This wasn't about hate as so many anti-8 people tried to make it, but rather a fundamental belief, which as citizens of our great country, we have the right to believe. For so many of us, our strong beliefs are that marriage should be between a man and a woman. We have that right and it was pathetic so many of you tried to make it about hate. I spent a lot of last night, reading blogs and watching interviews. To me, many of the people who were on the fence about which way to vote on 8, were taken aback by how ugly the anti-8 attacks were. Be it people running around town ripping down signs, or posts on this web site by people like Julie from Vintage Hills, many people were suprised to see how spiteful a lot of people for anti-8 were towards the pro-8 supporters. It's the same as people being turned off by McCain's repeated negative ads against Obama. I voted for McCain, Obama trounced him and now I will move on and support our new president-elect like we all should do.
The bottom line is, had Prop 8 been defeated, I would have accepeted the will of the voters and moved on with my life, feeling like the system had spoken and I have to respect it, like it or not. But the majority of the anti-8 people will be unwilling to do that, rather still lashing out at the 8 supporters. WAKE UP --- If the will of majority wants something one way or the other, we have to accept it. If this country is so unfair, then I have one suggestion -- move to another country and see if you enjoy the same freedoms. Now go ahead, start your bashing.

I'm with you Jill. Even with our great Obama win, I feel sick. Bigotry won out in CA. Shameful! I, too, want to say I'm sorry to our fellow citizens who've had their rights taken away. This never should have happened.

You can say it wasn't about hate until the cows come home, but that's the way we all see it. People shouldn't be disregarded in the name of your traditions. I will forever see certain religious people differently, and not in a good way.

"This wasn't about hate as so many anti-8 people tried to make it, but rather a fundamental belief, which as citizens of our great country, we have the right to believe"

There are many fundamental beliefs. Should they be imposed upon a minority in violation of a minority's rights? In Somalia it is a fundamental belief to stone women who are raped and a majority would vote yes for that. Does that make it right?

"which as citizens of our great country, we have the right to believe"

And which, as citizens of our great country, the minority who is being affected by the tyranny has a right to get such beliefs overturned. I see this going to court again and being overturned again. It is unconstitutional and the prop 22 case gives precedent in case law for it.

OH MY GOD..... I'm offended by your pitty. You guys are talking like they are marching us into ovens. We are free to be with anyone we like, and we can join together with whoever we want and live happily ever after... we just can't call it a "marriage". Its just a words definition anyways. Lets keep things in perspective here guys. Our (gay) community is stronger than you people give us credit for. Geez

When the United States Constitution and original Bill of Rights was created in 1787 it did not ban slavery. As a matter of fact the original Constitution contained four provisions allowing slavery to continue. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of such persons, Section 2 of Article IV prohibited the provision of assistance to escaping persons and required their return if successful and Section 2 of Article I defined other persons as "three-fifths" of a person for calculations of each state's official population. Article V prohibited any amendments or legislation changing the provision regarding slave importation until 1808, thereby giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. The failure to do so was a contributing factor to the Civil War.

The constitution was ratified by each of the 13 original colonies acting on the will of the people.

Even the right to vote - a basic freedom we all cherish today - was denied by the "will of the people" for more than 130 years. It took multiple votes by Congress (and denied multiple times) before the 19th amendment was approved by congress and ratified by the states. And even after the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 (right to vote cannot be based on race) it took almost 100 years to approve the Voting Rights Act that outlawed widespread disciminatory practices against minorities.

It would be very difficult to find anyone today that would agree with denying basic freedoms to women and those of color, and I am proud that our country has grown from these dark times in american and world history.

The will of the people have spoken. However, history has shown us many times that just because a majority of people agree on an ideology does not necessarily make that ideology right or just. I can only hope that one day our capacity for human acceptance, understanding and compassion will incorporate and accept those with differing sexual preferences as equals - similarly to how we have grown to accept those of differing genders, races, or religions.

amending the State Constitution to enshrine and perpetuate discrimination and remove CA Supreme Court rulings for a segment of our population IS wrong, no matter how you feel about the issue itself. The CA electorate was brainwashed by $40M of hateful wasteful spending - some of it coming from outside the state even! How dare we allow outsiders to dictate and change our constitution - shame on pro-8 supporters!

It wasn't about hate???? OK, then neither is this. Keep your mormon boys away from my door forever. Never again will I treat them with courtesy when they disturb me in my home. I will treat them with the same vile contempt that your mormon, catholic, or other church treats gays. I have always been polite to the boys on a mission, NEVER AGAIN. Stay the hell away from me
(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)
Allowing gays to marry took nothing from you. Denying them the right makes you feel proud and powerful. Next up, tax the churches. And for the record, I am in a heterosexual marriage.

There is a difference between hate and discrimination. It never was about hate, it was about discrimination.

So...does this mean now that polygamists can argue that their marriage between a man and several women is constitutionally legal in CA?

Going up in Salt Lake City my entire life as a Catholic, I know of the hate that the Mormons can throw out. A lot of money wasted for an issue that so many refuse to admit as gay-bashing on a state wide scale! NO one convince me otherwise with the out of state money that flowed into the state.
Interesting to find out if more residents are afraid of, gay couples living in their neighborhoods and teaching their kids, or 30 children in 7th and 9th grade last year brought a gun to school in Pleasanton and our district has nothing to say about this at all? The vote has been cast and we need to move on.

It is interesting to note that Prop 8 won by less of a margin than Prop 22 did. P.S. I know some Catholics that voted no on 8.

Anonymous,
Very good post. History has also shown that pure democracies don't last very long because the will of the majority speaks and gives away its rights.

Shelley wrote: "So...does this mean now that polygamists can argue that their marriage between a man and several women is constitutionally legal in CA?"

Nope. Prop 8 defines a marriage as being between _a_ man and _a_ woman. Polygamist marriages are not recognized within the State of California.

BTW, the latest news I heard was that the margin for Prop 8 is real close now, by something like 400 votes. Prop 8 doesn't look like a shoe-in yet.

I wonder how many people who voted yes on 8 also voted yes on 2, the animal rights prop. Rights for animals but not for gay humans!

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)I say again -- tax the churches and fix our economy!

I am disappointed too, I had hoped people in California were more tolerant and that prop 8 would fail. I did my part and voted no on prop. 8. I think that a proposition like that should require 2/3 of the vote to pass, instead of the simple majority. 8 passed, but not by that much, I think so far 52% - maybe we should go back to the 2/3 needed.

At least people rejected prop 4, and similar propositions against abortion rights were rejected across the country - that is good.

I think there will be yet another court challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.

Santa Clara County rejected prop. 8
Web Link

Here in the East Bay (Alameda County), we too rejected prop. 8:
Web Link

Statewide results: (prop. 8 passed with 52% approval)
Web Link

It may have been the people in Orange County, and other similar areas, that voted yes on prop. 8. I am happy though, to see that we voted no on 8 here in Alameda County

voter, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood wrote: "Keep your mormon boys away from my door forever."

Web Link
You should add blacks (7 out of 10, wow), Latinos (majority), married couples (strong supporters), and people with children (also strong supporters) to your list of people to banish from your door.

The rest of those groups aren't the ones who knock on peoples' doors selling Jesus.

...but they supported prop 8.

And.......?

I think you've missed the point. Whooooosssshhhhhhh!

Janna, you poor thing. Not only do I get the point, but I think that noise you hear (Whooooosssshhhhhhh!) is the sound of my three pointer over your head.

I believe voter's post referred to support of prop 8 being equated to hate and bigotry. Voter goes on to target the Mormons only.

My obvious point was that there is much broader support for prop 8: blacks (7 out of 10, wow), Latinos (majority), married couples (strong supporters), and people with children (also strong supporters). No comments about or targeting of all these groups eh? Too touchy?

We all know who started this and perpetuated lies to get it passed. That's no secret. I believe that's why voter referred to the mormon church.

