Leaders of the No on Prop. 8 campaign conceded defeat today after speaking with the Secretary of State’s office and learning there’s not enough uncounted ballots to change the ultimate outcome.
Prop. 8, which banned gay marriage in California, passed with 52.5 percent of the vote.
“This is a very disappointing moment for all of us,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Prop. 8 opponents attributed their loss in large part to a deceptive campaign by the Yes campaign.
“It’s awfully hard to fight on even ground when the other side is fighting dirty,” said No on 8 leader Lori Jean.
RELATED COVERAGE
- Victory in Prop. 8 threatened by lawsuits
- What is O.C. folks are saying about Prop. 8?
- Tradition drove O.C. approval of 8
Campaign leaders, however, said they took solace in the measure’s narrow victory. Eight years ago, a similar measure in California was approved by margin of nearly 23 percent. Prop. 8 opponents say this indicates support for gay marriage is growing.
“I hope they savor their victory,” Jean said. “because it’s going to be fleeting.”
Prop. 8 opponents say they now will focus on litigation to invalidate the measure and on efforts to move forward the gay marriage movement.
Why does the matter now have to go before Judges? The Will of the People wrote the founding documents of this Country and State.
We need to oppose the actions of a few to override the Will of the People.
Regardless if we agree with the outcome this is how our Society works to ensure everyone has a vote.
The best solution would be (and one I would fully support) for the opponents to put the matter back before the People of California in a future election.
Once you take it to the Court you attempt to go against the very foundation of our Country. This Society is still about We the People.
There are still issues about invalidating the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place and whether Prop. 8 was a valid Constitutional Amendment in the first place.
It goes before the courts because the will of the people CAN NEVER be used to take away rights based on DISCRIMINATION. People forget that it wasn’t long ago that Interracial marriages were deemed illegal, until the courts stepped in. The idea WASN’T POPULAR. Over 90% disapproved. But the courts rightly called out discrimination and it’s their job to do so in whatever form it takes.
According to you, anytime a majority of people vote something in, it’s a done deal. So, to take your argument further, why don’t white people vote to take away the rights of all black people? ANY minority subject to the rights of the majority will always lose. That’s why we have courts - to protect those rights.
Why don’t you read those founding documents? You might come to learn about those fundamental, inalienable rights.
Why don’t Christians vote to ban Mormonism!?
Or better yet, Democrats should get an initiative together to disband the Republican Party!!! This is all supposedly legal under the California Constitution.
No, the California Supreme Court will invalidate Prop. 8. Try again, bigots, and this time use the proper procedure, i.e., 2/3 of the legislature.
Unlikely, the same lawsuit was filed in
other states w/ the updated constitutions
and they lost almost unanimously.
Its highly unlikely they will be able to
call this measure unconstitutional, since
the California Supreme Court cannot change
the constitution in any way (especially since
the constitution has already been rewritten).
Even the California Supreme court judge said that
overturning this change is highly unlikely.
P.S. I would have to believe that it would be
partially approved by the legislature since this
only required a direct vote, and not a 3/4ths majority vote.
I may be wrong though.
Why is it that people who want to protect the sanctity of marriage are called bigots? Those people who are calling names, are just as much to blame for hatred against heterosexuals.
I dont understand why gay people cant be ok with the fact that they are allowed to be together in a civl union. Marraige is between a MAN and a WOMAN. If you choose to be gay, accept that fact that you will not be married. You cannot re-define words just becuase you want to. We still live in a democracy where the people rule, not judges. And the comment about white people voting to elminate the rights of blacks is a TOTALLY different arguement that has nothing to do with prop 8. Prop 8 is about the definition of marraige and the poeple have voted to keep marraige sacred, which is the right choice
would anyone think it ok to vote for the dismantling of all religious organizations in CA? i doubt it, but if i can get enough votes (52.5%) i’m assuming that Alan would be ok with it! the Will of the People and all…
it doesn’t work like that. we use the word Democracy to describe our country all the time, but the reality is - it isn’t. in a real democracy, the most votes wins…period.
our founding folks knew better and learned from history. they made a “democracy” that enables voices to be heard, but embedded systems to ensure that loud voices do not silence quieter ones. this is wear we get inalienable rights to life, liberty, the press, etc.
state supreme courts, and our federal supreme court, again and again have found the wisdom to defend the softer voices…and they did it again in CA. sadly, prejudice remains in the Will of the People…and now it falls to the courts to speak for those that are being silenced. that’s there job…as created by the founding folks.
“Whether you like it or not!” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….right back at you No on 8 people!
On the argument that voters need 2/3 in order to make the change would remove the changes made by Prop 209 to our Constitution.
Proponents of same sex “legal partnerships” need only to call it something other than marriage…is that such a hard thing to do? All this whining and misuse of words like discrimination is pathetic. Comparing illegal marriages to racism is an expoitation of such terms meant to scare those who don’t agree with their agenda into voting with them. Good lord, no one wants to be associated with the terms racism and discrimination. Oh, and sorry for the use of the word Lord. Why can’t liberals call themselves conservatives but still be liberals…that’s how ridiculous this whole issue is. There’s a difference, so why call it the same thing? This has nothing to do with rights. Same sex partners have all of the same rights as heterosexual couples. This is all about shoving their beliefs and agendas down the throats of those who “choose” not to agree with them. We all have choices, yet those who are in the minority in this case, think that their choice and opinions outweigh those of the majority.
Good grief this is the second time the vote has been shot down by the people. And this is after the court overruled the peoples vote the first time. the people have spoken its time to move on.
To compare inter-racial marriage between a man and woman to marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is like comparing apples to oranges. So you think that anyone should be able to marry anyone? What if a brother wanted to marry his sister. Or a father wanted to marry his son. Should we allow that as well? After all, it would be discriminating against the brother if he couldn’t marry his brother who was his best friend and lover.
cry me a river…no on 8 lost!!! so now we have a bunch of gay haters
I’m currently not in California, but I was a recent resident and grew up there. Nevertheless, I wasn’t in town to witness the whole debate over Prop 8. I don’t quite understand why everyone’s bashing the Mormons for Prop 8: were they the only group to vote Yes? Do the Mormons take up 52.5% of the population? Why are they being blamed for it?
Too true, if the court overturns prop 8
due to improper procedures, they will
be forced to remove prop 209 (which we ALL want!!!!!).
And since the constitution has also been rewritten,
the California Supreme Court cannot block the law in
any way, since its on the document they swore to protect.
The last major option is the 9 circuit (sp) court, or the supreme
court. And the supreme court option would be unwise for democrats
to jump on since it is controlled by the republicans.
no on 8 - YOU LOST- Time to move on
This one’s for you Gavin Newsom:
“The doors slammed shut now….whether you like or not.” HAHAHAHA
Hey people,
IT’S OVER! Go lick your wounds and take it to the FEDERAL Government. Maybe you will have better luck with them now that OBAMA is coming in!
The Yes on Hate campaign has on achieved to delay social evolution. This is typical of the socially unevolved who voted for hate. Many injustices were perpetuated when subjected to popular vote. It was popular vote that resulted in Christ’s crucifixion. The California Supreme Court will again find that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone including GLBT people.
More proof that your vote DOESN’T count! This will be overturned by Judges MAKING laws from the bench rather than following previous rulings to make their decisions. This sounds very similar to Prop 82 and Prop 87 many years ago. Remember, not paying for services for illegals and making English the official language. Both ruled unconstitutional. Seems people who don’t belong here and don’t follow our rules and laws have more rights than the voting public that are here legally and are actually citizens of the US.
Las night watching the march, I was hoping they would all march their way OUT of California. Go to Conn. or Mass if you want to get married. They allow it there. Here in CA, the PEOPLE voted and we said YES on 8!
Go ahead and force your same-sex marriage agenda down the throats of the millions who voted to maintain traditional marriage.
You want acceptance? You’ll get resentment, hatred, discrimination, and everything you’ve been trying to erase.
This is exactly the attitude that sets public opinion against the gay community.
Go ahead. Make enemies. Alienate the entire heterosexual population.
But don’t go crying when it translates into intolerance, discrimination, and resentment.
I was a sympathiser. Not any more. I’ll help finance any effort to maintain traditional relationships.
You want opposition? You got it!
Thank you to OCNative58, Calvin, and especially RB. Well said, enough said. The majority of Californians have spoken and voted twice on this issue.
the people of california have voted and NO ON 8 lost!!!! HAHAHAHAHA please stop your stupid protest and take your signs down…its over, move on with your life
stop spreading you gay hate towards the people that voted yes on 8…we dont care
I have a serious question for the “no on 8″ people. What is the difference between a domestic partnership and a marraige as far as the rights that are afforded to the couple? Does the passage of prop 8 take away any actual rights other than the right to call a partnership a marraige? I am asking this because I have heard so many different answers and I am not sure what is true.
Reasons why 8 WON.
1. Maybe Gavin Newsom and his rant
2. Judges overruling the California voters
3. Obama and Biden are against gay marriage and said so in the debates
4. California teachers taking 1st graders to gay wedding
5. California teacher having kindegardners sign pro gay marriage peition
6. Newsom pretending to be gay to get elected.
7. Blacks voted 70% against it.
You lost TWICE - and if need be you’ll lose THREE times. Maybe now you can redefine the color of the sky or call day night………
So what are No on 8 people saying?! That they’ll go through the motions of campaigning and voting, yet when things don’t go their way grouse about how unfair it all is and run to their bootlicking judges to make it all better again? Why even go through the voting process at all if you’re not going to accept the outcome? The dirty campaign was run by the No on 8 people, not the other way around. If your judges overturn the will of the people again, there needs to be some ‘forced’ judicial retirements.
The people have spoken, and you need to get over it. Move to Massachusetts or Connecticut
Oops.
1. Mayor Gavin Newsom and his rant. It was quite in your face! Its fun to go to youtube and listen to it over and over again.
Hey , gay people, you voted for the black guy and they didn’t reciprocate. What happened?
I for the record, voted against 8. I just love my gay friend Oday!
Or New York , they still accept gay marriage.
Although I am more afraid of the backlash
African Americans are going to recieve
because of this.
“You can’t change the definition of something that existed forever because you don’t like it.”
The vote has been done, the people have spoken. Why are you people now trying to take this to the courts. Smells to me like sore losers and going crying to mommy! We have already spent over $50million on this campaign. How about shelving this forever putting that money into our schools?
Actually, if you can get 50% +1 to vote for a ban on Religious worship in California, to amend the state constitution, then go ahead.
When you AMEND the constitution with an AMENDment, anything that it contradicts is therefore nullified by the amendment. Take, for example, the 3/5 compromise in the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment nullified that.
yeah, you already took the word “gay” and ruined the definition
ocballfan:
There are no legitimate grounds to take it to the FEDERAL courts. I certainly hope Congress does not try to force States to accept same-sex marriage.
I love that “Christian’s” voted for this. What a bunch of hypocrites. What happened to all men being equal. These loving people were not asking heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex, they wanted the right to marry the person they love. I’m sorry, you are unable to marry your wife/husband because they have green eyes.
My grandfather was not able to buy a house because he was Hispanic. My parents were able to get married because the laws had changed. If it were 5 years earlier, they would not have been allowed to be married. God forbid a Hispanic man wanting to marry a white woman.
I know, next election, let’s have a proposition that only people with brown eyes can marry people with brown eyes. Let’s take all the Asian and ship them inland because they are a threat. I could go on and on.
Yes on 8 is nothing but discrimination. I am heterosexual and married, but am disappointed in my fellow man. All of you Yes on 8 people are biggots, racists and do not care about your fellow man. Shame on you. The BS scare tactics worked. What is next? Remember Hitler?????? Look in the mirror!!!!!!!! Is this you????
It is time to move on. Maybe you should try to get gay marriage’s approved in Iran, Iraq or China you lost in California.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable.
2000: 61% for ban, 38% against
2008: 52% for ban, 48% against
Look at the progress that’s been made in eight short years. It won’t be long.
It’s good to see that all of you Prop 8 supporters are being so graceful and adult like about this. Are you also cheering at home in front of your children? Awesome examples, Christian parents.
Wow, I’m amazed at how people think it is not discrimination. Taking rights from people because they are different from the majority is discriminating. Comparing inter-racial marriage and a gay marriage is not like comparing apples and oranges. Unless you were in an interracial relationship when it was illegal then you don’t understand. Its the same thing, not being allowed because you are different, whether black, white, hispanic, asian, gay or straight. I am in an interracial relationship now, and gay one for that matter. I’m just lucky enough now that I CAN be in a relationship with someone of a different color of my skin.
How is me marrying my partner going to affect all you supporters of prop 8? Really, can someone explain it to me? Is it my business that my neighboor John wants to marry his girlfriend Jennifer? No, good for them. I’m happy that they have found someone to share their life with. Why can’t it be this simple. Why can’t people embrace the fact we have found someone to love and spend our lives with.
And if you want to bring up the bible and your religious beliefs, I dont want to hear it. I’m not religious, that’s great that you are, it’s all a part of religious freedom in this country. But don’t bring your religious beliefs into the state constitution. Does anyone recall the seperation of state and church? Ring a bell anyone?
Why is it okay for a couple to hire a gay wedding planner, but when the gay wedding planner wants to have his own wedding, he can’t. What’s up with that?
And seriously, prop 8 has nothing to do with children. If you want to explain to me that marriage is to procreate….. then I guess people who are infertile should not have the right to marry either. This doesn’t make sense. Some people don’t even want children, and that’s their choice. And when was the last time that marriage was part of the curriculum in school?
