I agree with you. How dare the Yes on Prop 8 campaign use children in their commercials? The parents of the children on field trips did not consent to their use, to technically, they are doing something illegal. Bribing companies to donate, seriously?
I've never heard such lies in my entire life.
Vote NO on Prop 8! No matter what your opinion is on marrige, dont deny equal rights to people!

Here's a link to the Yes on 8 ad:
Web Link

Would you be kind enough to tell which part of it you consider a lie? Thank You.

I am shocked as well that children would be taken to a gay marriage and call it a teachable moment. These are not lies because it has already happened. This is not about civil rights but it's about religious rights. Yes on 8 is not against the Gay community, it is only against the union of gay couple's to be defined as marriage.

This seems like a hypocritical moment. On the one hand, people want parental rights to be respected by not having laws that allow the exposure of children to such sexual politics but on the other hand they get angry and shocked when some other parents decide to send their kids on a "field trip" to this gay teacher's ceremony. Let's respect parental rights!

Stacey, so to be clear, you agree with public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment"?

You know that's a loaded question. Anyone with a child in school knows that field trips require parental permission and two sets of parents exercised their parental rights and opted-out of the gay teacher wedding ceremony trip. No one was forcing the other children to go other than their parents who decided it was appropriate for their children.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I'll amend the question to be fair:

Stacey, so to be clear, you agree with public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment" with the option to opt out of this public school (field trip) event?

Strangely enough, the video link you posted Andrew S isn't working.

Regarding the lies I was referring to, the entire premise of the Yes on 8 campaign is lies. I keep hearing from the other side how schools and churches will be forced by law to "indoctrinate" children into a homosexual lifestyle (whatever that is) and that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples or lose their tax exempt status. Have you even read the CA Supreme Court decision? Because I did, and it specifically protects churches from having to do that exact thing. There is zero mention of schools in that decision as well. I would like for someone to please show me the text that reinforces their entire campaign. It certainly isn't in our state constitution, nor in the court decision. Since both Props 22 (the one the court overturned) and Prop 8 merely attempt(ed) to add the man and woman wording, I'm at a loss as to where this information can be found. The entire campaign is playing on peoples' homophobic fears and it's working like a charm for them in that regard.

As for the video, the issue with that is obvious. I'm sure if the situation were reversed you would be just as angry. I would absolutely love to see any Yes people have their children in a No commercial without parental consent particularly, and see how fast you cry foul.

As for the wedding issue, ridiculous on it's face. I disagree with parents taking their kids to church as a "teachable" moment because that is true indoctrination, but I'm not trying to stop you from doing that. That field trip was instigated by parents because it was personal to those kids. It certainly wasn't meant as a teaching moment, other than maybe teaching about love, any more than it was meant as indoctrination into a lifestyle. I'm curious, do you consider taking kids to a hetero wedding an indoctrination into the hetero lifestyle? Do you tell them to pay attention because this is what it's all about? Of course not, but the opposite has certainly been implied.

The yes on 8 campaign is using lies to cover-up naked religious bigotry and homophobia. That is all. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Concerned Parent, it is lies because the Yes campaign is saying the school was and would be forced into homosexual teachings and that IS a lie. The field trip happened, but the school was not forced to do that. I know how details can be on one hand convenient and on the other hand pesky things that interfere with reality. Also, I'm sure you're aware that any teaching regarding health, sex, etc. can be opted out of anytime by students' parents. As a matter of fact, some parents did opt their children out of that field-trip and that was no big deal. Seems as though the system worked just as it was supposed to.

If you don't want to treat gay people as your equal, that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to like it especially when we know the real reasons for it. Amending the constitution to treat a segment of our population as second class citizens is wrong no matter what excuse you give to try to justify it. Gay people will be always be here and the crazy part is, the only thing they needed to do to be equal to you in every way is be born here, just like all other Americans.

I think critical thinking has become a thing of the past with all that I've seen and heard lately. Scary!

NO on Prop h8!

Janna- the hatred and name calling in your posts are very distracting in reading your message. I don't think you're helping your cause with your manner, anger and rudeness in this mainstream forum.

You compare public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment" with the option to opt out of this public school (field trip) event to your example of an off school hours private heterosexual marriage ceremony? Dishonest, isn't it?

I just checked the link Web Link to the YES ON 8 ad and it's working just fine. Would you be kind enough to tell which part of it you consider a lie? Thank You

I'm not convinced it was appropriate to take a class to a wedding during school hours. I don't care that it was a gay wedding, I'd have felt the same if it were a hetero wedding. I think the motivation was considerate - the children love their teacher and wanted to see her get married. Had it been on the weekend, fine.

Concerned Parent writes: "This is not about civil rights but it's about religious rights." If it's about religious rights then why are you seeking to amend the CONSTITUTION? That is not church doctrine! Have you heard of separation between church and state? Allowing gays to marry does not interfere with anyone's right to practice their religion. It is *exactly* about civil rights, else we wouldn't be talking about mending the CONSTITUTION. Based on many arguments I've heard in favour of Prop 8, I think a Civics 101 class is in order for MANY people.

I can only agree with Julie. It's SHOCKING how many times I see a "yes on 8" supporter say it's about religious rights.

Why should we amend the Constitution to favor your religion?

I'll tell you what 8 is about: Religious subversion of our State Constitution.

If you don't approve of gay marriage - don't be in one!

Proposition 8 is about preserving morality, at least some semblance of it, in California, as opposed to reinforcing the increasing level of relativism that continues to permeate society.

Marriage is something based on God's law, not on some manufactured moral high-ground or 'this is the new way life should be' rulebook invented by some members of the current society on the planet.

Mankind didn't invent morality. God provided it (e.g., see the 10 Commandments).

If you either don't believe in or doubt the existence of God, that's your right and privilege, as God grants everyone their free will.

By the same token, a lot of us don't have to accept gay marriage, to use Mayor Gavin Newsom's words, "...whether you like it or not."

I will never accept gay marriage as valid or moral, no matter the outcome of the vote on Proposition 8.

I might add that the United States Constitution, and various state constitutions created thereafter, and most, if not all, of our longstanding laws, were and are based on and created through the tenets of Christian morality and tradition, not some manufactured set of mores simply created by the smartest human beings on the planet at that time.

Sad how many people choose relativism over God, using the tired "separation of church and state" argument. Without Christianity, neither the United States of America nor its Constitution would have become a reality.

I'm still undecided..... I'm married w/children and I respect what that means. But... I don't see how this issue should be a concern of mine. I mean, how can it effect my family if a gay couple wants to get married? I always was tought to mine my buisness... whats different about this topic?

concerned person

thank you for so clearly making the point why prop 8 is so wrong.
while some christians have valid concerns for the practice of their faith, they have no right to base the fundamental law of this state and this nation on denying the same rights to others that they claim for themselves.

and no most of our laws or our constitutions were not based on christian morality and tradition. the constitution first and foremost addresses the distribution and abuse of power and various remedies. the enlightenment and 18th century rationalists guided this framework, not the theology created by dogmatic and inflexible bureaucratic clerics.

Another post based solely on religious reasoning? That's simply not gonna cut it when it comes to restricting our government from offering everyone equal rights. But here's one religious teaching I wouldn't mind seeing applied to this situation: The Golden Rule. Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

I don't have a problem with your marriage. Let me keep mine.

I told you - Civics 101 class needed NOW.

Concerned Person, marriage performed in a church perhaps follows "God's Law". And even if Prop 8 fails, churches will still have the right to marry or not marry couples as they see fit. I respect your right to practice your religion. However, I do not respect your desire to have power over those couples who apply to the STATE of California (not the CHURCH of California) for a marriage license! You state:

"I will never accept gay marriage as valid or moral, no matter the outcome of the vote on Proposition 8." At least you have the guts to admit what most "Yes on 8" supporters will not - you are a bigot ("a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

The topic title of this discussion is: Think of the children.

Should gay relationships be taught to public elementary school kids? Is there anything in this YES ON 8 ad that you don't agree with? Web Link

To have a set of religious beliefs and to preach about them to the people is something that has been happening since the beginning of religion. But when those beliefs are inscribed into something as precious as the Constitution and made law, then those beliefs are being forced upon everyone, many of whom may not agree, and thus taking away the freedoms that the United States was founded upon.

Not to get into the history of the colonization of the US and the eventual Declaration of Independence, but in no small part did the Right to Religious Freedom play in how this all unfolded. The Church of England, and thus the English Crown, was imposing its religious doctrine upon the colonists which left England to pursue their own religious doctrines and beliefs in the first place. And in breaking away from England, the newly formed United States, in the timeless document, the Declaration of Independence, wrote "...that All Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

To take this further, when writing the Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This includes the right to follow no religion. Let me say that again. This includes the Right to follow NO religion.

To impose religious beliefs on me to which I don't subscribe does nothing for Religious Freedom. Proposition 8 goes against EVERYTHING that our Founding Fathers believed in when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Proposition 8 seeks to define, nay seeks to permanently inscribe into the California State Constitution, a religious doctrine which discriminates against a minority group of people.

I know this is long winded, but I feel it was necessary to help all of us understand that we need to separate our religious beliefs from being IMPOSED upon everyone. This is why we all need to vote NO on Proposition 8.

<standing and clapping for Joe> Thank you for that!!

This is not about hatred or intolerance as the No on 8 supporters would want everyone to believe. The reason it is about religious rights is that several religions feel they will be forced to relinquish their fundamental right of worship to accept and to perform gay marriages (even if in contrary to their belief system) or lose their tax exempt status.

The problem is then this becomes the state dictating religious practice which again would violate the constitution.

No on 8 will argue that will never happen and gay marriage will not be taught in schools. I think that's impossible to believe. It's just a matter of time before gay activists will sue textbooks that only depict hetero couples and families.

No need to apologize for long-windedness, Joe B. These threads clearly show that many have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the prinicipals upon which our country was founded. And they want to write an amendment into our state constitution that diminishes those principals.

Joe B wrote:
"Proposition 8 goes against EVERYTHING that our Founding Fathers believed in when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Proposition 8 seeks to define, nay seeks to permanently inscribe into the California State Constitution, a religious doctrine which discriminates against a minority group of people."

That's just complete nonsense. Prop 8 is based on multicultural beliefs practice by billions of people from around the world who practice the custom of marriage, which is a well-established heterosexual custom with no American or Californian discrimination against anyone who wishes to practice this heterosexual custom.

Persons who practice various other relationship customs have the same rights as married people under California law.

Stop trying to redefine the custom of marriage. Yes on 8

threedog13, how does Prop 8 failing to pass force religions to "relinquish their fundamental right of worship"? There is nothing in Prop 8 about CHURCHES. There is nothing in Prop 8 that requires churches to perform gay marriages. This prop isn't about the CHURCH at all - it's about changing the CA CONSTITUTION so that the STATE of CA cannot issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Churches maintain their right to marry or not marry a couple. They do not lose their tax exempt status. And the Prop failing certainly cannot force ANYONE to ACCEPT a gay marriage. Indeed if Prop 8 fails you can still be as intolerant as you please. The law cannot dictate your morals. Hey, wait, did I just type that the law cannot dictate your morals?? That's just what Prop 8 supporters want to do!!

"No laws that I’m aware of are forcing churches to marry GLBT people."

I'm narrowly a Yes on 8. I have no problem with gays wanting to marry. The statement above is one (or something similar) that the No on 8 campaign supporters are using to counter Yes on 8 fears.

My fear is that this statement will change. All it takes is one activist judge who believes it's okay to be intolerant of religious practices while preaching that religions shouldn't be intolerant.

If the above statement held true and never changed i would support No.

PJ, stop trying to use the CONSTITUTION to define what YOU think the "custom of marriage" should be. The constitution is not for guaranteeing "multicultural beliefs", it's for guaranteeing RIGHTS.

Julie - why the negative tone? Please do not call me "intolerant".

This anger is exactly what many Yes supporters fear - angry lawsuit after lawsuit until churches, schools and other public institutions are forced to accept a practice that may go against its beliefs. It is forcing an "open minded" value system because it is "right" on others. Even close-minded religious bigots they still have fundamental rights of worship.

Look at the Boy Scouts case. (Web Link

NJ sided with the gay troop leader and forced the BSA to accept him even though it was contrary to their belief system. I disagree with the BSA, I don't think they should discriminate, but they do have the right to do so. The Supreme Court narrowly disagreed (5-4) with NJ vowing to protect the BSA's right of constitutional association.

If someone can sue the BSA in attempt to strip them of their protected rights what's to keep them from going after religions? Trust me, the CA judicial system would have sided against the BSA.

"Churches maintain their right to marry or not marry a couple. They do not lose their tax exempt status. And the Prop failing certainly cannot force ANYONE to ACCEPT a gay marriage"

If this statement held true I would DEFINITELY support No. But it's already happened in NJ.

But it is too convenient of an assumption. Like "tina" says, all it takes is one activist judge and this is out the door.

tinalittle, churches *now* don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Why would that change? The Catholic church required me to fill out extra paperwork in order to marry my husband because I am not Catholic. They could have chosen not to marry us without fear of any recourse.

I urge you to think about what Prop 8 *definitely* does, right here and now, which is to take away the current right gays have of marrying in the state of CA. The "Yes on 8" campaign has been notorious for scaring people with what "may happen", no matter how unlikely the possibility. Churches have always been allowed to follow their religious beliefs in deciding whether or not to marry a couple. Personally, I support that right. For example, I understand a Catholic church not wanting to marry a couple who wishes to include "devil worship", or "praising *other* gods, etc. in their ceremony! This proposition is about changing the constitution so that the *state of California* (not any churches, but our *government*) can no longer issue a marital license, and furthermore that all current *state-issued* marital licenses would be null and void. I completely understand your fear, but it is just that, a fear.

Julie, just a little confusion there about what a constitution is, but I'm sure you didn't mean it.

The Constitution of the State of California is the document that establishes and describes the duties, powers, structure and function of the government.

This is not about just me. This is about the PEOPLE of the State of California deciding that we have a right to the custom of marriage being recognized as being a heterosexual custom as practiced multiculturally by billions of people from around the world without any discrimination by California law against other customs that are not marriage; which you can call anything else.

"Prop 8 is based on multicultural beliefs practice by billions of people from around the world who practice the custom of marriage, which is a well-established heterosexual custom with no American or Californian discrimination against anyone who wishes to practice this heterosexual custom."

Hardly. If you look historically at marriage in other cultures, you'll find that your current view of it is culturally conditioned and biased. For example, here's the first hit on Google if you search for "same sex marriage in other cultures".

Web Link

"Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.1 Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage."