Don't feel sorry for me. My rights haven't been trampled on. Say you're sorry to your gay brothers and sisters who have had part of their civil rights revoked. Though I'm sure you won't since you don't consider them your equal.

Damn right I'm touchy.

I think it is interesting that many of the people who voted for the extreme leftist Obama, also voted for Prop. 8. I find that the whole Democrat party is about taking freedoms away from citizens.

"I think it is interesting that many of the people who voted for the extreme leftist Obama, also voted for Prop. 8. I find that the whole Democrat party is about taking freedoms away from citizens."

Please, Al! Obviously, you voted for McCain, and people who supported someone like Palin cannot possibly be for gay marriage, any more than they are for abortion..... your comment is simply silly

Oh, give it a rest, people!! The election is over and the majority of Californians have prevailed in the effort to restore the definition of marriage, an issue which should never have been something we had to vote on in the first place! Look at what "reasonable" wrote above and get over it!
The hatred, bitterness, and name-calling by the "No on 8" camp is pretty ironic, don't you think??

"To me, many of the people who were on the fence about which way to vote on 8, were taken aback by how ugly the anti-8 attacks were. Be it people running around town ripping down signs, or posts on this web site by people like Julie from Vintage Hills, many people were suprised to see how spiteful a lot of people for anti-8 were towards the pro-8 supporters"

I really don't appreciate being called out by name in such a derogatory manner - especially by someone who doesn't even post their real name. You place me in the same category as someone who ripped down signs? I stated outright that I disagreed with that! Someone new to this board may believe your statement and now, anytime I post have a pre-conceived notion about me. I think that's called an "attack". I never attacked anyone. I debated an *issue*. There are PLENTY of examples of me being personally insulted by many pro-8 posters, but I'm not calling ALL Pro-8 people "spiteful" - just you!

"The bottom line is, had Prop 8 been defeated, I would have accepeted the will of the voters and moved on with my life, feeling like the system had spoken and I have to respect it, like it or not."

That would have been easy for you as for YOU this had nothing to do with rights. Whether it passed or not you woke up today and your life did not change at all, nor did you *appear* to care about the degree to which it changed the lives of those whose rights you voted away. Would you have simply accepted the will of the voters if the vote had been to take away rights from African Americans? Women? The majority has done that in the past too! You think it wasn't about discrimination? Go to the Castro in San Francisco and ask the community there if they agree with you.

I'm embarrassed to be a Californian today. We had a chance to tell the rest of the nation, the rest of the world, that we have progressed even beyond equal rights for different races and different genders to embrace those with different sexual orientations. We did improve in the last 8 years since Prop 8, as it was a narrow election (52 to 48 percent) but unfortunately not enough. This Prop was won with fear mongering and a whole lotta money from the Mormon Church!

I won't think any different of you ...Julie!

"Anonymous", I could care less what you think about me. You aren't even brave enough to post under a real name. What I care about is being misrepresented. "It Wasn't About Hate" represented me about as well as *many* (not all, *many*) Pro-8 posters represented this issue. I agree that it wasn't always about hate, but it was always about discrimination - whether the voter intended to discriminate or not.

"Its just a words definition"
Sorry, "Reasonable", I don't think the Mormon Church would shovel out *millions* of dollars just for a "word". It was about much more than that.

"an issue which should never have been something we had to vote on in the first place!"

OMG! Jane, I agree with you! Californians never should have been allowed to vote to change the *constitution* (not bible, *constitution) to take rights away from the gay community!

"and get over it!"

Really nice sentiment there. It must be nice to take away the rights of an entire group of people an then just expect everyone to get over it - especially when mathematically speaking approximately half of California feels horrible about that decision.

The hatred, bitterness, and name-calling by the "No on 8" camp is pretty ironic, don't you think??

What I think is that the HUGE amount of "name-calling" that was lodged against me personally is not ironic at all. Calling me names like "moron", "spiteful", "angry", "bitter", "intolerant", "narrow-minded" (talk about ironic) is just what I expect from a group of people who think that gays don't fit *their* definition of what married under CA *law* (not *church*) should be. Sad, but not ironic.

Why all of the animosity towards me, Julie? I think its shameful they way these people personally attack you. You have been so open minded when it comes to other peoples beliefs. It's a terrible shame that they can't learn from you.
For whatever its worth Julie, you have helped change my mind now. I'm officially a supporter of *NO on 8* now.

This is why the Weekly should require people to register with either real names or with unique Log ins if they wish to post here.

Anonymous, a resident of another community:

Thank you for your post, I agree 100%.

Anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood:

There are multiple people posting under this same name and neighborhood. I have been bashed by this "name" so I don't trust it and perhaps read anything posted under it with skepticism. If you are being sincere, thank you. If you are in fact the same person who posted things like: "I'm not close minded like Julie and Laura" and are simply being sarcastic, then shame on you.

Please forgive me for not being able to differentiate between people with the same name/neighborhood.

"Please, Al! Obviously, you voted for McCain, and people who supported someone like Palin cannot possibly be for gay marriage, any more than they are for abortion..... your comment is simply silly."

And how do you know this? Oh, that's right...people like you are judgemental. I counted at least three houses in my neighborhood with No on 8, McCain/Palin signs up. Some Democrats do not understand that their party is about taking away peoples freedom: ie. "The Fairness Doctrine," not letting us have school vouchers, etc.

My original point, though is seemed to be missed, was that the Democrats wanted high turn-out for Obama. They got it alright, in the form of a bunch of people who voted yes on 8. If you don't believe me, just go look at the percentage that voted for Obama and the percentage that voted for 8. You would have to have at least 30% of those Obama voters voting yes on it. Without that 30%, Prop. 8 would not have passed.

"Some Democrats do not understand that their party is about taking away peoples freedom"

BOTH parties will erode away at civil liberties until none are left. You can't have your gun and you certainly can't have an abortion. Go, partisans, go!

Thanks Jill for starting this.
Yes I agree its terrible what the state of California did. Electing Obama as President. OMG what are you thinking? 4 years of lies. Making claims that you know he will never be able to support. Get a clue and figure it out.W ow and Day one of Obama and the Dow only dropped 480 points.

Give me a break. Democratic or Republican is not the issue here. We can tell which side of the fence Al and Julie play on. The proper decision was voted on, and the majority spoke.

Janna wrote: "Say you're sorry to your gay brothers and sisters who have had part of their civil rights revoked. Though I'm sure you won't since you don't consider them your equal."

It's this type of false demonizing of your opponents that helped convince some "on the fence" folks to vote for prop 8.

Janna know this: you did your cause a great disservice.

Instead of attracting people on the fence towards your position, you created a despicable, hostile and combative persona that mainstream folks wanted nothing to do with.

You’re so far off on the edge, I don't think you'll ever really understand the mainstream though.

You so strongly believe that you’re fighting discrimination that you can’t see that there are many others who honestly and sincerely disagree with you.

There are millions of persons from various cultures who saw an attack on their cultures and traditions of marriage between a man and a woman and instead of trying to engage them in a civil manner you decided to hatefully label and attack them. Where you ever trying to engage in dialogue or just go on a rampage?

Think it through; it wasn’t the extreme right that voted in the millions for prop 8, it was the mainstream and multicultural folks based on their own beliefs of what marriage is.

As far as being you being “touchy”, you missed the point (again). Go back and read my post more carefully. My “too touchy?” reference was to the idea that you wouldn’t dare attack the black, Latino and other groups that in large part voted for prop 8 because that would be “too touchy” of a subject for you to launch an attack upon (per your normal modus operandi). This multicultural group that believes in marriage being between a man and a woman is the reason why prop 8 passed.

I see that you still danced around these groups overwhelming participation in voting for prop 8. These groups have very strong feeling about marriage and family, too strong for you to just credit or discredit the Mormons alone as much as you try. I know you want to attack the financiers but in the end it all comes down to the votes.

You do the math. Count the number of California Mormons who are registered to vote versus the number of voters for prop 8. These multicultural voters were not naïve, they were not discriminatory or hateful, they were just voting for what they deeply believe in; marriage is between a man and a woman.