And FYI, if you don’t agree with something being taught in your child’s classroom, the state of california gives you the right to take your child out. And if it were taught in schools, is to say that you wouldn’t talk to children about it? Sex ed is taught in schools, is that the only place you let your child learn about sex?
And if you think that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, the sole essence of our democracy, is not being violated, here’s a direct quote from our 14th amendment involving citizen rights:
“14. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Regarding the comments comparing inter-racial marriage to same-sex marriage…give me a break! you CANT choose what color your skin is, but you CAN choose what qualities you are attracted to…such as blondes, brunettes, heavy set, skinny, tall, short…if you choose to be attracted to the same sex than that’s your choice. Do not try to force your choice upon the majority of us…a marriage was created for a man & a woman. A man & a woman were created biologically to reproduce children. two people of the same sex cannot. Homosexuality is naturally not normal ..and because it’s not that group tries its best to make itself appear normal, first by adopting kids because they biologically cannot make them, secondly now by trying take over marriage as their own right.
Congratulations California on once again getting the vote right!
great example of all the no on 8…yes on 8 won and your still crying, move on its over!!!!
obama is president, fine…lets see how he does.
gay hate is everywhere
What a waste.
Oh please, Megan! Climb down off your high horse! I suppose rioting in the streets, jumping on police cars and throwing things is a graceful and adult reaction. Pfft. Whiners.
E.N.,
Yes, we can see the progress of the indoctrination of young people that we have seen in 8 short years.
Now that Prop 8 is passed, maybe we can focus on straightening out the minds of people who who have been indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda.
Just leave the word “marriage” alone, just work on modifying the “civil union” that we already have now to make it work.
i beg to diifer about the fighting dirty statement
I have done none of those things. But laughing in the face of a minority of people who’s rights were taken away is a better response, I suppose?
“It’s awfully hard to fight on even ground when the other side is fighting dirty,” said No on 8 leader Lori Jean.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Unbelievable!
Homosexuals and their mis-led supporters are working towards normalizing this unnatural behavior and then teach our kids (and anyone else they can bully) into accepting, respecting and even trying this filth. They know that since there is no proven biological evidence for the “homosexual” gene - this is is the only sure-fire way to “breed” more gender-confused kids. They already have all the rights & protections under the domestic partnership rules - but that’s not enough… What comes next, marrying a pet, a sibling, polygamy? I’m teaching my kids marriage was, is and always will be between 1 Man & 1 Woman.
Can somebody tell me what “gay hate” is? Are you literally saying that if a gay person wants to get married, that means they hate all heterosexuals?
John K and Mark:
The dismantling of all religious organizations, or even just the Republican Party, would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, for you, there’s no First Amendment right to deviant sexual behavior.
E.N.:
It will be a long time before your side can get a Constitutional Amendment permitting same-sex marriage (e.g. not all of the 48% against Prop. 8 would turn right around and vote FOR a Constitutional Amendment).
The strength of a society is when one creates on environment where children can thrive and grow in a safe and secure environment. A valued traditional marriage where there are both natural parents (man & woman) seems to provide the best odds. These advantages stand out more clearly when marriages fail, and when other approaches are followed. Society should protect its long-term interest and look to the future. At some point we’ve got to stop asking what is good for us as individuals and ask what is good for society. In a Dutch study the average length of “committed” homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years and of nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of relationship did not last 8 years.
Many families who support prop 8 believe that by not protecting the institution of traditional marriage that has benefits communities, the value of traditional marriage will continue to erode which would lead to the decline of the society.
If you think same-sex couples are natural and so called “like the rest” then reproduce and show us how similiar we are…WE’RE NOT… so please you have your RIGHTS (Domestic Partnership, etc..)and leave us alone..
EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN BEFORE THEY TRY TOO.
Give me a break Yay Prop 8, how many gay people do you know. Have you ever had an intelligent conversation with them? How many of them have told you they have felt the way they do since they were 5 years old or younger. I know, electric shock therapy to make them straight.
These fine people will tell you it is not a choice.
Megan, perhaps you didn’t see the ridiculous spectacle that the prop 8 opposers put on in West Hollywood last night.
It’s time that you stop putting everyone that disagrees with you into the same bucket and listen to the real explanations and basis for how people vote.
“It’s awfully hard to fight on even ground when the other side is fighting dirty,” said No on 8 leader Lori Jean.
Come on already. If people were in any doubt that the right decision was made, the after-election comments by the No8 crowd are simply serving to confirm that it was. You are not doing your cause any favors.
mlmc:
The 14th Amendment does not prohibit the States from banning a brother and sister from marrying each other. Nice try though.
^^^^^ mlmc hit the nail on the head with the 14th amendment quote.
This is where it’s headed next, people.
OCnative I heard about the rally in West Hollywood. But if your rights were taken away a mere 6 months after they were granted to you, are you just going to let it go? I think not.
Gay rights is sexual orientation, not civil discrimination. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business. It doesn’t belong out in the public. There wouldn’t have been opposition if it wasn’t forced down the throats of everyone. Teachers forcing it in the schools. I am a teacher and I am appalled that the teachers unions supported NO on 8. That is the ugly gay agenda, to force people who don’t agree with that lifestyle that they can’t teach their children that it is wrong. Then to force all churches to perform gay marriages or they lose their tax exemption status. This is their agenda! They currently have all the rights that marriage has with civil unions. But that is not enough. Soon people will be pushing back because of the lack of respect the far left liberals have for those who don’t agree with them. It’s time for us to stand up and push back.
It doesn’t bode well for the No on 8 cause when the opponents take to the streets after losing and commit “unrest”. They’re planning more later today … http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/los-angeles-p-1.html.
“Live and let live” seems to be a one way street.
CA Family Code 297.5 reads as such:
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
The ONLY reason to add the word marriage is to use it to sue churches that oppose them. This is about protecting churches and individuals from religious persecution.
“It’s awfully hard to fight on even ground when the other side is fighting dirty,” said No on 8 leader Lori Jean.
What? Having more votes is fighty dirty? What a b**** and a sore loser.
JakeD:
That’s because people aren’t born “fraterno-sexual,” where they are only attracted to their siblings. Show me some psych studies proving this and maybe I’ll reconsider.
Equal protection means laws cannot discriminate against people on the basis of characteristics that they are born with. That means race, and yes, sexual orientation.
When will they realize that it is morally worng to be a homosexual.
Just the facts:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory
Children must be raised in a “normal” family. How many of these “families” are filled with crack heads, cheaters and pedophiles?
Why not a LOVING family regardless of the biological make up. I would rather be loved and be given every opportunity to succeed than be in a dysfunctional heterosexual family.
I don’t think the “support for gay marriage” is growing as stated in the article. That’s not why I voted No on 8.
I think people recognized the difference between passing a law and amending the constitution, and there are some - like me - who don’t feel a constitutional amendment is the right way to handle this issue.
For many people, this isn’t about marriage at all, gay or otherwise. It’s about what belongs in the constitution, and also what kinds of things we want government ruling over. I don’t want my government deciding who should marry, or who should go to church, etc. This issue to me represents a slippery slope I’m not willing to start down.
Side note: The thing I haven’t been able to figure out - how does preventing gay people from getting married “preserve marriage?” If a gay couple gets married, how does that ruin or impact in any way my heterosexual marriage? If we really want to preserve marriages, shouldn’t we outlaw divorce?
…and it PAINS me to see how people are reacting to this “Prop on 8″ so negatively. God has presented everyone in California and other states an opportunity to show their LOVE for everyone, as human beings, human beings who live on HIS planet, in HIS country, in HIS city, in HIS neighborhood, and in HIS back yard. Yet, many people have decided to use laws made by man to create hate, discrimination, and the talk of the Devil for what a population does……Instead of LOVING them for who they are! People preach about morals….yet, the greatest moral of all is to treat others the way you want to be treated. I am visibly ashamed of my Christian/Catholic/ and other brothers and sisters. This country knows nothing but discrimination, power and control, and themselves. People beg and pray for a sign that God exists and that he cares…and that he LOVES! And people forget that God does not provide signs he provides opportunity. God doesn’t make laws, he provides guidelines to follow the path of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus did not discriminate against a homeless person, prostitute, black, white, or any other. Walking with Jesus is to LOVE and to show passion for human life. We are all on HIS planet together. We have to learn to LOVE one another. God did create man and woman. That, we know. Procreation will continue, often times without marriage…why isn’t anyone attempting to save this “sanctity of marriage?” (1/4 sexually active teenage women have an STD, 86% of teen girls who become pregnant don’t marry the father of their first and often second child…do we hear people yelling to gain more support of better education or programs that embrace our youth? And let us not forget our own idea of “sanctity of marriage,” “till death do us part.” The last I heard the nation’s divorce rate is almost 56%) I don’t hear complaints about this information as loud as what I hear going on today. Sounds like we have some work to be done when we talk about commitment and even “our sanctity of marriage” amongst the heterosexual community. Let us start focusing on issues that pertain to our population first, before we attempt to understand another populations adversities.
Do we not have the right to protest in this country?
African American’s were wrong when they held civil unrest to be allowed to ride on the same bus as a white person, eat in the same place, work side by side.
This is nothing but discrimination. What are you people afraid of. There is nothing wrong with two people in love and wanting to marry.
Jim:
You are equating immutable race with sexual behavior?
P.S. “There is nothing wrong with two people in love and wanting to marry.” Does that include a brother and a sister?
Tired the question about divorce has been asked over and over again and I haven’t seen it answered. Basically all I’ve seen is “The sky is falling!” “The gays want rights!” “It’s raining men!” “Oh think of the children!”
What are we teaching are children, who are old enough to realize what Prop 8 means? That it’s ok for a group of people to not have the same rights, and live as the majority lives? Have any of you asked, or talked to your children about ANY of this? I’m gonna bet only a small portion of you have.
JakeD:
That is exactly what he is saying. Ask a psychologist and they will tell you he’s right.
Let’s take this prop. 8 measure to the U.S. Supreme Court and let them decide once for all if we ban gay marriages or not. The votes have been cast and the No on prop. 8 people are bitter. Maybe after a decision from the Supreme Court, we will make them go away or shut up. Or make it easier for them and call it a domestic partner or civil union. But wait, what they really want to destroy civilization and make our society a bizarro world, brave world. Weird huh!
To Evilgoathead:
I think Ms. Jean was referring to the “Yes on 8″ signs and TV/radio ads that contained flat-out lies. Like the ones about saving our children from being “taught gay marriage in school.” Or that churches’ tax exempt status would have been revoked for not performing gay marriage ceremonies if 8 didn’t pass. Or my personal favorite: “Yes on 8 = Free Speech.” I still don’t understand how that’s related.
I think it’s fair to call lying to win an election that would have otherwise been lost “dirty.”
JakeD seriously, the brother and sister argument is old and tired. Drop it. I haven’t seen ONE PERSON agree with you unless they were hysterically posting about how God hates gays.
Nice point tired. You too emarilynv ! What are these people afraid? The marriage police are going to bust your door down and make you marry someone for the same sex?
Megan,
Marriage is not a right. If it was, states COULD NOT restrict it from 1st cousins, or even brother and sister, marrying.
The courts have upheld those laws that ban that. Therefore, we see that Marriage is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
You can’t change the definition of something that existed forever because you don’t like it.
No, marriage is a legal right. It’s a contract. You don’t have to PROVE to the courthouse where you pick up a marriage license that you are worthy to be married if you are heterosexual. You pay for the forms, sign them, and you are married.
No rights were taken away Megan…research this and stop listening to the guilt mongers that keep painting this as a discriminatory issue.
Just for some perspective, if 8 had lost, do you think the pro 8 people would be reacting the same way? There are not a lot of people that are jumping up and down and celebrating victory here. They are explaining and defending their position.
Megan:
Of course no one will answer my question because it shoots down their “logic”.
Damon:
I think I already posted this once to you. This will be the last time: the U.S. Constitution will not offer any protections to same-sex marriages — the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected due-process challenges to retroactive legislation — the Contracts Clause, which prevents states from passing laws that impair contracts, would also offer little protection because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “marriage is not a contract” protected by the Contracts Clause.
JakeD give me a break. You are one of those that thinks it is a choice. Have you ever spoken to a gay person, or do they scare you? Are you afraid it will rub off on you?
But you will be rejected if you are first cousins or closer relatives. That makes it clear that it is NOT a legal right.
Yeah because it’s ILLEGAL. It’s not illegal to be gay.
Scare tactics Jim? You just called all of the people that voted in favor of 8 racists, bigots and Hitler enthusiasts….wow! Nice to meet you too.
1. If you change the definition of marriage, you change it for everyone. That is why the claim that allowing gay marriage won’t have any effect straight marriages is false. Of course it will. If we allow gay marriage, the term “marriage” no longer means “husband and wife”. I’m a married woman. If gay marriage were allowed, and I made that statement, would you know if I were married to a man or a woman? You wouldn’t. Not a very big deal, maybe, but it nevertheless proves that altering the fundamental unit of society involves everyone in that society.
2. To answer the question posed above, domestic partnership law in CA was specifically instituted to guarantee that gay couple have all the same rights as straight couples. The name is different; the rights are the same.
3. Although the ban on interracial marriage did limit who could get married, the removal of the ban did not redefine the basic definition of marriage, ie a man and a woman. So comparing interracial marriage to same sex marriage is disingenuous. Especially because I don’t think the motives are the same. Ignoring the pro 8 supporters who actually do feel gays are not equal–and there were some, I’m sure–the ones I worked with supported civil unions, but wanted to preserve marriage for its traditional use. They weren’t motivated by hate, regardless of what the No side would like to believe.
