Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letter: Vote 'yes' on Prop. 8

Original post made on Oct 4, 2008

Dear Editor,

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 3, 2008, 12:00 AM

Comments (115)

Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 4, 2008 at 12:30 am

Marilyn, I highly encourage you to eduucate yourself on this topic before you speak- same sex marriages WILL NOT destory family life. As a matter fact, the 1950/60's model of what consists of a family is destroying itself. Families have been and still are dominated by males incase you haven't realized it yet. With time though things will change and I do believe people will come around. You should read the book "Family in Transition" by Skolnick & Skolnick- most book stores should have it as well as Amazon- it can be found. I would bet that your family fits the typical model this book discusses.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, aliens, whatever label you want to give people, should be allowed the same rights anybody else. It's not your choice to tell someone "don't love him or her and if you do you will be denied your rights." Your words along with the other ladies words are ignorant- saying same sex marriages will be taught to your kids the same way traditional marriages are, give me a break! A well educated teacher should and will know how to handle the topic of people that are not heterosexuals. The main concept that should always be given to our children and future generation is tolerance. Saying that Prop 8 will restore marriage is saying that it is OUR fault, the LGBT communities fault, that traditional marraiges have failed. How is that even true when gays and lesbians have had a tiny fraction of a time to even be legally married? Don't throw rocks at your glass house as gays and lesbians had nothing to do with destroying hetersexaul marriages and families; don't blame us for your own communities wrong doings. Also, if people like you continue to support this notion of same sex marriages destorying families, we will continue to see hate crimes and deaths such as Gwen Araujo- you are sending a message out to people that's not ok to be yourself especially if you're not heterosexual. You remember HER don't you? She lived in Newark which isn't far from us at all. The hate and intolerance isn't just next door, it's in our backyard.

And finally to end my rant and go to sleep, I really don't think the issue here is about same sex couples being labled as "married"- if it was called unionship or whatever I'm sure my community would be just as pleased. The main issue is giving us rights and treating us fairly.


Posted by Joyce, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Oct 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Same old, same old arguments.....do you have no better argument other than "hate crimes" and people "not being tolerant" to support your argument for same sex marriage, which you are obviously in? Then you are offended. Hate crime, intolerant and offended etc... You are tolerant only with those voices who share your view. Allow people to make their arguments without calling them intolerant and hateful. People are not saying that it will destroy marriage by the way. They are, however, saying it will fundamentally destroy the very framework that this society has been establish. You may disagree about the outcome, but you can't deny how society was constructed nor can you profess to know how it will affect the outcome. And the part about the "teachers" knowing how to address this issue. They will address it how the state tells them to address it. Does that make me feel any better? No, it scares the hell out of me. Take a deep breath, no need to rant and no need to loose sleep. And for heaven's sake, quit being offended.


Posted by Mr Sung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 6, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I've no problem with gays being gays or civil unions for legal and health benefits, but marriage, as perfect imperfect as it may be, is a multicultural and multi-religion concept and belief for a union of a man and a woman practiced by billions of persons now and through time.

This is not just a Christian Beliefs vs Gay Rights fight as some have tried to define it. This is not about hatred of Gays.

By defining something that is factually not marriage as marriage is insulting to a lot of people from many, many backgrounds from around the world including mine.

Be gay, be proud, have legal rights but don't try to hijack and cheapen our beliefs.

I, my family, friends and many neighbors are voting yes on 8 to protect our multicultural and multi-religious beliefs from this assault.


Posted by lElizabeth and Randy, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Oct 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Mr Sung: Exceptionally well stated.We too will be voting Yes on Prop 8.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 6, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Trying to caveat your statement away from seeming like a bigot doesn't change what you said.

By defining someone factually not of your background, and then claiming they would change you by virtue of what they call themselves is offensive.

I am sure that some flat earth idiot once chimed, don't hijack my flat earth belief because now you have evidence of roundness.




Posted by Beth, a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Oct 6, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I've got a great idea - if you are against same sex marriages, don't be in one.

How this affects straight couples at all is beyond me.

Most of the arguments being flown by the official "yes on 8" are factually incorrect.

Churches cannot be sued for refusing to marry same sex couples - they routinely refuse to marry mixed faith couples now.

There is nothing about education at all in the Supreme Court opinion. Furthermore, one is always allowed to "opt out" of sex ed.

It's bigotry and narrowmindedness when you try to tell everyone to conform to your beliefs. That's what the "yes on 8" people are doing.

No on 8.


Posted by Richard, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 6, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Hey Wayne using words like "bigot" and "idiot" only make people like me who truly remain undecided on prop 8 lean toward a yes. Discuss the benefits of prop 8 without labeling your opponent with "hateful" intentions in what appears to me simply to be a well thought comment, even if it does disagree with your position. I really do want to understand what you are trying to communicate but there you go again....getting offended like an earlier post suggested.


Posted by Alyssa, a resident of Stoneridge
on Oct 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Beth, its not how it affects straight couples....its more how it will affect society. I think a gay man can be a fantastic father...just not a great mother and a lesbian mother can be a fantastic mother but not a great father. I'm 22 yr old and most young people, despite being given alternative messages throughout their entire academic years, would agree its as simple as that.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Alyssa,

So what do you think about single parents then? Yes, there are situations that would be considered ideal, but you forget you are living in the real world. The biggest problem with society is one set of people trying to tell another set of people how to live. That never works. Those being told how to live will always rebel and those doing the telling will always be unhappy because the others won't do what they think they should.

I'm still not sure how you're saying it affects society. Does it affect society the same way single parenthood does? I was raised by a single mother and while it wasn't perfect, it was my reality and that's how I lived. If you're going to say that gay people shouldn't be parents, then you should say the exact same thing about single parents as well. Otherwise, your argument against it is invalid.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Richard, so you have no hang-up about denying life, liberty, and pursuance of happiness to a third party if I am too hard on you. Gee buddy it seems that your constitution is of less stable reality than my own.

There I go again..? Am I using something I can't prove to qualify why I would deny others liberty? Am I socially engineering that gay people are not like me through insinuation that they will change me?

If you can't handle that having thoughts of social segregation makes you seem like a righteous bigot. Then perhaps refraining from such thoughts is more appropriate than attempting to ask me, the offended, to be nice to you.