OK, al. Let me use your logic.

Let's agree that 30 % of Obama voters voted yes on 8. That means 100 % of McCain voters voted yes on 8. Clearly then, prop 8 was a scheme by the Republicans to turn out the vote for McCain, and it succeeded to the extent of barely passing prop 8 but fell short of pushing him into the win column. There were not enough of "them" to get out to vote.

So, it seems from your logic we can assume realistically the vast majority of McCain supporters supported taking away rights of gay couples while at best a clear minority (30 %) of Obama voters did.

Hey, al, I'm just using your logic!

I'll say it again: read what "reasonable" has to say and stop trying to speak for the gay community. The continued attacks on supporters of Prop. 8 are hateful and insulting, especially to those you are specifically targeting by name.
Julie, I'm sorry you have been called names, but those same names have been hurled at supporters of Prop. 8. The election is over and so should this debate.

I think most Californians just voted yes on 8 because they prefer traditional marraige. That's it. No hatred involved. Most Californians are from varied backgrounds and ethnicities and it appears that most of them feel similarly on this.

(Btw, Obama has said several times that he is not in favor of gay marraige.)

I just scrolled wayyyyy.... back to find what reasonable said. And I found it unreasonable. "It" offers a few words intended to sweep under the rug the effect of a constitutional amendment that diminishes the very rights that are granted in other parts of the same constitution. It was one of those "geez" comments, like "what's the big deal".

Back to the point of the recent post. Engaging in criticism and reasonable debate is NOT being hateful and insulting. Attempts to label such criticisms as "hate" are not going to work to shut up opponents of the yes folks.

BTW, Joely, al argues that only 30 % of Obama supporter voted yes while 100 % of McCain supporters did. So, I guess most of Obama's supporters were not listening to what his position was, they just were respecting the rights granted by our founding fathers.

A TV station had a banner(the irritating kind running across the bottom of the screen)that stated the ACLU planned to challenge Prop 8...

Let the "Judge shopping" begin...:)

Per the great Yogi Berra - "It ain't over til it's over"...

Go to this website to find out election results by county. You can click on a specific proposition and see which counties voted yes and which voted no. I was happy to see that Alameda County rejected both prop 8 and prop 4.
Web Link

"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

From Web Link

Stacey, beautiful quote. I’m sure we can all benefit from it. If and when I find a situation where it applies, I'll be sure to use it.

Hey Frank, I'm right here (reading the whole time). And my "Geez" comment was a poor attempt at levity. The gay community has had countless pittfalls and setbacks, and this is yet another one. Although, I don't recall asking whats the big deal? The fight isn't over and for now, you won a battle. The War continues...
I believe the fundamental difference between most bloggers here and the gay community is the misconception of a fair and just world. The fact that it SHOULD be a certain way, doesn't entitle us to it. We must fight harder next time. We appriciate all (most) of the support for everyone, but please stop the arguing and name calling. People are free to believe what they will, and no amount of talking will change them. We must lead by example and show kindness and patience. We haven't lost yet, there's just more feebleminded people out there than we thought. We won't make that mistake again...

It's such a disappointment that Prop 8 passed. I really hope the lawsuit is successful.

On the other hand, I guess I do understand Prop 8 supporters. After all, that "colored" drinking fountain is the same as the one we "whites" use. It gives out water, it has a handle. Now, we won't let you use ours, nor will we let you call it a drinking fountain. You can call it a "device that gives me water" because calling it a drinking fountain attacks my culture and my religion. And my particular set of "morals" and "culture" is really all that I care about. And all that should matter.

Astonishing.

"OK, al. Let me use your logic.
Let's agree that 30 % of Obama voters voted yes on 8. That means 100 % of McCain voters voted yes on 8. Clearly then, prop 8 was a scheme by the Republicans to turn out the vote for McCain, and it succeeded to the extent of barely passing prop 8 but fell short of pushing him into the win column. There were not enough of "them" to get out to vote.

So, it seems from your logic we can assume realistically the vast majority of McCain supporters supported taking away rights of gay couples while at best a clear minority (30 %) of Obama voters did.

Hey, al, I'm just using your logic!"

Actually, 35% of Democrats voted for Prop 8, and 70% of African Americans- would not have passed without these votes. That is fact, not opinion. And even though Barack Obama says he's for traditional marriage he was against Prop. 8. As I said in my other post, you can't blame the republican party for the passage of Prop. 8, when 100% did not vote for it. How do I know? Because I know many Republicans who did not vote for it. I think many Democrats are unwilling to accept the fact that many in their party helped to pass 8.

PJ,

Didn't do well in high school civics class, did you?

Stacey,

Let me get this right, we disagree, so you launch a (speaking of high school) juvenile personal attack as an answer and you want to preach about civics? How petty and ironic. Grow up.

Tocqueville's Democracy in America is also pretty good reading.
Ch 15
UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Web Link

"A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?
...
I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence.

Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws.

...
In my opinion, the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength. I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny. an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority and implicitly obeys it; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority and serves as a passive tool in its hands. The public force consists of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain states even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the measure of which you complain, you must submit to it as well as you can.
"

PJ wrote:
"If and when I find a situation where it applies, I'll be sure to use it."

Feigned ignorance is equally childish.

Cut and paste civics is brilliant on your part Stacey, absolutely brilliant, but slow down, we “childish” ones can't keep up.

To Jill and Stacey and Julie, et al:

I just LOVE Democracy, but apparently, the No on 8 folks don't, unless the votes on whatever or whomever go their way. Sad.

I didn't vote for Hosterman, can't stand her, frankly, but you know what? She won, got more votes than Brozosky, I accept that, and we move on. Get over it.

Suggestion: You're all free to move out of the State of California--and don't let the state line slap you in the behind on the way out!

To all those who voted No on Prop. 8, hold your heads high as you did the right thing and real progress was made.

Remember in 2000 that Prop. 22, preventing California from recognizing same-sex marriage, passed by a whopping 22%.

Proposition 8 passed by a far smaller margin, about 5%.

Continue to talk with your friends and open minds in the coming months. There will another opportunity to address this issue in the not too distant future and the momentum is going in the right direction.

Thanks to all for your efforts!

Beth, bravo on your analogy :)

Stacey, thanks for the links. I thought I knew a bit about government, but you and Frank have taught me a lot.

I'm so tired of hearing "get over it". It's a horribly ungracious, uncompassionate sentiment and one that I never would have shared had Prop 8 failed.

I do know something about "getting over it". I've been most unhappy with America's choice of President prior to Tuesday. I've been "dealing with it" and "getting over it" for years. However, not all voting issues are the same. With Prop 8 a slim majority of people voted to take away the rights of a minority group. I find that tougher to "get over" than when in the past my choice for President didn't win. Both times, the day after George won the election, everyone woke up with the same rights they had the day before. I was unhappy, sure, but all my rights were intact. With Prop 8, the day after the election, an entire group of people woke up with fewer rights. Not the same.

I was once referred to as narrow-minded which is most ironic. I myself woke up the day after Prop 8 passed with all the same rights and privileges I had the day before. I've been able to step outside my own "White, Straight, Female, Married, Suburban, Housewife, Mother Shoes" & consider how another group of people might feel. The gay culture is completely different from the culture in which I have lived my 44 years, and I don't personally have any family or friends who were to be affected by the Prop 8 vote. I have debated vehemently to uphold the civil rights of a group, even though I have never once suffered discrimination. Had Prop 8 failed, the lives of all straight Pro-8 people would have gone on the same. They could have still used the term "marriage" the way they saw fit, particularly at their church. Their own marriages would have been intact. They wouldn't have had to like or even accept the concept of gay marriage if they didn't want to. I'm sorry that I'm having trouble "getting over" the fact that 52% of California couldn't be more open minded.

Shame on you CA for passing prop 8!

How dare CA deny others the priviledge to marry (and suffer pains and joys of it) just because it is called marriage. My opinion is call it something else in the eyes of the law as we should separate church and state anyway.

