- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Mormon church gives $190,000 worth of help to pass Prop. 8
February 2nd, 2009, 10:47 am · 266 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
You may recall this story about the significant role religion played in the passage of the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, where the campaign manager estimated that individual Mormon donors accounted for at least 40 percent of the money put into the successful Nov. 4 ballot measure. That money came, in fair measure, because the church issued a statement read to every congregation encouraging members to give of their time and money.
At the time of that story, the church itself was on record as giving just a few thousand dollars - but campaign reports due today show that the church contributed $189,903 in non-montary, in-kind contributions including church staff time and use of church facilities.
The amount is a fraction of the more than $40 million spent by each of the two sides in the campaign. But Laguna Beach’s Fred Karger, who filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said it supports his earlier allegation that the church had contributed significant resources to the campaign.
“This is exactly what we were talking about when we filed the suit,” Karger told the San Francisco Chronicle in this story about the church’s filing.
Related stories:
Request to suppress Prop. 8 donors names denied
Prop. 8 donors ask U.S. court for anonymity
‘Day without a Gay’ fizzles
Gay marriage advocates bristle at religion’s role in Prop. 8 win
Evangelical Christians led the way to Prop. 8’s victory
Lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8 may face uphill battle
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
266 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
DENA BUNIS, Washington bureau chief, 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento correspondent, 916-449-6046 or bjoseph@ocregister.com
JENNIFER MUIR, County government reporter, 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
JOEL WALSH, Washington bureau intern, 202-628-6381 or jwalsh@ocregister.com
MARTIN WISCKOL, Politics reporter, 714-285-2867 or mwisckol@ocregister.com twitter.com/MartinWisckol
Click here for bloggers' biographies
-
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Give it up…prop 8 passed…whether you like it or not!
It is insane that these death cults are given a free pass in our society. It’s time to remove the tax exempt status of churches now! They should be treated as the BUSINESSES they truly are.
Good for the Mormon Church, they have that right! Just like gays have a right to donate money or non-monetary means to fight Prop. 8…so what! Why don’t we list all the companies, organizations and individuals who donated in some way to defeat Prop. 8 as well, rather than have such one-sided stories reported?
And the teachers’ union, which should be totally independent in such matters, flushed $1 million of its members’ dollars down the rat hole to a losing cause.
This just goes to show how the mormon church promotes discrimination and hatred. Personally I believe in a free country for all. With the same rights for everyone.
It may have passed this time but rest assured the subject will be put to a vote again and each time it does, more people open their minds and lose their ignorance and fear about gay people.
Most religions are just scams to separate people from their money, their freedom, and their common sense. If you need that religion in your life so you can walk to straight and narrow path of righteousness then more power to you but keep your faith to yourself, no one else wants to hear you clap trap fantasies.
Death Cults? Your attitude is the reason most people wanted 8 to pass. Gay people are not the problem. Its their association with people that would cut off their own nose to spider face.
Morons like christians are so self involved they have no idea what true spirituality is. Their lead around by their noses not their hearts. They can`t think for themselves in anyway. it`s time to remove fundamental religion fom state. The only reason they disapprve anything is because they are so unsure of their own beliefs they try to make everyone think like them. That gives them a reassureing thought that they might be right. It will be overturned because as i believe, god gave everyone free will.And yes , i spelled morons correctly.
People have no ignorance or fear of gay people - it is a life choice we choose not to support. Societies, have the right to make the rules that make them a society - Tyranny by the minority is was you are advocating.
Ok, who cares if the Mormon Church gave that money. It is their belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the definition to them. This is their religious and biblical teaching for their life. Which religion people say needs to stay out of state issues but when you dip into the religious def of something and try to change it you expect people not to be upset?
So when the state that they live in voted years ago and passed a law stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman and now are having to vote again, it’s their right to put their money, time and effort into their belief. It’s ridiculous to assume that they would not put as much money as they can to back a belief that will affect them everyday in their lives.
If it were the otehr way around and they gave money on the flip side this wouldn’t be a problem. I find it sad that the Gay and Lesbians want this “right” but then dont give the church the right to fight back with all their might and means to oppose it. Isnt it their right to say No we dont want this and we will do everything in our power to stop it because it’s our belief. Our “right” to believe this way vs the No on Prop 8 people???
You know…who really cares anymore? Do people really have time to debate this sorta nonsense?
Give it a break. Nobody cares if you’re gay, they just decided you’re not going to call it marriage. California has adequate domestic partnership laws in place.
Get over it already.
Thank you Teresa for your input. YES, the people of CALIFORNIA voted and Prop 8 passed. Don’t scrutinize the churches because it was the choice of the people that comprised the final tally that won this proposition. Stop accusing the church(es), espcially the Mormon church, because it’s members expressed their personal view through voting. The church did not force or coerced it’s members to vote either way. They had their free agency to vote one way or another, so stop your crying and blaming the mormon church. And FYI, the mormon church is not a cult!!! Get your facts right before you sound your opinion. Twice the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA voted and passed this proposition on preserving marriage, nothing about GAY RIGHTS or however you want to word it. Now let it REST!!!!!!
Gotta pat the Mormons on the back this time. They came through for California.. no doubt!
Only tyranny is the church`s trying to force their old fundamental beliefs on others, when they can`t control their corruption in their back yards. Combineing church and state is the main reason this country is slipping into a third world way. Remove church from state, it isn`t working anymore and church can`t handle it.
gousoc- the only choice I made was to accept what is as natural to me as your straightness (and ignorance) is to you. It’s a civil rights issue. You’re certainly free to believe what you want, but when it comes to those beliefs infringing on an actual civil liberty, then NO WAY.
When gays marry NOTHING about your life (and again, your ignorance) will change. You’ll continue to have the freedom to try and moralize your religious views on others.
By the way, since it’s a “choice”, please enlighten us OCR readers with the specifics about your “heterosexual coming out”. Would love to know how old you were when you “realized” you had a “choice” and “chose” theh opposite sex. Think hard ( if you can).
Same-sex marriage is coming. In the words of Gavin– whether you like it or not.
Israel was taken over by the Assyrians due to lowered moral practices. Churches help society so we will not be taken over by the other factions which would enslave us.
There is no proof of the existence of a gay gene. Same sex attraction is complex, and it does involve choice, the same as heterosexual attraction.
Well, this ain’t Israel and we don’t neighbor Assyria and we’re not in Biblical times, dude.
If you want to find “factions” that would enslave us, look in the mirror.
I was 11 and all alone in the bathroom. Do I think about my best friend Chuck or the hot new girl at school?
Churchy people are such judgemental pains in the ash.
When they held their signs in front of our neighborhood, one threw a can at a car that gave them the thumbs down.
This prop is all about hate, what happened to love thy neighbor?
Your already inslaved, wake up !!!! Just like obama supports the right to abortion , he`ll support the right to free will !!!! GO OBAMA!!!!!!
There are many nations of the world who would love to see the USA fail. If we are selfish, then we will fail. If we obey the commandments, then we will prosper.
it is legal for churches and non profits to engage in issue advocacy. there is no story here, just like there is no story of how much the episcopalian and methodist churches helped the other side.
So LdsDan, how do you know what you know? Did you live my life? No. You didn’t, I did. When did you realize you had attractions to both sexes and decided to go the hetero route? We’d love to know.
If you want to know if homosexuality is a choice or part of human nature, ask a homosexual.
There is no proof. Yet. There are scientific studies ongoing that have found interesting results on sexual orientation. But of course, even if they do ultimately discover a way to trace its roots, you’ll still likely choose to keep your head buried in your book of fairy tales.
My favorite is the one where Mormons believe that they inherit planets in space in the afterlife and that God resides on one near the planet Kolb. Yikes.
Do do do do do do do do do do do…(Night Gallery theme)
I am not a Mormon but I respect them for stepping up with time and money while some Church’s set back and did nothing and I resent the teachers union spending over one million dollars that should have been spent on helping teachers not Nancy boys and Georgy girls.
If churches want to be involved in politics and law-making, they should pay taxes. They are businesses.
Obey the commandments???? Like , do not judge , yet ye be judged!!! There`s a perfect example of a man who cannot think for themselves. Geez, he just affimed what i already knew, he never thought for himself, he let others think for him!!!
There is no reason to grant special rights to gays when they already have the same basic rights as everyone else. Being gay is merely behavior, similar to pedophilia, rapist, crossdresser etc.