Posted by Mr. Sung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:01 pm

I'm going back to China where I belong.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:03 pm

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


Posted by Alyssa, a resident of Stoneridge
on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Jana. I formulated my opinion from my own experience, which is my "real world". Moved here from Seattle about 8 yrs ago where I was earlier raised by "two mommies". After mommy number 2 (AKA daddy) decided she did not want to be my "daddy" anymore or probably more fair to say, "married" to my mother (not in the legal way of course)she left. Of the two, she was the professional,highly educated, bread winner(MD) who since has a new woman in her life (another professional) and they now have two kids from in vitro. Like you, I was raised by a single mom. My "single" mom is very supportive, and I love her to death, but she refuses to defend that her so called "marriage" was in the best interest of me. I probably never even answered the rest of your post, but what is important to me is for you to know just one person who does live in the "real world" and will vote yes on prop 8. Go ahead and believe otherwise, but I'm still feeling the effects of what you call "invalid".


Posted by Mr Sung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:38 pm

"I'm going back to China where I belong.
Posted by Mr. Sung, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood "

************************************************

This was not posted by me, but was posted by someone with a weaker mind who wishes to hurl insults instead of using an actual thoughtful argument.

Any posts with my name after this one will not be mine as I have thoughtfully expressed my view as best I can and will move on without engaging in petty insults. I can only hope members of our community will post respectfully no matter which side of the issue they are on. All the best to you.


Posted by Elizabeth and Randy, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Oct 6, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Mr Sung: (this does not refer to the post of the "imposter". You are well spoken and again have stated your response to the person who tried to insult you in a respectful and thoughtful way. It is very clear that this issue cannot be discussed without people being offensive and suggesting that others are hateful and narrow minded or a "bigot"


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 6, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Vote YES on Prop 8


Posted by Mr. Dung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2008 at 10:08 am

Go back to China. You are not good enough for our country. Go away fast and don't look back. Nobody likes you.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm

What I would like to know is how many of you were sexually involved prior to getting married? How many sexual parnters did you have before you got married? How many heterosexual couples had abortions prior to marriage? How many gave their babies away before making their sacred vows? How many brides wore white even though they were extremely sexually active with their future husbands. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...hahahahahahahahahhaha...Miss Piggies....tee hee hee, tee hee hee...


Posted by Mr. Dung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Is Mr. Sing Song Sung a thief? Does he cheat innocent people at his corner store? Does he smoke opium? Did Mr. Sing Song Sung come to the US illegally? Do you own a diner or a BMW? Go back to China.
You are full of hate for other people different from you.


Posted by Mr. Dung, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Are you related to Cholo or Mr. Chop Chop? We all know Cholo is trash, are you to?


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Avignon
on Oct 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Got chop chop? Got Choolo?


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Joyce and to the other's who say Yes to Prop 8- you will NEVER know how it feels to be a gay or lesbian person so how can you say it is tolerant to send notes around to newpapers basically saying "don't show pictures of same sex couples? And let me set this "straight" for your world- I never said anything denying how society was constructed. With that said, you should also realize many people you may have studied in history or any other subject was in fact gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It was never discussed though- and why? Because of comments people say about it being sinnful, you'll go to hell, or you're not accepted to recieve rights because you are gay. People on your side of the issue should also realize that society is changing; you are simply resisting the urge to change for the better.

And yes I am gay and people in my community will continue to bring up the issues of hate crimes. The words you have said as well as others is telling us to not voice our thoughts and human opinons- all of yor ideas supports the idea that being gay or lesbian is not ok and will never be accepted in soceity. And Cholo does have it right- so many views about why gays or lesbians shouldn't marry follow Christian fundamentals, which many of you are Christians or Cahtolics in this town. Hell, I was raised Catholic. As for teachers-a true teacher and life long learner knows how to address this issue in the classroom. A real teacher knows how to teach tolerance and respect to their students without anyone of them feeling degrated, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not. I will be an elementary school teacher very soon and it will be an interesting adventure. But let me guess- you are going to label me as trying to "convert" your kids. Or that if a student asked me if I'm gay and I respond with a yes and move on with my curriculum that you'll fight to have me removed from that school. Google the documentary "Ugly Ducklings" and pay close attention.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2008 at 11:46 pm

One more thing Joyce- read between the lines before you speak as well. The person's letter that was printed in the weekly states "...restore family and marriage..." What exactly do those words mean to you? Either she thinks that people fighting for equality have ruined or damaged marriage (meaning the LGBT community) or that heterosexual couples have ruined it themselves. Take a guess as to which she thinks. Restoring the family and marriage based on either of those ideas should have nothing to do with Prop 8. Restoring the family and marriage should come from within while you aren't worrying about a gay couple that is getting married in the church next to your house.

How about this- people that have blonde hair and blue eyes can get married and kids and have all the rights. But if you have green eyes and blonde hair, you can get married and have kids but no rights. Now, if you have black hair or brown eyes, you get no rights and shouldn't be married as it'll destore what our founding fathers drew up for our society. Get it in your head- you can't naturally change those things as we are born with them. People can tell us we shouldn't love people of the same sex, as it's their opinion and most of us do overlook it, but we should never be told that you have no rights with the person you choose to spend the rest of your life with.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 8, 2008 at 12:18 am

Taken from Web Link

"The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn't just about "live and let live." State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will."

If you can't read the ingorance in their, you have a lot to learn. Go to the California State Content Standards web page and learn that the curriculum standards does not say anywhere that teachers do teach that marriage is of one man and one woman, especially for Kindergartners. (Here I'll provide the website too so you can researc and try and find where marriage is in there for Kindergartners: Web Link


Only an ingnorant teacher would teach that a same sex marriage is the same as a traditional marriage- the Dept. of Ed for Cali will not ever make that a requirement, how stupid to even think or state so. I think the title itself says that they are different. If teachers teach about traditional marraige they should go about a way of teaching different types of marriages and how they about, including gay ones. And if that proposition wants to claim "forced on us agaisnt our will" then they should also say that it's damaging to withold history to students that is supposed to prepare them for the society they will one day be living in.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 8, 2008 at 10:57 am

Alysa, So your life isn't what you wanted and now you want to punish other people for it. I'm sorry your mother won't admit what you think is a mistake on her part, but what is really the difference between another "mommy" not being there for you versus a "daddy" not being there for you? I saw my dad every other weekend and he was an alcoholic as well. A completely not ideal situation and yet I don't blame the institution of marriage, nor do I blame alcohol or alcoholics.

Vote how you want, but it will never change your past.

I think punishing a whole group of people by taking their rights away over the use of a single word is petty and selfish. I'm not speaking specifically to you on that, but to all who support Prop 8.

