Protect Traditional Marriage: YES on California Proposition 8
Marriage 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
Flap's Comments on Politics, the Dental World and Much More
Marriage 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
227 Comments
Diana Villeda - California
James,
Go to http://www.sfgate.com and search for “Lesbian Wedding” it will come right up. It was the original source. They even made a video.
Diana Villeda - California
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 Villeda - California
Kathy, What makes you think that the same things wont happen in California as in Massschussets? It already has! See flaps list @138 (The NPR Article). Not only schools, but pastor, doctors, schools ….. even the Boy Scouts of America. Nothing is sacred anymore!
Kathy
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.
Kim
Diana,
With all do respect, I don’t accept your apology. Your yes vote supported to eradicate my marriage and the marriage of other citizens of the state of California. You felt it was necessary to step in and make decisions for my life. You don’t respect my relationship.
And it seems to me the real reason you did this was to “get back” at the opposing side who used tactics that you didn’t agree with. I agree they handled everything poorly and were out of line calling people “deceitful mongers,” but if your sensitivity is the reason you voted the way you did, that’s just sad.
I’m not even going to go into the the children discussion, because you’ve been so influenced by the scare tactics utilized by your own side that I’m sure you really do believe that we’re trying to create a world of homosexuals.
The fact that you think my marriage would not make yours “sacred” anymore (“Nothing is sacred anymore!”) makes me sad that you believe your marriage is based on anything outside of the relationship and connection between you and your spouse.
Don’t get it confused. Bottom line, your yes vote and the yes vote of anybody else on Prop 8 takes away my marriage and the marriage of others. You’re destroying marriage, not protecting it. Stop trying to make yourself feel better by thinking your defeating some kind of monster who plans to attack your children.
I apologize for being somewhat abrasive, but the fact that this proposition is even close to passing disgusts me. Bottom line is everyone should have the same rights under the law. This shouldn’t even be on the ballot and I shouldn’t feel like I have to almost beg for recognition.
Kims last blog post..Football smootball…
Flap
Kim,
I don’t think it has been decided that the marriages before Proposition 8 passes are null and void. My guess is that your marriage would be recognized in California.
If this makes you feel any better.
Kathy
Flap, take me off moderation please. I have always followed your rules and continue to be respectful of you and our fellow bloggers. Even though my posts are always (eventually) published, I feel like I am being censored, and I have done nothing to warrant it.
Kim
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…
Flap
@157
Kathy, you are off moderation.
Have at it….
James Cannarozzi
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.
Flap
@160
You are incorrect about the nullification of gay marriages previously taken place. It is unclear what the courts would do.
My bet is they would allow them to stand.
Diana
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
@150, I realize that there is a difference between people who have been told that it is a sin to be gay and believe it, and people who actively wish harm to gay people because of their differences. That said, I sometimes have difficulty telling the difference as well, for no other reason than the fact that your votes put you on the same side of the issue. I do know there is a difference so I try not to assume, but at times it is difficult for me.
Part of the reason for that is that I see Prop 8 as institutionalized segregation.
I am the daughter of an attorney so I have perhaps an inordinate love and respect for the law.
For me, the rules of law and government are almost like a religion in that it provides a shining set of rules about behavior towards fellow man.
I see the legal system within a community as being analogous to the amount of respect it has for the people it serves. It literally pains me to think that the law would be used again to have one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another. It smacks of inequality and a lack of respect individuals not deemed fit.
It confounds me further when individual people say they have respect for people they claim are their friends while at the same time telling them “You do not deserve this acknowledgement because you are not the same as I am; I am more deserving.”
I’m not picking on you, it is just that you are the only one who is talking about this side of it, and is able to do so with a level of calmness and rationality I genuinely respect.
Help me to understand your side
I have never been one who has been able to be friends with someone I don’t respect, at least not for long.
I see equality and togetherness within the legal system as a genuine form of respect for humanity
I do not understand how someone can say “you are less than me under the law” and not actually MEAN “you are less than me as a person”
Diana
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.
Kathy
@150 you said that I was the one who acknowledged Hayward.
