The state Supreme Court announced a short while ago that it will hear the legal challenge to Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage approved by voters Nov. 4. However, it rejected a request by gay-marriage advocates to allow gay marriages to continue to be perform until the court rules on the lawsuits.
The earliest the case would be heard is March. Here’s the Associated Press story.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, has issued a lengthy memo on the campaign’s next steps and discourages backers from holding demonstrations and rallies.
So, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge — not unexpected and actually urged by the Pro-8 side — but DENIED the requested stay of enforcement in the meantime. Get out and PROTEST, homosexuals!
Here are the issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, sections 1-4.)
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Maybe the Justices should have thought about that BEFORE allowing same-sex marriages to start in June only to be put into legal limbo on November 4th. Will the state Supreme Court ignore the will of the people again? 6,434,312 (and counting) are ready for a special recall election of any such judge.
Seriously, if the California Supreme Court holds Prop. 8 “unconstitutional” I am going to find a brother and sister who want to marry and fund a lawsuit for them too:
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/07/prop-8-reoccuring-questions/7805/#comments
The California Supreme Court will do what is right, and objectively decide on the consitutionality (or lack thereof) of this illegal proposition. Whether it was 6,434,312 people or 100,000,000, the tyranny of the majority will be overturned by the Court. That is exactly what the point of the judicial branch of our government is.
And, in the end, these seven Justices will let their fairmindedness and sense of Right rise above the ill-informed threats of recall by six million bigoted citizens. And, in the end, the opinions of these seven Justices will not be subject to revision again.
Justice will prevail, and it will prevail in the favor of equality for all. As much as it frustrates those who voted yes…there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do about it.
What rights have been taken away from homosexual couples through Prop 8 passing?
If your response is, the right to marry, please provide what rights are provided to married couples that are not provided to homosexual rights that the State of California has control over.
In other words, you can’t use Social Security benefits as an example because the State of California has nothing to do with how Social Security benefits are distributed.
I have not been able to find one difference between domestic partnerships and marriage in the State of California. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but I’m trying to become better educated on this subject.
I voted Yes on 8 and I’m sincerely trying to understand the issue. It sounds to me like the bigger issue is that homosexuals would like to have the same rights as straight couples. If that is to be accomplished, the Federal Government is going to need to mandate some changes to laws that would grant specific rights regardless of a State’s decision.
I personally believe that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman. But I think that the rights granted to couples should be the same regardless of sexual orientation. And I sincerely believe that they need to be called two separate things (marriage and civil unions) because they are two separate things.
And yet for taking this position, I have been called a bigot, the Christian Taliban, a hater, a homophobe, despicable, etc. Never in my life have I been called more hateful and hurtful things than I have on this issue. My church buildings have been defaced, my name has been placed on blacklists and smeared all over the internet, I have had hateful messages sent to me, I’ve been yelled at, cursed at, etc.
I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as married couples. But I believe that it can be accomplished in ways that do not change the definition of marriage.
Oh, what a surprise. Two comments in, and JakeD’s already talking about incest. Do you have ANY idea how ridiculous you are?
Someones panties are in a bunch.
JakeD wears panties?
I wonder what the churches will do with their tax exempt money after prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional?
Isn’t it obvious? He’s always the first to post on these stories. He also has a Ted Haggard fan club t-shirt.
Jake raises a valid point. As it stands now, everyone has the right to marry. We all have equal rights. There are some legalities about WHOM you can marry. You can’t marry a sibling, a parent, a child, or a first cousin. And you can’t marry someone of the same gender.
Not the same thing, you say? Why not? If sixty-year-old brothers and sisters wish to marry, why not? It’s not an issue of procreation. It’s a matter of morality. Same thing here. The law DOES make judgement on morality. If you argue to repeal one “blue law,” you argue to repeal them all. Allow urinating in public. Public nudity. Fornicating in public.
Where do you draw a line? Is partial nudity obscene? Is publice sexual behavior?
You can argue this until you’re blue in the face. Bottom line: the majority decides what’s moral and what’s not.
good point johnadams…I hope the churches can rally their people to raise another $30 mil to help the homeless, sick, hungry, etc….put their money where it really matters!
Equal rights, interesting point.
This whole controversy is ridiculous. Perversion is not a fundamental right.
And it is not ridiculous to bring up the issue of incestual marriage not being allowed. The whole point of this is that marriage has been defined with certain limits on who can marry. It has always been between man and woman. That is not discrimination–it is simply the way marriage is.
Historically speaking other than very recently, marriage has never been other than between a male and female–never between those of the same sex. There is of course historical precendent for polygamy which has historically been practiced and currently is practiced in some other societies. (I’m not in any way advocating that, just stating history and I’m not Mormon.)
The state has some other restrictions on who can marry. No polygamy, and while I don’t know the exact rules on what relatives can marry in CA, I know that brothers and sisters can’t but apparently 1st cousins can or could. We don’t call that discrimination. So why is it any different when we define marriage the way it has always been defined as between a man and a woman?
And as has been stated before. Homosexuals are allowed to marry, but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else so how is that discrimination? Its not.
Homosexuals and their supporters act all outraged as though some fundamental, long term right had been taken away from them. That is not the case.
And BTW, it was NOT 7 justices that decided to overturn prop 22. It was a 4-3 decision!
And the no on 8 folks like to call the yes on 8 folks haters, bigots, and worse, but the majority of the hateful speech and actions that I have heard of have been by the no on 8 folks who seem to want us to tolerate them, but who are not willing to tolerate the views of others instead resorting to name calling as usual.
Funny that a religious person talks about siblings getting married and procreating. Isn’t that the whole Adam and Eve story? God created two people who then procreated and populated the world?
“Equal Rights,” I’m so tired of seeing this misunderstanding.
Same-sex marriage does NOT constitute a “special right.” When it was legal, straight people had the right to marry members of the same sex. They chose not to, because we all generally prefer to marry the person we LOVE. With Prop 8 in effect, straight people have the “special right” to marry the person they ACTUALLY WANT TO MARRY.
To argue that that’s no big deal is to deny the very humanity of gays and lesbians, which may indeed be your goal.
As for your claim that “the majority decides what’s moral and what’s not,” perhaps you’ve forgotten that the majority for many years felt that slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote were all quite moral. I’m sorry, “Equal Rights,” but your argument demonstrates that you don’t know much about American history.
“Perversion is not a fundamental right.”
And homosexuality is not perversion. Next!
The people have spoken!
Fantichka.
“And yet for taking this position, I have been called a bigot, the Christian Taliban, a hater, a homophobe, despicable, etc. Never in my life have I been called more hateful and hurtful things than I have on this issue. ”
I agree with you on prop.8. To me, to be called those things is to be discriminated against simply because you do not agree with a “homosexual marriage”. I am sure that not all supporters of gay marriage are so hateful in their descriptions of us even though they disagree with us. There have to be some people with civility left (at least I hope).
My main concern, more than being hated for my stance on homosexuality, is that now at gay rallies, people are carrying signs that say, “Gay is the new black”. When people start proclaiming that opposing a gay lifestyle is and should be unconstitutional, what is going to happen to a Christian’s religious rights? Will our pastors be sued for speaking against homosexuality? Will we be able to voice the Bible’s position on the issue? Some may say, well wait a minute, this doesn’t infringe on religious rights.
If the courts overturn the majority vote, it does. If that happens, it will be overturned based on “discrimination” issues, and if it becomes a discrimination issue, than simply speaking against homosexual marriage will be a bigot statement that someone could take you to court for. It would be put on the same level as a racial slur.
And you are right, Fatichka. As far as rights go, gay couples still get all legal rights that straight married couples get (civil union)- the only thing they don’t get is the title “married”. This is not an equal rights issue, it is a personal opinion issue.
OC4truth:
Funny your name includes the word truth because you’re not very well informed about marriage. Marriage was originally about financial gain. A man would approach a woman’s father and offer him a certain amount, usually farm animals, to have his wife. The woman would then be forced to attend to the house.
Marriage has changed several times over the years. For a long time here in America, blacks could not marry whites. It’s not a perversion. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals in the wild, which supports the idea that it’s biological. There are several studies about it.
fantichka: the gay activist do not want anyone at anytime to be against their life style. If they have their way, just saying you object to their life style will be a crime.
E-Harmoney (a dating service) has been sued for not providing same sex matches. With the 100’s of dating services offering same sex matches they go out of their way to sue anyone not offering it to them.
They are now forcing their views on everyone else by saying anyone objecting to them is guilty of discrimination. There is no place for disagreement with them.
So, the folks who voted against Prop 8 only like the law when it goes their way? So much for Democracy and voting.
And the no on 8 folks like to call the yes on 8 folks haters, bigots, and worse, but the majority of the hateful speech and actions that I have heard of have been by the no on 8 folks who seem to want us to tolerate them, but who are not willing to tolerate the views of others instead resorting to name calling as usual.
——————————————————————————————-
Amen to that. It seems like all the NO ON 8 folks have been the ones full of hate, etc. The minute you show any differing opinion on ANYTHING to them they attack! I thought this was supposed to be a country of free speech. I guess not if they have anything to do with it.
Yes johnadams, the Bible does teach that God created Adam and Eve and that we all came from then. We don’t know how many children they actually had as only 3 were named, but it indicates that they had others.
As I understand it, a main reason that we don’t allow marriage between close relatives is because of genetic issues with harmful recessive genes coming out when there is too much close intermarriage.
However it is thought that in the beginning God created Adam and Eve with perfect genetic diversity–enough to bring about all the diversity that we see today with some possible mutations.
So at that point there was no danger of them both carrying the same harmful recessive gene. And in fact those harmful recessive genes may have been the result of later genetic mutations.
It is thought by many, based on the language in Genesis that the earth at that time may have been covered by a protective mantle of clouds that would have protected from destructive UV rays.
It is thought that things changed after the flood and there was more exposure to UV rays and the recorded life spans of people greatly diminished at that time.
Even Abraham married his half sister, and his son Isaac and his son Jacob married relatives. It wasn’t until later at the time of Moses that laws were spelled out against close marriages, presumably because by that time it could have become a problem genetically.
This is not explicitly stated in the Bible but many Bible scholars think this is what happened and it does fit with the texts.
So very early on, marriage to close relatives even siblings was not harmful because of genetic diversity, but later the diversity had been lessened in individuals and so restrictions were put on to protect the human race.
Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals in the wild, which supports the idea that it’s biological. There are several studies about it.
——————————————————————————————–
So you are equating Homosexuals to uncontrollable animals that have no morals or ethics.
I guess that would be accurate. Good comparison.
Sam, shall I make you a list of all the votes I’ve disagreed with in the past decade? (George W. Bush comes to mind…twice.) The issue here is that the majority should never be permitted to vote away the rights of a minority.
Uh, Stinger? You do realize that there are heterosexual animals in the wild, too, right?
OK, let’s presume for purposes of argument that the claim is right - there’s no substantive difference between civil unions and marriages. We have a separate parallel and equal system for gay civil unions in California. Let’s just pretend for a minute.
Now, a few questions:
1. Does the term, “separate but equal,” not send even a small chill down your spine? That, of course, is exactly how the Supreme Court defined legal segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson over a century ago. It took over fifty years for the court to admit it was wrong, with the essential truism that separate but equal systems are inherently un-equal. That applied to segregated schools, and I submit it applies inevitably to marriage rights.
2. If they’re equal, why separate them? The very act of separation necessaily implies (actually, states pretty explicitly) that they are different, and not the same at all. And let’s take a quick guess at which will be regarded (or certainly put forward by Prop 8 proponents in the future) as the superior system legally, in terms of rights afforded to its participants and so on. All those who guessed “civil unions,” take your lollipops and go play on the carousel - you’re babes in the woods. There is no reason to separate the two type of unions other than to denigrate the one as compared to the other. Again, separate but equal systems are inherently un-equal.