I keep reading how people don't want the sanctity of their own marriage affected, but Prop 8 takes rights away, it doesn't just change the vernacular and that is wrong! People voting yes on Prop 8 are not being honest about their intentions and that's what really makes me irate. They do not want gay people to even have the security of a civil union and they all know it.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 8, 2008 at 11:02 am

PToWN94566,

Excellent posts! I fully support you!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 8, 2008 at 11:15 am

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff).


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm

No on 8!

Have a little tolerance...


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 8, 2008 at 2:57 pm

With treif like this, who needs food for thought!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Elizabeth + Randy = YUTZ!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


Posted by Jenner, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Oct 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm

(Warning: this is a clue)

It's interesting how some of these posts start with real conversations and then end up with the bottom dwellers who seem to just talk to themselves as the rest of us move on.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Yes on Prop 8.....In 2000 (over 61%) voted in favor of Prop 22. "Only marriage between a man and and woman is valid or recognized in Ca.". On May 15th by a vote of 4-3 Ca Supreme Court overturned the peoples vote.

Vote Yes on Prop 8

Reverse activist judges decision.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:33 am

The latest polls say it all...in 2008, most Californians say it's all cool.....marriage will be redefined in the greatest state in the union...hahahahahahahahahahahhaha...eat your hearts out....this thread is OVER...hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha.


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 10, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Vote No on 8!

Contrary to the fear mongers, "traditional" folks will still be able to get married and live life according to their morals, values, and traditions. The only change is that other will be afforded the same right.

And no, this won't lead to people marrying apes or other variations I have heard (though apes are our distant cousins...).


Posted by stayhomedad, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 10, 2008 at 4:25 pm

I'll go ahead and call myself ignorant about this subject. I honestly haven't spend much time thinking about "gay marriage". I figured maybe you guys can answer my question. You people sound pretty heated about this subject.

My question is- How does a marriage between two other people affect you (or me).... I mean, why should I care if two other people get married? I really don't care either way. Should I?? Whats going to happen in the future if they are allowed to marry. What are the draw backs...? How can it possibly destroy society?


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 10, 2008 at 9:25 pm

VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. No fear mongering....just facts.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Name the Hippo Wayne.


Posted by Nancy, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:18 pm

I am straight, married, and a mother and I will be voting NO on Prop 8. My marriage is not threatened by who else is getting married. Religious ceremonies do not define marriage under CA Law, the license you sign does. The bottom line is, this is a civil rights issue. What exactly are we trying to avoid here?


Posted by FYI, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 12:43 am

Nancy. Correct, religious ceremonies do not define marriage (although historically marriage did evolve from religious tradition) but marriage is NOT a civil right. Marriage is DEFINED as a INSTITUTION between a MAN and WOMAN. Bottom line, marriage is an institution and NOT a civil right. Like it or not, all institutions (universities, fraternities, unions etc)are established and defined with exclusions in place What I am trying to avoid? A culture that allows any definition to become anything you want it to be, becomes nothing at all. VOTE YES PROP 8


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 6:51 am

Wayne/FYI - what are you afraid of?

This will not change your ability to cling to your idea of marriage as defined by your religious institution.

The two gay folks living next door to you will be afforded a few additional basic rights, what is the big deal?


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:14 am

VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

To Homeowner: No fear and not afraid...just "clinging" to facts.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:51 am

Homeowner,

That is not the real Wayne posting those stupid yes on 8 posts. Just someone too afraid to stand-up for their backwards beliefs. They can vote to take someone's rights away permanently, but not put their name out there. What a coward!


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:54 am

Wow! I think Wayne really hit a nerve! Look at all that time obsessing on how to make the real Wayne look bad! What a sad individual!

Vote NO on Prop 8! Make the bigots go back in the closet for good!


Posted by FYI, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:01 am

Homeowner. Correct, marriage by some may be defined by religious institutions. But for those of us who are NOT a part of that religious institution, defend the definition of marriage as a CULTURAL institution. And that CULTURAL Institution historically defined and established marriage between a man and woman. The big deal? A culture that allows any definition to become anything you want it to be, becomes nothing at all. VOTE YES PROP 8


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:07 am

Vote yes on 8 and you too can discriminate...

Some one here really doesn't like me... Anyway, as if that matters.

I should call the Yes on 8 office and ask to talk to the troll assigned to the Pleasanton Weekly.

Actually Marriage is defined for many things other then Man+Woman. I guess there will be no more marrying of ketchup bottles, because two partial catsup bottles of the same type can't be married. That goes against the traditional definition sought by the "I discriminate vote on 8 crowd."

Oh to get your way, sailors can no longer marry two ends of rope by use of weaving, sounds like a gay dance anyway. After all the marrying of two similar types of rope could become a positive symbol for gay marriage.

People who prepare food, you no longer can refer to marrying ingredients. Sounds like an orgy of multi-cultural gayness.

I could go on... But the gist is marriage is a word. Quit (Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) your pants because you can't bastardize a word.

Didn't you know that (Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) into the wind will eventually cause it to fly in your face.


Posted by Jenner, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:49 am

I'm a Tweek and I don't want to get married.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:52 am

I know Tweek and he sure is one.

Jenner, so sorry to have to tell the truth....this is a warning!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:03 am

Wayne + Porig = love birds!


Posted by TL, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Vote YES on 8 and you too can stop activist judges from ignoring the will of the majority! 60% voted YES to keep marriage defined between a man and a woman. 4 judges decided otherwise. VOTE YES PROP 8 YES! Thank you very much!


Posted by Beth, a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Oct 11, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Vote yes on prop 8 to say "Tyranny of the Majority Rules"!!

C'mon people....

NO ON 8


Posted by John, a resident of Beratlis Place
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:28 pm

TL, are you the devil?


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:21 pm

VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

No fear mongering , no discrimination, no oppression,....just democracy working to end judicial tyranny.

Vote YES on 8


Posted by unclehomerr.., a resident of Downtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm


Does anyone get the impression that the marriage promoting gays and the I wanna ride in traffic bicyclists have the same PR firm??

We want what we want when we want it, and if you disagree, you're a [fill in the blank]!

unclehomerr..


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2008 at 12:09 am

They are starting on the kids already. A first grade class was taken on a school field trip to a same sex marriage this Friday:
Web Link

So the ads were just fear mongering huh? Web Link

Wow, the election isn't even here yet and they can't wait to get to the kids!

Vote YES on 8!


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

RJ - the field trip was initiated by parents. I guess in this case, parents don't know what is best for their kids?


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:09 am

Parents can take their kids anywhere they want.