OK MR ANDREW: Here are your lies.
1) FIELD TRIPS ARE OPTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!! Parents get to choose if their kids can go on field trips. Ask any high schooler!
2) Voting No on Prop 8 does not make churches lose their taxes if they dont marry a gay couple.
3) Voting No on Prop 8 does NOT mean that churches will be forced to preach for gay marriage, nor do schools. Schools teach tolerance, because without it, you end up with segreation and Nazi Germany.
4) Calling gay marriage anything but marriage means its NOT marriage AKA SEPERATE BUT EQUAL? (see Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896). supposedly, so long as facilities (or marriage) were both provided seperately, then they could exist. Jump ahead to the 50s, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, SEPERATE IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL!
5) Voting yes is a vote for discrimination. Dont make it out its because of the kids, cuz its not. I was a kid, I turned out gay WITHOUT gay marriage. Its still gonna happen, indoctrination does not happen. (ps- I came out in PLEASANTON as a teenager. Gay culture sure doesnt exist here as much as in SF or NYC, so stop complaining)
6) I am openly gay, I have been in a relationship for longer than many straight marriages, why am I lower than you? Answer that! (and dont say its not against me in particular, cuz thats a bunch of bull, and you know it)
7) Many gay relationship last far longer and stay together more than heterosexual couples. Divorce rates around 50% and you're saying that a gay couple thats been together for 50 yrs dont deserve respect? thats work.
8) I sure am NOT going to sue a church cuz they wont marry me. Church's have their own opinion, seperate from the gov't and laws, thats what I thought? Or am I, having extensively studied the Constitution for years, wrong about that?
9) Regarding the Boy Scouts of America: I was in that too. I didnt sue them for their policies, I left.
10) And its NOT JUST THE JUDGES! Twice, the California State Assembly AND Senate have voted for gay marriage. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, if I am not mistaken?! Its just the Governor veto-ing it because he wanted to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on it.
11)For those Yes on 8 people who complain about being discriminated against because they are voting yes, ever thought about the other side? Ever thought about the lifetime of discrimination gay people face, including this bill? How dare you complain, when my home has been vandalised with the word Fag more than a few times, when I was screamed at for years in school, by YOU!

Enough lies for you?

Just an add on: All I want is for people to leave me alone. I'm not going to push any gay "agenda". All I want is to go to work, come home, and have a family. Is it that hard for people to just leave others alone?

And to address parental rights, you STILL can take your child out of Sex Ed, and out of field trips. No parents are losing rights.
And to religious freedom, churches can still deny religious marriages. So you cant really complain there either.

Frank,

Civics 101... Here is something interesting on the subject of rights and the Constitution. Check out the issue brought up by Federalist Paper No. 84 and resolved with the Ninth Amendment.

"churches can still deny religious marriages."

Currently yes. But do you honestly believe they'll preserve this right. No way. The BSA case is the perfect example. Gays will sue using anti-discrimination laws. It will happen. All it takes is one. And the gays will win. In most cases it will be justified but in some it won't.

While gays talk and preach equality and fundamental rights they would celebrate the day that a church or social group gets stripped of it's freedom.

Even though it is wrong and amoral to discriminate the BSA and any religious organization still has the right to decide who can and who cannot be a leader.

threedog13, honestly, that was meant as a "general" you. To rephrase, Prop 8 failing cannot force anyone to accept anything - one can continue to be as intolerant as one pleases.

Thank you for the link. I honestly don't see the "Boy Scouts" being the same as a "Church" or "Religion". I think there are more grey areas with the Boy Scouts organization which lends itself to the type of discrimination case that occurred. The Boy Scouts rights were upheld in the case you linked to.

I must disagree with those of you who think that "one activist judge" can take away a church's right to religious freedom, exempt status, etc. You are preaching more fear tactics. It was not "one activist judge" that overturned Prop 22. It was 7 Supreme Court Judges who interpreted the law and voted 4-3 to overturn Prop 22.

PJ, not sure what the confusion is. The constitution is not just about describing government, it establishes rights. Article I, which runs 31 pages, is a "Declaration of Rights". We disagree on the meaning of the word "right". I don't see the need for a "right to a custom". I definitely see the need for gays to have the "right to be treated equally under the law"

Yes. This will be upheld. Because there are plenty of gay RELIGIOUS people. I still consider myself a Christian and go to church. My church is allowed to preach tolerance, just as your church doesnt necesarily. Thats the beauty of America: CHOICE.
Stripping away the CHOICE of people to marry, however, is not related.

There are anti-discrimination laws in place. Tons, actually. Do you see any churches being sued for preaching for Prop 8? No.

Julie, if what you contest is true, that no religion will be forced to accept state dictate, then I would agree with you and vote no on 8.

Stacey writes: "Hardly. If you look historically at marriage in other cultures, you'll find that your current view of it is culturally conditioned and biased."

Hardly? Really? So it isn't practiced by billions of people from around the world as a well-established heterosexual custom because you found some oddities? Interesting logic you use there.

And the reason the BSA is an issue, it because its not a church. It promotes religion, yes, but you dont have to be religious to join. Nor is it completely openly funded by the government. Thats why just because the BSA was sued, DOES NOT mean churches will be sued. Boy Scouts have been around a fraction of the time of the Church, not comparable at all.

threedog13, yes, I truly believe that churches will maintain their rights. I disagree that the BSA is the "perfect example". There are many differences between the "Boy Scouts of America" and "Churches". The lines are cloudy regarding what the BSA is - i.e. what type of group it is. There are no grey areas regarding, for example, the function and agenda of the Catholic Church.

"While gays talk and preach equality and fundamental rights they would celebrate the day that a church or social group gets stripped of it's freedom."

I find that statement offensive. On what do you base that? I am pushing vehemently for a "NO on 8" vote, but I would NEVER vote to have a church stripped of its rights to religious freedom. I don't honestly know anyone who would vote for such a thing. The constitution guarantees the RIGHT to religious freedom. I am voting against prop 8 because I do not believe in changing the constitution to take rights away from ANY group - including churches!

"Julie, if what you contest is true, that no religion will be forced to accept state dictate, then I would agree with you and vote no on 8."

threedog13, I wish I had a crystal ball :)

Seriously, if that's what's hanging you up, you sound like a "No" vote to me :))

Churches are WAY more powerful than the gay community. There is no way the state is ever going to take away the religious freedom of a church. As I said, I would fight vehemently against that too!

threedog13,

So why did Catholic Charities have to stop providing adoption services in Massachusetts after gay marriage passed?

O yes, it was because the state would not grant them an exemption from having to consider gay couples as adoptive parents. This was clearly against their religious beliefs.

Among many, the lies that the Yes-on-8 Campaign continues to propagate are about churches losing their tax exempt status or being sued if their do not perform same-sex marriages. Churches are a protected entity. Like so many others have said, churches now do not have to marry everyone that comes knocking on their door. And this will not change. The judiciary branch cannot change this, since, as I mentioned previously, the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights makes that so.

To compare the BSA to churches is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Besides, in each case, these "imperialistic, activist, and rogue" judges ruled in favor of the BSA, as would be the case with churches. Can anyone tell me why? I'll give you a gold star if you can answer this correctly.

Personally, although I grew up Catholic, I would not want to get married in any church. Why would a same-sex couple want to get married in churches that hate them? You don't see African-Americans rushing to join the KKK, right?

The sad part about this whole debate is that after the elections, the hate against gays and lesbians that is proliferated by the Yes-On-8 campaign's fear mongering and scare tactics will continue to divide us.

I've served in the our Military for 12 years. I was schooled at the Air Force Academy, earned top honors upon graduation, and went on to become a highly decorated officer, having some of the highest security clearances you can't even begin to imagine. The irony for me is that if Prop 8 passes, I will not have those very rights and freedoms that I served to protect, and I will be relegated to a second class citizen. To understand true freedom, you need to understand the lack there of. Freedom isn't free, but freedom is something for which I am willing to fight.

Vote NO on Prop 8.

Julie wrote: "I definitely see the need for gays to have the "right to be treated equally under the law" "

They are treated equally under California law. I think gays need to focus on equal treatment in some other states and at the national level. I would support equal rights but in this case their efforts to change the definition of marriage here in California are misplaced.

Joe B wrote: "The irony for me is that if Prop 8 passes, I will not have those very rights and freedoms that I served to protect, and I will be relegated to a second class citizen."

No one's taking rights away from you, that's complete nonsense and you know it. I thank you for your service. I'd also place a pretty good bet that arguably a vast majority of our men and women in the armed forces would want to protect marriage as being a heterosexual custom.

Stacey, good to see you're back. My question still stands:

Stacey, so to be clear, you agree with public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment" with the option to opt out of this public school (field trip) event?

When emotion and fear dominates people's minds, there can be no rational discussion. I apply this to all of YES on 8 folks writing in this and other threads. The number of posts are approaching and exceeding record numbers on this one topic.

But, I have yet to read one RATIONAL argument why our constitution should be amended by Prop 8 as so stated.

Graham Beatts,

You appear to be seething in anger. You subjectively place your own very negative self-created ideas of as belonging to all or most YES ON 8 believers. You also insinuate all gays would behave as you claim to do.

I don't believe you answered the question though.

Isn't the information presented in this Web Link YES ON 8 ad true?

Also, do you agree with public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment"?

PJ, when did you last spend time with our men and women in the military? Until you pick up a weapon and defend another brother or sister in arms, don't presume to know what our military wants.

Now, you've labeled two of my comments nonsense. I'm starting to doubt whether anything other than your own myopic views will be anything other than nonsense.

Go back in the safety of your home knowing that there are people like me who are not welcome in your club protecting your freedom.

PJ, you are right, gays are currently treated equally under CA law. If prop 8 passes though, they will lose their current right to receive a marriage license from the *state* of CA in which case they will no longer be treated equally. If I, as a heterosexual can receive a marriage license from the state and a person who is homosexual cannot receive such a license, then that is unequal treatment. Joe's comment is not nonsense.

Thank you Joe for your service to our country!

I would have no problem with a church choosing to adopt out children only to hetero couples. I agree with them that if they are privately running such an organization as part of their church, then they should be allowed to follow their principles (whether I agree or not). In the Mass. example, the church had a contract with the *state* Dept. of Social Services. If you get involved with the *state* then no, you cannot discriminate. It should have been that way before Mass. allowed gays to marry!

Andrew S is looking for a fight. Do you agree everything would be fine if the ceremony was between heterosexuals? No need to worry about opt-in or opt-out?

This whole thing about dragging children into the fray is all about the right of parents to brainwash them without any outside influences. Witness the controversy of teaching evolution versus intelligent design in the public schools. Sorry, but the real world is not so easily shielded from your kids.

PJ wrote:
"Hardly? Really? So it isn't practiced by billions of people from around the world as a well-established heterosexual custom because you found some oddities? Interesting logic you use there."

I didn't say that marriage isn't being practiced as a heterosexual custom. You're being quite disingenuous about actual marriage practices when you write "Prop 8 is based on multicultural beliefs practice by billions of people from around the world who practice the custom of marriage, which is a well-established heterosexual custom" and exclude the "oddities" from different cultures. If Prop 8 were truly based upon multicultural beliefs regarding marriage, it would allow, for example, polygamy.

Andrew S wrote:
"Stacey, so to be clear, you agree with public school first graders being taken during public school hours by public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment" with the option to opt out of this public school (field trip) event?"

The question is both rhetorical and loaded. No one is "taking" the kids against the wishes of the parents. As a result, there can be no real answer to the question. It is up to each parent to decide whether or not the field trip is educational.

Apparently

"when the children took a field trip with their classmates and several parents to share the moment of their teacher’s wedding to her longtime partner. All parents were notified well in advance of the trip which was organized by some parents, and, in fact, two families chose to have their children not participate under California’s broad opt out law" (From The San Francisco Chronicle, 10/26/08)

As far as I'm concerned, this topic has nothing to do with children at all. This "field trip" wasn't a learning experience; it was a personal trip to share a day with a beloved teacher. I have no doubt that the teacher in question would have invited her students whether or not she was gay. I'm not sure why allowing for gay marriage is going to all of a sudden ruin our children. It's not as if gay relationships haven't been around forever and are all of a sudden becoming public. I don't know about all of you, but when I attended Alisal Elementary, we didn't have classes on the basics of marriage. I see no reason to start now; whether teaching traditional marriage OR gay marriage.

I say expand human rights; don't restrict them.

When emotion and fear dominates people's minds, there can be no rational discussion. I, too, unbalancedly apply this; but to all of NO on 8 folks writing in this and other threads. The number of posts are approaching and exceeding record numbers on this one topic.

But, I have yet to read one RATIONAL argument why our constitution should not be amended by Prop 8 as so stated.

If prop 8 were to fail, would I be considered a bigot if I were to feel that homosexual marriage is not equal to a heterosexual marriage?? I really want to know this. I am Christian, and it would contradict my religious beliefs.

Dean, you can believe what ever you want to believe. No one can ever take that away from you. What others think of you, well, that depends... One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But why would you care what others would label you based on what you believe? Would it make you believe to the contrary based on your perception of how others see you? If so, then please check your sense of self and personal convictions.

Stacey,

You're not being purposefully evasive are you? That's so unlike you.

Perhaps this version will help you answer the question:

Do you agree with public school first graders GOING on a public school field trip during school hours with public school staff to a gay ceremony for a "teachable moment" with the option to opt out of this public school (field trip) event?

Dean wrote:
"If prop 8 were to fail, would I be considered a bigot if I were to feel that homosexual marriage is not equal to a heterosexual marriage??"

Anon wrote:
"Dean, you can believe what ever you want to believe. No one can ever take that away from you."

Here's a big difference. If Prop 8 passes, a class of people have their rights unfairly restricted. If Prop 8 fails, someone may consider Dean a bigot, but no one is going to restrict his rights based upon that.

Andrew: would you have raised as much hell if a school took its students to a heterosexual marriage? If so, congrats, you're a hypocrit.
I am seething in anger at the audacity of those who openly discriminate. After everything people have fought for, seriously?
And you never answered my questions, and I DID answer yours. Perhaps you cant read, but I talked about several of the LIES in that ad.

Prop 8 = Discrimination and Hatred. plain and simple.

(comment removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff)

So every Christian in California will be forced to accept gay marriage or be labeled a bigot, right?

Andrew S wrote:
"Perhaps this version will help you answer the question"

The question is essentially the same. It does not matter whether I agree with it or not because it is up to each parent to decide. Do I agree with it when a parent buys their kid a car? No. But they have every right to do it. I'm not going to pass laws restricting a parent from purchasing their kid a car just as I wouldn't pass laws forcing parents to buy their kids cars. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring this basic point.

Dean wrote:
"So every Christian in California will be forced to accept gay marriage or be labeled a bigot, right?"

Whether Prop 8 passes or not, you might still be labeled a bigot.

SkinHead: (portion of comment removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff)
Read the bible a little more. And judge a little less, as that sin is just as "bad" as homosexuality.

