Home › News › Local News
Supreme Court decides Tuesday on Prop 8
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsAs the California Supreme Court announced Friday that it intends to release its decision on the validity of Proposition 8 on Tuesday morning in San Francisco, advocates for same-sex marriages ramped up plans for “Day of Decision” rallies in 41 cities across the state, including Thousand Oaks and Ventura.
The rallies, which sponsors say will either be in celebration or in protest, will also be held in 30 other cities across the United States and Canada.
The court, which had until June 3 to reach its decision, said it would release its opinion at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
Proposition 8, approved by voters in November, put language into the California Constitution expressly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Its passage put an immediate stop to the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages had been legal in California from mid-June last year until Election Day in November as a result of the court’s ruling that a statutory ban violated the constitutional rights of gay couples. Since Proposition 8 amended the state constitution, the legal basis for the court’s previous decision was nullified.
During the nearly five months they were legal, 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses were issued in the state.
In Tuesday’s opinion, the court will decide whether Proposition 8 legally amended the constitution or whether, as opponents including Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown contend, its effect was so sweeping that it constituted a revision of the constitution, which can only be accomplished through a constitutional convention.
If a majority decides to uphold Proposition 8, justices will also have to rule on the validity of the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages.
Based on the questioning posed by justices during the March 5 oral arguments, most legal observers believe the court will uphold Proposition 8 and also keep intact the existing marriages.
“We’re, of course, hoping that the court does the right thing,” said Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California. “However, we’re planning for the other outcome.”
Those plans include not just the rallies, but also an extended organizing campaign to bring the question before voters again in the future.
“Californians are divided on the subject today. There’s no question in my mind that we will eventually prevail,” he said. “No matter what, we’re going to continue to talk to voters, community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood.”
The rallies are being organized by Robin Tyler, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8’s validity. She said she walked out of the courtroom in March passing out leaflets for the “Day of Decision” events, to be prepared for whatever day it came.
Tyler said organizers are working closely with police agencies in the various cities, recognizing that emotions will run high in the gay community, regardless of the outcome.
“If they uphold Proposition 8, it will be a very angry community,” she said. “Hopefully, they will be peaceful.”
The largest Southern California event will likely be a rally planned for 7 p.m. at Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards in West Hollywood. In the days before the vote on Proposition 8 last fall, a similar rally drew tens of thousands of participants and snarled traffic on Los Angeles’ west side.
Two of the events will take place in Ventura County. In Thousand Oaks a rally sponsored by the Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship will be held at 6:30 p.m. at Lynn Road and West Hillcrest Drive. The Ventura event, sponsored by the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance, will take place at 5:30 p.m. at Victoria Avenue and Telephone Road.
Posted by HarmonyWorks on May 22, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hopefully the state will come to a decision this time based on equality and not this 'separate but equal' perspective on things.
Posted by vcmann on May 22, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here they come... Let the nasty comments commence...
Posted by ironwoman on May 22, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, the voters voted. It should stand.
Posted by nito on May 22, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why did they even have a vote?
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think people understand what this means if it sticks.
If it sticks, that means religions will have a say in everything else.
They are tax exempt for a reason. I think people should be able to understand what the Constitution stands for before being allowed to vote.
Separate but equal is not part of America. Very anti American if you ask me.
Posted by dwilson on May 22, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it interesting that the celebration/protest is already planned. Most of us will quietly accept the decision, or get on the letter writing campaign if we disagree (or excessively blog). But taking to the streets isn't something I understand, and to already plan to get in the publics face no matter what the outcome promotes a negative atmosphere. I wouldn't think that would be in anyones interest. At least the CA supreme court gave us the memorial day weekend in peace.
Posted by ironwoman on May 22, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charlene- Religions won't have a say in everything else...if that's the case, the Death Penalty would be abolished completely and every public school would have prayer.
Not happening.
Posted by handyhood on May 22, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene805- WWHHAATTT!!!! You are out of your ever lovin mind. IF the court rejects the outcome of prop 8 then there is no reason for the people to vote and we might as well get a czar to run things. This is the United States and the people are the ones who make decisions, not the courts!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me first state that I am neither for or against the measure. I'm simply looking at the law and how it effects this and offering my humble opinion...
The court is not being asked whether same sex marriages are legal. They are not a finder of fact. They are an arbitrator of law aka a Court of Appeals.
The court held when last asked, that the language of the Constitution of the State of California was vague on the issue. Given the vague nature, the looser standard applies. In other words, since the Constitution did not specifically prohibit same sex marriages, the other equal protection clauses applied.
The voters clarified that item in a legal proposition put forth to them. The proposition was held during a presidential election cycle which gives it even more legal weight due to the historical turnout of such cycles.
From a legal standpoint, we have to determine if this was a 'sweeping' change, or a definition of terms that can be interpreted.
I believe the court will rule that the people of the State of California simply clarified definitions in a loosely defined statute and that the voter enacted changes to the Constitution are not 'sweeping'.
I believe the court will state that those wanting to change the constitution to allow same sex marriages need a constitutional convention to effect that change.
The nice thing about trying to predict a court's ruling is that of 9 members, the minority may think your way.
So who knows...
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
handyhood:
That proposition goes against the Constitution.
ironwoman:
The death penalty is actually very Biblical. In the Bible, death is punishment for many things, including adultery.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene805
if the proposition changes the Constitution, how can it go against the Constitution?
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa
Because that changes it back to separate but equal.
I went to law school, so that is a contradiction in who is "more equal" than others. It's not about same sex marriage at this point-it's about having bigotry justified legally.
The bigger issue is going to be that since we are allowing religion to decide what marriage is (which, by the way, precedes marriage, so it's not a religions commodity), then that means you will have an open door to make polygamy legal, since that is religious as well.
Religions already have security in which they are not forced to marry same sex couples if it goes against their belies, but we are allowing religions to define it outside of their own congregation.
You have to look at the bigger picture and like most people, you are not.
Posted by vc1977 on May 22, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And we voted why?
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the typo-I'm a grammar nazi.
I mean beliefs not belies, which would change the meaning of the sentence.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to understand the legal question before the court, we need to have some historical understandings.
The California Constitution was written a long time ago. In that time, same sex unions were not socially acceptable. The framers of the constitution needed not disallow such unions no more than we would now need to disallow human/animal unions.