This was not just a bunch of parents from a class deciding to take there kids somewhere on play dates. This was school sanctioned and school organized.

This was an elementary first grade school field trip!

So you support teaching kids about gay lifestyles in elementary schools?

School field trips are not in a bubble: There are flyers handed out to the kids to take home, there is class room discussion before the trip, kids talk about it afterwards on the playgrounds. Leave the elementary schools out of it!

The opponents of Prop 8 swore this wouldn't happen but here you go. They couldn't even wait until the election.

This isn't about civil rights and tolerance, you already have them, so stop trying to redefine marriage as practiced by billions, and leave the elementary school kids out of this.

Yes on 8


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:41 am

What are you so afraid of? That they'll turn gay from watching two lesbians get married? Just goes to show your ignorance of the subject and nothing more.

I love how you act like some random 1st grade class was taken to the wedding. It was the teacher's class! I'm sure her students we're happy to share that with her. Though I'm sure you'd love to propagate the idea that elementary schools everywhere are teaching "gayness" that's just not true. That's the homophobes version of fear mongering.

Kid's are much more accepting than adults. See, if you explain things simply to kids, they go, oh, okay. But when you are imposing all of your anger and negativity towards gays that you have yourself, of course that's going to make them wonder what the problem is. What is so wrong with teaching our children to be open-minded?

What I really wonder is how all these homophobic parents are going to be raising their kids. Will they teach them to be accepting of others or will they just try to make them homophobes too? And what if their own kids are gay? Will these same parents try to pray the gay away or just reject them for going against god? What happens when you teach your kids it's wrong and they realize their gay at some time in their lives. What happens to their self-image and their feelings of worthiness?


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

Yes on 8 use your religion to discriminate!

RJ - Nice story, seems like a happy ending to me.

I find it ironic that the "God hates fags" crew has a problem with indoctrination.

Brought to you by another Rethuglican FEAR out the vote campaign.

First you scare the crap out of them, then you tell them what they can do to restore sanity they can believe in.

It is really a weakness not a strength to attack people because you believe things about them. The Iraq war was started on that very premise. No perception posturing can change the fact that we went to war because God told George Bush to invade Iraq. There is no amount of backtracking on that point that will make it any less frightening, we were lied into war based on belief.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2008 at 11:13 am

All the hysteria about "marriage" will eventually die down.

What will remain in Plutonia are the pedophiles, male and female. They will dupe you for years before you catch on. Ask Henry, he'll tell you how easy it was. Ask priests, nuns, clergy how easy it has been for them to destroy the lives of children.

If you want to meet up with the real danger face to face, go to church.


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2008 at 11:48 am

Janna, you're a real piece of work. You spit out venomous anger, hate and name-calling all over your postings then accuse the opposition of hatred and intolerance; completely ironic. I'm just going to ignore your fabrications and prejudices about posters and stick to the subject.

The director/principal of this PUBLIC SCHOOL said this was educational. It was conducted during school time. The Kids were given NO on 8 buttons to wear. The teacher is a No on 8 promoter. This was a purposeful political statement with public school resources; not a private ceremony on private time.

It appears you're trying to say the incident in this public school was no big deal to you.

It also appears you are saying if it was to happen in OUR elementary schools with OUR six year olds; still no big deal.

So to make it clear, you (and this "Wayne") are for teaching six year olds about gay lifestyles in our public elementary schools.

We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.

I understand you are passionate in your views. I applaud that. Please try to keep your hateful words and prejudices against other posters out of your postings and have a mature and respectful discussion. Thank you.

Yes on 8.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 12:27 pm

VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

No fear mongering , no discrimination, no oppression, no buttons, no use of public school funds, no " change the subject to Iraq", no taking the kids out of school, ....just democracy working to end judicial tyranny.

Vote YES on 8


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Discriminate vote yes on 8!

RJ- If you care to read the article is states clearly the parents surprised the teacher and many parents choose to opt out. We understand you have a problem with factual information but playing make believe with other peoples intentions is sick and perverse.

Cholo- There is always the good, the bad, and the ugly, not just at church.

"The Franklin Coverup" ~ Main character Larwence E. King Jr. sang the national anthem at the republican national convention twice, major pervert.

Web Link

And yet I went to Catholic school, Alter boy, and didn't know there was a problem with perverts until I was an adult.

Subsequently the most Christ like priest I knew, Father John Ronaldo left the priesthood and ended up falling in love with another man.


Posted by Did you really?, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Did you really spell ALTAR boy "alter'? No way was that a typo on your part. But that does totally undermine everything (EVERYTHING) you wrote. It speaks volumes that whatever you says holds absoutely no credibility.




Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm

He meant to say the Alter Rebbe!


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Wayne,

Insults and name calling, eh. Is this supposed to impress anyone or make a stronger argument? It does quite the opposite my friend. You're supposed to talk about first graders, not act like them.

-Enlighten me with your views on facts. So, you're saying this wasn't public school sponsored, on public school time, and involved public school teachers and principal? Web Link

-Do you support teaching gay lifestyles in our public schools to our first grade six year olds as Janna does?

We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.

I understand you are passionate in your views. Please try to keep your hateful words and prejudices against other posters out of your postings and have a mature and respectful discussion. Thank you.

Vote Yes on 8


Posted by My Friends, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

RJ - When 8 passes, please try to keep your hateful words and prejudices against other posters out of your postings and have a mature and respectful discussion. Thank you.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:01 pm

RJ- Insinuation is how you keep trying to make it state sponsored gayducation.

All to perpetuate a close minded definition of the word marriage. Your behavior is disgusting which is why don't mind abusing you and your ilk as examples.

You use the word tolerance because you can't use acceptance. I would hope you don't mean what you're saying because usually people temper their disposition publicly.

There is no need to tolerate things you like or accept. Ergo you don't like the target of your tolerance.

Do you hear me now? You are here pretending you don't dislike gay people. You do dislike them very much. You spend quite a bit of your time making that clear with your tolerance talk.

Who did Jesus have to tolerate?

Those who stood to repress him.


Posted by Janice, a resident of Country Fair
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Although I don't understand the gay lifestyle I am highly in favor of two loving individuals obtaining the same benefits of a heterosexual married couple. They breathe the same air as any one of us and have feelings just like the rest of us. Let's get with the program people - the gay lifestyle is more accepted than ever and it's not going away. Shouldn't we allow our children to understand that it exists rather than masking it only for them to find out another way? It's time we all accept people for who they are - we have enough crap to deal with in the world for all of us not to get along.