Your bigotry against gay marriage is of a soft and subtle sort. It’s OK to be gay, and to live quietly by yourselves, just don’t make me acknowledge it. That may be religiously based, thically based, or based on a gut level revulsion against homosexual acts. Whichever. But the effect of Prop 8 is to enshrine your particular religious canon in state civil law, to the detriment of the religions and ethical systems that don’t share your beliefs. It’s also to create a category of citizens unable to enjoy the same rights that you enjoy - since, as noted, the separate systems are inherentl;y unequal ones.
And, it’s been done by a simple majority vote. Think about the implications of that. You dislike, say, Scientology? think it’s a scam and not a real religion at all, what with its e-meters and all that nonsense? Then let’s ban it, by majority vote. It;s not a religion, you see. Too many polls have been conducted in which mahorities have rejected almost every provision of the Bill of Rights for anyone to feel comfortable with the idea that a simple majority of the people can strip away the trights of another group of citizens. that’s a lot slipperier a slope than anything the Prop 8 proponents have ever come up with, and a lot more real a peril.
I’m sorry people are saying nasty things to you, and defacing your church (which church, and how defaced, I wonder - I’ve seen no reports of any such thing). But churches - especially the LDS and Catholic churches - made a fundamental error here: they placed their religious ethos into a civil political arena, and then they expected not to be evaluated (and yes, attacked) as a civil political institution. It just doesn’t work that way. If you’re going to get into the muck of a civil political campaign, you’re going to get dirty, and complaining about the dirt is the sheerest hypocrisy. That’s why religion is imperiled when it becomes entangled in politics - it loses its special status in this country outside the partisan arena. You gamble with that at your own risk.
The State Supreme Court wisely didn’t step in on Prop 8 before the election because it wasn’t a real controversry then. it is now, and the Court’s duty to uphold fundamental rights is pretty clear - and that duty is explicitly antimajoritarian, so yelling about how the majority voted for Prop 8 is not just irrelevant but anti-constitutional - it’s a call for mob rule. The most basic job of the courts is precisely to validate fundamental principles of liberty against attack, even by a majority of the people. In fact, that’s when it has the strongest obligation to perform its duty.
Marriage has survived thousands of years of being characterized by polygamy, coercion, sale of women as chattel, gender role subjagation, various forms of consanguinity, prohibitions against interfaith and inter-racial bonding, and numerous other things that have been left by the side of the road - many after being well accepted for millenia. I think we can discard the gender bias today without doing violence to the institution. If the Mormons or the Catholics don;t wqant to perfform sameex marriages, fine - lots of churches still won’t perform ceremonies where one participant is outside the faith. But the rest of us, who don’t share that particular faith, shouldn’t be burdened by their doctrine.
# FundamentallyFlawed Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Uh, Stinger? You do realize that there are heterosexual animals in the wild, too, right?
————————————————————————
Yes, and I also realize that there are animals the have sex with every other animal that they can find, and also with their sibings. There is no such thing as a monogamous relationship in the animal kingdom. As humans we are above animals and any comparisons to animals for the sake of convenience is a weak argument.
rlh:
Immutable race is different than deviant sexual behavior.
“There is no such thing as a monogamous relationship in the animal kingdom.”
There certainly is. You’re wrong.
“any comparisons to animals for the sake of convenience is a weak argument.”
So maybe you should stop making them.
rlh: Well said!
# FundamentallyFlawed Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“There is no such thing as a monogamous relationship in the animal kingdom.”
There certainly is. You’re wrong.
—————————————————————————–
Uh, OK. Maybe you should stop watching the cartoons. You put 2 dogs in heat together and they are going to hump. They aren’t going to think if the dog is their “significant other” or not. They are just going to lay some pipe.
What sort of fantasy world are you living in?
All I’m saying is that humans are held to a higher standard and should have morals. Animals are not, they are just animals (or food). Not so hard now is it?
Right, because dogs do not mate for life. Other animals do.
Stinger, we agree. Humans SHOULD be held to a higher standard, which is why I find the base tribalism and knee-jerk bigotry of so many Californians so troubling.
Stinger,
There are in fact many monogamous relationships in the animal world, mostly with birds of prey, who will mate with the same until one dies.
I don’t think whether or not animals are involved in ‘relationships’ is relevant here. All that seems relevant to the topic is that homosexuality occurs in nature, and I’m fairly confident that this fact is the only reason it was even mentioned.
Using the black/white marriage ban from teh past deos not mean the situations are the same. It is just not an apples to apples comparison. Racial discrimination of the past was clearly wrong and I don’t suppose you’d
Stinger, the gay activists are not interested in discussion, they don’t want any limits on their life style. Remember when AIDS first started, the Red Cross started screening blood donors. Anyone who had a same sex relationship even once, could not donate. The gay activist screamed discrimination. They do not want anyone speaking out against their life style.
Not that it is an issue for me, but 1st cousins can marry in California .So, whoever was going down that slippery slope will have to stick to siblings,multiples and farm animals.
I certainly hope 8 is overturned so the good folks can go back into their churches and get back to praying.
For the record, mensarino, the good folks at my church are praying that Prop 8 WILL be overturned, because they know Jesus would be horrified to see the Bible brandished as a weapon to discriminate against good, loving members of society.
# FundamentallyFlawed Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Stinger, we agree. Humans SHOULD be held to a higher standard, which is why I find the base tribalism and knee-jerk bigotry of so many Californians so troubling.
——————————————————————————–
The problem is that for it to be considered bigotry that would imply that all agree that it is not a choice but something you are born with. If you believe that it is a choice, the bigotry argument goes out the window. That is the problem with everyone being called bigots that voted yes on 8. This isn’t about bigotry or discrimination in their opinion.
It has not been scientifically proven that it is something you are born with. There have been many attempts to do so, but none have succeeded.
Do you believe it’s bigotry to hate Jews or Catholics, Stinger? Religion is a choice. Anyone can convert!
1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, sections 1-4.)
case law is the ruling law!
I have a good feeling that the court will rule that H8 is a revision.
“In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.”
JakeD is excited he’s going to marry his sister now. Nice cover up buddy…you’re going to “TRY” and find brother and sister who want to marry,right
FundamentallyFlawed: Jesus would be against gay marriage.
Read Matt 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
JakeD is excited he gets to marry his sister now. Nice cover up buddy. You’re going to “TRY” and find a brother and sister who want to marry.
I’m already married, so that would be polygamy.
THE LEGAL COMMUNITY
Election Law: How One Legally Might Remove a Ballot Initiative Prior to an Election
BY KEVIN NORTE
INTRODUCTION:
The following is for educational purposes only and is written in contemporary times about a real issue but it is illustrative at best to evoke thought, discussion, and debate.
ISSUE:
The issue to be discussed in the following educational article seriously addresses how one might be able to remove a ballot initiative from the ballot prior to an election in certain unique circumstances. It also discusses the reasoning and the underlying Constitutional principles that would have to be invoked to have a pre-election review. I encourage anyone who is interested in the issue to read all the cases cited in this article and not use this article alone for any purpose except education.
The issues are complex and the removal of an initiative as discussed in this article is only theoretical and analyzed from the perspectiev of issues raised by the the In re Marriages Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, and the subsequent certified initiative that reads as follows:
Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 11/29/07 Qualified: 06/02/08 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.)
(Full Text)
SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Article I. Section7.5 is added to the California Constitution to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
ISSUES RAISED:
One may wonder if an initiative that was submitted to the Secretary of State and its language approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance and stated that the initiative “would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments is valid due to the findings of the Supreme Court subsequent to the petition being circulated. Prior to the case it was true there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state” was valid. Subsequent, however, to its circulation but prior to its certification, the California Supreme Court changed the law. Based upon my research, there is no precedent on this issue in California. However, to seek a pre-election review of the initiative, there appears to be only one viable option. That would be a challenge based upon the impropriety of the voter initiative itself. I have applied a strict construction application to the California Constitution, the subsequent amendments, and the Constitutional case law on the issue and believe that this is the only viable pre-election challenge that potentially could have merit.
Clearly, this is uncharted territory and an educational exercise limited to the issue of the grounds for a voter initiative pre-election review.
ANALYSIS:
PRE-ELECTION REVIEW:
In reviewing the issue of pre-election review to seek the removal of the initiative, there appears to be only one manner of pre-election review. That appears to be to file a petition for a Writ of Mandamus for the Court to order Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, to remove the proposed ‘MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT” aka “Limit on Marriage” Constitutional Amendment Initiative from the November, 2008 ballot because the initiative amounts to a constitutional revision1 and therefore is not proper as an amendment.
Petitioners could potentially seek the removal the initiative pursuant to Independent Energy Producers Assn. v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1020, 1029.
The George Court has already unanimously determined pre-election review is not precluded when the challenge is based upon a claim that the initiative may not properly be submitted to the voters because it amounts to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. (Independent Energy Producers Assn. v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1020, 1029 (unanimous decision & opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George).)
RAISING THE AMENDMENT VERSUS REVISION ARGUMENT:
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, §1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
It appears that the relationship between the government and the members of society cannot be altered without a revision to the Constitution. See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. [Citations.]” (Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309, original italics.)
“What should a local government do if it believes an initiative measure is unlawful and should not be presented to the voters? A governmental body, or any person or entity with standing, may file a petition for writ of mandate, seeking a court order removing the initiative measure from the ballot. (See Farley v. Healey [] [(1967)] 67 Cal.2d [325,] 327, 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650.) But such entity or person may not unilaterally decide to prevent a duly qualified initiative from being presented to the electorate.” (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1993)13 Cal.App.4th 141, 149.)
Here, one might want to petition to request the Court to order Debra Bowen, as Secretary of State to remove the initiative from the ballot immediately because the “Limit on Marriage” amendment is actually a revision of a fundamental right enshrined in the California’s Constitution.
THE RIGHT TO MARRY:
I find that same-gender marriage may, on its face, appear to be a relatively simple enactment but it has accomplished such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan by affecting and broadening an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the right of privacy, the liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and the independent substantive right to marry, as well as equal protection. Therefore, a simple amendment that, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” is not a mere amendment but amounts to wholesale evisceration and revision of at least three separate portions of the California Constitution that are not addressed in the initiative.
Marriage is not so simple. As the Court pointed out, “the right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basis civil or human right of all people.” (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 819, fn. 41.)
In Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303-1304, the Court of Appeal explained that marriage is a privacy right older than the Bill of Rights. As the Court of Appeal noted:
“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects…
The policy favoring marriage is ‘rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.’ ” (Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 274-275, 250 Cal.Rptr. 254, 758 P.2d 582.) “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
See also Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests]; and DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864 [“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.”]
In In re Marriage Case , supra, 43 Cal. 4th at 825, the California Supreme Court noted the following: “Our recognition that the core substantive rights encompassed by the constitutional right to marry apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples…”
The Supreme Court further noted:
In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry—and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society—the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. (In re Marriage Cases, at 820.)
As marriage is a fundamental core right which now is defined to include the right of same-gender couples to marry under In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th 757, neither the state nor the initiative process can alter the definition of marriage such that it excludes same-gender couples. At best, the state or initiative process can merely amend the Constitution to “[create] incentives to marry and adopting measures to protect the marital relationship” or, alternatively, how a marriage can be “terminated.” (See In re Marriage Cases, at 816.) However, anything that goes beyond these measures, and intercedes into the now traditional definition of marriage, requires a revision of the state Constitution and the institution of marriage itself.
INTENT OF CERTIFIED INITIATIVE FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT:
The proposed initiative attempts to “change” the California Constitution that would result in removing the fundamental right to personal autonomy protected by the right of privacy, the liberty interest contained in the due process provision, equal protection, and the fundamental right to marry itself that same-gender couples are now afforded under the California Constitution by a voter initiative amendment. However, can a single sentence voter initiative amendment alter the Constitution’s comprehensive framework?
“[T]he 1962 amendment granted the Legislature the authority to propose either revisions or amendments….” (Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 735, 2006 Cal. LEXIS 6229, *55. With regard to the limitation on amendments and revisions:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313: “Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)”
“‘[A]mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).) “[A]n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)
APPLICABLILITY TO THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE EFFECTS A MARRIAGE “INITIATIVE” WOULD HAVE ON CALIFORNIANS
According to the In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 809: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution…. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. “
The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite-sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In re Marriage Cases, at 820, is a fundamental right to “all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
“Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834.
