A new poll released today by the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California shows Proposition 8 losing by 8 percentage points.
The poll, available here, shows 44 percent of voters in favor of the gay marriage ban with 52 percent opposed.
The study concedes, however, that “The margins were greater in September (41percent yes, 55 percent no) and August (40 percent yes, 54 percent no).”
RELATED PROP.8 COVERAGE
- Mary J. Blige, Melissa Etheridge rock out against Prop. 8
- OC residents give $6.2 million to support Prop. 8
- Guess who’s tearing down the other side’s Prop. 8 signs?
- Prop. 8 failure would be followed by thousands of gay nuptials
- Tide turning on gay marriage measure?
- Field Poll finds opposition to gay marriage ban
Hopefully, this poll is wrong. Everyone out there concerned about the traditional definition of “marriage” please make sure to VOTE “Yes on 8″.
JakeD….whose definition of marriage should we follow..yours or the Supreme Court,which ruled that we can’t discriminate against certain groups based on gender or orientation.Why should the govt. impose your traditional view upon the rest of us,especially when your view is against the constitution.What are you afraid of…if you are married,which I am,you should focus on your marriage,and not on preventing others from getting married.
And take everything on this issue from the OC Register with a grain of salt; of all the newspapers in California, the last one I expected to formally endorse “No on 8″ would have been the OC Register. I don;t remember then taking that stand against Prop. 22.
I wish there’s be a proposition on the ballot for “Minding your own damn business.” I’d definitely vote for that.
All these Yes supporters a full of hate and close minded. ‘but what about our kids?’ Let you kids grow up in a bubble and omg, they may actually see 2 men holding hands with rings on them. Worry about your own life. For the record I’m a straight as they come with a wife and kids. it’s amazing that people need to involve themselves in others lives. Worry about fixing our economy, fixing the war, fixing our school system. Dont worry about destroying the happiness of people.
I don’t believe that any poll will really determine what the results are going to be. The fact that Hollywood is donating millions tells you that it must be close. If we are in support of Prop 8, we can do more. Please join with Californians everywhere by joining a donation blitz to the Yes on 8 campaign. If only half of the 600,000 people who already donated money gave an additional $10, we would raise $3 million. Imagine what would happen if they donated $20 each. Or $100? To donate, go to http://protectmarriage.com/ and follow the link Donate Now.
Charles Manson was “happy” before he was caught and jailed too.
NO ON 8 PEOPLE…COME ON!
Careful, people. JakeD is retired, types pretty fast, and sits on this message board ALL DAY long.
Jake, there’s a bridge club here next to my office. Minus the odd heart attack, they seem to have a pretty good time. Want me to sign you up?
Might be more fun than obsessing over homosexuals all day on your computer.
Just a thought…
Tom Parker:
No thanks. I prefer to golf.
I am voting No on prop 8. Gay people being allowed to wed has no effect on my marriage’s value. I don’t understand that argument. It is ridiculous. Just because someone’s life style makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t mean you should discriminate against it.
ron:
The California Supreme Court usurped the will of the people to define marriage via Prop. 22. Will you draw the line when they change the definition of “marriage” to three or more people (polygamy) or human and animal (bestiality)?
I am amazed on how many of you label the California Supreme Court as being composed of “liberal radical” judges. These judges are Republican and conservative. The head judge was actually appointed by Ronald Reagan.
I am a heterosexual married Republican male that does not support discrimination.
Vote NO on Prop 8!
Well I believe that polygamy is already illegal. People that want to be in that kind of relationship are crazy, but it is none of my business.
Being gay isn’t illegal. If two consenting adults want to get married, why does anyone care.
An animal can’t consent to a marriage. They can’t sign paperwork. I suppose if they could, then you could marry it.
What are we protecting marriage from? My marriage doesn’t need any protecting. My husband and I do a pretty good job of maintaining it.
A few things…
The California Supreme Court did not disregard the people’s will in its decision - it merely found that prop. 22 was non-constitutional and therefore in violation of a law (the constitution) accepted by the majority of Californians more than 100 years ago.
In the 1950s, when the California Supreme Court ruled that outlawing interracial marriages is against the constitution - and 94% of the population thought the court was wrong and ignoring their will.
Also, Prop 8, in spite of its wording, is not really about marriage, it’s about equality. Laws and the constitution should protect minorities, and I don’t think that (straight) married couples are a minority that needs protection.
I have to say that when you try to tell me how I should vote, instead of trying to convice me that you should have the right to be married, I will chose mine. I do not sit here and try to tell you what to do, of how to fill. I am for 8 because that is how I fill. I do not force you to take my stance but you want to force me to take yours.
Next time what if I wanted to marrie my sister, or a cusin don’t I have the right too. whats next
MichaelR - It’s nice to know that you rate homosexuality right up there with incest. Bravo for that
Vote No on Prop 8
Let gays be miserible like straight people!!!
Stop the hate and ignorance!
NO ON 8 NO ON HATE!!!!!!
The Great Creator created us male and female to form the system that most if not all animal life (including humans) could use to reproduce themselves naturally. Of course, it doesn’t take a “marriage license” to do that, however, it was deemed necessary hundreds and hundreds of years ago for not only relegious reasons but also for civil reasons to have a formal process (marriage) to determine legitimacy of their offspring, lineage, succession in owning property. etc.
But hey, I’m open minded on the subject…when I see a barn yard rooster going arm in arm with a another barn yard rooster then and only then will I go along with “gay marriage.”
Some useful information, for those people who truly believe legalized gay marriage will turn into a gateway for pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. I’m only mentioning this because of this ad I saw this morning. I don’t think anyone on here has mentioned it yet - but it’s definitely an argument that supporters of Prop. 8 tend to use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2JOe04h1pI
In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children’s Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
I know it’s sort of an old statistic, but trust me, it hasn’t changed much since the 90s.
Also these things have been going on long before homosexual marriage was even an issue. Not to mention - incest, polygamy, and pedophilia happen amongst heterosexuals. Women in polygamist marriages do not have sex with each other. More often than not they are treated as slaves to their husbands - wherein they only serve the husband.
The education thing is also irrelevant because it’s just a scare tactic since marriage isn’t taught in schools at all. This proposition has nothing to do with school curriculum.
I left beastiality or zoophilia out because homosexuals are not animals. They are humans that deserve human rights. And also, beastiality and zoophila already exist and are NOT part the homosexual community.
From that same website:
In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.[4]
His conclusion? That “the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.”
Funny thing about the Yes On 8 folks saying they want to protect the kids! They don’t mind hurting our two daughters and five grandkids with their lies and distortions.
Cut to the chase people, this is all about homophobia and hate on the part of Yes On 8. They’ve lied in their ads and they lie on their signs when they’ve held their rallies on street corners throughout south Orange County.
Some of you may be willing to have your vote bought by the Mormon Church (over 10 millions dollars spent in California backing Yes On
but I’m not!
Obviously people are going to believe in whatever “feels good” for them. Opposition to Prop 8 is based in nothing else than moral nihilism and relativism. We are a culture that has lost all values, and indeed, via postmodernism, we don’t believe that any humans are capable of finding out any absolute facts. If Prop 8 loses, it will be a big win for the Nietscheans.
M.Still…
I think a big part of your problem is that you sit around staring at roosters.
M.Still are you aware that homosexuality exists in dolphins? Also rape, and sexual intercourse for the mere purpose of pleasure? Do dolphins choose to like other dolphins of the same sex?
I will vote No on 8 if they also change the law to allow me to have 2 or more marriage partners….
Re: letting people marry dogs and cats (or even dolphins, it seems now), some extremist PETA people do want “equal rights” for animals. If we can’t even stop homosexual marriage, there’s no way we will be able to stop the next deviant group from marrying. They will simply use the same exact arguments and yell about discrimination.
Greg n SF or Giblets:
I don’t “hate” you or anyone else.
Andrea:
Yes, polygamy is already illegal (so was homosexual behavior). People that want to be in that kind of relationship are crazy, but it is none of my business (same exact reasoning they will use next). Congratulations for proving my point.
Here’s how I see it:
If Gay’s are allowed to marry, that also means they will be adopting hundreds, if not thousands, or children.
Do these children not deserve to grow up in a family with a FATHER and a MOTHER?
Human history is what we make it. This is the beauty of it all. When we as human beings do something , it becomes “History” So saying that historically marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman , is a very moot point. Someone give me one shred of substantial evidence that by letting two consenting people of the same sex “marry” it will cause anyone direct harm. Anyone over 40 ,your just about at that time when your going to start divorcing like mad anyways so marriage ain’t too sacred to you. Anyone under 40 voting yes on 8 should be ashamed for letting themselves be pulled under and not progressing like the rest of us.
Here’s how I see it:
If gay’s are allowed to marry, that also means they will be adopting thousands of children.
Do these children not deserve to grow up in a family with a FATHER and a MOTHER???
I believe that they do, which means we should VOTE YES on 8!
I think for me it has to do morals I was rased to beleave Marrage is between a man and woman. I was rased this way I rase my kids with the same morals. If you wish to be in a same sex relationship that is your right, but don’t tell me that I have to except it. I fill that it is wrong and that is the way i will VOTE on it.
I don’t care what you do in your bed but don’t expect me to say it’s OK. I don’t hate GAYS I just Don’t want it thrown in my face
Sure lets all vote yes on 8 and then also while we are add lets bring back segregation! Second class citizens and discrimination is wonderful for those who benefit. WAKE UP. STAND UP AND VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Leave religion at home, like I have to leave my marriage at home to… so why don’t we all go to our rooms and live.
Those who argue about divorce might want to think about something else with regards to it. If you knew at the time no-fault divorces were first becoming law that in a generation we’d have 50% divorce rate, would you have said something? Would we have fought it a little harder?
I have seen no benefit to society for any of the things that are currently destroying traditional marriage. Cohabitation, divorce, adultery, single parenting. All of these hurt children, and thus all hurt society. Other nations that have same-sex marriage are seeing the problems to the family increase at a rapid rate. Take a look at the Dutch:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp
“EQUALITY FOR ALL?” Yeah right! I want a domestic partnership or a civil union with all the benefits that the law provides, but I cannot because Im not GAY! Whats up with that? I don’t want to get married, I want a domestic partnership! Sounds pretty hypocrytically to me!