Posted by Pleazzzzze, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Previous poster: Apparently, to tolerate something is insufficient for you. You want people to "accept" your opinion as a truth, nothing less, otherwise you give yourself permission to treat people with abuse and even admit you don't mind doing it.

Now you hear this: Get over yourself. No one has to accept anything about you, or like you just like they don't have to accept anything about me. Do I need to tolerate you? Yes but thats all. And I hate to break the news to you but you need to only tolerate me. A civilized society "tolerates".

You seem to know so much about "pretending" so start pretending right now that you are an adult otherwise you are gonna force me to vote yes on 8.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 12, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Mr. I don't have to accept anything...

Do you accept death and taxes or tolerate them? No sir I don't tolerate you at all, total waste of my time. You're just entertainment, I like to pick on the uber judgmental who say tolerance but mean intolerance. I accept that your mind is locked shut except for what you tolerate.

I accept that you're weak and need to blame people like me for the bad things you do to others.

You're just the latest version of the same intolerance that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness was meant to protect the rest of us from.

Vote Down Prop H8


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2008 at 8:54 pm

So Wayne, I think you've made it clear that you, as Janna does, believe that schools should be teaching homosexual lifestyles to our six year old first grades in public elementary school. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, Janice it sounds like you're saying the same. Am I reading your post correctly?

And don't worry, Wayne, I don't feel abused by your insults and name calling, it just reinforces the fact that you don't have enough belief in your argument for it to stand on it's own that you have to go into the gutter and ramblings for your words. For those on the fence who are trying to be considerate in their decision, I'm sure your display is unappealing. I asked you to be civil; you've said you won't be. So keep at it my friend. Show your true nature and hatred.

We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.

The no on 8 folks are already directly and purposefully starting to teach first graders in public school about gay relationships. Web Link

Yes on 8


Posted by Pleazzzzze, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:33 pm

For the record:

1. Its Mrs ( but not to worry, no offense taken)
2. I accept death(its a truth) but tolerate taxes

Definition of "weak": likely to fail under stress or pressure.

Definition of "blame": hold another person responsible for perceived faults real, imagined, or merely invented for pejorative purposes

If you point one finger at me.....What are the other three saying about you?

And if you want to find the "happy" in the pursuit, just take responsibility your own life and stop waiting for anyone to affirm it for you.


Posted by TL, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 12, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Wayne says: I don't have to accept anything..."

Hey Wayne, help me out here.......what side are you on..... was that not the point of Pleazzzzze's first post????

You don't have to accept anything, but neither does anyone else. It kindda works that way (although Pleazzzzze'did advocate for tolerance)

But here are some facts that can be accepted or tolerated (you pick)

60% of the people in CA voted YES to keep marriage defined between a man and a woman. 4 judges decided otherwise.

VOTE YES PROP 8 YES! Thank you very much!




Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2008 at 12:49 am

RJ it seems you missed the point to the article you so kindly posted; "California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Schools should be teaching respect and tolerance for any marriage and/or committed relationship, regardless of one's sexual orietnation. Same sex couples aren't going anywhere soon so why fight it? Maybe California should start out small so as to warm you guys up and already mandate a tolerance education plan and curriculum focusing on LGBT issues. People who say yes to 8 are just fighting the same civil rights issues that were brought up years ago, before I was even born, excpet now it has nothing to do with the color of your skin but who we can and can't love. And honestly, it seems that people who are scared of NOT passing Prop 8 are also the ones to think we are going to try and up our numbers in the gay community. People should really stop and think that children in kindergarten have no clue what sex is about- they may know the differences of a boy and a girl but do not understand the deeper issues associated with sex. Just as your own article stated RJ, marriage to a six year old is "[when]You stay with someone the rest of your life" or "...people falling in love." Who gave a stranger the right to tell me who I can or can't marry? This isn't 1889.

RJ, you stated that "The no on 8 folks are already directly and purposefully starting to teach first graders in public school about gay relationships." Did you even read the article? The parents brought up the idea of even going to the wedding, the teachers had no idea. Saying it was done purposefully is pretty disrepectful. Don't force your ideas on others by making false statements. I'm always curious as to how people, who want a Yes on 8 act,would or do act around gay and lesbian people. What would you say to your child if they told you he or she was gay? Would you want to deny them the right to marry and make them feel less than human? And all this "restore the definition of marriage" crap is quite funny. When did it become destroyed? Did gay and lesbian couples destroy it in the few months it's been legalized? I just find this whole re-define stuff as a way of telling people it's not ok to be gay or lesbain or whatever sexual orienation you are. Nobody broke marriage, so maybe we all should get over it. And if a couples marriage was broken for whatever reason, that is their business and not of concern of me. So how else has marriage been un-restored? I have yet to hear a concrete answer- and no Jesus this or the bible states this. We don't live in a world where we have to follow a specific religion, so why is that we have to live in a world that does the opposite for marriage? How is that gay marriages is going to destory marriage or society as a whole when we have much larger problems to worry about?


NO ON PROP 8,

O and I'll be in town the end of Oct and a few days before the election. I have a strong want to make large posters, gather up as many people I know who say NO, which is a lot, and stand on the famous Pleasanton street corners, waving my NO ON PROP 8 signs. (I wonder how any derogatory comments I would hear coming from car windows; probably a good few). Anybody want to join?


Posted by Shawnie, a resident of Birdland
on Oct 13, 2008 at 7:49 am

Only derogatory comments I read or heard are from the Vote no group. Proof are in the postings here. Need I say more? Was going to elaborate but to be honest I think VOTE YES ON 8 can best be supported by reading these posts!


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 9:17 am

The no on 8 folks are already directly and purposefully starting to teach six year old first graders in public school about gay relationships. Web Link

Read past the headline. This was undoubtedly a public elementary school sponsored event. This was on public school time and involved public school teachers and principal.

The director/principal of this PUBLIC SCHOOL said this was educational. It was conducted during school time. The Kids were given no on 8 buttons to wear. The teacher is a No on 8 promoter. Gavin Newsom officiated. They were going to drive around town with No on 8 banners. This was a purposeful "whether we like it or not" Web Link political statement using six year old public elementary students and public school resources; not a private ceremony on private time.

As parents know, school field trips are not in a bubble: There are flyers handed out to the kids to take home, there is classroom discussion before the trip, kids talk about it afterwards on the playgrounds. Leave the public elementary schools out of it!