Any justification used for being gay can be also applied to these other behaviors. Example: they’re born that way, it’s genetic, etc. You can say the exact same thing about child molestors, rapists etc. They can’t help themselves. Baloney.
I find it sooo funny that people want to put all Christians in this cluster of ignorance and hate. Because we believe a certain way now we are being judged. The same way Gay and Lesbians feel they are being judged for their lifestyle. I read these comments and I am laughing at how one sided people really think. Because Christians believe a marriage is between a man and a woman we are wrong and our RIGHT to believe and have this beleif be portrayed in our state makes us evil cults but yet Gay and Lesbians and those who support them having marriage rights have the RIGHT to their belief and they are right and us Christians are cults. Who’s judging who? I thought we all had the right to believe in whatever we want. Just bc my belief affects the way you want to live doesn’t make me a cultish person just like your belief affects the way I want to live doesn’t make you a radical Gay advocate!
The Moron cult failed to fully disclose its donation to the H8. Its time we start taxing this cult like the business that it is.
It’s unfortunate in our society today when someone doesn’t get the results they want they scream bigotry. Who is the bigot? (Bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Using the definition it could go either way. Just because you don’t get what you want doesn’t mean your opponent is a bigot. Find another label, bigot just doesn’t fit. How have your civil liberties been infringed, give me an example?
Warren:
Which law school did you graduate from (and why are you avoiding me)?
Everyone else:
Palm Springs Prop 8 Rally Turns Ugly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE
Yes, CASE CLOSED, and I mean case closed!!! Let me remind all of those out there again, the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA voted, not just the Mormons or other sects that contributed as well, somehow, the mormons are the only ones being attacked as a result of this. Again, PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA passed this proposition so I’d say CASE CLOSED!!!! Don’t you get it. Californians as a whole want to preserve traditional marriage, nothing agains Gay rights, etc etc. I sooooo resent the teachers union that spent millions as well in their non-worthy cause, especially when education is hurting for funds. As far as I know, the hating part of this proposition came only from those that failed to spend “time & money” for their cause. You put in what you get out of it………..so go figure…….
DB– gays aren’t intolerant of people with opposing views. You’re most welcome to them…the difference is using those RELIGIOUS views to impose on the CIVIL LIBERTIES of other citizens.
Know the difference.
And, Jake D, WOW! One little incident where a woman who should’ve known better than to go into a crowd of angry No on 8 supporters really must make you feel like quite the investigative reporter.
Why don’t you enlighten us with the police blotters from the cities where the demonstrations took place all across the state to show us the long list of violence, intimidation and such.
Oh yeah. You can’t because the protests were loud, vocal and entirely within the scope of the law as it relates to protest conduct.
How many arrests were there? Jake? Few. How many people had to be hospitalized as a result of violence? That’s right. None.
Go bark up another tree.
it is interesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gave non-monetary donations and everyone is up in arms about it. They call it a cult and morons and all sorts of names. They are all calling for censorship of the church and others that do not support their beliefs. This is not a battle of gay rights or civil rights. This is a battle for the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion that many are attempting to destroy.
Take away the Churches Tax Exemptions? “Go ahead Make my day”
It is truly amazing that these types of topics just never die. They are so many other issues that truly need to be addressed. I am losing my faith in going to church as each year passes.
By the way, I like the new take on the old saying “Cut off their nose to spite their face” from Baldo……..”Cut off their nose to SPIDER FACE”.
Come-on is anyone really surprized here. The headlines here could be any church. Church X donates (fill in blank) $X, XXX, XXX, XXX.xx dollars to support Prop 8. Why doesn’t the news report whom the donations are coming from in the other direction? Where are the dollars coming from that are supporting the gay issues. There needs to be fair reporting!
DB– are you allowed to marry the person you love in a CIVIL setting? Yes, you are. I am not. Is your sexual orientation against the law? No. Guess what. Neither is mine.
Did the US Supreme Court in deciding Loving v. Virginia in ‘68 state that the right to marry is a basic civil right? Why, yes. They did.
No Bailout, you are a sad and bigoted person. I assume by your hatred you are not a Christian either, so you just hate for the joy of hating.
That is all fine and good until you start messing with other people’s lives.
Extending marriage to include homosexuals is not a danger to anyone and will happen eventually.
The Mormons are hypocrites and OC kind sucks for being a county of white bread mentality.
Well, Al, for there to be “fair reporting”, those handful of churches that came out in favor of Prop 8 didn’t spend close to $200k after saying that they only spent the legal $2k limit.
You Fox News Orange County types are hilarious.
Except for No Bailout– there’s no room here for his kind of nastiness. Although, we all know that people who talk about it in the manner that No Bailout does are the CLOSET CASES…you know the Larry Craigs, Mark Foley and Ted Haggards of the world.
Oops. It should read that the churches that came out in OPPOSITION of Prop 8 didn’t report close to $200k (who knows how much more they’re not disclosing).
I dont fear gays. I don’t hate gays.
I am annoyed by them.
Stop trying to shove your “in your face” agenda on us.
Give it up. You have all the civil rights and liberties.
You lost on this issue.
Stop the hate-mongering.
It will backfire.
If they gave money to a cause they deemed worthy they what do they have to worry about, why bother the court to try to stay anonymous?
Hey No Bailout, what is your friend going to call his “anti homosexual organization”? The American Nazi Party? Or the Mormons?
Time to go and leave the whiney OC GOPers behind (man, they cry louder than those Bellflower octuplets)….
…oh yeah, No Bailout, your Exodus “Pray the Gay Away” sutff isn’t working. You’re self-loathing is as clear as today’s sky.
It’s okay for them to marry children and have multiple wives and they’re butting into this issue….no shame!!!
Gosh, No Bailout, you hate yourself more than I ever could have imagined.
I think the court of public opinion thinks you’re an extreme nuisance and a danger to the mental health of yourself and your family.
Oh yeah, I think Fred Phelps is hiring. You’ll love Topeka.
No Bailout, the fact that you have children is truly disturbing. Do you ever get to see them or are they in protective custody?
Don’t feed the ‘No Bailout’ troll He is either the biggest idiot ever to post on this board (and that is saying a lot given the verbal diarrhea above) or he is just trolling for attention.
Or possibly the fake lawyer Jake has a new alter ego?
I think No Bail Out is a homosexual posing as a bigot to give all the other anti Religious screamers more to scream about. And record jerk, you do know that Ernst Rohm and the SA Brown Shirts of the Nazi Party in Germany were homosexuals don’t you?
Don’t feed the ‘No Bailout’ troll He is either the biggest idiot ever to post on this board (and that is saying a lot given the verbal diarrhea above) or he is just a pathetic lonely, moron trolling for attention.
Or possibly the fake lawyer Jake has a new alter ego?
I think No Bailout’s IP address needs to be taken down and reported to a law enforcement organization, he is spewing hate, making terrorist threats, making homicidal threats, this person is clearly mentally troubled, where is the regulation on this board OCR?
No bailout– you’ll get jail time before I ever see a bullet. And guess what comes with jail time? Everything you love.
Wow, the register is sure preoccupied with anything prop 8! This is old news OCR, move on to something current. Boring.
People like no bailout are the biggest cowards of them all. Spewing hate and empty threats from behind a keyboard. Is there anything more pathetic?
Deshard said it best! Excellent post. I’m shocked and appalled that the church can give so much and not have its tax exempt status revoked. Yeah prop 8 passed but it will get overturned - so the money spent on the no campaign was not a lost cause. Preventing a minority group from sharing in what you freely enjoy is against the spirit of the state and federal constitution. If you supported prop 8 - then you should reclassify yourself as sheeple. Another thing - I am curious when you straight folk made that choice….since you claim it’s a choice…please share with us. I’m interested in what BS you can come up with for that…
badwolf, gay people may not be pathetic but they are trully mentally ill
WRONG– not according to the American Psychiatric Association and I think they know a tad more about what constitutes mental illness than you do…but at least you gave yourself the perfect on-screen name.
Keep typing, No Bailout. The more you say, the more the OCR has to offer the proper authorities. Just how stupid are you?
WRONG, The only mental illness apparent on this site is the one induced by you’re bronze aged faith.
Did anyone watch the Ted Haggard documentary on HBO over the weekend? I really feel very sorry for him. A perfect example of how faith can destroy lives.
