State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said today that they will introduce resolutions that Proposition 8 is an improper revision of the California Constitution and should be repealed. The resolutions, which do not carry the weight of law, would then be considered for approval by each of the Sacramento bodies.
Supporters of Prop. 8, the gay-marriage ban approved by voters Nov. 4, accused the two of grandstanding and noted that the state Supreme Court has already announced it will hear the constitutional arguments regarding the measure.
Click here for the story Brian Joseph and I wrote examining the legal challenge to Proposition 8.
Man, what’s the point of voting if it doesn’t hold up? We casted out vote, majority won. But, that doesn’t matter. I have lost faith in our governing system.
It is said to see that the people of California voted and that their choice can just be overturned. So, where is the line drawn? The cities allowed people to protest relentlessly. If it were minorities it would have been shut down immediately. It goes to show that something I don’t agree with and voted for is now going to be pressed on me whether I want it or not.
our world is falling into the abyss, what was once right is now wrong and whats is wrong is now right.
prop 8 is a simple issue, that isn’t even debatable, , if unions between anything other then a man and woman where ok, it would destroy itself as a group with in one generation.
we all need to get back to the basics of life, and believe in the truth of things.
truth is black and white, and there is no shades of gray, it is us who makes such things.
we need to keep it simple.
These liberal jackals, Leno and Ammiano, are giving CA voters the finger for trusting the legal election process to settle this issue. These power mad gay thugs are insulting the CA voters yet again to cause a full state rebellion against the decadent, crooked CA government and especially themselves.
You people are missing the point. I’m sure MANY opposed abolition of slavery years ago - yet slavery ended because it is a human rights issue. Prop 8 is just that. It’s taking basic human rights away from California citizens. Your bigotry is the reason for this mess!! And by the way, I’m a straight, married mother of 2 and just want the same for my gay friends.
So we voted discrimination in here in California. What’s next making interatial mariage illegal? We need to make all rules and laws equal to all. Gay marriage won’t kill the economy we already did that, won’t kill home caues we already did that. I know several teachers and the only schools that teach anything about marriage are private religous backed schools, not public schools. If 2 people that want to get married then we should let them, no matter race, religous beliefs, sexual orientation, what planet they are from.
What would happen if one of the backers of prop 8’s kids said I am gay and want to marry my partner? I bet they would disown their kid.
Here’s a little lesson in how our government works people. We DO NOT live in a true democracy, we live in a constitutional republic where the vote of the people can be overturned if it is determined to be unconstitutional. That’s it. End of story.
You can stamp your little feet and cry all you want, prop 8 was doomed to fail even before the ballots were cast.
Keep tract of those who vote for against the majority in their districts. They are supposed to represent the PEOPLE in their district . Aren’t they? I wonder which ones will be up for reelection next time around.
you gay liberals … get over it .. we dont want gay marriage, so dont force it down our throats …. and prop 8 was the second times the majority said “NO” to gay marriage … what part of NO dont you understand ???
you losed, so get over it …
You Pro H8te folks can choke & die
Guess being equal under the law and free to express yourself and feel equal among your peers. isn’t allowed around this country anymore. What happened to our basic human rights and freedoms granted by the comstitution. What happened to the seperation of church and state. It seems the churches and special interest fun this country and state now and not the people. I realized a while back the constitiution and the freedoms it grants are all illusions. The people don’t run this country anymore if we ever did.
Why can’t we stay out of peoples homes and bedrooms and lives and let everyone be happy and whoever wants to get married get married.
What does it hurt???????
How can you vote against something that is in the constitution already “unconstititional”? Seems to be an illogical contradiction. Sorta like “illegal” aliens being legally here. Do laws really matter anymore?
haha Bill, in hindsight it appears that it is your side of bigoted, bible thumping, Jewish zombie worshiping ignoramuses that “losed”.
We voted once and it was clear, we voted twice and it was clear… The people who live in California do not want GAY MARRIAGE. This country was established by good Christian people on good Christian values and look at what has become… It’s BS that our votes don’t count. They should. Why pay taxes if our vote is just overturned?
Yea,……..but I think people will take up arms,…………….if courts continue to uphold,…………. what the majority has mandated!!! Johnny,…………get your gun!!!
IT passed and we have discrimination…. Domestic Partners only get 40-50% of the rights married couples get. Not 100% like the prop 8 backers said.
We need to realize we are in the 21st century and not the 17Th. century.
Gays have been around since the dawn of man and are not going anywhere.
Unless we lock em all in camps like the Germans did the Jews and America did the Japanese during WWII.
So who cares if 2 guys or 2 women get married… It won’t kill us and they won’t go around chasing kids molesting them or saying be like us.
And it will not be taught in schools. Only schools that teach anything about marriage are private religious schools. NOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
I know I am a 5Th grade teacher and we aren’t allowed unless it is a board approved change to curriculum. ANd even then parents get to have a say at the board meetings.
The Constitution clearly states that we are all entitled to equal rights regardless of sex, race, or religion. Voting for or against something doesn’t mean its right or in the case even legal, it just means you are entilted to your opinion.
Since we are attempting to redefine the word “marriage, ” shouldn’t we first begin by redefining the meaning of the word “man” and the word “woman”? That way a man who wishes to be considered a woman can be just be a woman, and a woman who wishes to be considered a man can be a man! And while we are at it, let’s give a new definition to everything so we can all feel better about ourselves! Hmm…I don’t feel good about being of average intelligence. Can we please redefine “intelligence” so I can feel better about myself?
What is next in this state and country?
Getting rid of our right to bare arms under the 2nd amendment is on the way out. Gay Marriage is out, Freedom of speech will probably be next.
You “losed”, so get over it…just what one would expect to hear from a hateful, apparently ignorant person.
This isn’t about gay rights. It’s about everyone’s rights. If voters can vote to unlawfully discrimminate, who will be the next victim? Potentially, you Bill.
What part of fair and equal treatment under the law don’t you get?
All I can say is prop 8 is a bunch of BS….who really cares if two guys or 2 girls want to get married. The main reason it got the yes vote was because of the Mormon based mentality, which I think is ignorant at best. What other religion requres you to make a certain dollar amount, and give it away to the church or you are not welcome???? And second, who ever remembers being taught about marriage (strait or gay) in school? maybe High school, and by then you should know if you are gay or not by then without anyone telling you what you are. I am strait and I do not have gay friends, but I believe that this is the LAND of THE FREE…..not land of the tell you what to do. The only thing gay here is the prop itself!
This is sad. The majority of Californians voted against same sex marriage and yet it isn’t accepted. California’s morals have gone down the toilet. We live in a perverse society.
Again, for all the slow and simple minded people. Prop 8 goes against the Constitution and if you don’t want to abide and uphold the United States Constitution then you can go live somewhere else where equality is consider a crime.
oh, and for all the people that are butt hurt about it being voted on and passing and wondering why it’s turning into a problem, think about this…..if someone wanted to take away your right to be happy, would’nt you fight for it??? This was voted on by lies and church and state not being seperate…….plain and simple. If you want to be a hater, California does not welcome you. We have some of the most diverse people on the planet in this state and I love every day I wake up and smell the California air I breathe with all the blacks, latino, asians, gays, and all other non-hating white folks out there…..if you want to be a redneck racist hater, feel free to leave or deal with it because it will NEVER change!
In some countries they shoot gays or hang them. Maybe we should do the same in California since the majority of voters in California don’t want them here.
I don’t care if your gay, straight, or Bi if you want to be together and get married then go for it. We should all be treated the same and not discriminated against. That is what the civil rights movement stopped.
homosexuality is a sexual perversion….was, is, and will always be…
There was a time not too long ago when the majority of people thought slavery was morally right , when the majority would not allow women to vote, etc. People voted for that because they believed it was right, but now we know it was horribly wrong. If you want to deny another basic human rights then I hope one day you experience the same.
Homosexuality is not a choice or perversion… It is genetic, chemical, in the DNA…… So how can that be a perversion?
They can not change how “god” made them. He made them gay so why call it a perversion.
40 years ago people in this country used the same arguments they used to pass prop 8 to stop interracial marriage. They finally lost their battle so the prop 8 backers will loose eventually.
Dissapointed:
Sorry to hear you have lost faith in your government. Probably good for you to leave the country then.
You may not agree with it, but this is still fundamentally a civil rights issue. Even if you dont think it is, there are plenty of people that do.
Know think back in your history books at every civil rights issue that has ever come up, than think about the result. Every civil rights issue that has been challenged has won. There are many things through out history that have been thought of at the time to be what most considered the “norm”…slavery, the banning of interracial marriages, Japanese internment camps, women’s right to vote, various religious freedoms, etc…most of these issues at one time or another was considered by most to be a non-issue.
Now, it is true that the people have voted. The question truly becomes what have they voted for and what is a true majority. In this case, a little more than 4% of the voters decide the fate of marriage for thousands of people. The reasons for their vote aren’t black and white, there is no way of knowing exactly why they voted they way they did, but it is easy to argue that many dont like gay people. Is it fair to allow people who dont have a major stake or are clearly intolerant to make a life long decision for others?
I think that is the real argument, and not what percentage voted where.
Again, civil rights have always prevailed, and they will again.
I was taught that God welcomes ALL his children with open arms and to quote a great man; “let he without sin, cast the first stone”.
Whaz up! Maybe it’s time to take your headphones off, turn off the violence-laden, misogynistic rap music and read a psychiatry textbook along with a civics textbook and learn some real truth as opposed to your ignorant version of it.
I take issue with your comment EQUALITY. Here is the direct quote from the Bill of Rights (The Constitution outlines how the country is run by the 3 branches of government).
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
You may be talking about the Preamble to the Constitution which states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thoroughly, you’ll note that there isn’t a section that states equal “rights regardless of sex” . Amendment XIX is the closest part of the documents that are based on sex and this gave women the right to vote.
I wish everyone would take the time to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before making inaccurate statements that they may have heard from someone else.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Samson you da man!
Constitution - u r funny!
I think prop 8 might have the same fate as prop 187.
Prop 8 is not about hatred or bigotry or rights.
Gays have all the rights of marriage already in the domestic partnership laws. If anything is missing then those laws should be corrected.
The people of califoria (most of us) don’t hate gays… we just don’t want them to dictate to the rest of us about the meaning of marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and some small group of people shouldn’t be allowed to decide for all of us that it is something else.
They chose to be different. So they need to get over it and learn to live with the differences.
Louf, thanks for the lesson, now do u care to comment on the subject of Prop 8? Where do u stand on that issue?
Equality Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Again, for all the slow and simple minded people. Prop 8 goes against the Constitution and if you don’t want to abide and uphold the United States Constitution then you can go live somewhere else where equality is consider a crime.
This is not a federal Constitutional issue it is a state constitutional issue. The federal government has already defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Perhaps you need to check out the difference between state and federal documents regarding marriage. Additionally, the state of California has many laws protecting domestic unions equally. It is the federal government that does not. The United States Cosnstitution does not directly address the issue of defining marriage.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay Marriage wouldn’t do anything to effect Straight Marriage. It would bring more money to wedding planners though. And banquet halls, caterers and anyone that makes money off weddings.
Gay marriage wouldn’t destroy the planet. We are doing a good job of that without it. IT won’t kill the housing market or economy we already did that. It won’t make gas prices rise and fall like crazy they are already doing that.
So what is everyone scared of?
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Here’s a solution:
First , the state shoud not license “marriage”. Marriage has a historical religious base. One could argue the separation of church and state, but it would be a stretch.
But, if the state licensed domestic partnerships (sexual orientation wouldn’t matter), then the marriage issue becomes one for each church to decide.
I supported Prop 8 because of personal morals and beliefs. That doesn’t make me a bigot (look up the definition). But, if the state licensed domestic partnerships and everyone had the exact same rights, then let each church decide who would be “married” at their alters.
I think it works.
Samson,
You talk about a few people making a decision that has a lifelong impact on others… there really is no impact on gays by not allowing them to marry. There are no rights lost… they just need to register as domestic partners.
This whole issue is about feelings. Gays want to feel that they are accepted and that they are equal. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that we redefine marriage for everybody else. What about the rights of straight folk?
Talk about hatred… I hear more hateful statements coming from the miltant gays than from any of the straights that voted for 8.
Correction! this for the people who are trying to change the subject;
Marriage is a vocabulary, it’s a vehicle, an engine for a larger discussion that moves people’s understanding of who gay people are, why sex discrimination is wrong, why exclusion is wrong in America, that brings up discussion of the separation of church and state, that brings up discussion of whether there should be limitations or roles based on sex, or whether men and women should be treated equally.
oh, I forgot to put that in quotes; hang on there’s more for you guys
“The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12]” from Wiki
Issue of Separation of Church & State in the U.S. Constitution
What the Founders Meant:
Many citizens believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” is language found in our governing documents; it is not. Concerning religion, the Constitution (specifically, the First Amendment to the Constitution) states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The words “separation,” “church,” or“state” are not found in the First Amendment, the Constitution, or in any other official founding document.
Yet, even after learning that the phrase is not part of the Constitution, many citizens nevertheless persist: “Well, even though the words aren’t there, isn’t that what the First Amendment really means? Wasn’t that the intent of those who framed that Amendment?” The answer to that question is, “No; that was not their intent”—at least not in the way that we have come to know separation of church and state today.