***

Let's listen to what no on 8 supporters in our own town have to say about public elementary schools teaching our six years olds about gay relationships:

From Janna:
"Kid's are much more accepting than adults. See, if you explain things simply to kids, they go, oh, okay. But when you are imposing all of your anger and negativity towards gays that you have yourself, of course that's going to make them wonder what the problem is. What is so wrong with teaching our children to be open-minded?"

From Wayne:
"Nice story, seems like a happy ending to me."

From Janice:
"Shouldn't we allow our children to understand that it exists rather than masking it only for them to find out another way?"

From PToWN94566:
"Schools should be teaching respect and tolerance for any marriage and/or committed relationship, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Same sex couples aren't going anywhere soon so why fight it? Maybe California should start out small so as to warm you guys up and already mandate a tolerance education plan and curriculum focusing on LGBT issues."

***

No thank you! We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.

Pass the message on. Leave our kids alone. Yes on 8


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:59 am

Tell that to Henry.


Posted by Equality CA, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2008 at 5:13 pm

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff . Doesn't make sense)


Posted by No Equality, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Web Link


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 5:19 pm

read all about it mr. dung!

Web Link


Posted by Not RJ above, just a coward pretending, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

What cowards.

Yes on 8


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 6:11 pm

we must all vote no on 8 Web Link


Posted by Susan, a resident of Birdland
on Oct 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm

A majority of the people at one time accepted slavery, a majority of people at one time did not think women should vote, a majority of people at one time did not think Indians should be treated equal, a majority of people at one time were against integration. A majority of people at on time did not want interracial marriages.

I don't think that the courts ruling against the majority is alarming. The courts are there to protect the minority. That's why the founders thought the courts needed to be independent.

I thinks the ability to extend equal protection under the law is for everyone. (period)


Posted by AA, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 7:22 pm

What ever happened to the word "pervert" in the English language?

I don't care what adults do in private but don't try to convince me

that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage.

No wonder we are seen as a decadent nation by so many in the world.


Posted by AA, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 13, 2008 at 7:37 pm

To illustrate my point more, a couple of years ago my 3 year old daughter saw 2 women kiss on TV. Her immediate reaction was "eewwwww".
I had never discussed homosexuality with her and she had no idea that such things existed until that night so her reaction was pure and unfiltered. But it's the same reaction I think most of us feel when we see 2 men or 2 women kissing or showing undue affection.
Our society has tried to stamp out those feelings by telling us it's wrong to feel that way but as my daughter showed me, that's the way we are.
It's normal for a man and woman to fall in love, get married and raise a family. It's not normal to do it any other way and instinctively we all know that to be true. As we've heard before, listen to your inner child and trust what you hear.


Posted by AMD, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Susan,

You are misinformed. This is not an attack on gays or lesbians.

Under California Law "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses. Read it for yourself/ Family Code 297.5

It's quite the opposite. The no on 8 folks, a few activist judges and AG Moonbeam are trying to go beyond tolerance and equal rights. They want to impose their will, redefine marriage, and influence elementary school children in public schools with information about gay lifestyles.

Yes on 8


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Leave you kids alone- then home school them! What I find so hilarious is no one has yet answered my questions as to how marriage has been destroyed. And further more, I find it comical that no one has been able to read between the lines when people say "I support equal rights but not gay marriage." All fake.

AA- you should read up homosexuality and see that it was around before Christianity was ever formed. Plus MANY species of mammals engage in gay behavior, but I'm guessing you and others think we came from one man and one women. Also, way to be an adult and base your thoughts off a 3 year old who saw two women kissing on tv. Really now??? You honestly think your 3 year old comprehends complex relationship issues that adults take on? What are you all scared of? That gay people will get married and sneak in your house during the night and place the gay curse on your kids? And let me ask you this AA, do you believe we'll go to hell (we meaning gay or lesbian people)? And are you words suggesting you are a bigot? Since "It's normal for a man and woman to fall in love, get married and raise a family. It's not normal to do it any other way and instinctively we all know that to be true." Or are you saying that it's all in my head (Possibily a disease) and I can't possibily love another man the same way you love your husband because it's not what my instincts tell me? These are valid questions of mine because a lot of the words I've read on here basically tell me that I should not like myself for being gay, that it's wrong to be gay and goes against being a human, and that being gay destorys that family life.

Tolerance and respect for people of all kinds, of all colors, of all sexualities, of all genders,of all ethnicities etc should ALWAYS be taught in school. Some of the words I have read on here for people in support of Prop 8 passing, have underlying messages that suggests hatred and supports unequal rights- if that's the case then there will be another civil rights case at some point in my life, seeing that I am 27 and I have a feeling a good portion a of people on here a bit older. No one is asking you to partake in gay marriages so may be you should get over and realize that gay people at their wedding probably don't want you there.

Here are some interesting ideas taken from an article by Scott Bidstrup: Web Link


Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Or

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

And

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?


VOTE NO ON PROP 8


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51 pm

One last thing to think about since so many people are saying "Restore"- like it's been damaged (and yet no one has addressed this restore business)- but it's funny how approixmately 90% of heterosexual males and females in the Unite States will eventually marry and yet MORE than half result in a divorce. Ponder over that thought for a while and if you have enough room in your head, add in the ideas about gay marriages. Divorces rates may drop as people won't feel the need to marry the opposite sex when they know all along they are gay. Divorce rates may drop because gay people that do marry probably will stay together till death, seeing that we've been fighting for our rights for a long time- or maybe there is some fear in there by heterosexal people that gay marriages will survive and stay stronger. Who knows?


NO ON PROP 8
NO ON PROP 8


Posted by RJ, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 14, 2008 at 8:59 am

PToWN94566 wrote: "Leave your kids alone- then home school them!"

Once again you and others in your camp advocate teaching our public school elementary kids about gay relationships "whether we like it or not" Web Link

***

Let's read more on what no on 8 supporters in our own town have to say about public elementary schools teaching our six years olds about gay relationships:

From Janna:
"Kid's are much more accepting than adults. See, if you explain things simply to kids, they go, oh, okay. But when you are imposing all of your anger and negativity towards gays that you have yourself, of course that's going to make them wonder what the problem is. What is so wrong with teaching our children to be open-minded?"

From Wayne:
"Nice story, seems like a happy ending to me."

From Janice:
"Shouldn't we allow our children to understand that it exists rather than masking it only for them to find out another way?"

From PToWN94566:
"Schools should be teaching respect and tolerance for any marriage and/or committed relationship, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Same sex couples aren't going anywhere soon so why fight it? Maybe California should start out small so as to warm you guys up and already mandate a tolerance education plan and curriculum focusing on LGBT issues."