As Justice Moreno noted in a concurring opinion in Californians For An Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 735, 788:
Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 3; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077.)
See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative (art. XVIII, § 3), a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification (art. XVIII, § 2) or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate (art. XVIII, § 1). (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.)
It has been suggested “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. [Citation.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 349-350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; cf. Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
In the In Re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 848, the California Supreme Court also noted:
The Fund and the Campaign assert that the common law definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is constitutionally enshrined in the California Constitution by virtue of language in the 1849 and 1879 Constitutions that employed the terms “marriage,” “wife,” and “husband” in providing constitutional protection for separate-property rights, thereby precluding the Legislature or the people through the statutory initiative power from modifying the current statutes to permit same-sex couples to marry….
[However] history belies the notion that any element that traditionally has been viewed as an integral or definitional feature of marriage constitutes an impermissible subject of judicial scrutiny….
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.
In other words, the California Supreme Court interpreted marriage as including the right of same-gender couples to marry. (ibid.) Therefore the statutory interpretations of marriage at Family Code §§ 300 and 308.5 were unconstitutional. (ibid. at 849.)
In In re Marriage Cases, at 809, the California Supreme Court reiterated that “the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution” and, consequently, “[a] statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.” (In re Marriage Cases at 840.) As the Supreme Court further noted:
The court in Elden v. Sheldon further explained: “Our emphasis on the state’s interest in promoting the marriage relationship is not based on anachronistic notions of morality. The policy favoring marriage is ‘rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities in organized society.’ [Citation.] Formally married couples are granted significant rights and bear important responsibilities toward one another which are not shared by those who cohabit without marriage…. Plaintiff does not suggest a convincing reason why cohabiting unmarried couples, who do not bear such legal obligations toward one another, should be permitted to recover for injuries to their partners to the same extent as those who undertake these responsibilities.” (46 Cal.3d at p. 275, 250 Cal.Rptr. 254, 758 P.2d 582.)
A right so fundamentally rooted in society, a right which predates the Bill of Rights must, therefore, be a core element of the state constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court notes in In re Marriages Case at 819:
Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.
As noted in Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 118:
The constitution itself has been framed by delegates chosen by the people for that express purpose, and has been afterwards ratified by a vote of the people, at a special election held for that purpose…The very term ‘constitution’ implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature.
At best, the state can create incentives to marry or, alternatively, to create conditions regulating the termination of a marriage. As the Supreme Court notes in In re Marriage Cases at 816:
“In view of the public’s significant interest in marriage, California decisions have recognized that the Legislature has broad authority in seeking to protect and regulate this relationship by creating incentives to marry and adopting measures to protect the marital relationship. (See, e.g., McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 728, 205 P.2d 17 [“the Legislature has full control of the subject of marriage and may fix the conditions under which the marital state may be created or terminated”].)
POSSIBLE LEGAL RESULT
A new post May 15, 2008/post-June 17, 2008 California Constitutional analysis must be considered taking into consideration that a Constitutional “change” has occurred to a core element and at least four fundamental portions of the California Constitution by the Supreme Court. In light of the “change,” “the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.” (In re Marriage Cases at 819, fn. 41.2) Taking into account that there are substantial changes in both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the initiative on our constitutional scheme as it now stands, a valid argument one could make is that “[s]ubstantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. [Citations.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Consequently, one could legitimately make an argument that a petitioner would be entitled to immediate pre-election relief. Such a request would be for the Court to grant a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to order Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, to remove the proposed “Limit on Marriage” Constitutional Amendment Initiative from the November, 2008 ballot.
It is true that any pre-election ruling may irritate the voters and if unsuccessful have the potential for a ballot loss if is not removed. This concern should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, a ruling form the Supreme Court on this issue would clearly test the limits of the initiative process, potentially explain the criteria for ballot initiatives, and certainly make new law on the overall issue of the constitutional amendment versus revision process regardless of the outcome. The initiative, however, has been certified and ballots will soon be printed. Whether it is too late or not is not the subject of this educational piece, and other potential challenges to the initiative have not been analyzed.
doc·trine (dktrn) KEY
NOUN:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military
strategy.
Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
. . . as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary
Doctrine is not simply reserved for religion. Political decision itself initiates doctrine. When a religious institution gets involved in politics, all of a sudden an angry mob gathers outside of the Mormon temple and other such religious institutions. Why can’t religious institutions, made up of united states citizens, voice their support for a political issue? What, are religious persons not allowed to vote? So, if religious citizens of our country use their voices in the political process, suddenly religion is “controlling” politics? Non-religios persons also supported 8. And as far as “doctrine” being “forced” on people who disagree, the majority vote in THIS election is against the gay marriage doctrine. Do not be a hypocrite yourself by insisting that the state should mandate that the gay marriage doctrine be forced on the majority vote of the people. Attacking a position and even the people holding such a position should not be used as an excuse to shake your fist at religion and God. If you have a problem with religion, than just admit it. And yes, the separate but equal idea on hetero and homo sexual marriages does mean that they are different- and according to most who voted the distinction should be upheld.
It is a sad day in America when the majority lose their voice and our government dictates our lives. Hopefully, that sad day will never arrive.
Warren: no one is going to read anything that long. LOL
FundamentallyFlawed: Jesus would be against gay marriage.
Read Matt 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
An Amicus Curiae letter was submitted to the Justice of the Cal. Supreme Court on the 17th regarding the case up for review. The letter is in support of extraordinary relief to continue to allow gay marriage in the state. The letter lists several prestigious leaders in the California legal academic community that served as Amici for the letter.
I have not seen this argument stated so clearly from a legal standpoint before. Please take a look.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-support-hastings.pdf
Here are just a couple of the over 1400 benefits guarenteed to Marriage
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Oh, of course. That’s the way you get around the flaw that is Adam and Eve. God had control of their genes, and made them perfect in the beginning so that they could have incestial relationships to populate the world. That still doesn’t explain all the races of man, but I guess God controlled that also right. Wow, you religious nutts will say anything to validate your stupid fairy tale.
Mike, you are correct. The reason I brought up animals was to prove that homosexuality happens in nature, so it’s biological and not a choice.
By the way, Jesus was gay:
“And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”.
johnadams…please, Jesus was not gay. Using the verse that way is very lame.
johnadams: So in your view when Jesus said “I am the bread of life”, he saying he’s actually a piece of bread? LOL Try looking up the context of the verse and actual meaning of important words in the verse.
The homosexual movement will not stop until they are more equal than the hetrosexuals.
Unless of course, the hetrosexuals stand up to them.
How about a compromise. Gays want to be married, and straights do not want that term “marriage” to include homosexuals.
Perhaps Gays would be happy with “Gay-rage” . I think it would be more descriptive and more accurate.
to bad for you Johnb1234. The court isn’t going to read the bible when they make their decision. The court will read the law that govern the issues and the supporting case laws to make their decision. The bible isn’t citied in any of the case laws.
Can you prove Jesus was not gay?
Context is the opinion of the reader. It’s pointless.
So those of you who support Gay marriage, would you also support polygamy? Can’t we declare that not allowing a man to marry as many women he wants “unconstitutional” too?
I get the impression that when it comes to gay marriage, gays dont want “polygamy” to be legal too. Why is that?
Are you familiar with the term Adelphopoiesis?
Probably not, but you can google it. I’ll wait.
Johnadams: “Context is the opinion of the reader”, that is not logical. Context is not defined by the reader. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, followed Jewish law…he was not gay. He was also GOD in person. His definition of marriage, one man one woman.
If you’re going to say context is the opinion of the reader, then how was it serving with Washington and Jefferson? How did you really feel about the British? LOL
Warren: I was answering Johnadams points, not making a case for the courts.
Warren, I have no doubt if Prop 8 is overturned the gay activist will go after the churches to eliminate their tax exemption. They will then try to sue any churches that will not allow gay marriages, basing the law suit on discrimination. They will do anything it takes to silence anyone from speaking out against gay marriages or their life style. There is no room for disagreement with them.
Marriage has never been a right.
So, what’s with the “no on 8″ (or gay lobby) trying to make it a right? it’s just lame, especially as there are other cultural systems (over time) that think (or thought) sibling marriage is ok, polygamy is ok, mother/son or father/daughter etc etc is ok. So, what about their “rights” if marriage is declared a right? Are their “rights” going to be denied because of “majority vote?”
Or is this all just a sham to create a protected status for homosexuals, and provide a lever to open the door a bit more to the state mandating to religions what they can and cannot believe and practice?
johnb1234:
It’s no use arguing with anyone who asserts Jesus was a homosexual.
johnb1234 , if you can show me a case law where a church was forced to marriage an inter-racial couple, I will join your side to fight against it. As for the tax exemption, I’ve always believed that the church should be taxed like every other business. .
Johnadams for the record about “adelphopoiesis”: “The historicity of Boswell’s interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, which sees the rite as a rite of familial adoption, as the term adelphopoiesis literally means “brother making”. [3] Boswell’s scholarship has been assailed as being of dubious quality.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis
Marriage is a rite not a right. Get over it!
The context in which something is written is defined by the person who wrote it, not the person reading it 400 years or even 2000 years later. I thought you would be smart enough to know this. Anyone who claims to know the context for anything contained in the bible is mistaken and using their own slanted interpretation to create the context they want. I think comparing the founding fathers to the fairy tale of God is a silly comparison.
God doesn’t exist and Jesus was gay. Prove otherwise. When will you answer my question? Are you familiar with Adelphopoiesis?
johnb1234-
When you think about it, there is no room for disagreement with you either. I am not saying this is a negative thing. Just recognize that Johnadams is singleminded, just as you are singleminded for Christ.
sin⋅gle-mind⋅ed /ˈsɪŋgəlˈmaɪndɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sing-guhl-mahyn-did] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. having or showing a single aim or purpose: a single-minded program.
2. dedicated; resolute; steadfast: He was single-minded in his concern for truth.
Origin:
1570–80
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
Johnadams is not going to be persauded by your arguments because this issue is an integral part of his life- at least at this point. We don’t know the reason why he is so passionate about it.
As for me, I am happy to be single minded for Christ . . .
“For broad is the path and wide the road that leads to destruction, but narrow is the path that leads to eternal life.”
Do not try so hard to prove the point. God is already the decider on the issue, now all we have to do is pray that His will be done in all things- one thing is for sure, as much as supporters of homosexuality are riled up, finally, after a long time of sleeping, the church is waking up.
Prop 8 was never about religion. No religious group in Massachusetts or Connecticuit are being forced to perform same sex marriages. There are some religions that have CHOSEN to perform same sex marriages. Who the hell would want to get married by Rick Warren in the Saddleback megachurch with the mind numb robots in the congregation? Certanly no gay couples. Gay weddings are an over the top blast. This is about civil marriage, i.e. we pay taxes, we get equal rights. My marriage does not effect your marriage just as you boring straight marriage does not effect my gay marriage. FYI Ladies, gay clubs are full of married straight men! You’re all a bunch of stick up the a** bores!
Prove Jesus was not homosexual. Can you prove it? Just because you can’t prove something, doesn’t mean it is not true. Isn’t that the arguement you use to justify your silly fairy tale?
Warren: most churches were not against inter-racial couple marrying. There is not comparison between inter-racial marriages and gay marriages. Inter-racial marriages are still one man one women.
Hetrosexuals and homosexuals are DIFFERENT. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Hetrosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex and homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Let’s call it what it is, but it certainly is not discrimination. Everyone is different; no two people are exactly alike. Society would be extremely boring if everyone were exactly the same.
It is not a matter of “separate but equal,” it is a matter a “different but equal.” I agree that “separate but equal” is inherently not equal; our Country’s history has shown that. Just as conservatives are DIFFERENT than liberals and men are DIFFERENT than women, hetrosexuals are DIFFERENT than homosexuals. This is not a matter of equal rights. If someone has liberal views should he or she have the “right” to be called a conservative? If someone is a man should he have the “right” to be called a woman. Of course not. There are numerous ways in which people are DIFFERENT.