The funny part is, where’s JakeD when you need him. He needs examples of violence and intimidation to make his case but unfortunately for him, No Bailout is just an everyday example of how gays are harrassed and intimidated
Don’t recall anyone saying to JakeD’s elderly “victim” in Palm Springs anything about putting a “hole in her head” .
Online Editor,
Please review comments posted by “No Bailout “. Death threats, vulgar name calling, and slurs have no place in this conversation.
Helen Highwater, yes I know of the SA and I know they were rounded up and executed. So what is your point?
Often the most vocal are the most guilty.
I voted in Favor of 8.
For me it was not that I’m anti gay, it is because everybody thinks they are entitled to change definitions of things on a whim. Marriage is a man&woman, not two people of the opposite sex.
This is like calling a dog a cat. Stop trying to redefine things.
You should be entitled to the same rights as hetero couples if you decide you want to spend your life with another person of the same sex. Who cares as long as you are happy.
You are entitled to live your life your own way and not be judged but when you try to make the world change around you that is wrong.
Kill all homosexuals??? There goes half the christian and catholic priests!!!
Hats off to the Mormon folks who stepped up to the plate and put their money where the Bible is! We need more good, committed people like this, and fewer who simply ignore the laws set forth by the Creator.
deshard:
That’s the only one I know of.
Mara— if I’m entitled to live my own life without being judged, why shouldn’t I be able to marry the one person I’ve loved for 15years in a civil court? Not your church.
Do you understand that our Constitution guarantees that citizens be treated equally under the law?
Do you understand that marriage has changed its definition many times? For instance, women as chattle, interracial marriage, biblical polygamy, et al?
Do you understand that allowing homosexuals to marry one another doesn’t prohibit from heterosexuals continuing the traditional rite of heterosexual marriage?
Do you understand that when I marry my partner, our lives will change, but yours will not?
Mara, your reasoning is silly. Once upon a time the Constitution defined negros as 3/5 of a person. Would you have voted against that change because people wanted to redefine things?
You are the one who says “Who cares as long as you are happy” and yet you want to block other people from being happy and all because of semantics.
Just admit it: you are homophobic.
I`M done here! Just do and say whats in your heart and truely believe it. Leave no room for doubt. But know, someone will be hurt by any decision you make , and then think. Was it worth it???
The church give the money. I give my vote!!!
Everyone read Mara’s posting TWICE. What an excellent example of closed reasoning. Good lord. The virus of faith is alive and well in you darling.
Jake- that’s because there were no major incidents of violence as a result of the protests. As well, major police stations have reported no increase in death threats against civilians as a result of the No on 8 protests.
As well, the protesters don’t speak for all gays. I find the Eight Maps offensive, too. But I do reserve the right to not patronize businesses that don’t recognize my civil liberties and that’sno different from your being able to excercise your rights to patronize businesses that promoted Yes on 8.
BTW- were you as equally disturbed when the Yes on 8 campaign sent extortionist letters to CA businesses demanding that they contribute equally to Yes on 8 as they did No on 8 or, in their words, “suffer the consequences”?
It’s public record.
Mara– I don’t think in your heart of hearts your a bigot, or a homophobe. I think you’re just having a bit of difficulty with the semantics of it.
I believe you to be genuine when you say that all the same legal rights should be in place and I believe you to be genuine too in your struggle with the issue.
You obviously have a heart Mara. Just don’t let your head get in the way of it.
Gay marriage takes rights away. Every child deserves to have a mother and father. In gay marriage there is absolutely no possiblity of this happening. This is one reason I voted for prop 8 and a salute all those that supported it. Stand up to intimidation-we don’t have to accept gay marriage-and it is ok to say it is wrong. If they call us names and intimidate now do you think it will stop-nope it will be forced in the schools.
“gouscoc Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
People have no ignorance or fear of gay people - it is a life choice we choose not to support. ”
That you think its a choice shows your ignorance on the matter. Do you choose to be hetero? Ridiculous assertion. Try educating yourself on the matter. You obviously have a lot to learn.
No one (on either side) should be threatening death.
You mormons crack me up! You are so against a man marrying another man but all for a man marrying a woman and another woman and another woman and maybe a step-daughter, etc. etc. Gotta love that!
Recordjerk, The only reason they were executed was they were giving Himmler and the SS too much competion for Hitlers ear. There were quite a few in the SS that were Homosexuals too. Also, it been speculated that Eva Braun was just a Beard for Hitler.
Luke– you’re naive. In a nation of 300+ million do you think that ALL children are being raised by a mother and a father?
Your comments are a slap in the face to single parents (by choice or design) everywhere.
Mother-father households are indeed the time-honored way to raise children, but they’re no longer the ONLY way to raise productive, adjusted, loved children. There are far too many examples of messed up people being raised by mothers and fathers to insinuate that it’s the best or perfect way.
How does gay marriage take the rights of children away? It doesn’t. It’s just one more LIE from the Yes on 8 crowd to make them feel better about their association with discrimination (and yes, for many, their bigotry).
deshard:
Legal boycotts are fine with me Illegal extortion is not.
Hey Sickntired. I’m not a religous person but you’re forgetting that everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have to understand that just because you think it’s ok to be gay there are people that beleive it is fundamentally wrong and offensive to them. Marriage has been traditionlay reserverd for a man and a women. What’s wrong with keeping it that way? Gay’s can already get all legal benefits of marriage with a domestic partnership. So why are they pushing so hard for the marriage license? I’ll tell you why. Because they want to legitimize their lifestyle. What’s next NAMBLA sues for rights to marry young boys? Where does it stop? The line has been drawn. It stops here!
At first I was a supporter of Gay marriage and I was opposed to people who wanted to stop gays from getting married. NOW, I dislike gays as well as religious people.
This topic has no place in the public, this is a private issue. Keep this to yourselves.
I can understand if you are a proud Christian, Mormon, etc… and want to show it.
I can understand if you are a proud Gay, Bi-sexual, etc… and want to show it.
What I cannot understand is why you have to waste enormous amounts of time arguing over this ridiculous topic.
TO ALL RELIGIOUS FOLKS: Leave the gays alone.
TO ALL THE GAYS: Just shut up, get married in a state where it is legal, come home and be quiet about it.
No one needs to know your sexual or religious preferences.
QUIT FIGHTING.
Some of you
I do not favor churches getting involved in political elections and many of them do even if through the back door. But churches have every right to contribute for issue advocacy purposes. That is part of the american political process. Any harassment against an individual or a business that chooses to give their money for issue advocacy purpose should be considered criminal in nature. High five to the mormons for getting involved. All mormons that I’ve met in my life are very good and hardworking people. I have the utmost of respect for their beliefs and lifestyle.
Unfortunately, some will “think” mistakenly that a specific “church” is trying to “force” their beliefs onto others. If I use that logic, than I have to assume that ANY person, PAC, Church, political party, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, surfer, skater, veteran, hippie, etc. is trying to force THEIR will on me when THEY choose to support a specific cause.
I love the analogy between the California Teachers Union and the Mormon Chuch. Is the Teachers Union considered a “business” or a lobby?
As the great urban philosopher Rot-Knee King once said, “Can’t we all just git alon’? Apparently not on this forum. I like Mormons and I like gay people, does that make me a “bigot” a “racist” or anything else? Time to move along people there are far more important issues at stake here in California.
ocobserver: even their belief that God lives on a planet near the star Kolb?
As for cutspending– why do people like you feel the need to bring up a fringe nutjob group like NAMBLA when discussing this issue? Homosexuals are no more inclined to be pedophiles than heterosexual males are. Period.
You’re right. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. The difference is when you use that opinion to deny a basic civil liberty as defined by the US Supreme Court (Loving v. VA) to a group of citizens deemed as a protected and equal class of citizen (CA Supreme Court).
If you had a two sons, one gay, one straight, would you really want to give one your blessing to marry and deny it to your other spn while promoting his right to get partnered?
ocobserver– you leave out one really important aspect of the issue. The federal gov’t is very clear about guidelines for contributions to political campaigns and issues by tax exempt organizations.
The Mormon’s have done just that and many believe the figure to be significantly higher than what they originally reported as $2k, which they’re now claiming to be $190k and others who’ve organized political campaigns and no what it costs have stated that they believe to be much more than that.
So, ocobserver, do you get it? They lied about their contributions because they exceeded the Federal limit for TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
I say let the churches donate all they want. Just pay taxes like everyone else.