The framers intended to legitimize procreation and infer legal rights to the parties and the offspring of such unions. They defined that term as marriage.
In current times, since a same sex marriage can not result in offspring, the benefits of that union do not enjoy the legal benefit of a hetrosexual union whose intent is procreation and the rearing of offspring.
The equal protection clauses do not apply because everyone is treated equally. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as is a hetrosexual man. Likewise a lesbian woman is equally free to marry a man.
A hetrosexual man can not marry another hetrosexual man, etc.
The arguement against proposition 8 is that it denies basic rights.
It does not deny basic rights, it restricts those rights to persons who chose to be different.
If I chose to not follow the speed limit, am I immune to the consequences because of my sexual orientation?
Please don't flame me because you disagree.
I don't care about this issue either way. I'm just attempting illustrate the court's challenge.
Posted by jazmin_castro1 on May 22, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marriage is for man and woman. PERIOD!!!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene,
It doesn't change it to seperate but equal.
A Black person does not chose to be black and should not suffer under the law because they are black.
A homosexual wanting to marry another homosexual is a choice. The law does not recognize that choice.
It is not seperate but equal because that same person is legally entitled to marry a member of the opposite sex.
In the 50's, the seperate but equal statues denies rights to people based on things they could not change. A person born black was denied basic rights under the law for something they had no control over.
To suggest that the Same Sex Marriage argument is equal to the civil rights struggle is just plain wrong. No wonder such a large percentage of black persons voted for proposition 8!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by jazmin_castro1 on May 22, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marriage is for man and woman. PERIOD!!!
Legally speaking, the term MARRIAGE was used to determine property ownership and death benefits to the united couple and their offspring.
Since a same sex couple can not produce offspring, you are correct. Marriage is a legal contract between consenting members of the opposite sex having obtained legal age to consent.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Homosexuality is not a choice and has science to back that up.
Do you choose to be straight? Didn't think so.
It's not a choice to be gay, just ask any straight person.
A large percentage of blacks and latinos voted for Prop 8, based on their religions beliefs, and their lack of understanding of the law. They really thought gay sex was going to be taught in school, no thanks to those Mormons telling them that.
The exit polls shows that the more educated people voted against it, based on legal understanding.
The Bible is not meant to be law, or else stoning non-virgins to death would be legal.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa
Did you know that REAL TRADITIONAL marriage was a BUSINESS contract based on families, not on love?
The term lover described the person who was the love of the other, who was not the same person they married.
If you want traditional marriage, then I guess my fiance will have to pay my dowry.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene805 said...
You have to look at the bigger picture and like most people, you are not.
------------------------------
Actually, you are incorrect. The bigger picture you envision is contrary to law.
Interesting that you admit that 'most people' don't see the bigger picture as you do. That is the beauty of a democracy, isn't it?
Posted by nojustice_justus on May 22, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think too many individuals took the ending to the theme song from The Flintstones much too far. Not that there is anything wrong with it.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So Bajfa-while you are at it, let's just take marriage away from barren women as well. And old people. Right?
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene, you are obviously emotional about this.
I didn't say homosexuality was a choice. I said a homosexual union is a choice.
You said marriage was a business contract. I agree! It is to legitimize rights to the union and the offspring of that union. I never suggested that love was involved because legally, love is NOT involved. It is a business contract.
I never interjected the Bible or religion into this. You did. The Bible and Religion have nothing to do with this.
If you think the Mormon church was wrong about Gay Sex being taught in schools, look at SB777 and the Larry King murder.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa
The Larry King murder happened because both sets of parents failed their child. Brandon was failed in the sense that he grew up watching violence and thinking it was normal. Brandon's parents thought he was too hard to take care of so he was sent away. Had only one set of parents done their child right, they would both be living a normal teenage life.
This has nothing to do with schools. Schools are supposed to teach you tolerance, you learn that at home.
Gay is not thought at school. EO Green failed to follow their own rules, but that is not the case in the majority of schools.
Posted by pennywise on May 22, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me start by saying that I voted "yes" on Prop. 8 and believe firmly that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. As our President would say, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but...
It will be very interesting to see how the court decides this issue on Tuesday. But, it will be even more interesting to see how it deals with the 18,000 marriages that took place before Prop. 8 passed. Will these be considered legal marriages by the court, or will they retroactively declare them invalid?
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene,
you are so misinformed on so many things.
I appreciate your opinion, and as I stated in my original message, I have no opinion either way, I'm just attempting to show the legal issues being debated.
I can appreciate that you don't like the law, and welcome your efforts to change it (hell, I might even support you on it). But the Law is the Law.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by robbca on May 22, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No matter what happens on Tuesday this matter has to eventually go to the US Supreme Court. That is where it will really count just like interracial marriages did not all that long ago. Even if the CA Supreme Court does uphold Prop 8 the marriages that happened during the time it was legal would have to be held up otherwise they woudl have to annul EVERY single marriage performed in this state between those dates it was legal. On the majority of marriage licenses like MINE it says Party A and Party B there is nothing on it about Bride or Groom. The only way they could tell would be on the licences that say Bride/Bride or Groom/Groom. That is why I wanted mine to Say Party A and Party B so that nobody could tell after the fact. Nobody has the right to say that my same sex marriage that happened on 11/01/08 is not valid.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa
You are misinformed. Hope you read a book this weekend.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:53 p.m.
Homosexuality is not a choice and has science to back that up.
-------------
Posting that nonsense does not make it fact. I guess if you keep repeating gibberish long enough some people will begin to beleive it.
Common Sense!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pennywise,
My opinion is that the court will uphold prop 8 and at the same time affirm the marriages that took place prior to prop 8 becoming the law.
The legal definition is 'ex post facto' meaning an event that took place before a change in the law is not retroactively illegal or nullified after the law is changed.
Posted by CaliforniaTeacher on May 22, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the last ten years the voters have voted for many propositions that were then invalidated by the courts, this one might be no different.
Simply because someone tells the teachers they HAVE to teach it doesn't mean it gets taught. Right now most teachers have only time to teach language arts and math, maybe some science, social studies or perhaps some PE. Ask first-third grade teachers if they actually teach the 200 minutes of PE every 10 days. Many probably don't.