What’s next? Are homosexuals going to find someone to sue and claim discrimination becuase they are not able to have a child without a member of the opposite sex being somehow involved. I guess God would be the defendant in that lawsuit.
I agree that homosexuals should have every legal right granted to hetrosexuals, but calling the union between two people different things does not eliminate anyone’s rights; it acknowledges the differences inherent everywhere in society.
I voted yes on prop 8, but I would be the first in line to argue that any and all legal rights granted to hetrosexuals should be granted to homosexuals; let’s just all acknowledge the differences between the two groups and accept that simply using a different term to decribe the union between two people who love each other does not impact anyone’s rights.
johnadams Says: No he did NOT!
Oooooooooooh you said fairy??????? Whoa, thats not so nice… John Adams is now espousing Tinkerbell?
Adelphopoiesis is something Daffy Duck calls the bugs in yogurt.
SarahG: I agree, I will never change my mind on gay marriages. I have no problem if they want civil unions with the same rights, just don’t call it a marriage. I agree to live and let live. The problem is the gay activist will not even agree with this.
Joe:
I think the bigger concern is changing Saddleback Church’s tax exempt status.
I just love you amateur lawyers out there. Only problem, your amateur interpretation means NOTHING! It is up to the CA Supreme Court not some amateur lawyer.
johnadams : no sense in discussing issues with you. You make things up and ignore any facts. The discussion with you is over.
Sarah, I do agree to disagree. It when others try to force their views on others that’s the problem. The voters have spoken, now the gay activist want to over turn the will of the people. That is wrong.
No justice, no peace! The gay activists are throwing this back into the faces of the Black Christians! Its not about rights! It is just “in your face” gay activism. Gays have recognized unions with spousal benefits, why demonstrate after losing Prop 8? Gays should just get over it and plan for another proposition in two years! I will still vote for marriage as between a man and a woman. Whatever the voters decide will be the defining factor. I don’t plan to demonstrate and get “in your face”.
johnb1234:
Good decision ; )
“You make things up and ignore any facts.”
Hahaha! This from a guy who obsessively quotes scripture as if it’s incontrovertible truth…..
“It when others try to force their views on others that’s the problem.”
Yes, johnb1234—like when people turn their faith-based prejudice into constitutional amendments.
FundamentallyFlawed : so your church does not believe the bible is the word of GOD? You don’t accept the words of Jesus on marriage?
FundamentallyFlawed : who’s pushing theirs views on who? The voters have spoken, they voted YES on prop 8. You want to over turn the vote of the people? Our votes does not count?
FundamentallyFlawed:
Only now, at the end, do you understand.
LOL
johnb1234:
They “pray” to a different Jesus.
Johnb. You are a very ignorant person if you think everyone is a Christian, and if you think your fairy tale is more truthful than any other fairy tale in this world. You are a very bigoted person and your bigotry comes from your faith. FundamentallyFlawed is correct. Turning your faith-based prejudice into constitutional amendments is a very dangerous thing and goes against the very principles in which this country was founded on.
Fundamentally Flawed:
Your side is pushing the “AGENDA” in education.
Just read the many articles and studies that Lauren A. DYKEstra has written in support of the educational objectives of the GLBT.
“Trans-Friendly Preschool’” being one of the Titles!!
My husband just informed me that in a civil union, some rights are not the same. He mentioned that employment sponsered programs (ie, medical retirement programs), benefits transfered to a spouse when another spouse dies, legal rights when a spouse is in a medical emergency, and also joint tax reports ARE NOT allowed in civil unions.
I am very sorry for stating that they are the same rights.
This strikes me as odd that gay people want equal rights but still need it to be marriage. Go for the equal rights- spread them across the board within a civil union for everyone. Why must the definition of marriage be redefined?
JakeD, I agree, they preach another Jesus.
JakeD,
If someone prayed to Bhudda would that make a difference?
SarahG, I agree with you, but the gay activist are not fighting for that. By calling it a marriage they can then go after the church for discrimination. They do not want any differences even in name. They want everyone to accept their life style.
Look back at the history of gay activist. When AIDS first started they tried to sue the Red Cross for screening out gay people from donating blood. They called it discrimination.
JakeD, johnb, etc.—you really are incapable of understanding that other religions are just as valid as (I’d say “more valid than,” but that’s just my personal opinion) other people’s, aren’t you? It’s your way of thinking that has made Iran the great nation it is today.
Oops! That first sentence should read “you really are incapable of understanding that other religions are just as valid as (I’d say ‘more valid than,’ but that’s just my personal opinion) yours, aren’t you?” Got distracted in the middle….
FundamentallyFlawed: are you saying Jesus was a lier? He said “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes before the father except through me”. Was he wrong? I don’t think so.
“A person may not be … denied equal protection of the laws” and, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” You have a right to marry but society has always had a right to limit whom you can marry. You cannot marry someone who is already married, is underage, is closely related, or is of the same sex. Applied equally to all. Constitutional. Period.
Johnb1234, have you ever sat down with a “gay activist” and asked him or her what s/he really wanted? You presume to speak for all of us, and I daresay you know nothing, less than nothing, about any of us. You’re an undereducated homophobe emboldened by your rudimentary grasp of the Bible. What a winning combination.
FundamentallyFlawed : with the name calling you have shown you lost the discussion
Here’s another case where those “crazy activist judges” ignored the will of the people. Should this vote has stood?
“In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.”
Johnb, the proper spelling is liar, not lier. Keep up buddy.
Here’s another case where those “crazy activist judges” ignored the will of the people. Should this vote have stood?
“In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.”
Johnb, I’m not calling Jesus a liar. I’m asking you to try to understand that there are lots of Americans who DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS AT ALL and to whom anything he said is irrelevant. And they’re protected by our constitution just as you are. You are not required to have a same-sex marriage, nor is your church required to perform same-sex marriages, because your faith does not approve—but you don’t get to make your beliefs the law of the land.
I’m sorry, but I see no evidence that you’re capable of understanding what the separation of church and state really means.
FundamentallyFlawed was not name calling. It’s called an educated observation.
Mark, they’re just going to tell you that being gay isn’t the same as being black, and then we’ll go around and around about that, and then you and I will go smash our heads into walls……
People say that because they still think being gay is a choice. It’s not. It’s biological.
FundamentallyFlawed: you want real separation of church and state? Look at Russia, that’s what they had. Soon we’ll have the same here. Gay activist are already trying to remove the tax exempt status of the churches. Why is this? Because they don’t agree with the gay life style? So who’s pushing their views on who?
So the judges are going to negate the will of the people yet again?
If the judges screw us again (using a term the no on 8 people would understand) hope they never forget we think of them as second class perverts. You will never be equal, only some moronic judges are forcing the majority to accept you freaks.
Remember that, you are not equal you never will be. Chew on that sperm burpers
FundamentallyFlawed: being black isn’t the same as being gay….ask ANY black person that.
johnadams Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Can you prove Jesus was not gay?
Yup they Bible says that you man loving Nancy boys are freaks. So sayeth the Bible ,Jesus can’t stand sissies. He made them for our amusement so we could vote yes on 8 and watch you get all butt hurt (using a term once again you people can understand).
duplojohn:
No. There is only one True God. In this country, however, you are legally entitled to pray to whomever or whatever you prefer.
Sperm burpers? WTF? This place is an open cesspool. OCR says “We want this to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities.” Never gonna’ happen. Out.
Adolph, I think you misspelled your username—it should end with an “f,” not a “ph.”
Johnadams…it is not biological…no one has proved that at all and if so I want some hard evidence…being gay is a choice until then…I think it is funny when some gay people try to say “I knew I was gay when I was 3″ how in the world can they remember what thoughts they had when they were 3…funny stuff! The fact of the matter is, it is unnatural for a man and man or woman and woman to be together…it just doesn’t fit! Also makes sense for gays not to be able to adopt simply because if they try and say that them being gay is natural then they obviously have to admit that it is unnatural for them to have kids therefore why should they be able to adopt then…gays = gross lifestyles…some of them are pretty cool though, but seriously marriage has already been defined
Johnb
That IS discrimination (the red cross case). Gay people are not more capable of getting aids than heterosexuals. In fact, to simply screen gay people is to say that they are automatically infected with AIDS. Straight people get AIDS all the time (check out the rates of HIV/AIDS in Africa with adults and children). Most of the women get AIDS there from their own husbands. This is a VERY poor choice if you are going to argue that homosexuals shouldn’t get married.
As for Prop 8 never being a religious issue Joe, homosexuality is very much a religious and ethical issue for many. Within the Bible itself, despite what some people who say they are Christian say, homosexuality is one of many sins that is not condoned by God. NOW, having typed that- let’s make one thing clear: all sin is the same in God’s eyes. Adultry, Divorce, Lying, Disobedience/Disrespect for one’s Parents, Lust, Hate, etc . . . ALL are sins.
Is it fair that adultery has never been banned within the Constitution of California but Gay marriage has? No. I think if you are going to ban one sexual sin, than ban the rest. The major problem started when people insisted homosexuals be allowed to use the term “marriage”. People who have affairs and cheat on their spouse haven’t (as far as I know) come to the judicial system and insisted that their affair should qualify as a marriage. People have not insisted on marrying their parents, or child. If that came up, maybe people would be upset-maybe not.
Reality is, the outrage coming from the religious community is valid. It is valid due to our religious beliefs.
Also, the Bible has never condoned racism. In fact, slavery was never condoned, simply recognized. And when it was recognized as existing, God INSISTED that masters treat their slaves fairly, not prejudiciously and certainly not in a inhumanistic way. When racists (in our own history and in many other countries) were treating slaves badly and using the Bible as their excuse, they were lying to themselves and others. IF anyone is interested in looking up what the Bible has to say on slavery (and not what some greedy, self seeking slave owners and supporters said ) let me know.
I really liked today’s editorial in the OC Register, pretty much says it all. Click on this link:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gay-don-win-2232581-activists-right
Adolph,
In complete pity, I must tell you something.
Have you never sinned?
“He who has never sinned, let him throw the first stone . . . ”
Learn of God, and live in Him.
The greatest commandment:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. The second is Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Court already ruled that defining the “word” marriage was not a compelling interest of the State and left that to the People.
The Court will uphold the People as they did in the Death Penalty when the People overturned their “opinion” that ruled it was unconstitutional to put someone to Death. The People had the last say in that issue too.
The best chance to change the Constitution is to now revise the document through the Assembly and Senate and get 2/3 of them to agree on placing it on the ballot.
The No on 8 need to focus their efforts and starting getting representatives in the State election that will result in them ensuring such a vote to place it on the ballot.
johnb1234
I’ve heard Christians say that perhaps churches SHOULD be taxed. Why? because there are ‘phony’ religions popping up. Anybody can create a cult or group and call it a religion. It was popular a few years ago to have everything you own as property of that church… hence, no taxes; no property taxes, etc. It still goes on today.
It’s a handy loophole for people hoping to be free of taxes.
SarahG: the major source of AIDS is the gay life style, you can’t argue that. The Red Cross should discriminate on who donates blood.
My point on that point was to show you how far the gay activist will go. They fact that AIDS could be be spread through the blood supply makes no difference to them. They don’t care if you get AIDS from donated blood, They want their way no matter what it costs anyone. That was my point.
Adolph:
I’m not gay. I’m a man married to a woman. To say it in your terms, I like the pink. I just happen to be a person with common sense and my judgment is not clouded by a hate filled religious organization. Notice that the majority of the people against this are religious? The same ones who think having sex with little boys is ok.
Once again Johnb, your lack of education is coming to light. HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV. These two different viruses were traced back to a SIV that infected red-capped mangabeys and one found in greater spot-nosed monkeys.
I see why you are ignoring me now because I keep proving how, for a lack of a better term, stupid you are.
Johnadams I’m ignoring you because I only carry on discussions with reasonable people who don’t resort to name calling. Once you start depending on name calling, you’ve lost the discussion….this discussion with you is over.