Dean said:
So every Christian in California will be forced to accept gay marriage or be labeled a bigot, right?

You obviously have not been reading. You dont have to agree with gay marriage. However, how can you agree that only certain people deserve the benefits of marriage?
I dont believe all those voting Yes are bigots. It depends on your reasoning for doing so. If its based purely on your religion, I wouldnt call you bigoted, simply unaware of the consequences. As plenty of us believe in Christianity, and are not voting yes, so its your own fault for not doing your homework

Skinhead is a hateful minority viewpoint or just a nut job troll for either Yes or No on 8 trying to stir things up.

I found this article to be very helpful in deciding how to vote on prop 8. Please read this:

Web Link

Think of the children? BS. As one who was taught by the California public school system with top Honors (I was valedictorian with over a 4.0 gpa) and I can testify that we learned NOTHING about marriage let alone STRAIGHT marriage. All we had was a sex ed that my Dad had me OPT out for on religious ground (so HA! Opt out law does work). What Yes on Prop 8 people don't realized is that they will inadvertly teach their own children about Gay Marriage. If prop 8 passes and plastered onto our state constitution guess what is going into the history book? In the history of US this will be the first time a given right was taken away. Your child, when they are learning about the State Constitution, are going to read the "equal protection" amendment and then right under it prop 8. The child will be confused, equal yet take rights away? Contradiction is not truth. Truth is never contradiction. Either way, gay marriage will be taught...by your actions. Your children will have gay friends and they will witness (if not out right participate) discrimination against gay people. Did you hear about Lawrence King who got shot dead because he was gay? He was a child for godsakes! In my school a trans teenager was murdered. In my college a classmate hanged herself right under my dorm room because she could not cope being a lesbian. That is what Prop 8 going to do. It will teach children that it is okay to taunt, to bully, to beat up and to kill lgbt people. That you can not deny. IT is and has been happening. All lgbt kids have experienced discrimination and prop 8 is just one of those. Harvey Milk was murdered on the spot and guess what his murderer got? Only 3 years of jail time and the murder blamed it was because he ate twinkies. That's no joke, look that up. Yes on Prop 8 goes further than gay marriage...they want to chip away at lgbt rights until we don't even have the right to live period. Sadly, the ones who will suffer will be gay children who have no control of who they are. And yes, there are children who realize they are gay even as young as five! Death of gay children and turn the blind eye. Yeah, I certainly see the "protection" of children all right. Protection for all children except those that are gay. Way to go "parents." So I must ask, if prop 8 is about protecting children, what about lgbt kids? Are you going to protect them or are you going to turn a blind eye when another one is murdered? Walk your talk is all I have to say.

No matter what you're own opinions are on gay marriage, this amendment will simply take rights away from citizens. That is not what amendments are for.
No matter what ideology you base your votes on, you do not have the right to take rights away from other. If you're Christian and you don't approve of gay rights, then take a moment to think: will churches that agree with your ideology allow gays to get married in there? No. So it will not affect you or your religion.
Voting yes on 8 is discrimination and excuse me but doesn't the bible say to love thy neighbor?
NO ON 8!!

"But, I have yet to read one RATIONAL argument why our constitution should not be amended by Prop 8 as so stated."

You're kidding! Then you haven't been paying attention. There hasn't been ONE rational argument as to why our constitution SHOULD be amended. The arguments for changing it have been based on fear & principles which have no place in *government*. The "No" side has presented **many** sound arguments as to why the prop should fail.

A bigot is: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". To me a vote of "yes" on 8 is a vote for "intolerance". I base that on the fact that a "yes" on 8 vote discriminates against gays by taking away their right to marry.

How about this to heat things up -- churches should not be tax free entities any longer except to the extent that the money goes DIRECTLY to an approved charitable organization. Why should the mormon and catholic churches (among others) be allowed to accumulate millions of dollars tax free (to them, WE pay taxes to subsidise them) and then spend millions to strip American citizens of their rights in the name of God. Why should we pay higher taxes to allow the churches to use tax free money to build huge santuaries and contribute to political battles? For those church members who donated money to the prop 8 hate campaign -- think again about trying to deduct those "charitable deductions". Think the IRS is not drooling over the future audits? I would like to be a fly on the wall during the future audit of the Alamo resident who "donated" $30,000 to the yes on 8 people. "But it was a donation to my church, that makes it tax deductible, right?" Take your righteous indignation somewhere else, those of us who pay to fund your tax free churches are done with it. It is time to really separate church from state and start taxing everyone!

I have a silly question. If you're in a "gay relationship" and want to devote yourself forever to someone else, why does it have to be called "marriage?" Why is a civil union not good enough. I understand it to be, you'll recieve all the rights and privileges of a married couple. No differences after the fact (except for not having a piece of paper that spells the word "marriage" at the top.) You can legally do anything a married couple can do, so your rights are not being effected at all. The contract of marriage is a union between MAN and WOMAN, isn't it? Can't the ceremony be called something else and the gay community ralley behind it in support. You know, have something that they created on their own.
I have to say that a gay couple is TECHNICALLY different to a "traditional" married couple. Simply due to the fact of a union involving two different genders. The issue of gender is not up for debate yet, right?

I agree with Carlos. Prop 8 is not about rights and privileges. Gay couples, under a legal civil union, have ALL the rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. I completely support this legal union. Technically, gay individuals CAN get married, if they do so heterosexually. A traditional "marriage" is between man and woman. I am totally fine with any other combo, it just shouldn't be called a "traditional marriage".

Wow, "taxpayer"!
You accuse the yes-on-8 supporters of being hateful, but your post is one of most venomous I've read. Maybe you aren't aware of the fact that churches use their tax-exempt status to fund charitable organizations that serve the public. Many churches send humanitarian aid to areas in crisis domestically and internationally.

And Carlos, your post strikes at the very heart of this debate: rights for gay couples are not affected at all.

Really? Rights aren't affected? How about outside of California? Outside the country? Ever thought of that?

If a "domestically partnered" gay couple left the state, their union is no longer valid. They get into an accident? Sucks. They cant visit each other in the hospital. Gay people will not be getting federal recognition, unlike heterosexual marriages. So why does it matter? It would mean that 3 out of 50 states have gay marriage. Yay We can go to CT or MA. The point is not just about rights, and if you call marriage a privalege, why do you get to decide who is privaleged or not?, its about equal treatment under the law, something that does not remind of "seperate but equal", because thats what domestic partnerships are. And in case you know your American history, "seperate is inherently unequal"

"You accuse the yes-on-8 supporters of being hateful"
Yes. Look up the board. (portion of comment removed by Pleasanton Weekly staff) Even if thats not what you think, you're voting with him. Congrats. you are now the same as a skinhead.

I have an idea... Why is segregation not good enough? I understand that colored people will receive all the same rights and privileges as white people. There is no difference except for the sign that lets everyone know what is for whites and what is for coloreds. Colored people can legally do anything a white person can do so their rights are not being affected. Why can't they respect that and rally behind it? That way they can be proud of their own accomplishments without white people. You know, have something that they created on their own.

Common Sense, That's really petty. By your argument you would agree with all the hateful things from the No on 8 folks.

The "it's separate but equal" argument doesn't work either. There is no separate under California law. Gays can ride the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, use the same water fountains, go to the same schools, enjoy the same legal rights under California law, etc. There is no segregation and no discrimination. Those are false arguments.

In the civil rights movement blacks were fighting against segregation not to be also called "white". That would have ridiculous, just as this is in wanting to be called married (man and woman) when you are not.

Yes on 8

"There is no separate under California law."

That is right, currently. Prop 8 would create a separation under California law.

The "it's separate but equal" argument doesn't work either. There is no ‘separate” under California law as domestic partnerships receive equal protection as marriages (man and woman) and Prop 8 will not eliminate those rights. Gays can ride the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, use the same water fountains, go to the same schools, enjoy the same legal rights under California law, etc. There is NO SEGREGATION and no discrimination. Those are false arguments.

In the civil rights movement blacks were fighting against segregation not to be also called "white". That would have ridiculous, just as this is in wanting to be called married (man and woman) when you are not.

Yes on 8

Slow down LoveAll, I can appricate your train of thought. I do. Althought we are talking about entering into a marriage contract. A contract defined as a man and a woman. This ceremony has been around for hundreds of years. Any gay or lesbian person has the right to enter that contract. But the contract that they're interested in, is a same sex union. It's different. It's a different kind of contract. Its a completley different union. The love is the same, the commitment is the same (I agree). Everything you're about to erupt with, I agree. But, nothing changes the fact that its not a "man and woman" entering THAT contract. The people of the same sex that want to join together, can develop a union and call it something else.
And this is a California ballot, right? I noticed you mentioned other states and around the world. Aren't you reaching a bit? You're really concerned about some make believe accident in some far away state? That might involve an injury? Is that the side of your case that is supposed to sway me (or others?) I'll worry about what happens in some other state... when I live there. Since you mentioned it anyways, did you say that gay marriages are only accepted in 2 other states? Does that mean an overwhelming number of US citizens are trying to protect the institution of marriage as we know it; and a small number of people are trying to change what took hundreds of years to create? Marriage is a serious thing and I kind of feel like the gay community is forcing themselves ONTO us. Why can't they create something NEW for themselves. Call it what you will. Lets face it, the truth is that "gay marriages" are a new thing (in the last 50 years). I feel like they are trying to latch on to something that is already defined and clear, instead of branching out and creating for themselves...
I know I don't sound like it, but I'm still undecided, and I'm trying to understand everything involved.

Jane, I did not accuse anyone of being "hateful". I merely pointed out that churches, the biggest yes-on-8 proponents, have tax benefits that are no longer entirely appropriate. When they use their tax free money to wage war on a segment of society they should lose that tax free status. Funding of bona fide charitable causes is great, lining the pockets of the churches is not. The largest landowner in the world is the catholic church. Properties bought and paid for with TAX FREE money. You and I paid the taxes by virtue of having higher rates to subsidize their tax free income. How is that fair? I say again, separate the church and state and let them pay taxes without the benefits they now have. They can deduct appropriate expenses like the rest of us, other than that, pay up.

Carlos wrote:
"Lets face it, the truth is that "gay marriages" are a new thing (in the last 50 years)."

Gay marriages have been around just as long as heterosexual marriages. Your cultural bias is showing.

I just wonder why parents are so concerned about this being taught in schools i'd rather them learn from school than learn stuff from TV which I am sure they learn more from anyway.. it is all over the tube.. MTV,TV shows that parents allow their kids to watch anyway.. maybe not 1st grade but eventually by the time the do get exposed to it wouldn't it be better to be prepared and understand it than learn the wrong side of it?

I have a close relative that is Gay and should he or she decide to get married why would it concern anyone but them...think about it people..I mean really think about it.. these people pay their taxes just as you do, they live their lives in communities just like you.. a gay couple can sometimes be more loving than regular man and wife in the end they are all people just like you and I...If it grosses you out.. well who really cares you are not in the relationship are you.

Taxpayer -
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, among others, are contributing to the "yes on 8" campaign. I challenge you to find these churches listed among donors. Individuals who happen to be Catholic or Mormon or Baptist or Presbyterian or Jewish or any other religion may be contributors as well as people who have no religious affiliation.
If gay couples want broader domestic rights they need to work to nationalize partnership laws rather than redefine marriage.

Frank wrote:
"But, I have yet to read one RATIONAL argument why our constitution should be amended by Prop 8 as so stated. "

A rational argument would entail judging this based upon marriage itself, its history, the reasons for it, etc. The main YES argument is based more upon either church law or a culturally conditioned and subjective ideal of the custom.

Rationally, marriage in its long history has nothing to do with love. It had everything to do with forming family alliances, child welfare, etc. Many other cultures still practice this older form of the institution by arranging marriages. It is only relatively recently that marriage has become about love and the pursuit of happiness in Western culture. But civil law is still saddled with a structure designed for the welfare of children. Perhaps as a result "traditional" marriage should only be about children. There are, whether people like it or not, children involved in homosexual relationships too. What about their welfare when we vote to deny marriage to such unions? Heterosexual couples who voluntarily chose not to have children should have their marriages nullified perhaps. They are receiving tax benefits and other privileges they should not be entitled to as those benefits are geared towards helping couples raising children.

This article I found gives some good background history on marriage: Web Link

Prop 8 has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. These are lies.

Prop 8 has no segregation or discrimination issues. These are lies.

Gays enjoy equal and same, not “separate”, state rights under domestic partnership laws.

In the civil rights movement blacks were fighting against segregation, not to be also called "white". That would have ridiculous, just as this is in wanting to be called married (man and woman) when you are not.

Prop 8 opponents DO want to teach elementary school kids about gay relationships, thinking we shouldn't just be teaching our own kids about relationships at home. It would not be good enough to teach our own kids, when we feel they are ready, to respect gay relationships and at the same time teach them marriage is between a man and a woman.

Almost all public schools, 96%, would be required to teach about gay relationships as being marriage to kids if Prop 8 does not pass. The State Superintendent of Schools was using word play to lie about it, but his own website contradicts him. This is absolutely true under California law.

YES on 8

With all due respect Stacey, your WRONG. Gay marriages ARE new. Gay and Lesbian relationships are NOT new, but entering a public civil union is entirely new to society. Gay couples have been historically ridiculed. Their unions have been unexposed and private. I understand gay people have been around from the time of the cavemen, but to enter a marriage contract is a recent turn of events. Your cultural bias is showing.

"but entering a public civil union is entirely new to society. "

This is a false statement outside of the context of American culture. I'm talking about public contracts with formalized ceremonies between same-sex partners in history. Go look up "affrèrement" or read the previous link I provided Web Link

To all those in support of prop 8: please realize that gay couples are a reality, regardless of how we might feel about homosexual relationships. These couples will continue to be around, and many are even raising children (even the daughter of vp Dick Cheney - she is in a lesbian relationship and had a baby). So why not give these couples and their kids the protections that come from allowing them to legally marry? How does giving homosexual couples the right to marry hurt in any way our "traditional marriages"?

I am in a "traditional marriage" and do not see how my marriage would be affected in any way by having homosexual couples be able to marry.

Besides, remember that prop. 22 (approved by voters in 2000) which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was challenged and after legal battles, struck down by the California Supreme Court - why approve yet another proposition like prop. 22, which will be challenged in court anyway?

Vote no on Prop. 8

Check out this video:

Web Link

Check out this video:

Web Link

Stacey, I apologize. I was talking about - gays entering a public civil union is entirely new to OUR society or modern society. And just to be clear, I understand that there has been documented cases of gay marriages in history. OF course there has been. That doesn't mean too much to me. There are documented cases of people marrying many things around the world. In 2003 an Indian girl married a dog, and in 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat. I'm sorry if those unfair comparisons are offending, but my point is there are many practices around the world. That doesn't mean that we should change our country's constitution just to keep up with the neighbors.
And in closing, in these wonderful places that you linked us to about the history of gay marriages; All of those societies accept them as equal? I'm not talking about their villages or neighborhoods and friends, I mean are the governments treating them as they do all of the other married families? Is our country the only homophobic government in the world? Am I to believe that our country is that far behind all of those other countries?