And if EDUCATION has nothing to do with it, then why the endorsement of 1 million dollars of teachers dues (which many of them oppose the CTA) to OPPOSE PROP 8? If education has nothing to do with it, why the new advertisement with California Superintendent Jack O’Connell in opposition to PROP 8? Am I just not getting it? Yeah maybe it’s me? Auh, NOT! Two years after legalization of same-sex marriage was passed in Mass., the ACLU, ADL and Human Rights Activist INSISTED in the court of law, that same-sex education was mandated in the curriculum and that there shouldn’t be any “opt-out” for students. Yeah that sounds like “EQUALITY FOR ALL!” It has everything to do with EDUCATION and infilterating our young impressionable minds of our students with whats “cool” or the “new thing to do!” With hollywood getting involved with PROP 8, their message is…”VOTE NO ON 8, ITS THE COOL THING TO DO” What happened to values? What happen to whats RIGHT and whats WRONG?
Personally I could care less what people do behind close doors! I don’t want people investigating into my business. But when you want to change “traditional marriage” which has been established before time…and force it through our school systems, then there is definantly a problem. If the roles were reversed and same-sex marriage was legalized in 2000 by 61% and 4 million people, there would be an uproar against the 4 supreme court justices. We would hear stuff like unconstitutional, majority vote, will of the people, lack of democracy, civil rights violations. Come on…Doesnt our nation, and STATE deserve more than this? Don’t we have enough ISSUES already; economy, war, poverty, welfare, social security, etc. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CAUSE MORE CONFUSION and more issues that will make it more difficult to raise your KIDS? Voting NO on Prop 8 is NOT the ANSWER!
NOV. 4th, VOTE YES to PROP 8!
Everything Prop 8 proponents have told me was once applied to inter-racial marriages - “unnatural” “disgusting” “not right” “tramples on tradition” “please won’t somebody think of the children!”
Why can’t people just mind their own business?
As Queen Elizabeth I once famously said to King Philip of Spain, when he was busy persecuting heretics: “What does it matter to your
majesty,” she asked, “if they go to the devil in their own way ?”
I would ask the same of the Prop 8 proponents - what does it matter to you if the homosexuals want to go in their own way?
I have heard some argument that Prop 8 protects marriage; as divorce is the main threat to marriage, I can’t imagine how Prop 8’s going to do anything about it.
I have heard the argument that Prop 8 protects children, who would otherwise be taught homosexual marriage in schools; well, I don’t know any school curriculum that teaches marriage of any kind, hetero or otherwise.
The main threat to children is not knowing that some people prefer others of their own gender, but cruelty, neglect, abuse, indifference, and hatred. Gays are the last of my worries for my kids.
For those who say same-sex marriage is fine because it won’t affect you personally, I urge you to think about society. For example, in the big picture, does it hurt society that 50% of marriages are ending in divorce? That many children are having trouble coping? I would say yes.
It’s the rising generation that I’m most worried about. They are the ones who will be taught that marriage is about behavior (”love and commitment”) instead of the “husband-wife” relationship. I don’t see that helping the divorce rate. When they stop loving, what holds them together?
The rising generation is also the ones who will learn that marriage has nothing to do with children, since two of the three “marriage relationships” are barren by design. Why, then, will they have an incentive to get married if they want children?
These kinds of questions really worry me.
At the heart of the arguments against Proposition 8 is the charge of discrimination. From their point of view, we’ve had discriminatory laws before; why don’t we just remove the discriminatory language from the definition of marriage? I would like to try and address this concern by using voting as my example.
The charge: In the past, women were denied the ability to vote. This was discrimination. Today, people with same-sex attraction are denied the ability to marry. This is also discrimination. Women were given the right to vote in the past. Thus, it is unfair not to let people enter into same-sex marriage today.
Why it’s not the same: Voting is a constant process, regardless of who is performing it. Thus, people could be included or excluded without changing the basic definition of voting. However, marriage is a family relationship, not a process. Relationships are defined by who can validly enter into them. For example, “father-son” requires a father and a son. Remove or alter either, and it changes the definition. To see this, compare the “father-son” and “mother-son” relationships.
Conclusion: There is no discrimination in the “man and woman” part of the marriage definition. It just acknowledges that marriage is a relationship; specifically, the “husband-wife” relationship. So while we acknowledge that there are unions between men and unions between women, it is not discriminatory to call them something else. They are, by definition, something else.
My question is, what are all you religious nutjobs going to fill your time with if this bigoted proposition fails?
Will you devote all your time to add a proposition for stoning children that talk back?
How about killing non-virgins on their wedding night?
“David Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
If gay’s are allowed to marry, that also means they will be adopting thousands of children.
Do these children not deserve to grow up in a family with a FATHER and a MOTHER???”
David - They deserve to grow up in a loving, stable home. Is your preference for these kids to stay in foster care or orphanages rather then having them raised by a kind gay couple? I assure you there are more children who need loving homes than there are heterosexual married couples willing or able to adopt them.
Emery,
I know several couples (man and women) that have been married for years and years and have been waiting for the entire time (sometimes DECADES) to be able to adopt a child.
There are thousands of couples waiting to adopt. The children deserve to have a loving family, you’re right. But they also deserve to be in a natural family with a father and a mother.
YES on 8!
David
Are your friends willing to adopt a child of special needs? A child of a race different than their own? A child born HIV positive or with a maternal drug addiction? Those are the babies that languish in the foster care system, and as long as any loving family is willing to take these kids and raise them, I say everybody wins.
Emery Ann Harris:
Really? Who said “Black people can choose their race” or “Re: letting people marry dogs and cats (or even dolphins, it seems now), some extremist PETA people do want “equal rights” for animals” as to inter-racial marriages? Keep in mind that PETA was only founded 1980 and Loving v. Virginia was decided 13 years before that, in 1967.
There are THOUSANDS of married heterosexuals willing to adopt a child of special needs — so many so that they have to adopt a special needs child, or a child of a race, even a child born HIV positive or with a maternal drug addiction FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY! There are no newborn babies “languishing” in the American foster care system
I think in terms of “what’s next?”, the group I’m most worried about are the bisexuals. Is it discrimination that they can’t marry a man AND a woman since that is their sexual orientation?
The number of orphan visas issued for intercountry adoptions is tracked by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Demographic Statistics Branch, Statistics Division. Each year the United States welcomes more children into homes through intercountry adoption than any other nation. Last year alone, Americans adopted nearly 20,000 children from other countries.
For more information on intercountry adoptions, visit the U.S. State Department’s Web site, at http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/adoption_485.html
JakeD -
Ignoratio elenchi. I said nothing about PETA, or dolphins, and nobody can choose their own race just as nobody ‘chooses’ to be gay. If you think it’s a choice, I have a question to put to you - when did you decide to be heterosexual? What did you see, or feel, or experience, that led you to decide to be heterosexual? Because I recall no moment in my life when I ‘choose’ to be straight, and I can’t imagine that anyone else can ‘choose’ to be gay.
But setting aside your bare assertions, let us return to my post that you were attempting to respond to - I maintain that people who are against gay marriage are using the same ad baculum argument once used to oppose inter-racial marriages - “unnatural”, “disgusting”, “against tradition.” And truly, what does it matter if people you disagree with go to the devil in their own way?
# David Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Here’s how I see it:
If Gay’s are allowed to marry, that also means they will be adopting hundreds, if not thousands, or children.
Do these children not deserve to grow up in a family with a FATHER and a MOTHER?
multiple studies actually show children who are raised by same-sex couples grow up to be more affectionate towards other people, more understanding of differences, and more accepting overall. i actually wrote a 5+ page paper focusing on gay marriage in my interpersonal comm. class last semester. your father and a mother argument is basically invalid considering the divorce rate, or children born to single mothers, or children raised by single fathers. the child’s well being has nothing to do with what gender the parents are, rather the upbringing from the child’s parents as well as other family members.
Emery Ann Harris,
If they weren’t trying to redefine “marriage” for all of society, I might feel better about it. Domestic partnerships gave them a recognized name for their unions since they are different from marriage. If they even want to call their unions “marriage”, that’s fine. But to have it legally sanctioned as such by the government . . . that requires a redefinition.
Emery Ann Harris”
The post I actually responding to was “Everything Prop 8 proponents have told me was once applied to inter-racial marriages”. If you would like to concede that point, I would be happy to move on to your next points.
Traditional marriage provides a “mini society” to children as they grow. They witness on a consistent basis how men and women treat each other in committed, loving relationships. They see how both sexes interact with their elders, their peers, and the rising generation. By the time they enter adulthood, they have seen how men and women should act and interact for almost two decades.
No single parent can provide this. No mother, even the best, can show a son how to be a man or husband in society. She also cannot teach a daughter by example how a man should treat her in a committed, loving relationship. The same holds true for a father. He cannot show a daughter how to be a woman, nor a son how a good woman should treat him. And no friend, relative, or other role-model can truly take the place of a parent. Same-sex marriage, by design, is therefore more equivalent to single parenting than to marriage.
Since children are the future of society, it is important that we give them the best chance possible.
there are other role models children can look up to that are in their lives on a regular basis. what if the father is dead and the mother never remarried? or vise versa.
Megan,
I appreciate your point. As long as there are consistent other family members around (or other good role models), I think children from any parenting way can grow up to be well-adjusted. But the best traditional marriages are superior — they do it by design. They can stand independent.
Jake
Ah, but it’s true -even though those words have not been used by Pro-8 folks on this particular forum, I have certainly heard it many times in my long life, helpfully supplied by people who are against gay marriage. The point is that those are the words people used to apply to interracial marriages, and are now being applied to gay marriages. Your disagreement with me then, is either
(a) People did not use those words as reasons to oppose interracial marriage; or
(b) People do not use those words not as reasons to oppose gay marriage, not just in California, but in general.
Which is it? I cannot concede a point when I don’t know what your argument is.
Megan,
I said “traditional marriage”. You’re not in a traditional marriage if your partner is dead. I’m doing a “best-best” comparison. For children, the best traditional marriage is vastly superior to the best same-sex union.
Correction:
(b) People do not use those words as reasons to oppose gay marriage
Check out this video if you’re still undecided on Prop 8, check out this video. It explains the issue in plain English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
lol nate
from the yes side…
although i have to say that’s one of the best vote yes videos for prop 8 i’ve ever seen.
Nate:
Thanks for the video.