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
huntram
You hate science? What a surprise.
You must be from Texas:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bad...
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And remember that even if California permits gay marraige, they are make beleive, because California marriages are not recognized by the federal government, which excludes same-sex couples from about 1,100 rights and responsibilities — including federal income tax breaks and Social Security benefits. The 1996 federal law prohibiting gay marriage — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — also gives states authority to refuse to recognize marriages from other states.
So really it's just a pretend marraige!
Common Sense!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CaliforniaTeacher
you are so right. I deal with "POLICY" vs "PRACTICE" on a regular basis.
Most organizations be it civic or commercial have written policies that serve only to protect them against litigation. Their practices are routinely outside of that policy.
That is what makes lawyers rich...
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene,
I ask again...
your thoughts on SB777 ?
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa
You are ignorant if you think SB777 affect only families of gay children.
The majority of kids have step fathers, step mothers, half brothers, half sisters, single parents, live in partners (straight) and a whole plethora of non-traditional relationships.
You know who produces gay kids? Straight parents, so really, maybe we should outlaw sex until there are no more gay people.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene,
Somehow because I suggest that you don't have any science to back up your outlandish claim you say I hate science?
Actually I beleive in science. You know the very science that to this point has no evidence to show that someone is born gay.
Prove me wrong, or do you dispise science for not being able to back up your "fairy" tale.
OK, that was funny, I don't care who you are!
Common Sense!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene,
You are obviously ignorant about what SB777 did.
Please go read it.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene805 said
"You know who produces gay kids? Straight parents, so really, maybe we should outlaw sex until there are no more gay people."
a better argument against same sex marriage could not have been made.
I could care less about the issue. I'm only looking at the law and how it is applied. Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by NightLight on May 22, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just because the majority of people of certain religions feel a certain way on an issue, that doesn't mean the issue is a violation of the separation of church and state.
People are allowed to vote according to their beliefs, no matter the reason for those beliefs. Should people of faith not be allowed to vote according to their beliefs? That WOULD be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Posted by capabean2 on May 22, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well all I can say is remember Sodom and Gomorrah.
According to the Old Testament Biblical book of Genesis, Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities in the Bible which were destroyed by God.
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath.
Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and sexual deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word "sod omy", a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe non-vaginal intercourse, as well as bestiality.
Posted by ironwoman on May 22, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry I missed the fun.
Charlene- The death penalty is more like the Old Testament. The New Testament, which is what Christianity is based on, is about forgiveness. Anti-Death Penalty supporters usually quote the bible in their protests and their arguments are based on forgiveness not an "eye for an eye".
I think you have stated that you are an atheist in prior comments so maybe that's why you didn't know this.
And most gay people are not born gay.
Posted by yneemee on May 22, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DOMA will go away evntually when a Federal Court rules against it - hopefully so will Prop 8 with the state Supreme Court - it may take years but it will happen - the Dred Scott decision was wrong and it took almost 100 years to begin to fully reverse the harm it did
Not all Christians are against gay marriage LEGALLY
...just like we are not all opposed to eating shellfish - church issue is not the same as a civil rights issue - my Lord understands that
I voted against gay marriage in 2000 and then voted against discrimination in 2008 so don't tell me voters cannot change their minds when they realize when they were wrong.....
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironwoman,
the born gay issue is mute...
as Charlene805 said...
"You know who produces gay kids? Straight parents"
from an equal protection standpoint, until gay parents can produce straight kids, they are not being treated unfairly.
Posted by Twslv05 on May 22, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's pretty disgusting when an Attorney General of the State of California goes against the will of the voters that he works for.
Time to get rid of Moonbeam once and for all!!
Posted by ironwoman on May 22, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JB is running for Governor! We know which votes he's aiming for right now.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Twslv05
Happened before...
California Attorney General, Dan Lungren took the voters to court over the passage of the Medicinal Marijuana Act.
Heard of him lately?
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa wrote: "I didn't say homosexuality was a choice. I said a homosexual union is a choice."
This argument is completely specious. Try the same argument with: "being black or Asian or white is not a choice but an interracial marriage is." It makes no more sense in that context than it does in the context of same sex unions.
You also wrote: "since a same sex marriage can not result in offspring, the benefits of that union do not enjoy the legal benefit of a heterosexual union whose intent is procreation and the rearing of offspring."
Ah, this old canard! No really, it's not and hasn't been for some time now. Modern marriage is a contract between two people of the age of consent to legally bind each other together. It grants thousands of rights and responsibilities to a couple, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with kids. Having children is NOT a requirement for a marriage to be valid in any state of the Union.
And since custody and inheritance rights have long been recognized for children born outside of legal marriage, the idea that it is necessary for the protection of children is invalid as well. We no longer live in a country where the parents must be married for the child to have a legal call on his parents' support and to inherit from them after death.
And if that isn't enough, you are wrong about same-sex unions being unable to produce children. Ever hear of adoption? Surrogates? Sperm donors? Step-child adoption? My husband and I are adopting - those children will be ours. Do you really want to tell me they will not be? Are the children my lesbian friends had via sperm donations not theirs?
Got anything not based on specious definitions of marriage?
Posted by moderation on May 22, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So if a majority of Californians vote that blacks should stilll be slaves then I guess many of you feel the Supreme Court has an obligation to uphold that vote.
Either as a nation we believe all people, no matter how unpopular, are entitled to certain inalienable rights, or else we are nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistressjvs
interesting debate, except your argument is for changing a law, mine is for describing the existing one.
I don't care either way. You want the law changed, call a constitutional convention. I might even support you on it.
Posted by ironwoman on May 22, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Slavery and Marriage-----are they the same?
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Moderation,
Look at the Bill of Rights. There is no right to marry.
Having said that, denying that privilege to anyone is not unconstitutional.
There is a right to bear arms. However denying that right to convicted felons is long accepted precedent.
Being black is not a choice. Comparing slavery with same sex unions does a tremendous disservice to the suffering the slaves endured.
Posted by ohs1975 on May 22, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should we care, God says marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter what we call it God does not call it a marriage. Instead he calls it a sin.
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Bajfa - Then why bring the argument about children into it? Marriage in California, even under Prop 8, is NOT about children and hasn't been for ages. So arguing that it's about heterosexual procreation (and apparently not other types of family building) isn't arguing the law as it exists.