When the First Amendment was finally approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion, each with an independent scope of action. The first clause (called the Establishment Clause) prohibited the federal government from establishing a single national denomination; the second clause (called the Free Exercise Clause) prohibited the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. Significantly, both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of citizens. Very simply, the Founding Fathers did not want a single federal denomination to rule America (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …”), but they did expect basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society (“… nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).
Significantly, for over a century-and-a-half after the First Amendment was ratified, this was the only manner in which it was interpreted. Only recently has this interpretation taken a more liberal view even though the original intent was to not have any particular denomination in preference to another or any national religion be established.(i.e.Church of England type government in those days).
Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American
1.Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4.Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6.Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7.Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
I see another post saying that domestic partners have only 40-50% of the rights of marriage. So go fix those laws. You don’t have a right to steal the institution of marriage for your purposes.
I also see a post saying that being gay is not a choice… that it’s genetic. Hogwash. You are just trying to avoid responsibility for the choice you made. Blame it on God. Yeah, right.
By the way, the CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA begins with these words:
” We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”
Does the use of “Almight God” in the California Constitution make it “unconstitutional” too?
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.[14] But before 1996, marriage was listed as a union between two INDIVIDUALS!!
Domestic Partners DO NOT get the same RIGHTS as straight married couples. They get 40% to 60% of the rights. Most companies don’t recognize domestic partners. Most insurance companies don’t recognize domestic partners. The federal and state governments do not recognize domestic partners for survivor benefits in time of a partners death like they do straight married couples.
So where are these equal rights between domestic partners and married couples?
The problem is not gay “marriage” but the way courts and judges intepret what a marriage is. A couple who wanted their marriage licence to show husband and wife, but were disallowed to use those terms to the point of making their marriage null and void angers those who hold that relationship as a sacred covenant. What the gay community wants is not equality but superiority, defining all relationships in their terms. The schools who choose to teach children what marriage is overrule the rights of parents who want their children to learn the parents values. The report that cheating, stealing an lying are rampant in school age children is not a suprise when you understand the relational values taught in schools. If all values are relational, then there are no values. That is what kids understand, even if that is not what is intended.
“The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12]” from Wiki
So kids can not succeed without a male and female role model. So does that mean kids of single parents will always fail?
So if my wife died and I raised my kids alone they would fail?
Or a husband is killed in war or some other way the kids would fail for not having their dad around?
I was raised by my mom alone because my dad left us. and I am successful and happy. Guess I broke the mold/
If the domestic partnership laws are flawed, fix them.
Samson, I also see it as a civil rights issue. I see parallels between the LGBT rights movement and past civil rights movements. Honestly, folks, do you seriously think that even if Prop 8 holds up in court, that it’s going to last forever? It’s not. Prop 8’s not going to stand in the way of social progress.
Prop 8 is based on bigotry which in turn is based in religion. Lewis Black puts it into perspective, albeit a comedic one, that it’s ridiculous that people actually worry about gay marriage, and that on the list of things we have to worry about, “it’s on page 6 after ‘Are we eating too much garlic as a people?’” He goes on to talk about the basis of the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, which is found in the Old Testament, written “thousands of years ago, when we were savages at best, we were like 10 hairs away from being a baboon.” And he’s right, too. It’s ridiculous. Many people are anti-gay rights based on a several-thousand-year-old prejudice from when people were nowhere near as educated as they are in modern times.
Seriously people, can’t we all just get along? Live and let live.
“The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional”
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. (Belgium became the second in 2003.) In 2002 through 2004, courts in six Canadian provinces held that the opposite-sex definition of marriage was contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights, and in 2005 federal legislation extended same-sex marriage to all of Canada. Same-sex marriage was also legalized in Spain in 2005 , in South Africa in 2006, and in Norway effective in 2009.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a “civil union” law would not be sufficient, and on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage per se is legal.
Saying prop 8 is based on bigotry is avoiding the subject.
It’s not about hate or fear.
It’s about having an institution that simply is what it is… and not changing what it is just because a few people want to change it for all the rest of us.
In May 2008, California became the second state to legalize same-sex marriage when the California Supreme Court held that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional. Connecticut followed suit in October 2008. In California, the Supreme Court decision was apparently overturned by voter initiative in the November 2008 election.
Equality Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12]” from Wiki
One of the reasons for the Roman Empire falling was a decaying of their societies moral standards.
We are not dealing with Roman laws today. We are dealing with California laws today.
In California marriage was defined to be union of one man and one woman for over 158 years that the state has existed. It was just this year that four judges overturned that definition and prop 22. That period laste for about 143 days until prop 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage that Califronia has had since it became a state.
Actually Louf,
It is the XIV amendment of the US constitution that protects the rights to equality of all citizens. As the Supreme Court found in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, that all people regardless of sexual orientation had a right to privacy and equal protection under the law. This decision has basically overturned all sodomy laws through out the US.
It is this amendment that will be used to up hold the right for gays to marry.
So again, in this case, civil rights prevailed and will continue to do so. Sadly it may take a few years, but it will happen.
As far as seperation of Church and State is concerned. The Treaty of Tripoli, signe by President John Adams and ratified by the US Senate in 1797, states the following.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I do believe that John Adams was a founding father and President at the time was he not??
Hello? Marraige was originally define as a union between two individuals. Only after 1996 was it changed to appease the religious dippy dos
From time to time throughout life there comes a time where it is necessary to take something that has been implicitly understood and explicitly define it. For example, years and years ago warning labels used to be simple because it was implicitly understood that some products should not be used in certain ways. Well, as that got “out of hand”, people got together and further defined exactly what it was and was not meant for.
Prop 8 was/is no different. Marriage for millenniums has always been understood to be between man and a woman. It was implied. There wasn’t a reason to define it in a way that Prop 8 and previous propositions have attempted to do. As we began to see others attempt to extend the definition beyond its original intent, it became obvious that work was necessary to define marriage in a manner that was more concrete. Hence, Prop 8 simply explains what marriage is. From that definition, we can make other decisions.
I understand the desire one may have to be “married.” But there is a correct way to do this. Presently our laws for civil unions in California do not provide as many protections as a legal marriage between a man and a woman do. We should work on increasing those protections and provide its partners with a safe relationship environment protected by our state. The love and affection that partners in such an arrangement have for one another are quite real and deserves appreciation simply as a human being. There are a lot of people out there who hate and kill others. Yet we can foster an atmosphere that strengthens the rights of the civil unions while protecting the institution of marriage as Prop 8 is attempting to do.
Gay marriage is NOT a basic human right. I cannot marry my sister, I cannot drive until I am 16, etc. There are lots of things that people cannot do because society agrees that they should not be done - this is dfferent from a basic human right of free speech for example. All Prop 8 said is that society/the CA govt recognizes that marriage between a man and a woman are the ideal - that’s it. The interracial marriage arguement is also bogus. There is no difference between between the races, only skin color, so it made perfect sense and justice to do away with laws that prevented this. Whereas there are huge differences between the sexes, so society is saying we prefer to define this institution called marriage as between a man and a woman. I am not hateful (have many gay friends),not bigoted, just logical.
bottom line; its wrong to discriminate.
1. Equality Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.[14] But before 1996, marriage was listed as a union between two INDIVIDUALS!!
Equality-
Where is marriage listed as union between two individuals in federal law.? What is the federal document name and section number?
Why does every supporter of Prop ALWAYS lie and say you have “many gay friends”? No one believes you and last time I checked lying is a sin to your invisible sky daddy.
Prop 8 was on the ballot for the people to vote on and guess what??? You guys lost… It was a fair vote. As for those people who are still whining about losing, stop being a sore loser and get over yourselves!
When the California Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, we came one step closer to achieving true marriage equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. But we need your help to defend this progress—anti-GLBT groups, emboldened by the decision, are now working to deny benefits to GLBT couples on both state and federal levels.
Please, sign the Million For Marriage petition below, and be a part of this historic civil rights battle. Gay, straight, married, single…we need everyone who believes in marriage equality to stand up NOW—before it’s too late!
1,019,407 petition signatures so far!
Badwolf - thx 4 making me laugh
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac
here is the link to sign the petition
handyre? i’m kinda busy signing the petition. Go look it up yourself. Lazy!
so many trust fund closet cases who have so much disdain for the gays…. come out of the closet already and get over it.
Please, sign the Million For Marriage petition below, and be a part of this historic civil rights battle. Gay, straight, married, single…we need everyone who believes in marriage equality to stand up NOW—before it’s too late!
1,019,407 petition signatures so far!
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac
My pleasure Equality. Wow! I just read “Constitution” moronic top ten list. Good lord man, talk about breathtaking inanity.
My fav one
“In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country”
Really? So we live in a theocracy now? Maybe you should take a visit to Iran, or Sudan, or the Congo, where bronze age myths rule the country. I hear they have no gays there. Enjoy!
Gays are becoming to be problem. The vote was cast and should stand.
erick ——- sounds like you are the “hater” and “racists” with your ignorant comments like “and all other non-hating white folks out there…..if you want to be a redneck racist hater, feel free to leave or deal with it because it will NEVER change!”
RE: Dissapointed-
You passed through our school system without learning to spell. Our school system has failed us.
Why don’t you worry about bettering yourself than bothering to worry about other people and what they do.
Equality says “bottom line, it’s wrong to discriminate”
So black is white?
Good is bad?
Discrimination is what we teach our children when we say not to play on the freeway.
Hey, men and women are different. There should be some discrimination… such as boys not allowed in the girls bathrooms.
Gays choose to be different. Get over it.
Um - I think Constitution was joking.
well what if you are not attracted to men or women, but attracted and in love with your pet??????? What about my equality!?!?!? I want to marry my dog to get all the benefits with taxes and such!!!! Where is my equality!?!?!?!?!? I am in love too and I wouldn’t be hurting any body! Where is my equality!?!?!?!
Equality Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
handyre? i’m kinda busy signing the petition. Go look it up yourself. Lazy!
You must have a very long name. You brought up the prior to DOMA issue in reference to marriage and INDIVIDUALS so thought burden of proof should be yours. Maybe our mensa friend can help out here.
J, how do you know what you know? Did you live the lives of the millions of gay and lesbian Americans who know that the ONLY THING THEY CHOSE was to live their lives honestly and openly.
You know nothing, J, other than your own experience in life.
Millions of gay Americans will tell you they were born that way including me. It’s as NATURAL to us as your heterosexuality is to you. If sexuality is a choice, please enlighten us with the day you decided to push aside your homosexual feelings and choose heterosexuality.
We’re waiting, oh knowledgeable one.
chris— you’re practicing BEASTIALITY. That’s against the law. Homosexuality is not.
Learn something.
why don’t the YES on 8 want the change of the California Constitution to be a revision? If you guys are so sure that the majority of CA voters agree with your vote, start the process the fair way to exclude a group the same rights that you are entitled to when you marry.
Imagine if we would have voted whether or not to free slaves. Just because a majority of people wanted to keep slavery, would that have made it right? Something to think about.
Ignorance abounds on this issue - on both sides of the argument.
1. Domestic Partners do NOT have 100% of the same rights as married couples. Some rather significant ones are missing.
2. Even if gay marriage were legal in CA they STILL would not have 100% of the rights of different sex married couples because CA law has no effect on Federal Law, particular since the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed (including a Aye vote by President Elect Obama and numerous other Democrat politicians.
The one writer I most agree with (cutting through all the pro and con hyperbole that does nothing to help) is
“Louf Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Here’s a solution:
First , the state shoud not license “marriage”. Marriage has a historical religious base. One could argue the separation of church and state, but it would be a stretch.
But, if the state licensed domestic partnerships (sexual orientation wouldn’t matter), then the marriage issue becomes one for each church to decide.
I supported Prop 8 because of personal morals and beliefs. That doesn’t make me a bigot (look up the definition). But, if the state licensed domestic partnerships and everyone had the exact same rights, then let each church decide who would be “married” at their alters.
I think it works.”
This is the same system that is used in France. Domestic Partnerships are formed by the state. Those who wish to be “married” first enter into a Domestic Partnership, the only kind the state recognizes. If a marriage ceremony is performed it is done so by the Church and is purely symbolic. It does not convey ANY additional rights to the couple.
At that point the battle becomes one of strictly semantics and nothing else. I suspect however that even then some on both sides will not be satisfied, but the “equal rights” argument evaporates immediately.
After all, marriage was originally a religious institution not a legal one. The state really has no business getting involved with it at all.
Deshard,
OK… I’ll grant you that some gays may be that way genetically.
There are birth defects such as hemorphoditism.
And homosexuality could be a minor form of that.
I doubt that is a big percentage of gays.
When I was young I had some homosexual encounters with my best friend. It was quite enjoyable. Since I was single the only sexual release I had was solo and sharing with a friend was better than solo. We even did some oral.
Yes, it was fun. I can see how gay’s get pleasure from sharing lives. I know it’s not all about the sex, it’s about love. I still have love for my friend.
But I chose not to go that way.