Please separate church and state as that is what our country was founded upon!!

There goes the neighborhood. We got Democracy lover who tells others to move out of California and don't let the door slap you in the behind because his side won and the other 49 % of Californians can go to hell. Where the hell have these people been raised and educated? Where do they come from? Redneck country? Maybe Iran.

Maybe you should leave Frank..... (Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

What's a Redneck and where's "Redneck Country" located???

dipad, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood said:

Shame on you CA for passing prop 8!

How dare CA deny others the priviledge to marry (and suffer pains and joys of it) just because it is called marriage. My opinion is call it something else in the eyes of the law as we should separate church and state anyway.

Please separate church and state as that is what our country was founded upon!!

-------

It's already been done and it's interesting that nobody has raised this point: Civil Unions are binding legal contracts in California. Under these contracts, all rights of marriage are given to heterosexual and homosexual couples. The only difference, the word "marriage".

Oh brother! Who are you people to dictate right & wrong. Some of us believe the Bible dictates right & wrong. Actually, it looks like the majority of us believe that. Get over it.

Frank and Al, both of you need to knock off the "statistical analysis" bickering. The truth is, as long as we vote in secret, we'll never really know just how anyone really voted. For this we can be thankful.

Carlsbad Man Pleads Not Guilty In Prop 8 Sign Attack

A Carlsbad man accused of punching an elderly couple because they had Yes On Prop 8 signs in their yard says he's innocent.

Thursday, Lawrence Pizzicara pleaded not guilty to attacking his neighbors on Monday allegedly during an argument over Prop 8 signs.

The couple suffered numerous injuries.

Pizzicara is being held on $200,000 bail.
Web Link

"Some of us believe the Bible dictates right & wrong"

Which is why some church groups opposed Prop 8.

Over time – probably the next election, homosexuals and those that favor their position on this matter will most likely win. Moral relativism is a closed circle, with no beginning and no end. Enemies of our nation will, in time, take action against us. After all, their “take” on morality is relative.

Over time – probably the next election, the homosexuals and those that favor their position on this matter will most likely win. Moral relativism is a closed circle, with no beginning and no end. Enemies of our nation will, in time, take action against us. After all, their “take” on morality is relative.

I don't give a rats arse if its one religions "fundamental beliefs"
Discrimination should never have been on the ballot, Churches should never be allowed to make choices for people especially who are not part of their faith. There is supposed to be Seperation of Church and State. The LDS church should lose their tax exemption status for pouring so much money into politics.

Religion can be a good thing, but more often its been misused to control people with fear. Its something that never should be mixed with politics, looking into history should be enough for anyone to understand why (dark ages for example).

I'm not gay but I voted No on prop 8. It doesn't just ban gay marriage, but puts the constitution itself in jepordy! Whose rights will these large churches put on the ballot next?

I think I should start counting the "get over it" comments. For those of you who follow it, I thought the bible taught compassion. Would you seriously just "get over it" if a majority of 52% voted to take any of YOUR rights away? I agree with Bel, whose rights will be at risk next? What if your rights are at risk next, yomama?

It's already been done and it's interesting that nobody has raised this point: Civil Unions are binding legal contracts in California. Under these contracts, all rights of marriage are given to heterosexual and homosexual couples. The only difference, the word "marriage".

That point has indeed been brought up ad nauseum and here is my usual response: the only difference is not the "word". Look up the process for getting married and for getting a civil union...same? Look at culture - are marriage and civil unions revered the same? Does any child grow up dreaming of "entering into a civil union", seeing civil unions portrayed on magazine covers, etc.? Are civil unions honored no matter where a person travels as are marriages? Do you seriously think that the Mormon Church and other groups would pour millions of dollars into just preserving a "word"?

"Over time – probably the next election, the homosexuals and those that favor their position on this matter will most likely win. Moral relativism is a closed circle, with no beginning and no end. Enemies of our nation will, in time, take action against us."

Sounds like you are calling homosexuals and those who support them "enemies of our nation". Pro-8 people, you need to understand that **many** people on your side (not necessarily YOU) feel the same way as "It's All Relative" and THATS why hate and bigotry have been associated with your position. I hardly consider myself an "enemy of the nation" for trying to preserve the rights of a group to which I don't even belong!

The actions of that Carlsbad man are heinous. I certainly hope he goes to jail - that type of behaviour should not be tolerated.

Bel- you said the LDS should lose their tax - exempt status for pouring money into politics. Do you feel the same about the teachers unions for pouring millions in to defeat 8? Just sayin'...

I would like to clarify the assumptions in the above postings that the Mormon Church donated massive amounts of money to the pro-Prop. 8 campaign. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! Many individual Mormons, Catholics, and members of various other churches, as well as non-religious organizations, donated their time and money toward the passage of Prop. 8. The Mormon Church was asked by "protectmarriage.com" to join their coalition. The Mormon Church then urged members to do what their consciences told them to do. Please don't accuse the Mormon Church of dictating to its members what they should and should not do. Mormons are as diverse as society at large so I resent the insulting and disparaging targeting of the LDS Church by anti-Prop. 8 supporters.

The great thing about our country is that we are free to express our beliefs. I for one felt exhiliarated to stand in the rain for hours waving my "Yes on 8" sign. The individuals who held "No on 8" signs were respectful and full of passion and I would never deny them the right to demonstrate for their beliefs.

I would like to believe that if Prop. 8 had not passed I would have accepted the will of the people and not continued to argue the issue and hurl insults and accusations at those who worked to defeat it. The massive generalizations by the "No on 8" camp that we are all spiteful, homophobic bigots who want to deny rights to individuals insults the democratic process.

So Jane you are saying the LDS church did not exhort in any way its members to donate their time and money to no on 8? They simply said "do what your conscience says to do" whether yes or no on 8?

Julie, you're pretty proud of yourself aren't you? That's really nice of you to fight a battle for a group that you don't belong too. I can't help but notice you brought that fact up more than a few times...

Julie, you misread what I wrote or you’re purposely misrepresenting what I wrote, I’ll leave that for others to sort out. Sentence one and two stand on their own. Sentence three and four are connected. The enemies I speak of are those people around the world that reject what we export the most of, namely, some of the products that comes out of Hollywood, TV studios and the music industry. Al-Qaeda comes to mind. You haven’t forgotten them, have you? Also, what’s up with the use of the asterisks?

"Anonymous": Julie, you're pretty proud of yourself aren't you? That's really nice of you to fight a battle for a group that you don't belong too. I can't help but notice you brought that fact up more than a few times..."

And I can't help but notice that as usual you ignore my questions and instead concentrate on me. I ask provocative questions regarding how civil unions and marriages differ and regarding how you would feel if it were your rights being taken away and instead you target something personal about me. Since I always answer all questions posed to me: No, proud is not the word I would choose. I think "open-minded" applies. I guess it's easier for you to talk about me and my posts than to address the complex issues discussed here.

Well sorry, IAR - your 4 sentences all flow together. You appear to mean that homosexuals (& those who support them) exemplify "moral relativism" and that "enemies" also exemplify "moral relativism". I'm not purposely trying to misrepresent you. You don't believe that homosexuals & their supporters represent "moral relativism"? No, I haven't forgotten about Al-Qaeda, but please explain their connection to this issue? Asterisks are for emphasis since I cannot underline or bold face my words and I prefer not to "shout".

"would like to clarify the assumptions in the above postings that the Mormon Church donated massive amounts of money to the pro-Prop. 8 campaign. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!"

I don't see how you can separate "individual Mormons" from "the Mormon Church". I don't know a lot about that religion, but it seems a mighty close connection.

Excerpt from the LDS website Web Link

SALT LAKE CITY 30 June 2008 The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Jane did you read the letter that Thomas S. Monson sent to all bishops about prop 8? its published on the web in its entirety (the link posted by Julie above is only an excerpt), please read it then say what you said again. (and BTW I'm an Ex-member and know more than you think about the LDS church)

I do believe we should be able to express our beliefs, but I also do not believe that the beliefs of some should be able to remove the rights of another.

