Or can they? In my mind I picture Tevye, the Jewish dairyman from the play “Fiddler on the Roof”, standing in the middle of the road, cow in hand, pondering these diverging moral paths.
Where is the Traditional Family?
Where is the Traditional Family?
On the one hand, we have traditionally proven societal models, based on the basic principles of the ten commandments. Don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your father and mother, don’t lie…do unto others, and so on….basic Judeo-Christian values, handed down from Heaven for the stability of man.
On the other hand is the belief that morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience. Society determines it’s own morality, subject to change.
I’ve been considering the idea put forth by some that the apples and oranges should just get along. There’s room in the bowl for all. Physically, that is true. All different races and kinds of people live together and get along, even different religions can get along, because at heart, they have common morals and ideals. They ultimately strive for the same goals. What if there is no common moral ground? Is morality different than race? Is morality a zero sum game? or is there really room for all?
At first, there may appear to be room for all, but over time, th