Deshard- Loving V. Virginia was the case USSC heard regarding interracial marriage, you are trying to apply race to sexual preference they are not the same. Why do you want to call a same sex relationship marriage, what are the benefits to calling it marriage?
oh come on… this is dishonest reporting at its finest.
when I read this headline, I was like “what?? how could this be?”. then after reading the writeup, it’s truly obvious the OCR is trying to create smoke to keep this whole Prop 8 donor fiasco going where it wouldn’t otherwise.
Badwolf:
Are you ok?
this lawsuit will fail
Helen Highwater, the point I was making is that the official practice of the Nazi Party was to imprison and execute homosexuals. Of course, there were gay Nazis, just like there are gay Christians, and gay Republicans.
We aren’t arguing about Nazis, we are arguing about those who wish to oppress others. You don’t have to agree with homosexuals, but you do not have the right to prevent law abiding citizens from enjoying all the freedoms that others enjoy.
The main reason why California Teachers Association got involved is that the pro-8 lobby was lying about teaching gay marriage in school. The CTA felt they had to come out and set the record straight, which is what most of their literature addressed.
DB– true that the case dealt with interracial marraige, but in the decision, the justices said that marriage was a basic right (paraphrasing).
It also highlights the fact that marriage is not static and that it has indeed evolved, all the while doing nothing to hinder heterosexuals from continuing the tradtion while opening the right of civil matrimony to all citizens (who don’t participate in illegal activities, because you know some OC ignoramus will bring up the polygamy –illegal– beastiality — illegal and incest — illegal — argument as to why those engaged in those –illegal– behaviors can’t marry.)
Thank you thank you thank you Mormon church for defending traditional marriage and helping to defeat prop8. Sorry you have taken so much crap for it. But being that its only being dished out by hollywood and the leather thong san fran types it can’t be all that bad.
recordjerk:
We actually DO have the right to deny homosexuals “marriage”.
Based on what?
Polygamy is not part of today’s Mormon church. These are other groups, like the FLDS. The story used the term “staff” for those volunteering time, however, even Bishops and Stake Presidents are volunteers and are not paid by the church. This story is a non-story.
People think the rampant practice of taking underage girls as polygamous wives is better than two people of the same sex getting married. This doesn’t surprise me since those same people belong to a church who thinks it’s fine for men to have sex with underage boys.
John Adams, Abigail would like you to elaborate on the last sentence of your post.
50 year old female, married, one son, OC native.
You can fight it all you want gay marriage is going to happen. As I watch my nephew, niece and son start college they are much more open to gay marriage. They don’t see why the older generations have a problem with it. The “OC” is becominig more and move enlightend and it will be better because of it.
Rob– you’re not getting it. The issue isn’t polygamy in the FLDS or the fact that the only reason the LDS stopped the practice was to get Utah admitted to the Union. The issue is that the LDS far exceeded the federal guidelines for monetary and in-kind contributions from a tax-exempt organization to a political campaign.
Want to shrink the deficit? Tax churches as they should be.
It’s amazing how militant some of the gays and liberals are getting on this subject. There is a legal process which has been observed in order to reach this decision. Isn’t that part of the civil liberties you so covet?
Yet we are hearing of Mormon churches receiving mail with white powder reminiscent of the anthrax scare, we’ve got miscellaneous threats here and Sarah Palin hanging from someone’s house in effigy there. I support domestic partnership and I think that a person should not be ridiculed for having a different belief system than I, but go through the process and stop acting like punks, children and, in some respects, terrorists.
Deshard- As clarification, the USSC decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws — written to prevent the mixing of the races that were on the books at the time, the Loving’s wanted the right to live together as husband and wife, it was a decision based on race nor sexual preference. It does state marriage is a basic right for a man and woman, nothing is mentioned or inferred marriage is a basic right for same sex couples, it’s a stretch at best to think the ruling has anything to do with same sex marriage.
No DB. It does not say it’s a basic right for a man AND a woman. It’s says it’s a basic right for man. Period. You’re right. It’s a stretch to infer that the justices in ‘68 were making references for or against same-sex marriage.
The verbatim quote from the decision is that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man”…
It is you sir that is stretching it to mean something it didn’t because same-sex marriage wasn’t in the ballpark then.
It is now. And it is no stretch whatsoever to take the phrase “marraige is one of the basic civil rights of man” and apply that to the gay and lesbian community as the CA Supreme Court duly noted.
Let’s see, the Nazi Party was rife with homosexuality and the Roman Empire under the Caesars had as it’s official religion the Cult of Cybele and Attis which had a homosexual priesthood. That’s acouple of pretty oppressive regimes, I don’t think you guys are the poor little fuzzy bunnies you want everyone to believe you are. I think you want to take over and punish those who refuse to worship at your alter.
Good for the mormon church. They chose to spend their money on YES on 8.
Gay’s spend their Money on anal lube….
deshard
I am speaking about the norm not the exceptions. Of course there are single parent households I would agree The goal though is to have a mom and father. Gay marriage gives no chance of that happening. Could you imagine a dad having to teach a daughter about menstrating-there are reasons we have mothers and fathers. Men and women are different-they complement each other. Children have this right to have a mother and father(of course there are exception-death, divorce) but these exceptions don’t make gay marriage right.
Helen— Wow. Nice try. So, I suppose the Nazi’s Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code was make believe? I suppose too the Third Reich’s Office for the Combating of Homosexuality never existed? Sure. Whatever.
And I have yet to read a declaratioin by any historian attributing the fall of the Roman Empire solely to Cybele and Attis’ castration club.
Whatever.
deshard:
Based on States Rights and “consent of the governed”.
Deshard- This case presented a constitutional question whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of “racial classifications” violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Racial Classification), the quote “marriage is only a basic right of man” is gender inclusive meaning man and woman with nothing to do with sexual preference. The basis of the case was racial classification not sexual preference. You are right same sex marriage was not in the ball park then (’68) and the case is a stretch to apply it to same sex marriage.
there is no way I would want my father to teach me about menstration–there is a reason father and mothers are required. It is a slap in the face to use single parent exceptions as an aguement to justify gay marriage
DB:
There are also other U.S. Supreme Court cases and DOMA that would have to be overturned for same-sex marriage to be imposed on a national level.
I love how all the homophobes somehow try and attribute the collapse of any empire to moral decadence and thus somehow tie in homosexuality as a leading cause.
When you get to the facts, moral decadence has had no involvement in the collapse of any empire unless you count imperialism, colonialism, and greed as moral decadence.
Helen, the Roman Empire did not fall because of homosexuals, the Third Reich did not fall because of homosexuals, and the United States of America will not fall because of homosexuals.
Jake- I agree with you completely, the case Deshard mentioned does not refer to same sex marriage nor do any others from the USSC. Until a case goes to the court which I believe will be heard in the next 2 years the issue will not be settled.
Gay people will never stop using the word “married” in regards to their unions - no matter how anyone votes. First amendment sucks doesn’t it.
who gives shizit at this point its over - go on some meds for petes sake
I am on my iPhone, or I would give you the case citations.
Let’s see, so you feel just because it was they were allowed to remain anonymous, it’s your job to throw them under the bus. You are pathetic. I am eagerly waiting for you article on whom provided money to fight Prop. 8. I am holding my breath. YEAH RIGHT!! This your idea of being a political reporter. Good luck with your other job after the Register fires you from this on.
Oh yeah thats right it was the lead used in the wine vats drove everyone crazy and thats what caused Rome to fall, silly me. And why if I state historic instance am I a homophoebe? I guess since you get so backed up about Religion I could call you a Theophobe or a Christophobe. And yes I misspelled homophobe wrong on purpose.
The database shows all donations - for and against for all ballot measures - and most articles mention that. It’s state law, if you were unaware of that it’s your own fault for not paying attention.
If you are interested in which companies support gay rights so you can boycott them please turn off your computer because they include Microsoft and Apple (as well as IBM, Dell, Adobe, Google, Yahoo and the list goes on). Good luck trying not to use any of their products.
So much hate, so much misinformation, and all in one place. The proposition passed by a narrower margin this time than last, perhaps next time it will fail if the existing pattern continues. I can’t imagine why the homosexual community can’t be satisfied with their existing equal rights with heterosexuals. Marriage is actually NOT even a right but a privilege requiring a license just like driving. What actually is taking place is a de-moralization of California and America. And when evil is called good, when right is called wrong, and wrong is called right, this state and this country will not be worth fighting for and will be left for those who insist on having their own way, rather than submitting to a higher authority, be it a voting majority or their loving creator God. Believe or don’t believe as you see fit, and it is certainly everyone’s (religious or not) right to act on their beliefs. Fact is, believe it or not, your decisions in this lifetime dictate your venue in eternity. So rage on, but remember, every knee WILL bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and give account for their life lived in the flesh. Not my word’s, but the Almighty’s.