***

You do realize you're talking to mainstream America? This is something even Barack Obama and John McCain agree on in opposing your fringe positions! Your opposition runs through all races, ethnic groups, cultures, religions, etc. So everybody's a bigot, huh? Ask yourself this: Is this kind of talk helping your cause with the mainstream or hurting it?

I do applaud you and other no on 8 supporters for acknowledging and parading Web Link that it is part of the your agenda to influence and teach your views to our kids at the grade school level. It makes things much clearer for the majority of parents.

You believe parents aren't going to teach our own kids about morals and relationships at home the way you would like, so you want to socialize your fringe views and force it into the elementary schools.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:20 am

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)


Posted by STR-8, a resident of West of Foothill
on Oct 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Can I say Thank You to everyone that has posted on this thread. I have enjoyed the reading. Those people that say gay marriage will "ruin the institution of marriage", thats hilarious. I didn't believe people like you still existed. (and I'm pretty old now). And from what I have read, the schools will NOT be teaching our children how to be gay, and the churches will not crumble to the ground. And the odds are, society will be OK... NOW, the other side, the ones that say the yes on 8 people are full of "hate" and are "bigots", or scared of something, you guys are dead wrong. Calling them that for their beliefs is kinda what this thing is all about, right? Your beliefs? Both parties are arguing like 1973 lawyers and there is no end in sight. There are no facts when it comes to personal beliefs. But by all means, keep up the intellectual conversations suckers...


Posted by Classof69, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Tim,

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


Posted by Henry from County Jail, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)


Posted by Classof69, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2008 at 8:58 am

PW Online Staff, thank you for taking appropriate actions.


Posted by J.T., a resident of Birdland
on Oct 15, 2008 at 11:00 am

I grew up in Pleasanton; Walnut Grove, Harvest Park then Foothill High. I am a gay man that has lived here my whole life. I dated your daughter - I even dated your son. I work with you, I live a few doors down, you say hi to me at the farmers market. I married my partner on June 17th, has your life changed since then? No, it hasn't. We are active in the community and all we ask is that you simply be cool and support us. Just vote No on prop 8 and let us live our lives.


Posted by Liz, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Oct 15, 2008 at 11:13 am

I am proud my husband and I have raised children that I believe are respectful and accepting.
They are now voters. My traditional family will vote NO on 8 in support of your family.




Posted by STR-8, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Now see........ after all these posts, J.T. came in and made the most sense. He doesn't sound evil, and it doesn't seem like he is out to destroy the institution of marriage.
After all of you decent people get over the shock that theres a gay person living amongst us...Please vote NO on prop 8! And lets get back to "live and let live"...


Posted by tolerance too, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Oct 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Yes JT sounds good...and I have compassion and personal relationships with many JT's...my own beloved brother is gay. I do not advocate hostility or hate in any way towards anyone. I consider myself very tolerant and a sincerely caring individual too. These values stem from my religious fervor. I developed them from the rearing of a loving yet imperfect, Father and Mother.

We are looking at redefining a foundational term in our society here: Marriage. You and I will probably not even agree on what "marriage" is. So let's define "tolerance" first...Consider this quotation..
"Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another's differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one's standards or one's opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination".

Prop 8 is admittedly a deeply emotional debate, and generally I read so many discussions that depart the topic here. My concern is for marriage...family and procreation. Our next generation(s) of unborn innocents. Most No on 8ers will not understand my reverence for marriage and family and the society that benefits from a man and a woman who bring their differences to bear upon parenting the child that they have conceived and made a lifelong commitment to raise. In all of their imperfection they sacrifice unselfishly in love and service.
Sure there will be consequences after Prop 8 passes. The gay community will seek legislative alternatives as is their right as citizens... However, we cannot change the definition of marriage to encompass contemporary changes under the quest for "tolerance". To be fair to the definition of "tolerance" it has to go both polorized camps. I hope that gays will also investigate why a Yes on Prop 8 is best for society just as they ask me to understand their lifestyle and difference.

This is a Pro marriage and family issue. It is a moral debate not a civil rights one. I respectfully choose to stand on the other side of this issue, but I will not tolerate hate and oppression of any of my neighbors, regardles of their lifestyle or political differences. JT is among these also.

Vote Yes on Prop 8
..and respect one another as we choose differently.


Posted by Dan, a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Oct 15, 2008 at 10:36 pm

I find it amazing how nobody is doing their homework on the legality of Proposition 8!

Let me make this very clear, Proposition 8, if passes, will be invalidated by the courts! Not because of "activist" judges, but simply because the process in California for a State Constitutional Amendment is different that a State Constitutional CHANGE. Does that make sense yet? No?

It's basically like this... When signature were collected and the propositional was qualifying for the November ballot, gay marriage was not considered a constitutional right. Now however it does! So from the moment the Supreme Court judges declared gay marriage a constitutional right, any changes to that right requires a completely different process!

If that happens don't pretend to be shocked!


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

In response to "tolerance too" and your support of Proposition 8,

Your note pretends to paint a tolerant and caring perspective, even invoking a definitional quotation to give your position a level of authority or endorsement. However, the truth is far from that.

Is the quote a definitional truth or quote from a respected third-party that provides substance and clarity to our debate related to tolerance? Well, actually no. The quote is from an Elder of the Mormon Church. The same church that is determined to use its power, influence, money and congregations to push passage of Proposition 8. So at least now we understand where you are coming from and the positioning of the quote and your related points.

According to the Mormon talking points on this topic, "marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world," and "marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation."

While it may give you comfort that voting yes on 8 is an important step in protecting salvation according to your church doctrine, don't you see the intolerance in your view as you hide behind what you are fed by your church?

This reminds me of the many examples of racism in the Mormon church, including examples in the book of Mormon, quotes from church Elders, or the ban on African Americans becoming priests that existed for many, many years. It wasn't until the rest of the world had evolved and discarded those abhorrent views many years before, that in 1978 (yes, that recently) the "First President" of the church had a "revelation" and terminated the practice. Does this fit into your definition of tolerance?

This time around, don't be the last ones to open your eyes as society evolves around you. At the very least, be upfront about your views and why you hold them, and not pretend to practice the rest of the world's definition of tolerance.