Actually John, no one has quite figured out where AIDS originated from. There are many hypothetical answeres to where, but the exact origination is still debatable.
The gay lifestyle does not spread AIDS more than the straight lifestyle either. The percentage is slightly higher, but not enough to say that AIDS is mainly due to gay sex. Also, sex is not the only way AIDS is passed.
And, I am absolutely positive that the majority who practice homosexuality do care if people get AIDS through donated blood. You cannot assume that people who are gay don’t care about their own health safety as well as that of their family.
to say what you just said is completely wrong. Please look up the statistics if you believe I am wrong. I can accept correction.
johnadams,
The fact that you are not religious does not make you less biased. You have your biases, and it shows. You’re biased against religious organizations. They are not perfect, but they are not evil and hate filled as you’ve said..
And Sarah says that to God, all sins are equal. I don’t think so, Sarah. Go back and check out the 10 commandments.
I never called you a name. I insulted your intelligence based off of conversations on here.
Johnadams
Whoa . . . I do not condone men having sex with little boys. Anyone who would hurt a child is perverted. To make some bizarre blanket statement like this one:
“Notice that the majority of the people against this are religious? The same ones who think having sex with little boys is ok”
is completely wrong. You note over and over how Johnb is ignorant, but you somehow make a statement like that and don’t see the similarity.
Look, everyone is a little ignorant about something. I am positive I have no clue what you are really about, but I won’t sit here and let you slander “religious” people because you are angry. Let it go. some people will spit venom out at anyone that passes by. Adolph strikes me as this type of person.
All of you first timers trying to post, the OC Register staff need to approve your messages, so I will reply in the morning.
SarahG here it is:
“Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits”
“One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: ” We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.
“In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.
“It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html
SarahG:
Gao, F; Bailes, E; Robertson, DL; Chen, Y; et al. (1999) “Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes.” Nature, Vol. 397, p. 436-44
Bailes et al. (2003) “Hybrid Origin of SIV in Chimpanzees”, Science, Vol. 300, p. 1713
johnb1234:
Rick Warren and Saddleback Church is actually trying to help with AIDS, and the homosexuals STILL protest him.
It’s true SarahG. People will accept that people of faith have sex with children, and they show this by supporting the church that has this problem. If you are Catholic, just think about how roughly 10% of Catholic priests around the world have sex with boys when you put your money in that plate. also realize that money goes to protect sexual predetors. If you and other religious people really have issues with priests having sex with boys, you would boycott the catholic religion.
The most logical argument I’ve seen from either side is that there are simply no rights being taken away from anyone by Prop 8.
Anybody, no matter who, can Marry anybody they want… anybody in the world. With certain exceptions like a Mother, Father, Sibling, 1st Cousin or same sex.
Consider the argument made by equalrights (way up top)
What is wrong with a couple of 80 year old siblings getting married as a commitment and for certain benefits? It certainly isn’t for procreation and who does it hurt?
What’s wrong is that it has been deemed by the people to be morally unacceptable.
Prop.8 placed same sex in that category by an open, fair election as prescribed by law.
Oh JohnB. You missed this story. http://www.icw.org/node/364
The story in the Independent on Sunday titled: “Threat of world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits” contained a few seriously misleading statements that have led to inferences and conclusions that bear no relation to the highly complex realities of the HIV epidemic.
“Worldwide, HIV is still largely driven by heterosexual transmission. The majority of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa occur through heterosexual transmission. We have also seen a number of generalized epidemics outside of Africa, such as in Haiti and Papua New Guinea”
I hope your job doesn’t involve any kind of research.
Um, johnadams. I am not catholic. I don’t put money into a plate so that they can protect sexual predators. Even so, how would one go about boycotting the Catholic church? If I don’t give them money than I am obviously not supporting the practices of the 10% of the priests who are molestors.
And what about the other 90% of priests who are doing their best to practice their religion with decency? Are they happy with child molestation? maybe you should ask them.
Not everyone religious on our planet is Catholic. Hence the issue I have with your blanket statement. I do not agree with the papacy’s rulings and most of catholic tradition. Still, I am not going to make an argument that everyone in the catholic church has no problem with molestation. Sometimes, when people are raised in a religion, they cannot find the strength to leave it behind.
Still, the issue at hand is gay marriage right?
God bless the tyranny of the Judiciary.
Johnadams,
thanks for the references by the way. Good stuff.
Jake, I’ve seen that too. Seems they don’t like Rick Warren either. They want their life style, no limits or anyone disagreeing with them. Very sad.
Who can I picket if 8 is overturned? What is my comeuppance? I just shut up and defer to the gays when they would not do as much when my side won?
Those who adamantly support discrimination will more than likely never change their views. Their thinking process is stifled from years of hate speech and insensibility. Most of these comments are plagued with irrelevant thoughts from mostly thoughtless, irrational people. It is disheartening to see their lack of insightfulness and the unwillingness to understand human nature and diversity.
SarahG: from the CDC:
“HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men”
“In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].”
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
this is a no brainer, protect marriage
Well, it seems as though there is conflicting information about the % people with AIDS who are practicing homosexuality. I guess I definitely need to do more research on the issue.
And I wonder, does the prohibition against marriages between siblings, etc. reside in the Califorrnia constitution or in the common law?
This, I believe, would be a fairly relevent point.
Daniel:
We “discriminate” against a brother who wants to marry his sister too.
there is no civil rights, if anything kids rights are being abused by being forced to not have a mother or father. Children are require the right to have a mom and dad-alternative lifestyles marriage will provide zero chance of this happening
All of the protesters are fanatics…misguided…and looking for the “good housekeeping” stamp of approval for their lifestyle choices. This is political, nothing more.
Go google “Al Rantel” and find his opinion about gay marriage…btw, he is a gay man who is against gay marriage.
What is it with the argument that people who disagree with homosexual marriage hate homosexuals? What is your definition of hate?
hate /heɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, hat⋅ed, hat⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
bef. 900; ME hat(i)en, OE hatian (v.); c. D haten, ON hata, Goth hatan, G hassen
I personally don’t “intensly dislike” or feel hostile to gay people.
Tommy from 9:30pm, I’m glad you think this issue is a “no brainer”, because from the posting you made which apparently took no longer than two seconds to think up, you apparently have no brains. Get a little more creative next time in your post, it makes these conversations (aka unending arguments) so much more interesting!
check out la times-transgender mayor elected-Are no on prop 8 people supportive of this kind of stuff?-probably-
Please let me know I am curious-my opionion-this person is messed up and very confused
Of course, Drew is NOT name-calling either ; )
Very good article:
“Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage ”
“While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence. ”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml
I’m not gay and I’m happily married. I have seen miserable marriages throughout my life though. My parents have been divorced 7 times between them. So, I can honestly say that I wish for all people who get married luck in finding the right person. I think that long lasting stable loving unions are good for America, and it makes no difference to me if what lasts is between a man and a woman or two of the same. Okay so that is my stance on marriage.
Here’s my stance on religion. Those of you with the little Jesus fish on your mini-vans and the vote yes on Prop 8 stickers; between you and Bush; I have lost whatever faith I ever had in the Christian religion. I no longer consider myself a Christian even though I was “saved” at the age of 12. I no longer want to align myself with the kind of hypocrisy that I see in the religious right. I now consider myself a person who believes simply in a great creator. I don’t know what to think about Jesus coming to earth and dying for my sins. I think its better for me not to buy into that because those that heavily do seem to have no problem wronging others that they don’t even know. Those that do also seem to be very judgmental towards anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do. I just no longer want any part of all that.
Why I really oppose Prop 8 is this its constitutionally wrong. As a voter I found it appalling that there was a proposition on the ballot that would allow me to vote to decide that someone else cannot have what I have. Plus America has enough laws that are stupid and senseless, I make it point never to vote in new law, unless it personally affects me. All of those who voted yes on 8; didn’t do it for yourselves you did it to dictate others. Your no better than Saddam Hussein. Do you really want to be dictators? Can’t you just live and let live and mind your own business?
this transgender thing is wrong-of course I will probably being sued for having this opinion, soon the schools will require the shim to be taught in schools-everyone is so confused now-am I a him or her or it-just ridiculous
Jake D and fantichka:
I’m a gay (now happily married) gay male. I encourage you to open your minds and hearts to millions of gay americans who want the change to be equals and not judged over what others think is right or equal for them. Also understand the majority should not have voting rights over a minority.
You people that voted against prop 8 like to twist the scriptures to your own liking, The bible is God’s word and he means what he says and he said A man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman, Now what part of that verse dont you understand? seems like your lifestyle messed up your reasoning. I believe Homosexuals are Demon possessed. No one in there right mind would live that in kinda lifestyle, and you know what i dont care what you homosexuals believe or even think of us Christians Someday the wrath of God will come upon you by the breath of his Nostrils he will slay you.
I believe were living in the last days my friends, the way things are going in this world its only a matter of time when God will call his church home, and leave the rest of the people here to deal with his wrath, Believe me its coming very very soon..
1st transgender mayor-this is not normal-anyone disagree-please i want to know
How do the no on prop 8 people feel about the transgender mayor in oregon
-transgender is wrong, its against nature
this thing is rigged if your speak about another newspaper, big brother takes over
Drew - I understand that being gay is a choice you have made and that prop 8 for you and the rest of the gay community is not about equal rights - its about being classified with the same “naming convention” as everyone else i.e. you like the word ‘marriage’ not ‘civil union’. However, I hope you understand that if prop 8 is unconstituionally blocked by liberal judges from the bay area - you will also be responsible for bringing back good ‘ole incest and poligamy into our society. In addition, Micheal Jackson will probably be your best friend - as the legal age of consenting human beings will also probably be in question. Who’s to say a 15yr old cannot marry a 40 yr old? They are both in love, right? This would also mean you need to stop being a bigot and allow those people in AZ to get their children and lives back. Don’t discriminate against poligamy, incest, and under age marriage. Equality for all. Unfair and wrong.
Stinger - I grew up on a farm and have seen more wildlife in my years than most people will see in a life time. I have never seen a cow or a sheep or a goat or a rabbit having sex with another animal of their same sex. I’m sure that there have been instances in the history of this planet that someone has witnessed an animal doing this - but it is clearly not how nature has programmed animals to reproduce 99.99999999% of the time. Denying this fact may be a fun game for you but serves no purpose in the halls of factual public opinion.
I hope they do not make it legal. And the whole sign about “jesus loves gays” GET OVER YOURSELF!!
Some people need to read the bible. And yes it is a religious issue because churches try to keep the moral values of a man and woman being married. Not men and men or women and women.
So if they make it legal…churches will have no say. And thats not right.
i am so sick of hearing about this crap!
Gina, seems to me the one being judgemental is you, calling Christians no better then Saddam Hussein. You should look at the bigger picture, why are gay activist pushing for this? They can push for the same rights in a civil union. It seems to me they are trying to push their agenda on the church and those of faith. No one has denied them the right to live together and have the same rights as a married person. The people have voted, you would erase the votes of the majority?
its the minority that is trying to dictate and force morally wrong behavior on us, this is the reason so many are upset-if anyone one has an opinion different than theirs they will demonize and name call(haters,dictators, judgemental ect)-the problem is it shows no tolerance-instead of conversing-you end up with name calling and intimidation-thats why a stronger backlash is growing against these people-Do you really think some one will change their opinion by being called a name or being intimidated-if it happens to me-I work harder, donate more-so lets discuss it have show a littler more tolerance-I promise I wll listen and not name call or yell either
I think the whole issue here is the term “marriage”. No one wants to take away other peoples rights, its the fact that the term marriage is between a man and a woman and has been defined that way for many years. I don’t understand why the gay community won’t pick another definition for their “joining of two people of the same gender”. The gay community expresses themselves differently than others, then they should pick a term that better suits them, just not the term “marriage”. They would have the same rights, just different meaning of ” the joining of a man and a man, a woman and a woman”.
Separate Is Not Equal - Brown v. Board of Education
Warren, please “separate is not equal” was about education, not about a life style. Push for the same rights in a civil union.