And from the AP:

"The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign."

"Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement about the temple protests Friday that it is "disturbing" that the church is being singled out for exercising its right to speak up in a free election."

While I don't condone violent or otherwise inappropriate protests on either side of the issue, the protests against the Mormon Church also involve freedom of speech. I agree that they should not be disruptive. Unfortunately when people have their rights taken away there is a lot of anger involved. I don't remember the race riots (just a little too young... :) but I've heard about them.

The news reports that 20 of the 75 million raised to support Prop 8 came from (directly or indirectly) the Mormon Church. The consensus is that those dollars really contributed to pushing the slight majority over to "yes". I think boycotts are appropriate forms of protest. If the Mormons don't like gays, then don't accept their tourism dollars in Utah.

Of course I'm fully aware of the statement issued by Thomas Monson! However, one of the most important tenets of the LDS Church is free agency, which allows members to act according to their own consciences, especially when it comes to issues on the ballot.

Another important tenet is respect for all, something I'm not feeling from opponents of Prop. 8.

Julie, I ask questions about you because I think you're fascinating. Not offen do I get a chance to talk with a person like yourself. Your questions are decieving though. A marriage IS different from a civil union. A marriage is specifically between a man and a woman, and a civil union...I have to admit, I don't know. I have never been in one. Like I said before, tell me what to call a homosexual union, and I'll gladly do it. But for you to sit there and try to make them the same thing is ridiculous. The rights of the couples are whats important here, and as long as they have the same fundemental rights, then there shouldn't be a problem. And what you call your union isn't a "right", at least as far I know. As for the right to marry, I believe any man and woman can do that, but thats because a marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMAN. And as for your concern about recongnition while traveling, well, I can't vote in other states. Until I can, I'll just worry about things here in California. And now finally... your problem with "culture"? I agree that children don't grow up dreaming of a civil union. How do you control what the parents accross the country teach or schools or TV, radio, internet, print...social conversations, that is what gives "America" their opinion about this topic? Its not the voters....
Well, this has been a good talk.......Good Talk!

The election is over so move on bums. What a bunch of wet rags. 8 won. That's that!

If you want to complain, don't come crying to me. I voted No but since 8 won, it's over.

Time to heal! Check out what the mormons believe. Now, that's a hoot!

i am so GLAD Yes on eight won. Was on this site before the election Read all the comments but never posted. Not that it matters to anyone...but I am pleased it won. BTW I am Asian married to a Latino man. I point that out only because these two voting blocks were No supporters, All this bashing of Mormons and money they gave sounds much like the "bigot" arguments I read before th election. I won't be back to check out any responses, but know this minority couple is not ashamed in the least for the vote we cast and are very PROUD of the citizens of this state.

It definitely is time to move on. The vicious attacks on the Mormon Church have intensified since the election, a turn of events that is deeply disturbing.

I am disappointed that many of the candidates and issues for which I voted did not win, but the election is over and the majority rules in this great country of ours.

Violence and intolerance targeted at a church are not going to solve anything.

Now what a minute-- there is a lot of talk about the money that individual Mormons donated to the Yes on 8 campaign, yet no acknowledgement that Mormons also donated to the No on 8 campaign! It was fully publicized that Steve Young's wife Barbara donated $30,000 to the No campaign and posted a "No" sign in their yard. In case you did not know, they are Mormon. That would mean Barbara used her free agency and voted according her own conscience.
So yes Homeowner, that is exactly what Jane said, the Mormon's voted according to their conscience!
Yes Bel, you of all people, being an ex-member and knowing so much about the LDS church-- should be very familiar with what "Free Agency" means and doing according to your own conscience.

The following was published today... for immediate release-- the full letter is found on the No on Prop 8 site. I have included an excerpt, but you can read it all here. Web Link
“We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss. We know people of all faiths, races and backgrounds stand with us in our fight to end discrimination, and will continue to do so. Now more than ever it is critical that we work together and respect our differences that make us a diverse and unique society. Only with that understanding will we achieve justice and equality for all.”

Julie wrote- "I think boycotts are appropriate forms of protest. If the Mormons don't like gays, then don't accept their tourism dollars in Utah."

It would be good to refer to your campaigns statement above. Also... not one statement from the Mormon Church on this matter says they "don't like gays", that is not what this is about... not at all, never was and never will be. You can say it is until you are blue in the face-- it is not a fact! I think it would do a lot of good to actually read what they have to say about same-sex marriage and exactly why they asked their members to support "Yes"-- This link will take you directly the site. This information is intended to reduce misunderstanding and ill will. Web Link

This link will take you to a statement issued by the church today. Web Link

Let's agree to disagree-- and work on spreading happiness and smiles, that is so much more productive.

RaZ:
Also... not one statement from the Mormon Church on this matter says they "don't like gays", that is not what this is about... not at all, never was and never will be. You can say it is until you are blue in the face-- it is not a fact! I think it would do a lot of good to actually read what they have to say about same-sex marriage and exactly why they asked their members to support "Yes"-- This link will take you directly the site. This information is intended to reduce misunderstanding and ill will.

I read your link RaZ and I'm unclear as to how informing an entire group of people (i.e. the LBGT population) that they can be "loved" despite their *sin* of being gay; despite their *transgressions* of being gay, is going to reduce ill will. In your link, people (in this case Mormons) are essentially being advised to not accept the "wrongful behaviour" of gays. If someone told me that they "loved" me despite my "sin" of being heterosexual...I wouldn't get the impression that they truly "loved" me. Plus, it would be so frustrating because I did not choose my sexual orientation any more than I chose the colour of my skin.

And thanks for the link. I can indeed see exactly why the Mormon Church asked their members to support "Yes": to impose their religious beliefs into our *government* constitution. What about people who don't believe in the Gospel? in Jesus? What about them? Why should a *government* constitution choose to place those religious beliefs over those of others? I respect religious freedom. If Mormons and others don't want to accept gays, that is their choice. In THAT context I am happy to "agree to disagree". But, keep your religious beliefs (e.g. that being "gay" is "wrong") out of the constitution.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

The "vicious attacks on the Mormon Church" were brought on by the LDS church itself. While many church members did not support Prop 8, the church enterprise did everything within their power to defeat 8. Some Utah voters asked why 8 was missing from their ballots. Let's not only boycott Utah, how about donating money to legalize gambling and relax the liquor laws in Utah?

Jason-

You'd better call for a boycott of every other church that participated in the "Yes on 8" campaign. Let's see, no more travel to any country that is predominently Catholic, especially Italy, and stay away from the "Bible Belt."

Julie - in your definition of tolerance, I'm sure you unwittingly made the case for everyone who supports Prop. 8! Do you have to accept all kinds of behavior from your underage children in order to let them know you love them??

Julie I really appreciate you looking up the links and commenting -- Thanks.

When it comes to the term "marriage" there is not a separation of Church and Government, as long as the term Marriage is used there never can be. This is an excerpt from this link Web Link
It is from 2003

"Whether same-sex marriages need to be called marriages by the state is another matter. If it is the opinion of a legal body that the term "marriage" carries with it too much religious baggage, another term, such as "civil union," may be employed. However, and this is an important point, the state may not call a cohabitation contract between a man and a woman "marriage" while referring to a similar contract between two men as "civil union." Either both are marriages or both are civil unions.

It is noteworthy that marriage ceremonies in the United States, the home of the separation of church and state, often blur the boundaries in ways that marriage ceremonies in other countries do not. In the U.S., couples are married when a minister pronounces them married (though, of course, a justice of the peace can do the same thing). In other countries, the legal proceeding is often separate from the religious ceremony. In a wedding I attended in Mexico, the bride and groom arrived at the church already legally married by a judge an hour or so beforehand. In South Africa, after the religious service, the bride and groom had to sign a legal document making their marriage official.