And I believe that for most gays it is a choice. They were in the same place I was… and made a different choice. Fine. I don’t hold it against you. But it doesn’t give you a right to take marriage and redefine it for your own.
deshard—-you sound ignorant as well…I never said anything about having sex with my animal, I simply said that I love my animal…I am not attracted to men or women, but I do want my rights just like every one else is crying about…I want tax breaks and all the glory that heterosexual people are able to have, but how am I to do that when I am not attracted to men or women, but I have lots of dogs that I love with all my heart, so why cant I marry one????? Never said anything about having sex with my dog…I just want my rights…I am not hurting anyone am I…I was born like this and who are you to tell me I am wrong for feeling this??????????
This matter should have never been put to a vote in the first place.Hope it is overturned!
Gayness is a mental and emotional disease, I really believe these people must have suffered something in th womb to really think that there is nothing wrong with them
deshard - - - - - I don’t want to hear you crying about gays being able to adopt children now since you did say it is “NATURAL” for gays to be gay, then you only have to agree with that it is unnatural for gays to have children, since your bodies dont work that way…hence it is UNATURAL! homosexuality = unatural
I’m not sure about Tom but it’s no surprise that Leno would do this. He’s the same one that tried to tack on some gay legislation at the end of a bill that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue a couple of years ago. He is a gay lobbyist…make no mistake about it.
Those of you that like to state “it’s the 21st century”… well let’s examine that more carefully: Aids is most prominent among gay males and the lifestyle itself shortens the lifespan that those that partake of it. Studies in Sweden the US and Canada have all proven this. Just because people choose to partake of something doesn’t mean it’s 100% beneficial to them.
Gaining marriage is part of a politcal strategy by gay lobbyists so those that get married can go back to thier own state and sue for recognition and get more sexual orientation and gay marriage rights passed. This so called “right” is just a part of their media blitz. It’s also been proven in countries where it has passed that virtually none of them actually get married because it’s a different type of lifestyle then a hetero couple anyway.
There’s absolutely no correlation that it is a “fundamental right” that SSM couple have a right to get married. Even Elton John mentioned it should be a “civil union”. A gay radio show host commented this back when gay lobbyists overtook MA, does this mean he is a biggot too?:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml
All that really needs to be done here is expand the civil union laws to cover everything a marriage license would grant.
MA is a shining example of what will happen in CA if the “yes” vote gets overturned. The CA eduction code and so called opt out laws sit like a lame duck and their translation hinges on what the definition of marriage is. MA has an opt out law too but it no longer applies to SSM marriage because it is considered “equal” to hetero marriage so parents can no longer opt out for this reason alone. Also do you really think the gay lobbyists, Jack O’Connel and the ACLU will just kick back and do nothing if they don’t start seeing this so called “equality” preached in the text books and classrooms in short order? Get real folks…you can fool some of the people some of the time but not those who don’t want gay marriage considered the same as normal marraige. There is no shame in defending traditional marriage and no we aren’t biggots for doing so.
The name calling is part of the gay lobbyists trying to vilify their opponents. Their strategy is over 20 years old and plenty of people know about it. You can read it for yourselves in an article that was in a gay magazine and written by gay activists called Overhauling Straight America…it’s archived here:
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=9778353
Those of you that mark your signs up with “H8″, stomp on old lady’s crosses and shout incoherently at her are the ones that are hateful and you propogate your own hate towards others as you fuel your own anger with the hate you project on those that voted “yes” by your signs and ill thoughts.
Samson- Your comment about The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams was interesting. Here is another John Adam quote:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
I hope Adams was wrong and we are not on THAT path.
It is rather sad to see that so many people are blinded by inherited prejudice and an unwilling to conceive a world bigger than themselves without hatred and with equality for all. What ever happened to the American practice of living and letting live? Why are people obsessed in allowing their limited minds and hollow hearts to degrade those they perceive as less worthy than themselves. Is this the kind of values we wish to pass onto our next generation? Will America have the moral fortitude to guide the rest of the world on a path to democracy and equality if we create second class citizens among ourselves?
You take the sex away and what does homosexuality have left? They can’t reproduce, they are the largest group to transmit std’s. Without their sexual perversion they lose all identity. First they wanted civil unions, now nothing short of marriage will do. The Catholic priest-molesters belong to this group, NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association) is theirs, they demand positions as boyscout leaders (this is the same as a straight adult man demanding he lead little girls on camping trips; sick). This is the same group that is tolerant until you disagree with them.
They are targeting the Mormon Church. Guess what? The Mormons aren’t the only one’ s that voted or that know this lifestyle is completely wrong. I have no problems with “gays” doing what they do behind closed doors. I am straight and I keep it behind closed doors. No one should know my sexual escapades. No one should be allowed to parade in disgusting semi-nude outfits in public like the gay pride. The actions of homosexuals as a whole does not promote a friendly environment for children.
Historians will verify that a major fall of the Roman Empire was their open bath houses (causing many deaths and disease spreading), promotion of homosexuality, and open and informal sexual encounters. Sound familiar?. Our record breaking sexual diseases does not seem to slow our society either . They had a good excuse to continue, not having the technological advantage we have today to trace and understand the causes and sexual transmitted diseases.
The best excuse for some is to support a friend or family member. Not understanding the repercussions on societies that accept this lifestyle.
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. Society has always decided who privileges are extended to. There are still a majority who believe that this behavior is not moral and should not be granted privilege. That is not hate.
Sharon’s words embody exactly what I refer as “limited minds and hollow hearts .” She talks about marriage as a privilege, one she may have well enjoyed as she more than likely is a member of the dominant group. I am sure she is unable to see the connection between the struggles of Jews and Gypsies during the holocaust and gays today. They, too were in the minority and seen unworthy of basic privileges. Prejudice=Hate no matter how we may wish to rationalize the issue.
I’m just curious. I see lots of people saying the people voted based on good Christian values, that the country was founded by Christians, or something to these effects. Okay, I’m not Christian…why do I have to follow “Christian values” because the majority says I do. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a doctrine that specifically says that church and state are supposed to be separate? Seems to me, if you bring the church into government, then the law, amendment, etc should be overturned as being unconstitutional.
Samson,
Thanks for the good reply. Too many others on this issue let emotion over take logic. But here is where your logic is flawed, you said:
It is the XIV amendment of the US constitution that protects the rights to equality of all citizens. As the Supreme Court found in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, that all people regardless of sexual orientation had a right to privacy and equal protection under the law. This decision has basically overturned all sodomy laws through out the US.
It did over turn the sodomy laws throughout the US, but it did not address gay marriage.
As too the quote of John Adams, you are correct in its tone but not context. If you read about the issues at the time, you find he was speaking about the relationship between the two contries, not individuals.
If all we have to do is accept any lifestyle that any group wants, why don’t we just accept it. We can accept homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, marrying young children. Let’s live and let live. Our children will not be confused. Society will function just fine. Hate= prejudice; peace and love. Let’s legalize everything. Why have morals or boundaries or ethics? We need to be open to everything anyone wants, lets sign them up all up and protect them under our constitution. Let’ s do it for a friend so they don’t feel left out in society. We will need a thick book explaining all lifestyles. A book we can modify every year so that all new lifestyles are included.
California … keep voting in those good Liberal San Fransisco Democrats … 20% CA Income Tax Rates … no voting rights … you have to love em!
California has really gone to pot. We need to kick San Francisco out of the State.
Feb5,
Here is a quick history- Constitutional lesson. Separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution. The founding Fathers referred to it as in protecting religious freedoms from government intervention, not the other way around. Remember why the pilgrims fled England? ……for religious freedom. If you read the Founding Fathers’ transcript you will find bible verses; yes bible verses. If you stare at the Supreme Court building you will find the ten commandments carved into the actual building.
Opposition to homosexuality is not necessarily a “Christian” thing. There are many non-christian countries that oppose this lifestyle, not because of hate (although this may be the reason for some). Society is negatively impacted when this lifestyle is adopted and promoted within a society.
ugg me indian want to marry casino man
Chris–you’re not worth responding to. Your arguments are inane. Look it up.
In a world of six billion people is it absolutely necessary that everyone reproduce?
As long as there are straights, there’ll be gays. We don’t need to reproduce on our own.
You’re right, though, that homosexuality is unnatural. To heterosexuals. Figure it out.
Are you capable of intelligent discussion based on truth and reality and not your specious version of it?
Oh yeah, I’ll support your human-canine marraige when your dog can say “I do” and can sign the marriage license, open a bank account, etc. More specious silliness.
This issue is not about civil rights or hate. This issue is about the Freedom of Speech and Religion. All nations and states that have legalized gay marriage have also limited free speech and limited religion. “Traditional Marriage” is now considered “Hate Speech”. Churches are no longer allowed to preach that homosexuality is a sin. Ministers have been jailed for this very thing. Ministers are not allowed to perform traditional marriages because they refuse to conduct gay marriages. So who’s rights are being taken away? This vote did not change or take away any rights that the gay community already has.
Also, this is not the second time that same-sex marriage has been voted on and defeated. This issues has been presented 30 times to the population across the United States and 30 times the will of the people have spoken. No to same-sex marriage.
The opponents of Prop 8 say that the Yes on 8 only told lies. Well the so called “Lies” are actual facts from the other State and countries that allow same-sex marriage.
Marriage is the union of One man and one woman to form a family and procreate. A civil union provides the same rights and privileges without redefining marriage. Let Proposition 8 Stand as is.
The people have spoken. However, if the liberals don’t agree with the proposition then it’s challenged in court. They don’t respect majority vote.
Common Sense 2 Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Feb5,
Here is a quick history- Constitutional lesson. Separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution
Suggest you each read my post on separationof church and state issue on this earier on this threador read attached:
handyre Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Issue of Separation of Church & State in the U.S. Constitution
What the Founders Meant:
Many citizens believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” is language found in our governing documents; it is not. Concerning religion, the Constitution (specifically, the First Amendment to the Constitution) states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The words “separation,” “church,” or“state” are not found in the First Amendment, the Constitution, or in any other official founding document.
Yet, even after learning that the phrase is not part of the Constitution, many citizens nevertheless persist: “Well, even though the words aren’t there, isn’t that what the First Amendment really means? Wasn’t that the intent of those who framed that Amendment?” The answer to that question is, “No; that was not their intent”—at least not in the way that we have come to know separation of church and state today.
When the First Amendment was finally approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion, each with an independent scope of action. The first clause (called the Establishment Clause) prohibited the federal government from establishing a single national denomination; the second clause (called the Free Exercise Clause) prohibited the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. Significantly, both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of citizens. Very simply, the Founding Fathers did not want a single federal denomination to rule America (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …”), but they did expect basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society (“… nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).
Significantly, for over a century-and-a-half after the First Amendment was ratified, this was the only manner in which it was interpreted. Only recently has this interpretation taken a more liberal view even though the original intent was to not have any particular denomination in preference to another or any national religion be established.(i.e.Church of England type government in those days).
Common sense and Chris must be related because they sound similar, one just uses a lot more words to articulate (if you can call it that) the ignorance of the argument.
Common sense still doesn’t understand that homosexuality is not illegal and will never be illegal in this country. His other pet peeves are illegal: polygamy, pedophilia, etc.
Common sense mus think the world ends at his living room. His alarming uninformed remarks about AIDS show blatant and extraordinary ignorance: worldwide, AIDS has stricken far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Look it up.
Common sense is a frightened ignorant person who can’t stand that the state, nation and world are moving towards progress without him/her. He/She has to fall back on the baseless “slippery slope” arguement.
Straight people in Mass., Conn., Holland, Canada, Spain, etc. are still getting married and having children and nothing has changed about their lives. Funny, if God is mad at Mass. & Conn. why does he keep sending the hurricanes to the conservative south? The floods to the Ohio River Valley, etc.
Gays aren’t going away. Straight people keep giving birth to them.
Same-sex marriage is coming to California, maybe not tomorrow, but soon. Whether you like it or not and guess what? You’ll still be able to be as ignorant as you wish.
Handyre: what about Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaiming the “wall of separation” between church and state? What about the Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v. US (involving bigamy) that essentially laid the groundwork for further rulings that embodied Jefferson’s understanding of church and state separation. What about the myriad of cases, beginning in 1948 that directly refer to the idea of church and state separation?
Do they all mean nothing?
JC: you don’t respect the fundamentals of how our democracy works. The majority can make laws via their elected representatives. Some states allow the citizenry to make laws via ballot initiatives, but all state initiatives are subject to judicial review.
Whether you like it or not, JC, laws must meet Constitutional muster, otherwise the majority would be free to enact all kinds of unjust laws and the courts would be reduced to nothing more than being a rubber stamp.
Take a civics class, JC. Learn about how your government works. We’re a democracy but more thant that we’re a Constitutional Republic.
Look it up. Learn something.
Well said, Deshard. The fact that so many people say they’ve ‘lost faith’ in voting because the ballot they voted on is being reviewed have caused me to lose faith in much more. I’ve now lost faith in the integrity of the general assumed level of intelligence for our populace, for one.
You people all completely talk out of your rear ends. You have no clue how elections work, or democracy works. You think democracy is tantamount to majority rule and you leave it at that. You completely ignore procedure and judicial review, or pretend it doesn’t exist. Even with a majority, you can not vote ANYTHING you want into law. It doesn’t work that way. It never has been that simple, and it never will be. Government doesn’t actually operate like how your third-grade teachers told you it did, and hopefully at least some other folks in that class with you paid attention in high school. Because many of you clearly didn’t.