But since you asked my opinion, I’ll say again that I do believe it was wrong for the school not to inform the parents of the upcoming event. That said, they were teaching children to be allies with their fellow man despite differences. I do not feel that stamping out hate is ever a bad lesson to learn.
Now let me ask you: There are hate mongers out there. you might not be one of them, but you can not deny that they are out there and I do not feel it is wrong to teach children to band together against hate.
Would you require notification of all lessons during Black History Month or do you feel that racial discrimination is a topic best left to the parents? How is acknowledging discrimination and promising not to do it a vile thing?
About assuming I am gay
I don’t mind that you thought this and I’m not offended, but I feel you need to be told that while you may think that this is just a straight versus gay issue, it’s not. I am reminded of Martin Niemoller when ever anyone thinks this. I object to the fact that gays don’t receive the same recognition I do. I am socially privileged for the simple fact of being born straight. I don’t mind sharing my rights with anyone, and in fact feel that to deny it is wrong.
About my future children: I have a neurological disorder which can be passed on to any children I have. While I have little to no symptoms, the level of severity I have does not determine the level of severity for my children.
I decided at the age of ten that I was going to adopt. Being open to this is a requirement for any serious relationship I have. Most men are fine with it.
The fact that I, over a potential medical concern with only 50% odds of even occurring, means that adoption isn’t a necessity for me. Does this mean that agencies should deny me a child? If I decided to a use donor egg so that I could carry a child while protecting it from sharing my medical history this would also be elective. Should any doctor, at any time, deny me access to the procedure for any reason except a medical one?
Also, no where did it say that the civil worker offered to allow the couple to have someone else officiate.
About friendship
Your whole argument is about not accepting gays. You feel it appropriate to deny them marriage, you feel it appropriate to deny them acceptance within a medical intuition, you feel it appropriate to deny them acceptance within a legal intuition, you feel it appropriate to deny them acceptance into Scout groups. You do not accept them. How can you call them your friends?
About segregation
When people drank out of separate water fountains, they still both had access to water, they were receiving the same local water, they were just asked to do so in different locations
Having the same STATE rights for both groups is a good thing. Making one group accesses those rights in a different location or by a different method IS segregation.
Letsfixlosal.com response
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
Catherine
I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting “yes†on prop 8. It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence. But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting “yes†on 8 and are not doing so out of hate. I am not motivated by hate. The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes†and have a “yes†sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments. As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it! No addendums, no “but maybe laterâ€s, a union between a man and a woman. I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less. http://www.whatisprop8.com
Catherine
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
Catherine,
You may not be motivated by hate, but you’re still about to vote to support discrimination. It sounds like your argument against same-sex marriage stems purely from your religious beliefes. “As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it!”
You do have a right to feel that way. You don’t have a right to impose your beliefs on everybody else. The same separation of church and state rights that protect your allowance to believe the way you do, also need to protect my rights to believe the way I do. And I don’t agree with Flap’s argument that your freedom of religion means that you are free to make decisions for others based on your religious beliefs. It means you can practice in your own life, not make me practice it as well. Bottom line, this shouldn’t even be a topic that’s voted on anyway.
And we’re not asking for special treatment. You have marriage, we don’t. We’re not asking for anything more.
And I don’t think you want to base your argument on the inappropriate discrimination that was occuring with your friend who was looking to adopt. I can link you to stories or tell you a whole lot of personal stories of times I was discriminated against because I was gay. You’re tired of hearing about us being treated like “second class citizens.” Can you imagine how tired we are of being the ones that are treated that way?
You are free to your religious beliefs and I’m not. You obviously think that’s okay because you’re going to vote yes on Prop 8.
Kims last blog post..Football smootball…
Diana
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.
Diana
Kim I meant Kathy — Geez, I’m tired.
Kathy
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?
Kathy
My condition is neurofibromatosis
http://www.ctf.org/
In me, it caused a small optic glioma and birthmarks. At full severity it can cause learning disability, seizures, blindness, deformity, and death.
I’ll let you know when I am being rhetorical.