This has NEVER been about religious marriage. It has ALWAYS been about civil marriage. Gay marriage has never had anything to do with the church. What I’ve been saying for 15 years, ever since this issue first was raised in Hawaii, is that the fundies are scared and paranoid that somehow gay couples will be demanding that they get married in their churches if gay marriage becomes legally recognized.
Which has never, ever been the case.
Also — there’s a big difference in this case between “illegal” and “not legally recognized.” I’ve seen the language on both sides being used way too loosely. Gay marriages and weddings — some in more open-minded churches, even! — have been taking place in California and elsewhere for decades. That will continue and is continuing, even if some brain-cell-deprived folks on this board think those couples should immediately be arrested. It’s a matter of the state being able to recognize same-sex relationships and all the rights that are similarly granted to straight couples — God, Allah, Moses, Buddah and Joseph Smith have no standing in this debate.
Separate but equal re: immutable race violates the U.S. Constitution.
SarahG - “What is it with the argument that people who disagree with homosexual marriage hate homosexuals?”
“Hater”, “bigot”, “homophobe.” Yes, these are the names that the opponents of Prop 8 use vigorously to make 97% of the population think that there is something wrong with us instead of the other way around. It’s all part of the hidden, yet very real, homosexual agenda. But once you understand their agenda, all the name calling loses its sting. They are merely following their agenda mindlessly and practically verbatim.
If you want to see all of their talking points in advance, this is the article they do not want you to read:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/TVCSpecialRptOverhaulingStraight.PDF
Knowledge is power. Read to achieve!
separate is not equal is the rule of the land. Based on the Brown decision separate is not equal has been applied to every aspect of law in the US. Stop assuming you know the law and its history and read it!
Warren:
Read Baker v. Nelson.
Did anyone else see “The Colbert Report” last night?
CNN is pointing out the danger of recycling. Also, San Diego Int’l is closed because of heavy fog outside. Does a plugged in phone charger without the iPhone attached still use electricity?
protectmarriage.com
The dipute is over a “word” or the “term” called “marriage”. The use of a word or term is not a fundamental right and there is no compelling State interext to make it so. Homosexuals have all the “rights” married couples do as they should. Whatever right they think they don’t have, they should take it up with the legislators. If we do away the definition as it is soon to exist, do we next do away the terms husband and wife? It’s all about creating a “normalcy” with gay unions. It just isn’t.
Discrimination is never constitutional. Hitler would have voted Yes on 8.
We’ll have to over turn Baker v. Nelson later. We’ll work on the Defense of Marriage Act while Obama and the Dems are in control.
Rocket, its not the word “marriage” that is the issue. Its all the rights that goes with “marriage” that is the issue. Once the Feds and all the states give equal rights to Civil Unions and/or Domestic Partnership. Maybe all legal rights should be removed from “marriage” and require everyone have Civi Unions to gain the rights that “marriage” offers.
eHarmony has agreed to list same-sex couples.
What part of the ROBERTS Court don’t you understand?
Of course they are going to protest, what else does the left have to do, they don’t work, and a stimulus check is not coming anytime soon.
Prop 8 = epic FAIL
Re: JakeD and eHarmony
Hey Jake, maybe you’ll get laid now.
brianh:
No thanks.
Jason:
We “discriminate” against a brother who wants to marry his sister too.
kingo:
I am already LEGALLY married.
To those of you playing lawyer:
I graduated in the top of my class from Stanford Law School. How about you?
gay power, what a joke….if you dont agree with them you are full of hate. what a f-ing joke. no use to argue with them, they will only turn it around and put it back on you…..just like the people of scientology. LOL
Propostition 8 is no longer a Proposition but is in fact a ratified Amendment to the California State Constitution.
I remind the State Supreme Court that California is a Constitutional Republic and as such the electors have placed restrictions on the branches of government. The California State Constitution ratified by the electors can not be contested by adjudication in the State Supreme Court. The Court is limited to interpretation of the Articles, Clauses and Amendments, not the constitutionality of the Articles, Clauses and Amendments.
The Electors on November 4 Th, 2008, through the process stipulated in California State Constitution Article 18,
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
amended the California State Constitution. Proposition 8 is no longer a Proposition but is in fact an Amendment to the California State Constitution ratified by the Electors. If the Court proceeds to attempt to declare a duly ratified Amendment of the California State Constitution unconstitutional, a conflict of a Constitutional crisis will arise in that the Courts will usurp the authority of the Electors to ratify the foundational law of the State that limits the very power and authority of the Judicial branch of Government.
If the Judicial Branch of Government can strike down any provision of the Constitution of the State of California then they render the entire Constitution null and void and establish a new form of Government in which the judiciary is the supreme law and ruler of the State.
Should the Members of the California State Supreme Court vote to strike down the new amendment to the California State Constitution I fully expect Articles of Impeachment be put forth in the State Legislature against all Members of the State Supreme Court that vote to strike the amendment. The decision to usurp the authority of the Electors is a violation of their oath of office and is grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
The only two ways to change this are a 2/3 majority of the State Legislature amendment or a new propsittion that receives a greater majority vote of the electors.
Greg McAulay
I am truly amazed at how many of you simply do not understand the issues at hand here. If you think churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, or if you think you’re going to be hauled away to jail for spouting your homophobic nonsense, you are ignorant of the law and you’re a dupe of the right-wing spin machine.
It makes me weep that so many willfully uninformed people have voted down the rights of so many good, honest, hard-working, tax-paying, loving Californians.
Here’s an interesting article that proves the GAY AGENDA in education !
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34138
It’s about Trans-Friendly Preschools.
Greg or Warren:
Where did you graduate?
FundamentallyFlawed Says….so now we are all homophobic because we dont agree with your life style. paaaaaalse
Right, ocballfan, because God forbid that we should teach kids that there are DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD!!!
Point 1: Anything you read on a website like that is going to be skewed for maximum homophobic effect.
Point 2: Anyone who is secure in his or her own gender identity and sexual orientation has no reason to be threatened by anyone else’s. Period.
Wienerdawg, yes, that’s right.
Fundamentally Flawed, you need to look at the post gay marriage experience in Massachusetts. There darned well is a down your throat, in your face, no holds barred effort to ram this into the school system and elsewhere. You only need to look at the tactics of the protestors out there now to understand this is more about proselytizing than tolerance.
(Well, it’s right except for your attempt to spell “please.”)
LOL, that like me calling you heterophobic, its just silly…you are truly a hater!!!!
Gomer, I know a lot more about Massachusetts than you do, and as usual, what you’ve said is not accurate.
Wienerdawg, when I start trying to pass constitutional amendments to prohibit heterosexual marriage, then you may call me heterophobic.
“In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.”
“The California Supreme Court has held that the difference between an amendment and a revision turns on both “quantitative and qualitative” factors, and that “substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” Raven, 52 Cal. 3d at 350. Thus, even if we thought that Prop 8 affected relatively few constitutional provisions (say, the state’s equal protection and due-process guarantees), changes to these provisions might be regarded as “substantial qualitative” reforms in the content of basic constitutional principles.”
In the US, we vote on things. The gay activists are just mad because they lost in the voting process, again.
Respect the voting process.
If you want everyone to be “FORCED” to agree with your agenda “Whether we like it or not (Gavin Newsom),” then move to Canada or Europe.
The facts are the facts. Prop 8 was approved to be voted on. The AG illegally revised what Prop 8 said on the ballots. Yet Prop 8 still passed.
voting is voting.
JakeD, when you prove to me that you graduated in the top of my class from Stanford Law School I’ll share with you the law school I attended.
Keep the State OUT of your relationships.
Get a Power of Attorney filled out, and enjoy the same benefits.
Read the horrors of Family Court when the State gets involved, and ask your Gay selves if you really want that intrusion.
“Check the Facts,” the court is essentially reviewing whether the electorate should have been allowed to vote on this issue in the first place. Personally, I don’t think we should ever vote on the civil rights of our fellow citizens, because minorities (of any sort) will always be the losers.
FundamentallyFlawed states - Gomer, I know a lot more about Massachusetts than you do . . . .
Well, flawed one, then that is either an untrue statement OR you are hiding what you know. Let me provide this link to “refresh” your memory. . . .
HOW SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” AFFECTS MASSACHUSETTS
We do not need to guess or speculate on what impact allowing gay marriage will have in California. No, all we need to do is look east and view a 5-year case study of Massachusetts for ourselves. This isn’t rocket science. What is happening in Massachusetts CAN and WILL happen in California if Proposition 8 is overturned by activist judges.
Click link for Massachusetts case study.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Check the Facts Says…you cant argue with these people, they are clueless and will shove the gay lifestyle down your throat (its like beating a dead horse)….such a bunch of haters
FundamentallyFlawed…cry me a F-ing river, the vote is over and no on 8 lost!!!! LOL
Starrynite, you continue to quote fanatical right-wing fundamentalist websites as if they are unbiased news sources. Intelligent people know better.
FundamentallyFlawed - That’s the problem inherent to YOUR argument - there are intelligent people here. As long as people can read, it will not help your cause.
Just about everything I post has references and sources. This article is no different.
Fundamentallyflawed:
Who’s Skewing??
That was directly taken from the JOURNAL of “Gay and Lesbian focus on EDUCATION”.
I could pull numerous articles and studies that were done from this journals many issues.
Do you deny that this is the main focus of the GAY AGENDA?
Oh, good, Mandux is back to threaten more violence in the name of God. Is anyone from the Register even moderating this site?
Warren:
You graduated from Stanford Law?! Just look me up then: Bar # 32123.
Greg McAulay, the issue is should H8 been placed on the ballot as an amendment or revision. I think the court has the right to void H8 if this change in the constitution is deemed to be a revision. In other word H8 should not had went into effect.
I agree with the court not to allow gay marriage until after the ruling on this issue because if the court rules H8 is valid then those who married after Nov. 4 marriage would be volided.
Ocballfan, I repeat: If you are secure in your own gender identity and sexual orientation, you won’t be threatened by anyone else’s.
Look, JakeD, I found lots of other Stanford Law School folks:
http://www.noonprop8.com/articles/2008/10/29/leading-legal-scholars-reject-prop-8-arguments/
FunamentallyFlawed - As the Massachusetts SME (Subject Matter Expert), can you please enlighten us on “The Little Black Book?”
The Little Black Book - coming soon to a High School near you if Proposition 8 is overturned by activist judges . . .
Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queeer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html
FundamentallyFlawed Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Ocballfan, I repeat: If you are secure in your own gender identity and sexual orientation, you won’t be threatened by anyone else’s.
____________________________________________________
stop forcing you gay agenda on us!!!!
Why is there so much hatred and ignorance towards equal rights.
To all the people I saw rallying with YES ON 8 signs with their kids. Don’t you understand you’re teaching prejudice and hate to your children, just like the small minded population that doesn’t accept blacks or Hispanic’s in their neighborhood.
Interesting how the battle was fought with PROTECT OUR CHILDREN and now you’re throwing the bible into the mix more than ever.
Separate CHURCH and STATE.
Seperate CHURCH and STATE.
Flawed:
You still keep pushing the “Don’t Worry” mantra.
It is the Radical Element of the GLBT that we have to watch! Those that are forcing Gay Indoctrination on our Little Ones!!!
marriage = man and woman
civil union = same sex
lets all move on…..
How the TWO guys put together? Guy need the “Hold”, right?
Mandux, based on your comments, I’m far more concerned about our schools’ failure to teach grammar and spelling.
Wienerdawg, I don’t think you understood what I wrote.
Okay Jake, you’re a wise old man. You impressed me this morning when you posted Baker v. Nelson. I attened a Tier 4 law school. To bad that you don’t support Equal Rights for all minorities. Yes! I consider gays a minority group.
Brianh,
What about your side invading a place of worship and disrupting their service?
I’d like to see you try that at Saddleback Church, or even a Mormon Stakehouse!!
Ocballfan, what you consider “GAY INDOCTRINATION!!!!!” is nothing more than teaching our kids that people come in all different kinds, and that they all deserve respect.