Helen, you spread vitriol instead of history. And yes, you can call me a “Theophobe” because I find organized religion terrifying but I do not use my fear as a basis to oppress others. You can practice your religion all you want, just keep it out of my life and my government. Like a wise man once said “Do what thou wilt. Harm none.”
recordjerk:
Homosexuals aren’t harming none.
sammyj:
I don’t use Microsoft, IBM, Dell, or Yahoo at least.
DB:
One of the cases is Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972), in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of [a] substantial federal question”. That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage. There are other cases, but that is the main one.
There have been approximately 68 lawsuits over the issue of same-sex â??marriageâ?? since the first cases were filed in about 1971. Only 10 of those lawsuits were filed in the 25-year period from 1971 to 1996 before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Romer v. Evans, which struck down Coloradoâ??s constitutional amendment banning laws specifically protecting sexual orientation. Fifty or more lawsuits have been filed since the Supreme Courtâ??s sodomy decision in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003.
Of the 34 cases that have been decided to date, only ten courts have ruled that there is a right to same-sex â??marriage.â?? Three of those decisions have been overturned by constitutional amendment (Hawaii, Alaska, and California), three have been reversed by state supreme courts (two in Washington and one in New York). Massachusetts and Connecticut now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
One of the most troubling developments over the past two years is the judicial perspective on same-sex â??marriage.â?? Many of the judges that reject constitutional claims nevertheless express or imply their personal support for redefining marriage, albeit through the democratic process. This frightening trend points to the ultimate need for a federal solution through a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Has anyone seen Badwolf since 1:51 pm when that post was cut-off mid sentence: “Some of you …”
I hope nothing bad happened to him / her / it.
Randy–Not everyone appreciates or believes in your proselytizing.Not every knee bends to jesus….or allah…or brahma,vishnu or shiva.Get it?
Your religious rants don’t mean diddly to many of us,so try a logical line of reasoning disconnected from fantasy.
mensarino:
A) The ideal for raising children is within heterosexual marriage;
B) Homosexual marriage is not heterosexual marriage;
C) Therefore, homosexual marriage is not the ideal for raising children.
Was that “logical” enough for you?
Faulty syllogism—educate yourself!
Here’s another one:
Either every knee will bow, or not. They are mutually exclusive propositions.
mensarino:
All you wanted was “a logical line of reasoning disconnected from fantasy.” I just gave you that. We can debate “whether the ideal for raising children is within heterosexual marriage” all night long if you’d like.
Logically, if EVERY couple was same-sex, all human civilization must cease to exist. The opposite does not hold true.
Think of it this way: the replacement birth rate is normally considered to be 2.1 children per woman. Anything less than that results in a declining population. What is the CURRENT birth rate among same-sex couples? I doubt it’s over .01. Even with all our medical advances, IVF, etc., if same-sex couples have anything less than two children per woman, eventually human civilization ceases to exist. It’s just a matter of time.
I guess that mensarino left already? Too bad.
Jake—I don’t deal in ridiculous hypotheticals.Heterosexuality is in no danger of dying out.Furthermore,I don’t buy into the universality of your initial statement which began your syllogism.
You are clearly out of your league in the discussion of logic.Have you ever even taken a course in logic?
Yes. Have you ever graduated from Stanford Law School?
It’s also interesting to note the Mormons who were reimbursed by the Yes on 8 campaign for their efforts:
Expenditures made:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007&view=expenditures
Lawrence Research (Gary Lawrence, Mormon pollster and Meridian contributor): $528,877.35
Eagle Foundation (a Mormon PAC set up by Bart Marcois and David Parker): $135,912.76
Glen Greener (former Salt Lake City Police Commissioner, Meridian contributor, and now a GOP operative and sometime Cali property developer): $50,236.42
Sonja Brown (Protectmarriage.com communications director): $41,844.00
Zion Multimedia Corp.: $2,000.00
Rob Wirthlin: $768.18
These kinds of campaigns are cash cows for the “grassroots organizers” and Prop 8 no doubt helped Gary Lawrence, Bart Marcois, David Parker and their LDS buddies to position themselves to be even bigger players the next time a similar initiative comes around. I’ve heard in comments over at my place that these guys were overheard gloating in the ward (church) hallway about the awesome lists that they now have in hand because of the Prop 8 effort.
There could very well be other Mormons in that list of payees, but I’ve mentioned the ones I recognize.
Impressive credentials from the anonymity of the internet,Jake.I could just as easily tell you of my Phd from Harvard.
Well, you hide your knowledge well or you grew so old that you forgot what you learned.Your sophistry is juvenile and your arguments are illogical.
You should ask Stanford for a refund.
I thank the Mormon church and all others who helped put Prop 8 over the top.If there is a next time we will do it again, so make my day, bring it on.
Mansarino, I do not rant, I speak the truth in love. God loves you, and I do not mean Allah, or Vishnu, or any other man-created deities. The God of all the earth remembers everything so be prepared to defend yourself against perfect knowledge on your judgement day. If you want to marginalize someone check to see that they can be marginalized, your weak attempts are ineffectual. Those who fight for what they believe is God’s will cannot be swayed by the opinions or desires of those who demand a right to sin. This society matters to those who love it and we don’t want to see it debased in our lifetime. It is simply this, in order for evildoers to prosper (have their way) good people must do nothing. That will not happen, spiritual people will always resist evildoers, these acts being played out in the press and at the polls are further evidence to that. But then evidence means little to evildoers as they continue to disbelieve the evidence of divine creation that screams at them from every atom and every molecule and every second in time.
Deshard, I have considered your homosexual choice and I have questions. When I observe the male and female bodies, I can perceive how they fit together sexually. When I study the biological functions existent in their bodies I see how reproduction occurs in the species. Then I look at a male/male or female/female union I immediately notice that their is no natural method of sexual union, only the unnatural methods, additionally I see that without scientific intervention there is no reproduction method provided. Now in light of this unnatural physical union, and the condemnation of these pairings by the Holy Bible, other religions writings, the laws of many nations, even atheistic ones, and even US law at one time, now is it reasonable that you expect those who haven’t made your choice to support your choice. Can you be so ignorant as to believe that those not in agreement with your choice would resist having their world controlled (in any way) by you. Incidentally, when you point the finger of ignorance at another because his belief’s are at odds with yours’, there are three fingers pointed back at you. Perhaps someday if you can practice manners, you might be able to convince intelligent and spiritual people to make the same choices as you.
Randy—Don’t confuse those who do not believe as you do as “evil doers”.Judge not lest ye be judged.You, sir,are a religious fanatic and you do not have a monopoly on truth.Your arrogance and condescension do not lead people to follow your path.A truly devout individual would not endorse your self-defeating approach to win converts.
Accept the fact that good people can reject your views.
Mensarino, dragging out the judge not lest… thing is lame. In that passage Judge means to pass sentence on. Consider that with the spiritual man judgeth all things, in this passage judge means discern. And I discern that calling someone a fanatic is merely an ineffectual persons method at marginalization. I am not confused whatsoever, evildoers are those who will not be told what to do (controlled by outside force be it law or deity). I am no more a religious fanatic than you are a Doctor of Jurisprudence. I am a logical person who does not close his mind to the facts that don’t fit my life choices. I never claimed to have a monolopy on the truth, but I do claim to believe the truth. Your name calling is evidence that your emotions are ruling your response and not your logic. I am not arrogant or condescending or desirous of anyone following my path. How can you be sure what a ‘truly devout individual’ would endorse? Your instruction to accept the fact that good people can reect your views is inflamatory and totally meaningless. Oh, your initial instruction of ‘Don’t….Mensarino, you aren’t qualified give orders around here or anywhere, your lack of focus, logic, knowledge and manners testify to that.
As I said, you are a fanatic who, if born elsewhere,have the mentality to quite easily be a Taliban or some other zealot blinded by some cult of exclusivity.
Believe as you will but don’t try to impose your beliefs onto others in a secular world.
mensarino:
Don’t look now, but Prop. 8 did in fact impose our beliefs. Now, did you graduate from Stanford Law School or not?