I'm arguing for the CA Supreme Court to invalidate the change because we should not be writing discrimination into our Constitution. How do we reconcile the Equal Protection Clause with a patently discriminatory law? If they don't overturn it for whatever reason, then yes, I will be part of the movement to vote it right back out again (whether by convention or proposition.)
Or even better, pushing for the SCOTUS to overturn the discrimination across the country.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ohs1975
can you show us the scripture that says that?
Didn't think so... doesn't exist.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa,
Although I might not agree with everthing you beleive in, heck I think you have said you might support a constitutional right for gay marraige, it would seem that you are a clear cut voice of reason here. You also are quickly realizing that the left wing extremist here almost force you to take an uncompromising right wing position. If you try to tak a position of reason here or use common sense, they consider you the enemy!!
Welcome to the forum! :)
Common Sense!
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Bajfia Might want to check the "Loving v Virginia" decision in which the SCOTUS declared marriage "one of the basic civil rights of man."
So, even though it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Court sees it as existing.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistressjvs
I was desribing the law, and the background of the law to help frame it. In the olden days, the press would do that, but this press seems only interested in pandering to the emotions.
I can appreciate that you don't agree with the law however until modified, it is the law.
My opinion is that it will not be modified by the court. I could be wrong, I could be right.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa,
FYI Because you asked:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Romans 1:26-28
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Common Sense!
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@huntram Yes, yes, because anyone who thinks that we as a country or a state shouldn't be supporting discrimination based on what somebody's Holy Book says are simply left-wing extremists.
And challenging someone's statements about the modern legal definition of marriage is hardly "forcing" anyone to take an uncompromising right wing stance. I was merely asking Bajfa to take a closer look at his or her argument that marriage is only a contract to protect heterosexual procreation.
I don't consider Bajfa the enemy or force him or her anywhere. I challenged the statements that were made which were specious on their face.
How is that an extremist view?
FYI: Common sense is rarely either.
Cheers!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistressjvs
selective cut and paste, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v...
the issue in front of that court was interacial marriages. The court held that...
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination."
Proposition 8 is not racial in nature. All races are impacted equally.
It also held that...
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
which affirms that procreation is a anticipated result of marriage.
The bottom line is that Loving v Virginia is not the precedence for same sex marriages.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistressjvs
I love how people misuse the term discrimination.
We discriminate all the time.
I prefer Honda automobiles. Therefore I discriminate against all other brands. Discrimination only means we make choices based on factors we hold.
Discrimination is perfectly fine and legal.
Discrimination on the basis of Race, religion, age, etc may be illegal, but discrimination means the chosing party had criterion he/she felt important.
I ask you this question. If allowing a gay man to marry another man is allowed under equal protection, is allowing that gay man to drive over 100mph on the freeway?
Both are against the law, neither is racially discriminatory.
Posted by ohs1975 on May 22, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa,
As the Bible says ask and you shall receive.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:13
At least I am not this harsh.
Posted by jamaro099 on May 22, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Baijfa -
I am a hispanic male. If I want to marry a "white" woman the law protects me because there is nothing I can do about being a man.
If I am a man and I want to marry another man there is nothing I can do about the fact that I am a man. Why won't the law protect me?
How many people can legaly drive 100 mph on public roads in the U.S.? ZERO.
How many people can marry the person of their choice in the U.S? Only heterosexuals. Do you see the discrimination?
You are right, people discriminate all the time. But our laws protect you from having to live with my prejudices.
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ohs1975 said ...
"Bajfa,
As the Bible says ask and you shall receive.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:13
At least I am not this harsh."
======================================
Dude, I know that scripture, but I'm so not seeing where God said a marriage was between a man and a woman.
Please provide that scripture...
Posted by jill on May 22, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With the high rate of divorce, domestic violence and all the cheating going on in hetero marriages, it cracks me up that people are up in arms about letting gay couples marry. What's the big deal? Let two consenting adults who are in love make it legal and quit being so self-righteous. So many hypocrites.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistressjvs it's on you if you took my statement about the left extremist to Bajfa personal. I used no names.
Seperate scriptural aspects of my comments to Bajfa. That was in response to her/his challenge to ohs1975. To me it has nothing to do with Prop 8, as I said, it was just a FYI to a question.
And finally, I think you probably said a mouthful with your last statement! When you said common sense is rarely either. I think that is the fundamental problem that the right and left have with each other.
We understand that usually the answer does take common sense.
Read this article! :)
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/p...
Common Sense!
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Bajfa You said that there was no Constitutional right to marriage. I merely countered that. That the particular case had to do with race doesn't invalidate the fact that the SCOTUS decreed marriage a fundamental right. I'll grant you that procreation was part of the rational but again, things have changed in the last 40 years and people do not just get married for the purpose of having kids. And laws have caught up to that fact in things such as child custody and inheritance laws not based on the marital status of the parents at the time of the child's birth, etc.
Loving may or may not be the precedent for overturning Prop 8, DOMA et al but it does establish marriage as a fundamental right in our country.
Just because it isn't written into the Constitution doesn't mean a right doesn't exist. And that fact is also in the Constitution, BTW.
I submit that in making your "background" you drifted into statements of opinion about what marriage is in modern times. But the fact is that marriage is no longer about a contract between two people to have kids. Hasn't been in sometime. And Prop 8 didn't change that.
Posted by jamaro099 on May 22, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Putting the equality debate aside; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be treasured in this country.
If, in the pursuit of happines a person demands the liberty of marrying a person of the same sex for the rest of their life(hopefull), how is that hurting anyone?
Posted by lrgvanman on May 22, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why have laws, anyway? They are constantly broken or over ridden, anyway! Why vote? Let's all get crazy! How much more corrupt can we get? These appear to be the subliminal messages.
Posted by C_Side on May 22, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those who cite the Bible's supposed tough stance against homosexuality rarely mention that only six verses (out of about 32,000 total) mention anything remotely having to do with homosexual activity. And none of those have anything to do with two consenting adults in a monogamous, mutually supportive relationship of equals.
Those coming from a Christian perspective might want to consider some of the ideas in this article:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homo...