Americans need to recognize that marriage is an agreement between individuals in which both the church and the state have an interest. Those interests are not the same, however. The interest of the church or other religious organization is to establish a moral, committed home based on religious principles agreed to voluntarily by those involved. The interest of the state is to ensure that federal and state laws are followed (e.g., sham marriages for the purposes of obtaining legalized residency are considered invalid) and that the parties will not be discriminated against in future legal proceedings. Same-sex marriage may violate the sensibilities of a religious organization. It should not bother the state."

As long a we use the term Marriage-- we will have blurred lines of church and state. Instead of trying to re-define marriage, a different approach needs to be taken.

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

(Comment removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as hearsay or unsupported by facts.)

pacheliye-- That link seemed pretty accurate, however the confessional box-- they do not have those in the Mormon church. I must tell you that picture had me cracking up!
It is pretty cool though that they believe in more then a "heaven" or "hell" concept. And Christ visiting the Americas-awesome. And that we were all spirits before our life on earth and when our bodies die- or spirits will still live on- what a great comfort.

To find out about Mormon beliefs it would be helpful and more accurate to go to the source.
Mormon.org would be a really good place to start. Web Link

Jane,
The LDS Church at a corporate level directed their members to oppose Prop 8. As far as I know they are the only church to oppose 8, on a national level and issue a formal statement against 8. BTW, this is illegal, in order for them to maintain their non-profit status. It's also illegal to own a newspaper and TV station in the same market but the LDS church gets a pass on that as well. How about a proposition banning out of state contributions for CA propostions and candidates?

WOW...
first off...its over...move on...
second...only 2% of the population in California are mormons. It was 52% of the population in California that voted to pass prop 8. So why does everyone blame the mormon church for supporting proposition 8. 50% of the people who voted for prop 8 WERE NOT MORMON.
GET OVER IT.

People don't just "get over" losing their rights and "move on".
They fight for it, they will fight for it and so will I! It may not be my rights lost today, but it could be tomorrow, it could be yours too.

<ding> And another "get over it" comment. Taking away people's rights sounds so....invigorating! Wait until it's yourself or your family being affected by such nonsense and see if you have the same "get over it" attitude. Though honestly, I'm not vindictive - I hope you never have to learn that lesson.

I see that there is as much a lack of knowledge regarding marketing as there is regarding civics and government. The millions spent by the Mormons on advertising affected more than just Mormons. Fear mongering and lies work on all types of people, not just Mormons. Sadly, it worked on 52% of Californians. I think many, many people did not truly understand what they were voting "yes" on. All you have to say is that "it wasn't about rights or discrimination" and I KNOW that you didn't truly understand the consequences of a "yes" vote.

"Julie - in your definition of tolerance, I'm sure you unwittingly made the case for everyone who supports Prop. 8! Do you have to accept all kinds of behavior from your underage children in order to let them know you love them??"

No Jane, I did not do any such thing. My children know I love them even when they engage in negative behaviour. The deal is that I don't consider "being gay" negative behaviour. I would accept them being gay without a second thought. I would pity them though, especially after seeing the results of this election.

Raz: "As long a we use the term Marriage-- we will have blurred lines of church and state. Instead of trying to re-define marriage, a different approach needs to be taken."

I enjoyed your post about marriages in other countries, and you know - it has occurred to me that we should do something similar here. I would be fine with all "marital contracts" issued by the state of CA being called something other than "marriage" - perhaps "civil union". And then, when you enter into that contract in a church, call it "getting married". As long as both straight and gay couples could get the state issued "civil union" I'd be happy. A church, even now, does not have to marry any couple they don't wish to and I support that. I may not agree, but churches should have the right to their religious freedom.

Chapter 2 has now begun. Witness the protests today in various California cities. Take note of the length of this thread. The "get over it" people are engaging in wishful thinking. When you use direct democracy to take away the rights of a minority, the rest of us are equally threatened. The fight begins. The prop 8 vote of YES was distinctly anti-american given our country's democratic history. And the vote was clearly not a mandate given it's slim margin of win.

Some have called for the Mormon Church to be stripped of its tax exempt status. Would this also apply to a church that uses its pulpit to support politicians...

If not, would that be considered a double standard...

I think the Prop 8 issue is more heated because the Judges allowed gay marriage to continue for many months, and now stopping something that many people expected to be legal in CA forever is nearly impossible. Gays only had the freedom to marry for a very short time, and many of them knew it. That is why there was a rush to get married, while they could. The cat is out of the bag, and putting it back is never easy. But in the long run, we all know it will be back and it will pass next time.

Congratulations to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Some of the sour and hateful anti 8 posts here are just pathetic. Gays weren't rounded up Wednesday, they weren't segregated, they weren't put on the back of the bus, they weren't separated from their loved ones, their legal domestic partnership/civil union rights weren’t taken away, etc. This false "their rights were taken away" talk is nonsense.

What changed? Simply they couldn't hijack the well practiced, multicultural, heterosexual practice called marriage.

If you really want a fight and have the guts, stop targeting the individual Mormon financiers. Target the folks who overwhelmingly voted for prop 8: blacks (7 out of 10, wow), Latinos (majority), married couples (strong supporters), and people with children (also strong supporters).

I especially think you wouldn't have the guts to go after blacks and Latinos, as this would send left wing beliefs into a tailspin. Instead you say the minorities "were confused" and "misinformed" which actually insults their intelligence and morals. These suggestions that the minorities couldn’t properly digest the “complex” issues are in themselves bigoted and hateful. Shame on you.

Let’s see these pissy marches go to the churches in Bayview/Hunters Point in SF (black) or to the Fruitvale/ International neighborhood in Oakland (Latino).

Let the fur fly! 8 is not quite over...hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...

Lesson of the Day: pobrecitos

duke it out...don't give up...get organized and protest protest protest...

Incidentally, Goodle Sexual Molestation in Mormon Church...if that doesn't slow you down and make you think twice...the morgans targeted the LGBT community to shift the focus off the epidemic of child molestation in their church and it worked!

pobrecitos...

Correction: GOOGLE


pobrecitos....hahahahahahahahahahahah...

New Year Prediction: 8 will not make it into the CA constitution.

It will challenged and end up back in the CA Supreme Court...declared unconstitutional.

Identify all Mormon businesses in CA and boycott!

Then again, don't you think that the people that voted yes on 8 are mentallly ill and deserve some understanding? hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah...think about it, boycott all Mormon businesses...might hurt them in their pocketbooks where it really matters....tee hee hee, tee hee hee...

Correction: It will be challenged...

Are you Okay Cholo?-- take a deep breath.

One two buckle my show
Three four shut the door

Take a deep breath, now FART!

Cholo, I certainly do not agree that those who voted "yes" on 8 are "mentally ill". I think many were misinformed, or did not understand what a constitution should be used for, but mentally ill - no. I do agree with you though, that the Proposition will be challenged and be found (again) to be unconstitutional.

I accept that 52% of CA do not support gays getting married, but I do not accept that any percentage of CA should be able to change the constitution of this great state in such a way that rights are taken away from a group based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. And yes, it is a "right" - what else would you call it? Use whatever synonym you like: "as a straight person I have the right/ability/privilege/opportunity/etc. to enter into a marital contract here in CA". Gays now do not have that right/ability/privilege/opportunity.

PJ, I'm sorry you considered the anti-8 posts pathetic. Honestly, I don't think you ever tried to understand them. I understand completely the pro-8 argument. It's about tradition for some and religion for others. For still others (not necessarily YOU) it is about hate and discrimination. For some it was a combination of those four things. And, I for one never targeted "minorities" as being misinformed or confused. I don't discriminate. Anyone who voted yes on 8, regardless of their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation was, IMHO, confused/misinformed/uneducated specifically as to what the function of a constitution is - or they simply did want to discriminate, either because their religion dictated it (e.g. "being gay" is "wrong") or they have a personal problem with gays that was not dictated by religion.