Mensarino, having an illogical like you call me fanatical is hilarious. If you knew me you would know a very mild, very quiet individual who just doesn’t force anything on anyone. You would also know someone who is capable of defending his beliefs against name calling, narrow minded, unreasonable individuals, and someone who does not let the unqualified issue instructions. So perhaps you might try giving instructions to someone who gives your words weight. Mensarino, if you are not going to discuss and intend to only inflame then you have already surrendered in defeat. I am leaving this discussion now as it has deteriorated to the point where name calling and personal attack violated the rules. But then, why should we expect those who scream foul in defeat, rather than accept the will of the majority, to respect rules. Perhaps, just perhaps, those who scream fanatic are the most fanatical. The mentality I possess, says don’t debate with the unreasonable, leave them as you found them.
deshard:
Did you see the cases I mentioned last night?
Does anyone else know why San Francisco is listed on this campaign report?
Jake—I have only your word that you graduated from Stanford.That may be only as valid as my claim to be a Harvard grad(which I am not)
You may be surprised at the court”s ruling in March or the SCOTUS later on.You won a battle with 8, not the war.This issue will not go away any time soon.
mensarino:
So, we know you are not a Harvard grad, but that’s not the question I asked. Both you and Warren refuse to answer simple questions, even though I answered all of yours. For the record, you asked me first if I had taken a logic class, and I answered that question. I won’t ask you my question again.
Jake,
If you’re really interested in looking up cases, try Mendez v. Westminster. That case was from 1947 and said that segregated schools were not equal. 7 years before Brown v. Board of Education. Then you can look up Perez v. Sharp, 1948. In that case the California Supreme Court ruled the State could not ban interracial marriages, 19 years before Loving v. Virginia. California has a history of leading the nation on certain issues. This could be the case with same-sex marriage too. There is no compelling legal reason to deny two people the right to marry.
RandyM,
In your rant about the parts not fitting, you are confusing the act of sex and marriage. There are no sexual requirements in marriage and prop8 did nothing to prevent homosexual sex. There is also no God so whatever will you think you are following is just your own prejudice veiled under religion.
No,I did not graduate from Stanford law.For all I know, neither did you.Even if you did, that does not imbue you with infallibility nor does it guarantee an expertise in constitutional law.
I am a member of Mensa but do not claim to be an expert on all issues.So, what is your point?
My point is that there are intelligent people on both sides of this debate — good people who can reject your views too — there’s no need to resort to ad hominem personal attacks though.
The Decider:
You really think there’s “no compelling legal reason” to deny an adult brother the right to marry his adult sister?
Jake—I respect a well reasoned debate.You are capable of that at times and Randy is not.
If I may answer the question you directed to Decider,I see no legal reason why brothers and sisters can’t wed.In Ca. first cousins may wed.It is only the old incest taboo that prevents this type of marriage.I personally don’t find it an attractive option but I wouldn’t want to stand in their way.They would,after all, be legally consenting adults.
You’re right, I should have qualified that but I thought you could infer what I meant. Usually in cases of incest, even adult concentual incest, there exists some form of coercion. That would also exclude children and people without the capacity to contract. Other than that, there is no compelling legal reason to deny two people the right to marry.
Did you see my replacement birth rate hypothetical?
O.K., so that’s one vote for incest and one vote not for incest “usually”. Anyone else?
Any replacement birth rate hypothetical is asinine. We are not going to run out of people. Homosexuals have always existed and there has been no problem with the replacement birth rate.
I’ll take your non-answer as you admission there is no compelling legal argument against same-sex marriage.
The Decider:
“Non-answer”?! You have to ask a question first. Am I to assume you meant to ask what the compelling State interest is in denying same-sex marriage? I already posted, above, the IDEAL for raising children is a stable family with a husband and wife. Of course there’s a compelling legal reason to favor that for healthy and productive citizens. On top of that, homosexual males have a much shorter life expectancy. Given the medical, economic and emotional drain on society, there’s a compelling reason to discourage high-risk behavior. You are OK taxing cigarettes and fast-food, right?
mensarino:
An adult brother cannot legally marry his adult sister because of the increased risk in birth defects.
You’re basing your argument on a false premise. Every study from a non-biased source shows that children raised by same sex parents are just as well off as children raised by opposite sex couples. Similarly, you’re statement about homosexual life expectancy is also based on anti-gay, religious organization’s research. What is your legal argument against same-sex marriage?
My legal argument is based on statistics from the CDC (not an anti-gay, religious organization last time I checked).
The Decider (for the last time):
You are OK taxing cigarettes and fast-food, right?
Then you’re going to have to provide evidence to support your claims because the only thing I see on from CDC regarding shorter life expectancies pertains to HIV and AIDS. Which, unless you’re very ignorant, is not a gay disease. I also don’t see anything on there regarding your claim about children of opposite sex parents.
Why is it like pulling teeth to get answers to simple questions? You will note that I answer ALL of your questions. Children raised by same sex parents are just as “well off” as children raised by opposite sex couples ONLY if you ignore the former child’s acceptance of and even experimentation with said lifestyle as a good thing. We are never going to agree on that, so I will move on to the CDC data.
HIV/AIDS is only one facet to the shorter life expectancy rate among homosexual males. As a group, they also have higher incidences of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions, colon and throat cancer, etc. There are plenty of other physical health problems — not to mention psychological problems — and associated costs to society. Maybe we should focus our debate on that?
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/HomosexualSexContinuesKill.pdf
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/125706.php
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bjs.1800770506
I could keep going. Is this thing on?
Prop 8 passed……..whether you like it or not.I for one voted against it.If it came around again I would vote FOR it based on the actions of the pro gay crowd.I dont like sore losers.
From one of the links (CDC Statement):
“HIV remains a significant threat to the health of Latino communities in the United States. Latinos are becoming infected with HIV at a rate three times greater than whites; and while Latinos represent just 15 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 18 percent of those living with HIV/AIDS. Among Latinos, men who have sex with men are the most heavily affected by HIV, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections among this population group in 2006.” (Emphasis Added)
Thanks, teresa.
You are proving my point now. Traditional Values is a Christian Right organization. You do know they are not the CDC, right?
The other story you posted a link to is again about HIV, not homosexuality.
I didn’t answer your question about fast food and tobacco but it is not related to this topic. But no, I do not agree with taxing cigarettes and fast food any more than other products. That has no relation to this topic as taxing and preventing are two different things.
The Decider:
I am proving YOUR point that “men who have sex with men are the most heavily affected by HIV, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections”? I know that Traditional Values is not the CDC, but even right-wing wackos can cite to CDC statistics.
P.S. the power to tax (as the power to marry) is the power to destroy.
You could keep going but you’re just spinning your wheels. If you want to cite the CDC then cite the CDC not what some religious organization tried to use to slant their argument. Again, your other article relates to HIV not homosexuality. Regardless of that fact, people with HIV, that smoke and eat fast food are still allowed to marry. So you are still missing a legal argument to deny same-sex couples that right. Now I answered your questions and you still have not answered mine. Where is your legal argument to deny two people, of legal capacity to marry, the right to marry?
The Decider:
That was a statement FROM the CDC. I already gave the legal argument to deny an adult brother the right to marry his adult sister. As for denying an adult man the right to marry another adult man:
A) The ideal for raising children is within heterosexual marriage;
B) Homosexual marriage is not heterosexual marriage;
C) Therefore, homosexual marriage is not the ideal for raising children.
As I said, we aren’t going to agree on this one. Feel free to ask more questions though. As long as you answer mine in a civil manner, I will return the same courtesy.
You also did NOT answer: “Why is it like pulling teeth to get answers to simple questions?” or “Is this thing on?”
I did answer your question. No, I do not agree with an extra tax on tobacco or fast food. There, now I’ve answered it twice.
You’re argument against same-sex marriage is based on a false information and therefore not valid. Every study from a non-biased source indicates children of same-sex couples are just as well adjusted as any other children. When you come up with a valid argument let me know.
Oh, you wanted a “valid” argument?
circumlocution
Not at all, mensarino. In fact, The Decider is begging the question. As I already stated, above, children raised by same sex parents are just as â??well offâ?? as children raised by opposite sex couples ONLY if you ignore the former childâ??s acceptance of and even experimentation with said lifestyle as a good thing. I could just as easily claim HIS studies are biased because they consider deviant homosexual behavior as acceptable in the first place.
Do you also deny that adult brothers having sex with their adult sisters have an increased risk in birth defects?
Your use of the pejorative term “deviant” tells me all I need to know.