But Megan, it WAS illegal to marry a person of the same sex, which is the same thing.
It’s not illegal to be first cousins, either. But it is illegal to marry one.
but as a hetero, you have the RIGHT to be married to another hetero. it’s your right…as a heterosexual couple.
For the record, Jim (and every other proponent of same-sex marriage I’ve debated) says: “There is nothing wrong with two people in love and wanting to marry.” If that’s true, then a brother and a sister should be able to marry.
things that have to do with the law are called RIGHTS, that’s why people defend constitutional RIGHTS and not constitutional PRIVILEGES.
No, we have the ability to have a marriage RECOGNIZED by the state because our marriage does not violate statutes in place.
This group has and continues to discriminate against the rights of the People of the State of California.
We just have to look to a few months ago with Bennett v. Bowen.
I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule the same as they did in July when No on 8 attempted to remove the measure from the balance in order to take away our rights.
What rights will they take away from us next?
I know I would be very upset if I were on the losing end but, having said that, I was one of the supporters who did everything from door-to-door contact, phone calls, sign waving and sign placement on my vehicle and home. My personal belief is that same sex marriage shouldn’t be supported by due to the need for our society to support “family” which is typically defined as a Father, Mother and children. It is physically impossible to have two fathers or mothers conceiving children. The “family” has been under attack by divorce, infidelity, alcohol and drug abuse etc. in recent times and I personally believe that the “traditional” family provides the most effective means of raising future generations. If that is deemed as “discriminationatory” then I discriminate towards opponents of the family. Regardless, I exercised my personal rights as a citizen and registered voter and gave of my own time and money to support what I believe in. That begs the question, for those of you who believe that there is injustice, did you back that up with personal sacrifice? If you did then I applaud your efforts and sincerely feel badly that you didn’t see the outcome you desired. To others who just throw out angry banter I have no regard for your circumstance…
OCnative58:
Unfortunately, Megan is right about one small issue. Homosexuals had the “right” to marry between June 17, 2008 and November 4, 2008. According to the high estimates I’ve seen, 18,000 took advantage of that right. Prop. 8 just clarified they do no have that “right”. I hope that helps : )
OCnative58. I did not call all of them that. It is scary to live in a society that wants to make those choices, excluding people because they are not like they are.
What is wrong with gays marrying. How will it effect heterosexuals? There is NO effect.
OMG Jim, but what if the CHILDREN find out?
JakeD:
1) You didn’t post that before.
2) So, you’re saying that the U.S. Supreme court has ruled that since marriage is not a contract and isn’t protected by the Contracts clause, states have the right to restrict marriage between any groups they want? HILARIOUS.
I know Megan. SCARY!!!!! Two people love each other and want to get married!
Well said OCnative58!
Civil union. Move on. Calling a 3 legged dog a stool does not make it a stool.
How selfish of the gay and lesbian communities to not fight for the pedophiles etc. on the same campaign. Shouldn’t they have the same rights to love who they want to?
What a shame it is that the no on 8 side uses all these inflamitoriy words in a clear attempt to bully people into seeing things their way.
To equate a lifestyle choice to a race or races of people?
Your free to choose your lifestyle and beliefs, as am I. Why do you think you deserve more than that? If your significant other dies and you need to collect the remains from another state, shame on you if you haven’t established a power of attonerny long ago. Work within the system, stop tyring to force others to belive what you believe.
To all the those who would call others “bigots” becuase they defend what they believe in, how are they any different than you? How sad it is that you feel you have to force your way to some kind of (what you seem to percieve as) “normalcy” How about you live your life, behave as a good citizen, work to help others (how about spending the millions wasted on the no campaign to feed and cloth hungry children?) and stop trying to force people to believe something they never will?
Your actions speak to who you are. The loud, name calling childish voices we’re hearing now are a clear representation of what’s really behind this.
Go, contribute to your community and the world at large.
Fight to help others have food and a warm place to sleep.
Love your neighbor.
Peace out.
Alan:
The California Supreme Court refused to take Prop. 8 off the ballot, but left open whether they would invalidate it if it passed. We’ll have to see.
Thanks Damon. As stated earlier, my parents would not have been allowed to marry. Scary, a brown man and white woman!
1) It was on a different thread, in much more detail with case cites;
2) That’s the nutshell, whether you think that’s “hilarious” or not.
JakeD. Why are you afraid of two people in love getting married. How is it going to affect you?
Are they going to get you next?
Jim and Jake,
No one is stopping any same sex partners from having a legal partnership status.
Answer the question that no one wants to answer…why does it have to be called marriage? What’s wrong with calling it something else if it includes the same rights and benefits?
And Jim, your statements regarding racism, bigotry and hitler are there for everyone to see. Are you taking it back or redefining your statements now?
“Whether you like it or not!” was the line in the sand and became the battle cry for Yes on 8. Thank God for stupid arrogant jerks like Gavin Newsome. He led the charge for YES on 8 and we appreciate anything he will do to continue helping our cause in the future. YES on 8, YES on 8, YES on 8….”Whether you like it or not!” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Wait! I know! Because brothers and sisters can get married next!
IN THE MEANTIME, ENJOY THE RIOTS!
As a point of interest, in coutries who have adopted same-sex marriage only 2% of the target population for these marriages take advatage ot it.
So we should re-define marriage and family for 2% of 2% of California’s population? That’s the will of the people.
Family Man, Woman Children have been the foundation of this country. Why should you be alowed to re-define that for 98% of the population?
California law already provides the same rights. Taking rights away from 98% of the population (marriage = 1 man & 1 woman) makes no sense at all. This is not discrimination this is common sense when you are already provided for under the law.
Trying to force others to believe as you do will only, ultimately, hurt your cause.
JakeD.
Why not call it marriage? What is the difference to you? Why not have equal rights?
Unfortunately the fight will go on and on. The article says that Prop 8 passed “in large part to a deceptive campaign by the Yes campaign.” I wonder where the deception was and is.
Yes on Prop 8 has pointed out what happens when gay marriage is allowed, as in Massachusetts, Holland, and Canada. Freedom of Religion is oppressed. Freedom of Speech is oppressed. This is not an issue of Civil Rights for the Gay and Lesbian people. The law already protects them from discrimination. This is a fight for basic freedoms. The freedom to call Marriage Marriage and not be labeled a bigot because your belief does not recognize an un-natural union of two people.
Thank you John K for proving how unstable the NO on 8 people really are…”Whether you like it or not” you did lose and you lost big. You spent so much money on this proposition and still lost. We’ll see if you can get that much money again. Nobody wants to sponsor a loser!
OCnative, domestic partnerships do not have all the rights as a legal marriage.
If you bought a house and were only allowed access to MOST OF IT, wouldn’t you be upset?
jdd how do your comments sound any more stable that one’s comments who are rightfully upset? HAHA.
Jim:
I would be glad to answer your questions, just as soon as you answer the one I asked you first.
Megan, how do my postings sound unstable. Why do they sound unstable to you? Because I’m happy? Because I’m glad to shove it right back in their faces because that is what they do to me. Gavin Newsome drew this line in the sand and we answered the call! If you want people to be sympathetic to your cause, don’t challenge them and tell them they have no choice because people will come out in droves to show you they do have a choice. Just food for thought for the next time this comes around.
John K.
Unfortunately your language and attitude is not based on tolerance. It sounds like you want to cram this down our throats whether we like it or not. Sounds like a dictator and not a Republic as we are.
John K:
I don’t believe that profanity or personal attacks are allowed on this forum.
Classy John, very eloquent. So you’re the voice of anti 8? It just goes to show that your only purpose is to take something from someone else rather than create and develop something for those that share the same beliefs that you do. Again, it’s not a rights issue. That’s a worn out copout.
jdd:
Yeah his wordings were a bad choice, but continually laughing in the faces of homosexuals calling them losers doesn’t make you look any better. Constantly posting things like, “HAHAHA!!! YOU CAN’T GET MARRIED BECAUSE YOU LOST!!” seem completely unstable. They have every right to be upset, and to be fighting for this because people like YOU consider them 2nd class.
JakeD I was pointing out the scare tactics being used. I do not know how else to call it but Racist and Bigoted. It does remind of Hitler. Excluding people for something different than you.
Why else would you be bothered if someone of the same sex get married? No one said you had to.
Your turn
P.S.: it is not a “personal” attack to point out there’s no First Amendment right to deviant sexual behavior.
Megan,
Explain the correllation between domestic partnerships and home ownership…you lost me there. I’m being serious, explain what rights domestic partner don’t have…and don’t bother saying marriage because I know that a given for you and others. What are the “other” differences and/or exclusions?
Jim:
You claimed “There is nothing wrong with two people in love and wanting to marry.” I asked you “Does that include a brother and a sister?” Once you answer that question, I will answer your question.
JakeD:
Right. So you’re telling me that if Texas amends its constitution outlawing interracial marriage tomorrow, the Supreme court would uphold that?
Again, I say, hilarious.
John K - That makes no sense. The title of the “mormon” church is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints. In other words, they are Christian. They are Christian in name and practice. So you are essentially asking why Mormons don’t vote to get rid of the Mormon Church. You may also be interested in knowing that all Christians are pleased by the LDS effort on this vote: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/842518567.html
OCnative58:
Using her hypothetical, certain homeowners are denied the “right” to call it a “house” plus federal tax deductions, etc.
OCnative54: If there wasn’t a difference between domestic partnerships and marriage, you wouldn’t care whethe prop 8 passed or not. The fact that you fight equally as hard for you side as I do for mine, shows that you see the big difference as well, so don’t shovel that bullshit.
John K - Mormons ARE Christians, hon. Go to http://www.mormon.org to verify.
Damon:
Again, I would point out that most people (including the current majority on the U.S. Supreme Court) do not equate immutable race with deviant sexual behavior.
Looks like my post was lost in the volley. . .let me try again.
So if the supporters of the issue outlined in Prop 8 think we should continue bringing it to the voters, should we also continue bringing the issue outlined in Prop 4 to the voters?
On Prop 8, I’m not positive about this (and know I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong!), but isn’t a civil union the same as a marriage (except one is with a homosexual couple and one is with a heterosexual couple)? If so, isn’t this just a p*ssing contest over semantics?
Jim:
We don’t call it marriage because marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman - and it was just affirmed again by the will of the people to keep this definition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron - you can’t describe a marriage (union between one man and one woman) as gay (between people of the same gender). You can define gay couples in terms of civil unions or domestic partnerships and keep the same rights and benefits as people in marriages, but you are fixated on the word marriage. If civil unions and domestic partnerships don’t now give all the same rights and benefits as marriages, then push forward an initiative to make it so and I’m sure you will get much more support for that than trying to encroach on the definition of traditional marriage.
My question has still not been answered and I am just looking for some truth. How is a domestic partnership or a civil union different than marriage as far as the rights of the couple are concerned? Please, someone who is educated tell me the truth.
Obviously it doesn’t include a brother and sister.
What are you afraid of? Why is equal so scary to you?
JakeD: perhaps the supreme court doesn’t currently agree about marriage, but our right to disgusting gay sex is protected. Lawrence v. Texas.
And I didn’t know LDS is considered to be xtian denomination. Really?
Oh John, John, John,
first you curse out everyone that doesn’t agree with you, then you want to physically threaten me…and I’m dilusional?
I’m still waiting for someone…anyone to answer why same sex partnerships need to be called marriages? Someone take a stab at it without using the copout of discrimination, hate, or some sort of phobia…
Mike,
Why don’t we all call it civil union and be equal? It is all equality.
JakeD I’m sure you will be pleased to know that in the medical dictionary for “deviant sexual behavior”, the word “homosexual” or “homosexuals” is not part of the definition.
Homosexuality is not deviant sexual behavior. Having sex with dead people, or liking to be choked during sex are considered deviant.
Jim,
I’ve lied, cheated, stolen, disobeyed my parents, and been angry since I was way younger than 5 years old. Does that mean that it is right? Does that mean that now that I’m 26, I should accept that as my nature and continue doing these things despite the harm that it can do to myself and others? Does that mean that I should try to get a proposition passed to eliminate oaths in court b/c lying should be ok since I’ve been doing it since I can remember?
I don’t think it is any coincidence that statistics show that the majority of gays were either abused or without fatherly love when they were young.
You No on 8 supporters call Yes on 8 supporters bigots and racists. True, there might be a few people out there that are, and that is sad. I love you all the same. You are humans just like the rest of us. And just like the rest of us, homosexuals have continued giving in to their own desires, despite its immorality. The only difference is that a homosexuals wrong ways are more blatant than a liar or thief or an adulterer.
It truly is disturbing that Prop 8 supporters are flaunting their win. Just as disturbing as the opposition being sore losers.
OCnative58.
If you are married, lets change it to a civil union? The rights are not the same.
John K - Don’t like the result? Move. You’re kind of a hot head I can see. You also seem pretty intolerant, ironically. But is anyone surprised by that phenomena that has surfaced through this. Not really. Missori, Illinois, and other states already tried to exterminate the LDS in modern U.S. history but they failed. Google “Governor Boggs” or “Extermination Order” if you don’t believe me. But the LDS are still alive, well, growing and have a voice within Christianity as you can see.
John K., is your profanity really necessary? I understand you must be upset, but you can just as easily express yourself without using coarse language. And people will take you a little more seriously when you don’t use profanity.
This issue has so much unnecessary negativity. When either side goes to extremes to make a point they lose credibility.