Emery Ann Harris:
Unless you can prove that ANYONE argued back then that being black was a choice, which we are arguing now, your premise is simply wrong. In Latin terms, it is a Non sequitur. My “argument” was in providing two (there are more if we ever get that far) examples of arguments being used now — that were not used then — disproves your premise: “Everything Prop 8 proponents have told me was once applied to inter-racial marriages”. Q.E.D.
VOTE YES ON 8.
Because then we can start banning those pesky black people from getting married-
then we can ban the latinos-
Oh heck, why not ban all people of color from getting married too….might as well if we are going to live in a society that allows the church to have a larger voice than the population. Why shouldn’t children of homosexual couples get to say their parents are married….wouldn’t that count as protecting a family…
Any why shouldn’t gay people be married?It violated the sanctity of marrige….with the divorce rate of about 70% or 2/3 of HETEROSEXUAL couples…..who is really ruining marriage?
Prop 8 is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Californians are better than this and will strike down prop 8 despite the blatant lies and paranoia the pro-8 camp is spewing.
It is sickeing to see supposedly moral people attempt to strip away other people’s rights and cause them pain in this day in age. There are so many problems in the world and this is what they focus and obsess over. Very sad.
Vote NO on 8 because it is the right thing to do. California is better than this.
Emery Ann Harris,
I don’t think the inter-racial marriage argument is a good comparison here. For while it limited who could enter into marriage based on race, it didn’t change the definition of marriage. Marriage was still considered to be the ‘husband-wife’ relationship. So they are fundamentally different.
What “lies” and “paranoia”? I thought I was being extremely calm.
It is absurd for people to say that gays choose to be gay and if they wanted to marry they could marry the opposite sex. Did straight people choose to be straight? No. Gays do not choose to be gay.
Gay people are entitled to the same rights under the constitution - nothing more, nothing less. It is wrong to discriminate. The religious extremists fighting to pass prop 8 are no different than the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. They attack those who are different. Who will they target next? Single parents? Muslims? Budhists?
Put an end to this hatred and vote NO on 8.
NoOnProp8
“Prop 8 is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Californians are better than this and will strike down prop 8 despite the blatant lies and paranoia the pro-8 camp is spewing. ”
Please take a look at the YouTube video which explains Prop 8 in plain English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
Studies have shown that homoesexual couples raise children who are better adapted to life, mentally healthier, and happier than children of heterosexual couples……do some research into the psychology aspects of marriage and how heterosexual couples divorce and the kid(s) get lost in the battle and become pawns…..yeah that’s healthy
The religious “extremists” fighting to pass Prop. 8 are hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, killing thousands?
If you rephrase what they really want in terms of rights, it’s very interesting. This is how I understand it. Let me know where it’s wrong if it is:
It is discrimination that just because our gay and lesbian unions don’t fit the biological, gender-based definition of traditional marriage as the ‘husband-wife’ relationship (and thus aren’t marriage), we can’t call them marriage. We have the right to call our unions whatever we want, and have them sanctioned as such by the government.
Emery Ann Harris:
Where did you go?
Nobody deserves more rights then another person. For those of you who believe marriage isnt a right, tell that to the thousands of godless people who get married every day. For those of you trying to protect ’sanctity’, why dont you start with divorce or drunk people in vegas getting married, like britney spears who got a divorce three days later. America is supposed to be equal. vote NO on proposition 8.
I agree with emissary. Thanks for stating your opinions without anger or sarcasm. I feel the same as you on these points especially:
“I’m doing a “best-best” comparison. For children, the best traditional marriage is vastly superior to the best same-sex union.”
“I don’t think the inter-racial marriage argument is a good comparison here. For while it limited who could enter into marriage based on race, it didn’t change the definition of marriage. Marriage was still considered to be the ‘husband-wife’ relationship. So they are fundamentally different.”
No JakeD, the religious right attack anyone that is not exactly like them, which is what makes them like the religious extremists who attacked us on 9/11. They are dangerous. They have also tried to eliminate domestic partnerships, prevent same-sex couples from having joint bank accounts or owning property together, and more. Who will they target next? Discrimination is wrong. Religion and state should be separate.
JakeD: That video is to convince idiots that cannot think for themselves to vote yes on 8. It is asurd.
Prop 8 is wrong. Vote NO.
You keep using that word “attack”. I do not think it means what you think it means:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html
I’m trying to figure out why prop. 8 would be wrong. From what I can see, all it does is confirm that ‘marriage’ is the same as the ‘husband-wife’ relationship. A ‘husband-husband’ relationship or a ‘wife-wife’ relationship seem obviously different based on gender. Thus, I don’t see how it’s wrong to call them something else . . . especially when they already have all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
JakeD
I see your argument now - you are saying that people use new argument against gay marriage, arguments that did not exist when inter-racial marriage was being debated. Alright, I am willing to concede that we have new arguments against gay marriage now - but the main question remains unanswered - what does it matter if other people “go to the devil in their own way?” to quote QE I again.
Choice or not (and obviously I do not consider sexuality a choice for anyone, least of all my own heterosexual self), it’s none of my business if adults capable of informed consent choose to marry - or not, as it may be the case.
If people want stronger marriages and healthy children, they ought to work on strengthening their own marriage and raising their own kids.
Newport Dude is rad!
Yes on 8 is bad!
Because they are going to take the rest of society down with them. BTW: “adults capable of informed consent” includes polygamy and incest — at least between grown brothers and sisters — exactly the slippery slope argument we are pointing out.
ONE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT ALLOWED AND IN CONTROL OF THE STATE .
WASN’T THIS COUNTRY FOUNDED TO AVOID THIS VERY THING?
HEARd ON THIER ADS THEY ARE AFRAID as so far discrim working in all those programs and ALL THOSE GOVT FUNDS they get. could be looked at closer?
DONT LIKE GAYS DONT HAVE LUNCH WITH THEM.!
WHAT HAPPENS IN YOUR BEDROOMS IS PROBLEM ENOUGH.
CANT YOU JUST STAY OUT OF THIERS?
AND WHY with Your Own do you say Only God can Judge… All others see you direct? sorta hypocritical -ain’t it?
so when are straight people going to have to agree to procreate every so many years to maintain the license?
isnt that the core of the biblical arguement?
macdoodle:
Did I mention the word “God” once on this thread (up until this very question)?
well ,jake what could be your justicfcation against two informed adults having choices and being able to express their love in marriage
if it isn’t religious?
Orangewood is filled with unwanted children and un wanted disabeld adults and others ThERe ARE over 30K IN OC left in the road
NONE of your arguments seem based on logic or research
they all seem same as ones based on/from one far right type of belief system.
since marriage rules out polygamy wouldn’t it protect you from that fear ?
by your logic train since one type of sex equals more unrealted types.. homosexual men would all end up with little boys? !? then
heterosexual men could all end up raping little girls or their sisters
SO WE BETTER STOP THAT NOW!
get out the petitons!
make sex illegal and we stop all rape and incest!
testube babies only!
control the evil urges of man.
Did I mention the word “God” once on this thread (up until this very question)?
ISN’T DECEPTION CONSIDERED LYING IN YOUR FAITH?
brittany (I just saw your post):
Do those studies define “acceptance of homosexual behavior” as a positive or negative? And, are you seriously saying there will be no ugly child custody battles IF same-sex marriages are upheld?
macdoodle:
“Procreation” is not just a Biblical reason — it’s necessary for the survival of the species — I’ve given several other secular (that means “non-religious based”) reasons on other threads:
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/22/oc-residents-give-62-million-to-support-prop-8/6467/#comments
I am not quite sure what your point is: “since marriage rules out polygamy”. Also, not just any “two informed adults” (for instance, brother and sister) can marry either. Lastly, deception is indeed the same as lying, in my faith or any other faith — even in the faithless dictionary — I’m not sure if there’s any other question in your post. I’m sure you will let me know if I missed one.
I am going to repeat some things I’ve said in other forums. And maybe pick up some slack for JakeD.
One initial point I want to make is that It is o.k. for voters to base their decision on moral grounds. Many of our laws are based on moral values — our whole criminal justice system, consumer protection laws, family and probate legal systems, etc. all contain “moral” elements that are influenced on our collective views of “right” and “wrong.” Claiming that the Yes on 8 crowd is trying to shove religion down people’s throats, or that it is somehow violating separation of church and state principles is totally false. Marriage is one of these areas where our definition is a subjective value-based one. Unless we are going to jettison the definition completely and just allow anybody to marry anybody — regardless of gender, number of partners, etc. — we have to draw the definitional line somewhere.
In this debate, I have yet to hear a cogent response to the question of why it is not o.k. to put a gender limitation on marriage, but that it is o.k. to limit marriage to 2 partners (or to put other limitations on marriage between otherwise consenting adults). The only response I have heard that comes close is the argument that sexual orientation is biological, but I don’t believe that is a complete or persuasive response to the question as to why some limitations on marriage are o.k., and others are not. I believe that sexual orientation/preference/proclivity does have a biological component, but that there also is a social/cultural component. Human sexuality is a complex and nuanced thing that exists on a continuum, not just at the two “poles” of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Bisexuality arguably is biological also — is it discriminatory to forbid a bisexual man from marrying both a man and a woman so that he can feel fully satisfied in his marital relationship(s)? What about issues of consanguinity (a fancy term for close blood relations) — that is a biological issue too, but we ban loving adults who are too closely related from marrying. Why? If your answer is biological — i.e., risk of birth defects from kids — then I think that tends to support the limitation on gay marriage as another thing that does not support families. If your answer is something more visceral — it’s icky! — then that is a moral judgment you are making and imposing on a minority. Is that right?
The purpose of my question is not to say that polygamy or marriage between close relations should be legalized, but rather to explore the question of why some limitations on “marriage” are o.k., while others are not. I believe that ultimately, this question comes down to a values and morals-based determination based on what we think has the greatest potential to benefit (or conversely, harm) society. I am for Prop. 8 because I believe that promoting traditional families has cumulative benefits for society that far outweigh the negative effects of excluding same-sex unions from the legal construct of “marriage” (especially when civil unions are available).
YES on 8.
Hay straight, Republican “Newportdue”, what discrimination??
Vote Yes on PROP 8
Tom Parker Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Careful, people. JakeD is retired, types pretty fast, and sits on this message board ALL DAY long.