Posted by no on hate, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff as redundant statements)


Posted by No on hate by a yes on 8, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff as redundant statements)


Posted by reader, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:58 pm

The comments by homeowner are so interesting. I am impressed you have the "authority" to know when people are "pretending" and the authority re: absolutes on the "truths". I know little about the Mormon faith, but frankly, they are entitled to any belief that may be directly opposed to your belief system regardless if it does not support your definition of "tolerance", just like you are entitled to any belief that may be in direct opposition to them. I am voting YES on 8 and I have decided that as of today. So many in your camp demand tolerance and in that same breath you are intolerant of those who disagree with you.And you do it w/ such arrogance. Elite? Yes perhaps that better describes how you see yourselves. Others are not inferior to you or not "evolved" just because they disagree w/ you. I have looked at both sides of the argument and after reading all these comments, I can say I have now evolved..... I will NOW be voting YES ON 8.


Posted by Haiku, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Define marriage now
Between a man and woman
Vote Yes on Prop 8


Posted by Susan, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:56 pm

AA,

Your 3 year old would probably say EWWW if they saw anyone kissing on TV!

For all of the talk about religious freedom from the Yes on 8 folks, I hear very little compassion. Would Jesus be proud?


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2008 at 7:41 am

In response to "reader",

I'm glad you are able to vote as you see fit. That's what is great about our country.

To be clear, my issue with the post I was responding to was its seemingly authoritative definition and judgement of tolerance, while in fact the foundation of the argument is on Mormon doctrine that was itself essentially racist and NOT tolerant. I found it ironic and misleading at the same time.

You say they (Mormons) are entitled to any belief that may be directly opposed to mine, I agree! But I do find it insightful to understand that their "beliefs" on this issue mirror their prejudicial views on past issues that we now look on with disgust.

I am hardly elite, but if you think an elite is someone who thinks for themselves, doesn't always follow the pulpit's talking points, and isn't afraid to share views, then I'll accept the label.

Ultimately, I hope you treat your vote with more care than simply deciding to support 8 because of your perception of my tone or perspective.


Posted by Reader, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:31 am

homeowner: I stand by my comments. I agree that "thinking for yourself, not following the pulpit's talking points, and not afraid to share views" is NOT elite. My post shows evidence of the same process yet you conclude that despite the same process that we both use, you "hope" I will "treat my vote with more care". The perceived superiority in that comment that I am doing anything less than that is elite. Thinking means not only collecting the data you need but also communicating effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Perception does frame a view. It gives depth to the issue. It adds clarity to decision making. "Simply deciding" on perception alone? No, but it does influence the accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and fairness I used to decide to VOTE YES 8!


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Reader,

My only point was that I hoped you were making your choice based on your analysis of the facts and not letting your perception of someone else's attitude color the decision. I didn't intend anything derogatory by it, but sometimes text messages are hard to judge that way.

I still believe that No on 8 is the best vote. Everyone should have the right to enjoy all the benefits of marriage. I do not believe it is ok to discriminate against this one group.

And in my original post, all I was pointing out is that the Mormons are behind A LOT of the funding for yes on 8 have a history of discrimination themselves.

If you follow your earlier logic that implied one reason you were voting for 8 was that the No "camp demand tolerance and in that same breath you are intolerant of those who disagree with you," well, it would lead you to question some of those in the Yes camp as well, including the Mormons.

My personal view is that I wish all who want to get "married" can do so, but if a religion wants to place limits on who they marry or allow to marry in their faith, that seems like an acceptable compromise.


Posted by FYI, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm

I'd like to respond to this comment:

"Mormons are behind A LOT of the funding for yes on 8 have a history of discrimination themselves."

Well,I could say the same for the Teachers Union which gave "A LOT" of funding for No on 8

Members of CTA, are forced to contribute to CTA political campaigns under the guise of dues/membership fees regardless of their beliefs.

Unions do and will retaliate against non-compliant members who fail to "contribute" with loss of certain benefits and privileges and in some cases their jobs. This is a well known fact and politically is no different than the discrimination you speak re: Mormons.

Does the history of CTA matter?

Worse yet, CTA fought against Prop 75 in 2005(with huge sums of $$$ from membership dues)that would of prohibited use of member dues to fight ANY political causes on EITHER side.

My point is this: If Mormons contributions should be looked at from historical angle, then the CTA should equally be looked at from the same lens.


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I have to say I've never heard a comparison between the Mormons and the CTA. I'm sure both will enjoy the comparison...

I guess there is a parallel there, but can you really equate racial discrimination with pressure to pay your union dues? Seems weak.

That said, why in the world is the CTA contributing to No on 8? I don't see the relationship to their objectives, charter,.. And please, no conspiracy theories that all the CTA wants is to teach gay marriage in our school.

This is a pretty contentious initiative that I'm sure many dues paying members of the CTA aren't happy about.

Also, the reason I said Mormons had contributed "A LOT" was that it is a lot, approximately $6 or $7 million.


Posted by FYI, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

To reply to: "can you really equate racial discrimination with pressure to pay your union dues? "

Yes, I think you can compare the two. Loss of certain benefits, privileges and in some cases, your job if you fail to "contribute" to their political agenda is discrimatory. So "pressure to pay union dues" should really be revised to "pressure to support CTA political agenda" and the comparison is more accurately stated.

If in fact "union dues" were used to resolve labor disputes, opposed to social disputes, then I'd have to agree with you there is no relevance to my point. However that is not the case. "Union dues" are simply a means for CTA to take money and advance political agendas that they align themselves with. If you do not support that agenda (usually always left leaning) and elect not to pay or in reality fund that agenda, then you are indeed looking at discrimination.

I am not clear of the total amount given by CTA but just this week their second donation was 1 million. Combined with their earlier donation, that still is "a lot".


Posted by FYI, a resident of another community
on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Oct 22 2008

Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to
California Elementary Schools

Hayward, CA – Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.

The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating "Ally Week," a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, "We're learning to be allies." The mother also learned that her daughter's kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.

Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."

These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."


Posted by Concerned Citizen, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm

No on 8. It's simple. A yes vote will take away constitutional rights - what happened to equality for all? MARRIAGE IS NOT PART OF THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This is a fear tactic used by those who support 8. In addition, same sex marriage does not mean a couple will have children. They can, and will continue to do that with or without a "legal" marriage. Keep the issues separate. Same sex couples deserve equal rights.


Posted by Concerned Citizen, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm

No on 8. It's simple. A yes vote will take away constitutional rights - what happened to equality for all? MARRIAGE IS NOT PART OF THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This is a fear tactic used by those who support 8. In addition, same sex marriage does not mean a couple will have children. They can, and will continue to do that with or without a "legal" marriage. Keep the issues separate. Same sex couples deserve equal rights.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 1,028 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 19 comments | 602 views