Prop 8 wasn’t about protecting schools as the Knights of Columbus and LDS would like everyone believe. The two organizations did a great job of instilling fears in millions of Californias and the voters fell for this posturing like a deck of cards. Prop 8 is about taking rights away from a certain sector of society, much like before the civil rights movement of the 60’s and before women had the right to vote. Civil unions are legal today and I don’t recall any schools fitting in marriage (gay or straight) in school curriculums. Hell, we have enough trouble trying to teach students not to cheat or how to punctuate a sentence correctly.
Prop 8 is seriously flawed and it’s refreshing to see that lawmakers raised the BS flag on this bigotted, collection of words spun up by a bunch of hate-mongering, right-wingers.
For those who believe Prop. 8 protected marriage, families, and children:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith
Eric…That’s right the most “diverse” vote happened to be “yes” on 8…right here in CA. The “no” campaign had everything going for it and still lost because diversity spoke and once again stated marriage is between a man and a women. Also let’s not forget that this happened in 3 state simultaniously!
Darwin,
Prop 8 passed because of misinformation spread from the core of the campaign, not because ‘diversity spoke’, whatever that means.
Darwin, you are right. Sadly, prejudice and hatred sprung from homophobia are a widespread practices in today’s America. The fact that many people fail to recognize the rights and dignity of every individual does not legitimize any attempts by a majority to overrule minorities.
gay marriage is disgusting , all homos need to be eliminated. now!!
Hey Ms Tanya Hauer;
Get a clue and read what a black writer articulates about why you cannot equate homosexaulity with skin color.
√http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81876
Deshard and Mike,
If you think your “take” on Democracy regarding Prop 8 is correct guess again. The gay activists plan is to “skip” the vote and win by judicial fiat whenever they can. On top of that proper jurisprudence by the CA government and/or courts would have been to state that voting away a “right” would have to be done through the legislative review if that’s what the constitution is really stating but it’s not! Why allow one of the most high cost initiatives ever to take place and waste everyones time and money if there was no chance on it counting to begin with? It’s because the CA Constitution does allow for the people to vote on such matters. Prop 8 is simply restoring the original wording back the way it was…it is not an overhaul of the constitution like the ACLU and other special interest groups say. The ACLU has been using nonsense arguments since the Scopes monkey trials.
Keep in mind that this is also the group that has the audacity to state that “creating” child pornography is against the law but then turn around and state but once it exists it’s protected under the 1st amendment…complete B.S.
Actually the flip side is true. Overtuning 8 will not only denounce Democracy but it will radically change what happens in the state of CA to the 98% of the population that aren’t homosexuals. In our childrens textbooks, frivalous lawsuits etc. by gay activists. Not to mention how gay couples from other states will come here, get married and then go back to their own state to demand recognition as a married couple…also part of the activists strategy.
This is really why this whole issue should be handled at the Federal level…which is also why activists are trying to defeat it in CA rather then seeing it go to the Federal court. At the Federal level marriage is still between a man and a woman. Of course Obama and a 60 senate seating may change this virtually unhindered.
Gays are still free to marry under the constraints of the Prop 8 constitutional amendment. All the amendment does is DEFINE a marriage as between a man and a woman. If a gay man wants to marry, he can do so. If a gay woman wishes to marry, she can do so. They just have to do so with EACH OTHER! hehe.
A previous poster was right in that gays had 40%ish of married rights under the domestic partner laws. Things excluded? The right to bring mail order “brides” from foreign countries. And other far-fetched “rights” that most people never would consider taking advantage of.
If Prop 8 is overturned be prepared for a severe backlash against liberals and Democrats in CA. They run the risk of angering their base support group of Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities who usually vote for more government, EXCEPT when it comes to this. I think it would be hilarious to and well-deserved to recall those judges and replace about 60% of the state legislature.
aren’t these jokers supposed to be working on the budget instead of wasting time-its already at the supreme court–we need to get rid of these leaders they have already hurt califorina enough-balance the budget already
what’s next for the wierdo san francisco politicians. gay, lesbian, TS, TG… man marries a dog? woman marries a cat? how about marriage between a snail and a gay man? what’s the limit?
How is Prop 8 a “human rights” issue? I imagine that once the gays get this overturned, other marginal groups will follow suit and challenge the definition of marriage and use “human rights” as an argument. I imagine bisexual, threesome marriages will follow soon. What if someone practices beastiality, should they be allowed to marry their dog or horse? Oh, and let’s not forget the polygamist marriages either. Being gay is a choice, just like being a serial killer, or a pedophile. People CHOOSE these lifestyles. BUT wait, pedophiles need their “human rights” too. Right? No ,WRONG!
Alright so homosexuals need to be ‘eliminated’, and the next step is man marrying a snail. The stupidity is unconscionably stronger than ever around here, I see.
Deshard Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Handyre: what about Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaiming the “wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes your references mean something but are sometimes taken out of text or not applied as the original author intented. I know the following is a long explanation of the Danbury letter but since you asked:
The inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion.
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge.
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Darwin,
1) You’re incorrect. The California Constitution was never worded in such a way. Proposition 22 altered the Civil Code, not the state constitution. If the California Constitution had originally read that way, Proposition 8 would be superfluous.
2) Your confusion between the words amendment, revision and ‘overhaul’ underlies your ignorance on the subject.
3) Your assertion that 98% of the population will be ‘radically’ affected if Prop 8 is overturned is bordering on hilarity. Especially considering your best examples provided are ‘childrens textbooks’ and ‘lawsuits’. When exactly do children begin readings textbooks about marriage, and how will this radically alter the lives of 98% of the population?
4) I find it amazingly telling how while completely ignoring my allegation that the Prop 8 campaign spread misinformation, you begin making links between the ACLU and child pornography, as though either have anything to do with Proposition 8 in California. This is a microcosm of what kind of small mind it takes to aid in the spreading of misinformation by way of ignorance and logical fallacy. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
Proponents for gay marriage seem to believe that anyone who voted for Prop. 8 lacks intelligence or understanding of this issue. We understand clearly enough to know this is not what we want as our forefront issues. Why can’t the gay community follow through with what they say.
Supposedly all they want is to be left alone to live a “full” life. The truth is they want a “shove this in your face” lifestyle. I am sick of hearing gay this, gay that. Keep it in your private life. I thought this is what you people wanted. No one is attacking the gays, it’s the in your face NAMBLA activism which makes the majority sick.
Many remarks prove the stupidity of some Republicans wannabees for not knowing what a republican form of government represents. No true Republican would ever promote complete democracy. How strange it is to listen to the wolf cry foul.
According to God Homosexual is a sin, and If you dont repent of that sin, guess were you go when you die? Men having sex with men and woman having sex with women is wrong, If it were right Men would be able to bear children and woman would be able to produce sperm. God made Adam and Eve Not Adam and steve. NO were in the bible does it say Homosexuality is right, In the bible it says it wrong, and it also says you will spend eternity in Hell if you continue in that sin. You people have a rude awakening coming. and i feel very sorry for you.
You also need to obey the law prop 8 passed so you need to abide by it and quit complaining. We Christians are praying that this prop will stay in effect, and let me tell you Prayer is a powerful thing obvious when Prop 8 won That was God saying NO TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE So you people want ot go against God, Boy are you in people in trouble . Soon the wrath of God will be upon you.
‘Common Sense’,
I don’t personally support absolutism in any case, and I’m well aware that there are reasonable people on both sides. The problem, however, is that the most prominent arguments on the ‘Yes’ side are simply built upon a foundation of false logic. The fact that the campaign itself supported and propagated this makes it a very difficult ‘victory’ for me to accept, slim majority or not.
You’ve said they want a ’shove this in your face’ lifestyle. But Prop 8 was created by same-sex marriage opponents, so such a criticism can easily be reversed if viewed objectively. They have every right to tell you they’re gay, just as you have every right to tell them you’re straight. But to tell them to ‘keep it in your private life’ is a statement of control, and is a right you do not have. Unfortunately, however, many from your side of the yard seem to think you do, which I think is a core concern of this and related issues. Frankly, I blame people like you for the very same behavior they exhibit that you’re sitting here complaining about.
Birdman,
Have you really not advanced between the ‘Adam and Steve’ phrase? Really?
We need to have freedom from perverse knowledge. Homosexual activists should not be distributing books that promote their agenda to children. Before the gay proponents attack me as a liar, a neighbor left a book “Sarah has two mommies” at our doorstep for my children. This is inexplicable, why would a stranger attempt to impose their sick beliefs on a child that is not their own. I guess if they can adopt, a full time indoctrination can occur. I would never target someone’s child, even a homosexual’s child and teach them my beliefs. It is the right of a parent only, not the state, not in your face homosexual activists.
Homosexuals do not respect anyone’s boundaries. Our church shared with a group of gay adults. All they had to do is ask our group to leave and they would have been left alone. Instead they retaliated with a streaker at our service the following Sunday. What kind of response is this? Whatever happened to clean arguments? Disagreements? Do kids in attendance matter? Who cares? It’s a gay agenda that must be pushed onto others.
I believe a big reason Prop 8 passed was due to the type of commercials opponents of the measure produced. Straight out lies. No one is going to your house and search for your marriage license. Why did opponents of Prop 8 not produce a commercial with men kissing? Women kissing? Early on they produced a commercial that seemed to relate to heterosexuals. Why not be true to yourselves and show the same sex couples locking lips? Is it because it’s more than most of us can stomach? If you did produce one there would have to be a minute delay with a warning for children and those with weak constitutions to leave the room or change the channel.
You don’t seem to exhibit as much common sense as you’re name suggests here. A moment ago you complained about the idea that gay marriage proponents think ‘anyone’ against it lacks intelligence. You had a reasonable complaint about an absolutism based on an extreme minority. Yet you’re using the alleged distribution of a book by one neighbor to judge the entirety of homosexuals and their supporters. NEITHER side is entirely free from nut jobs, idiots, or those who lack reason. THAT…is true common sense, and I implore you to consider that fact next time.
The ‘No’ campaign was well aware that no member of the Mormon Church was going to physically remove a ring or marriage license. The commercial was entirely symbolic and anyone with an IQ above room temperature could have figured that out, so your assertion that it was a flat out lie is a stretch at best.
The lies were the ‘Yes’ campaign using arguments rife with slippery slope and red herring logical fallacies. ‘Prop 8 = Free Speech’? No, it doesn’t. That’s a lie. “Prop 8 = Religious Freedom”? No, it doesn’t. That’s a lie. “Prop 8 = Parental Rights?” No, it doesn’t. That’s a lie.
And so what if they had to change the channel or leave the room? Nobody said I have to enjoy watching two men kiss in order to support what I believe is their right to marry one another. My personal feelings toward homosexuality our completely independent of what I feel they should be able to do under the law. THAT is true common sense, and I highly suggest you try it out some time.
Sorry Mike I did explain things a bit hasty but my points are still valid:
Prop22 changed the wording, the judges over-ruled, Prop8 changed it back…my point is still valid…if this is a radical change to the state constitution then proper jurisprudence would have caught it at least before prop 8 was allowed on the ballot if not back at Prop22. We have legal spin doctors at work here.
You can’t seem to add two and two together. My example of the ACLU’s view on child pornography is to show how ridiculous they are and how they are master manipulators and insidious in nature. This does have bearing on the hijinks they pull in court and I do believe they are involved in some of the lawsuits against prop 8. Sorry point still valid!
CA eduction codes 51890 (health) 51933 (sex) states K-12 will be taught about marriage and sexual health. Whether it is a textbook that children read…a teachers version with SSM in it or materials provided by a visiting outside gay activist group…if SSM is “equal” then opt out goes out the window. Also if the activists don’t see their material and views disimminating their perverted philosophy fast enough they will begin complaining to good ol Jack O’Connell or suing school districts to see things go their way and if Prop 8 is canceled they will have even more of a legal “license” to do so. Point still valid
Stop worrying about semantics and get a clue.
There is nothing “gay” about the homosexual lifestyle. I do not hate gays, in fact, i have many friend that live this type of lifestyle. I do feel sad for those that choose this type of life.
From my observations, the homosexual community is not looking for rights as much as acceptance. I think this would make them feel better about the lifestyle they know deep inside is not right. Many that have chosen this life have been through some type of trauma. Many times a sexual one or a parent’s rejection.
Homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, alcoholism, and many other sin types. Unfortunately homosexuality is usually a sign that society is at the bottom. Many of the other sins have been accepted and a culmination wrongful acts will drag this and any other society to the sewer.
Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Currently we live in a society that supposedly can’t help prevent their own actions. Everything is a disease, we have no control. Child molestation, alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality. All are caused naturally, we were born this way. It’s not your fault don’t fight it, take some medication or justify it. We truly are living in perilous times.
Fortunately everyone can be saved from these chains that bind us. For those who believe life ends after death, think again. That’s when your eternal life begins
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What i said Mike is what i said, and i dont care what you say or think, I know i am right when it comes to this subject matter, You really dont want to mess with me cause you will lose every time
Birdman, I know. There are plenty of nut jobs out there and you can’t change their minds. Especially when their bible trumpery lacks an ounce of ecumenicism. Have a nice evening.