Hee hee. I’m sick at home.
Prop 8 will restrict civic rights under Article 1 of the CA constitution (as confirmed by the CA Supreme Court) to a minority for their sexual orientation.
The only arguments for it come from heterosexual Christians who quote the Bible all the time.
So, how does that jibe with the premise of religious freedom that’s the reason for the US of A to exist, separation of church and state, and nondiscrimination due to sexual orientation as held up by the Supreme Court of the US?
These same morons that want No on 8 claim they want fairness and tolerance, but are not tolerant when it comes to other’s different points of view. This is not about Gay Marriage, the Gay agenda is much deeper in forcing all of us to bow to the wishes of the Gay movement.
They are probably the same idiots that want the Messiah, Lord BO to rule the land. VOTE YES on 8!
Hey Jake, no golf today??
Yes on PROP 8
Blue:
Thanks.
Ralf:
Please point out where I “quote[d] the Bible” on this thread?
A comment on the education issue, where I think proponents of Prop. 8 have legitimate concerns. We are hearing a lot of misleading information, that, frankly, is contrary to what the law says. SB 71, the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act of 2004, requires schools that adopt sex education programs (something like 96% of schools have done so) to also “teach respect for marriage.” Opponents — including several newspaper editorials I have seen, claim that parents can opt out their kids from such instruction. That is not true.
SB 71 only grants parents opt-out rights for “sexual health education” — a narrow term limited to human reproductive organs and their functions. The Gay-Straight Alliance’s Fact Sheet on SB 71 specifically states that “Anti-bias trainings covering gender, sexual orientation or family life are not sexual health education. Therefore, parents do not need to be notified of this instruction and they may not remove their children from it.” (See http://www.gsanetwork.org/resources/pdf/SB71FactSheet2.pdf). Thus, if classroom instruction, including instruction relating to same-sex marriage, is characterized as “anti-bias” — a broad, undefined term — then parents of children of any age will not be permitted to opt-out under current CA law. This is a real concern for many parents, and is one example of how same-sex marriage affects (if indirectly) existing heterosexual relationships and family units.
OCGator:
Not today : (
A MODEST PROPOSAL:
I think that we shouldn’t just vote “yes” on 8, I think that we should remove those freaks from society all-together! Lock them up with the Jews and Niggers and Wetbacks! We don’t need to teach equality in our schools and tolerate inclusions of different peple in our lives! Doesn’t the bible say that we can own slaves anyhow? We should NOT compromise our religious beliefs for anyone!
END OF A MODEST PROPOSAL
Seriously, you guys, NO ON 8!!! FREEDOM AND EQUALITY FOR ALL!!!
# JakeD Says:
Ralf:
Please point out where I “quote[d] the Bible” on this thread?
Not on this thread, but over on one of the others:
I am not “judging” whether you are going to Heaven — that is certainly up to God alone — the Bible does say “The Righteous Man JUDGES all Things” including wrong behaviors. Are you saying we shouldn’t have any criminal laws. because that’s “judging” too.
and
“Thou Shalt Not Murder” is also in the Bible. You want to get rid of that law too?
You also called homosexuality deviant and immoral.
So, although you do argue coherently, it is clear where you come from. When you were called out to provide any non-religious arguments against same-sex marriages I don’t recall seeing anything substantial - just some rambling about how it would harm society and your feelings. Please state why it would be OK to restrict basic human rights because it hurts your feelings.
Yesterday morning, my wife was with a group of local residents holding up Yes on 8 signs at an intersection in South OC. They were assaulted by someone who threw an open container full of bleach at them out of a passing car. Thankfully, they missed, but can you imagine if it would have hit someone in the eyes?
That kind of intolerance to the exercise of free speech rights is scary. Yes on 8.
Exactly, That was all on the other thread. You said “all the time” on THIS THREAD. I already gave the worse-case (secular) scenario, on that other thread. I don’t “feel” like copying that over again.
Wow, Blue. That’s terrible. Did you hear about the McCain campaign worker who was attacked in PA?
No, I didn’t. I saw the cop cars at the intersection on my way to work yesterday, but I didn’t get the full story until last night. Unfortunately, nobody got a plate number on the car, so the perps. got away.
Blue Says:
A comment on the education issue…
Where is the problem? Parents are supposed to teach their children about love and the birds and the bees, and that would include that some people are homosexual. If the parents do their job, their children should not be surprised. If they don’t, the school (unfortunately) has to take up the slack because kids get harmed if they don’t know about sexuality and learn about it the hard way. That includes teen pregnancies, STDs and gay kids who kill themselves because they don’t understand why they’re different and who get bullied by their peers until they see no other choice.
# Blue Says:
No, I didn’t. I saw the cop cars at the intersection on my way to work yesterday, but I didn’t get the full story until last night. Unfortunately, nobody got a plate number on the car, so the perps. got away.
That’s awful. Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, there are a-holes on both sides. If we could keep the discussion rational and argue with our brain instead of our gut, this shouldn’t happen. Some people don’t have a brain, alas.
Ralf, the problem is that this touches on a very sensitive area. I agree that parents have the primary responsibility of teaching kids about these issues. That is precisely the point. If parents were given advance notice about curriculum or materials addressing same sex marriage, and an opportunity to opt out of that instruction if they disagreed with that instruction (as they have a right to do for “sexual health education” dealing with reproductive organs and their functions), then this issue would be mitigated. But the experiences in MA, where same-sex marriage has been legal for about 5 years provides us with concrete examples of how the public school system is (in my opinion) overstepping its bounds in this area. In an area that is this sensitive, schools need to be more inclusive of parents when dealing with these topics. Because schools with sex/HIV education programs are required by CA law to “teach respect for marriage,” it is a major concern of parents that they have no control under current law of that curriculum as it applies to the topic of same-sex marriage.
Blue Says:
Ralf, the problem is that this touches on a very sensitive area.
I understand, but why do you have to throw the baby out with the bath water? Why don’t you lobby your representative to address this issue where it belongs, the pertinent laws on education?
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, it is only about the simple fact that gays exist in our society and you are hesitant to tell your kids about it.
Mels:
No one is proposing that we “lock up” homosexuals, let alone anyone else you so crudely mentioned. You weren’t in south OC yesterday morning, were you?
I read this post earlier today and completely agree:
“As a young mother of two at the age of 27, I have always been proud that I was raised in a generation of political correctness and equality for all. I have loved and worked with others from all different races, religions and sexual orientations.
My decision to vote yes on Prop. 8 has not been an easy one. I don’t want to offend or alienate friends, co-workers and neighbors, but I do need to stand for what I believe in and that is the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.”
I believe the person who wrote that hit the nail on the head for me. I want everyone to have the same rights. Prop 8 does not take away any of the benefits and legals rights of domestic partnership in California. I would join the fight and support those same rights to be available on a Federal level.
Prop 8 simply preserves the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and I will vote Yes on Prop 8 and respect your right to vote your conscious as well.
http://www.protectfamilies.com - Vote Yes on Prop 8!
Ralf, of course gays exist in our society, and of course we have a responsibility to teach our kids tolerance and respect for all people. But tolerance and respect does not equal positive affirmance, and marriage is one of those value-based areas where we, as a society, are giving the societal stamp of approval on a particular relationship — in this case, same-sex marriage. The education issue is but one of several areas of concern for the Yes on 8 crowd. In an ideal world, we would have been able to address the interrelationship between legalizing same-sex marriage, education, and anti-discrimination laws through measured legislative means. Unfortunately, the decision in In re Marriage Cases forced the issue on us before those debates had a chance to occur. For some, that is a good thing. For me, not so much.
I normally oppose most propositions (they are usually badly written as laws), but this is one I care about. The proposition is a direct response to the CA S.Ct’s decision, which raised the issue to one at the state constitution level. Interestingly, the Court interpolated a “constitutional” right to marry out of the body of legislative actions in the anti-discrimination area. Essentially, it created a “higher” constitutional right out of the cumulative impact of “lower” statutory rights (notwithstanding Prop. 22), something courts nearly never do. The dissenting 3 justices in In re Marriage Cases had a major problem with the 4-justice majority’s constitutional approach, which overturned long-established tents of constitutional interpretation to reach a decision that appeared very outcome-determinative.
Personally I love how the the supporters of Prop 8 use children and the sanctity of marriage as their shield…what a bunk of bull! First off I think that using children as a front their intolerant religious views should be illegal. Secondly, I think that our nations 50% divorce rate among us straight couples has already destroyed the sanctity of marriage. So what’s the real reason for religious opposition? Their own insecurity about their sexuality, fear of people who are different than them and their need to exclude “lesser people”. If these religious supporters of Prop 8 put the same money into feeding the hungry, fixing education or helping those who really need it, then I might listen to them. It is truly a shame that I have to call the supporters of Prop 8 my countrymen. Focus on your own lives and practice what you preach…tolerance and acceptance of others, after all, what would Jesus do?
If there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage - can we also implement group marriage because I’m really in love with 3 other people and who are you to judge who I’m in love with! We’re all consenting adults after all! 2 people, 5, 10, the possibilities are endless.
Blue Says:
But tolerance and respect does not equal positive affirmance
Nobody expects that from you. You’re arguing for depriving a minority of constitutional rights. How does that equate to the absence of “affirmance”?
There’s even a GOP campaign against 8. Interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJt1U1HK8Uw
JakeD:
Look up “A Modest Proposal” on wikipedia. It might help you understand my comment a little better.
And the stripping of civil rights IS the first on a terrible slope to oppressive intolerance, if history has taught us anything. As members of the human species, it is our responsibility to treat each other humanely and equally. And how is learning to respect people that are different from you so wrong? Forgive me, but do you not remember the lesson of the Parable of the Good Samaratin? Just because religon and cultral tradition say a person is racially foul and morally unclean doesn’t mean that they aren’t a person of kindness, truth and valor…
And no, I wasn’t in South County. But I do find that whole situation pathetic and very immaturely handeled. But are you really going to judge a whole movement based on one vehicle of fools? I really hope you don’t because you are seemingly very passionate about this cause and I would loathe to have that sort of predjudice color your arguements.