Naturally, the commenters who are clutching their pearls at that notion are the same ones who would have been better, kinder people if they’d ever learned that lesson themselves.
Aaaand now Mandux is making rape jokes.
“Yes on 8″ folks, are you proud to call him one of your own?
When Federal rights and benefits are granted to Civil Unions then we can move on.
Please contact your Federal Representatives and demand the repeal of the Marriage Defense Act.
FundamentallyFlawed …LOL you call that a rape joke
Warren:
Which Law School?
>># JakeD Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am
kingo:
I am already LEGALLY married.<<
.
What’s his name?
Mandux has been banned from the site and numerous of Mandux offensive posts have been deleted. My apologies for not being quicker on the draw. If you see posts that clear go too far, please alert me via phone or email, or one of the other blog contributors listed on the Total Buzz homepage. If you leave a message, be sure to note the time of the offensive post, the screen name of the poster, and the title of the item of the post. Thanks.
Gay sex is unnatural (cause of AIDS) and shouldn’t be recognized by the larger society as normal. Homosexuality IS an abomination and for gays to marry is a mockery of decent society. Get over yourselves gay people and move on.
Flawed:
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Who’s showing respect?
Show me any Yes supporters who have defiled places of worship, interrupted their services, etc. etc. Shall I go on?
The Amendment to the State Constitution does not say that “homosexuals” can not get married. It says that the citizens of the State off California will not recognize it as a marriage. The same way that other restriction in the civil law are placed upon the recognition of marriage.
Marriage is not a Natural Right but is in fact a civil liberty as stipulated by civil law. As such civil liberties can be restricted by the members, AKA citizens, of the civil organization knows as the State of California.
The same way we restrict the civil liberty of voting to citizens over 18 years of age that have not committed a felony.
My Yes vote on this Amendment was simply a statement that I recognize marriage between a man and a woman has tremendous benefits in the promotion of the general welfare of the citizens of California therefore I will promote and endorse it as such. So I am not endorsing hate, I am promoting a lifestyle that has been shown to be of great benefit to the general welfare of the whole of the citizenry to include the members of the citizenry that practice homosexuality.
Martin Wisckol….let me guess, you voted no on 8
“Show me any Yes supporters who have defiled places of worship, interrupted their services, etc. etc.”
Churches have been grinding down gay people in countless ways for hundreds of years. A week of peaceful protests seems pretty paltry by comparison.
FundamentallyFlawed…..Gays have been grinding down the church
next?
Thanks, Martin. Mandux was scary.
Peaceful Protests?
What world are you living in?
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30504
Do you classify these as peaceful protests flawed??
kingo:
Same-sex marriage is currently illegal in California. I am married to a female.
Ocballfan, for every article you find about gay activists disrupting a church service, I can find you ten about churches ruining the lives of gay people (Fred Phelps, anyone?)—but I’d rather direct my energy in more productive ways.
ocballfan….i guess they call this peaceful
Using megaphones for amplification they shouted epithets at those entering the service such as “Jesus is a homo”. They also mockingly carried an upside down pink cross.
its called pure hate
FundamentallyFlawed:
On an earlier thread, I posted news story about gays with a banner during a church service. I also posted the California Penal Code outlawing such disruption.
Thank you JakeD!!
Flawed just can’t get past the idea that what they did was trespassing, etc. etc…
I guess we need to get the kind of security that Saddleback had when McCain and Obama were there!
LOL
Secret Service Snipers anyone?
How long is this going to go ’round and ’round about this issue? Everyone has their own view on it, the people voted, our votes don’t matter, the homosexual population will NEVER be happy until they get their way, our society will go to ‘pot’, we will have no values and morals, and soon it will be legal to fornicate on your front lawn if you choose, gay or straight!
Let’s just all complain about something we don’t like, and try to over turn it. I don’t like having to wear a shirt or bra in public, I should be able to not wear anything, so I think I’ll start my own propisition….I’m not hurting anyone am I? Oh wait, you don’t want your children to see a half naked women walking through the supermarket, got it! Oh wait, I don’t want my children seeing Frank and Frank and Martha and Martha getting married…hmmm…
Oh well, like I said, our society is going to he!! in a handbasket and morals and values are nowhere to be found….sad state of affairs really.
And NO I’m not homophobic, I just support marriage between a man and a woman! So before the bashing starts, I’d like to put that out there! Thanks…
“And NO I’m not homophobic”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
FundamentallyFlawed….she sure is on point to bash everyone that does not believe in the gay lifestyle….hater!!!!!
All of this fear and panic about churches being forced to do anything is completely absurd. There are some religiously-affiliated homosexuals who wish to make change within their own church communities, but I think the majority of gay people just want to be allowed to engage in a CIVIL marriage to their partner, under the guaranteed separation of church and state. Biblical doctrine about homsexuality shouldn’t have a bearing on the civil, legal recognition of my marriage by the state, period. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies showing that homosexuality is not a perversion or deviant behavior — panic over some homosexual agenda has missed the point completely that gay people just want to be accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual partnerships.
I also find the hysteria around “activist judges” absurd. This is the point of having a judicial branch. As far as “the people” having spoken — 52% of you may have spoken for bigotry, but 52% is not a landslide by any means. So there almost half of the state voters DO NOT agree with you. And more than 48% of the voters are straight and heterosexual, which means this has less to do with any special rights or special interest, but a recognition of equality and justice in our great state of California.
Mandux:
Tone it done a bit okay!!
There is no need to be a jerk when in a discussion!!!
Yes on 8
Oh I forgot something….I also am in the process of making a “STRAIGHT” flag that will identify those who are straight from those who are gay. I also will be holding a “straight parade”, just working out the details. Hmmm…..this whole ‘equal rights’ talk, but yet, I am straight and I don’t have a parade, so I’m going to scream INequality! Thats it…
ivyschlegel….gays can, its called CIVIL UNION
ktgurl, no one’s stopping you!
ktgurl…straight pride, i love it…great idea
we have a flag, its red, white and blue…we didnt need to change the colors of the flag to make it gay…LOL
FundamentallyFlawed: If we were to have a straight parade we would only be chastised by the gay community for parading and flaunting something that we already have, when in all actuality we just want to have the same rights that you do. I just find it interesting that there has to be a parade (and some very flamboyant participants at that), to show who you are. WHY? If you’re proud of who you are, straight, gay or a smurf, then why the need to march through the streets and flaunt it?
And while I’m on the INequality vs Equality….do you know what would happen if I put a “Straight and proud of it” bumper sticker on my car? Ummmmm, I’d be shot or spit at, or run off the road, or worse. But yet, we respect the rainbow stickers on your vehicles showing your gay pride…. You wanna talk about equality vs inequality….hmmmm……
ivyschlegel:
You are aware your side wants to revoke church tax exempt status?
I think it is interesting how quickly the No on 8 side is to dismiss the incest argument as ridiculous The primary focus of the No on 8 campaign was denying the right of those who love each other a chance at marriage. Why is the incest argument so ridiculous?
So much hate and it seems pretty one sided. It’s called a Civil Union and has all the privileges of marriage. In our society of the “uncommitted” I think that is a good thing. I send my prayers to these hate filled people. You need to find TRUE love, the love of God.
Lucille, I think you’re mistaking anger for hate. The equality-minded people are angry that a slim majority has robbed a minority of a basic civil right. Try walking in their shoes.
FundamentallyFlawed Says:
“I think you’re mistaking anger for hate”.
That what we’ve been saying all along. Your side claims that we are all hateful bigoted people. When in all reality, we want to maintain the true definition of marriage……
Mandux,
Chill out Baby!
Act like an adult OK
We’re trying to carry on a discussion here!!!
Mandux,
Shut Up and go away fool.
Enough is Enough
JakeD, it’s ridiculous for you to assume that you know more about “my side” than I do. First, there isn’t “a homosexual agenda” and it’s not something that big gay poltiics has hidden from regular gays. It’s just not there. I think you are confused about the issue around tax-exempt status with regard to churches who are engaging in political activity (which would affect their ability to stay tax-exempt under tax laws).
Most people do not want to change a church’s tax-exempt status — unless that particular church is doing political activity. If the LDS was doing political activity to make those donations, then, of course, call into question their tax-exempt status. But the movement for marriage equality is not about removing churches tax-exempt status, and it’s not about affecting church doctrine regarding sacraments of marriage.
This is not about the history of marriage, which has been nowhere near as continuous or static as the “protect marriage” propoganda implies. There have been a lot of different forms of legal/civil marriage throughout history, many which have been changed because those components stopped fitting in with the way society is. Society IS changing — more gay people are being accepted as normal, loving families and citizens.
And it’s certainly not about trying to convince people that civil unions are equal to marriage. Separate but equal is rarely seen as equal. While civil unions offer many of the same rights as marriage, it is bigoted and anti-gay to restrict gay couples from accessing the cultural and social importance of a legally-recognized marriage. Everybody knows what is implied by the word marriage — lifelong committment and partnership that has been publically solemnized by friends and family. Refusing that to gay people because you don’t feel that their relationship merits that kind of recognition is anti-gay.
And that’s why ‘the gays’ are angry, upset, and fighting back. But look how far we’ve come in only 8 years! From 61% down to 52% Give it another 10 years and civil unions will seem as horrifyingly antique as segregated Pullman cars.
I agree with the incest argument…it is logical…every one wants to have equal rights, right? Well then I want to be able to marry my cousin because I love her and she loves me. It is like what I said earlier about me not liking men or women, but I have a Dog and I know he loves me and I love him, so why can’t I just marry my dog then…is that not my right and plus I want what married people have as well.. as far as benefits and taxes go…is not that my right…the gay community is screaming about equal rights and the minority to not be over powered by the majority, well then we are in for a big suprise because there are some sick people out there….what about people who like to have sex with dead people, should we let them do that since they are technically not hurting anyone by doing so, and shouldn’t one be aloud to marry a dead person, is it not their right! Are the gay people saying that we shouldn’t discriminate against them because they were so called “born” that way. Well what if I said that I was born with this thing inside me where I like to rape and kill little kids isn’t that my right then to do so…I know it is considered hurting someone, but not to me, and who are you to define what hurting someone is???
You see that sounds ridiculous because it is unnatural…that is why a butthole rips and tears and bleeds when it is penetrated the wrong way…it is gross and not natural and perverted. Most gay people I have met and I meet a TON of them because I reside in Long Beach, but most of them I meet are grossly perverted! They sleep around like crazy…and trust me I have heterosexual friends including myself and I have never seen or heard them talk about or sleep around as much as most of these gay people do…straight up gross!
vyschlegel Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
JakeD, it’s ridiculous for you to assume that you know more about “my side” than I do. First, there isn’t “a homosexual agenda” and it’s not something that big gay poltiics has hidden from regular gays. It’s just not there.
Incorrect, wschlegel.
“Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.” This quote was taken from an article in the November 1987 homosexual magazine – Guide. “The Overhauling of Straight America,” by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill is a blueprint for homosexualizing our culture and demonizing opponents who are opposed to the normalization of sodomy.
Sound familiar? Yes, these are the tactics that the opponents of Prop 8 use vigorously to make 96% of the population think that there is something wrong with us instead of the other way around.
This is the article the opponents of Prop 8 do not want you to read because it exposes the hidden yet very real homosexual agenda.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/TVCSpecialRptOverhaulingStraight.PDF
GAY = GROSS, DIRTY STINKY BUTTHOLE!
That article is from a managazine printed in 1987, and it discusses things that people can do in their own individual lives in order for straight people to accept gays as normal, contributing members of society. It was not a hidden agenda privately circulated, it was a book that was published with the intent to empower people in their everyday lives. You can read it all you want, there is nothing hidden from you or me or anybody else. You’re not exposing some cover-up, you’re making gay panic and drama where there isn’t any.
ivyschlegel - You can SPIN all you want. Sure it was written in 1987 - it’s not like the homosexual movement just happened this year because of Prop 8. It was an article in a gay magazine called the Guide, so no it was not intended for viewing by heterosexuals. If the article appeared in Time magazine or something, then the assumption would be that it was not meant to be kept under wraps. The content itself is obvious enough to any reader that it was only intended for reading by homosexuals.