In response to something to think about-
"Besides, remember that prop. 22 (approved by voters in 2000) which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was challenged and after legal battles, struck down by the California Supreme Court - why approve yet another proposition like prop. 22, which will be challenged in court anyway?"

Prop 22 was a statute, Prop 8 is an amendment to the State Constitution- all "yes" wants is for Marriage to not be redefined. On the ballot it reads "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" That is rather confusing wording and makes it sound like you are taking away someone's rights rather then defending traditional marriage. As it has been mentioned above this is not about same-sex rights. Domestic partnerships have the same rights-- a yes vote does not strip them of their rights. This is a video titled "Prop 8- in plain english"
Web Link


In regard to " I am in a "traditional marriage" and do not see how my marriage would be affected in any way by having homosexual couples be able to marry." I am also in a traditional marriage and wondered the same thing-- this video answers the question on "How does same-sex marriage affect my family?"
Web Link

Vote "yes" on Prop 8-- we do not want to live in a genderless society, I want my kids and my grandkids to know that being male or female means something. When they apply for a marriage license I want it to say "Bride" and "Groom" not "Party A" and "Party B".

Carlos,

Understood. My response is mainly in counter to the argument that Prop 8 is based upon a practice that is "multicultural" and that this is something that "everyone" does. I want to dispel the myth that "marriage" is a universally understood concept that Prop 8 is somehow reaffirming when in fact our understanding of what constitutes marriage is conditioned by our culture and era.

See above this post:
================
PJ wrote:
"Hardly? Really? So it isn't practiced by billions of people from around the world as a well-established heterosexual custom because you found some oddities? Interesting logic you use there."

I didn't say that marriage isn't being practiced as a heterosexual custom. You're being quite disingenuous about actual marriage practices when you write "Prop 8 is based on multicultural beliefs practice by billions of people from around the world who practice the custom of marriage, which is a well-established heterosexual custom" and exclude the "oddities" from different cultures. If Prop 8 were truly based upon multicultural beliefs regarding marriage, it would allow, for example, polygamy.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, 16 hours ago
==================

...and it still is a multiculturally accepted heterosexual tradition practiced by billions and is represented in the American melting pot: Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist, Muslims, Jews, Indians, Africans, Russians, Iranians, Germans, Filipinos....

"The "it's separate but equal" argument doesn't work either. There is no separate under California law. Gays can ride the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, use the same water fountains, go to the same schools, enjoy the same legal rights under California law, etc. There is no segregation and no discrimination. Those are false arguments."

If Prop 8 passes gays can only file as "domestic partners" and heteros can only obtain a "marriage license" (unless they are over 62, then they can register as domestic partners). That, my friend is *separate*. And while DPs may have the same rights as M couples, it is not the same. There are subtle differences. I read over the codes. For example, I read that DPs must reside together - I don't see that rule under "marriage". All DPs do is *register* or *unregister*, I didn't see any mention of "solemnizing" - a term used in the marriage section (i.e. a priest, judge, etc. witnesses a couple declaring their desire to enter into marriage). DPs just have to fill out a form and have it notarized. So perhaps you are right, it's not separate and equal...it's separate and different. Even worse.

"In the civil rights movement blacks were fighting against segregation not to be also called "white".

"Homosexuals" are not asking to be called "Heterosexuals". They are asking to *continue* to be allowed to enter into a marital contract - a contract that is not the same as a domestic partnership.

I keep hearing that "domestic partners" and "married couples" have the same rights, so it is the same. It's not the same (& the only difference is not the genders involved - see above). If you heard that a couple chose to *register* as domestic partners rather than get *married* what would you think? Right now only couples over 62 could choose that, but what if? Wouldn't you think to yourself, "why didn't they get married...they must not be serious"?

KR, you almost had me. The response to "how can it effect my family" wasn't really answered (for me). I get the part about erasing gender roles in marriages can erase the roles of gender in society. But it can't. Do you really think the World will convert to a "uni-sex" society. I believe that teaching a girl how to be a little lady; and teaching a boy how to be a man is the parents job. Not the governments job, and not the schools, or MTV or anything else. Any changes in the constitution won't change a thing with my family. I'm not trying to raise a straight child, I'm concerned with raising a responsible, caring human being that can somehow find happiness in their life (the way I have). And besides, their sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with it anyways, does it? Are you saying that a gay man isn't a man? A lesbian isn't a woman? You do get that difference between a gay man and a straight man, is the type of sex he enjoys, right?
This is great. You lucky people are witnessing a voter slowly changing sides. The best part is, its not the NO people swaying me their way, its the arguments on the YES side that is pushing me away.

I found this quote on another forum. There have been a few claims, not only as to what marriage is, but to what it has "always been". I know "cut and paste" does not = truth, but I'm quite confident that the statements below could be confirmed.

"FYI marriage pre dates Christianity and Judaism. Marriage was originally about property rights, inheritance, paternity and political alliances. Also In the past, from aristocracy to commoner, individuals had their spouses chosen for them. Men and women did not have the right to marry without permission from an authority.

The definition of marriage in western civilization has been constantly changing and has evolved over time in response to changes in society. At one time it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. In 1967 the case of Loving vs. Virginia struck down that law, at the time a lot of people were against different races marrying, but the world didn’t come to an end and today people could care less. Same sex marriage is a logical extension of human rights, civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights."

Carlos, I enjoyed your post because I could empathize. I was always voting no on 8, but after I started reading the comments in various forums posted by those supporting 8, I became **vehemently** opposed to prop 8!

The truth is, the outcome of this proposition will affect everyone, not just the gay community. I'm tired of people using that as an argument.

Web Link

Prop 8 had nothing to do with any of those examples. One example was from New York, a state that does not have same-sex marriage. What I'm reading is that with or without Prop 8 gays are going to (rightfully) insist on their rights. Why "blame" Prop 8 for all of that? Prop 8 is wrong - it seeks to change the constitution (a document that is supposed to outline and protect rights) in such a way that gays are not afforded the same right to a state-issued marriage license that heterosexuals would enjoy.

All that said, I disagree with some of those lawsuits. I think a doctor, photographer, etc. should indeed be able to uphold their beliefs in deciding to whom to offer services. I do not agree with their beliefs that discriminate, but I also believe in religious freedom. In those cases there were other doctors, photographers, etc. that could have performed the needed services. If churches are going to open their schools to the public, then yes, they may have to put up with behaviour that's contrary to their beliefs. They don't mind accepting money from the parents of gay children....

To Julie,

Calling me a bigot is akin to me calling you a heterophobic relativistic zealot. But I choose not to call people names.

I do choose to vote Yes on Proposition 8, and I stand up and cheer for all who will.

God Bless America, and, In God We Trust--let's hope those expressions and what they represent never succumb to the relativism you and those who agree with you subscribe to.

I just drove by the corner of Hopyard and Valley - wow! a bunch of right wing folks were out there with YES on 8, and Palin/McCain signs.

NO on 8 is the only way to keep the extreme right from continuing to try to push their views on the rest of us. Also, no on prop. 4.

Vote NO on 8!

Vote NO on Hate!

I love to drive by Hopyard and Valley! I don't care what sign they're holding, at least they're out there. Not enough people are voting in general. It would be nice if more people cared (one way or the other.)
Where are the Obama folks at anyways?

Sorry Concerned Person, not the same. Let's look at what you "would" call me:

Heterophobic: "Heterophobia is a term used to describe irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against heterosexuals."

I am married to a heterosexual, I AM heterosexual, and most of my day is spent with heterosexuals without me crouched frightened to death in a corner.

Relativistic: "The most popular definitions of relativism assume it to mean that all points of view are equally valid, as opposed to an absolutism that insists that there is but one true and correct view."

Fine, call me that.

Zealot: "One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan."

I'm not sure that posting on a small town newspaper forum is overzealous. I feel like I should also be standing on street corners with "No on 8" signs, going door to door for my cause, wearing buttons, etc. to earn that name. The term "zealot" generally brings to mind a maniac. I don't think my posts appear composed by a maniac. If you mean simply "enthusiast", fine.

So, the difference is that your names were either heinously inaccurate (see heterophobic), or, accurate and I cop to it and accept being called as such!

Carlos,

You flatter me--- you had me at hello, but then you dissed me at good-bye.

Since you asked I will answer your questions the best I can.
"Are you saying that a gay man isn't a man? A lesbian isn't a woman?"

Well that is a hard one, see as a regular blood donor at the Red Cross I am asked each time "What gender I was born as?" It always stumps me, I have to think about it- Geez What? Oh, Ohhhh, hum female! Since the Red Cross can't tell by looking at me that I was born female, then I must assume the gender lines have been crossed. So my guess is since you said gay "man"- he is a man and for lesbian, I am not sure-- I mean I have seen some lesbian weddings where they are dressed as a bride and groom. That could mean that one is a man-but was born a female or are they both female. I am confused- it feels like the gender lines are blurring together. Maybe it would help if you said lesbian women then I would know for sure or am I just suppose to know that lesbian means women. You are right, sexual orientation has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. See for me... I think that sexual orientation is important to marriage and I want my kids and grandkids to know that being male or female is valued-- that it is not a blurred line.

As Judy quoted, "The definition of marriage in western civilization has been constantly changing and has evolved over time in response to changes in society." So naturally it would safe to assume that we would eventually evolve to live in a genderless society-- not that we would be one-sex or Uni-sex, but one where male or female has no significance to a family or to marriage. I am really proud to be a women, a mother, and a wife- I would say I derive happiness from my gender role, I would say my gender plays an important part in who I am.

It is not tomorrow that I am worried about or even a year from now... it is that "evolved over time". Today it is a blurred genders, tomorrow...I don't know--- but I do know that you can't throw a rock in the water without ripples. Judy says Prop 8 has "nothing to do with any of those examples." It is the ripples.. we have no crystal ball, all we can look at is examples.

Carlos, you also asked me if I understood the only difference between a gay man and a straight man? It was a good thing you mentioned that it was sex preferences, because I might have thought you were talking about happy and thin. I caution you- that would be discrimination and then we would have to change the terms to "people" as to not violate rights and treat everyone equal under the law. Could that be termed as a genderless society? The ripples-- maybe we should just keep that rock out of the water.

Bottom line is that our National and State Constitutions were written to protect our rights, not take rights away from individuals. Passing a statute is one thing, but amending our California Constitution so that two consenting adults who love each other can be denied the fundamental right of marriage is not American.

PS.look where the greatest amount of funding from the Yes on 8 campaign has come from-$1 million from a Pennsylvania couple; $940,00 from an organization in New Jersey; $500,000 from an organization in Mississippi; $450,000 from Elsa Prince from Holland who's son founded Blackwater; $439,000 from Focus on the Family (Dobson's radical right organization-the one's who protest military funerals); and $18,682,000 from members of the Mormon Church. If only this money were spent to help the truly needy, not to embed an amendment to the California State Constitution that takes away individual rights.

Sounds to me like Carlos has it right, "Why does it have to be called "marriage?" Why is a civil union not good enough? Gay couples can legally do anything a married couple can do, so your rights are not being effected at all. The contract of marriage is a union between MAN and WOMAN"
I think this is the Bottom Line.......Why does the word marriage need to be re-defined?
Although I do not consider myself a religious individual, another consideration for me is the potential negative impact of mainstreaming alternative lifestyles on society as a whole.
I would guess this is probably also why the major religions for the world oppose gay unions on "moral" grounds.

Note: all the donations listed in my comment above are from the official California web site of donors. Any donor over $100 must be disclosed. The "Mormons for Proposition 8" web site lists the donations from around all the country from Mormons for yes on 8.

By the way, I know many Mormons who are voting NO on 8!

When was marriage considered a fundamental right?
What's next, NAMBLA marriage?
Where does it end......

[BUD] Beastiality Unites Divides - BUD have been 'loving' animals for over ten years and belive that sexual intercourse with hamsters may lead to spiritual ascension.

Don't forget Plural Marriage.......

Prop 8 failing = genderless society? No wonder you couldn't even get my name right.

"So naturally it would safe to assume that we would eventually evolve to live in a genderless society-- not that we would be one-sex or Uni-sex, but one where male or female has no significance to a family or to marriage." Safe to assume? This is exactly the type of fear mongering, illogical assumptions, etc. I've seen in support of Prop 8 (though I admit, this one takes the cake).

There are no "blurred genders". And I hardly think it's valid to assume that Prop 8 failing means the inevitable "insignificance" of male and female to family, marriage or anything. Are you writing a science fiction movie? That is the only context I can think of in which your statements make any sense.

Women used to be considered second class citizens. We couldn't vote, own property, etc. Has the women's rights movement created a genderless society? Did making women equal to men in the eyes of the law turn us INTO men? Yes, people have had to accept changes that were potentially uncomfortable. I can remember my dad referring to those "women libbers". I think men were afraid that we'd lose our femininity, our "woman-ness" if we were allowed to wear pants, make decisions, vote, have careers, etc. Yes, I'm sure some language here and there has been changed to reflect the equality of women, but not to any ridiculous degree such as you suggest - at least not in the mainstream. We still call it "history", not "herstory".

Whether or not prop 8 passes, changes will occur because happily the gay community has become more empowered over the years. Women are STILL not completely equal to men and we've been working on that for AGES. The definition of family is changing - it doesn't need the validation of some ridiculous proposition.

Vote NO on Prop 8 - don't let your fears be an excuse for discriminating against a group of people. It wasn't a valid excuse for discriminating against African Americans. It wasn't a valid excuse for discriminating against women. It's still not a valid excuse.

Why is my group being excluded from the marriage discussion?

In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as group marriage (one person having many wives and many husbands at the same time).

Everyone Equal - Yes

Everything Equal - Chaos

Protect Marriage - Vote YES on Prop 8

Before the Loving case, interracial marriages were also illegal. Look at the arguments from the "conservative" folks: it is not what God intended.... etc - much like the arguments against homosexual marriages.

Web Link

Many in California would have been arrested for daring to marry outside the white race, yes, not long ago such nonsense was OK with the "conservative" ones. It was not until 1948, when the California supreme court ruled, in the case of Perez v. Sharp, that laws prohibiting interracial marriages were in violation of the equal amendment clause.

If it were up to the extreme right/conservative base, things would be so backwards, that many in California would be in violation of "laws that protect the sanctity of marriage" by being part of interracial marriages (again, it was not until 1948 in California, and different years in other states - see Loving case) that interracial marriage was finally OK - but again, the extreme right was not to thank for.