I believe the majority of older voters are voting YES on 8 because they grew up with a mom & dad and were actually taught by a stay home mom. These voters know how good it was to have both a mom and a dad. The majority of the younger generation voters has been raised by one parent, or both working, so they learned from the TV instead of a live mom. They have no clue how important a mom & dad are because they didn’t have one, or had one or both missing, so they don’t care about redefining marriage because they’ve learned from the TV that raised them that homosexuality is normal and cool and OK.
Pretty sad
Prop 8 involves a lot of issues.
1) It is not saying there cannot be same sex marriages. California already joins same sex couples. They have the same rights as anyone else, it is just not titled “marriage.” Prop 8 will not take anything away, nor will it add anything to same sex marriage.
2) School is an educational institution that everyone has paid for. It is there to teach our kids reading, writing , and arithmatic. School exists to build knowledge in our young generation and prepare them for careers in the future. Knowing about gays and lesbians will not get our kids a better job. Social instruction like that is a parents choice of when and how they will tell thier kids.
3) Yes on 8 is backed my a lot of people. Many churches also are big supporters. It is not only the Mormon church, but the Catholic church, and many others. In Mass. the Catholic adoption center closed down because the state would force them to adopt the gay couples. I am not saying gay couples shouldn’t adopt, but an agency should have the right to say yes or no. If one agency says no,….then go to another one. There are plenty of adoption agencies out there to choose from. The reason why churches support Prop 8 is because it all started with Adam and Eve……not Evan. Churches may loose thier non-profit licenses because the law will conflict with thier beliefs.
I am not against gays or lesbians. Some of my best friends and co-workers carry this lifestyle. I just think Hollywood has created such a glamorous picture of this culture, that people went from one extreme to the other. First gays were in the closet. Now I see high school girls holding hands(intimately) walking home from school.
The constitution was created by our Fore Fathers. They did all the hard work. they were guided by some devine being to give us what we have today. People wanted us to take “In God we Trust” off our money. HELLOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! This was an institution created a long time ago. Just like marriage is a sacred institution that has been built and expanded over thousands of years. When someone says “marriage,” a man and a woman usually pop into our minds. That is all Prop 8 is saying. Keep the institutions that our Fathers have developed for us.
God created a man and a woman…..That is how we all got here.
I was raised by 2 working parents and the only time I really watched tv when I was a kid was either in the evening (with my parents) or on the weekends in the morning, if that. I know how important parents are, but my parents raised me to accept other people’s differences and not let those differences get in the way of how I live my own life.
We went to church every Sunday when I was a kid. The reason we stopped going to church was because my dad did not appreciate our church criticizing them for not joining in anti-abortion rallies on street corners. They didn’t want me to be exposed to that sort of gruesome hatred our church projected. My parents have both read the bible and both pray every single day. They don’t feel they need to go to church all the time to prove to God/Jesus that they have faith, and they don’t let their personal faith get in the way of how they vote either. My parents grew up in the 50s with mothers who’s only job was usually a homemaker. I know you said “the majority”, but my parents, as well as all my aunts and uncles are not included in that majority.
Also, I did not learn about homosexuality from TV. I learned about it by meeting gay people throughout my life and figuring out for myself how I feel about them. I’m voting no on Prop. 8 because I wasn’t raised by parents who “taught” me that it’s bad to be gay.
Ralf asks: “You’re arguing for depriving a minority of constitutional rights. How does that equate to the absence of “affirmance”?”
My answer is a bit complex, somewhat legalistic, and, as a result, may make your eyes glaze over. In my opinion, the narrow majority of the CA Supreme Court (it was a 4-3 decision in the In re Marriage Cases decision) engaged in gross judicial error in ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the CA constitution. I encourage you to read Justice Baxter’s dissent, which sets forth a stinging criticism of the majority’s constitutional jurisprudence. (You can read it all here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF, or look up In re Marriage Cases on Wikipedia for some soundbites). Essentially, the majority took a series of “lower” laws (regular statutes, like anti-discrimination laws and civil unions) and interpolated from there the existence of a “higher” constitutional law. That’s just not done, and the dissent rightly called the majority on it.
Justice Baxter wrote for the dissenting justices: “[T]he majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issues surrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum—the arena of legislative resolution—and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry. By thus moving the policy debate from the legislative process to the court, the majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers.”
In other words, I believe that calling same-sex marriage a constitutional right is a legal error. But, the majority’s opinion is the law of the land. If there was a higher court of appeal, that decision would have been appealed, but because it was a pure state-law issue, the CA S.Ct. is as high as it got. The only “court of appeal” left is the democratic one. And because the CA S.Ct. majority chose to elevate the issue to one of constitutional law, the democratic remedy is to amend the constitution to correct that error.
That isn’t a complete answer to the question posed, but this post already is too long, and it’s late.
Megan,now my parents “Taught” me that it was bad to be Gay?? My God what next.
Vote yes on PROP 8
Blue Says:
Justice Baxter wrote for the dissenting justices: “[T]he majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issues…”
“My point is that the majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issues surrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum — the arena of legislative resolution — and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry.”
So it’s the old cats-and-dogs-slippery-slope argument again. We’ve chewed that one out already. I’m not impressed. The same old prejudices, translated into legalese.
Megan Says:
I was raised by 2 working parents and the only time I really watched tv…
See, that’s your problem. If you’d watched your prescribed 6 hours of TV per day you wouldn’t be here and complain, but rather do your patriotic Christian duty, watch Faux News and vote Yes on 8. Instead, you grew a brain… and use it! What’s the world coming to! See what your parents did to you? Poor girl, a product of irresponsible liberal parents.
Ok, that’s enough for tonight. G’nite all.
I grew up with gays in the closet about there sexuality and i hope my kids do the same. Yes on 8
Blue:
Good posts last night. Don’t forget, if Prop. 8 fails, we can recall those 4 Justices too.
http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/petition.php
Okay,
So… lets get something out in the open here. You have sort of a doubled-edged sword so to speak in combating the issues of Prop 8. Religion aside, although I am a gay Christian, I want to bring less of an argument to this picture and more of an enlightenment. First of all, the idea of Polygamy (Polyandry/Polygyny) has nothing to do with gay marriage. This is not the argument at hand therefore it’s irrelevant. If there was some sort of constitutional amendment in the future attempting to legalize Polygamy, we could vote on the issue then… Second: Bestiality? Really? It turns my stomach to think that someone could compare the consenting sexual relationship of two people to the sexual relationship of a human with an animal. That is absurd, and again, not the issue at hand.
Oftentimes, when someones moral values are questioned or threatened, he or she tends to pull out the “wild” card and can come up with all sorts of crazy ideas - mostly out of fear. From a Christian perspective, I believe that any Christian would agree that if it’s written in scripture, then it must be true! And we have to hold fast to those beliefs because it is our God-given duty (We want more jewels in our crown!). In the case of marriage, however, I think Christians are losing. We’re losing respect because, although Jesus did teach love, compassion, tolerance, and forgiveness, we don’t practice what we He preached today. Instead, when a non-Christian gets a mental image of an evangelical “nut-job,” he or she tends to run in the opposite direction. In the case of moral disputes, there is no changing someones mind on either side of the spectrum because morals are woven into the fabric of our beings. We can’t change them, but we can learn from them.
I want to pose a question to those of you on this board who are opposed to Prop 8. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? We all believe a variety of things, but really, without fear of getting reamed by the other authors on this message board. What do you believe?
I’ll tell you what I believe first. I believe I was born gay… and trust me - before you attack that statement - if I could be straight, I would, but I cannot. In the same way a heterosexual person is not standing in the locker room at school thinking, “I want that!” A homosexual child is not picturing himself standing at the alter with a woman.
Alter. Hmmm. Okay, I’m going to go way left field here… in Texas, where I’m from, we have a program called Virginity Rules. Essentially, the purpose of this program is to teach the youth in the area about abstinence in order to avoid STDs, pregnancy, etc… So, this program excludes gay youth. This program states: “A person should wait until marriage until engaging in sexual activity with a partner.” FACT: In Texas, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. This program, which is very popular in East Texas, excludes gay men and women. The problem that I’m getting at here is that gay men and women are capable of long-term, committed, loving, passionate, and intimate sexual and personal relationships. Excluding the right of someone to “marry” his or her partner with whom he or she has been committed for many months or years is absurd. And no, it is not a prospect that is biblically accepted; however, we all have our personal relationships with Our Father, and we are the only ones who can guarantee OUR salvation, not the salvation of others. Excluding TWO P E O P L E from marrying because of your misunderstanding of their relationship is WRONG. So, lastly, referencing someone else’s message (I have no idea who it was), he basically said we have the right to judge others if we are righteous. I’ve posted this scripture and I implore that person to investigate that chapter of the bible further.
To those of you who will be voting yes on Prop 8, do what you feel is right. To those of you who are voting no on Prop 8, do what you feel is right. In the end, gay marriage will be legal regardless of the current situation. History tells us that when one group of people want something bad enough - they get it! Instead of clinging to values that are outdated, however, I implore you to look within you own heart to seek the truth in this amendment. You can be a part of progression or you can stand still as the world moves forward.
The world, however, will continue to move forward… and one, twenty, one hundred, or one million people will not change the course of our rights as homosexuals.
God Bless.
“But they, righteous men, will judge them with the judgment of adulteresses and with the judgment of women who shed blood, because they are adulteresses and blood is on their hands.”
—Ezekiel 23:45
I wanted to add this verse as well
“If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. ”
—Matthew 5: 23-24
The yes supporters for Prop 8 are mainly your religious fanatics. For a group of people that preach love and forgiveness Religious people are some of the most hateful.
Who the heck is the church to tell us what a traditional marriage is. Until someone can provide solid proof that god existed instead of a book of stories then their definition means squat to me and I will be voting no on 8
Nathan:
Please point to ONE such post above more hateful than “Who the heck is the church to tell us what a traditional marriage is . . . their definition means squat to me.”
Hello! 8 new messages from 5:14 pm last night to 9:56 am this morning? If any of you are still checking in and want to debate, please let me know.
YES ON 8
Gays cannot have children together. That in and of itself makes being gay BIOLOGICALLY WRONG and makes it a CHEMICAL/MENTAL imbalance.
“notANidiot” (are you sure about that?):
Assuming you are being serious, there are plenty of infertile heterosexual couples who cannot have children together and they are neither “BIOLOGICIALLY WRONG” nor have a “CHEMICAL/MENTAL imbalance”. But, I suspect you already knew that.