I work in education and I too believe that children are a gift from God. I have always wanted children (four would be ideal) but simply never wanted to have my own. The reason I decided this so early on is because I was one of the few children to have the disorder without having either parent affected. It was a biological anomaly; an accident. I go in knowing what my parents couldn’t have foreseen; I know that I could give this to a child, and while I wouldn’t mind HAVING a child with NF, I could not GIVE a child NF
Kathy
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.
Diana
Kathy,
I wish I could continue going back and forth with you, but I am extremely busy. I wont respond until after the election. Bottom line in one sentence; I don’t want my children building any kind of alliances behind my back at age 5. The people in the state of California do not want this. And again, I’m not seperating anyone from anything. Like a judge on the Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in his compelling dissent to that court’s recent ruling allowing gays to wed, is rooted “in biology, not bigotry.” His words not mine.
About 174, if Joe Shmoe opens up shop at the corner and performs ceremonies, that’s none of my business, in my faith that will never happen.
So this debate will continue either way, but I am at ease with my thoughts and actions and feel we will reap a large reward for society on Tuesday from our actions. We’ll talk on Wednesday.
Diana
Kathy,
One last thing, No comments on the NAACP scandal, right?
Kathy
I haven’t read it to be informed
I will comment on it once I do
Kathy
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 costâ€.
Harry Spider
As a married heterosexual with young children, I believe the following:
Allowing gays to marry does not affect my marriage in any way. And frankly, why do we need to worry about them at all?
If your argument against gays has something to do with God, why does God keep making so many gays? Have you ever asked a gay person: at what point in life was it when they CHOSE to be gay, and why? Why would anyone choose to face the hatred of so many? Why would they choose to have that awful conversation with disapproving parents or friends, not knowing if those people will accept you, or ever treat you the same way again? You think anyone chooses this fate, while at the same time denying their TRUE sexual feelings? Are you kidding me?
Ask yourself: when did YOU choose to be heterosexual? Think people can choose, really? how about you? Think you could manufacture genuine sexual attraction for a member of your own sex? Much as I am tolerant, no way can I mock up real sexual feelings for another male, to overcome the feelings I have for females, personally. How about you?
People who find themselves sexually attracted to members of their own sex ought to be able to pursue happiness. Does gay sex bother you when you think about? Then quit thinking about it. I think it’s profoundly, truly, deeply American to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
If you oppose homosexuality because it’s “unnatural”, why do you suppose that over 500 different species of animals have been observed exhibiting homosexual behavior, at a rate of around 5% of any population?
Afraid of children learning about gays? why exactly? it’s not contagious… gays exist, like tomatoes, hydrogen, and stupidity. Better they learn, in measured, appropriate terms at the right time, then to keep them ignorant and act like gays don’t exist. Unless you LIKE kids to be stupid; in that case, keep on watching Fox for your “news”…
If you believe that marriage is sacred and created by God, then you must oppose divorce under all circumstances, correct? Why don’t we propose the death penalty for divorce? Really, I mean it. Death by stoning, like it says in Leviticus for various offenses. Come on, put your money where your book is and pick up a bolder. Aim high… what? we don’t stone people for working on Sunday any more? Ask yourself: why are certain parts of the Books considered obsolete, but not others? At what point did that happen, and will it keep happening?
I’m married, 2 kids, and I believe in traditional marriage, which is between one white man and one white woman… wait, my wife isn’t exactly white, she’s Asian and kinda dark brownish… you know, not so long ago, MY marriage wasn’t considered “traditional”, might have even been illegal in the South. But we’ve evolved from that position, haven’t we, and the world did not collapse, now did it? Well, the markets did… I’m surprised Fox hasn’t blamed the gays…
“Gays can’t procreate.” True. Thus I propose an amendment to Prop 8 banning from marriage women who’ve had hysterectomies, tubal ligations, or various ovarian issues; also, ban men with low sperm count, along with people who won’t commit to breeding. Just say no to the infertile. How’s that work for you?