Read the Bible with an open mind and heart in its entirety and you come up with a very different perspective on this issue than what you get from cherry picking a few verses to support a predetermined point of view. Above all, don't rely on what the preacher claims is in there, dig in and read it for yourself!
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Matthew 19:4-6
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Mark 10:6
6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Posted by mistressjvs on May 22, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ huntram You painted with a broad brush. You shouldn't be surprised if people take offense. Even if you didn't mean me in particular I think your statement is overblown and insulting. No one was pushing anyone to take a stance with which they didn't agree.
@Bajfa discrimination in the sociological sense of "treatment of or consideration based on class or category rather than on personal merit." If you prefer, we can call it prejudice and civil rights violations.
Even though we are butting heads I do appreciate your keeping the discussion largely civil. I do hope you really can be persuaded to help the cause of changing the law should the Supreme Court not overturn Prop 8.
Cheers!
Posted by ostentacious on May 22, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well-said, jamaro.
And can the Bible be left out of this? Religion and law should never touch.
Posted by C_Side on May 22, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@huntram
Thank you for illustrating my point. The passage you pluck out of context and imply has something to do with why gay people shouldn't get married is actually part a completely different point Jesus is making. Read the whole passage. It's about divorce. Heterosexual divorce.
If you want to "protect marriage" it seems like a constitutional amendment banning divorce might be a better-directed effort. And you have Jesus' direct word on the topic, while he said nothing on homosexuality! Clearly, he had an agenda.
Posted by C_Side on May 22, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ostentacious
As much as I'd like to leave the Bible out of it (as a strong believer that separation of church and state is good for both church and state), the simple fact is this: there is little "secular" opposition to gay marriage, it's nearly all religious. In particular, it's Christian opposition in this country. So "the Bible" (or more accurately, what people are told is in the Bible by some preacher) is always implicitly part of the discussion.
Having said that, I feel honor bound to point out that there are many practicing Christians who support gay marriage or at least don't feel their religious beliefs against it should be the law of the land.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C_Side,
I didn't imply anything about gay marraige. Bajfa requested scripture where God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Although I agree with you that he is talking about not seperating a marriage which I kept in the quote, it specifically talks about a man and woman. Nowhere in the scriptures does it talk about same sex couples marrying, and infact it says as I quoted elsewhere that it is sin for a man to have sex with a man, and a woman to have sex with a woman, That seems pretty clear!
And as far as divorce, althought I come from parents that have been divorced. My wife and I have been married for 34 happy God filled years. Our adult kids are productive, never it trouble, my married daughter is a teacher, my son in college and studying to be a youth minister.
Common Sense!
Posted by C_Side on May 22, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@huntram
Noted. Please read the article to which I linked earlier. You might find some different insights about the verses you think are "clear" about homosexual activity.
Posted by ohs1975 on May 22, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa, You might be right I could not find a verse that defines marriage. But I will keep looking. As I showed you the Bible defines what happens if a man lies with a man. And if you think there is no sex in a same sex marriage then I have a bridge to sell you. Just because I could not find that exact definition of marriage does not mean it is not there I can not read the original version of the Bible. Maybe you can if so see if you can find it . If so let me know. BTW I voted in favor of same-sex marriage. For the reason I stated before why should I care ?
Posted by Lilith on May 22, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Happy Harvey Milk day to one and all!
He would have loved this.
Posted by huntram on May 22, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C_Side,
I did look at the link earlier. From my perspective it is filled with redirection and attempt to confuse. Truthfully sometimes if something looks red, it is red. If something looks green it is green. Somehow because some insane hateful animal that CLAIMED to be a Christian killed gay people the author somehow feels that adds to the discussion. It does not!
God demands that we LOVE the sinner, but hate the sin. I do!
I also know that adultry and fornication is a sin, and I hate that, but I love the sinner. I am sure I could find a web site that could justify a group of "swinging" Christians. Wouldn't make it right or "rightous".
Now having said that, and without sounding like I'm trying to get in the last word, it's late and I'm getting OLD, so I'm cutting it off for tonight. God Bless, and thanks for keeping it civil!!! I have truly enjoyed it...
Common Sense!
Posted by Bajfa on May 22, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ohs1975
I am a Christian.
I knew what you posted was incorrect and challenged you about it.
I challenged you because us Christians are labeled as right-wing nut jobs and radical republicans, etc. Allowing unfounded posts such as yours make those of us of faith seem stupid.
I will challenge anyone using the scripture for political gain. They had best be correct, otherwise they are using my Lord's name in vain.
FYI, as far as I know and have read, the Bible treats marriage as a civil contract (not religious) and has very few references to it.
Posted by skycop57 on May 23, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I only worry that some sicko is going to say,"hey you let them get married why am I not allow to marry my pet or sibling or little underage friend, or why am I not allow to marry more then one person" yeah I see that happening.
Just keep it simple man and woman.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on May 23, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlene805 said: Homosexuality is not a choice and has science to back that up.
================
Could you please provide a link or to to the science that supports that statement?
I have NEVER been able to find it, yet this claim persists in absence of any proof.
The gay community has no desire to find out what makes a person gay. the reason why they do not want to know is because that when the root cause is found, like any other disease, then a cure can be found as well. And there is no desire to be "cured".
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on May 23, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Baja, thank you for your level headed posts.
I agree with you that the California Supreme court was asked to rule on a very specific claim and that is if the proper method of amending the constitution was used. I agree with you that legally that they must find that the proper method of amending the constitution was used and that there is a predetermined process to amend the constitution. That process was properly used with prop 8. The proponent of Prop 8 simply complied with the court had previously ruled, to further define the terms of marriage. Gay activists were simply lazy and failed to act because they had what they wanted and did nothing to codify it as was recommended by the court.
It is not up to the Supreme court to rule by emotion but to interpret the law.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on May 23, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, one last thing Bajfa, be careful. Those that opposed prop 8 don't want to bothered with facts, it gets in the way of their emotions.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This debate will never die...because it is an issue of conscience.
Our consciences are ruled by our beliefs...
Our beliefs are determined by our spiritual views...
Both sides of this debate have very different spiritual views, which determine our beliefs, which rules our consciences...
I've never really seen any intellectual debate successfully **change** one's conscience...because they are on 2 completely separate fields.