I think the No on 8 campaign’s comparison to the Civil Rights movement may have drawn some blowback from the African American community and other minority groups who don’t see this as an equal rights issue. They also avoided showing couples and pain. They focused to much on calling others “bigoted” and “hateful” - I think that was the wrong approach.
The No on 8 issue would have been a lot more effective had it focused on individuals. Committed couples and the pain that not being able to “marry” would cause.
The yes on 8 campaign was effective when it showed Gavin. It made people think twice about the issue and say “maybe the motive is to shove this lifestyle in everybody’s throats and force everyone to accept it or be bigoted.”
I saw that commercial and pictured a gay couple suing my church or a private organization (stripping them of fundamental rights) for not including, accepting and embracing gay marriage… and winning with a liberal CA judicial system.
But this tone should cease. I feel the pain for No on 8 supporters. Since they do enjoy nearly every right a traditional couple has it shouldn’t affect them as much as they claim.
Megan:
de-vi-ant — adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation (
2% is, objectively speaking, deviant — I realize the homosexual activists bullied the APA into not saying it is — next canard?
MrsHashBrown - John K has a limited vocabulary and expression ability as you can see from this thread.
P.S. you were saying something about rudeness and profanity from the “Yes on 8″ side?
Heterosexual couples love deviant sexual behavior. Bondage and BDSM acts are largely part of the heterosexual community. Same with fantasies of rape. It’s the whole spectrum - not just homosexuals.
John K - Hey, maybe you could move to Florida, or Arizona, or . . . oh wait. Nevermind. You should probably look outside the U.S., maybe in like Netherlands or someplace like that.
JakeD: don’t know if you are a mormon, but to 23i9h and Jennifer, congrats, you are now officially “deviant” according to JakeD’s definition. Mormons depart from the norm.
I didn’t use profanity?
I have a very extensive vocabulary. I’m here for one purpose, to vent. I can only hold my rage in for so long.
John K:
I was just looking for the truth, so thank you for that. As for being called an f^^^ing idiot, i don’t appreciate that and I guess you must have me confused with someone who is trying to attack you an your way of life. I simply wanted to know the difference so I can be educated. That type of attitide will only turn more people against you and your cause. I feel homosexuals should be afforded the same rights, however, I don’t believe it should be called the same thing. I am not discriminating or being a bigot, but a man + man or a woman + woman relationship is not the same as a man and woman. Therefore the name of the union that brings them together should also be different. Call it something other than marriage and you will get all the same rights you are after, if that is all you truly are after.
John K - Keep going, you are a spectacle. And did I ever say I was Mormon? No. Again, keep going, you’re doing great bro.
I’ll move to Connecticut or Massachusetts. Add New Jersey and New York, and maybe Iowa and New Hampshire to that list soon. We’re going to win, whether you like it or not. It’s inevitable, only a matter of when.
# JakeD Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
P.S.: it is not a “personal” attack to point out there’s no First Amendment right to deviant sexual behavior.
Ok, you hereby banned from saying that “which law school did you graduate from…” line.
Lawrence v. Texas, dude. You just made yourself look like a moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._texas
Regarding companies not offering health benefits to unmarried couples - I worked (prior to having the tater tot earlier this year) for an incredibly conservative company in Orange County and even they offered health benefits for unmarried couples (homosexual or heterosexual). Indeed, the health insurance paperwork from Blue Cross even had a check-box for “domestic partnership”. . .it didn’t even have to be a civil union.
My point is, certain companies are going to suck to work for, no matter what. Why take a job with a company if their benefits don’t suit your needs? Don’t you ask about such things prior to taking the job? And it seems to me that if the company doesn’t cover the health insurance for your unmarried partner (same sex or otherwise), they will probably suck to work for in other ways as well.
Yes on 8 is right on. The No on 8 voters need to move since this was passed eight years ago. There was no need to have this proposition on the ballot again had those Activist Judges on the California Supreme Court stay out of the will of the people and God’s Will.
Let the No on 8 die in peace and the No voters hearts be malleable to see the perversion in what it is.
See Romans 1:18-32.
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
I’ve answered jake’s question about why the rights are not the same, and i haven’ heard a peep about it from him since.
Slight correction, Lawrence v. Texas was decided on due process under the 14th amendment (O’Connor concurred but argued it was based on equal protection).
Again, this is where the argument over prop 8 is going next.
MrsHashBrown: OK, you’ve cited one company that acts right. The fact is, that the law is what it is, and it lets companies discriminate. Besides citing one company that you characterize as “conservative,” all I hear are excuses for why it’s ok for us not to have the same rights. Sounds a lot like, “oh, you don’t even really need domestic partnerships because you can make private contracts and stuff like that to set up the rights without the institution.” Not acceptable.
John K:
I didn’t see your “answer” because I don’t debate impolite people.
Damon:
The 14th Amendment is found 13 Amendments after the 1st Amendment.
I’m not at all religious, and as a woman in science I happen to think that marriage is an outdated institution imposed upon women by men, who used it and continue to use it to legalize their progeny, protect their property and “carry on the family name” and inheritance. It basically treats women as chattel and puts them under the male thumb. Whose name is imposed upon the woman at marriage? The man’s. Whose name do the children take? The man’s. This is changing, of course, but slowly. Biologically, when you look at it honestly, women were not meant to be linked to just one partner throughout life. Men know this — instinctively — and that’s why “marriage” continues. Our society has attached a lot of perks and romanticism to it over the years, of course (marriage wasn’t always that romantic, and still isn’t in many parts of the world), but scientifically and historically the overwhelming male-benefit basis remains. Studies have proven that the happiest people in Western societies are single women…and married men. What does that tell you? Women get some “security” out of marriage, but why would we want to trade our basic freedom for security — what does that make us? I’m wondering just why in the world gays would want any part of this?
John K:
Good for you, you just lost more support for your cause. Apparently, there is more to it than just getting equal rights. Just remember hate breeds hate, the more hateful you are the more that will come back your way. I actually did not vote for prop 8, but now after seeing how your community has responded and what you are truly about, I have no sympathy for you and I am glad that it passed. Good luck, and we will pray for your lost soul.
JakeD:
And 2:29pm is found 2 minutes before 2:31 pm.
You didn’t see it because you only see what you want to see.
John, what happened on Tuesday? Did you run out of meds? If you choose to be a monster, go for it. That’s your choice.
I love a good debate, but seriously…John isn’t helping those who oppose 8. His statements are very hostile and contradictory. I am tuning him out now…but perhaps someone on the opposing side could teach him how to play nice even when people disagree. F bombs don’t belong here and are not intimidating. They only display ingnorance. A dictionary is a beautiful thing with thousands upon thousands of words to express yourself with.
John K - YES, yes, please move. See, you’ve found a place. And you say you are here–on a thread in the Orange County Register–”for one purpose, to vent”. Pretty good choice of a place to vent over the loss. Nearly 60% of OC voted YES. You might want to “vent” over at the SF Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com. I’m sure Humbolt county has a newspaper thread too. Most of us are here to celebrate the huge message that was sent to Newsome, Villaraigosa, Chief Justrice Ron George, a small group of very vocal people in the Castro, and the United States. It is monumental that in the year 2008 traditional, social conservatives could come together at the grass roots and defeat the LGBT/media political machinery at the ballot box. Simple awesome and worth celebrating.
John K,
Isn’t that the point of evolution anyway? survival of the fittest? To look out for you and you only? If evolution is true, then yes, you definately should “fighting for me now, whatever the cost.” But if it is not true, and there does happen to be a God, like prophecy proves, then you might want to reconsider things.
Btw, the Bible has 66 books, written over the course of 2500 or so years, by over 40 different authors. Amazingly, the Bible has perfect cohesion, archeological evidence has proven it to have 100% historical accuracy, and prophecy has been 100% accurate as well.
Just some food for thought.
What happened on Tuesday? You bigots took my rights away, that’s what happened. You won’t get away with it. Do you know how I would LOVE to see the court strike down prop 8? OMFG, I would be dancing in the streets, but not before stopping here for a little while. I hope you remember me when gay marriage starts up again in Cali.
And 23, No, I’d rather vent at the people who harmed me.
Goodbye, I’ll be back later to wee what brilliant gems of logic came from the yes people.
Hey everybody, JakeD’s definition if “deviant” is anybody who’s out of hte norm, somewhere around 2% of the population. So, the following people are now deviants:
1) African Americans in OC
2) Autistic kids
3) People who voted for Ron Paul
etc.
John K:
If I was gay, then I would take equal rights no matter if they came with a different label or not. Fortunately for me though, I am not gay, so I can get married and I can reproduce with another human being as well. I don’t understand why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that what you and your boyfriend are is not the same as what a man and woman are. Difference is not always a bad thing.
Lori Jean is not classy or a gentlewoman in acknowledging defeat. She sounds bitter, angry, (dare I say, “hateful”), spiteful, and unrespecting of the majority of voter’s voice: “It’s awfully hard to fight on even ground when the other side is fighting dirty,” said No on 8 leader Lori Jean. “I hope they savor their victory,” Jean said. “because it’s going to be fleeting.” Talk about a sore loser.
Well, John K., I worked there for over eleven years, I can most definitely assure you it is conservative. It is also a small business (between 35 and 42 employees the entire time I worked there) and health coverage is their #2 budget item (wages being #1). My memory is a little fuzzy as I didn’t get much sleep last night (teething baby), but I believe Blue Cross told the ownership that they HAD to offer coverage to domestic partners. . .as I stated earlier, it was a check-box on the Blue Cross form. Perhaps they were following a state reg rather than a federal one? Or vice versa. I don’t know.
And thank you for not using profanity when responding to me, I do appreciate it.
Damon:
I know that 2:29pm is before 2:31 pm (I was looking for JohnK’s “answer” and busy with Heather over here http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/06/prop-8-a-subtle-distinction/7737/#comments — as long as you know that case was not based on the 1st Amendment — the 14th Amendment does not apply to same-sex marriage ; )
JakeD:
That will be for the supreme court to decide.
I even looked up “sexual deviancy” and still, nothing about homosexuals. Also, the commonly used term nowadays by us pesky kids (or those pesky psychologists) is Parahilia.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deviant+sexual+behavior
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+deviancy
My problem with 8 is someone forcing my children to “learn” that same sex marriage is OK, we don’t support this believe and would not want someone to indoctrinate my children more than they already are.
John K - You are seriously scary, tiger. Send me a postcard from Boston or New Haven in the dead of winter and I’ll shed a Golden-state tear for you, bro.
Heaven forbid children learn about equality.
P.S. while African Americans make up less than 2% of Orange County, they make up for it with 16.05% Asians and 32.89% Hispanics ; )
Voted No on 8, sorry I did, glad it passed. REASON: All of the after-election comments from the No8 people are an embarassment. It’s obvious that you do did not run your campaign well by emphasizing concrete arguments that make sense, choosing instead a strategy of trying to win by portraying the other side as bible-thumpers, bigots, homophobes, etc. It didn’t work and now you’re angry. You did not serve your purpose well, and still aren’t. Gloria Allred is an added step in the wrong direction.
That’s right. Megan, my children know that incest is not EQUAL either.
Mike C. That is part of the propaganda. I know a couple of Superintendents of School Districts. They confirm it was propaganda.
This issue is about the use of the term “Marriage.” Many of us believe that the word “Marriage” and the institution of marriage was established by God to include only ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. I believe that homosexuals should be afford ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES as those who are “Married” but should not take upon them the term “MARRIAGE” OR “MARRIED,” as this term is a religious one and is an affront to the sacred union of MARRIAGE as defined in scripture. What is wrong with a civil ceremony and name it something else, but afford same sex couples the same rights and privileges as they deserve under the Constitution. It is not an “ANTI-GAY” issue to many of us who supported Prop 8.
here’s a great photo of the tolerance being demonstrated by the gay marriage protestors … http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=5
Megan - The world, the law, humanity, civility, and California is full of inequality and discrimination. Take smokers for example. Most Californians would agree that smokers can’t smoke indoors, on planes etc. Or take abortion. Women cannot have “late term” abortions. Every single law discriminates and creates inequalities. And laws–social constructs–are not the only phenomena that does this. We treat people under 21 years of age different that those who are 21. Discrimination !!!!! OMG!!!!! Ahhhhh! Evil. Nature has selected out the male/female combination to procreate. Two males cannot. That’s not a voter decision. The world is full of inequalities that we must llive with and that we chose to create. The whole “discrimiation” “inequality” card is tired and played out.
this photo says it all … http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=7
OCR - where is your report on this?
DWinOC - That foto is a tymeliss clasik on mulltypl levels. Thanck you so much. Very good.
I don’t see anything wrong with either of those photos DWinOC. Especially the first one. They are just sitting there.
Also can you imagine the outcry these people would have of OC Register focused on people being upset over Prop. 8 passing? The comments would be much worse than they are already.
This doesn’t look like people are jumping onto cop cars or being destructive. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=21
If this thing goes to court becuase it passed, then why do people vote to begin with. Millions of dollars were spent, people voted and now back to courts to over rule the judgment. Why couldn’t the no on 8 people try to stop this from the beginning. All this doesn’t make sense especially the vote process.
Here is a pretty tolerant sign: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=6
Question: Does anyone have a picture of an LDS person holding up a sign that says something similar about homosexuals?
Irving:
Good point.
Megan … the la times link originally went to a photo showing a sign reading, “mormons go to hell”. It’s still there … the times editors are moving photos around as they get more of them. Try this one … http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=6.
Oh I saw the Mormons go to Hell one while I was going through all the pictures. Although I don’t want Mormons to go to Hell, I completely understand the sign though.