“But if we let gays marry, people will start marrying their sisters or their dogs…” IS THAT A BIG PROBLEM IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? Cuz where I live, folks ain’t so stupid…
Gays should have the right to marry and be just as miserable as the rest of us. I’m voting No on Prop 8.
Bert Thumbwilder
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
Bert, technically, the US is a republic and not a direct democracy. The founders were strongly against such a democracy. As a republic, we are a “representative democracy†with checks and balances rather than a strict “majority ruled†democracy.
There is an excellent paper entitled, “Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View” that is located here:
http://www.narth.com/docs/CPASSAmarriage.pdf
I found it to be very eye-opening and concerning. I would like to post a few of the paragraphs from the report here.
When “Ninety-nine percent of white male homosexuals reported they had had sex with strangers” and when 156 out of 156 homosexual male couples that had been together between one and thirty-seven years had infidelity within the first five years, it sure seems to me that this is not the place for “marriage”, would be detrimental to the term “marriage”, is not an ideal environment in which to place children, and is not something that should be presented to children as a desirable alternative lifestyle.
After studying and pondering this issue and weighing the positives or negatives, I will be voting “Yes on 8” tomorrow. I hope you will likewise give this issue proper consideration.
Thank you.
Kim
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…
Kim
My last comment…
Tomorrow you and other California voters somehow are getting the opportunity to make a decision in my life.
I have been with my wife for 8 years, and we are currently legally married in California.
I ask for you to vote as an American tomorrow, to take into consideration everyone’s differences. If your religious affiliation doesn’t agree with my same-sex marriage, I respect that. I respect the freedom that allows you to feel that way.
I just hope you respect that freedom also. It’s a civil right that allows you to do that. Civil rights don’t go just one way. They aren’t only allowed if they’re something you agree with.
Respect the freedom of your right to believe how you do by voting to allow me to believe how I do.
Vote NO on Prop 8, please.
Kims last blog post..It’s a big week…
Kathy
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.
Dudley
You have to vote YES to control those damn fags! You can’t let them have what WE have. It actually doesn’t go far enough! It should restrict the rights of Blacks and Mexicans and Catholics too. We can’t let them get married! And don’t forget about Italians, Jews, Indians, Muslims, Irish, and them damn dirty Yankees. None of them should be allowed to marry. And Scientologists. Forget about it. And Bus Drivers. And Nurses. And Grocery Store Clerks. We need to control all these other people who are not like us. What will happen if they can get married? I’ll tell you… They will be married! Just like us. They don’t deserve it. Only we deserve it. We are the only ones who should be married – and we should be able to tell other people that they can’t be married.
AL
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 “gleefullyâ€, 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 “adultâ€.
Kathy
I claimed that you were gleeful about the “truths†that the study uncovered for you, because you seemed only too ready to believe them without once questioning the information.
You are quite right about the skewed sample of people who would answer questions like that. And the study most often cited in that “paper†asked an enormous amount of people and only 1% actually replied. What’s more, half of the respondents were only in the study because they responded to an add in the back of a porno-mag. Talk about a skewed sample.
While you didn’t actually CALL homosexual deviant little pedophiles, you absolutely implied it because you believed it without question, repeated it online, and used it to deny an entire state of people the right to marry.
Kathy
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.
AL
Kathy, I did not mean to imply that homosexuals are deviant little pedophiles. Even within the harsh statistics of the study (valid or not), only a minority admitted as much.
As I think further about my “smoking cigarettes†analogy, it is fitting more and more perfectly. I don’t say this to offend, but instead to maybe bridge the chasm of understanding between people that think like I do with people that think like you do. I would like to elaborate further and I hope rather than “causing offense†it “makes more senseâ€.