So basically, this debate will do little to nothing to change anyone's views on Prop 8, because it is an issue of **conscience.**
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@skycop57
I wonder if you realize how demeaning it is to equate a mutually supportive, loving relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality, incest, or pederasty?
What you are saying to gay people is: "I don't like that you want to establish a legal basis for your relationship, but I don't like people f&*king sheep or raping small children, either. It's all the same, right?"
What would your reaction be if your own relationship were characterized that way?
And as for polygamy, the other point in your "slippery slope" argument, there are societies that support it. Ours is not one of them. It's certainly all over the Bible, if one is using that as a guide book. It was quite "simple" -- the most powerful man in the tribe got the most wives. Only fitting, right?
But, just as with slavery, which was considered "simple" and "normal" throughout human history, attitudes can and do change. No Christian would argue the case for slavery today, yet less than 200 years ago, most did and predicted all sorts of dire consequences if the "natural order" were upset by abolishing it.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Meant to add to the end of my last post:
Because this is an issue of conscience, you cannot ask someone to vote *against* his or her conscience.
People will NEVER vote against their consciences...no matter how strongly you argue the "other side."
Posted by nelle2hot on May 23, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage IS a union between one man and one woman. This can clearly be seen in the Book of Genesis (1-2). In these chapters, God creates “the heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1). Then, as a crowning touch, God creates the first couple, Adam and Eve. In effect, this first union functions to legitimize one divinely revealed truth – that the origins of our understanding of marriage are based on an understanding that it is a union between one man and one woman. Moreover, it is through this union that God calls humankind to participate in the procreative process that would fulfill His commission to also “be fruitful and multiply.” Homosexuality is perverted. Period. It's unatural, and produces no children. What values and morals will this country have twenty years from now, having perverts raising children that they bring into their perverted lifestyles? They have an agenda and are trying to shove it down the throats of people who have the made a choice to stand up for the truth. I am standing up with the other voters to say NO! It's not culturally correct, morrally correct and it's not acceptable.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ironwoman, I agree , you have alot of valid points. Alot of people do not understand the difference between the New Testament and the Old. Yet they proclaim they know the Bible and translate it wrong.
Posted by ohs1975 on May 22, 2009 at 8:54 p.m.I totally agree!
Posted by zulumaster on May 23, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This state is so fucXed up!!! theres no money, we let people smoke marijuana,and im sure they will allow gays to marry.....WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!
TIME TO MOVE
Posted by Graesan on May 23, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gays are SELFISH, hateful people to support destruction of families. To define marriage between anyone and anything is to make it meaningless. Their poor little feelings - they want to "feel" the same as real married people. If all the laws in the world "allowed" gay marriage it would still NOT make it a real marriage. The day CA allowed it, I saw a bundh of lesbians getting "married" at the County building. The kids of one of the women were bawling their heads off in shame.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 23, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 23, 2009 at 9:14 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by SpeedyGonzales on May 23, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure where the discrimination is? Neither a straight person nor a homosexual person can marry someone of the same sex. Who is being discriminated against? This applies to all people... where is the discrimination?
Both straight people and homosexuals can marry. Where is the discrimination?
Not sure I understand the logic of saying there is discrimination.
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ ThinkLogically
I think you are right -- people will vote their conscience. But it's useful to make the arguments for one's position in a reasonable, respectful way, so that we can better understand each other. And I have seen people change their beliefs on this particular topic. But I think these changes come largely through knowing gay people and seeing their relationships, rather than intellectual argumentation.
That's why younger people, by and large, tend to support gay marriage. They have more direct experience of "out" gay people than people of my generation. And evangelical Christians -- who spend a lot of time and energy trying to convert people, should recognize that their perceived obsession with "the gay thing" (which borders on idolatry) is turning off many young people to their primary message. A recent Barna Group survey showed that 9 out of 10 young people think of Christians as "anti-gay" and they do not regard that as a good thing.
I got educated when the daughter of dear friends (who happen to be devout Catholics) announced she was gay. Over the next several years, we all listened, watched, and learned. I see in her relationship with her partner a fine model of what I would hope for for my own (heterosexual) daughter when she gets married.
It was a joy and and privilege -- and dare I say it, a holy moment -- to be with them as they exchanged their vows to love, honor, cherish, and support each other "till death do us part" during that brief period last year when the state recognized their marriage.
I frankly don't understand the "how" and "why" of two guys falling in love or two women wanting to get married, but I know it happens and I believe, on the balance, that it's a good thing for our society to encourage and support monogamous, stable relationships.
Posted by Hey_Scapegoat on May 23, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can anyone point to an ancient culture that allowed homosexual marriage? In all of human history is the recent acceptance of homosexual marriage the FIRST in human history? If so, why should we NOW find it acceptable? WHAT has changed? Anyone? (is it global warming or what?)
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ TakeBackCA
If you are genuinely looking for information about the mechanics of the sex acts you describe, you could also ask the many heterosexual couples that engage in them. But I would suggest a qualified sex educator might be a better resource. In general, though, good hygiene is a plus in intimate relationships.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"But I think these changes come largely through knowing gay people and seeing their relationships, rather than intellectual argumentation."
Unless your conscience is deeply rooted in your beliefs...and your beliefs are a way of life. I have been close friends with a few gay people myself...we hung out quite a bit. However, my beliefs do not condone their lifestyle. I respect them as **humans** but I do not have to respect the lifestyle in the sense that I agree with it. We can still be friends though.
"And evangelical Christians -- who spend a lot of time and energy trying to convert people, should recognize that their perceived obsession with "the gay thing" (which borders on idolatry) is turning off many young people to their primary message."
Well, that statement isn't exactly fair in the sense that you are lumping ALL evangelical Christians into a group of "anti-gay activists." True, while a homosexual lifestyle does NOT jive with the Bible, I am not seeing the "obsession with the 'gay thing'" as you put it.
"A recent Barna Group survey showed that 9 out of 10 young people think of Christians as "anti-gay" and they do not regard that as a good thing."
That's because 9 out of 10 young people are listening to the secular, liberal media which almost ALWAYS paints Christians in a negative light.
Your last 3 paragraphs are a perfect example of what my initial post was about. People tend to view issues of the conscience through their own personal experiences, and thereby allowing that to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong."