Megan:
Forget the signs — just re-read John K’s posts above.
John K … clean up your posts. Your language loses you respect for anything else you try to say.
Oh I read his posts. He’s upset, but he obviously doesn’t speak for ALL of the Prop 8 opponents. He is the only one I have seen so far drop F-bombs out of anger in here.
How ’bout those Lakers?
Megan:
You were the one who started this thread (at 1:06 pm) with “It’s good to see that all of you Prop 8 supporters are being so graceful and adult like about this.”
Irving:
I hope you aren’t a Clippers fan ; )
I have been nothing but graceful and adult-like, so, yes, your comment is invalid to me.
Megan, et al … here’s the point: when the CA supreme court committed judicial tyrrany last May and opened the door to gay marriage, you didn’t see those opposed to gay marriage in the streets with signs, marching and causing LAPD to call a tactical alert. Though we were upset about the court’s decision, we went through the process to put the issue on the ballot using the initiative process available to bring about change. It’s not unreasonable to expect the same kind of restraint from those upset over the passage of 8.
The ones you think aren’t being graceful “obviously don’t speak for ALL of the Prop 8 supporters” ; )
Well I guess I wasn’t referring to you directly. I did not say “JakeD it’s good to see you are being so graceful and adultlike about this”. I was referring to the ones laughing, and saying “haha you lost gays”.
You’re more backhanded about your comments toward homosexuals, but I guess that just makes you a polite gentleman.
DWinOC:
Don’t forget the perfectly legal recall process too : )
http://www.rongeorgerecall.org
The ones laughing “obviously don’t speak for ALL of the Prop 8 supporters” ; )
Jake you can be a real jerk, yes that is a personal attack, happy? I said the same thing you just said. We are obviously on the same page about that.
Make that http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/
Megan:
A polite gentleman will never call YOU a “jerk.”
I am not a polite gentleman. I am an opinionated woman.
And, no, I’m not “happy”. It saddens me to see so many lost souls confused about right and wrong.
Obviously.
“John K - You are seriously scary, tiger.”
Wow, that got me kinda excited
Oh, boy, here we go again.
Irving: You are the reason the majority cannot be trusted to vote on these issues. You are the reason the Supreme Court will invalidate this. The writers of the state constitution realized how whimsical the people can be. That’s why they required the legislature to propose REVISIONS by a 2/3 majority vote rather than allow a simple majority whose opinions blow in the wind to make the decision depending on how their coffee was that morning.
DWinOC: “here’s a great photo of the tolerance being demonstrated by the gay marriage protestors … http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery?index=5”
a picture of a person holding a campaing sign that says prop 8 is unfair and wrong is intolerance? intolerance of who? Are they intolerant unless they sit home and let your side do all the talking?
DCWinOC: Where are your links to the God Hate Fags signs? Selective memory is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Consider my tirade over. I’m ready to have that polite discussion now. We’ll see if you are. Let’s start with why it is so important to you to have the word “marriage” to yourselves. Does it help you sleep better at night to know that gays can’t get “married”? Do you think it’s right, for those that would cite God’s will, for you to presume to write your version of what you think God’s will is into law? Why can’t the government recognize my version of God’s will?
Hi!
I am not old enough to vote (I’m 14). How come they were allowed to get married and then had to vote to see if they could get married? That makes no sense whatsoever!
Some of you people are scary talking about marrying your family members and your pets…
I have a friend who I have known since gradeschool, and she is gay. I am a boy and I told her I would marry her to keep her away from all the hate she is going to endure when she becomes an adult. But she likes girls and I will always be her friend no matter what!
I just wish everyone could just get along
Afterall, we’re supposed to have freedom of religion.
I also question why there is such fear that your children will learn that gay marriage exists. You love touting free speech, but that means freedom of information. That means a free marketplace of ideas. The hallmark of indoctrination is the forcing in of one point of view without exposure to the other. That said, it seems that accusations of indoctrination aimed at gay marriage proponents are really a projection of your own indoctrination of your children. Seriously, you get to pound whatever you want into their heads for two-thirds of the day, and all weekend, including the added bonus of church on Sundays. Of the remaining 8 hours a day they are in school, how much time do you think they are hearing about gay marriage? Maybe ten minutes per year? Are you THAT afraid? Are you THAT afraid that they will think our message is the right one that you are freaking out over ten minutes (even if it’s ten hours) of discussion about gay marriage per year? You don’t think your Christian message is strong enough to overcome that? Why are you so afraid of letting your children be exposed to the real world?
Same reasons as I want brothers and sisters to not be able to marry.
Freedom of deviant sexual behavior is not protected like freedom of religion.
Is the “Christian message” strong enough to overcome crack cocaine addiction?
Do you think your children won’t learn what a domestic partnership is in school? You’re not “protecting” them from learning about us. All you are doing is keeping it so that they think it’s acceptable to treat us as less than “normal” people. You admit you don’t care if we get the same rights, as long as we don’t get the name “marriage.” The only logical reason for that is to keep us in our place, to keep us from being truly equal. Just to keep some measure of superiority for yourselves. Do you really think that’s fair?
“Same reasons as I want brothers and sisters to not be able to marry.”
Which is what? Just out of curiousity.
“Freedom of deviant sexual behavior is not protected like freedom of religion.”
Yes it is, we’ve been through this already. Lawrence v. Texas
I never said I want homosexuals to have the same rights as marriage. Is it “fair” that a brother cannot marry his sister? (I checked, and you never answered that question)
“Is the “Christian message” strong enough to overcome crack cocaine addiction?”
I don’t know, but if it’s not, doesn’t that say more about Christianity than anything else?
So, are you basically admitting that our message is the stronger one? Seems you have to admit that for your arguments to make sense.
How ironic that the Say NO supporters of Prop 8 are out protesting with “Stop the Hate” posters, but yet I see “Mormons Go to Hell.” or…. Fight H8 with Hate. Pretty much defeats your purpose. What a bunch of hypocrites!!
We went through that already. Keep reading about the 1st vs. 14th Amendment.
Not at all, John K. Eventually, the Christian message will overcome. Most crack addicts die before that happens though.
I have to tell you, in all honesty, I was raised Christian, and I bought into it hook, line, and sinker. I rejected it sometime in college. However, I never smoked, never did drugs, never even drank until two years ago (I’m 24 now), and I still don’t drink very often at all, and not very much when I do. The Christian message was enough to keep ME of drugs.
It doesn’t really matter what the difference between the 1st and 14th is. Both protect rights, including our right to have whatever kind of sex we want, as long as it is between consenting adults.
Well, at least you aren;t a drug addict : )
The Christian message wasn’t enough to keep me straight, because that’s not a choice, but that’s the nature of the divergence of our messages, and that’s what your children should be deciding for themselves, based on the evidence presented from both sides. You want to keep them from hearing our side, which sounds like indoctrination to me, no? Is it not indoctrination?
“Well, at least you aren;t a drug addict : ) ”
Surprising that one can be gay and not all messed up on drugs, huh?
YOU were the one who brought up “freedom of religion” The difference between the 1st and 14th Amendment sure does matter in that regard. Also, read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas sometime if you really want to see how far down the rabbit trail this will lead us.
Of course it is “indocrination” (just like “say no to drugs” is). I never said that homosexuals are all drug addicts.
Isn’t it the argument of creationists (including yourself, I presume, correct me if i’m wrong) that children should be presented with creationism as an alternative perspective to evolution. Don’t you accuse schools of “indoctrinating” children in evolution since they shield them from the creationist viewpoint? Double standard?
I’m happy to correct you. FYI (some of the same reasons I oppose Same-Sex Marriage):
Reasons (not an exhaustive list) Against Incest: Because it’s wrong, because it is unhealthy, because informed consent is lacking (or at least deminished), because a diverse gene pool is better for society, because an unrelated man and woman, married and raising children in a stable family, is the ideal norm for healthy future citizens, because procreation is vital to the survival of the species.
Care to answer MY question now: Is it “fair” that a brother cannot marry his sister?
I’ve read Scalia’s dissent. He bemoans the fact that now we won’t be able to pass laws against…*gasp*….masturbation! Look, the fact is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, it’s just a matter of where. He cites polygamy, incest, bestiality (not sure about that one), but each of those should be debated on their own merits. Polygamy involves different benefit structures from the government that literally changes the structure of the marriage relationship with the government financially. Not to mention group dynamics actually DO change with the added third person, and bonding with children might be affected. The affect of polygamy on children might actually be negative. We don’t know this, but it should continue to be studied where available, and quite honestly, if it doesn’t affect children negatively, I would submit that there isn’t a reason to continue to condemn it. Again, it is its own issue, and should be debated as such.
Incest causes birth defects in the children that result. Plus it only eliminates a very minute number of people from the list of possible spouses. Distinctions based on gender eliminate half the population. But again, this is its own issue, and should be debated as such.
Bestiality is really silly. Animals cannot consent to marriage. Animals cannot consent to ANYTHING. The same goes for children, so that takes care of that one as well.
Now, gay marriage: ALL reputable studies show no adverse effects on children of such relationships (not to mention that it doesn’t matter for our discussion, since domestic partnerships and adoptions occur despite Prop. 8). Any studies that show “children do best when raised with their married biological mother and father” did not include gay couples; they compared married couples to single parents and grandparents and other types of relationships.
So, the question being where to draw the line, that should depend on what relationshps are problematic and which aren’t. gay marriage harms no one. The other relationships definitely or possibly do. It’s intellectually lazy to lump them all together and make the flawed slippery slope argument.
So, as long as we can find some “reputable” studies on polygamy, you’re fine with that too. How about sterile brothers and sisters — can they marry too?
It’s not a “slipery slope” if it is actually happening in Europe. Canada, and next in Massachusetts.
On incest: “because it’s wrong”
Come on now. We don’t all agree on what is right and wrong, and religious arguments are no way to make public policy in a pluralistic society. You have to say WHY it’s wrong in concrete terms.
“unhealthy”- incest is unhealthy for possible children born of the relationship, but as far as i know, it’s not unhealthy for the participants themselves. anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex, that’s a given. However, there is very minimal difference if the partners are truly monogamous, which marriage and an accepting society encourages. By continuing to marginalize gays, you encourage more unhealthy, promiscuous relationships. That said, not all gay people practice anal sex in the first place. I would also add that lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Does that make lesbian sex more “right” than straight sex?
“informed consent is lacking”- yeah, in incest in some cases that is true. However, if you have two adults, how is informed consent lacking, even in incest? And you said you were listing reasons that were “the same as why you were against gay marriage.” Where is the lack of informed consent for adult gays? This one just doesn’t make sense as an argument against gay marriage.
I’ve already addressed the “man woman is best” argument. All reputable studies and every major medical and psychological assocation disagree with you.
“procreation”- not all straight couples can or choose to procreat. Should we only allow post-menopausal straight couples to enter into domestic partnerships instead of marriage, since procreation is so imporant? Should we require children within a certain number of years of marriage lest it be annulled? Should we require fertility tests as part of the marriage license application process?
You were more entertaining when you were cursing up a storm ; )
I don’t necessarily think it’s fair that a brother shouldn’t be able to marry his sister. I think it should be subject to scrutiny by a court and decided on its own merits. I’ve already said why there is more of a governmental interest in prohibiting those relationships because the children of such relationships are at high risk for birth defects. Other than that, the disgust factor or religious objectsions have no part in a civil, pluralistic society’s determination on this issue.
Yes, if there is a scientific consensus that polygamy is not harmful to anyone, why in the world would we stop people from living the way they want?!?
Letting sterile brothers and sisters marry wouldn’t hurt anyone, but might run afoul of equal protection. It’s an interesting question, but one in which I’m not interested. The point is that it’s its OWN question.
That said, the brother and sister would have to be adults capable of informed consent, and not coerced in any way.
“It’s not a “slipery slope” if it is actually happening in Europe. Canada, and next in Massachusetts”
When did they get incest and bestiality in those places? I missed that one.
Don’t tell me that SOME homosexual relationships don’t start when one (or both) was underaged. I believe NAMBLA calls it “grooming”. In addition, a technically “of age” 18 year-old should not be subjected to the advances of a 45 year-old queer. That’s the kind of “consent” I’m talking about (and I said it was not an exhaustive list)..
“You were more entertaining when you were cursing up a storm ; ) ”
Sorry to disappoint. You understand that this is a very personal and serious issue to me. And you are right that I will get much further this way.
You’ve never been to Amsterdam or Vancouver?
JakeD Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Don’t tell me that SOME homosexual relationships don’t start when one (or both) was underaged.
This happens in heterosexual relationships too though.
Personally I can’t wait to go back to Amsterdam. The people there are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
“Don’t tell me that SOME homosexual relationships don’t start when one (or both) was underaged. I believe NAMBLA calls it “grooming”. In addition, a technically “of age” 18 year-old should not be subjected to the advances of a 45 year-old queer. That’s the kind of “consent” I’m talking about (and I said it was not an exhaustive list)..”
Come on now, I was joking when I implied that you thought all gays were drug addicts; don’t really imply that we’re pedophiles now. How many straight relationships start when the participants are underage? 18-year-old girls are subjected to the advances of 45-year-old “breeders” (I can use offensive terms too) all the time. Are you advocating raising the age of consent from 18 to something higher? In any event, it applies to gays and straights alike. I would submit, though, that 18 year olds are mature enough to know if they are interested in a 45-year-old or not, gay or straight. It does not more harm to an 18-year-old guy to be propositioned by a gay man than a straight woman.
Hi, Chris.
Do you parents know you are discussing this? You should not be marrying anyone at 14. That being said, I wish everyone could just get along, too, but that’s why we have jails.