NO ON PROP. 8
NO ON PROP. 8

Is same-sex marriage like inter-racial marriage?

Web Link

Sorry Julie-- I am bad with names, I even think I may of called you Jane also, before I corrected it. But I think it would be safe to assume that you knew it was Julie even though I wrote Judy.

It is also safe to assume that "same-sex" marriage means male and female are "insignificant". The very definition tells me that when 2 women marry- the male is insignificant and when 2 men marry the female is insignificant. That is a fact-- not science fiction.

KR- You're hilarious. I almost thought you were serious. But I know there is NO way you really think like this. It's all for "show" isn't it??

"Is same-sex marriage like inter-racial marriage?"

No it is not. The point is that the same kind of people (extreme right, so called conservatives) who back then opposed and fought hard to keep interracial marriages illegal, are now fighting to prevent same sex couples from having the right to marry.

Just read the arguments used back then against interracial couples. If the country was made of only the extreme right, there would be no rights right now - for anyone other than the very same folks who fight so hard against giving people the same rights under the law.

I just read all 121 comments and I signed off only to come back to let 'all' know of a concern that is not a lie; it's the truth. This answers those who ask, "what's the fear?" for allowing Gay marriages.
In the Sacramento area there was a couple (hetero) that when they signed their marriage certificate earlier this summer, the certificate read "Partner 1" and "Partner 2". They lined out the Partner part and wrote in "Bride" and "Groom", as it used to be prior to the Courts allowing Gay marriages. To their greatest surprise, the certificate was rejected by the Government and thus, they were not considered legally married in the state of California. In order for them to be recognized as a legally married couple, they were forced to signing it as the certificate read.
I ask, should there be no fear with those who oppose Gay marriages, that their moral convictions are going to be forced to change? It's already happening. It's like when my son was not promoted in multiple cases (per his company saying so) because they "had to meet quota". Folks, people are affected by changes (that are thought to be helpful but backfire) and many times it's very much unfair.
I have already voted and I voted "YES" ON PROP 8 not because I have a phobia towards Gays (I have a dear cousin who is one. Had an enjoyable lunch with him and his partner). My reasoning closely resembles Carlos Guiterrez' inthat, as a Christian, who reads the Bible and tries daily to live the book, I have an obligation to honor a Covenant that God, Himself, prescribed. If I change my ways, my thinking, thus my actions, I am denying God His will. I must honor God laws, not man's. As a Christian, I have no choice. My church teaches to "love the sinner, hate the sin". What's wrong with that? I personally wish that Gays would be able to be recognized by the Government; call it a civil union (not "marriage"), so that they can experience the rights as heteros do such as visiting their loved one in the hospital, getting accepted for insurance benefits under their partner's, etc. I see no wrong in that. I just cannot accept, per God's law, the Holy Sacrament of Marriage become a sacrilege.

Carlos,

Totally for "show"-I have no crystal ball. But I can look at the facts. I am all for love and the pursuit of Happiness for all. But as you read above, Warren Jeffs wants his side heard also...


A yes vote for 8
It is not about hate
It is about Protecting "Traditonal" Marriage

Nana and KR: your reasoning is the same that was used a while back to ban interracial marriages. People said it was against what God wanted, a protection of traditional marriage - read the Loving v. Virginia case:

“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.""

(a quote from Loving v. Virginia - all the background etc)
Web Link">Web Link

Protecting "traditional marriage" was also talked about - ie, only whites could marry whites - imagine if this definition had not changed - many in California would be in "illegal", "not what God what in mind" types of relationships.

Read the case, and you will understand. Back then, people wanted to keep interracial marriages illegal in order to "prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," ".....

Web Link">Web Link

Please think about it. Equal protection under the law was an issue back then with interracial marriages, as it is now with same sex marriages.

NO ON PROP 8

NO ON PROP 8

Still waffeling on this issue - as much as I want my gay friends to be happy in their marriage - the laws of nature keep haunting me. The laws of nature say that same gender unions are not natural - so therfore if I make this idea a law then it will be perceived as normal and natural? I think not.

By Dennis Prager-- link at the bottom for the full article.

"The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage....

But the equation is false.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not."


Web Link

But that is not how the conservatives viewed it back then, KR. Back then, an interracial marriage was not viewed the way it is viewed today.

Back then, if the conservatives had gotten away with it, today we would be looking at a ban on interracial marriages, jail time if such laws were violated. It took the Loving couple to get the Supreme court involved to undo such ridiculous and unfair laws. The Loving case demonstrates how it took a couple, willing to violate the existing law, go to jail, in order to bring much needed change.

It will take someone to undo the prejudice against same sex couples, and maybe 40 years from now, we will be reading, in some court case, how it is irrational to ban same sex marriage.

Again, the conservatives, if they could have their way, would have a world where things would be so backwards that even women would have little in the way of rights.

Not surprisingly, KR, you keep putting links to conservative-run websites.

So who is Dennis Prager? A conservative republican, talk show host, who uses morality to get his point across.

Back when Loving went to court, the religious/morality-based arguments against interracial marriages were plenty. People claimed it was against God's will, morally wrong, even calling babies of these interracial couples a "corruption of blood" - and many other awful names.

Morality/religion has been used, unfortunately, throughout history, as a tool to justify unjust and unfair laws/beliefs.

NO ON PROP 8

NO ON PROP 8

To Julie,

Definition of relativism (per Merriam-Webster):

a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing; a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Definition of relativistic:

of, relating to, or characterized by relativity or relativism.

I believe that ethical truths are based on what God intended, as stated through the Bible, not on any so-called truths or guides for how to live with each other exclusively created by mankind.

Our most basic laws are based on morality, and morality is based through God's teachings, not mankind's. Mankind didn't create morality.

I do not harbor any hatred towards homosexuals, and I'm certainly not "crouched frightened to death in a corner."

Yes on 8.

Something to think about states: "Morality/religion has been used, unfortunately, throughout history, as a tool to justify unjust and unfair laws/beliefs."...remember, 30+ years ago we were arguing on black rights. I don't mean to bring race into this but I see this a semi-similar situation. I said semi, meaning the big picture, granted, this is not to the extreme of the racism we encounted back then. But people were throwing religious beliefs and thoughts out as to why the blacks aren't entitled to everything like the whites.


Now we are seeing the same for the gay community. They can't marry becasue of what the bible says.PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. GOD or whomever you choose to believe in made us ALL different. Some are Black, White, Brown, etc. GOD even made some people GAY. It is not a choice. Just like you didn't choose to be a woman or a man. There were GAY people in Jesus' time just as much as there is now.

Open your minds & hearts. Life is about bringing happiness to all. Who cares if a woman wants to marry a woman or a man marry a man. Let them be happy! They can be happy and bring love into this world just as much as "straight" people can.

Just wait, 30 years from now, we will be old and looking back and seeing all that has changed in this world. The gay community will have free will like the rest of us. And who knows what else will be different. That is the joy of life. Embrassing difference and maintaining happiness on Earth. Look at the big picture.

Funny, you didn't mention anything about how appalling it is that the "No on 8" folks are vandalizing peoples' houses. This whole issue is out of control. Everyone needs to just relax and wait and see what the outcome is after the election.

"It is also safe to assume that "same-sex" marriage means male and female are "insignificant". The very definition tells me that when 2 women marry- the male is insignificant and when 2 men marry the female is insignificant. That is a fact-- not science fiction."

You are not stating facts, you are stating assumptions and faulty ones at that. What do you mean "insignificant"? Those 2 women who married in your example...guess what - they would NEVER have been interested in "the male", married or not! Women and women will get together; men and men will get together regardless of whether the constitution is changed to take away their right to marry. Your "assumption" has no bearing on Prop 8, neither is it accurate. Men and women will continue to have significant roles. What do you think, that allowing gays to marry will somehow effect the overall percentage of homosexuals? I heard a figure, I cannot verify it, that 3% of the population is gay. Prop 8 passing will have zero effect on the biological manifestation of being gay. It's not like people will go, "Great, if I'm gay I can get married now - I think I'll be gay"! People don't choose their sexual orientation and sexual orientation is not increased/decreased based on Prop 8! You sound worried that the whole world is going to "go gay". Biologically speaking, you don't have to worry about that. What we have to worry about is discrimination.

This poor horse is more than dead. Let's move onto another question that could be similar in religious outlooks and concerns:
Is Obama the Anti-Christ? He has been hailed by his wife, his pastor and even Farrakhan as the new Messiah.

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will 'Be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with Persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....' The prophecy says 'That people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
And when he is in power, will destroy everything..'

Just Curious, start another thread if you like.

"My reasoning closely resembles Carlos Guiterrez' inthat, as a Christian, who reads the Bible and tries daily to live the book, I have an obligation to honor a Covenant that God, Himself, prescribed. If I change my ways, my thinking, thus my actions, I am denying God His will. I must honor God laws, not man's".

You are welcome to follow your God's laws, honor His Covenant, but do not change OUR constitution for YOUR religious agenda. Would you like it if other religious groups wanted to do that? How about Orthodox Jews asking for laws that limit activity on the Sabbath because it offends them? Maybe Buddhists have some laws they'd like to see. What about Atheists? I'm sure they would like some input. And Prop 8 isn't about the "Holy Sacrament of Marriage" - it's about the CALIFORNIA STATE issued marital license. Prop 8 does not dictate anything about churches. You can keep your holy sacrament, but let the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, which is NOT a CHURCH, issue marriage licenses to gays.

I have enjoyed the reading so far, but now I'm confused about the being gay isn't a choice -thing? I don't believe any doctor has found anything close to a "gay gene". There is no evidence showing that people are born "gay". I don't believe gay people are born like that. They can have sex with the other gender but they CHOOSE to have sex the same gender. I don't see anything wrong with it by the way, but don't try to convince me that you are not responsible for making that choice. I guess some of you might argue, but are people born as killers? NO, they make their own choices and live with the results. Gay people aren't any different, in the way that they simply CHOOSE a side (and then escape any responsiblity.)

This is probably more interesting:

Web Link

Choice? I don't know about you, but I did not choose my sexual orientation. I don't know why I am heterosexual, I just am. Yes, I could *choose* to have sex with a woman, but that in and of itself does not make me gay. What makes me heterosexual is that I am not *attracted* to women. I have no desire to mate/be married/etc. to a woman. I have known a few gay people and trust me, no one would *choose* to be gay. Their lifestyle is full of hardships - they hardly escape responsibility.

I don't imagine sexual orientation is something you can measure at birth. I would think adolescence is the appropriate time for that, when a person is entering puberty. And killers/gays are hardly appropriate comparisons.

I apologize for the comparison. It was in poor taste.
I am hetero for the same reasons. I suppose "choice" can be subjective. So lets say- I have a friend that eats seafood all the time. He loves it. I can't even sit in the same room as him when he eats it. I can't stand seafood. Now, I don't believe he was born to like seafood and I was born to not like seafood. He became a person (for whatever reason) that likes seafood. The "whatever" reason could have happened at any point in his life. It could be life experiences, timing, enviroment, perceptions...anything. But he would have a hard time trying to convice anyone that he came out of the womb liking seafood.
And how do you explain "late in life" lesbians?

Choice?
The marriage discrimination argument has no merit:
All Men have the right to marry Women.
All Women have the right to marry Men.
No exceptions (race or otherwise).

Same sex couples are recognized as legal domestic partnerships.

I see the gay "marriage" issue as a feel good "want" issue, not a "need" issue.

The argument against Prop 8 is all about mainstreaming alternative lifestyles and forcing school teachers to instruct our children that immoral/un-natural behavior in society is "natural" or standard. The long-term ramifications = dismantling the TRADITIONAL Family. We already know the impact of broken families, and alternative family lifestyles on children. We need to protect as support society, procreation, and the TRADITIONAL family structure..............not tear it down.

Vote YES on Prop 8.

Choice? I'm wondering if "late in life" lesbians (I'm not familiar with the term but think I understand what you mean) were always lesbians, but didn't want to face it. I'm not sure if you're familiar with psychology, but there are lots of "mechanisms" people use to cope - e.g. "blocking".

I was discussing your "gay gene" comment w/my husband & he brought up a good point: they also haven't discovered a "hetero gene". Basically, we still don't know what creates sexual orientation. Nature v. nurture is a common debate in my field of child development and perhaps applies here. I have always believed that it is a combination of nature (e.g. genetics) and nurture (e.g. environment, experiences) that form who we are.

I'm sure that interracial marriage was once considered an "alternative lifestyle".

Bob, Prop 8 doesn't force school teachers to instruct anything - read the text. And I think the reason that some people associate "Yes on 8" folks w/bigots is because of statements that call the gay lifestyle "immoral" and "un-natural". If the issue is about morals we should not be pushing to amend the *constitution* - it wasn't meant for preaching the morals of a group of people. It was designed to outline government function and *rights*. I certainly don't know anything about the impact of "alternative family lifestyles" on children. A child needs loving, stable, consistent, dependable parents - gay or straight. You mention protecting procreation - you don't seriously think Prop 8 is going to jeopardize THAT? The most serious problem we've been facing since the 20th century is overpopulation. And again, Prop 8 passing isn't suddenly going to "turn everyone gay". There will be plenty of procreating. I'm wondering though - is a married straight couple who chooses not to have children a non-traditional family? What about an infertile couple?

Julie,
No school instruction - Get real, school curriculums include instruction and respect for marriage. If gay unions become gay marriage - the schools will be forced to teach.

The "immoral/un-natural" comment is an opinion (widely held) however not the point of the argument. I'll accept a label of insensitive or Politically Incorrect, but labeling everyone a bigot who doesn't agree with you only shows the weakness of your arguments.

Infertile and/or choice - Of course, Traditional.

Let me now mirror your questions: I'm wondering though - Would you also support Plural Marriage (Polygamy)? How about Group Marriage? If not, why would you oppose?

Changing the definition of marriage to include alternative forms will eventually reduce rates of marriage. Look at the effect on the Scandinavian countries that embrace gay marriage. My opinion, the effect is bad for marriage and bad for society.

However, You seem to have missed the main point.

The marriage discrimination argument has no merit:

All Men have the right to marry Women.

All Women have the right to marry Men.

No exceptions (race or otherwise).

Same sex couples are recognized as legal domestic partnerships.

I see the gay "marriage" issue as a feel good "want" issue, not a "need" issue.

but think of the children... lol

yes on 8!!!

Bob wrote (to Julie):
"Let me now mirror your questions: I'm wondering though - Would you also support Plural Marriage (Polygamy)? How about Group Marriage? If not, why would you oppose?"

***

(I have no doubt Julie is capable of answering for herself, but here is a quote from her from Oct 17):

***

Julie wrote:
"I will not support any proposition that seeks to exclude ANY group from the legal right to marry."

Nice comment and question, again, PJ. Can't wait for Julie's answer. Polygamy laws are clearly denying the rights of those people their beliefs.