You say, "What changed? Simply they couldn't hijack the well practiced, multicultural, heterosexual practice called marriage.". It's that "them against us" mentality PJ, and that type of language (e.g. "hijack") that cause some people to see your view as "bigoted". And I don't think ONE anti-8 person feared that gays would be "rounded up" or "put in the back of the bus". Talk about ridiculous. And it's not nonsense that they had "rights" taken away. Before the election gays could get married, after the election, they could not. You don't consider yourself as having the "right" to get married? If not, then what do you call it?

Don't you think that "homophobia" is mental illness. Yup, I sure do.

For Jerry: "Some have called for the Mormon Church to be stripped of its tax exempt status. Would this also apply to a church that uses its pulpit to support politicians... "
ABSOLUTELY! Churches have all gone well beyond their "tax exempt" limits, not just in this election. Why should those of us who pay taxes have to pay so much more to allow the churches to remain tax free? True charitable giving should meet the church exemption, and not one single thing else. No huge sanctuaries built with tax free dollars, no door to door attempted conversion funded with tax free dollars, no political campaigning with tax free dollars. These things MUST be stopped. How much more tax are you willing to pay to allow the continued abuse of the tax free status of all churches?

The hate seems to be on those who voted no on Prop 8 and continue to protest. The people have spoken 2x in the state on this issue...We have government and elections by the people, for the people...The perversion of using civil rights as an arguement for gay marriage is a big lie. This has nothing to do with equal rights, gays already have that through civil unions and contracts...This is about societal standards that have been in placee since the beginning of time and now all of suddden liberals of today seem to know what's better for society than all of history? I don't think so...I have no sympathy for liberals and gays trying to change the definition and standard of marriage, this is not about civil rights it's about liberals wanting things there way.

I don't see McCain voters protesting because they lost...These hatemongers should go home and be grateful for the freedoms they and all of us already enjoy in this great state and country.

Do not support Mormon Businesses: BOYCOTT

Web Link

Cholo, I agree. Can you post a list of what businesses are owned and/or run by mormons? Many of the downtown Pleasanton buildings are owned by mormons but it would not be right to boycott the tenants of those buildings even though the mormon landlords demand payment of a percentage of the gross sales.

Julie wrote:
"PJ, I'm sorry you considered the anti-8 posts pathetic. Honestly, I don't think you ever tried to understand them."

PJ:
That's not accurate. Here's what I said: "Some of the sour and hateful anti 8 posts here are just pathetic."

Julie wrote:
"I understand completely the pro-8 argument. It's about tradition for some and religion for others. For still others (not necessarily YOU) it is about hate and discrimination."

PJ:
I believe it's about tradition and/or religion for a vast majority, not just some. I'm sure there were some idiots who did it out of hate and I denounce them, but hateful idiots exist on both sides of the issue.

Julie wrote:
"And, I for one never targeted "minorities" as being misinformed or confused. I don't discriminate."

PJ:
I commend you for that. The anti 8 protesters have a different idea though. They are targeting the Mormon churches and dismissing the minority voters (who overwhelming supported prop 8) for what I believe are obvious political reasons as I posted previously.

Julie:
"Anyone who voted yes on 8, regardless of their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation was, IMHO, confused/misinformed/uneducated specifically as to what the function of a constitution is - or they simply did want to discriminate, either because their religion dictated it (e.g. "being gay" is "wrong") or they have a personal problem with gays that was not dictated by religion."

PJ:
You and I have previously discussed the role of the state constitution, civil unions, are they equal/are they not; so I guess we can agree to disagree. As to the allegation or belief that this is about being anti-gay, discrimination, etc.; I believe that this is what most of the anti 8 folks are with all due respect, as I borrow from your comment, confused/misinformed/uneducated about.

I believe the vast majority of people voting yes on 8 are doing so to protect our multicultural beliefs/customs/traditions that a marriage is between a man and a woman. What you don't see is a campaign to eliminate the equal civil union rights gays have. The fact that the people of the state of California support the equal legal rights of civil unions makes the argument that these same people want to discriminate against gays very weak. If we are so discriminatory and bigoted against gays, why isn't there an equally massive campaigning to eliminate the civil union laws? Would it not make sense for millions of hateful and bigoted people, as the anti 8 folks believe, to want to eliminate civil unions of these misguided, unholy, unnatural creatures?

Why is it that such creative, diverse, passionate gay communities cannot come up with their own special and meaningful customs for unions of a couple? I believe anti 8 folks are the ones who are doing the gay community a disservice. To me being anti 8 says that you don't believe that the gay community has the want and/or ability to come up with spiritual and meaningful customs to match the legal state rights they already enjoy. Why would they want to take the low road and hijack a heterosexual tradition and upset there fellow Californians who support there equal rights and not take the high road of using their skills, hearts and minds to create their own custom? Why?

On a personal level, I think I represent the vast majority of the yes on 8 folks who are for civil union and equal rights for all but against redefining traditional heterosexual marriage. We (my wife and I) have friends who are gay, they see us as equals; we see them as equals. Prior to moving to Pleasanton, we were neighbors with an older lesbian couple. They were in a long-term relationship. We were a young married couple. I respected their commitment to each other and only hoped that our marriage would be as strong in the years to come as their relationship was. We were good friends/neighbors, borrowed garden tools, had get-togethers, wine, etc. They played with our first child and were there to see our second child come home. I honestly believe that this is how most pro 8 folks feel about gay couples. It's not an "us" against "them". This was not about discrimination but about an attack on our multicultural, heterosexual custom between a man and a woman commonly know as marriage.

"The people have spoken 2x in the state on this issue"

Not really, prop 8 was approved with only 52% of the vote. That means there are almost as many (48%) that oppose prop 8. To make it fair, a proposition like 8 should require at least 2/3 of the vote... we are after all, amending the constitution.

I voted no on prop 8, and I do not agree with the "simple majority" required.... not when it comes to amending the state constitution.

Cholo: the catholics were just as involved as the mormons:
Web Link

In general, I think churches (all of them) should start paying taxes. I am Catholic but voted no on prop. 8. Until all churches become more open minded, they will continue to alienate their members

Web Link

The State of California: Data Base with names of people in CA who contributed YES on 8.

NOT just mormons is correct, check this out!

No one should be surprised at the protesting that is occurring after the passage of Prop 8. It should be entirely expected by those who are familiar with the pros and cons of democracy and why democracies fail. Let's call an ace and ace and stop trying to sugar-coat what happened or tell people to "get over it". People are not slaves to the will of others. A majority has become a despot and a minority must seek redress for this injustice. No one can ever blame them of this. It is what we ourselves would do if our own liberties were in such peril.

The person who said gays have equal rights in the form of the civil union doesn't truly understand the differences between a civil union and a marriage under the law or is being highly disingenuous regarding it. This person would rather have gay people confined within California for fear of not having their union, with the benefits received from it, recognized outside of it.

Quoting Tocqueville again:

"If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism. "

Cholo,

Are you a DUer???? Come on now fess up!

P.S. I am too!

:-)

Cholo: "The State of California: Data Base with names of people in CA who contributed YES on 8. NOT just mormons is correct, check this out!"

That's old news. The SF Chronicle had even posted the information last week and this info is, more accurately , the names are for BOTH pro 8 and anti 8 contributors.

Cholo: "The State of California: Data Base with names of people in CA who contributed YES on 8. NOT just mormons is correct, check this out!"

That's old news. The SF Chronicle had even posted the information last week and this info is, more accurately, the names for BOTH pro 8 and anti 8 contributors.

Stacey wrote:
"People are not slaves to the will of others."

PJ:
I agree with that sentiment. We shouldn't let others redefine marriage as we are not slaves to the will of others.

As to civil unions as recognized by the state of California, if you have any issues with civil unions which per California law should be given the same legal protection as marriages, then roll up your sleeves and look into it and do what you need to do. Just leave the multicultural heterosexual customary practice of marriage alone.

PJ, do you have the hiccups? :)

I think the large number of people who thought that everyone would just "get over" this issue once election day passed prove my point that many people did not truly understand the issues surrounding Proposition 8.