Only if they choose to have children.
Be back later.
mensarino:
We already discussed this, in full, on a prior thread.
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/07/prop-8-reoccuring-questions/7805/
“Deviant” is not necessarily pejorative. Unless you think standard DEVIATION in statistics is also pejorative?
That being said, I would gladly agree to allow same-sex marriage as long as they cannot have children.
Still waiting, Jake… When are you going to cite this study that says children of same-sex parents are more prone to experiment in homosexual behavior and that its a good thing?
The Decider:
The children of same-sex parents experienced “stigmatization” and, in particular, the children of lesbian couples “also appeared to be less aggressive … more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous.”
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
http://books.google.com/books?id=ONN01B5RJe0C&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=children+of+same-sex+couples+%22explore+their+own%22&source=web&ots=MZ6ugWcx4N&sig=gGG5M89bAMLOzox_abDrVkCCWsI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
Again, I could keep going (but you denied even CDC stats before, so what’s the use?).
You’re as bad as the religious zealots. You’re completely ignoring that the article does not at all state what you did. You are also ignoring the findings of the study is the article: “Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children”
“The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” Dr. Perrin said. “In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”
“What is exciting about this study was that they followed the children 11 years later when they became adults,” Dr. Perrin said. “But they still found no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation.”
“The researchers found no differences in the parents other than that lesbian couples share household and child care tasks more equitably,” said Dr. Perrin. “The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous,” playing with toys for both boys and girls.
Still waiting for you to support what you’ve written there, Jakey.
You never even cited the CDC stats so how could I have denied them?
I asked you for the CDC stats and you gave me something from tradationalvalues.org instead. Are you becoming confused?
The Decider:
I’m not the one that is confused. I quoted from the CDC Statement (”men who have sex with men are the most heavily affected by HIV, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections among this population group in 2006″) and the article directly, yet they still conclude: “Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Childrenâ?? That’s my point. Every study from your “non-biased” sources indicates these children are just as well adjusted as any other children, because they completely discount the kid’s emotional health, stigmatization, and even sexual experimentation. OTOH, I think those are bad things.
The last link I gave you pointed out that “compared to the children of heterosexual mothers, a greater percentage of children raised by lesbian mothers had had a same-sex sexual relations or were open to this possibility in the future.” Did you read that yet?
Where in the study does it say they discounted the kid’s emotional health, stigmatization, and even sexual experimentation? And I already discredited you HIV argument when I stated that there is nothing preventing heterosexuals from getting married. So far you haven’t provided anything to support what you’ve written. You did not quote directly from the CDC, you quoted traditional values quoting the CDC. Something tells me they share your penchant for selectively editing data.
(from the previous link — for anyone other than The Decider):
CDC Statement On National Latino AIDS Awareness Day
Article Date: 16 Oct 2008 - 5:00 PST
Statement by Dr. Kevin Fenton, Director, NCHHSTP, CDC:
HIV remains a significant threat to the health of Latino communities in the United States. Latinos are becoming infected with HIV at a rate three times greater than whites; and while Latinos represent just 15 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 18 percent of those living with HIV/AIDS. Among Latinos, men who have sex with men are the most heavily affected by HIV, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections among this population group in 2006. On this National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, we all must pledge continued commitment to address this threat against Latinos, the largest minority population in the United States.
Our nation’s response to this threat must be as diverse as the Latino HIV/AIDS epidemic itself, confronting the unique cultural and socioeconomic challenges that place Latinos at greater risk. These challenges include limited health care access, language barriers, migration, discrimination, varied socioeconomic status, stigma surrounding homosexuality and HIV, and higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (which significantly increase HIV risk) compared to whites.
The end of this epidemic can become a reality, if everyone with a stake in this fight - individuals, communities, businesses, and governments - unites to address this devastating disease that exacts a direct toll on the Latino community.
relations = relationship
Last I checked, “a rate three times greater”, “15 percent”, “18 percent”, and “more than half of all new HIV infections among this population group in 2006″ are CDC stats. We are talking about the Center for Disease Control, right?
Again your HIV argument is rendered moot by the fact that gay or straight people with HIV are still allowed to marry. If you actually have a valid argument you aren’t doing a very good job of supporting it.
Is this the best you’ve got?
They shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or at the very least, reproduce.
Well, which one is it: I cited CDC stats or not?
Again, what does HIV has to do with marriage? And relations does not equal relationship. You can have relations with someone with being in a relationship with them. Although I think that may be an indication of your problem to grasp this issue. You clearly have trouble understanding the English language.
This would be citing the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/NLAADPressrelease-101508.htm
I even have to do that for you.
And the point is moot because straight or gay, HIV is not a restriction for marriage.
LOL! I was correcting a typo, since my quote should have stated “relationship” rather than “relations”. You still refuse to answer simple questions. Let’s try (one last time) “DID YOU READ THAT YET?” I gave you a book with an entire chapter quoting “non-biased” studies: http://books.google.com/books?id=ONN01B5RJe0C&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=children+of+same-sex+couples+%22explore+their+own%22&source=web&ots=MZ6ugWcx4N&sig=gGG5M89bAMLOzox_abDrVkCCWsI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA241,M1
The last link I provided showed that â??compared to the children of heterosexual mothers, a greater percentage of children raised by lesbian mothers had had a same-sex sexual relationship or were open to this possibility in the future.â?? Does anyone (other than The Decider) want to discuss whether that a good or bad thing?
Does anyone (other than The Decider) want to discuss whether we should allow same-sex marriage as long as they cannot have children?
Does anyone (other than The Decider) want to discuss the definition(s) of “deviant”?
Heck, I will even discuss the topic: why it’s a good thing that the Mormon church gave $190,000 worth of help to pass Prop. 8. Bueller?Bueller?
The link you provided does not say that on the page it links to and, if it did, it would contradict the other article you cited that said when children of same-sex parents became adults they was no difference in identifying sexual orientation. All you have provided so far is straw man arguments based on false, misleading, or fabricated data.
Awww, what’s the matter Jakey, don’t like it when you get smacked down?
Anyone else (who can actually read the entire chapter)?
Anyone else (who can actually answer simple questions)?
Hearing none, this thread is hereby adjorned.
I answered all your questions. You have yet to answer mine. Where is your legal argument for opposing same-sex marriage? Everything you’ve provided so far is based on false information or has nothing to do with marriage.
I found where the book states that. I you’re going to cite sources try to link to data you are citing so I don’t have to go look for it myself. It will make you seem more credible. It cites one small study and says more children of lesbians had same-sex experiences. Why would that be bad? And what basis does that give you to deny people marriage?
You still have not supported anything you have written. If you are as credentialed as you claim you should be able to provide an argument that can withstand a little scrutiny.
Decider—Way to go—you made the blowhard leave.I just got back and read the posts and you were besting him at every turn.Evidently he couldn’t take it.His logic is as flawed as his imaginary law degree from Stanford.
Congratulations for holding the line and not letting him go unchallenged.He was clearly in over his head today.
LOL! I didn’t leave and you two have a different definition of “besting him at every turn.” If anyone else actually thinks calling my replacement birth rate hypothetical question “asinine” is an actual RESPONSIVE answer to the question, please let me know and I will open the floor back up for debate. I would be happy to answer any hypothetical question you have. Those of you who won’t return the common courtesy of actually answering my questions, don’t bother.
Someone didnt like my comment….tell the gays they were such poor losers that if it comes up in vote again.I WILL vote in support of prop 8 because nobody likes a sore loser.
teresa:
I liked your comment : )
You replacement birth rate comment is asinine because same-sex marriage does not affect the current birth rate. Homosexuals who want to have children have a means for doing so that didn’t exist in the recent past. So, if anything the birth rate will increase with technology. Homosexuals weren’t previously contributing to the birth rate so your argument is baseless and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. I, on the other hand, asked you a direct question that directly addresses same-sex marriage. You have yet to provide an answer that is not based on blatantly false or misleading data. What is your valid, legal reason for denying people the right to marry?
He would have answered by now if he had any defensible retort.Ironic that he is the one who is constantly demanding that we answer his questions.He’s probably getting the drift that he can’t bully his way on this thread.He is clearly out of his league.