Next strawman argument?
Can we repeal inter-racial marriage as well?
That was once illegal.
There is a great website that addresses questions you may have about prop 8. Preservingmarriage.org–check it out.
Marriage is no longer just a religious institution, therefore we cannot attribute religious standards to it. If we did, we would have to ban 2nd marriages. That is certainly very clearly a cornerstone in the concept of marriage…right? That they are FOREVER! A divorced person cannot get married in the Catholic church a second time, so why does the law let them? Then you run into the problem of which religion? Different religions have different rules.
Thankfully, we don’t live in a theocracy. This is not a country governed by a church.
How can anyone tell me, with a straight face (no pun intended), that the union between 2 loving gay people is less desirable to you and your church than Elizabeth Taylor’s 8 marriages or Britney Spear’s 60 hour marriage? The point being, that regardless of how you or your church feel about them, you do not have the right to expect the government to selectively impose your religious beliefs. We are ALL created equal.
Prop 8 is wrong and the religious fundamentalists behind it are a danger to our society. This nation is about equal rights, freedom of religious oppression, and SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
“Civil marriage” is licensed by the state, not the church. We are not talking about “holy matrimony” which the church can define however it wants to. Prop 8 eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to have civil marriage. Eliminating rights is wrong and it is astonishing that people do not see this.
The religious right is spreading lies and making threats to get people to support prop 8. Jesus Christ would have been disgusted by this behavior. It is not the behavior of “moral” people, rather the behavior of evil.
California is better than this. Vote NO on 8.
If you don’t believe in gay marriage. Then, don’t marry someone of the same sex.
If you really want to save marriage, ban divorce.
This power is such that “the goal of the homosexual agenda [is] moving from merely being tolerated by heterosexuals to dominating them.” (Staver 2004, 54)
pancakefrompele@yahoo.com Says: “If there was some sort of constitutional amendment in the future attempting to legalize Polygamy, we could vote on the issue then…”
WE?? That’s the exact problem - there was never a WE who voted for the legalization of same-sex marriage in CA to begin with.
With issues of polygamy or pet/pet-owner marriage, whatever makes anyone think there’d be a WE in the future for US, the people (i.e., the conveniently forgotten OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE)??
Similar to CA’s legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2008, all CA needs are 4 individuals from the CA Supreme Court to magically uncover an overlooked clause in the California State Constitution, which was adopted in 1849, that states that denying man marriage to his pet is unconstitutional. In fact, since these 4 individuals from the CA Supreme Court are so good at finding things no other human being has been able to find, aren’t they in the wrong profession? As Ann Coulter points out, “If they can find a right to gay marriage in the ….Constitution – never before detected by any human being – we need to get them looking for Osama bin Laden. These guys can find anything!” (emphasis, mine)
Heck, I’m sure they can even find me a husband hidden among the pages of CA’s 149-year-old Constitution!
So, back to my original point: the WE you are referring to here are 4 individuals who ironically happen to be connected to San Francisco (which, as we all know, is predominantly gay) – 4 individuals who are sexual beings just like the rest of us, with fantasies, desires, thoughts, and ahhhemm, preferences. You can argue endlessly about their public identities (i.e., married, parents, Republicans, Dems, etc.), and others will counter that by reminding you that their public identities aren’t really good indicators of what really takes place behind closed doors or of one’s true, hidden desires. People can change exterior lifestyles, identities, etc., but we can never change our true, undeniable, deepest desires, no matter how hard we fight them.
Rest assured, I’ve not a religious person nor am I a homophobe or a bigot — but I am an educated person who’s taken the time to conduct some time-consuming, thorough research to make my own well-informed decisions. And in doing so, I found out that there was NEVER a WE to begin with. THEY somehow forgot to ask ME, or US, what WE THE PEOPLE OF CA want. THEY went directly over the rest of US and decided for US what WE had no say in to begin with. And it is this exact lack of regard or respect for the rest of US that has invariably angered me and allowed me to conclude that a similar scenario will take place not too far in the future. And it is this exact disregard for me and other Californians that I find unacceptable, unfair, and disagree with, NOT same-sex marriage per se. How convenient that “equality and fairness for all men” is shoved down my throat when this was not the manner in which they went about things in the first place? Aren’t they therefore contributing and giving more power to the exact problem (i.e., inequality and unfairness) they are complaining about, “whether [I] like it or not”????
According to Webster’s dictionary, the words I, ME, PEOPLE, US, come before the word WE; however, since those supporting same-sex marriage are so determined to get their way by redefining things, it seems they began their redefinition crusade by first RE-alphabetizing and placing the word WE before ME or US.
Well, I guess these smarter-than-the-rest-of-California ‘lexicographers’ also conveniently forgot that the word YES [on Prop 8] comes not too far after WE.
To the individual who suggested that next bisexuals will want to marry a woman AND a man (and others who may draw that conclusion) . . .
As a bisexual woman, I am not looking to marry a woman AND a man any more than you would be looking to marry a blonde AND a brunette, just because you happened to be attracted to both. Just like heterosexuals and homosexuals, I treasure a monogamous relationship with the person I love. I was just born attracted to both. Trust me. I didn’t choose it. LOL. Why would I choose to be the “odd one” to everyone? Nope. It just happened. And it’s taken me some time to come to terms with that, so I don’t expect you to come to terms with it just by reading this short note. Hopefully though, you may consider it. Some are left-handed. Some are right-handed. Some are ambidextrous.
Best,
Mel
I had to respond to the guy who talks about homosexuals adopting. He was worried about it. My child’s father is gay, and he is a wonderful dad! There were times her dad dated, and it didn’t hurt her in the least. It never bothered her that he was gay. What hurt her so badly was the hateful prejudice of people like you.
“Yes on 8 people claim to be religious and moral, yet they resort to lies, hate, and threats to get their way. Stop dehumanizing gay people. They have the same needs and feelings as you and me. It is wrong to discriminate”
actually no one has been arrested for stealing “NO on 8″ signs from people’s private property or forcibly trying to remove them from the “Yes on 8″ voters hands. the same is not true for the “No on 8″ people
you talk about dehumanizing….hmmmm??? what about the 1st amendment to the Federal Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
the “yes on 8″ sign(s) that keeps disappearing from my mine and my neighbors yards is quite dehumanizing and hatefull. you seek to have your own opinion stated but deny me mine? i could care less if i see a “NO on 8″ sign that is your right. leave mine alone
im about as HOMOPHOBIC as you are HETROPHOBIC
We could reword Prop 8.
“We, the people of California, hereby assert that homosexuals are not worthy of the same rights as other people. They are unfit to engage in the contract of marriage.”
Wow!! I’m amazed - but then again, maybe not - at the level of hate and ignorance of the Yes on Prop 8 people on here. I can appreciate it though, because it gives insight to the thinking behind Prop 8.
My partner (my spouse now!) and I have been together for over 13 years and it’s incredible how “stable” we are as a family…we have a pug! Personally, I come from an extended family of migrant farm workers, most of whom were uneducated and very religious. I guess my point is that, my extended family, despite being uneducated and very religious, readily accepted me and my partner (completely without hesitation - well, with the exception of my sister who married a Baptist minster - God blessed her with one gay son and four daughters)
Anyhow, I’m just amazed that these Yes on Prop 8 people, who I suspect consider themselves educated, are so ignorant and unable to see that I am an individual with rights - the right to marry the person I love - I just happen to be gay. Unquestionably, I support YOUR right to BELIEVE that same-sex marriage is wrong, be it based on religious tenents or simply gut instinct. Your “beliefs,” however, should never be a legitimate basis to discriminate against me (and my right to marry) or anyone else whose beliefs do not coincide with yours….and that’s the real problem here. Your beliefs should define the limits of your conduct in your life, but they, in no way, justify defining the limits in my life or others.
There’s so much I want to say, but let me simply say, I’m no less of a person simply because I am gay. Accordingly, any proposition or agenda which targets me and other like me simply because we are gay is morally wrong. And if it is that being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, then let me and my Maker take that issue up at my time of reckoning. I am confident that I will be greeted with Open Arms and with trumpets blowing!!
Allowing women the right to vote, integrating schools, interacial-marriage, etc. were all the work of “activist” courts. Anyone want to guess how those would have turned out if it was up to the “will of the people?”….lol. One reason for the court is to protect the minority from the majority when it comes to civil rights.
NO on 8
My understanding of marriage is between two adult humans and comprises of ceremony (loose term. can be religious or not at all) and legal binding. My guess is the opponents of same sex marriage is from a more ceremonial perspective. In most cases religious. Many religious establishments will marry same sex couples. However, you can go to a justice of the peace and just get married. I would think opponents would be against the ceremony more so than the legal binding. i just don’t get why people are so freaked out about this. Let people live. If you don’t want to marry a same sex partner then don’t. But don’t stand in the way of somebody else. It’s the 21st century. Don’t we have better things to spend our time on like world peace, the climate, and helping people who are ill.
Being that I’m “Gay” (OMG… that’s a shocker!)
I hear this line about Adopting Kids…
As A Married GAY, I / WE have no desire to adopt
or have children.
(If I wanted Kids I could have gone to any sleazy Gay bar in LA when I was single!)
Why doesn’t anyone think that being Gay is God’s “natural” remedy for Over Population?
I read a lot in here, but minus the Hate… I’ve still seen nothing that makes sense or reason for voting YES on 8.
I mean, Protect the kids?
that’s Family law… and protect from what?
You’d do better to protect them from bigots and MTV.
Does Yes on 8 mean NO more Divorces?
That would Protect kids from being hurt by inconsiderate Parents.
Does Yes on 8 mean Shotgun Weddings for Pregnant women?
that would allow protecting better finances for the children.
Does Yes on 8 stop all the hate toward homosexual by making them second class citizens? and how does that hate stop and protect the countless kids that commits suicides each year because they realize that they are gay and have been “TAUGHT” it is a sin and they are going to Hell - Poor kids were born that way and Religion is Taught, not Vice versa… we should outlaw religion if we are going to outlaw anything to Protect KIDS!
Anyway… equality is NOT something that should be voted on…
and until Gays are outlawed (and I know many who would want to - like they do in Saudi Arabia and did in Nazi Germany… is this where the Yes on H8ers say Seig Heil?) there should be no reason to denied equality in marriage and any other thing in life.