MIke Like i said you dont want to mess with me on this subject matter, You also have a nice evening
Darwin, you repeating the same drivel again and again doesn’t make them any more valid than they were before. I can see you’re having trouble or suffer from some kind of reading disability, so I’ll take one step at a time here:
Prop 22 changed the wording of the CIVIL CODE, not the state CONSTITUTION. Follow that so far? See, the Civil Code and California Constitution are two different entities. The judges invalidated it based on our California Constitution, so opponents went and changed the constitution. Legal spin doctoring, but by your side, so I guess it’s okay then?
So, no, your point wasn’t valid because you were completely wrong, and clearly have no clue as to what you’re talking about. I strongly suggest that you sit back and read this a few times before utilizing the keyboard again.
Mike…again you cannot seem to add things together. The Yes on 8 commercial are not slippery slope arguments. MA is the shining example of what is already happening. Parental rights are eroded if SSM is treated equal to hetero marriage. Religious freedom will be challenged even more then it already is if a church shares a public facility but does not want to perform SSM…hello why is this so difficult for you to see?
The no on 8 commercial had Jack O’Connel stating half truths…true prop 8 itself is not about eduction but failure of its passage will cause SSM to be treated as “equal” eventually in all classroom presentations. Rewording of textbooks will take place even more so then they already are from SB777. The prison camp commercials and they way the bulk of the “no” commercial implied that if you vote anything other then “no” you should be ashamed are the lies.
There’s no shame in protecting traditional marriage from activists that are really just trying to use it as a legal stepping stone for further gains in both CA and the rest of the country.
Birdman, I read it the first time, and I’m no more intimidated by you now that I was before.
Take care.
Darwin,
I said red herring AND slippery slope argumentation, and I highly suggest you research what they are before responding in detail.
Amazing how many defenders of marriage are going to jail for raping women, molesting little girls, and bigamy. The same people who spout off about how others are going to burn in hell are usually just common criminals themselves. Perverts hiding behind god. Halleulah Tony Alamo you’ll find a different meaning of marriage once you start your prison sentence.
Mike,
How can you separate what you know is wrong from how you vote. If you can’t stand to see to men kiss, it’s because it’s wrong. You seem to have a need to accept this for a friend? A family member? these are not good reasons to accept something.
You seem to believe that one gay agenda book targeting children was printed, maybe they printed countless others for adults? They would never force their belief on anyone else. Right? In Canada it is hate speech to disagree with homosexual marriage and lifestyle. This must be a figment of my imagination. I must be a bigot for pointing out facts, these are not fiction. I hope you agree a 100% with their lifestyle, because if homosexual marriage passes, it will not stop there. Their “rights” will infringe on anyone who disagrees and re-education in our public schools, government offices, etc………
This is not a live and let live issue. They have all the freedom that could be needed, unless of course they need to push onto the rest of society. “Like it or not”, famous words from the San Francisco Mayor. Gavin Newsom.
Common,
I appreciate the effect of putting words in one’s mouth, but that won’t fly with me. I didn’t say it was wrong, I said I don’t want to see it. That I don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I don’t want to see my grandparents during sex…is that ‘wrong’ too?
I don’t feel that I’m in the position to tell somebody they can’t do something because I don’t personally like watching men kiss. I have the ability to put freedom and liberty above personal feelings, and many people are apparently far more incapable of such a simple thing than I originally thought. This is unfortunate. But that’s not what a free society is suppose to do, majority or not. Sorry.
And no, I never said only one book was printed. I said you’re judging homosexuals and those who support same-sex marriage based on one neighbor. I know and appreciate the fact that it’s late at night, but I highly suggest you actually read what I wrote before responding.
These are facts? You said one, and it’s in an entirely different country. This is just another example of how you guys are completely incapable of staying on topic without falling victim to red herring argumentation. Is it really that difficult?
Just because the majority voted for something, doesn’t make it right.
What if the majority of voters felt they don’t want to pay taxes and had a vote to eliminate them. Should it be allowed?
What if the majority felt threatened by Muslims and voted that they not be allowed rights in CA. Should it be allowed?
The constitution was written to protect the interests of all citizens, not just the majority. What if you were targeted next. Wouldn’t you want your rights protected?
If prop 8 is overturned watch for the gay activist to start attacking the church. They will demand that all churches must allow gay marriages. If prop 8 is overturned, it will be very easy for them to do it. Gay activist will not be happy until everyone is silenced about their life style. This is just one step closer to silencing the churches.
This is not about anyone losing any rights. They have the same rights under a civil union. The voters have said we define marriage as between a man and a woman. Who’s taking away anyones rights?
Mike…yes I know prop 22 changed the wording and prop 8 changed the constitution and that they are two separate entities…I hastened my sentence and said “changed back” which was silly of me. I know what I voted for on both counts. We went above the judges ruling and amended the constitution with Prop 8 and I couldn’t be more happier.
Yes I do know what a red herring argument is as well as a slippery slope. However your statement was that the Prop 8 adds were rife with lies using such arguments which simply is not true in the slightest. Sweden, Canada, MA are all real life examples of what has already happened and will happen as sexual orientation and SSM legislation is passed in a favorable manner.
When 8 is over turned we march to Washington to get the Marriage Defense Act repealed.. I hope the a slim majority of the people would agree with me that the church should be taxed like every other business.
You know, before all of you MORALLY SUPERIOR bible thumping bigots get started lecturing ME about what is “morally right,” or what is “perverse,” perhaps you should take a look at the fact that heterosexual men are 100 times more likely to molest chidren than homosexual men! I have taken pride in personally arresting more than a few child molesters, and not ONE has been a gay/lesbian individual…instead it’s been “daddy” or “uncle Johnny,” or “mommy’s boyfriend.” So perhaps instead of justifying your bigotry against gays and lesbians by saying “we straight people need to protect our children by denying gay people the right to marry,” you repressed, religious straight men should “protect” your children from yourselves by staying out of their bedrooms at night!! Get the facts before you start spewing your hate-filled LIES.
Oh and another thing, here’s a newsflash: your kids ARE going to learn about being gay, period…especially since a portion of them will be GAY themselves!! Now they can either learn about it in a structured learning environment (even though that DOESN’T happen), or they can learn about it on the street filled with misinformation toward one side or the other. And the bottom line is…kids do not care!! Children do not think it’s “weird” or “wrong” at all for two people of any gender to love each other until the idiotic adults in their life tell them it is, and program them to spread their agenda! More than 16,000 adopted children (created by careless over-breeding hetersexuals thank you) are living with gay couples, the highest number in the NATION, but those kind people are rewarded by not being allowed to create a more permanent union and stable environment for themselves and their adopted children. NICE!!
There’s a problem with the premise of several people here. That is the premise that state-recognized marriage is a civil right. It is not. It is a legal entitlement. In order to enter into a legal marriage, there are certain restrictions that apply. Those restrictions are: it is limited to two persons. Those two persons must not already be in a marriage. Those two person must be of legal age. Those two persons may not be blood related. Those two person must be of opposite gender.
Unless one believes that the limit of marriage to two people is a civil rights violation, or that excluding people who are brother/sister, or parent/child a civil rights violation, then you cannot consider the limitation of marriage between two persons of opposing gender a civil rights violation.
“If 2 people that want to get married then we should let them, no matter race, religous beliefs, sexual orientation, what planet they are from”
Again, with this thinking, we might as well let incestual couples get married too. After all, if 2 people want to get married, we should let them.
I’m curious ~ where did the word “gay” come from??
My brother died of AIDS in 1986…..I went to visit him on his death bed and let me tell you there was nothing “gay” about him! Skin drapped over a skeleton…………you tell me.
Same comments, new article to post about…
Pro 8 people say “we voted get over it”, toss out useless religious arguments, and try to play the “for procreation” card over and over.
Anti 8 people yell biggot, biased, racist, and other useless names.
Someone come up with a NEW argument for or against already…
And yes, I am straight, married, have kids, christian, and voted No on this issue because I have not heard a single decent argument from the Yes on 8 people to justify the “separate but semi-equal” concept.
I seem to remember life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a “if you are heterosexual” rider.
Mike, I have a doctorate from USC and I voted yes on Prop 8. Intelligent people voted for Prop 8, my friend. My argument stands that we are on a slippery slope. Why can’t civil unions, which give gays the same rights be good enough for gays? Clearly marriage has been between one man and one woman for centuries. Marriage manifested itself from the church, not the state. Civil unions should suffice. Why can’t gays just accept equal rights via civil unions, if this is really a “human rights” issue? I tell you why, because it’s not. Gays want it all. 10% of the population wants to change the moral fabric for the other 90%. I still stand by my argument that other marginal groups will follow suit and request a marriage license (mark my word on this one).
A group of young heterosexual adults I met at at university told me they are not going to get married until their homosexual friends are allowed to marry. They are just going to live together. They taught me a new word -heterosexism. I don’t really care about same sex marriage, but I would be really sad if young heterosexual adults stopped getting married.
Mike ,
If you can’t stand to see two men kiss, how is a child going to react? I’m an adult, and like you, I don’t care to see this type of activity. Didn’t they used to say what they do in private is no one’s business? Somehow this has become public in your face time.
I can see that you are trying hard not to be a bigot, but not accepting homosexual marriage does not make you one. A big part of my opposition is protecting children. Unfortunately, the Catholic church decided against protecting children, and turned a blind eye.
Who do you think runs NMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? Why do gay men want to lead boyscout leaders? I would never demand through the courts that I lead little girls out on a camping trip. Michael Jackson has made a good point against this.
I guess some parents will allow their children attend overnight excursions, even though they might not like it, just to be politically correct.
THERE IS NO TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY.Rights do not come from nor are they contingent on the will of the “majority.Rights are self evident and ineliable.You can’t vote away anyones rights!!!This is not the soviet union!!!
Government should not discriminate between adult couples who want to commit their lives to each other, end of story. If religious folks are freaked out by that, then why not create special “holier” marriages in churches/temples/whatever? That way, you can discriminate to your heart’s content and feel all safe and superior. “My marriage is godlier than yours, nyaaaah!” Because that is what you’re saying, and you want the government to put a smiley face sticker on it. Grow up.
If it were a civil right, like race, or gender we would not have multiple marriages. In contrast we are only guaranteed to practice whatever religion we choose without interference, so we can try different religions if we want to. As such, marriage is a legal definition with legal implications. Perhaps the “domestic partners” definitions need to be fixed but leave the current definition of marriage alone. As Mark Twain wrote ” We can’t overturn the order of things to accommodate the buzzard”.
It is a shame that we all have to live in this Country in 2008 and still have to go trough all this discrimination. Wake up everyone. There is a gray side. I read most of the comments below and it is a shame how ignorant some people are.
1st. God loves everyone equally.
2nd. Marriage is a union between to people who love each other. It does not have a face rather a feeling.
3rd. We as humans have to really try to accept one another and know that we come in different sizes, colors, feelings, believes etc. It’s all about respect. It is the only way we can grow and learn. It is the only way we will not destroy each other.
If people voted to outlaw marriage between Germans, for example, and it passed, the courts would never allow it. Even if it passed 50 propositions, the courts would shoot it down every time. They are there to protect the rights of minorities. We have a right to vote on many things, but taking away the rights of others is not one of them. Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place.
Even if for some reason the courts uphold prop 8, the vast majority of people under 30 (my generation) see nothing wrong with gays or gay marriage, so anything the older generation does will eventually be undone by the younger group.
Gays are not a minority group like African Americans, because same sex attraction is a choice, not a condition at birth. There are no longitudinal studies proving that there is a Gay Gene. Even the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics state that same sex attraction is complex. Therefore, discrimination against a minority did not occur when Proposition 8 passed.
Those who voted for Proposition 8 do not necessarily hate gays. Even Elton John, who as everyone knows is gay, supported Propostion 8.
Proposition 8 helps children to know how to contribute to society, because if they do not know that the most constructive families for society are only headed by a man and a woman, then the human race will eventually cease to exist.
In the past, marriage has been defined differently. When society has allowed families to demoralize, then the society has been overthrown and invaded. The family is the most important unit in society.
Law makers who do not appreciate these issues are not looking out for society. They are trying to gain power. They want their own selfish motives to be accepted, when they actually do not accept themselves.
Everyone needs to watch this. HILARIOUS!
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3392,n,n
Birdman191 Says:
Just wanted to let you know that God loves everyone equally and God created gays. You say God created Adam and Eve well he ALSO created Adam and Steve. YES, that is right and I am living proof. My boyfriend Adam and I are much in love and guess what?! I’m Christian. I read the Blible and go to Church. I take from it what feels right in my heart. I have the best relationship with God and that is why I have such a great, happy life. You say things like “Soon the wrath of God will be upon you.”
Wow, I feel sorry for you. You must not know God at all. God is loving not a punisher! I think you may be worshipping the wrong thing..
The Bible was written many many years ago. It has been translated from language to language time and time again. Things get misunderstood in between.
You say; “You people have a rude awakening coming. and i feel very sorry for you. ”
No you have a rude awakening coming and I feel very sorry for YOU!