The fact that so many of you are using this agenda almost verbatim is evidence that this is your call to action. Many of you may not have known the exact title, but through word of mouth over the years, these are your talking points. All anyone has to do is view the blogs and see the inundation of such terms as “homophobe”, “hater” and “bigot” used as a weapon to those who just simply define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Most of us support domestic partnerships, condemn any discrimination in employment and housing and are appalled when anyone commits violent acts against anyone just because of sexual orientation. But what you and opponents of 8 are trying to do is redefine the traditional definition of marriage to include man and man and woman and woman. This is where we draw the line - and we draw the line against the “Overhauling of Straight America.”
For most radicals, the issue of “marriage” itself isn’t even the focal point. The focal point is to force the rest of the population to accept homosexuality as “normal.” Well, we don’t. And we also do not accept bisexuality/polygamy, incest - consensual or non-consensual, bestiality, necrophilia or pedophilia as normal. What you do in your home is your business and you should have all the benefits that domestic partnerships in California provide. If there are some benefits you feel you are not getting, then push legislation to receive those benefits. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Period.
Now the gay community is going after E-Harmony dating site because the website does not cater to the gay community. Look, just because you are a foofoo rainbow licking thing does not mean the whole world has to cater to you people. Do you see any “Straight Rights” groups suing your homosexual websites that cater only to the gays? No. Why? Because we don’t care! The gay agenda is just aiming at whatever moves at this point they are so hard up for a victory. They are now invading churches during services and even damaging property and making threats against church members. Look at what happened in Lansing, Michigan on Novermber 9th. Don’t look for the story on this website because this website fears the gay community and would not dare run that story. But I will! Stay tuned for my posting of it.
E-Harmony sued in California by hetero-hating gay group.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.
Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.
They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.
It has more than 12 million registered users, and heavy television advertising has made it one of the nation’s biggest Internet dating sites.
The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.
“The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages,” it said in a statement.
“Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It’s just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted,” eHarmony added.
According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site’s dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.
“Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age,” she said.
Carlson’s lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was “about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love.”
Carlson’s lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.
Here is the article The OC Register lacks that grapefruits to post:
LANSING, Michigan (Catholic Online) - Dr. Dave Williams is the Pastor of a large evangelical Protestant Church in Lansing , Michigan called the Mount Hope Church. The Church web site informs the visitor of Pastor Williams that “He has served for 25 years, leading the church in Lansing from 226 to over 4000 today.” The Pastor is respected in the broader Christian, religious and civic community and the Church has extensive outreaches.
This past Sunday, during a Worship Service at the Church, a group of loud and intentionally disruptive homosexual activists stood outside of the sanctuary of Mount Hope dressed in strange pink attire. Using megaphones for amplification, they shouted epithets at those entering the service such as “Jesus is a homo”.They also mockingly carried an upside down pink cross.
Reports filed with the Eaton County Sheriff’s office indicate that other demonstrators had staged a further action intended to disrupt the Sunday Worship at Mount Hope . Dressed in clothing which would not have indicated their intention, they entered into the sanctuary and were seated with the community. Then, in an orchestrated manner, they left their seats, pulled fire alarms, distributed anti-Christian literature and stormed the Pastor’s pulpit waving a rainbow colored flag and shouting “It’s Okay To Be Gay! Bash Back”.
The organization behind this action is called “Bash Back”. They describe themselves as “a radical trans/queer/anarcha-feminist group” committed to “fight for liberation while rejecting all forms of state power.” In a news release, Bash Back referred to Mt. Hope Church as “a deplorable anti-queer mega church.” They further elaborated their disdain for the Christian community at Mt. Hope on their web site in these words: “The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church in Lansing , Michigan . The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized “ex-gay” conferences and so-called “hell houses”, which depict queers, trannies and womyn who seek abortions as the horrors. Mt. Hope is complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.”
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization led by Bill Donohue, Ph.D., has called on the Attorney General of State of Michigan to institute an investigation. The Catholic League issued the following release:
GAY FASCISTS STORM CHURCH
On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing , Michigan . Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”
The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:
“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.
“This is urban fascism come to America ’s heartland. It must be quickly stopped before it gets out of control. We are contacting Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, calling for an investigation.”
Why are they even bother looking at this? The california people said no. End of discussion. This is how the country works. The people say what they want and the government goes with it. For the courts to overturn what the california people have voted is to overstep their boundries. They are walking on our rights as voters. If the supreme court is going to decide how we should vote then why should we bother voteing at all?
Some People will NEVER get it.
Jake, Equal rights and OTHERS say the most ridicules things and make the most outrageous statements about how bad Homosexuals are for wanting their Civil Rights.
Yet the Process they are taking is very similar to the Process the Blacks have taken…
But without all the Violence.
How many Cities Burnt down thus far from Prop 8?
now tell me how many cities burnt down when the Blacks didn’t like the verdict the Policemen got for beating Rodney King?
Maybe if the homosexuals burnt down a lot of cities over Prop 8 they might be taken MORE seriously????
Is that what Jake and others think should be a more justified RAGE if someone “actually cared” about thinking they lost some Civil Rights?
Maybe Gays are so intelligent as a cultural group (I really think they are smarter than most, all too often they have to hide their sexual Identity so they don’t get beat up… Imagine… schizophrenic-personalities - without being, or going crazy! that take Brains!)
The Religious side is all BS.
I just did an article on some of the old religious beliefs
because a person called Christian Science a cult…
And History is my forte…
So I’ll share some of the FACTS that are common to the degradation and Christian hate towards Homosexuals…
And why they weren’t “Encouraged” to marry in the Past…
http://denurd.multiply.com/journal/item/181
As a Historian…
I understand why Christian Science was started by Mary Baker Eddy…
She saw more Soldiers die in the Civil War from disease
and the practice of bad medicine
then from the War battles / wounds inflicted.
they didn’t have penicillin, and the medicines we have today.
and in the camps would be thousands of farm boys
who have never been more than 30 miles away from their farms
crammed in with city boys who had survived small pox, and other diseases and had brought them to the camps… which wiped out many a (farm and other) soldier…
Just like colonialist had done to the un-inoculated Indians…
So Miss Eddy wrote of Peace, Love and avoiding Doctors kind of a Bible supplement to relieve the suffering that many had felt mentally after the Civil War.
She might have done it to help her own mental well being too, without knowing it. (AKA message from God)
Some might diagnosed her condition as “Shell-shock” today, since she was a nurse with the Union Army in the Civil War.
Bottom line, with the sorry state of Medicine at that time, it truly made sense to avoid contact with people who were ill (AKA at the Doctors or Hospitals, see the Movie beginning of “Dancing with wolves” for a Dramatization of this) because you could pick up something worse than what you might already have, and maybe that new item could “really” kill you.
So, in the light of that (the history of My Parents Religion - It almost killed me since I’m Diabetic and they still avoid doctors) I feel the People who wrote the Bible, did some things for the same reasons…And that is, because they were Human…
And they wanted to “better” Society.
People (actually Kids) were dying in ancient times at the rate of
3 out of 4 children from childhood diseases…
Well heck, you darn well better be fruitful and multiply.
Just to keep the species alive!
But children’s death after the mid 1900s took an incredible turn around for the better, with inoculations and better medicines…
So “SOME” of the wisdom of that old book no longer need apply in this new age of over population.
And the same thing can be said for other items that might be called “bigoted portions” of the Bible today…
We No longer have Slaves… (slaves gave Christians less time doing work, more time pro-creating, same for old testament Jews)
We No longer have killing un-virginal wives… (the murders were to insure no un-Christian, or un-Jewish, babies were born into a Christian Marriage, since they couldn’t prove the wife wasn’t already pregnant on the wedding night)
We No longer have polygamy… (this was to increase populations for previous reasons mentioned)
We No longer (supposedly) have killing of gays… (they weren’t a productive member of the Christian pro-creation faith, Nor of the Jewish faith either… I keep saying Jewish because remember Christ was a Jew… so many were turned into Eunice and made slaves or just killed outright. Try thinking of Hitler’s Breeding Program with the SS Nazi elite to the Young German Women back just before and During WW2… and you will have the same reasons for the Bible’s quote “Be Fruitful and multiply” thinking… to Build Armies and fight off their enemies, as well as get past the Baby mortality death rates.)Anyway…
Some of the “OLD” Bible logic is no longer applicable…
But I’m always amazed at how much of that, which I think is supposed to be the most important things in the Bible, are not considered Applicable by so many Christians…
And that is…
Christ’s love for his fellow man (and woman)
If this one lesson would be the Corner stone of the Christian Religion Belief…
I’m sure all the other fallibility’s of “Religion” would fall into a corrected state of well being.
And the arguments of having “Prop 8″ would automatically cease to be.
Watch this Video from YouTube for Extra Credit:
10 questions that every intelligent Christian must (SHOULD) answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ
Chris the H.
e-Harmony is not a dating service, it is a marriage compatibility service–based on research of traits of successful marriages. How could they be expected to offer a dating service, same-sex or otherwise? That’s not their line of business. And how could they be required to offer research-based same-sex marriage compatibility services when there is so little data on successful same-sex marriage (which isn’t even legal in most places). The plaintiffs can get what they want at numerous existing services. Look up the word barratry. Leave e-Harmony alone.
PS.
The incest thing…
the Bible approved of it for Pro-creation…
Many of the Royal Families did it for Power Consolidation…
It was ONLY after the frightful Mutations of inbreeding was made obviously clear — then and only then did incest start to be an unacceptable form of Behavior (in marriage) and that it got outlawed (mostly in the 19th Century) and is why we Don’t allow it today.
Gays can have children (please don’t tell me you don’t know about the Pregnant men) and thus the chromosomes of these unrelated people (I don’t recommend gay Brothers or Sisters marrying - although twins often do experiment sexually with each other) wouldn’t affect the gene pool of their children and thus is why they could marry and have kids, while close relatives “shouldn’t”.
Although in some societies close relative still do…
Or have you never heard of Hillbilly and Alabama Jokes?
So I will quote what a childish retard said earlier…
“Ewwww, Grossss…” the Bible allows incest!
Chris the H.
e-Harmony (and OTHERS) perpetuates the Myth that
heterosexuals have “lasting relationships” in Marriage.
BUT 1 out of 2 Hetro marriages end in divorce within the 1st year…
and the Hetro statistics ONLY go downhill from there.
Do you think Britney’s couple hour marriage or Michael Jackson’s marriage (if you wanna really talk about a “gay” marriage, THAT one was IT! ) are what Hetro marriages are all about?
No wonder they only have a 50% minus success rate.
Whereas these places ALSO contribute to the myths that gays don’t have lasting relationships….
Speaking for myself… My 1st relationship lasted 14 years…
But alas, I guess I failed because I couldn’t tolerate his Alcoholic abuse.
And then My Current relationship has been an “un-approving” marriage (but only by Church and bigots) since 1997 and approved by the state since June 17th 2008. And It’s still OFFICAILLY VALID.
that is 11 years… How many Hetro have that longevity?
But My Husband’s Brother is also Gay (it does run in some “families” another Proof of genetic traits) his brother is 10 years older and has been in his relationship since 1968… that’s 40 years!
Maybe they have longevity because their Parents were married until death did they part (over 50 years) and my parents did the same.
Maybe that is the reality of the longevity of marriage… the Parents teaching good morals and LOVE to their kids.. oops… My Parents were the Death till they parted type too.
So maybe it’s the Parents that teach or don’t teach… Love?
But all I know is now a day’s many of the members of the clergy don’t teach love anymore.
Look at the likes of the idiotic running with whores preachers Like the Jimmy Swaggarts and the various child molesting Catholic Priests - that are supposed to be teaching lessons in marriage and morality???
(an old joke… How did gays get the Catholic Church to finally approve of Homosexuality? By converting the few Priests that weren’t gay.)
If there really is a God in Heaven… he must be preparing HELL for the many Righteous homophobes that will one day come forth for his judgment.
Chris the H.
so much heat
so little light