Being gay is not any different than having “Blonde” hair…
BUT the Problem with Hating Blonde Hair by the Brown Hairs is sometimes the “Blondes” will choose to die the hair “Brown” and then you’ll have even more problems (like the spread of sexual diseases, from infidelity, like Aids, more divorces after having children, etc.).
See “\Brokeback Mountain” for more on this type of stuff.
Do you want that?
Vote NO on 8 - so I won’t End up Single… Because single people are such… well let’s put it this way… ever watch 2 and a half men??? Well I’m like one of them IF I’m single… and then have to run around taking all my frustration out on seducing and recruiting all the “Yes on 8″ closeted Hetro kids to a life style that will one day help us overturn their Parents Prejudices. (anyone wanna bet the 8′ers don’t understand sarcasms?).
And Please don’t even quoat the Bible… there are way to many things they did in there that is OUTLAWED now.
Invariably those that are most concerned with what other people are doing, and wish to regulate their lives (ie. no to homosexuals marrying) are themselves latent homosexuals themselves. Guys like Mark Foley and Larry Craig were the most vocal in their fear/hatred for gay people, and of course they are gay. I’m not gay and am secure in my sexuality, and that’s why I have no problem with gay people getting married. Looks like straight people have done a pretty good job of ruining marriage in this country already with the divorce rate and the number of poorly raised children.
P.S. If you want to make a point by posting your opinion here, it’ll be easier to convince someone if you can spell and use proper grammar. Nobody respects the opinion of someone who can’t even write a few lines intelligently.
Marriage is between a husband and wife, opposite sex as known throughout history, don’t think the supreme court is higher than god, nor time itself. MARRIAGE HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. Same sex couples are lucky to have a civil union. Give gays a foot, and they want a yard. This is about traditional marriage. We don’t need confusion in our society on what a marriage is or it’s purpose. This is not about rights, nor discrimination, gay marriage isn’t traditional and that’s all there is to it, nothing is being taken away from gays, it’s just keeping marriage traditional, there’s no equality issue, it’s actuality. M
arriage is the building blocks of society, family. Marriage is about love, the fact that two can be intimate in a traditional marriage, with the ability to start a family and new life.
You can’t say that about two of the same gender. That’s a union.
VOTE YES ON 8, it’s reality. There’s no comparison between those compatible by reality, with the ability to love and make a family and those who dream of it. If gays and lesbians love eachother, they can do it under a civil union, but don’t interfere in the historic context of a marriage.
You didn’t make marriage, marriage made you!
Gays take life itself for granted, you don’t realize it, but the truth is, if it was not for a man and a woman, you would not even exist. What’s the meaning behind redefining marriage? Seems like gays are hateful. What a cruel thing to do, is to take away what is sacred. Gays can’t come up with an answer for love, so out of jealousy and envy they wish to redefine marriage. Can’t come up with your own thing? Marriage existed and is meant for a man and a woman, your lifestyle is far different than the meaning, create your own ritual, then everyone will be happy.
If your smart you will Vote NO on Prop. 8. You have to realize those who plan to vote “yes” what you are taking away. Not only for others but God forbid for your own family and friends that may turn out to be Gay, will you oppose them to to marry whom they love. Most importantly imagine if we let them take this away from us, what’s next? The right to drive?, the right to speak our mind?, the right for freedom? Think about it, little by little our rights may be taken away. Think of your kids and the generations to come please. Vote NO and let people be happy as to whom they want to spend their lives with and mind your own. Be happy with what “you” have.
Not many of the Vote on Yes supporters realize that their children (or children they’re going to have in the future) might end up being homosexual. So in the future, when they want to get married, it’s like saying “Oh hey, you can’t get married because I voted Yes.” Knowing that you yourself prevented your kids chance to marry is kind of disheartening. It’s like a smack in the face for the kids.
If you want to save marriage, go do something about the divorce rates! All that campaign money on Yes on Prop 8 (and no on Prop 8 for that matter) should be towards helping those that are in need of it or helping the economy.
How sacred can marriage be when Britney Spears can run off to Vegas and wed and divorce within a day? Please… And as for “the children”, I’m proud that I’ve raised my daughter to respect everyone, regardless of thier sexual orientation or religion. As for gay couples being able to adopt, good for them. I had a mother and a father and I’ll say this… I would have rather been raised by two loving parents of the same sex than them. Love is more important than gender. Furthermore, if the argument is that a child needs a mother and a father, then I guess we should outlaw sperm donatation to single women. I don’t understand how people can honestly believe it’s okay to impose their beliefs on everyone else. This is AMERICA. This is the land of opportunity for EVERYONE. Thank GOD we’re not all alike!!!
Karen and pn:
Not many of the Vote on 8 No opponents realize that their children (or children they’re going to have in the future) might end up being in love with each other. So in the future, when they want to get married, it’s like saying “Oh hey, now you can get married because I voted No.” Knowing that you yourself allowed your kids chance to marry is kind of disheartening. It’s like a smack in the face (to someone, I just don’t know who in this analogy anymore). Plenty of money is being wasted by the “No on H8″ people too.
that’s why the rest of california laughs at the oc register & orange county. this is the breeding ground for hate, racism, sexism & right-wing hypocricy………..& all in the name of christian morals.
it’s so funny that all you “christians” can always back up your hate & fear with a quote from the bible, albeit the old testament. shouldn’t you all really be calling yourselves hebrews? jesus( CHRIST ) came to reinterpret the old testament for the pharisees. for all your old testament quotes on how we should kill & hate & fear, CHRIST has one to the contrary. where are all you “REAL” Christians?
I am absolutely voting NO on this ridiculous proposition for many reasons. First and foremost, I just don’t give a rat’s ass whether gay people get married. If they want to do it, let them. Nobody is asking YOU to marry somebody from your same gender, leave those who want to do so ALONE.
Second, what are you people afraid of? I keep hearing ridiculous arguments like ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage”. Protecting it from *what*? Do you honestly think gay people could possibly make marriage more of a joke than straight people have? Give me a break.
Marriage IS a joke, and you know who made it that way? WE, the STRAIGHT PEOPLE, did. I think the REAL motivation behind Prop 8 is simply straight people who are terrified that gays might actually make a better go of Marriage than straight people have. It would take an Herculean effort for them to do any worse.
i believe there will be a large problem facing the american government. the lines separating church and state were never clearly defined. if separation of church and state is going to be enforced, enforce it. and enforce it everywhere. this country was founded off of christian ideals, and increasing religious diversity is going to pressure this. basically my point is: if any government is going to define something like marriage, it should not contain any religious sentiments whatsoever. this goes for every thing. it should be based on fundamental rights and nothing else. any religious coincidences should remain just that, coincidences. what is right in the eyes of god should have no effect on whats right in the eyes of the state.
JakeD:
No on Prop 8 has nothing to do with incest, so I don’t even know why you’re going that direction.
These are sad times for our civil liberties. Prop 8 is a fine example of that. The framers of the US Constitution would be aghast at how deeply Prop 8 attempts to regulate the private matters of our citizens.
Say NO to hate, say NO to Prop 8.
Oh yeah, speaking of civil liberties, vote for Obama!!
Isn’t time that we had an intelligent president?
Quip said “P.S. If you want to make a point by posting your opinion here, it’ll be easier to convince someone if you can spell and use proper grammar. Nobody respects the opinion of someone who can’t even write a few lines intelligently.” And I could not agree more. But please understand one thing about gays, grammar and education. Imagine being in third grade and realizing you are gay. Now imagine going to church and hearing that you have sinned by being gay. No imagine that you go to the school library and look up what it is to be gay and read it was once considered to be a disease, a perversion and a mental illness. Then imagine yourself, Mr. Quip, going to class and not entering into a state of panic where learning potential is wiped out from the phobia to follow. I remember this so clearly. Once my hormones began to course through my body and the “all powerful” sexual drive began to kick in along with a unique SHAME the likes of which can not be described with words or in Technicolor polarizes your senses, pumps adrenaline through your body in frequent panic attacks and the first time you hear the word “fagot” whispered or worse yelled at you directly your world collapses around you. Fear and silence become all you know. You can’t share your feelings with your “Christian” or “Religious” parents. Your ability to pay attention in class is compromised because you live in shame. Internalized homophobia takes over your little eight year old life and stays well seated in the forefront of your mind well through graduation. So if some guy does not spell a word right or sounds a little dumb in his comment… give a break. And for the same reason we should vote NO on Prop 8. Do it FOR THE CHILDREN. If my teacher taught (which they don’t and will not under prop
that homosexual feelings were normal when I was in third grade I might have a very different and certainly far more intellectual life than I do now. I would also not be afraid of school, people or bullies. I would also be a hell of a lot more of a man today with the support and approval then, when it mattered most. For a child of eight years to hold a secret so frighteningly shameful is child abuse in every possible and imaginable way. Sexual perversions and preferences range widely in the straight world. Loving someone and having sex with them is not perverse regardless of sexual orientation but child abuse is. The shame brought about mostly by religious zealots through time and now-a-days by way of “machismo” and American hero worship PERVERTED into persecution of any man short of THE IMAGE of the Beer Commercial Icons sports figure IMAGES and impossibly perfect male roll models is considered to be a fag, queer or a girlie man. Nothing is further from the truth. There is a little straight in gay men and a little gay in straight men and nobody put it more eloquently or with better research than Dr. Kinsey in the Kinsey Report way back in the fifties and the sixties. So when you see little flaws in otherwise sensible and intelligible comments consider the source, the realities and the fear gay people endure. Consider what we went through side-by-side with the Jews in Germany. Consider how much love we have been denied by others and by ourselves! Consider how strange and lonely a gay child feels when this daunting realization hits! It is like a ton of bricks falling on a child without love support tolerance and yes… acceptance - (dare I say approval?). So in closing what is wrong with a dad wanting a gay son or a Lesbian daughter? The day will come when children are not hammered into role models when parents will love every child and every child can become a parent. A day will come when fear and equality will start at the moment of conception and protect the souls and minds of gay, straight and transgendered children from day one. Love is not a feeling or a hormonal reaction. It is not sexuality sex or exclusive to a man wed to a woman. Love it LOVE and the sooner we Americans begin to respect it the sooner our children gay, straight, or what ever they are… who ever they are… will find themselves in a better world… of good grammar and spelling… of course.