THANK YOU JULIE...your comments, "You seem to be under the
misunderstanding ... ... Individuals who happen to be Catholic
or Mormon or Baptist or Presbyterian or Jewish or any other
religion may be contributors as well as people who have no
religious affiliation.

If gay couples want broader domestic rights they need to work to
nationalize partnership laws rather than redefine marriage."

I'm a simple gal, I accept homosexuality, am glad they finally have a voice, and feel NO hate, however, it is about changing the definition. Your suggestion is the best answer to this problem.

Thank you Bob, PJ, and mac. Your comments cut to the very center of this debate. I couldn't agree with you more.

Steven, Bob, PJ, mac - I must have missed it, is there a proposition on the ballot regarding polygamy?

While your thought exercise is an interesting distraction, the reality is that we will be voting on the continued rights of our gay/lesbian friends next week, not on polygamy.

If you realistically believe that when Prop 8 is voted down that polygamy will run rampant and be a legal marriage option as a follow-on to No on 8, then you are quite frankly nuts. Practically though, its a great argument for fear mongering...

Bob wrote "However, You seem to have missed the main point.
The marriage discrimination argument has no merit:
All Men have the right to marry Women.
All Women have the right to marry Men."

Let me say it again: if the conservatives of back then had gotten away with it, interracial marriage would still be illegal today. The conservatives back then fought hard and used many arguments about why interracial marriage was a bad idea, etc.

Web Link

If we had embraced the extreme conservative way of thinking that back then fought hard against interracial marriage, right now we would not have the ability to marry other races (plus we would not have other rights that were obtained after fighting the opposition of the extreme right)

The conservatives of today may accept interracial marriage - they have no choice, their views and arguments were defeated back then.

Now the conservatives (extreme right) are trying to:

1) argue against same sex marriage

2) are taking baby steps against Roe v. Wade

3) selected someone very extreme to the VP job - someone who opposes abortion even in the case of incest and who has already talked about undoing Roe v. Wade

The extreme right is not good for anyone. If they had it their way, there would be no rights for many, women included, and those rights we do have, would little by little disappear.

NO ON PROP 8
NO ON PROP 8

So let's see some fascinating bits of info I've learned today.

-Christians have no choice but to vote yes to take rights away from their fellow humans.

-Christians follow God's laws and not the laws of our country.

-If gays are allowed to marry, we will become a genderless society.

-Gays need to work harder to be accepted and need to prove they are born gay.

So you're voting yes because you're a Christian and have no choice? Really? That's your reason? Wow! Really, you have no personal freedom to use your brain aside from what God wants? That's absolutely shocking to me. Does God also tell you what to eat each day too? Should the rest of the world REALLY have to live by people's beliefs who can't even THINK for themselves?

Do even recognize that this affects the laws of California that have nothing to do with your church or the laws of God? Why would you ever think it would be acceptable to use your personal religious beliefs to dictate how every else should live? So do you want to live in a theocracy then? Are you ok with one imposed by a religion that's not Christian?

I'm not going to pussy foot around this anymore. The reason people are stealing signs is because they can see how obviously vile the mere existence of prop 8 is. I don't say that to justify the stealing because personally I would not do that. However, you must realize that people are disgusted by what you're doing and feel helpless. It really is the most disgusting thing to see a bunch of people rallying to take other people's rights away. Don't try to tell me that's not what it is, it's in the name of the damn proposition!

Using marriage, tradition or "the children" are all just BS excuses for thinking that the every single person should live according to your demented, gross, holier than thou thinking and it's just sick. Really, really sick. And yes it's bigoted. I know you don't like the word, but it's completely appropriate in this instance. You think you're being godly but the rest of us who know better know it's bigotry. You can go to church and get a pat on the back from your pastor for a job well-done if this passes, but me and many people I know will never, ever forget how you chose to treat your fellow human beings in the name of God.

You can say I'm calling names or whatever I really don't care. But the level of hate and homophobia here disguised as morality is repulsive in every way. I can't imagine any people less Christ-like than those touting a yes vote on prop 8. Here's a clue for you. If you're referring to a segment of your fellow humans as "they" then you are not accepting them as your fellow humans. Gay couples don't need to work harder for acceptance, it is already in the constitution that every person is equal! Duh! It does NOT say equal except for gay people. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I think it must be that you just don't care how if affects anyone else and that's just mean-spirited. It is you who should be using your faith to make sure there is acceptance, not using it to deny acceptance.

Julie, major kudos to you; you've been a trooper here! But unfortunately you're battling people who are impervious to rational thinking and reasoning beyond what they want to believe. There are no open minds here.

No offense meant to any Christians who are actually behaving in a Christ-like way and voting NO on Prop h8!

Anyone who wants to get on my case go ahead, but just reading some of the responses on this thread made me feel ill. It was either this or go vomit. I really don't like to vomit.

Wow, Janna, the poster child for hate is preaching about hate??

Folks, you should read the numerous venomous posts she writes against those who disagree with her.

I think someone needs to take anger management and PR classes.

At least Julie, who is anti 8, tries to have dialogue and "attract" people to her position. All you do is spit, spit, spit.

The little white guy on my right shoulder wants to tell you: Janna, you think you're doing your cause a favor here but you’re not; I hope you find some peace.

The little red guy on my other shoulder wants to tell you: Keep it up!

Disclaimer: No little white guys or red guys were harmed in the making of this post. As a matter of fact, they are figurative. If you actually see little white or red guys on your shoulders, consult your physician immediately. :)

"Gays enjoy equal and same, not “separate”, state rights under domestic partnership laws."

they are seperate. they are different. And guess what? how much does a marriage license cost? Under $100.

In order to receive domestic partnership rights, LGBT couples need to pay for a lawyer (upwards of $5,000).

No matter your definition of marriage, why should some people have to pay more for equal rights? So stop this nonsense of domestic partnerships being the same. If they were, wouldn't they be a lot easier to get?

"Gays enjoy equal and same, not “separate”, state rights under domestic partnership laws."

they are seperate. they are different. And guess what? how much does a marriage license cost? Under $100.

In order to receive domestic partnership rights, LGBT couples need to pay for a lawyer (upwards of $5,000).

No matter your definition of marriage, why should some people have to pay more for equal rights? So stop this nonsense of domestic partnerships being the same. If they were, wouldn't they be a lot easier to get?

Fact: Barack Obama has already publicly stated that he opposes same sex marriage (as does John McCain).

Hmmmm, think that may have something to do with him wanting to ensure he wins across the country on Election Day? Think he cares about the "No on 8" folks? Think he really cares about California?

Why don't you ask him what he thinks about Proposition 8?

For all you "No on 8" folks, if Prop 8 fails, think about that, and your presumed vote for him. Then think about what hypocrites you are for voting for him.

He sure cares about those millions in campaign contributions he's received from Californians. Oh, yeah, he also sure cares about those 55 electoral votes he's already counted in the bank for himself.

Have at your hypocrite, should he win. You'll be in like company.

Yeah, that'll shame us into voting for McCain....NOT! LOL!!

Obama doesn't think the word marriage should be used, however he does agree same sex couples should have all the same considerations that hetero marriages get. Most Yes advocates don't even want them to have that. And yes, I disagree with him on that, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I probably won't agree with him 100% ever, but I respect him because I think he's a good person with good intentions.

I think our country would be in deep ____ with McCain/Palin as president. That would be my worst nightmare outcome. The thought of that keeps me up at night. Haven't we been through enough already? We don't need a Bush clone for president or VP for that matter.

GOBAMA!

No on h8!

Anonymous,

You are on to an insightful point, that many of our politicians pander to powerful voting groups and at times hide their true positions in order to be elected.

My opinion is that Obama honestly supports same sex marriage. However, he can't actually say it out loud. Just a guess on my part though.

More broadly, I believe there are many politicians that are atheist, agnostic, or lukewarm at best in their belief in a god. Unfortunately, they have to feign belief if they want any chance at all of being elected to a significant office. For many voters, religion is a litmus test for their vote, which can be very shortsighted.

Personally, I would prefer an elected official that was far more transparent about their beliefs, ideals, and plans, and a political process that objectively evaluated the candidates without specific litmus tests of allegiance or faith. But that is the world we live in, as clearly demonstrated on this message board every day.

And No on 8!

--->"Gay marriages have been around just as long as heterosexual marriages." Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:58 am

My ignorance is showing, as I'm not aware of this. Stacey, in what country has homosexual marriage been an accepted custom throughout history?

It's Not About Hate
It's About Definition
Vote YES ON 8
and Save Our Tradition!

Racism was a heck of a tradition I'm glad we've left behind...

Thinking the world is flat was a long-held tradition...

Bob wrote (to Julie):
"Let me now mirror your questions: I'm wondering though - Would you also support Plural Marriage (Polygamy)? How about Group Marriage? If not, why would you oppose?"

Ah, the polygamy "bait and switch/fear issue" again! Homeowner, I agree with you 100%, though can't condone the name calling. I was completely bashed personally on another board and I don't want to stoop to that level. Otherwise, couldn't have said it better, though I will try "different". Besides, I always answer questions posed to me.

Let's pretend this is a question on the SAT:
"Which one of these things does not belong with the other three?":

African American, Man, Lesbian, Polygamist..........................
Still thinking?............................

Polygamist! Why? Polygamy is a social custom that is learned in one's culture. Though very much hard wired into a person, you do have choice in the matter. Again, it is learned behavior. Being African American, a man, or a lesbian is not a choice or a learned behavior. There are learned behaviors that may go along with BEING African American, a man or a lesbian, but they in and of themselves do not represent a "custom" or "belief". You are born either being or destined to being those things. And no, being gay is not a choice. If you do think BEING gay is a learned behavior, then how come two straight parents produce gay children? Bob, the constitution should not be used to make social customs into laws. Marriage is a custom in a religious sense, but in the eyes of the CA constitution it represents a *contract*. The constitution will never change to include polygamy unless Prop 8 passes and sets a precedent for using the constitution for amendments that are based on religion and other social *customs*.

Bob, did you mean do I personally condone polygamy? I haven't done enough research on it to comment. Generally, if all parties are in agreement and are open and honest about their arrangements I see no reason to oppose it. It seems preferable to adultery!

(I have no doubt Julie is capable of answering for herself, but here is a quote from her from Oct 17):

Julie wrote:

"I will not support any proposition that seeks to exclude ANY group from the legal right to marry."

Yes, thanks I am capable of answering myself. And, to clarify, when I made the above post I figured that people would be intelligent and understand that by "any group" I wasn't really including children, dogs, aliens, etc. I'll assume everyone is intelligent and leave it at that.

To: Something to think about -
Regarding "The conservatives of today may accept interracial marriage - they have no choice, their views and arguments were defeated back then."

Your argument is compelling but false.

Interesting coincidence:

I am a conservative.

My marriage is interracial.

And I do have a choice.

YES on Prop 8.

Julie
Thanks for the response. Now we are getting to the heart of the matter......

I believe homosexuality is a learned behavior and a choice.

Re: "If you do think BEING gay is a learned behavior, then how come two straight parents produce gay children?" - I didn't learn everything from my parents. Did you?

Re: "The constitution should not be used to make social customs into laws" - What percentage of civil laws run contrary to social customs?

Re: Polygamy You said "Generally, if all parties are in agreement and are open and honest about their arrangements I see no reason to oppose it." - I rest my case:

Changing the definition of marriage to include alternative forms will eventually reduce rates of marriage. Look at the effect on the Scandinavian countries that embrace gay marriage. My opinion, the effect is bad for marriage and bad for society.

Polygamy is another alternative, and currently illegal, lifestyle that is counter-productive to society.

Save TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE vote YES on Prop 8.

What percentage of civil laws run contrary to social customs?

Also, what percentage of criminal laws run contrary?

"Re: Polygamy You said "Generally, if all parties are in agreement and are open and honest about their arrangements I see no reason to oppose it." - I rest my case"

But I would never support a constitutional amendment to make it legal. Saying that you cannot practice polygamy is not discrimination. Saying that gays cannot legally marry under the eyes of the *law* is discrimination.

Bob, I'm just curious...when did you choose to be hetero? (I think it's a fair assumption that you are not gay....).

As far as your question about civil laws and social customs - I'm tired. You tell me.

"Saying that you cannot practice polygamy is not discrimination. Saying that gays cannot legally marry under the eyes of the *law* is discrimination."-- How is that different? They are the same "discrimination". How can you tell one person that he can have the marriage he wants and then you tell the next guy he can't enter into a marriage he wants???
my opinion- both are wrong. and being gay IS a choice. I decided to be hetero when I started liking girls...

Bob:

If it had been up to the conservatives of back then, your interracial marriage would be illegal today, and maybe if that were the case, you would not be in support of prop. 8. (your marriage back then would not have been considered "traditional" - in fact, back then it would have been "against God's will")

Back then, if the conservatives had been able to get their way, interracial marriage would be illegal today (again, using religion and morality, and other silly arguments in support of their views)..... you have the not-so-conservative folks to thank for your ability to live in an interracial marriage that is accepted by all in today's society. Think about it: would you be able to live, happily, trouble-free in your marriage, back then - with the blessing of your fellow conservatives? (I think not)

NO ON PROP. 8
NO ON PROP. 8
NO ON PROP. 8

"Saying that you cannot practice polygamy is not discrimination. Saying that gays cannot legally marry under the eyes of the *law* is discrimination."--

"How is that different? They are the same "discrimination". How can you tell one person that he can have the marriage he wants and then you tell the next guy he can't enter into a marriage he wants???"

I already explained how that is different. Did you flunk my little pretend SAT test?

my opinion- both are wrong. and being gay IS a choice. I decided to be hetero when I started liking girls...

On what do you base that being gay is a choice? You write it so emphatically like you have proof. The fact that you started liking girls does not mean that you chose being hetero. You had no control over being attracted to girls, it just happened. I feel pretty confident that you didn't wake up one day and go, "I'm going to be attracted to girls today". More accurately, you *realized* you were hetero when you started liking girls.

Maddiemarie,

Your "tradition" happens to trample on the rights of a group of American citizens. Your tradition is not important enough in the scope of life for that, even with your cute little rhyme.

I find it extremely sad that you have zero emotion about what you're doing to other humans.

I have just finished reading each comment here and have been convinced by Bob of Highland Oaks to vote YES on 8. I was also persuaded by all the hate from Janna of the supposedly tolerant no on 8 and the holier than thou Julie and Stacey - all of your attacks actually clarified for me that this is just the first step off the cliff of runaway "rights" for the oh so tolerant gays. Rights in quotes because gays already enjoy full civil rights. They just want to push their sexual agenda in the schools.

maddiemarie,
France, China, Africa, etc.