You will now be blessed with a Gay child who will change your life.
why should gays pay taxes if we are not allowed to marry?heterosexuals don’t have to have a gay marriage this is their right. What a shame to live in one of the best countries in world and we can’t afford to give people equal rights
Being gay is not a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual. More than likely you did not. However we choose who we wish to love
If you ask me neglect by society wether or not to give equally rights is worse than what happened to the slaves. I am glad their is no comparison
There never was nor ever should be in this country a right of the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. Straight white men should be pleased about this! For they are now the majority, and would probably not fair well if their rights were put up for popular vote. As Rev. Sharpton said, “If my Civil Rights were left up to (state’s) popular vote, I’d still be a slave…”
Oops. I meant “white straight men are now in the MINORITY…”
And DSR, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice, then you are in essence, saing YOU made a choice. So you are telling us all that you are or were attracted to the same sex, but chose to be heterosexual? If you say no, then you are contradicting yourself. You can’t have it both ways: either it was a choice for all of us or none of us…unless you are somehow concluding that for some bizarre unscientifically possible reason, its a choice for gay people, but not for “abnormal” people like yourself? Hmmmm. Methinks you need to work on your “theory.”
And DSR, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice, then you are in essence, saying YOU made a choice. So you are telling us all that you are or were attracted to the same sex, but chose to be heterosexual? If you say no, then you are contradicting yourself. You can’t have it both ways: either it was a choice for all of us or none of us…unless you are somehow concluding that for some bizarre unscientifically possible reason, its a choice for gay people, but not for “abnormal” people like yourself? Hmmmm. Methinks you need to work on your “theory.”
BIRDMAN, once again, the Bible also says it is a sin to wear fabric of mixed cloth–but are we still damning people who wear polyester? If we are, then anyone who lived through the seventies is doomed to the underworld. And cheeseburgers–eating the cow with the product of the cow (that would be milk, cheese, etc) is also a sin. And let’s not forget your right to take slaves from neighboring countries–how many Canadian and Mexican slaves do you have?
The Old Testament had a great many rules to ensure the survival of small, easily-wiped-out tribes like the Jews. Pork carried disease which we can now test for, so we don’t fllow that one anymore. Similarly, overpopulation is now a problem, not UNDERpopulation…get it? If we are to follow the purpose of the Bible, to preserve us, then overpopulation being the problem today means maybe heterosexuals should lose some rights…how does the shoe fit on the logical other foot, birdman? And where are these mythological gays that want to throw their happiness in the faces of (presumably) unhappy heterosexuals? I am not even sure what their motive would be, but I am sure you can come up with some ridiculous theory.
..And DSR, there are very conclusive “gay hormone differences” studies being done, one that was recently on TV, regarding hormones released in the womb…particularly when the mother is carrying her 3-5 male fetus…
…And “Commonsense,” NAMBLA is not between consenting adults, and is not condoned, supported or otherwise by LGBTA. They are not allowed in Pride parades, nor do gay, etc. distributors carry their publications (I worked for such a co. and know this firsthand). And I could just as easily ask about how straights can let straight priest-pedophiles preach to them…in fact, you religiosos support your pedophiles financially!
…and before you try and argue that pedophiles are gay, read the records that 90% of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual. They simply find male children more accessible, because our society tends to guard its daughters more. In Catholic church, only boys are allowed to be altar boys…terribly easy-access.
I have a very interesting question with the defeat of doma does that gay will be allowed to marry. if some one got married in massachusettes or connecticut will the feds be forced to recognize it. I was just wondering seems like a good question
ON SALE! Due to the poor economy, slaves are for sale HALF PRICE at BIRDMAN’S church! That’s right! Canadians that are perfect for the cold plantations–oops–farms of Wisconsin! Mexican slaves that are great if your farm or home is in the southern climes! And if you live in the middle or, say, New England, you can breed ‘em and get a mix of cold weather/warm weather bloodlines!! HURRY, because the rule of the Bible is running out sooooon!
Responding to Tim’s question: Marriages in CT. and Mass are not recognized by the feds, nor has there been any push that way. But in Britain, the military started recruiting gays during the first gulf war, so I do believe it is having a national effect there. They found that gays made more reliable, longterm soldiers with better morale…go figure. Guess they read up on what made the Roman army so good it kicked their Anglo butts back in the day–lol. Yes, the Roman army encouraged/recruited homosexual soldiers/homosexuality (although they had no name for it like that–no “marginalizing term, so to speak) to prevent the rape and pillaging of the countries that they wanted to absorb into their empire. Worked darn well. Wasn’t until they allowed private ownership of armies by the wealthy that things went awry. On another interesting note, they (British) hired the “Stonewall” association to develop their gay recruitment advertisements.
p.s.
Just to explain the Roman “method” (in all fairness to straight men), straight soldiers were separated from their wives for sometimes years at a time. This made them a bit lonely, bitter, etc., and they often raped the girls and women of the places they invaded. But Rome wanted to abosrb these places under a deal of “taxation and protection.” Hard to sell the “protection” promise when they need protection from your soldiers. Gay soldiers had their companions fighting right next to them, so they did not turn to abusing the locals to satisfy their needs. And they fought like the devil for each other. Hence, the success of the Roman empire.
Sharon Anderson, did you not learn when taught how to write a research report in, say, sixth grade, that your sources can NOT be your own head/butt? Marriage did NOT originate in ANY church, but rather in the King’s court, or a father’s sitting room. It was a political/monetary exchange–women/bloodline vs. money/peace/power that existed LONG before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., and certainly also before Judeo-Christianity. Your email shows a narcissism of personal ignorance which began the revolutionary war (i.e., King George).
And btw, sharon, did you know your “mark my words” was spoken by earlier evangelistas fighting against civil rights? In fact, they are pulling out that quote all over the place to mourn the election of a black man. Congrats.
p.s. And just for the record, it was the establishment of Christianity that contributed the final blow to the Roman Empire. Constantine up and abandoned Rome for the Gauls to ransack in favor of Constantinople, now a Muslim city…if I am correct on that recent bit. So much fighting over the centuries there that I have lost track.
In conclusion, it was the Christians who ultimately destroyed the Roman Empire, not gays. Funny how the ignorant bigots like to turn that completely around. The fall of Rome led to centuries of suffering at the hands of barbarians for many, the end of respectable civilization, and democracy for a very long time. If they have their way, they will do it again. As Socrates and Cicero command us: DO NOT let IGNORANCE doom us to a repetition of the PAST!
On a fair note to Catholics though, Catholics did introduce and encourage literacy to the masses of common folk. Let us hope such people will practice that gift from them and USE IT. So we don’t fall like Rome.
cjp,
You seem to have anger issues. Why can’ t agree to disagree? For a group that claims to be tolerant, you seem anything but. I have the right, as do the millions who voted for Prop 8; to say NO to your lifestyle in our lives. We will never accept it, even if the legislators push it through. You can’t legislate our beliefs. You will never find acceptance from the majority.
who wants the majorities accetance people who pay taxes should be afforded equaly rights. who needs approval. sanctity of marriage my ass. why don’t these religious nut jobs ban divorce if they care about the instition?
In what way does me getting married effect your marriage?
Will you still be allowed to marry. The answer is YES
Well if marriage is a joke, why do you fight so hard for it? We are religious nut jobs because we don’t approve of your lifestyle? There are many atheist, Muslims, agnostics and others that don’t agree with your lifestyle, deal with it, and move on. Quit trying to force your beliefs on others.
I am not asking you to live as I do. All I am asking you to do is keep it in your pants during your parades and keep your lifestyle behind closed doors as many of societies respectable groups do.
Anger? I may be intolerant of intolerance, and of ignorance passed off as righteousness, but that is because I am a proud American disappointed by my fellow Americans–no, afraid for all of us because of the “exceptions to the rule of law and freedom and…etc.” that individuals try to make for people they don’t care for–but that is the limit of my “anger.” I was raised Catholic, help take care of my aging nun-aunts (who support me and hope I marry the same-sex love of my life before they pass), and am also thus disturbed at how many people use the Lord’s name in vain. I never wish to legislate your beliefs. But I disagree that gays won’t find acceptance for the majority. The majority of people beneath 45 (?), 70%, voted against prop 8. The rest will die off soon…such is the way of old age and old prejudices. Who knows when I am old what I will “hate.” May my own prejudices die with me, too, though. Especially if they require the degradation of the principles of this country.
But, CommonSnse, thanks for your words of warning. I will watch my tone more, because the anger that burns outward burns inward, too (I think Virgil said that in the Aeneid, yes?). BTW, the man that almost beat me to death–I gave him a ride home once he realized the near-terrible error of his ways, and maybe ultimately what intolerance breeds is what makes me a little angry. You think your ideas only sway people’s thoughts but they don’t. They bring violence and scapegoating.
p.s.
Christians should know this if they bothered to read…Nero simply wanted to re-create the city, so he blamed Christians for his men’s burning of it, rebuilt it with his palace where he wanted it, and used the Christian scapegoats as human torches to light his gardens. Nobody complained. You’d think they would be the last to encourage inequality…
Christians should know this if they bothered to read…Nero simply wanted to re-create the city, so he blamed Christians for his men’s burning of it, rebuilt it with his palace where he wanted it, and used the Christian scapegoats as human torches to light his gardens. Nobody complained. You’d think they would be the last to encourage inequality…
Tim,
The cornerstone of any healthy society is a faithful marriage union between a man and a woman. I know traditional marriages have not been the example that we should be, divorces have skyrocketed, negatively affecting many. Being raised by a single parent was rough enough, I could not imagine the confusion of having two dads or moms.
In Canada where homosexuality is legalized, it is illegal to speak out against this type of lifestyle. Those who disagree do not have a right in that country. A pastor was arrested for reading the bible.
I accept your disagreement with my beliefs and would never try to force you into my lifestyle. I would be the first to stand up for you if the government forced my belief onto you. Manufacturing a belief for the populace does not accomplish anything, only creates anger.
Because, commonsense, marraige is a wonderful recognition among family and freinds–to celebrate your love union with another–it is a matter of respect for something you hold dear, and civil unions are not equal (see the actual laws on it.). And b/c we know from segregation that “separate but equal” implies “lesser” and “disrespect.”
And well-said, Tim!
…but I challenge you to give me the info on this preacher that got arrested. However, Canada does censor books going into their country, including a woman’s health book called “Our bodies ourselves” because it has scientific diagrams of female body parts. If he did get arrested, I nor the gay people I know do not condone it. I would fight for your right to say you hate me as much as gays’ rights to equal rights.
And I disagree, Commonsense, that the union of of man and woman is the healthy cornerstone of the Earth anymore. China certainly doesn’t–their rivers are going officially “extinct b/c of overpopulation. You should celebrate us because we won’t have tons of unplanned children, leaving you to bree to your heart’s content! In fact, how about we write in a deal to gay marriage–for every gay couple that does not reproduce, a straight couple who they vouch for can have as many as they want–oops, wait, that would only work in China, whom we are quickly mimicking with this communist prop 8….
…and as far as “forcing beliefs” on you–lemme tell ya if one more straight woman tries to pass herself off to me as a lesbian for a little excitement, I am going to be pissed. I don’t want to “recruit” anybody b/c gay is not a choice and I am not a toy. “Gaydar” is actually real, and I am not interested in a fling with someone who is not really gay. B/c I would rather have a long-lasting relationship with someone who is also gay. Does that relieve some of your fears? It is the straight “players” that can be a problem…in fact, go ahead and call them sinners. They are after something “exotic,” sexually, and I find that outside of my tastes and morals.
cjp,
I’m sorry to hear of your terrible beating / fighting experience. Your kind act is amazing. I am not saying you are a second class or lesser being. All I am saying is that I disagree with your lifestyle as you may with mine. Never would I condone violence against anyone.
cjp,
I sense your sincerity and honesty. Unfortunately, we will never agree on this subject. You have a good evening.
“Outside my tastes and morals” meaning deception. I don’t think anybody will defend anyone’s right to be deceptive. If they do, I’ll probably find myself on your side.
You too.
BTW, Common,if you are still on, let me say I too was against homosexuality as a Christian, and people said I got my just rewards when I came of an age to realize I WAS gay. Since then I have realized that, despite the plans I had for myself, God had other ones. And they certainly didn’t include depriving a husband (my then-boyfriend) of a partner who felt the passion and connection that he deserved.
In essence, I did the most truly Christian thing, which was to accept God’s will, Common, and not attempt to live a lie that would hurt others. I believe–as I think you do likewise–that if there are a set of pearly gates, I will be in the position to have to feel love and forgiveness enough defend you, not vice versa.
For the Record: Rome was a Republic, not a Democracy. And so are we. Just checked with my local professor of Roman history…
I keep hearing that homosexuality is a lifestyle. Such assertion is an ill-conceived notion that has been passed on by those insensible, hate-driven individuals in our midst. If people could only open their minds and hearts, perhaps they would realize that no one voluntarily chooses to become a target of hate and ignorance. One’s sexual orientation / constitution is innate and totally natural to the individual. Heterosexuals and homosexuals were born that way and no one can make anyone change their sexual identity. Keep in mind that homosexuals are not born from homosexuals, but from heterosexual parents.