More parallels:
• Smoking cigarettes is both a “lifestyle choice†and an addiction. It is also likely that certain people have a stronger tendency towards desiring cigarettes than other people do;
• When a person is introduced to smoking at an early age, it is much more ingrained, and more difficult to ever feel that smoking was not part of their life;
• Once a person smokes enough to get over any initial displeasing or negative reactions, the cravings become nearly permanent, with that person no longer feels that they have a “choice†in the matter – indeed it frequently no longer is a “choice†for that person;
• People are afraid that cigarette companies are pushing their product on the population, and are especially concerned when it is pushed to young people, knowing that young people are especially susceptible to its influence;
• People have a right to smoke, but there need to be limits placed on the influence that tobacco companies can have – the impact that glamorizing cigarettes had (through movies, commercials, etc.) was unquestionably severe;
• People have a right to smoke, but when that smoking infringes upon the rights of those who wish not to smoke, or when there are valid concerns that the promotion of smoking will have a negative effect upon society and future generations, it becomes an issue in which limits on such rights need to be at least considered;
• Some people are intolerant to smokers, but many times the issue is that people merely dislike the act and cannot tolerate its effects (direct or indirect);
• About 80% of people who contract lung cancer are smokers (and about 80% of people who contract AIDS are homosexual);
• Smokers (and people who consider themselves to be gay) frequently feel pushed aside and mistreated;
• Smokers (and people who consider themselves to be gay) have feelings, are part of society, and have much to offer;
• Smokers (and people who consider themselves to be gay) need to be understood, loved, and treated with proper respect; and should be supported and helped in whatever ways are desirable.
I hope you take what I am trying to say in the spirit that I am intending.
Animal Lover (AL)
Kathy
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.
AL
Kathy,
When I said, ‘Smoking cigarettes is both a “lifestyle choice†and an addiction’, I meant ‘Smoking cigarettes is both a “lifestyle choice†(for some people) and an addiction (for some people); and that it is “It is also likely that certain people have a stronger tendency towards desiring cigarettes than other people do†‘. These are three non-mutually-exclusive factors in why people smoke. I would guess that there are more.
Regarding lung cancer:
• 87% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking cigarettes (www.cancer.gov)
• “Most cases of lung cancer death, close to 90% in men, and 80% in women are caused by cigarette smoking†(about.com, “About.com Health’s Disease and Condition content is reviewed by our Medical Review Board) and (physorg.com)
• “In the United States, about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% of lung cancer deaths in women are due to smoking.†(www.cdc.com)
• “The occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers, who account for as many as 20% of cases…†(which implies that the occurrence of lung cancer in smokers, who account for as low as 80% of cases…) (www.wikipedia.org)
• “Roughly 10% to 15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked†(nationallungcancerpartnership.org)
I said, “aboutâ€, as in “approximatelyâ€. Also, there is a difference in saying “lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking x% of the time†and “About x% of people who contract lung cancer are smokersâ€. The death rate of lung cancer from smoking is not necessarily the same for non-smokers.
Regarding AIDS:
• “90% of new infections are among gay and bisexual men†(www.aidslifecycle.org)
• “71% of those living with AIDS are gay or bisexual men†(www.aidslifecycle.org)
Again, I said, “aboutâ€. As it turns out, your “facts†aren’t any more accurate than my facts. I had stated “in the United Statesâ€, and statistics for the US are quite different from the world statistics.
It doesn’t make any sense to deny blacks or other racial minorities the right to marry. Marriage was instituted as a covenant between a man and a woman (and God, but we’ll leave that out of it to an avoid unnecessary tangent at this point) as the process to begin a family (which requires a male and a female). Call me old-fashioned. I still believe in such a family, where possible. Men and women of all races can be fine examples of such a family. There is no reason to limit it.
I am also old-fashioned in thinking that sex is only appropriate within such bonds of marriage.
Why do you refer to me as male? Because I am repulsive to you? 🙂
Animal Lover (AL)
Kathy
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%.
“Nationalâ€, 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 “aboutâ€
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.
BeanGolem
Kathy,
I very much appreciate your drinking fountain analogy. It is the single strongest argument against prop 8. Separate IS NOT equal. This has been one of the foundations of civil rights for a long time. Almost every single other argument for or against prop 8 is far less significant than this.
AL
Kathy,
With your somewhat-argumentative nit-picking, you have missed the main point of my parallel with smoking. I was hoping that you had a position against smoking so that you could better understand why I feel the way I do. The one-line “statistic†that we have wasted time discussing and/or researching was a mere afterthought that I also thought was an interesting parallel (whether the parallel was exact or not).