Now Decided,
Get educated. Read the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. It is my prediction that within 10-15 years the US Supreme Court is going to hear a case on same-sex marriage and rule that all state laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional (just as it did on interracial marriage). Who knows, maybe it will even be Prop 8 that gets challenged in the Supreme Court.

Now Decided,

I never attacked anyone - I was debating & offering evidence of why I support my view. If you are basing your decision as to whether to allow gays to marry simply on the behaviour of how people post at the Pleasanton Weekly website, then go look at how I was treated by pro-8 posters at the "Another anti-Prop 8 vandal at work...." board. If Bob presented ideas that made sense to you and clarified your position, I respect that. If you are even partially determining the rights for an entire group of people based on how 3 strangers post in a public forum, then I am truly frightened.

And how ironic you label me "holier than thou". I am trying to keep religion OUT of a STATE constitution.

You really think that gays want the right to enter into a LEGAL (not church-issued) contract of marriage so that they can "push their sexual agenda in the schools"? <scratching head> Silly me, I thought they simply wanted equal treatment in the eyes of the law. Is that why you want the right to be married - to push a sexual agenda...on children?

This isn't a gay, religious, or moral issue to me. For me it is mostly about the California Constitution and good government. I could care less what some gay person wants or doesn't want. Don't use the initiative process to take away a minority group's rights. Don't legislate morality otherwise you might find yourself being legislated against when you become the minority. This subject is something better handled by a legislature.

Something to think about:

Re: If it had been up to the conservatives of back then, your interracial marriage would be illegal today, and maybe if that were the case, you would not be in support of prop. 8. (your marriage back then would not have been considered "traditional" - in fact, back then it would have been "against God's will") -

I thought my own situation would have moved you to pause in painting ALL conservatives (religious or otherwise) as racist bigots. It is simply false (both past and present).

Simply example:
Lincoln was a conservative.
Also, many of his Republican colleagues actually criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery.

- I don't deny the fact of racism; however, your wrong if you think Its only a viewpoint held by some conservatives. It runs in all circles.

- Keep the fabric of our society strong.

- Save Traditional Marriage.

- Vote Yes on Prop 8

Simple Example:

Some answers to the questions above regarding just how McCain and Obama stand on Prop 8 and the issue of gay marriage were in today's New York Times:

Web Link

A few quotes from the article:

"As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers. While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided,” he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say.

Senator John McCain also opposes same-sex marriage, but unlike Mr. Obama’s, his position is influenced by generational and cultural experiences rather than a religious conviction, McCain advisers say. "

"The candidates have very different positions, though, when it comes to the state level. Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory. Mr. McCain, however, has been active in such efforts: On the most expensive and heated battle to ban same-sex marriage this year, a proposed constitutional amendment in California known as Proposition 8, he has endorsed the measure and sharply criticized a State Supreme Court ruling that granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Mr. Obama has spoken out against Proposition 8, and opponents of the measure hope that a huge Democratic turnout in California on Nov. 4 — and, possibly, depressed turnout among conservatives — will help defeat it."

"and, possibly, depressed turnout among conservatives"

Really? I somehow think there is not going to be any "depressed turnout" in this election. This is a very historic election. It may be bigger than 4 years ago even.

Talk about using kids to promote an agenda... here's a story about a kindergarten class in Hayward.

Web Link

Excerpt:
"A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays..."

On a similar note...another instance of teachers pushing the agenda.

Most teachers I've gotten to know admit they have to cram a lot of curriculum into the school year, amidst pep ralleys and other assembly events. It looks like they made time for this event and deliberately chose not to inform parents in advance.

Web Link

MainStreetDiva, I'm not sure that the information in your second link has been confirmed. This is the only mainstream news site that refers to that story: Web Link

I'm not sure the first story has been confirmed either, but it is from foxnews. I find it odd that other local news sites (e.g. ktvu, kron) are not reporting on this/these stories.

I am against Prop 8, but I agree that kindergartners being asked to sign a card basically pledging not to engage in anti-LGBT behaviour is developmentally inappropriate. For that age group I think it would be more appropriate to sign pledge cards where you vow to simply "be kind to all" or "not be a bully to ANYone", something like that. You cannot get into specific definitions of LBGT without bringing up sex, which is an inappropriate topic for 4-6 year olds. I'm not against developmentally appropriate books on the general topic of families that include mention or images of gay couples. For example, I have a book for children that discusses how "families are different - some have a mom and dad, some just have a mom, some just have a dad, some have 2 dads, some have a grandma, etc. etc. That book deals with diversity, not sex. I actually know 2 women who are raising a child and they are not gay. Sometimes people get together for other reasons (support, economics, etc.) and it has nothing to do with sex.

Hmmm. Perhaps I'll try to find some confirmation (or denial) of the story...

WOAH....Stacey. You listed China as a place recognizing and even allowing same sex marriage?! I just returned from a 2 year stint living in China and you are DREADFULLY WRONG! And you encourage me to get educated? Only in these modern times have they even considered it for discussion and it fails to go further than mere discussions. Try googling "china same sex marriage" where a dirth of information is available supporting this stance.

In fact, you're wrong about France, too. In 2006 they rejected same sex marriage.

You said same sex marriage has been around as long as marriage (2000plus years) but I cannot find record of any consistence whatsoever.

Hmmm...let's ALL get EDUCATED.

YES ON 8!!!
It's not about hate.
It's about definition,
Now let's save our tradition!

YES ON 8!

Stacey - sorry to reiterate but it appears that NO country has a long history (which you eluded to) of legalizing gay marriage. In fact only about 7 countries recognize it and that began in the 21st century. Very very recent in terms of humankind's historical perspective. You're arguement appears simply wrong about any historical basis.

<<<Your "tradition" happens to trample on the rights of a group of American citizens. Your tradition is not important enough in the scope of life for that, even with your cute little rhyme.

I find it extremely sad that you have zero emotion about what you're doing to other humans.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, 16 hours ago.>>>

Janna, I'm saddened that you would draw conclusions as to my emotions (zero?) for other (gay?) humans. You are quite wrong. I strongly support their rights to complete and unequivocable equality under the law. Just not the title used to define something else. In fact, I've been involved with groups from both sides of this issue trying to find solutions that bolster fairness, equality and respect. I in fact have a gay family member and saw the ugly reality that he went through during most of his early life. I am proud of him and want joy and happiness for him, which he has had with the same partner for 28 years.

Regarding my trampling on others rights...what about ours (the traditionalists')? Dont' we have the right to maintain the fabric of our society by stopping the progress that 'neuters' our belief systems? This is yet another stop towards becoming more and more generic.

How BOLD is it for you to say that my (and millions of others') traditions don't matter?!? <perplexed>

As for my rhyme? Levity, my dear, to balance all the hate from the no on 8 crew.

I am unemotional only in that your intensity does not affect me and I don't let my emotions run wild on these things. But I will voice my opinions, without feeling bullied.

Maddie,
You must have missed these: Web Link and Web Link

Regardless of what you or I think about gay marriage or any historic basis for it, it is still wrong to take away someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness.

maddiemarie, I believe that you don't intend to discriminate with a vote for 8. But, as I said on another board, I do believe that discrimination is an unintended consequence for some of you. Why should your gay family member be denied the right to get married - marriage is a huge part of our culture that is marketed to children long before they even know they are gay. Children do not grow up hearing about "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships". Of course, if Prop 8 passes we'll have to change that so that some day they don't feel discriminated against.

Stacy -
You said, "Regardless of what you or I think about gay marriage or any historic basis for it, it is still wrong to take away someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness."

After reading this thread, I still have one question. Why are you now happy with the civil union? Why must it be called gay marriage?
I think most of the opposition would be ok with calling gay unions anything but marriage.
Why is the name important? I keep hearing about rights but the name seems to be the issue?

Leaning to Yes on 8, but still undecided.

"After reading this thread, I still have one question. Why are you now happy with the civil union? Why must it be called gay marriage?"

I was just talking to my neighbor about this. We ended up talking about "separate but equal"

So here is my question: If you have "civil unions" for gays and "marriage" for heterosexuals - what would the legal difference be? And if legally speaking, civil unions and marriage are the same, then why have two different names for the same thing? Isn't that a bit like the "separate but equal" concept?

Yes, Just Wondering, it's exactly "separate but equal". And again, no one grows up even hearing the term "civil union" (at least not at this time, that may have to change).

Kevin, no one to my knowledge wants it called "gay marriage". Just "marriage" will do.

Thanks Julie. Do you know what is required to pass and/or reject prop. 8? Is it a simple majority or does it require 2/3 of the vote?

Just Wondering, I'm having trouble finding that out! Some say 2/3 to amend the constitution, others say majority. If anyone knows, please share because now I am curious too. Thanks.

Nobody is taking away anyones "pursuit of happiness" with the result of prop 8. Some of you sound so dramatic (and pathetic.) Its pretty simple to me, the gays are trying to make themself more mainstream and acceptable by fitting in with straight people. Marriage is between a man and woman. Gay and lesbian couples are great-but they're something dirrerent entirely. And please stop with that weak speech about separate but equal. If they have every right a traditional couple has, then they should have no argument. Wasn't that the cornerstone of their argument when the whole "gay marriage thing" started? They were up in arms because they didn't get the same rights. So they are given in to, and now its not good enough. Talk about give them an inch, and they want a foot. Technically that CAN"T get married (by definition) because they are the same sex. Seems like a lot of hub-bub for no reason. Whats next trannies, hermaphrodites, plural marriages....None of those are the foundation of our society!
Please lets save traditional marriage, before its too late....

OK, I found something, but I am not sure how accurate this website is. It seems like it has good information. According to the site, to pass prop. 8 a majority is required:

Web Link
"Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required) "

And from searching that same site about past elections, it seems like propositions only need a majority in order to pass:
Web Link

I could be wrong, so if someone has additional information about what is needed for a proposition to pass or fail, please share with us.

Julie,
Your answer: It's exactly "separate but equal". And again, no one grows up even hearing the term "civil union"

Thank you for answering my question, you solidified my decision.
It sounds like this is not a legal equality issue.
I would prefer my children "grow up hearing the term civil union" rather than marriage.
The two definitions should be separate in my opinion - equal in a legal sense though.

Thank you.

Thanks for the info, Just Wondering.

Kevin, whether or not you choose to distort my meaning or misunderstand my text is irrelevant. Prop 8 is a legal equality issue. If passed, Proposition 8: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" (actual text). Separate but equal does not mean "equal".

Anonymous, your entire condescending post makes me ill. Throwing in a little statement that "gay and lesbian couples are great" doesn't hide your bigotry. You called it as you saw it - labeling anti-8 people "dramatic" and "pathetic" (as well as calling our arguments "weak" - which is ironic at best). I'm just doing the same.

Julie, I apologize for saying anything that could make you "ill". I could have said things different, but the intent would have been the same. Since you brought it up, the term "separate but equal" says it all. The two groups ARE separate (traditional marrige and gay marriages) and the last part clarifies, they ARE EQUAL. As in one has no more rights than the other. They can and should be separate but equal. And after Tuesdays election, what are you going to say then. The American people are wrong? Are you going to ignore what the American people vote for?? YES ON 8!
No matter how you read my post, I like gays and lesbians. I have many friends and we have plenty of talks about this subject (and they don't get ill). They don't agree with me, and I don't agree with them (about marriage). But we can share ideas and beliefs without insults. You have to understand that this vote isn't about "gay rights" or "social acceptance", it's about protecting traditional marriage. Some fear that the term has already lost some meaning. The term "marriage" means something to most of us.

"The term "marriage" means something to most of us. ", Anonymous says.

Right, it means something to me as well. Something important: two people coming together, declaring their love for each other to both themselves and to the community and vowing to spend their lives together.

Simple as that.

(No on 8)

Just because you got it wrong = "..it means something to me as well", don't lash out at me sweety.
The "IT" is whats in question, right? You can't just change words around and ignore the fact that I'm talking about a marriage between a MAN and a Woman, and you're talking about "two people coming together, declaring their love for each other to both themselves and to the community and vowing to spend their lives together" I guess you don't recognize genders. Thats a shame, that is what all this is about. What you're talking about is something different. Am I wrong? Is two different genders coming together the exact same as two of the SAME GENDER coming together? Don't attack me because you like to change the words' meanings.
The union between your "two people" is great and loving, and shouldn't be the reason they are denied anything! It is simply something OTHER than a marriage. The word marriage means "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc". Let me know what the new word is for the union between two same sex people, and I won't disrespect it. But don't disrespect a true marriage.

Perhaps we can do what they do in some countries:
There is a "civil wedding" - meaning a judge marries a couple legally.

This "civil wedding" is sufficient, legally speaking, but couples have the choice to go through a "religious wedding" - In this wedding, the priest/pastor gathers the church's requirements, not all couples qualify. The religious wedding is not legally sufficient so couples have to first enter into a civil wedding and then go through the religious wedding.

So, a great number of couples remain just married through a "civil wedding" while others also have the "religious wedding" to go with it.

Maybe in the US, we could have everyone enter into a "civil union" - then those who wish, can move on to their own church and if their religion/church/priest/pastor is OK with it, then get married in a "religious wedding" - that way everyone goes through the same legal process: a civil union. Then the more "traditional" couples (would be defined by each church) can have a religious ceremony as well, as allowed by their church.

That would be a good compromise.

Interesting proposal by "An idea?" That is the division that they make in many countries in South America, and possibly Europe.

"Anonymous" : if you read my post again, I think (perhaps?) you might see that I did not "lash out" at you, nor did I attack you by any stretch of the imagination. I think most others would agree that's the case.

I was proposing that there is another take on what marriage might/could be, according to a number of the posts I've read here on this forum.

I'm guessing that your use of "sweety" was not meant in the kindest of ways, and that's a shame.

Anonymous, I don't think you know the history of the term "separate but equal". Here is a little background on it: Web Link

My position is that "separate but equal" is *wrong* - it was in regards to "blacks and whites" and to me it's wrong in regards to "gays and straights".

"You have to understand that this vote isn't about "gay rights" or "social acceptance", it's about protecting traditional marriage."

To An Idea? I agree with you. My feeling is that WAY back, whenever the *government* first issued marriage licenses and it became something that was not tied to the church sacrament, it *should* have been called something different. It should always have been "marriage" in the eyes of the CHURCH and (perhaps) "civil union" in the eyes of the LAW. At some point they let church and state overlap in regards to marriages/unions and it was a mistake (obviously).

You have to understand that for gays and for people like myself who see the consequences (intended or not) that this is EXACTLY about gay rights and social acceptance.

"Marriage" --->Right, it means something to me as well. Something important: two people coming together, declaring their love for each other to both themselves and to the community and vowing to spend their lives together.

Simple as that.

<<Posted by Laura, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, 7 hours ago >>

Laura, Having two people come together, delare their love for each other, and vowing to spend the rest of their lives together can occur *without* using the term "Marriage". People choose it and when they choose it they do so within the context and definition of the word. It IS about definition.