Mensarino, I had a feeling with Mensa in your handle that this would be stated eventually (though since you have proved yourself a liar why should we believe you now?), show me losing all respect for that once revered organization. Mensarino YOU are the one incapable of debate, rather than answer the challenges you are confronted with you resort to name calling and impotent attempts at marginalization. I remember watching the group of Prop. 8 opponents who attacked the little old lady in Palm Springs (after their defeat!), yanking a cross from her tiny hands are stomping it into the ground. Such a fine display of reason, intelligence, honor and respect for others (sarcasm for those who need an explanation) should never be forgotten. Like Teresa said, after witnessing this kind of conduct why should your cause be respected when no respect is given. The Decider, the valid, legal reason for denying people of the same sex the right to marry is that Proposition 8 passed, if you support same sex marriage you lost! 2% of the population does not get to bully everyone else. Now stop being such poor losers, accept reality and move on with your lives. JakeD, feel free to leave these individuals to gloat over their ‘victory’, we know they have already been defeated so allow them their delusion. It is the rule of their life. They have been given over to it. Their own words will be their condemnation. Love, peace and grace to those who love truth.
Right on Randy M!
And just how have I proved myself to be a liar?At least Jake debates without dredging up fairy tales as a justification for his prejudices.You marginalize yourself,I don’t have to lift a finger.
Sorry if the truth stings.Because you won round 1 in this fight does not mean that your bigotry will prevail in the longrun.I actually pity you.
Mensarino, You have proved yourself to be a liar by several of your non-verifiable claims. But my favorites are, “not every knee will bend”, and “Sorry if the truth stings.” and “dredging up fairy tales” and “You marginalize yourself.” Truth be told mensarino - Mensarino’s knee will bend and Mensarino’s lips will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. For YOU truth may sting, I LOVE the truth, it is one of my very best friends! Oh, and mensarino, this is NOT round 1 (another lie?), try round 3, and until another militant judge or group of judges is found to overturn the will of the people it will stand. I fully expect a judiciary packed with non-believing liberals and possibly even homosexuals (we know how the homosexuals seek out positions of authority to exercise control to server their agenda) to overturn the will of the people again, that is why gloating is excluded from those who appreciate Prop 8 passage. We know what is going on, we know evil is prospering in these last days, and we also know that this pattern will continue until our deliverance. We know this and yet we still resist the moral decay evident in every facet of human society today because we LOVE, not because we hate. You want to see hate, watch the videos of the Prop 8 opponents after their defeat. Mensarino, if you believe that life here on earth is NOT a battle between good (God and his followers) and evil (Satan, his minions, and unregenerated mankind) then YOU are the self-deluded one as is anyone who thinks likewise. Bottom line, I will in love that all, including you, come to a saving relationship with Jesus, but I know that the path to destruction is wide and many will perish for the hardness of their hearts. So rage and rant all you want until your last tomorrow mensarino and remember, you cannot claim ignorance on YOUR judgement day, as I myself, likely others, and all of creation have testified to the eternal existence of your SAVIOR and your JUDGE. Now Mensarino, if you must respond, please spare us the inane name calling, and impotent attempts at marginalization, use a small part of that brain for rational thought rather than emotional vindictive, and egotistical posturing. Heavenly Father, You alone are perfect and holy, deserving of all power and glory. Thank you father for saving me and proving yourself to me over and over again. When I took a baby step in your direction you raced to me. Father, I pray that Mensarino will come to a saving knowledge of your dear Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This I know is your will, and all the saints said, AMEN.
In Jesus’s Name, AMEN!
RandyM, God, Jesus, Satan etc are not real. So if you’re using that as the basis of your argument then you need to be treated for delusion. Second, you obviously don’t understand our government if you think prop8 passing is a valid legal argument. We do not live in a pure democracy so the vote of the people is not the final word. The United States is a constitutional republic. For example, you could vote on an amendment that required every person in California to go to church on Sunday and pray to your imaginary deity. But it would be declared unconstitutional because its violates the establishment clause. Similarly, prop8 violates the constitutional right of equal treatment under the law.
No, it doesn’t. As I already pointed out Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972), in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal â??for want of [a] substantial federal questionâ??. That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.
What unmitigated gall,Randy.You say that I am a liar because I make unverifiable claims BUT you have the ultimate unverifiable claim…..that your imaginary playmate is god.
Give it a rest—-I don’t need or want your prayers.
Obviously, if every knee bends some day, that indeed is verifiable. If anyone else (who is willing to answer my questions) has a question about that, or Baker v. Nelson please let me know.
The Supreme Court not hearing a case is not the same as ruling on it. Which is why I cited Mendez v. Westminster and Perez v. Sharp. The system in the U.S. is purposely designed to be slow.
Jake—False again—not every knee bends to worship…..not verifiable.Are you really that dense?
mensarino:
I am not dense at all. “Verifiable” means capable of being verified. Of course not every knee bends (yet). But IF that happens, then it will be verified, and it is therefore VERIFIABLE. Perhaps not short of super-natural means, but it is still verifiable.
What is NOT verifiable is your assertion that “not every knee will bend”. That is the status quo, so a continuance of the status quo can never be verified.
See the distinction?
Again, if anyone other than The Decider wants to discuss the precedential value of Baker v. Nelson let me know.
Jake—I usually refrain from hypotheticals.
It would also help if you read the opinion first:
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
“We hold, therefore, that [Minnesota law prohibiting same-sex marriage] does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
mensarino:
“Verifiable” is always a hypothetical inquiry. Alas, if you’d rather not answer my simple questions, no skin off my nose.
Anyone else?
So you agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court that different rights should be given to men and women?
Anyone else?
What’s the matter Jake? Tired of getting your tail kicked all over the comment board?
Decider—He’s afraid of you!
If anyone else (other than The Decider and mensarino) does not know which of my questions they refused to answer on this thread, long before I stopped answering their questions, please let me know.
My knee will never bend to your boogeyman in the sky—–now that is both the truth and verifiable.
Uh oh, looks like you made his list too, Mensarino. Maybe Jake could make up some imaginary Stanford friends to debate with.
No one else?
Hearing no one, the thread is adjourned until tomorrow.
LOL
Jake, While you’re trying to come up with a valid legal argument to deny people the right to marry, look up Plessy v Ferguson. In that case the SC ruled that segregation was constitutional. Of course today we see the obvious error of that decision. Same with Baker v Nelson. It takes time for the court to get it right sometimes too.
The Decider, you just don’t get it, and attempting to convince you is pointless and a waste of valuable time. JakeD, friend don’t argue with parrots. Mensarino is still lying. Declaring yourself a winner does not make you a winner, that is for other’s to decide. Rant and deny it all you want, your knee will bend, insisting or even willing that some future event will never happen does not mean it won’t happen. There is no boogeyman in the sky, but there is God who cannot lie that claims every knee, that includes your knee, will bend and that every lip, that includes your lip, will confess His Son’s Lordship. It is every human’s destiny. Calling something a fantasy does not make it a fantasy. And yet another lie, you don’t need prayer. You may not want prayer but YOU need prayer, and it has already been offered for you. I will offer more in days to come, another example of something you are powerless to stop. You see Mensarino, you may be brilliant but you lack the tools to make sound life choices because you make those choices as if there were no God, and no eternal life, a malady affecting many brilliant people, and a fatal flaw when left uncorrected. And I know better to call another a fool, so I simply quote God Himself who testifies ‘The fool says in his heart there is no God.’
Anyway, Mensarino or The Decider, I would like to recommend any of the Calvary Chapels here in Orange County, or even Saddleback Church, they have satellite churches away from the main campus if it is too remote for you. And once you have learned the truth I would love to fellowship with you. Have a super day folks!
I’ve investigated your superstition thoroughly and its completely false. There is no God and the bible contains many lies.
Randy, preach on brother. So nice to hear a strong Christian who knows the bible and is not intimidated but actually prays for the salvation of the lost sheep. You know God loves them.
Badwolf, you really need to get a brain. The Mormon church a “death cult?” I’d ask you how is it to be so ignorant, but since ignorance is oblivious to itself, it’s futile.
The deciever(decider) is a product of his inability to control himself so he must control others to make up for his lack of power and discipline. Part of his heterophobia causes him to belittle anyone that knows the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have givin him new words that he could use in place of marriage such as Gayknot or Ferriage but he continues to beat the lying drum of of lost rights.
Mariage is between a man and a woman, he knows it he just wants to distroy what he doesn’t have to control. What a sad little person.
To the Decider, your days are numbered. You shouldn’t have said that about God and the bible. I feel for you. May God have mercy on you.
I think it is great that the Mormon’s helped get Prop 8 passed.