What exactly is the "multicultural heterosexual customary practice of marriage" that you want "left alone"?

Marriage has changed *drastically* over time - be careful in your attempts to cling to tradition! Previously marriages were arranged. Previously, a bride was essentially "purchased" for a son. Previously marriage for a woman meant being treated like a slave. Previously love and romance had nothing to do with marriage. Previously procreation and basic economics were the reason for marriages.

From: Web Link

"Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin."

"The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses."

Marriage as we know it has certainly not been around since the "dawn of time" as many here have suggested. And it does and should change with the times. I for one am pleased that the concept of marriage has changed and that my marriage was not:

a) arranged
b) purchased
c) based on anything but love
d) an event that turned me into a slave to my husband

Of course, that was MY culture (American). I work with several women who are in arranged marriages because that is their culture.

What in the world is a DUer? I have idea what you mean Janna?

Web Link

It's not old news to me. Are you a pair of pajamas?

Catholic Bishop Decries Religious Bigotry Against Mormons
11/08/2008 05:15 PM MST
SACRAMENTO - 7 November 2008 - (This news release was issued by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento) The following statement was released today by Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and former Bishop of Salt Lake City, in response to attacks on (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) for supporting California’s Proposition 8, defending the traditional definition of marriage:
“Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia.
“The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.
“Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8.
“As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes.
“I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant.
“I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”
SOURCE: Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento

Julie,

I think here is another site you will enjoy.

"Bible passages describing eight family/marriage types" Web Link

"The impact of religion on homosexuality and bisexuality" Web Link

Sure Bishop Weigend, claim it is discrimination when it is convenient FOR YOU and YOUR cause, but not when you try to deny others their rights.

How can you expect to guarantee your own rights when you cannot suffer the same of others?

Cholo,

I saw this post I thought was yours but now realize that a different neighborhood is listed by your name. The link posted is to a thread at Democratic Underground.

Do not support Mormon Businesses: BOYCOTT

Web Link

Posted by Cholo, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, 5 hours ago


I thought maybe you might be a poster there. Or is that not a real Cholo post?

Still at it, Julie??? Same old tired rants. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last post. I'm guessing I stumped you. Although, I don't believe you're the kind of person that is ever at a loss of words...are you?

Wow. People have a lot of time to spare. After reading a few of these comments, most from about 5 people, I think its really funny that you've all been making the same arguments for a week. Grow up. Move on. The decision was made. People voted. Prop 8 passed. FYI, you ought to credit supporters of Obama for passage of Prop 8. Many of them (blacks, latinos, white women) came out and voted for Obama. While they were going about the business of determining the next U.S. president, they also passed Prop. 8 -- yay! Now its time to get back to life. For those who support Prop. 8, you won -- and you shouldn't stoop so low to have to defend yourselves to people who whine like this. You already did your job. You voted.

OK - time to get back to life.

Julie wrote: "PJ, do you have the hiccups? :)"

You're right, that's what it looks like above. My bad, too much coffee plus multitasking. :)

Cholo wrote:

“It's not old news to me. Are you a pair of pajamas?”

(Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

PJ - sometimes that happens when posting on a yahoo page and it drives me crazy. We usually call it hiccups, but I like the coffee idea (although I'll have to change it to Coke, since I don't drink coffee).

I'm amused that someone making condescending comments towards people who post here would choose to post at all. And <ding> another "move on" comment, so obviously someone else who didn't understand what Prop 8 was truly about. Nice touch throwing in the insults. I thank you for that because many pro-8 people like to "whine" (your word) that anti-8 people are so rude.

Thanks for the links, Stacey. I'll check them out.

And for anyone feeling left out that I don't respond to their posts - I don't plan on responding to nasty, sarcastic posts that are about me instead of the issue.

Julie, if you're reading this, I have a question: why do you spell the words "behavior" and "color" as "behaviour" and "colour"? Do you consider the British spelling of these words superior to the American spelling? Is that clinging to tradition?

Mr. Webster, Please understand that if you stitch the work colour to the letter "r" in you name, it just might change your life!

signed,

Coco Chennnnnneile!

Anonymous, I hope you aren't posting under a new name to get my attention!

Well, it's been fun kids, but the posts are becoming too personal. I enjoy debating the issue, not orthography. When your spelling gets attacked (do you have something against the British too?), where will it go next?

I voted no on 8. My main reason for doing so was:

I do not believe that a majority vote should be allowed to amend the constitution so as to take rights away. I do not believe that is the function or purpose of a constitution.

I believe that you can feel any way you want about marriage, gays, etc. and I will respect it, even if I disagree with it. I believe that I cannot change how you feel about marriage, gays, etc. I simply do not agree that we should be amending a *constitution* in such a way that Prop 8 sought to do.

Have fun and play "nice"!

Go to the following site if you want to see which Mormon's contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. The LDS church is very proud of their donors. Scroll down to Pleasanton to see our local contributors...

Web Link

Interesting site with mormon donations. How come nearly all of them have hiden their last names? Guess I would too if I were that evil.

Julie is not here any longer!! Now we can say what we really think about her. Cholo, you start, girl.

voter wrote:
"Interesting site with mormon donations. How come nearly all of them have hiden their last names? Guess I would too if I were that evil."

...but yet you, my valiant friend, also post here anonymously with the rest of us? To quote our local philosopher, I must say “....tee hee hee, tee hee hee...”

Cholo wrote:
“It's not old news to me. Are you a pair of pajamas?”
(Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

****
PW Staff,
Are you kidding?? I merely made reference to Cholo’s trademark hyena like laugh as he taunts other posters. That was obvious.

Yet you don’t remove the comments about pajamas (posted above), farting (posted above), or child molestation (posted above), and many others that have nothing to do with the thread? Please comment as to what above is considered relevant or irrelevant to this thread.

Also on a much more serious note, should the pro8 and anti8 folks be submitting links to identifying information about persons in our town who contributed monies either way? The anti8 groups are posting hateful information here against a religious group and submitting links to identify individuals right here in this town. With hateful messages and singling these individuals out, you’re walking a fine line my friends.

Should the pro8 folks start doing the same? And if so, what are the house rules, links only, or just post the names here directly?

PJ,

Who contributed campaign contributions is public information as required by law. Check out Web Link

Surprising that some Pleasanton residents contributed over $10,000 to Yes on 8. If they have that kind of money, why don't they spend it to help out our school budget or some other local issue instead?

Looking at the Mormon spreadsheet. I like the $25,000 donation from Joanne M. here in town. How about the $1,000,000 contribution from some guy in Utah? That one's a whopper! Got at least a few at $500,000, $250,000, etc. Many $100,000 donors. Also, a lot of money from out-of-state.

By the way, if you read the top of the table it appears most last names were deleted by protocol involving the database creator, not people choosing to hide their last names.

Stacey,

I know about the Chron link and public info. I mentioned the Chron link earlier today (check above).

I'm interested in hearing from the PW Staff and learning what their stance is in posting identifying information of local residents on this local site while keeping in mind the concerns I mentioned above. There are people on both sides of the issue who can be singled out around town and I think that’s wrong.

For example, would the local anti8 self employed person, or real estate person, or chiro, or public school teacher, or contractor, or etc that are actually listed on these public info sites really want their info posted here?

Yes, I've seen them, but I'm not going to disclose that info here. Isn't that as wrong and irresponsible as the personal info about local pro8 supporters listed above? Why would we want to open this can of worms?

I agree that people should not be singled out for some sort of retribution. It is no different from the Patrick family having their home vandalized for their Obama sign or people who refuse to shop at some store simply because the store owner decided to post a political sign.

We’re intentionally giving this post a rest because the postings have become repetitive, accusatory and often based on hearsay. As more local news on Prop. 8 comes forward, we will cover in both our online and print editions, and in our new twice-weekly Pleasanton Express email bulletin that goes to subscribers who sign up for this free service through our daily online edition.