I bow to you, Daniel (just left my dojo). You are a man of eloquence. And of even spirit. I strive to achieve your tone. If I can’t, I am afraid I am forced to throw them over my shoulder (ippon seio naggi) like I did with the man that screamed about how Allah hates “fags” and attacked me from behind. Fortunately, “Daddy” Orleans, the elder black man, made sure all the black youth converged to block his getaway–to apologize–so I didn’t have to do something that every nerve in my body never wants to do. Foolish man tried to offer him his wallet–thinking that a crew of black men MUST wanna mug him. All they wanted was a promise of respect for the inhabitants of our Chicago hood. Is that so hard? Oy, I am at a cross roads. My father deigned many of our weapons of mass-destruction, and in his guilt needs me to live a life of peace. But amongst the bigots, it is a hard promise to make, so I have not.
“designed”, not “deigned”.
cjp1 _ I share your disappointment and pain in how our fellow Americans fail to recognize the humanity in everyone. Just keep in mind that the younger generation is our hope for a better and more equitable place for all of us. It truly is a difficult endeavor to remove the veils that cloud people’s erroneous perceptions of those who are perceived to be different. Hatred soaks this veil in fear and ignorance. Let us keep the dialog open with those fair-minded individuals who are on the side of equality. Full equality is at hand at least in progressive states like ours.
cjp1: Did you read your daily Wikipedia history lesson today? Cite your source. I was a history teacher and I have a degree in history. History is falliable too-based upon the perspective and bias of the writers. I could locate as many sources which negate your “history” of marriage as for your “history” of marriage. Your insults are childish, just another reason not to take you seriously.
Agree to disagree? NO! This mentality builds a sense of complacency and this is how our country and justice systemhas slid into the state it’s in to date.
God loves Gays? Don’t use that argument as a “it’s ok to be gay because God loves me”. God also loves pedophiles, rapists, and murders, (which are also immoral and unnatural), but it doesn’t excuse the behavior.
We can’t help who we love? That’s aweak argument too. Pedophiles love little children but it’s still UNNATURAL and against the order of the body.
WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
In an interview with lifesitenews.com, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute and the scientist who headed the study, indicated that he was not at all surprised by the findings. Rather he said that it only served as further confirmation for what had long been known and other studies have already shown.
One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657). It almost exactly mirrors the findings of Cameron’s research.
The Vancouver study was conducted by a team of pro-gay researchers, who, upon finding that pro-family advocates were using the results of their research as confirmation for their beliefs about the risks of the homosexual lifestyle, issued a statement trying to curb this unintended after-effect. “The aim of our work,” said the research team, “was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that “under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” Corresponding almost exactly with Cameron’s study, the Vancouver study indicated that “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657). It almost exactly mirrors the findings of Cameron’s research.
The Vancouver study was conducted by a team of pro-gay researchers, who, upon finding that pro-family advocates were using the results of their research as confirmation for their beliefs about the risks of the homosexual lifestyle, issued a statement trying to curb this unintended after-effect. “The aim of our work,” said the research team, “was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that “under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” Corresponding almost exactly with Cameron’s study, the Vancouver study indicated that “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
Unhealthy behavior, gay sex behind HIV growth
By Chen Jia (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-11-16 06:54
Unhealthy sexual behavior is the biggest culprit in spreading HIV/AIDS on the mainland, while men who have sex with men (MSM) are now the most likely to become infected by the disease, an official with the Ministry of Health said Thursday.
“In the past, between 1 and 3 percent of MSM in the mainland had HIV/AIDS. Now it is anywhere from 2.5 to 6.5 percent,” Hao Yang, deputy chief of the disease prevention and control bureau under the Ministry of Health, said.
More than half of China’s MSM have more than one sexual partner, but only between 10 and 20 percent of them use condoms, he said.
Also, many MSM are bi-sexual, meaning they run the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS to their girlfriends, wives or children, he said.
The number of people with HIV on the mainland increased by an average 3,000 a month between January last year and June this year, according to official figures.
To fight this problem, the Ministry of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Thursday jointly launched a five-year campaign to teach MSM about preventing and controlling HIV/AIDS.
Stop using emotions and use facts for reasoning. The gay lifestyle is an unhealthy one, many studies have proved this. The life expectancy of a gay male is roughly 20 years less than a straight one. A major reason for opposing this lifestyle in our laws is for the health of our society at large.
Using a digestive organ for sex does not promote healthy living. Causing many unwanted
s that the “homosexual lifestyle” is a very disease-ridden lifestyle. (The fact that the dominant liberal media are downplaying and/or ignoring and/or censoring the following crucial information should give you a clue as to just how biased, untrustworthy, corrupt, and potentially detrimental they can be.)
For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact.”2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one’s lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one’s anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one’s body.)
Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”3
Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.4
Another study found that anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is 4 times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men.5
According to another study, the “prevalence of EBV type 2 [the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus] among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%).”6 (That virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt’s lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.)
And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection,7 hepatitis A infection,8 prostate cancer,9 colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis10 in homosexual men.
In 1997 a writer for the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual in America has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age, that many homosexuals have abandoned “safe sex” in favor of unprotected anal sex, and that the incidence of gonorrhea rose 74% among homosexuals between 1993 and 1996.11
According to a study by the CDC, in 2002, 88% of San Francisco syphilis cases were found among homo/bisexual men.12
The Chicago Department of Public Health reported that the percentage of Chicago AIDS diagnoses connected to homo/bisexual men increased from 37% in year 2000 to 44% in 2003; and in mid-2006 it also reported that homo/bisexual men accounted for approximately 73% of Chicago syphilis cases for the year 2005. And a June 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control titled HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men noted: “MSM [men who have sex with men] 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)….[R]ecent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group.”
Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: “Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant….[And] Not having children increases a woman’s breast cancer risk by between two to six times.”13 Not having children also “may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well.”14
Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of the lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: “Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.”15 (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)
Another study of lesbians found a “relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV].”16 And according to another: “Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.”17 HPV has been connected to cervical cancer. “DNA analysis has revealed that about 15 types of the virus account for more than 99 percent of all cervical cancer cases.”18
(One reason lesbians have a relatively high incidence of STDs is that, as some studies have documented, lesbians have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. For example, a large University of Chicago study concluded that lesbians have four times as many sexual partners as straight women.19)
It should be noted that lesbian sexual diseases have not been researched nearly as much as male homosexual sexual diseases. This is because lesbian sex was presumed to be relatively safe. Some doctors are fairly calling for more research into the health of lesbians. With more study, we may find the “lesbian lifestyle” is not so safe after all.
Another relatively unknown fact: the blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.
A contributing factor to all the diseases found in homosexuals is habitual promiscuity; and a contributing factor to their promiscuity is the popularity of drug use among them. As a homosexual columnist for the Windy City Times, Jose Zuniga, has reported, there is “out-of-control drug use undermining our [homosexual] community’s health and well-being, and contributing to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.”20
Homosexual author Dennis Altman, in one of his books, likewise noted the popularity of drugs among homosexuals: “What is disturbing is the degree to which much of the gay world rests on a sea of alcohol and drugs.”21
Liberals and their media love to restrict the rights of consenting adults who smoke (because smoking can be harmful), who drink alcohol (for obvious reasons), who own guns (because accidents and murders happen), who believe homosexual activity is immoral and penalizeable (because liberals mistakenly think that there is a right to aberrations like homosexual behavior and also think that any “speech” that reflects negatively on homosexuals—like the information you are reading on this website—should be considered “hate speech”), etc., etc. Liberals love to patronizingly restrict our freedoms (”for our own good”).
However, liberals apparently believe it’s perfectly okay for people to spread sexual diseases all over this country. Why, we can’t restrict the rights of people who spread STDs! That’s oppression and fascism! Liberals are such hypocrites.
Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair—and homosexuals are so selfish they don’t care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It’s pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?
Another point that needs making: homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 “the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive.”22) And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages.
To sum up, for various reasons (homosexual acts are physiologically unnatural, homosexuals are inclined to be notably promiscuous), the “homosexual lifestyle” tends to be a very unhealthy one—unhealthy both to individuals and to the society that indirectly pays for or suffers the consequences. To encourage anyone to engage in homosexual activity is clearly irresponsible and depraved.
(Since anal sex was discussed above, this section of our website is as good a place as any to note the following: One homosexual was honest enough to admit that the feeling of being “fisted,” i.e., having a fist moving back and forth in one’s rectum, is “like the feeling your funny bone gets when it’s hit, only it travels all over your body.”23 Being fisted is clearly not a truly pleasurable experience. Now, since an erect phallus moving back and forth in a rectum is somewhat analogous to being “fisted,” it seems reasonable to conclude that being the recipient of “anal sex” is not a truly pleasurable experience—indeed, it may be just the opposite. And if having matter—like a phallus—moving in a rectum was truly pleasurable, then defecating would also be pleasurable since when we defecate we have matter moving through our anal tissues. But only people with a psychological problem find the act of defecating pleasurable. To psychologically healthy people, defecating is no more pleasurable than drinking water, though it can be painful if one is constipated. We apologize for the graphic nature of this paragraph, but its content is relevant.)
It is intoxicating to visit this blog. The poisonous venom spewed by its homophobic visitors is lethal. I cannot believe all the misinformation that is being spread here based on skewed pseudo-scientific data. It is straight out of James Dobson’s book.
Daniel:
You think that actively-homosexual males do NOT have shortened life-spans?
Are people naive as to believe that promiscuity is en exclusive dis-virtue of homosexuals? This is another clear example of the rhetoric of hate sponsored by the so called “Christians.” Christ was about love, compassion, and spiritual fortitude.
Christ is about love, however, just like a parent set rules for a child, so does God for us. We all have our weaknesses. Alcoholism, homosexuality, lying, stealing, etc…….
We are not robots, God has given us the right to choose to follow or disobey, but He is honest about the consequences if we decide to go out on our own. God does not set anyone up, because sin has entered mankind we are not perfect. He did not make us liars, homosexuals, or any other type of sinner.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Corinthians 6:9)
All of us need to seek God for forgiveness, it’s not just the homosexuals, but they are included in this warning. Those who choose to turn a blind eye are gambling with their eternal placement. God loves all types of sinners and wants us to repent and accept the price He has already paid for all of us. All we have to do is accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and salvation is ours. He will also change the desires of our heart and clean our lifestyle, regardless of what our faults may be.
Our works cannot save us: But we are all as an unclean thing and all our righteous works are as filthy rags Isaiah 64:6
When we try to balance our rights with our wrongs to justify our entry into heaven, we fall short.
Daniel:
You didn’t answer my question — of course heterosexual males are sinners too — that only highlights the fact that something else accounts for the drastically reduced life expectancy. Do you want to at least discuss the issue with an open mind?
Or, is the mere invitation to discuss the issue also “rhetoric of hate”?
Well this is interesting God made me homosexual. I don’t recall ever deciding to be homosexual. So there for it must not be a choice
The Bible is flawed how can the word homosexual be in it. There is no greek or hebrew word for it. This is a modern word. I think the original translation was sodomite
King James versions and newer are decieveing in their translation. Not many people would want a bible with the word homosexual taken out
By the way what was the sin in sodom and gomorrah? Not homosexuality but inhospitality toward vistors to the town. They wished to do harm toward complete stranger. Homosexuals have alway been a very small percentange of any population. To say the towns people were all homosexual is a lie. It said clearly towns people - the whole town homosexual or heterosexual
the whole town homosexual and heterosexual
Georgian - a native or resident of georgia
Californian - a native or resident from california
Sodomite - a resident from the city of sodom
Well go figure you mean to tell me a sodomite isn’t another word for homosexual. Well it is pretty much common sense from the defintions i gave. How could this not be understood. Unless you want homosexual to go straight to hell and hate us so much
I can only imagine this scenario. God ask the straight people in heaven were are all of is homosexual children at? They reply oh we didn’t want them to come we thought you only wanted us here. The scripture was quite clear you hate those kind of people. You know uh what is that phrase turn or burn. Well it is a lie. You can be a homosexual and christian at the same time. It is not a choice your sexuality.
The point I am trying to make folks is this. Since God created people both sexualities and it is not a choice how in good conscious can you all be so hateful toward your fellow man? If you don’t like it take it up with God. Do not take it out on us.
If being gay is so normal or right, why do gay couples usually have one partner take a “female” role and the other a “male” role?
What is it they are attempting? A man and a woman union.
The bible is so evil, because it speaks out against theft, violence, lying, perverse lifestyles, etc…… Aren’t these many of the reasons why our current society is in the toilet?
We need a bible that promotes these “life choices”. Then the world would just find acceptance and confirmation in our current lifestyle and current path of society.
Tim,
We are not hating, but simply stating the facts: male homosexuals use their digestive system for sex, this is not conducive to healthy living. Lesbians have a high record of breast and cervical cancer. These are the facts, if we want to use common sense. We can always take the emotional path and say that these statements are bigotry.
I do not homosexuals, but will not stand by as they push their rights onto the rest of society. Gays need to keep their lifestyle “their own”. Don’t parade it, live your life to yourselves. I realize this is difficult, because when you take sex out of your lifestyle you lose your identity. I do not parade my sex life in public for all to see.