To answer your question, earlier this year here in California, three judges on the State’s highest court decided to disregard the will of the people and proper legislative process. They forced same-sex (it wasn’t just limited to homosexuals) marriage on the rest of us, so we amended the State Constitution to make it clear that “marriage” is for one man and one woman only.
Let me know if you have any other question.
I’ve never been to Amsterdam or Vancouver, I’m sorry to say. They have bestiatity there?
bestiality*
Wait, more importantly…they have MASTURBATION there?! (Sorry, I won’t mock Scalia anymore….but seriously, come on now).
Yep, that’s probably what Megan considers “nice”.
I never saw any signs advertising bestiality parties in Amsterdam, even WHEN I walked through the Red Light District. That place is mostly full of prostitutes in windows (I left RLD shortly after entering).
Jake if the people of West Hollywood got together and voted to outlaw straight marriage in West Hollywood would you suport that? The will of the majority and all…
Yeah I loved that goat…
Seriously, Amsterdam was gorgeous.
I would also have no problem outlawing anyone 45 years or older marrying 18 year-olds ; )
JakeD-I got this figured out, John K is a straight Christian acting like this to piss more people off. Keep up the good work John Boy.
Who’s Chris? And you’re recitation isn’t quite right. It was four judges, first of all (minor detail). Second, what’s your deal with saying “it wasn’t just limited to homosexuals”? What does that even mean? Straight people are not being forced to marry someone of the same-sex. Do you think that anyone besides gay or bisexual people will be marrying someone of the same sex?
It amazes me that you really think that you are the one being subjected to “force” here. And I’ve yet to see any good rebuttals to the things I’ve written as to why you don’t have the right to keep gays from marrying. “It’s wrong,” as your first reason says everything anyone needs to know about your position and it’s strength.
Jake have you ever been to Amsterdam? If so, did the fact of knowing bestiality exists there get in the way of your trip to a beautiful town filled with history? I certainly don’t think of people having sex with animals when I visit foreign countries.
Jake, seriously. You’re deteriorating into silliness now. They don’t have bestiality in Amsterdam, and my point, which you tried to duck with your humor, still stands. Any serious response as to why the slipperty slope is something to worry about?
Folks: I’ve had to “moderate” several comments that included profanity. I’ve said this before — we will not accept comments that include profanity. Please. We are attempting to have civil discourse here. If you must use such language in your post, I ask you to please take the approach I have taken and type &^%$ instead of another choice four-letter word. Thank you.
“I would also have no problem outlawing anyone 45 years or older marrying 18 year-olds ; ) ”
Well, this is indicative of your problem. You want to run everyone else’s life. This doesn’t surprise me.
18-year-olds are adults, and they get to make their own decisions, even if it’s a decision you disagree with.
OCGator:
Gay ex-Christian here.
OCGator:
I doubt it (but my Gay-dar — isn;t that what the kids call it these days — may be on the fritz, no not Fritz Coleman either ; )
John K:
Chris posted above (no need to look, please). As for the In Re Marriage cases, only three Justices agreed to overrule the will of the people (Baxter, I think it was, stated he would not personally be opposed to same-sex marriage, but thought Prop. 22 and the Legislature should rule on it). Nothing in that case prevented two HETEROSEXUAL frat brothers from getting married.
Megan:
No.
All of you who are for Yes on 8 cannot understand what marriage means to us because it does not affect YOUR marriage. If something that the CA supreme court says was legal was then TAKEN AWAY by a majority of people unlike you, and it affected you, you would see how UNFAIR and WRONG it is. The Courts are here to protect minorities. Gay people are a minority, like it or not. We also pay the same taxes as you, but do not get equal protection under the law.
In addition, traditional marriage is a misnomer. Marriage has meant many things in different societies over the centuries. To claim that you all own the term is ridiculous. I have as much right to that term as you do. You being born straight does not give you more right to that word than to me. The courts will prevail - and your children WILL NOT CARE because it will be obvious in a very short time that you were wrong.
The bottomline is that people like Jake are - in the long term - on the wrong side of history. Look at the younger voters — all in favor. We will place Jake in the books along side George Wallace and others who simply didn’t get it. “Marriage segregation now. Marriage segregation forever.”
Yes on prop 8 won! Stop marching, stop protesting, and go home. Wait your turn to have it back on the ballot again. The people spoke.
There are seven justices on the court. if only three ruled to overturn prop. 22, it wouldn’t have been overturned. George, Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno. Get the facts straight.
Hey Yes on 8 - we lost the right to vote — not the right to free speech. I’m sure that’s next on your agenda, but for now we still have that right. I suppose you would ahve wanted those nice black people to just shut up and sit in the back of the bus like the nice white people said.
And don’t forget that 3 of those justices are Republicans. And one of those who voted no is just trying to keep the closet door firmly held closed.
Yes on 8: We’ll fight it in court, and if we lose, you can be your a$$ (there you go Brain Joseph) that we’ll have it back on the ballot ASAP. 5% is not that great a margin considering we’re averaging 3 per year.
Excuse me. that should have said we lost the right to marry. Two thoughts went in different directions… Long week…
“Hey Yes on 8 - we lost the right to vote â?? not the right to free speech. Iâ??m sure thatâ??s next on your agenda, but for now we still have that right. I suppose you would ahve wanted those nice black people to just shut up and sit in the back of the bus like the nice white people said.”
You know the seats on the back of the bus are just as good as the seats on the front. Just not the same. Don’t know what they were complaining about.
NormalgayOCresident:
Do you think that a brother should be able to marry his sister?
RaginModerate:
Truman desegregated the Army and I was for that even back then. Race is NOT the same as deviant sexual behavior.
If we lose this next court battle, it’s conceivable that our free speech rights could be on the ballot next. Afterall, no state constitutional right would be shielded from being overturned by the majority at that point.
JakeD: I’ve noticed that you’ve stopped engaging me in debate and resorted back to calling us deviant. I’m being more civil than you are now, imagine that.
JakeD, how old are you? I’m just curious.
Whatever you call it, Jake, so long as it’s not harming anyone I have the same rights as everyone else. And deviant sexual behaviour is a term used only by very old senior citizens and closet cases… which are you?
John K:
3 or 4 makes little difference to the point I was making to Chris (I hadn’t read the case since May). You will not be able to pass a Constitutional Amendment repealing Prop. 8 in 2 years.
paraphilia
(redirected from Deviant sexual behavior)
1. paraphilia /para·phil·ia/ (par?ah-fil´e-ah) a psychosexual disorder marked by sexual urges, fantasies, and behavior involving objects, suffering or humiliation, or children or other nonconsenting partners.
2. par·a·phil·i·a (pr-fl-, -fly)
n.
A psychosexual disorder in which sexual gratification is obtained through highly unusual practices that are harmful or humiliating to others or socially repugnant, such as voyeurism or pedophilia.
3. paraphilia Sexual deviancy Psychiatry A mental disorder characterized by ‘…recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving, 1. nonhuman objects; 2. suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner; or 3. children or other non-consenting persons, that occur over a period of at ≥ 6 months…(causing) significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the practitioner’s societal norms Formal paraphilias, per Am Psychiatric Assn Exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism, voyeurism, paraphilia–not otherwise specified, a ‘wastepaper basket’ category Management Psychotherapy, antidepressants, progestins, antiandrogens, surgical castration, triptorelin.
Nope, no homosexuality in that definition.
I’m 76, and married (to a woman) my entire life.
You’re right JohnK, and people need to realize that is a double edged sword. I’ve already heard about attempts to pass measures to take away tax exemption from churches, deny Mormons the right to marry, or even tongue in cheek to ban straight marriages in places like West Hollywood. I suppose so long as they are approved by a vote of the people that’s all that matters. of course as soon as Jake loses one ofg his rights he’ll be screaming for the court to protect him.
Jake being that old explains a lot.
“You will not be able to pass a Constitutional Amendment repealing Prop. 8 in 2 years.”
We’ll see. Even if not, we certainly will in another 8. Again, it’s inevitable, whether you like it or not.
Well that answers the question of whether you were old or closeted Jake. Actuarial tables tell us the odds are good we won’t ahve to worry about Jake’s vote if this does come up in two years. How’s it feel to have people anticipating your departure to answer to God for trying to get in His business by trying to be God on earth?
John K:
Is there any question you’ve asked me I haven’t answered?
RaginModerate that was actually an awful thing to say, no matter how much you and JakeD disagree. I merely asked how old he was for my own curiosity. I don’t agree with him in regards to Prop 8 and possibly a lot of other things, but that is merely the generation gap between us.
“of course as soon as Jake loses one ofg his rights heâ??ll be screaming for the court to protect him.”
Very true.
And you know, most of the rights are protected by the federal constitution, but that doesn’t mean people can’t try. That doesn’t mean the state constitution can’t be made a mockery of. Most of those types of measures wouldn’t go through, but I could seriously see a measure stripping mormon churches of tax exempt status going through. The rest of the religious folks only let the mormons into bed because it suited them. They’ll go right back to thinking the mormons are a whack job cult soon enough.
Some food for thought for those commenting on this thread: http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/06/prop-8-name-calling/7775/
My mother is a baptist, and she wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney for the simple reason that he was a Mormon. Bigotry goes in all directions.
Just as long as I can convince enough 14 year olds. You people do realize that the TREND for youngsters right now is to be more pro-life? We can do the same on traditional marriage too.
Yes, you haven’t responded to my assertion that the slippery slope argument doesn’t apply considering the unique questions raised by each type of relationship, other than to ask me if I’ve ever been to amsterdam.
I also asked you if you thought it appropriate in a pluralistic society to write laws based on one religion’s beliefs.
I did want to note and offer my appreciation for your admission that you indoctrinate your children.
Very funny, Mr. Jospeh. “Deviant” is simply “departing from the norm; characterized by deviation”.
Jake: by your own admission, the only way you can convince 14-year-olds is by pounding it into their heads before they get a chance to hear the other side of the argument. That’s not how a democracy with free speech and a free marketplace of ideas is supposed to work. Your true colors are showing. You don’t really value the ideals of this country, just the ideals of your religion.
Are you sure those were phrased in the form of a question?
Jake D, that is so tired. No one is asking for that right. No one ever in this lifetime or the next could ever hope to have support for that issue. The fact that at least 48% of Californian’s agree that being gay is NOT deviant behavior, and would go so far as to vote for my marriage, proves that you are about to be left behind.
The fact that you are 76 now gives me sympathy for you. Social change has passed you by. I get that. My parents don’t understand either, and they are only 62. I have no ill feelings for you, except that I resent you trying to deny me my right to marry any of-age adult (only one, thank you) of my choice. I would not think to deny you of that right, but that, again, points to the fact that my generation is much more tolerant of the “other” than yours.
Here is another tidbit for you. It was I who married my wife in the synagogue in August. You were very against us then, and you still are. It’s ok. Like I said, although hate is in your heart, you will not win in the long run. Society is moving past you. Good luck in the rest of your life. I have time and changing opinion on my side.
BTW, I have to leave now, so no need to reply to me. I won’t see it.
Megan - I’m sorry you were offended. it was a clumsy way to make the point that Jake is breaking the first commandment that we have no other gods before him. That is one of the big ten (gay marriage isn’t listed anywhere) and so he will have a lot to answer for.
Jake D - Every teenager who came to our house on Halloween who saw our No on 8 sign said “No on 8 rocks” and wanted high fives for being against 8. Your generation gave us segregation, anti-mixed marriage laws, support for doemstic violence and a host of other policies we’re still recovering from as a nation. So you’ll forgive me when I shudder to think of what you can possibly offer to our kids in the way of moral guidance.
“Very funny, Mr. Jospeh. â??Deviantâ?? is simply â??departing from the norm; characterized by deviationâ??.”
You’re using it as an automatic indication that something is bad. Either you’re using it as a slur, or your use of it is completely irrelevant because it doesn’t go to whether the abnormal behavior is good or bad. Which is it?
“Are you sure those were phrased in the form of a question?”
Yes, and now you’re waffling.
“Your generation gave us segregation, anti-mixed marriage laws, support for doemstic violence and a host of other policies weâ??re still recovering from as a nation. So youâ??ll forgive me when I shudder to think of what you can possibly offer to our kids in the way of moral guidance.”
Well-said.
What Jake also forgets is that we have Freedom of Religion in this country. The puritans came here because a government was imposing its interpreation of the Bible on the rest of the country as law and denying the rights of others with prison or worse. THAT’S why the founders gave us Freedom of Religion. You are welcome to your interpretation of the Bible, you just can’t impose it on everyone else so logn as there are other religions who disagree with you.
Thank you JakeD. Yes, my parents allow me to explore issues and questions that I have on my own. I have learned a lot (good and bad) from reading blogs specially about current events. For those of you who are afraid that us kids don’t know about gay marriage, you are wrong. With all the commercials you shoved down our throats on tv and with all those signs, it pretty much educates us on what is going on…the schools are doing a good job on teaching us to read and comprehend this too lol.
P.S. I didn’t want to marry her now, only when we were old enuff.
I have to leave now as well. Jake, go back and look through my posts for questions. I asked a WHOLE lot of them, many times several per post. Notice how all of my posts are paragraphs long, and most of yours are a couple sentences.
Thanks Chris. The ultimate irony of the campaign by the Yes on 8 folks was that if it didn’t pass our children would be learning about gay marriage. Thanks to the Yes on 8 people, you and others of your generation know a whole lot more than they would have if they’d just let well enough alone.