I can tell you what **I** think is right and wrong...but it is based on my moral compass, which is deeply rooted in my spiritual beliefs...which in one way or another is the same for every other person out there with an opinion on this subject.
So, while it may be useful in some cases to "make the arguments for one's position in a reasonable, respectful way, so that we can better understand each other," a person will generally go with his or her conscience...
...which is ruled by a person's beliefs,
...which is determined by a person's spiritual views and "moral compass."
Posted by taxpayer on May 23, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah the Supreme Court, a bastion for the politically correct crowd to address all their petty problems and force them on the rest of us no matter how vile or stupid the cause.
Posted by goldeneye on May 23, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted "NO" on Prop 8. I'm put off by the brown shirt tactics like those used against Ms. California, however. I do see this as a Civil Rights issue. If gays and lesbians want to be accepted by the majority, they will be better served by keeping their marches and celebrations civil and their arguments logical. The hateful attacks on people of conscience who voted in favor of Prop 8 are disturbing.
Posted by cassandra2 on May 23, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's foolish and not very canny
To argue with American Talibani
They know because they know so
The bible or other religioso.
I'll leave others to this debate.
Only separate church and state!
Or temple, or ashram, or mosque or whatever and state
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ThinkLogically
I don't see "conscience" and "reasonable, respectful arguments" as being mutually exclusive. In fact, one of my values is that they should go hand-in-hand! But I think we both agree that values are shaped by one's experiences, in addition to the traditions we receive from our families and societal institutions (including religion).
One of my highest (political) values is separation of church and state. Which, by the way, was unheard of until the founding of the United States. No ancient or even relatively modern society ever tried this before we did. I think it's working fine for both state and church.
I also hold that value that stable, monogamous relationships are good for our society. I see no grave harm in expanding the legal definition of to include previously excluded relationships, based on the experience of Europe and Canada, and our own experience with interracial marriage.
So, by all means, feel free to oppose gay marriage based on your "moral compass". What else is there to go on, anyway? Just don't expect those of us who read the Bible differently or don't regard it as rule book for good governance in a pluralistic society to keel over when somebody argues "The Bible says..."
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ goldeneye
Though I support marriage equality, I agree with you. Some of the tactics by its advocates have been reprehensible. I utterly reject them.
Posted by Bajfa on May 23, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by charlene805 on May 22, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"They really thought gay sex was going to be taught in school, no thanks to those Mormons telling them that."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5...
maybe the Mormons weren't wrong?
Posted by Bajfa on May 23, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nelle2hot:
Were Adam and Eve married?
Posted by dwilson on May 23, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read O'Reilly's column today on gay marriage. It gets to the heart of the issue.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
C_Side:
"I don't see "conscience" and "reasonable, respectful arguments" as being mutually exclusive."
I never said they were. But let's face it, when one's conscience is rooted in one's spiritual beliefs rather than one's "experiences," it is not likely to be swayed through "reasonable, respectful arguments." After a while, one needs to know when to stop...because it generates nothing more than just arguing.
As far as the whole "separation of church and state" thing...the initial reason for this was to keep government from ruling the church, as England was doing. This is why our forefathers came up with the whole separation. It was never intended to keep the church from having a moral influence on our government. Without morals, the government would be corrupt...which in my opinion, it continues to be on a corruptible trend the more it tries to separate itself from Judeo-Christian ethics/morals. But that's different topic for a completely different forum. :-)
"I also hold that value that stable, monogamous relationships are good for our society. I see no grave harm in expanding the legal definition of to include previously excluded relationships, based on the experience of Europe and Canada, and our own experience with interracial marriage.
So, by all means, feel free to oppose gay marriage based on your "moral compass". What else is there to go on, anyway?"
You prove my point yet again. You are basing your stance on your personal beliefs, as am I. There's no way around it.
"Just don't expect those of us who read the Bible differently or don't regard it as rule book for good governance in a pluralistic society to keel over when somebody argues "The Bible says...""
Am I doing that? I didn't think so. :-) I wouldn't argue the Bible with you...because it is obvious we do not agree on it's interpretation....so that debate would be utterly futile.
"Though I support marriage equality, I agree with you. Some of the tactics by its advocates have been reprehensible. I utterly reject them."
Let's not forge that BOTH sides have used tactics that are "reprehensible." Though I have to say, the majority of the "reprehensible tactics" I witnessed through the media and in person were from the opposing side. Interesting...
Posted by Oh_Really on May 23, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Adam and Eve were not married.
Posted by Larry_Waters on May 23, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Natural Selection seems to come to mind... The strong mate and reproduce, the weak die off without reproducing. Seems to fit naturaly without bringing religion in to the talk.
Posted by VOPatrol on May 23, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think many are missing the big picture here. My personal opinion aside, I still think that this decision, if it indeed overturns the vote of the people, the repercussions will be detrimental to the basic election process. Why bother voting for anything anymore when the loosing side can simply run crying to the state supreme court and ask for a "do-over?"
Even if the vote was 49.99999999999% to 50.0000000001%, it is still the will of the people, and as such, should stand according to the democratic process we have all agreed to.
If they indeed turn over the vote for Prop 8, don't be suprised to see a number of recent propositions challenged and future props made even more difficult to understand as they try to be "reverse-proof"
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ThinkingLogically
I feel as if we're talking past each other. Of course, we're both basing our position on our "personal beliefs". I believe those are formed by my experiences and the framework by which I analyze those experiences (OK -- the fancy word is "hermeneutic" -- sorry) which is shaped by the traditions I've received and the culture in which I live.
When I am attentive and discerning enough to recognize this, I can be humble about my personal beliefs and realize that I may not be 100% right 100% of the time and could even possibly have a thing or two to learn about stuff I "know" to be true!
And I tend to learn those things be listening carefully to and engaging respectfully with other people, including dead people who have left us things like histories and Bibles to record their engagement with these issues. My "personal experience" in this one short life is not enough to go on to live the best sort of life, I firmly believe.
So I actually think we're coming from similar positions, though we might locate what we regard as authoritative differently.
And, please forgive me if it seems like I implied you're a stereotypical "Bible thumper". Not my intention at all. Our discussion here has been exactly the sort of respectful engagement I value. Thank you!