Homosexuals have been around forever, obviously not a new concept. We the Majority, understand that this is not what we want displayed in our society for our children to see. It’s traumatic enough as an adult, how much more for children? Keep it in the closet and society will embrace you.
Define please if you will what exactly is a male and female role. Cooking is that male or female role or neither (survival instict)?
Cleaning is it a male or female role or do some people just like being neat or orderly?
if being gay is so normal or right, why do gay couples usually have one partner take a “female” role and the other a “male” role?
I cannot answer that question as i am not every homosexual out their
What is it they are attempting? A man and a woman union
well hardly i don’t need a union to love and be with someone. maybe you really need that piece of paper to prove something but i do not
A “top” and “bottom”, specifically, is just one of the male and female roles. Are you saying you’ve never been a “bottom”?
P.S. to Daniel: are you still around?
Just one of many sexual roles a female getting it up the ass doggy style. Would that be a a male or female role? She is getting fucked by a man. male or female role?
they are straight besides what does that have to do with getting a marriage or not? if gay people want marriage the majority should’t be allowed to stop it does not effect you
You answer my question first. Then I will answer yours and explain why the “majority” is allowed to stop that, incest, polygamy, etc.
Tim,
Most of your scenario examples are gender neutral. Gay marriage affects society in a negative manner. Our psyche and our health are compromised.
We can argue back and forth, but the facts are the facts. Your argument is emotional, like a child that feels what they’re doing is right, because it’s what they want to do.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, other confused or perverse groups will also want a “their rights” to be accepted by society. How about polygamy? Bestiality?
Acceptance of these lifestyles are actually being spoken of in countries that have accepted homosexual marriage. Just like; “what we do in our bedroom is our business”; went to in your face whether you like it or not, so too will one open door to an abnormal lifestyle lead to further doors being open to all new perverse lifestyles.
Not Right:
I wouldn’t expect Tim / Daniel will ever answer our questions. They are not here for a rational debate. Like you said, just emotional arguments.
Male homosexuals use their digestive system for sex this is not conductive to healthy living.
Is heterosexual sex healthy? It does not contribute to the overall nutrition of the body. So I guess not. I thought people do it for pleasure. Oh and then you are more than likely you will argue that heterosexuals use their bodies for procreation & homosexuals can’t procreate. Well actually I don’t mind donating my sperm for the purpose of artificial insemination as long as I can have the right to marry. I will take care of my child & who know along the way I may just go adopt a child in an orphanage. To many needy children out there given up by heterosexuals who need a kind and loving home. Most heterosexuals don’t want to adopt. So why stop homosexual? We just want to give them a loving home. How could anyone bear to see the child remain in the orphanage rather than to be adopted? It is a cold cruel world I guess the heterosexuals do not care. So much as for healthy living.
I do not homosexuals, but will not stand by as they push their rights on the rest of society. Gays need to keep their life style their own.
Push their rights on the rest of society? Oh you mean equal rights Religious people push there ideas on society is that fair? What about separation of church and state? I keep my own life private and I do not parade. Like wise heterosexuals need to quit holding hands and kissing in public. This the word heterosexuals use flaunting it. “Quit flaunting it please heterosexuals and shoving it down our throats”
It’s traumatic enough as an adult, how much more for children?
How is it traumatic for a child? Have you ever know a child raised in a gay family? How did the child turn out by being in a loving home?
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, other confused or perverse groups will also want a “their rights” to be accepted by society. How about polygamy? Bestiality?
Yes how about polygamy It was allowed in the olden days probably without consent
Like wise bestiality the there is no consent. Did that animal say yes or no oh that is right it can’t talk
Where black people emotional when they wanted equal rights? Yes more than likely
If is more than ok to become emotional when it comes to equal rights.
Especially becuase it is not a choice we make rather how we were born. So why should the majority have any say they were born heterosexual? How can the make a resonable arguement against marriage equality? Oh yes a their was a study to show it in a homosexual it has to do with the brain proportion form on side to the other. Their is a very clear way to indentify a homosexual
perverse - willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired. what make a perverse polygamy wrong? It should matter what society thinks as long as their is consent. No one is harming any one. Their is love. Is it a sin to marry and love more than one person?
Tim:
Immutable race is hardly comparable to deviant sexual behavior. As I said, answer my question I asked first and then I would be happy to answer your questions.
Tim,
Gay marriage affects society in a negative manner.
Well i would have to disagree with that statement. Heterosexual marriage affects society in a negative manner. Unwanted children in orphanges, divorce, people having sex with their children (incest). What you all do affects society too just not as much as us. Becuase we are not real people by your standards. So you all tend to be harder on us.
You answer my question first. Then I will answer yours and explain why the “majority” is allowed to stop that, incest, polygamy, etc.
Why is the majority allowed to stop that? incest and polygamy didn’t have consent there for that is wrong. it is not moral their is no consent
deviant sexual behavior? i love some of my own gender. I don’t need sex to love him the way i do
incest is wrong because the child is probably not old enough to know it is wrong
I said ADULT brother and sister marrying each other. But, you still haven’t answered my question. Have a nice life, Tim.
I think some people need to review the user agreement. This place is getting scary. This blog should be labeled Adults Only.
I really don’t know why a heterosexual would want to marry his or her sister or brother
Marrying one’s sibling falls under the confusion category (ie: homosexuality) This is not something society accepts, again, there are health consequences when “choosing” a lifestyle path such as these.
We can argue about all that is wrong in this world, but this blog. is focused on one subject. Many of the proponents of gay marriage seem to point to other bad type of lifestyles in order to justify their own.
I greatly disagree that this is anything like the plight of blacks. They were enslaved, beaten, raped and basically treated like animals. They were persecuted for the color on their skin, not their actions.
Homosexuals are judged on their actions. The lifestyle choice begins and ends with confusion. Who is the male and female figure in this relationships ? How do we get a child, since we can’t produce our own? Why won’t society accept my lifestyle? It’s constantly an am I ok in doing what I am doing, continual insecurity and acceptance seeking. Hating the bible or anything or anyone for not accepting them. Claiming tolerance until someone disagrees with their lifestyle, this unfortunately is the homosexual pattern.
If you think of this lifestyle as a choice, you can change. Quitting smoking or alcoholism is not easy, but possible. There is no gay gene, if there were, it would be announced in every media outlet and by all pro-homosexual groups, even by the government, I suspect. It would be like discovering the missing link. The advertisement of such a discovery would never end it’s showcase.
Loving someone of the same sex is not deviant until and only if it becomes sexual. Straight people love those of the same sex too.
Tim,
You make my case for me by your acceptance of polygamy. I would be willing to bet that you would accept any lifestyle in exchange for yours being accepted.
How do you feel about teachers and underage students? Michael Jackson’s child time? Priests that prey on children? Incest? You already answered the polygamy question.
What a great society it would be if we would only allow all these lifestyle to exist, maybe they can take turns parading their choices in public. This would be great for our children. We could teach them that they can be choose any of these lifestyle and change their choices if one does not work for them. The schools can teach about party A and party B marring or Party A, B, C, D, E, F,……..We can just mix and match to our hearts content.
Gays like to add their confusion to others. Why else would a woman get pregnant by fertilization take testosterone and claim to be a man, this is confusing to both adults and children.
Gays like to add their confusion to others. Why else would a woman get pregnant by fertilization take testosterone and claim to be a man, this is confusing to both adults and children. Does he/she keep it private, nooo. She goes on Oprah. I feel horrible for this kid.
I am confused about the pregnant man story. He is legally a man, but he has a uterus. My Doctor is one of the smartest men in the world and really good at explaining things. He tried to explain this to me, but I am still kind of confused.
Being mean to gay people is not very nice. They must be born that way. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that makes some people be really mean to them.
Why does anyone choose to smoke, do drugs or anything else that might be harmful to their bodies and get them in trouble?
The “pregnant man” is a woman, she takes testosterone which gives her male type facial hair. It’s that simple. No natural born man can or will ever be able to give birth. You need a uterus and egg and ability to carry a child in order to reproduce as a woman.
This is a scary path our society is taking. Everything seems to be upside-down nowadays, this is just another piece of the puzzle.
My nurse said that people who take drugs when they are not sick may have “ineffective coping mechanisms” and are trying to “self medicate”. She also said that the man who had a baby was interviewed by Barbara Walters and is pregnant again.
Not Right:
I suspect that Linda is pulling your leg.
Google pregnant man and see for yourself.
Marrying one’s sibling falls under the confusion category.
Not really it falls under the category of insane. I recommend immediate help by a shrink or a room with padded walls. until you a ready to return to society
How do you feel about teachers and underage students? Michael Jackson’s child time? Priests that prey on children? Incest? You already answered the polygamy question
I already said if you didn’t bother reading my comment child molesting is without consent of the child or they are not yet able to know it is wrong. As for the teachers having sex with underage students they are breaking the law.
and i would also recommend the nut house
Notice everyone please this person has not come up with a single reason against polygamy. However what is said made prefect since.
Polygamy was wrong in the old days because their was no consent from the women. Why should it not be allowed today. Society said it was ok in the olden days now society changes its view. Why know one is hurting anyone.
Not a sin or immorally wrong. Marriages original defintion - one man many women
once again their is nothing wrong with procreation and polygamy marriages
What a great society it would be if we would only allow all these lifestyle to exist, maybe they can take turns parading their choices in public. This would be great for our children. We could teach them that they can be choose any of these lifestyle and change their choices if one does not work for them. The schools can teach about party A and party B marring or Party A, B, C, D, E, F,……..We can just mix and match to our hearts content.
SInce being gay is not a choice you do not have a valid argument
Linda:
I wasn’t referring to the pregnant “man” — you seem as confused as she/he/it — I was referring to your University friends, parents, Doctor and nurse. Just giving everyone a heads up, that’s all.
Tim:
Incest is not a choice then either.
If being gay is not a choice, where is your gay gene? Alcoholism and drug use must also be inherited or genetic.
Whenever someone enjoys their wrong lifestyle, they blame it on anything, but their own actions. Own it and take responsibility.
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do�this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Romans 7:14-25
As I said earlier, living a homosexual lifestyle is living in sin. Many believers have agonized over this problem. As one who hasn’t experienced it, I can’t even begin to grasp its magnitude. They know that a just God can not condemn His children for behavior they have no control over. And yet they’ve spent years in shame and humiliation trying unsuccessfully to stop committing their besetting sin. Some finally succumb to the false conclusion that God must have made them that way. Others rebel as a way to vent their frustration. And can you imagine how much harder their challenge becomes as society in general and even many who claim to be part of the Church affirm and encourage their behavior as being nothing more than an alternative lifestyle, no better or worse than any other?
Contrast that attitude with others in the Church who treat them like lepers, sinners beyond redemption. Neither opinion is correct, so what is their true circumstance? Why can’t anyone tell them? What happened to Romans 8:1? (There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.) Is it only Jesus who can forgive a sin without fear of leaving the impression that he condones it?
At what point in time did i choose to be homosexual? Their wasn’t a time like that for me. It must not be a choice then. If you call me a liar i feel very sorry for you. Know one chooses to be hated
Oh yeah the word homosexual does not exist in the bible
that is why it is wrong
Tim:
I’m not “calling you a liar” or anything else. Since you refuse to have a civil debate, there’s no point in me continuing. As I said, above, have nice life.
Tim,
Just because we like to do something, it does not make it right. Your lifestyle will promote unhealthy living. We all have our vices, some are more harmful than others. Having said this, you have the right to choose for yourself a lifestyle, this does not mean it needs to be promoted in the public arena.
If nothing else, it should be kept private for the sake of small children that don’ t understand these issues. I am so glad I did not find out about homosexuality before I was 10, and when I did it was still confusing. Back then this lifestyle was not so much in “your face” like, and I’m sure thankful for it.
At what point in time did i choose to be homosexual? Their wasn’t a time like that for me. It must not be a choice then. If you call me a liar i feel very sorry for you. Know one chooses to be hated
All i can say is this the religious right has done a very good job with the brainwashing goodbye and have a nice life. maybe one of these days you will be able to think for your self.
Goodbye.
Whew! At least “Tim” is gone.
Several have said that gays lose no rights by not being able to marry. Here’s just a couple of rights granted to spouses that are NOT available to those in civil unions:
The right to make medical decisions if their partner is unable to do so
The right to receive medical information regarding their partners medical condition when hospitalized
The right to inherit without in the absence of a will or living trust.
And there are several more examples; ask any family law attorney. I believe the appropriate term for this is “seperate and unequal”. I wonder how married heterosexual couples would feel if denied these rights?
heterosexuals that voted for proposition 8 said they were not taking anything away from homosexuals. well they did they took away equal rights to marriage
John G.:
Registered “domestic partners” have those three rights under California law. Perhaps you were thinking about “domestic partner” same-sex couples who leave the State? There are, of course, many FEDERAL rights not afforded to them either, but the only two State rights I am aware of are 1) filing joint state income taxes and 2) state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package (but this could actually be an advantage since married couples are forced to do so even if it would be a financial benefit not to). You can get more information here:
http://gbge.aclu.org/content/view/178/60/
Tim:
I thought you were leaving?
What ever happened to ‘ by the people, for the people’? The people have spoken. Subject closed.