Have a nice life, John K. I noted that it wasn’t a slippery slope argument (i.e. logical fallacy) if it is indeed already happening. Incest will be next if same-sex marriage is legalized. As for writing laws based on one religion’s beliefs (you mean like MURDER laws?), I admit there has to be a legitimate, secular reason for the law too. That why I gave you several such SECULAR reasons above. As for indoctrinating children, don’t BOTH SIDES admit that’s what school is for?
Chris:
Sift through all the garbage, and only make your decisions based on fact and evidence. Don’t let people like Jake indoctrinate you. Don’t let anyone indoctrinate you.
You wrote before that you want everyone to get along, and that’s what I want as well. All we gays want is to be able to get married, treated equally, and be left alone like anyone else. We’re not coming for churches. We’re not trying to attack religion. We just want everyone to get along. But that is not possible if people are attacking us and taking our rights away. I hope you see through the lie that we are the ones trying to take rights away; it’s just not the case. It’s pretty clear who’s trying to take rights away.
I hope in a few years when you can vote, if we haven’t won by then, that you will do the right thing and live and let live by voting for marriage equality for gay couples.
All of you who voted yes on the bonds, voted yes to give chickens more room to roam but denied HUMAN BEINGS the RIGHT to be happy are insanely out of touch with reality.
Not only have you shown a complete lack of financial common sense, but a complete lack of human compassion and logic.
Try addressing your own problems before you try telling others how to live their lives. Address the 50% divorce rate, your priest abusing children, and your incessant use of the Internet for porn.
And while you are at it, try practicing what you preach: tolerance and acceptance. I thought that is what religion was about . . .
Careful what you ask for (too late) . . . California is now deeper in debt and has taken the EXTREME measure to legislate hate.
Good job.
“Have a nice life, John K. I noted that it wasnâ??t a slippery slope argument (i.e. logical fallacy) if it is indeed already happening. Incest will be next if same-sex marriage is legalized. As for writing laws based on one religionâ??s beliefs (you mean like MURDER laws?), I admit there has to be a legitimate, secular reason for the law too. That why I gave you several such SECULAR reasons above. As for indoctrinating children, donâ??t BOTH SIDES admit thatâ??s what school is for?”
And I told you why incest would absolutely not be legalized if gay marriage was. You haven’t shown me evidence that these things are ACTUALLY going on in other places, you just made jokes about it.
Murder laws are based on common sense– no one wants to be murdered. It’s about self-preservation and civilization. Religion is absolutely unnecessary to arrive at the conclusion that murder is not in humanity’s interest.
You haven’t given me good secular reasons. I refuted all of them, and you offered no response to my refutations. You can try again if you’d like, and I’ll be back later or tomorrow to see how you did.
School is not for indoctrinating; it’s for teaching critical thinking and presenting both sides of issues when there is a genuine question of fact or philosophy. We are not interested in indoctrination. We’re not afraid of letting children hear your message because we are confident that ours is the winning one.
Based on your slippery slope argument Jake, next we will be outlawing divorce and adultery because some group doesn’t like it. Your secular arguments from what I can see simply revolve around the fact that you don’t like it. You don’t really offer any rationale explanation (my nephews would simply call it cooties). And as for murder laws, we have those because it harms someone else. The fact that it is also religious based is irrelevant in a society where we don’t allow one denomination to write the laws anymore for the rest of us to follow. (We tried that when your generation gave us laws against Catholics and Mormons in public life)
JohnK said it better than I did and faster.
Jake D,
Honestly? Incest is next? Really? You are equating the acts of consenting adults with abuse?
I am waiting for you to write “animals and brother/sister marriages are after that”.
Again - animals can’t consent. Brother/sister marriages? Really, again? Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want within the privacy of their own home. It is not your business and it is especially not the business of the government.
yay for gays, boo on incest and animal sex. Now that is gross! People who do that crazy stuff keep it secret…gays are not a secret.
P.S. I am not gay, but I have a few friends who are my age and younger who are. So I know they didn’t make that choice just to get picked on in school.
I would have no problem outlawing adultery again and getting rid of no-fault divorce (secular reasons — whether you think they are good or not is not my problem — for that too ; )
Aw, I like Chris.
Chris:
Do you know any Goth kids who get picked on too? Did they “make that choice” or not?
John K:
Maybe tomorrow you can do your own research on NAMBLA and relatives trying to change age of consent and incest laws. It’s coming (no pun intended ; )
JakeD that is not a fair argument. Kids who are into certain trends in high school, or before, do those things as part of a normal adolescent development.
Is your name Chris?
Also, goth kids are more normal now anyway.
No, but this is obviously an open forum. I will answer any question I like.
Chris: glad to hear you support your gay friends.
One more thing before I go today:
“Robb [Director of the KKK in Arkansas] says the KKK does not promote violence; instead it lobbies for issues like the California gay marriage ban.”
Enjoy the company Jake.
Jake D proves the point as to why we have to stop things like Prop 8 in its tracks. As soon as you start allowing the government to determine what is morally allowed or not then everything we do is subject to that. Soon we will not be allowed to eat pork for religious reasons masquerading as secular ones.
oh yes, the goth and emo kids. They really don’t get picked on because they have a mean streak. I am pretty sure they choose to be that way though, doubt they were born with all that makeup
See ya, John K, you motherf*&^er
I have to go too. Tonight is Irish Pub night.
Have a good night everyone, even you Jake. ; )
And regardless of whether goth is chosen or not there is a difference between being picked on and having your rights removed by law to be goth.
Chris:
I’m sure the Goth kids get picked on too, but let’s stick with the emo kids — do they “choose” to be that way, even though they get picked on in school?
Guess it’s just you and me Chris and grandpa Jake. Three generations of life experience and your opinion will be the one that decides the fate of our country. (as a proxy for everyone else your age) But no pressure or anything. ; )
(From Wikipedia)
In 2008, Time Magazine reported that “anti-emo” groups attacked teenagers in Mexico City, Querétaro, and Tijuana. One of Mexico’s foremost critics of emo was Kristoff, a music presenter on the popular TV channel Telehit.
Gerard Way, the lead singer of My Chemical Romance stated in an interview that “emo is a pile of sh&t”, and that his band was never emo. Panic at the Disco also stated in an interview with NME: “emo is b*llsh&t.” These two bands, however, tend to be classified as emo.
Fans of emo are criticized for purported displays of emotion common in the scene. Complaints pointed to the histrionic manner in which the emotions were expressed.
In October 2003, a Punk Planet contributor leveled the charge that the current era of emo was sexist. Hopper argued that where bands such as Jawbox, Jawbreaker and Sunny Day Real Estate had characterized women in such a way that they were not “exclusively defined by their absence or lensed through romantic-specter”, contemporary bands approached relationship issues by “damning the girl on the other side … its woman-induced misery has gone from being descriptive to being prescriptive.” Regarding the position of women listening to emo, the contributor went on to note that the music had become “just another forum where women were locked in a stasis of outside observation, observing ourselves through the eyes of others.”
Critics of modern emo have argued that there is a tendency toward increasingly generic and homogenized style.
Emo music has been blamed for the suicide by hanging of Hannah Bond by both the coroner at the inquest into her death and her mother, Heather Bond, after it was claimed that emo music glamorized suicide and her apparent obsession with My Chemical Romance was said to be linked to her suicide. The inquest heard that she was part of an internet “emo” cult and her Bebo page contained an image of an ‘emo girl’ with bloody wrists. It was also revealed that she had discussed “the glamour of hanging” online and had explained to her parents that her self harming was an “emo initiation ceremony”. Heather Bond criticised emo fashion, saying: “There are ‘emo’ websites that show pink teddies hanging themselves.” After the verdict was reported in NME, fans of emo music contacted the magazine to defend against accusations that it promotes self harm and suicide.
In Russia, a law has been presented at the Duma to regulate emo websites and forbid emo style at schools and government buildings, for fears of emo being a “dangerous teen trend” promoting anti-social behaviour, depression, social withdrawal and even suicide.
Chris - Jake is actually making an interesting point in gays favor. why would anyone “choose” to be a certain way if they knew they were going to be picked on or denied rights. Being gay isn’t a choice (trust me, I’ve tried). But again, regardless of choice or not, the Declaration of Independence said I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — as defined by me, not someone else’s definition of happiness for me based on any reason they have secular or religious.
hee hee! Yes, they choose to be that way. But there are a lot of them! So they have a big group. I used to get picked on because I am 1 grade ahead of my normal age group and am on track to graduate when I am 16.
And Russia is the country that thought communism was a really great way to live their lives and protect its citizens from the evils of socialism…
Ahead of your grade group! Deviant! ; ) we need to vote to decide if you can go against the normal educational way of things… for purely secular reasons of course. You understand…
lol, right on!
I have to go now…eat supper, homework (remember that?) and rot my brain for an hour playing Guild Wars online
Peace to everyone!
Chris
Civic Union has the same rights by law as marriage. Our country is OF The People BY The People, California voted to protect the traditional DEFINITION of marriage. That is all Prop 8 did, we are not bigots or in tolerant we voted to protect marriage and in doing so protected our right of conscience and free speech to express our beliefs. And destroys separation of church and state, by making our PERSONAL beliefs into legal ones.
Homosexuality in a life style CHOICE, yes there may be biological factors that makes them more susceptible, but every single one at one point CHOOSE to be homosexual.
I’m a christian, if a measure or proposition threatens my right to get married in a church cause my faith opposes gays, and in doing so stops doing marriages for fear of legal reprisals. Won’t you fight to protect it? Of course!
I voted against it last election, it’s no longer about equal rights, but the gay community wants special rights. Sacrificing MY rights in the process, and I will fight for my right of conscience and freedom to practice and express my faith without legal reprisal.
What I worry most is the lack of consideration of indirect consequences of many of these issues among the people of California. Prop 8 is a victory for THINKING voters who see the long term and layered consequences of many of these liberal legislation being made.
We either evolve or we don’t, just when we thought we were taking a big step forward with Obama, we take a step back with Prop 8. The Gay community will never give up fighting, everyone should know that, besides what do we have to loose…respect…equality…EVEN THE ALMIGHTY KNOWS THAT, OUR FATHER THE HOLY GHOST JESUS CHRIST.
Hahaha. Gays help vote Barack and Blacks help vote against gays!!!!!!!!!
The people have spoken and the true meaning of “God Bless America” has shined in California.
ok, first of all, we won twice. we voted once and the vote was no on gay marriage. then the angry gays took it to court, and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE was OVERTURNED by 4 SUPREME COURT JUDGES. So the will of the people doesnt matter anymore.
now we voted again and the vote again said no to gay marriage. but yet again the angry gays want to overturn the will of the people and take it to court. they brought this fight up twice and we won both times. if ur gunna keep having us vote, and keep overturning it, then its not the will of the people, its the will of the gays.
and second of all, y should we be giving them special rights because they made a CHOICE to be gay. i dont understand y they keep comparing this to womens rights, and colored mens rights. that wasnt right, to descriminate colored people and women. because they WERE MADE THAT WAY. they DIDNT GET TO CHOOSE what skin color they wanted to have, and if they wanted to be male or female. they were put on this earth like that. but gay people had a choice. they CAN CHOOSE to be straight. but they CAN ALSO CHOOSE to be gay. and if they arent happy with the rights given to them when they CHOOSE to be gay, then they need to CHOOSE to be straight. i know gay people, and when i asked them if they believed they were gay because of their own free will, or because of their genetic makeup they belived it was their FREE WILL, AND THAT THEY CHOSE TO BE GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so if u dont like the rights, or i should actually say the loss of rights, that come with being gay, then become straight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now shut up and accept defeat for the second time. and if its that big of a deal then go with a civil union.
I JUST LOVE WATCHING THESE CRY BABY GAYS……..
WHY DON’T YOU JUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF US DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE IN CALI.
QUIT CRYING, QUIT PROTESTING, QUIT MARCHING THE STREETS OF WEST HOLLYWOOD. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, LEAVE NO ONE ISFORCING YOU TO STAY HERE.
I wonder if we could get a 52% majority vote next year to amend the Constitution to take away the right to worship as you please? This is a great concept! YOU GET WHATEVER RIGHTS THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS DECIDE YOU GET.
I am shocked and amazed that the yes on 8 folks do not see how inherently flawed this thinking is. They have gleefully corrupted our Constitution so that it no longer stands for freedom and equality for all.
They whine about a “minority forcing their beliefs on everyone…” yet what just happened with prop 8’s passage is a VERY NARROW MAJORITY FORCING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US. It disturbs me that Prop 8 supporters said this was about freedom of religion. In fact, what just happened was a complete demolition job on the separation of church and state.
Plenty of straight, married parents like me voted NO on 8 because we realize that our happiness, and the sanctity of our marriages, have absolutely nothing to do with what strangers do. I am sad that Californians were not smart enough to realize that our Constitution needed protecting from this religious hijacking. Marriage didn’t need protecting. People’s rights needed protecting.
I feel sorry for all the kids of the people who are so anti-gay, because some of them will end up being gay (it is a statistical certainty) and I wonder how many of them will end up part of the suicide statistics for gay teens. You can try to protect your kids from many things, but you cannot protect them from how their Maker chose to make them. I hope you learn to be loving and tolerant if that day comes that YOUR kid is the one saying “it wasn’t my choice.”
Some day, and OH I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE DAY, religious folks will no longer be in the majority. When that day comes, you people better pray to your God that you still have a Constitution that protects your rights, and that you still have judges who will hear YOUR “whining” lawsuits and who will use the Constitution to protect your rights. Because if I had my way, after seeing the way all of you so-called Christians behave, religion would be illegal.