Simple as that.

YES ON 8.

The "it's separate but equal" argument doesn't work either.

There is no ‘separate” under California law as domestic partnerships receive equal protection as marriages (man and woman) and Prop 8 will not eliminate those rights.

Gays can ride the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, use the same water fountains, go to the same schools, enjoy the same legal rights under California law, etc. There is NO SEGREGATION and no discrimination. Those are false arguments.

In the civil rights movement blacks were fighting against segregation, not to be also called "white". That would have ridiculous, just as this is in wanting to be called married (man and woman) when you are not.

Your efforts are misplaced. Work on federal laws and other states to get better domestic partner benefits. The mainstream will support that. Stop trying to redefine marriage.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. These are lies.

Prop 8 has no segregation or discrimination issues. These are lies.

Gays enjoy equal and same, not “separate”, state rights under domestic partnership laws.

Prop 8 opponents DO want to teach elementary school kids about gay relationships, thinking we shouldn't just be teaching our own kids about relationships at home. It would not be good enough to teach our own kids, when we feel they are ready, to respect gay relationships and at the same time teach them marriage is between a man and a woman.

Almost all public schools, 96%, would be required to teach about gay relationships as being marriage to kids if Prop 8 does not pass. The State Superintendent of Schools was using word play to lie about it, but his own website contradicts him. This is absolutely true under California law.

YES on 8

Julie says - You have to understand that for gays and for people like myself who see the consequences (intended or not) that this is EXACTLY about gay rights and social acceptance.

Julie, consider that there may be more acceptance if they didn't force "their" beliefs on "pre-existing beliefs". I imagine our culture would continue to embrace and support them, bring them into the mainstream, even more so, if they didn't want to alter this established and traditional custom.

It appears the feeling of infringing on others rights goes both ways.

The drama is more about innocent children and their right to life.

PJ, just because you repeat a post doesn't mean the content is accurate.

You are calling my position full of "lies":
"Prop 8 has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. These are lies.
Prop 8 has no segregation or discrimination issues. These are lies."

It is exactly about those things for some people. Maybe not for you, PJ, but for some, perhaps many. For those people who taunted Tara Walsh (posted on another board:Web Link Prop 8 is ALL about hate, bigotry, and discrimination. So don't make a general statement that anti-8 are full of lies when we say that there is bigotry, hate, discrimination associated with Prop 8. She has some of it on *tape*.

"Prop 8 opponents DO want to teach elementary school kids about gay relationships, thinking we shouldn't just be teaching our own kids about relationships at home."

I'm an opponent of Prop 8 and my position on the actual proposition has NOTHING to do with elementary curriculum. Just because you put it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it accurate either. Heck, before this debate I had no idea schools spent so much time teaching about relationships and marriage. The way pro-8 people talk it's a daily/hourly discussion! I will say though, if you don't object to them discussing hetero relationships in school, why do you object to them discussing homo relationships? I thought you had nothing to do with bigotry and discrimination. I think schools should teach about diversity NOW - again, my position on Prop 8 has nothing to do with curriculum. Whether it passes or not, children should be taught respect for all types of people, cultures, relationships, etc.

"Julie, consider that there may be more acceptance if they didn't force "their" beliefs on "pre-existing beliefs".

maddiemarie, what you mean is "force THEIR beliefs on MY beliefs". I consider a world where there is no "them" and "us". PJ says there is no "separate". When you talk about "them", there is separation.

I don't think gays are trying to force any beliefs on you. You don't have to "like" the gay lifestyle or "agree" with it. You should give it equal rights though - not rights called by a different name either.

I guess my points on culture meant nothing to any of you - i.e. how children are socialized at a very young age regarding marriage - well before they even know they are gay. On another board I was basically asked, "can you seriously think of ANY words whose meanings have changed over time". I found TONS of them, the most interesting of which was that "girl" used to refer to a young person of either gender! I frequently bring up new concepts, or answer questions like the above and then hear no response - just the same old retorts to "separate but equal" and "we're not bigots", etc.

Julie: PJ, just because you repeat a post doesn't mean the content is accurate.
*and yet Julie keeps disseminating the same misinformation about prop 8 and the opposition day, after day, after day.

Julie: You are calling my position full of "lies":
*Nope. You're just misinformed and misguided.

"Prop 8 has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. These are lies.
*Absolutely correct.

Prop 8 has no segregation or discrimination issues. These are lies."
*Absolutely correct

Julie: It is exactly about those things for some people. Maybe not for you, PJ, but for some, perhaps many. For those people who taunted Tara Walsh (posted on another board:Web Link) Prop 8 is ALL about hate, bigotry, and discrimination. So don't make a general statement that anti-8 are full of lies when we say that there is bigotry, hate, discrimination associated with Prop 8. She has some of it on *tape*.
*I’ve already addressed the incident about Tara. Read it again, so I don’t have to repeat it for you. She was wrong in generalizing and so are you. The generalization is yours when you paint (per your past posts) your labels on a whole mainstream group based on a tiny amount of wrongdoers, which are positioned on both sides of the issue, not just the one you can only see with blinders.

"Prop 8 opponents DO want to teach elementary school kids about gay relationships, thinking we shouldn't just be teaching our own kids about relationships at home."
*Homo, hetro, whatever. It's a discussion that’s between me and my kids, stay out of it. You are obviously for it.

I'm an opponent of Prop 8 and my position on the actual proposition has NOTHING to do with elementary curriculum. Just because you put it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it accurate either. Heck, before this debate I had no idea schools spent so much time teaching about relationships and marriage. The way pro-8 people talk it's a daily/hourly discussion! I will say though, if you don't object to them discussing hetero relationships in school, why do you object to them discussing homo relationships? I thought you had nothing to do with bigotry and discrimination. I think schools should teach about diversity NOW - again, my position on Prop 8 has nothing to do with curriculum. Whether it passes or not, children should be taught respect for all types of people, cultures, relationships, etc.
*You can sugar coat it anyway you like. Stop trying to force your agenda on kindergartners and first graders. Telling you to stay the away from our kids with your fringe agenda and any others is not bigotry, it’s common sense. Let them focus on their core teachings.

Laura...Julie.... will you please come back and visit this thread again (or start a new one) when Prop 8 passes? I would love to hear you denounce the citizens of this great state after they stand up for what they believe in. I don't know how long it will take to count up the votes, but I bet the look on your faces tomorrow will be priceless. I hope you're mature enough to admit you're wrong on this subject after a majority sets the record straight. (as in- admitt that this is best for our society). I assume you will refuse to accept this and start shaking your fists in the air. But when all that is finished, please understand this issue is ONLY about protecting the sanctity of marriage. I know its hard to understand right now (for you) but most people (you'll see tomorrow) take pride in the IDEA of marriage, and don't want anyone to change it.
In closing, I apologize for anything I said that might have offended anyone. If you go back and read all of the "no on 8" you'll see how off track everyone can get. I just want to be clear that this is only about protecting future generations marriages'.

"*and yet Julie keeps disseminating the same misinformation about prop 8 and the opposition day, after day, after day."

Actually I try to introduce new concepts (e.g. my ideas about culture, meaning of words) but the pro-8 people can only process and respond to a very limited set of concepts. I have never posted "misinformation". I have always checked sources, info before posting, unlike some posters.

PJ: "Prop 8 has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. These are lies.
Prop 8 has no segregation or discrimination issues. These are lies."
Julie: "You are calling my position full of "lies":
PJ: *Nope. You're just misinformed and misguided."

You are saying "nope" to your own quote, which you reprinted below mine. You can't even keep track of your own comments, it's no wonder you are having trouble analyzing this complex issue.

In reference to Tara, I wasn't labeling or generalizing. Actually, I've written SEVERAL times that I believe many posters here do NOT intend discrimination or hate, but that FOR THOSE PEOPLE who taunted Tara it was. Do you actually *read* what I write? Maybe I have to repeat the same information because you don't seem to understand what I write.

I have no agenda that I'm trying to force on kindergartners and first graders. You are the one who keeps bringing up curriculum. If you actually READ my posts, I have stated that I do not think it appropriate to bring up topics of LGBT issues with young children. I'm an early childhood specialist - I'm quite aware of what's appropriate for children.

Anonymous: "I assume you will refuse to accept this and start shaking your fists in the air."

As usual, ASSumptions. And you think "no on 8" people get off track?

I have tried my best to debate the issue here & whenever possible not to get personal. I have asked many probing questions that generally have gone unanswered by the "yes on 8" side. I have answered any and all questions posed to me. I have commented on common ground whenever possible & given the benefit of the doubt when possible (e.g. saying that I know not all "yes on 8" people are trying to hate/discriminate). In return I have been attacked personally (comments that have nothing to do with the debate - e.g. that I am a "moron" or "bitter").

"I hope you're mature enough to admit you're wrong on this subject after a majority sets the record straight (as in- admitt (sic) that this is best for our society)"

You think that a majority dictates whether or not my views are right or wrong? Is that how it works for you? So, if Prop 8 doesn't pass you would admit that you were wrong? Actually, I would never ask that of you. Besides, I will never think it best for society that there happened to be more bigoted, homophobic, ignorant people than there were people who truly understood the constitution; people who truly understood that it was rights, not a "word" that was at stake. People, churches, etc. don't spend the kind of money that was spent on this proposition just to keep a "word". You are so naive if you think that's all it was for the *majority* of people (NOT NECESSARILY YOU) who are voting "yes on 8".

As far as starting a new thread...honestly, I'm finally growing weary of engaging in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents!

By the way, in my above post I never meant to refer negatively to ALL "yes on 8" posters. I enjoyed debating with some of you who were willing to dialog intelligently with me. I really do understand the importance some of you place on the meaning of "marriage". I completely respect a person's right to practice their religion. For me it was about how we are using the constitution, and about what the ramifications are for the gay community if Prop 8 passes. I wish you all the best in the future.

Julie: "You are saying "nope" to your own quote, which you reprinted below mine. You can't even keep track of your own comments, it's no wonder you are having trouble analyzing this complex issue."

PJ: Not at all, my ivory tower friend. :) I was speaking to your claim that I was calling your position one that is full of lies. I never did that. I believe your overall position in this debate over prop 8 is that you are against it (on which you are misguided and misinformed), not that you only wish to refer to your opposition as discriminating, hateful, segregationist and bigots (which are indeed lies). Please keep up. Anyways, it’s bedtime. We have to vote in the morning. Good night. :)

Julie, Julie, Julie. Rest now. You have waged your battle relentlessly and with great valor. Tomorrow we shall see the results.

We humans have been endowed with great powers of intelligence, but this endowment has been counter-balanced with a propensity to fear unknowns and to act upon our emotions, leading to self-defeating actions, like diminishing our very own rights to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tomorrow a slim majority may indeed force upon the rest of us a modern day version of self-flagellation, accomplished by amending the state constitution to take a right away, simply because their brain-washing tells them it will make all of us feel better......

The following is an excerpt from

"The Compassionate Ones", Published by Nick Literski
(as I left out some of the article, it is important to note that Nick is gay-- although he tried many years not to be and he when he finally accepted that he needed to live a gay life he was a bit surprised and immensely happy that his secular leader showed him great compassion and understanding. Nick's spirituality has found a new home in Buddhism)

"....That particular sangha follows the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, a rather remarkable Vietnamese Bodhisattva. The following passage was discussed, from his writings:

“Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our views on others, we are committed not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever–such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination–to adopt our views. We will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness through practicing (i.e. meditation) deeply and engaging in compassionate dialogue.”

You might expect me to point these words toward supporters of Proposition 8, and demand that they allow me my right to differ. Think again. Rather, the message to me was the importance of me, no matter how strongly I feel, allowing supporters of Proposition 8 their right to differ. I can’t bully anyone into seeing the initiative the way I see it, nor should I ever desire to. Such efforts only cause suffering for both sides.

To be honest, I worry about what happens on November 5th, after the election is over. Whether Proposition 8 passes or fails, will the victors consider themselves vindicated to the point of lording it over others? Will individuals or institutions heap vengeance upon those who they considered their “enemies” throughout the campaign? Are the parties on each side compassionate enough to forgive their “opponents,” even if they feel unjustly persecuted? Where this dispute has caused pain and suffering on each side, how will we step forward to heal each other?"

I agree with Nick- . We have debated long and hard on the this thread and others in the Pleasanton Weekly. It is time to agree to disagree. It is time to vote and come Nov. 5 we need to really think about Nick's questions.

Just need to make a change--Sorry, it is late-- that it is "religious" leader not "secular".

"I would love to hear you denounce the citizens of this great state after they stand up for what they believe in. I don't know how long it will take to count up the votes, but I bet the look on your faces tomorrow will be priceless. I hope you're mature enough to admit you're wrong on this subject after a majority sets the record straight." - from Anonymous' post above

Perhaps you are right that the "Yes on 8" vote will win. If it did happen to fail, though, would you be mature enough to admit the same?

Quite a number of the high school kids were brave enough to "stand up for what they believe in" yesterday (Monday) afternoon into the dark of evening, braving the driving rain and wind. Most of them can not vote in the booth yet, however, so they chose to vote with their voices, signs and spirit. Yes, here in Pleasanton.

"Quite a number of the high school kids were brave enough to "stand up for what they believe in" yesterday (Monday) afternoon into the dark of evening, braving the driving rain and wind. Most of them can not vote in the booth yet, however, so they chose to vote with their voices, signs and spirit. Yes, here in Pleasanton. "

Whether we agree with Prop 8 or not, I am proud to see our youth out there trying to be a part of it (some with YES on 8, some with NO on 8). Even if they cannot vote, they can certainly express their opinion. My children oppose prop8 and prop 4, but they are a bit young to vote. My oldest said to me that if these two prop. pass, she will make sure we re-visit the issue again when she is older, so that she can go out there and vote NO for these two very unfair propositions.

Thanks for the question Sue. Of course I'll admit the same. I'm not close minded like Julie and Laura. The policies in society shouldn't be set by MY opinion. I believe in the things I do and I can't expect the rest of the country (or state) to feel the same. But when the majority of people want to brave the terrible weather and vote and stand up for what they want...then I have to assume it is in the states' best interest (what the people want!)- (even if I don't agree). I wasn't asking them to change their beliefs. I was simply asking them to respect what 'most' people want. That doesn't mean just accept it, it means to be open to the idea of, maybe the sanctity of marriage SHOULD be protected. And maybe be open to the idea that the G/L community can simply call their union something else (with no restrictions on their rights). If they put down their gaurd and stop "war-ing" this issue, maybe they would see that we are just protecting the idea of marriage for future generations...
But just between me and you Sue... I don't think we'll be hearing from them after today...

Good Morning Julie and Laura..... no hard feels?

weird mormon beliefs.......................Web Link