Why dont you people who are for this bigoted proposition worry about your own damn marriages! If you want to save marriage, BAN DIVORCE! Oh I forgot, too many of you hypocrits are cheating on your spouses. So much for the sanctity of marriage. Remember the next time you need a cop or fire fighter or Doctor, that person who saved your ass is the one you are discriminating against. What Christians. I bet your proud.
in Netherlands after same-sex marriage legalized in 2001. Incest and polygamy became legal today.
in Sweded today, siblings can legally marry after same-sex marriage legalized in 1994.
If you don’t belive school will teach young children about gay marriage. Think again. It already happened in Massachusetts and parents can not opt out their children.
‘no on 8′ people please think again. Just like mayor Newsom said,’It’s coming whether you like it or not’. You don’t belive it now? Just wait and I hope you won’t feel sorry later! “YES ON 8″
NO on 8 all the way!!!
When this Prop 8 loses immediately all children of Republicans will become GAY and start having sex with other Gays.
HaHaHaHa !!!!!
I”m sorry civil union or marriage, homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. They will have an uphill battle because over half of the US states and many foreign countries have already voted to preserve that marriage “is a man and woman.” You go California with your liberal ideologies.
Why do the people that are pro prop 8 seem so similar to those that were for racial segregation? They should should stop trying to push their own values onto others. Take care of your own family, not mine. Vote no on prop 8.
I am a bigot because:…1. Throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman…2. The natural law of humanity only allows an egg and sperm to procreate…3. Civil Liberties is not civil rights..4. Civil rights is not conduct…5. We are being indoctrinated by society to accept conduct when it goes against personal ethics..6. Businesses, churches, government and families should have freedom of speech by the foundation that this land was based on and not be tried for discrimination….
Tell me, all you who are opposed to prop 8…when my religious leader refuses to “marry” a gay couple because it is fundamentally opposed to our religious beliefs…are you telling me that you won’t sue??? You know darn right that if prop 8 passes, tons of anti-religion activists will attempt to be married in churches and when denied will sue claiming discrimination. The real agenda for many of the opponents to 8 has little to do with marriage and everything to do with trying to “fix” what they think is “wrong” with religious groups in America. Beware religious believers…this is where things are going. Just look at what is happening in Brazil. I am a democrat and don’t buy most of the conservative bull, but I have read many a blog by gay activists and this is exactly where they are headed. How is my religious freedom being protected here…I believe that it is a more fundamental right than the right to legal “marriage”.
ham
This is a more eloquent thought that my own from cmagyar that I full agree with:
“The tax-exempt status of religious institutions does not hinge on the beliefs or practices of the religion. Religions, as
protected in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, are not beholden to any inclusionary or exclusionary civil rights
clauses. So long as the ceremonies do not involve felonies (murder, rape, etc.), the practices of any given religion are
free from prosecution.
For example, no religion has lost its tax exempt status due to espousing pro-life opinions, despite abortion being
Constitutionally protected.
This is important: the decisions of the state do not in any way impinge upon the opinions of a religion, because we have
separation of church and state. Voting for Prop 8 does not protect churches. It does, however, espouse a secular belief
that gay marriage should not be allowed. If you are opposed to gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, there is
no need to vote for Prop 8, because your religious beliefs are already fully protected. If you vote for Prop 8, you are
opposing gay marriage on a societal level, because you personally find homosexuality abhorrent.
Anyone who tries to cloak their pro-8 beliefs under the umbrella of religion is lying, to themselves and the public. Prop 8
is about society defining marriage, not religions.”
1. Throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman
Wrong. Many cultures had same-sex marriages before the Judeo-Christian view took hold in Europe, for example the ancient Greeks.
2. The natural law of humanity only allows an egg and sperm to procreate
Gay couples can and do procreate, just not very often, through sperm donation or artificial insemination. They also adopt.
And what has marriage to do with procreation these days? Do you deny older couples the right to marry too?
3. Civil Liberties is not civil rights
The freedom from suppression due to gender or sexual orientation has been confirmed many times by all Supreme Courts, last not least when it rejected Prop 22 as unconstitutional.
4. Civil rights is not conduct
I’m baffled on this one. What are you trying to say?
5. We are being indoctrinated by society to accept conduct when it goes against personal ethics
Nobody indoctrinates you. You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don’t infringe on other people’s freedom.
6. Businesses, churches, government and families should have freedom of speech by the foundation that this land was based on and not be tried for discrimination
Nobody restricts their right to free speech. If anybody does, sue them and you’ll win.
That is not True already in MA, a same sex coupled sued a Methodist church because the Methodist church refused to rent it’s property to a same sex couple stating it was against thier beliefs. The church lost citing discrimination. Also in MA, you have to be a MA citizen to be married. In CA, there are no laws of state citizenship. That means couples can come to CA and go back to another state and sue. That’s the problem with this bill, there are too many loop holes.
atchemp,
As I understand it, the property may have to be rented as well here in California. However, the clergy or church officials would not legally be required to perform the ceremony. Does anyone have any official clarification on that?
atchemp Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:34 am
That is not True already in MA, a same sex coupled sued a Methodist church because the Methodist church refused to rent it’s property to a same sex couple stating it was against thier beliefs. The church lost citing discrimination.
And CA law is different. No church is forced or obliged to marry anybody. They can refuse without citing any reasons at all.
For all you people who are Pro 8:
What, exactly, is a man and a woman? I’m not being facetious. In 99% it is unambiguous, but in a little under a percent it is debatable. Is it genetics (XX vs XY chromosomes)? If yes - there *are* women with XY chromosomes, specifically if they are genetically unresponsive to testosterone. They are genetically male put physically and psychologically women and their condition is only discovered when whey try to find out why they’re infertile.
The same thing exists in men (men with XX chromosomes) but is very rare. However, there are quite a few men with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome), roughly 1 in 500.
What about babies that were born with unclear gender and had sex assignment surgery (1 in a few 1000)? What if they complain that the surgery was done the wrong way so they end up transgender? What about people who did not have sex assignment surgery?
What about other transgender people, who may or may not have sex reassignment surgery?
Gender, sexual orientation and sexual preference is not black and white.
Anyone who thinks this is about anything other than the “ick” factor is lying. People are grossed out by the idea of two men having sex, and that’s what this election is about. It’s not about children, or families, or the “traditional meaning of marriage. Those are all cop-outs for people who are afriad to just admit it by saying “eeeeewwwwwww, two boys, gross!” We’re doing it and we like it! Get over it. NO On 8!!!
Prop 8 is less about gay marriage and more about what America is supposed to be about. We are supposed to have freedom. This proposition risks our freedom to live life withough religious or social discrimination. Any American should protect rights and vote NO on 8. Even if you don’t agree with gay marriage - it is not accptable - in America - to restrict rights for 1 group of people. What happened to separation of church and state?? I am straight, married with kids…and I teach them acceptance, tolerance and understanding versus bigotry and discrimination. I also teach that in America we have freedom - and that is precious.
If you really wanted to protect marriage, you would outlaw divorce. And civil unions are not “marriage.” Someone also commented that she couldn’t get a civil union because she wasn’t gay. That’s not true. The first couple to register as domestic partners in the State of California was a straight couple. The law was also designed to protect roommates who may need benefits similar to marriage when the necessity of hospital visits, etc. came into play. That’s why it’s called “domestic partner.”
I could listen to the Yes on 8 people way more if they just told the truth. This is a religious, moral, issue where people are afraid (for some reason) of the minority that is not “just like them.” Just admit that you hate anyone who doesn’t agree with you and you want to protect the sanctiity of your agreement and sameness. Don’t throw children and polygamy into the mix.
NO ON 8!
NO ON 8!
NO ON 8!
NO ON 8!
Ron … we should respect THE WILL OF 61% OF CA VOTERS who approved Prop 22 in 2000. We are in this position because 4 CA supreme court justices committed JUDICIAL TYRANNY and threw out the decision of 4 million CA voters. Unless you are ready to give up the idea that those who govern receive their authority from the governed, then vote Yes on Prop 8 to preserve a democratic model in CA.
DWinOC Says:
CA supreme court justices committed JUDICIAL TYRANNY and threw out the decision of 4 million CA voters
They did their job and threw out an unconstitutional law.
That’s all there is.
I would like to ask those who ARE for Prop 8….Has YOUR marriage become LESS in the past few months since gay marriages have been going on?? Has it changed anything??? NO….and it won’t change a thing in your life like it hasn’t since.
The only thing that needs to change is people’s prejudices. Gays don’t tell you who to worship or who to be wtih. Leave them alone and mind your own business.
This stupid Prop 8 shouldn’t even be on the ballot.
Oh….I thought there was an economic crisis going on….where the hell did we find $60,000,000. to throw away on campaign ads on something that is nobody’s business but the ones that wanna get married?? Where are our priorities??
Like my straight friends say, “Let em get married. Why should we be the only miserable ones?”
VOTE NO on 8
emissary - “The rising generation is also the ones who will learn that marriage has nothing to do with children, since two of the three “marriage relationships” are barren by design. Why, then, will they have an incentive to get married if they want children?”
The young generation (20 something year olds, the generation I belong to) don’t get married to have kids. They usually get married because they love each other, there parents are making them (Palin’s kid, Bristol) or they want the tax benefit. The Definition of marriage has changed a lot since centuries past. So, let’s not take away rights from individuals who love each other and take the same vow through a civil ceremony as anyone else. Domestic partnerships are not the same, and are not recognized in other states.
I just don’t understand why would we want to go backwards and actually write DISCRIMINATION INTO the constitution rather than taking it out. Your kids will find out what gays are whether gays can get married or not, and I hope you tell them that they are equal citizens and they don’t deserve to be persecuted.
C’MON NO ON 8 PEOPLE, DONATE JUST 5 BUCKS SO WE CAN STOP THE LIES OF YES ON 8 CAMPAIGN
Ham:
Are you aware that some Catholic churches don’t allow non-Catholic couples to get married? Why, then, do we not hear about the millions of people suing the Catholic Church? We legally recognize many non-Catholic religions, so why don’t other religions sue the Church for discrimination?
Vote Yes On 8, ii suggest that people read up on the proposition because there are alot of people going off the “hate” tactic, which it is not!
God still loves even though your heart is full of hatred.
Fight is not over. Stop taxpayer subsidies of intolerance.
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/