HOW WOULD JESUS VOTE? (Ask a leper before you answer…)
I didn’t say you did specifically, Megan, but in your admonishment of those whom you believed weren’t acting “Christian,” you failed to recognize, acknowledge, or otherwise hold up to the same criticism those Prop 8 opponents who behaved like spoiled human brats who had their candy taken away.
I’d say you can climb back on your high horse now, but it appears you never left it.
TO ALL WHO OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
I think you’re good people, like me. I pay my taxes that support my schools and religious institutions so they can give back to the community. I don’t hurt anyone and only try to help. I oppose people who try to infringe on religious freedoms, and I don’t seek to infringe upon what “marriage” means to you. I appreciate that most of you DO approve of ‘domestic partnerships’ and ‘civil unions’ for gay people, but please listen to why that doesn’t work.
The federal government gives married people about 1000 rights. The state gives them about 400 additional rights. The reason the government is involved in marriage at all is to promote and protect stable, happy families as basic units of society. Obviously marriage is not solely for procreation, as we do not remove that right from you if you are infertile, elderly, or choose not to have children. When you marry, you are automatically entitled to those 1400 rights, including the right to visit a spouse in the hospital, be added to your spouse’s insurance policies, acquire property with your spouse and automatically inherit it if your spouse dies, and many more. These 1400 rights are not simply and easily written up in a single civil document, nor always enforceable; for instance, a person under a state’s domestic partnership can’t force the IRS to give him the tax benefits afforded to married couples. It is extremely complex and doesn’t always work; I am aware of gay people whose partners died and the deceased’s hostile family successfully asserted their ownership of everything in spite of the contract, leaving the survivor destitute. Imagine children being involved, and a deceased partner’s hostile family takes your children from you because your civil contract didn’t stand up in court proving you were next of kin! In Arkansas, the majority just voted to prohibit unmarried people from adopting, meaning a gay person can’t even adopt their partner’s children to ensure that if their partner dies the children will remain with the surviving parent they love!
‘Civil unions’ and ‘domestic partnerships’ permit OSTENSIBLY most of the 400 state-afforded rights of married couples, but NONE of the 1000 federal ones, and I can tell you from personal experience that the state ones are NOT equal. Just one example is that to get on my partner’s insurance policy, we had to provide our certificate of domestic partnership, copies of financial records proving we had co-mingled finances and lived in the same home for at least two years, and more. If I died, my partner would have to wait at least two years to add her new partner to the policy to prove the relationship was ‘real’. Married people don’t even need to provide a copy of a marriage license, and if their spouse died today, they could add a new spouse tomorrow. This is only one example out of MANY.
Other rights are specific to helping children of married people, including ensuring automatic inheritance rights, the right of a non-blood related parent to pick up a sick child from school, alimony and child support to help with their care in the event of divorce, and many more. No matter the makeup of the family or how it comes to be — be it traditional nuclear, or grandparents raising their grandchild, or a blended family resulting from divorced people remarrying, or single parents, or adoptive parents, or childless couples, or gay couples — ALL of these people deserve the same rights so they have the best chances of happiness and contribution to society.
What I would like to see the FEDERAL government do is create one proto-marriage type of relationship (’civil union’?) that applies equally to all people who want it, including granting them all 1400 of the rights and responsibilities that “married” people currently enjoy, and then simply leave the word “marriage” for religiously-inclined people who want to further consecrate their relationship according to their religions. I think that is what the MAJORITY of us all want. Unfortunately, the federal government is currently leaving the issue to states to decide, so we are stuck wrestling for the one word that currently encompasses all 1400 of those rights, and that word is “marriage”. Granting the existing rights encompassed by one word to a minority is a lot easier than changing 1400 laws to encompass them. That’s really all there is to it, see?
I understand many of you are afraid that legalizing gay marriage will lead to your children being forced to learn in school that homosexuality is “normal”. I will be the first to agree with you that homosexuality is NOT “normal” - the parts don’t fit and we can’t make babies. But consider that in one out of every 100 live births, a child is born with ambiguous genitalia (intersexed). If God creates 1% of babies that way, why do we then do surgery to “correct” them to one sex or the other and make them “normal”? God made me abnormal too - I’m among the small percentage of people whose wiring is crossed so I’m attracted to my own sex. My abnormality doesn’t lead me to hurt anyone. The worst law I’ve ever broken is the speed limit. Learning that homosexuals exist isn’t going to turn any child homosexual, but it will help the small percentage born with this abnormality to feel less alone. That’s really the worst that could happen. All the same, currently in California no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about homosexuality at school.
As for the slippery slope arguments that legalizing gay marriage will automatically lead to legalizing polygamy or incestuous marriages, those forms of marriage existed throughout most of recorded history but are too impractical or undesirable for the vast majority of Americans to even consider today. As for legalizing gay marriage leading to legalizing people marrying pets or children, these can’t even give informed consent. Please stay off the slippery slope; the ONLY topic we’re asking you to agree on is legalizing gay marriage.
We gay people and our families are being hurt by laws as they stand, and all we are asking for is the concession that the word “marriage” include us so we may enjoy its rights - and responsibilities. I will leave you with the words of Mildred Loving, who wrote this forty years after her 1967 legal case struck down laws barring interracial marriage:
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.”
(Barack Obama should take notice, since he supports “Separate But Equal” rights for gays - but was born in the US at a time when his parents’ own marriage would have been invalidated depending on what state they traveled to.)
Good point, sizlor.
Christians are mean…
Jake and Sizlor: You’d be acting the same way or worse if a similar political attack was made on YOUR rights or YOUR church. The right to marriage is not quite the same as candy.
For those who tout the “will of the people” and the rule of law, just remember that everything the Nazi’s did in Germany was technically legal in their country. That’s not to say this is the same thing, but if you’re willing to elevate the will of the people to sacred status, you have to be consistent and do it across the board, which means giving your blessing to the will of the German people in the 1930s and 40s.
Nothing happens in this world, even in Nazi Germany, that is not God’s Will.
I agree that everything the Nazi’s did in Germany was legal in their Country. Hilter won by ONE vote (so did the Bald Eagle as our National Symbol over the Turkey).
Prop 8 won by 509,881 votes (as of 8:00A this morning).
You will need to try a little harder at connecting the Will of the People to War Crimes.
The real Crime is when Imperialistic Judges dictate the People.
The true hate crime here is against the People of California when their voice is silenced by others that do not care what we stand for as a Society.
In time this may change; however, let the change happen by the People and for the People.
Taking this to Court only gives the opposing side strength in using the methods of the group against them.
This was one of the main reasons that Prop 8 lost when the One Person goes before the People and says, “Whether you like it or not…”. That is dictatorship at its finest!
The People of California do not accept this form of behaviour.
Alan:
Being called Nazis and KKK only strengthens our resolve.
This actually very funny. The gays really think they’re ruffling our feathers. I’ve got news for ya. We are used to people making ridiculous assumptions about us. We’ve heard all the lies spread about us in the past. we’re used to the abuse. we’re used to not being liked. persecution is nothing new.
we should disagree with those who are immoral, who seek to undermine society and the sanctity of marriage. What the gays refuse to acknowledge is that they already have their own version of marriage, it’s called a domestic partnership. it comes with every legal right that marriage has. They don’t want to get married, they want to tear down our way of life, our beliefs, and force us to accept gays into our religion. they want to be told they are moral. they want to be told they are normal. that will never happen. god never changes, and we agree with his principles & teachings.
these tantrums outside our temples will pass, they’re just playing to the media, who of course, eats it right up. we’ve put up with rioters for hundreds of years. Hey, I have an idea, should I just send you the address of a place you can get some tar & feathers?
Lindy:
If Christians are “mean” what do you call throwing an open container of bleach from a moving car at “Yes on 8″ supporters? What about Santa Monica Boulevard being closed and private property defaced as 1,000 protesters gathered outside a temple of the Mormon Church in Westwood?
Emily:
Keep in mind that “domestic partners” do not get all of the same rights (for instance, federal recognition as a “spouse”). That, and forcing us to accept deviant sexual behavior, is why the word “marriage” is so important to them.
Alan: You Christians love to talk in terms of moral absolutes. Well, Prop. 8 is absolutely wrong, whether it won by 10 votes or 10 million votes. That was all my point about Nazi Germany was.
Emily: If this doesn’t work, we will move on to what does. We will get your attention.
More property should be defaced.
“Keep in mind that â??domestic partnersâ?? do not get all of the same rights (for instance, federal recognition as a â??spouseâ??). That, and forcing us to accept deviant sexual behavior, is why the word â??marriageâ?? is so important to them.”
At least now Jake Acknowledges the differences in rights that exist between the two supposedly equal institutions.
I’ve never claimed “domestic partnership” is equal to “marriage”, John K.
95% of blacks voted for Obama. 70% of blacks voted Yes on Prop 8. The outcome was close. 51% to 48%…. Did you also know the majority of the black voters for Yes on 8 were over 65 years old. I can understand them voting their way. Women like my mother who had to sit at the back of the bus, drink from seperate fountains, and so on ans do on… She really does not understand how anyone could compare her struggle with the gay and lesbian struggles. Now, I bring up this point because soon our 65 and over club will not be around to vote. The 18 to 29 year olds voted about 70% to 30% in favor of NO on 8. So, it’s only a matter of time before my gay brothers and sisters will be able to get what they deserve. And thats: Their rights not to be treated differently under the law. Our nation has never given rights and then taken them away. Remember… Church & State. we must keep the Church out of the decision making when it comes to our California Constitution. I know its hard for most of you. But just try. This message comes from a woman who voted No on prop 8. It was wrong and unfair. I will watch the protesters in Long Beach tonight. I will cheer them on. They should be out in the streets protesting. The Yes on 8 should have never even been on the ballot.
There is biological evidence that homosexuality among men can be determined by fraternal birth order. Which means your little boys, depending on how many you have, can determine their sexuality. With that written, I hope all you ignorant people have 3 boys or more, because that 3rd will most likely be gay, whether you know it or not.
This one goes out to all of you who said, “The people have spoken, now get over it.” It’s far from over. Why are you all spitting in our faces. You love to say things like, “The door is closed now!”
Gosh, whatever happen to treating people with respect?
I am a police officer who married her domestic partner 08-08-2008. I risk my life everyday for the citizens of California. When I respond to your home because little bobby ran away. Do you really care about my wife and I ? No, you care that I find your son. My wife and I have been together for over 4 years. Both of our parents are still married. We were taught great values. We both wanted more than what “Domestic Partnership” brought us. Who want’s to call the love of their life “Domestic Partner” She is my wife and I hers. We have our marriage license hanging on our wall. We are proud of it. We will not stop because we want our gay brothers and sisters to share what we shared in front of our God, our family, and our friends. Please don’t respond with hate to my note. Please don’t say, “leave California if you don’t like how the people voted.” Stop with all that. You guys won this time around. Don’t be that bully on the playground that says, “Ha ha hee hee, I told you we would win, you guys are not as good as us, ha ha hee hee, now go home.” Don’t worry. I will still respond to the homes that had the Yes on 8 signs on their lawns. That’s because I am very professional and my parents taught me to treat others as you would want to be treated. Until next time …….
For those of you who STILL won’t concede defeat:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf
Alan:
Yes on Prop. 8 results: 5,419,478 (and counting ; )
Very well said Diane. Thank you for the work you do, and congratulations on your marriage. I’ve been wearing a rainbow awareness pin since before Prop 8 was passed, and I will continue to wear it until gays have the right to marry again. The other day when I was on my school campus, someone walked by me and yelled “Prop 8 was passed, FAG! Ha ha ha!” It saddens me that a lot of people are HAPPY and are LAUGHING about this. It’s neither funny nor victorious in the least.
Megan…. Thank you ..
Im in an interracial marriage. So what! Im sick of you perverts using my relationship to justify your own. Its retarded. You don’t have any friend in this one. not blacks, not interracials, not latinos, no one except Diane (hugh crook) fienstein, and vacuous hollywood celebutards. Don’t compare homosexuality to anything except abortion and self-imposed genocide.
I’m happy at least.
JakeD…. Are you serious? Seeing your name on here time and time again. I am starting to think you have some deep seeded issues. Are you one of those guys who jumps out of his truck and beat on gay men just because they are gay? Or are you just mad they are walking down the street holding hands and you are driving along the highway alone. Alone because no one wants to be with a guy like you. Don’t hate on them because you have no life. Better yet, don’t hate on them just because you REALLY want to be holding his hand too. Come out the closet. You will feel better. The judges will turn Prop 8 over. I do not care 52% voted Yes. 90% voted years ago to keep interracial marriages illegal. The judges voted back then and things are the way they are today because of it. You will see Mr. JakeD…. YOu will see…………
You tell him Diane!!!
Diane:
No.
Don Robison: If you’re really in an interracial marriage, then you are the biggest fool of all for being against gay marriage. But don’t worry, Karma’s a bitch.
You know what they used to call interracial marriage? They used to say it would “taint” the white race. This was 40 years ago. Sounds a lot like “self-imposed genocide” to me. Same bullshit, different shoveler.
Hey, John K, welcome back! As you are well aware, my stated position is that immutable race is different than deviant sexual behavior and, therefore, your analogy of same-sex marriage to inter-racial marriage falls short.
Will the state Supreme Court ignore the will of the people? 6,434,312 (and counting) are ready for a special recall election of any such judge.
i love this,the victory shows that there is hope in things working out for the future generation.i ask myself the question ”what happened”?how did we get to the point where such things should have a voice? but thank God for this Victory for it shows that there is hope.