An “HIV awareness†ad in my area a few years ago stated that, “”in Los Angeles more than 75 percent of those living with HIV/AIDS are gay or bisexual men of all races and ethnicities.” (http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2006/WB061009.html). Even though it was from the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, it got a lot of heat because the gay community does not want HIV/ADS to be considered a “gay diseaseâ€. Cases are frequently underreported for the same reason. Additionally, the number of HIV cases in the US is estimated at “about†1.2 million, with an estimated range of â€about†720,000–2.0 million. Most instances of underreporting would likely be MSM (men who have sex with men). The actual percentage could therefore theoretically be anywhere from 35% to 95%, so let’s get off this nit-picking about “aboutâ€, especially when the percentage wasn’t intended to mean much. Just assume that I had instead stated, “The largest class of people who contract lung cancer are smokers, and the largest class of people who contract AIDS are homosexual.†That was the point I was making.
On your theory about what I could and couldn’t do with sex (along with what you could and couldn’t do with smoking), your argument has issues (even assuming that we replace your use of the term “men†with “people of the same sex†and “man†with “person of the same sexâ€). I would not have sex with people of the same sex because I do not believe in having sex outside of the bonds of marriage. However, if conditions were different and I felt that there was a morally-correct reason for having a relationship (including sex) with a person of the same sex, I absolutely would be able to be able to be committed with that person in spite of my strong opposite-sex attraction (and repulsion to the concept of same-sex sex). I could commit to that relationship and do everything necessary to make it successful, with the possible exception of putting my mouth somewhere below the waist of the other person. I may not be experienced with sex like some on this list, but I know enough about it that it can likely feel good in many forms and with different participants. Close your eyes and you may not even know who whether a male and female is with you. I am not saying that to promote sex. As you know, I’m not about that. I’m saying it because I don’t buy the argument that a person with same-sex attraction cannot make a marriage work with a person of the opposite sex. Relationships are about being selfless and sharing rather than being selfish and demanding. All people have thoughts, appetites, desires, and drives (whether it be for sex, food, greed, etc.) that need to be bridled in order to have the best opportunity for health and happiness.
Your comparisons of race to homosexuality are not meaningful. There are “civil rights†that are illegal or have been illegal that should not have been illegal and there are “civil rights†that are currently legal that should not be legal now. Stating one such example of a “right†that was illegal at a time does not mean that other so-called “rights†that are not legal now should be legal. As an example, rather then “the right to marriageâ€, I will use “the right to purchase and drink alcoholâ€. I could make the following argument:
Premise 1: Alcohol was illegal in the fairly-recent prohibition days;
Premise 2: People think that such a prohibition was ridiculous and unwarranted;
So, therefore: Children should be able to buy and drink alcohol today.
It is an invalid argument and it serves no useful purpose.
Out of time,
Animal Lover (AL)
Kathy
How old are you Al?
AL
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)
Equal Rights for all
AL,
I do not know if your tiny brain could even realize this, but prop 8 is in direct violation of the promise of Equal protection by the US constitution. Last time i checked, Federal Law takes overrules state law. Prop 8 will be destroyed in the court system.
Flap
@197
I would recommend you study some law and I doubt you want to raise federal constitutional issues in this case.
Gay marriage would lose badly and it would apply to every state including Massachusetts and New York.
Kathy
I’m not trying to pull anything over on you Al.
You write with intelligence, but you form arguments with the enthusiasm and impulsivity of someone who is very young.
I was halfway through debating your points again when it reminded me of trying to argue with a teenager. Mostly though, Ialso do not want to get bogged-down in arguments ABOUT arguments and whether or not something is a fact or an opinion, or whether or not the “facts†are even factual at all. What I ALSO don’t want to do is to keep going around and around, talking about things that have nothing to do with marriage.
It’s tiresome for me, and I’m sure it’s boring for anyone left who is still reading this thing.
Why don’t we start talking about marriage again? Or better yet, how about all the legal battles following the results of the vote?
Kathy
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.