I take the Bible quite seriously, but not as "divine dictation" from God. In fact, I take it so seriously as a record of humanity's engagement with the divine and a foundational document of Western civilization I spent considerable time and energy learning to read it in the original Hebrew and Greek.
So I disagree with you that there is no point in discussing the Bible because we would only disagree. That's the very reason, according to my moral compass, we should continue to engage. We might actually learn something from each other!
Posted by MyOpinion on May 23, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh_Really wrote: "Adam and Eve were not married."
And you know this how? Lack of proof is not counter-proof.
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@Larry_Waters
I think you're on to something. Natural selection may be at work in same-sex attraction, keeping in mind that "weak" in terms of evolutionary theory has to do with adaptive strategies (including those of reproduction) and has nothing to do moral worth or stereotypes about effeminate men.
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@VOPatrol
I agree with your point in general, but it's not quite that simple under our political system, in which different branches of government are set up in system of checks and balances to ensure, in addition to majority rule, minority rights. We're a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
The California legislature (elected by the people) has on three occasions passed legislation approving gay marriage and sent it the governor, who vetoed it each time. Was this thwarting the "will of the people"? Not at all. It's how our system works.
Similarly, the courts review laws that are passed to make sure they're consistent with larger constitutional principles and strike down those that aren't, based on legal reasoning. This again, is part of the system of check and balances.
In general, though, I prefer to see marriage equality being enacted through the legislative (rather than executive or judicial) branch of the government. And that will happen in California within a few years. The Prop 8 win was by a fairly small margin that demographics will erase shortly.
Posted by jill on May 23, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's amazing how much evil is done in the name of religion throughout history and now. Scary.
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and as my final word (I promise!) on this topic, let me just say I deplore the veiled threat in this statement from one of the anti-Prop 8 organizers:
"If they" [the Supreme Court] "uphold Proposition 8, it will be a very angry community,” she said. “Hopefully, they will be peaceful.”
I hope so too... throwing a petulant hissy fit does nothing to advance the cause. If march you must, keep it peaceful and keep it classy. Some jerk spray painting "NAZI" or whatever on a Mormon church just looks like what it is: pointless vandalism.
Be better than that.
Posted by bleshon on May 23, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Same sex marriage is about a persons constitutional right to "the pursuit of happiness" as long as it does not harm others. The issue in California is writing discrimination into our states constitution. The reason we have a constitution is to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. I will discuss this on our Reality Check segment of Locals Only on KVTA 1520 next Friday at eleven AM.
Posted by venturaron on May 23, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Prop. 8 passed by the majority of voters. It included a clause that changed the California Constitution defining marrige as being between "a man and woman". It is the will of the people and is constitutional. No judge has any reason to review this law. End of story. If homosexuals want to marry then move to Massachusetts, Iowa, etc. Whoever wrote prop. 8 did a very good job in covering all the bases. Now a revised version of Prop. 187 needs to be rewritten with an amendment to the State's Constitution and put on the ballot for vote. I have no doubt it would pass as well. Illegal imigrants are bleeding taxpayers by the billions every year.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 23, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For the life of me I don't get why we got to vote on this anyways. I'm a woman, married to a man and if my gay friends are allowed to marry, it will do nothing to impact my marriage. Other than us having some really fun weddings to attend!
Maybe it won't be this Tuesday, but one day same sex marriages will be allowed in California and many other states, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
The sun will rise, people will go to work, kids to school, etc. The world will not come to an end.
My fingers are crossed that Prop 8 will be overturned, but I don't think it will happen this time.
Posted by peach224 on May 23, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have waited all this time to say something.
1) I have kids in 7th and 8th grade. Believe me, they have never, in now 4 and 5 years of "family life education" been taught anything about homosexuality or homosexual marriage. It isn't happening now and it isn't going to. If gay marriage is legalized that won't change. Someone kept saying "common sense", so people, let's use some.
2) I would like someone to give me an actual, reasonable, logical, and not whiny explanation of how two homosexual people getting married actually causes harm to them, or me, or my kids, or anyone else. If those who oppose gay marriage could keep your minds and thoughts out of other people's bedrooms, and other people's lives, you would realize that they are not actually hurting you or anybody else. They just want to live their lives like everybody else, and be happy. We can all sit here and debate the law, logic, equal rights issues, religion and constitutionality of it all day and all night, but the bottom line is, it doesn't matter, because it is none of anybody's business.
The great thing about living in this country is that we have the ability, really the responsibility, to mind our own business. Live and let live. So get on with it people.
Posted by peach224 on May 23, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, Bajfa, seriously, do you believe everything you read on the internet? FoxNews is notoriously liberally slanted media. That is one school district and the reporter was clearly misinformed. We are military. We have been to a few school districts. Every school district offers and "opt-out" option. It is ridiculous to think they don't. Additionally, Ventura County is more conservative than a county near San Francisco, and they are not going to allow sex education that include homosexuality at the Kindergarten level when sex education right now doesn't even start until 4th grade.
Don't be so gullible.
Posted by yneemee on May 23, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reallt this has nothing to do with just MARRIAGE...
the same arguments have been trotted out when ever civil rights issues affecting gay and lesbian people come up... people bring up bestiality, pederasty, polygomy, teaching gay sex in the schools, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ... blah blah blah
it happened with Anita Bryant and the Briggs Initiative with "gay" school teachers, it comes up with marriage issues and survivor rights, it comes up with serving in the military...
so really it is just about DISCRIMNIATION
pure and simple !!!
let's hope the State Supreme Court gets it LEGALLY right on Tuesday (and yes I am a Christian)
Posted by dwilson on May 23, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
peach224, read O'Reilly's commentary today on gay marriage.
Posted by John_Galt on May 23, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Passing prop 8 will not eliminate discrimination from our constitution-we will still have the limitation of only 2 people making a marriage. Do prop 8 backers advocate discrminating against those who want to marry more than one person?
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting...
Posted by yneemee on May 23, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Really where does this end...
if voters approve a constitutional amendment that Mormons and Catholics are not allowed to practice their faith openly, is that OK ?
if voters approve a consitutional amendment that racial covenants restricting where blacks and Hispanics can live, is that OK ?
if voters approve a constitutional amendment that outlaws divorce and adultery among heterosexuals, would that be OK ?
All these issues were once OK with a majority of the "voters" and could have been passed with a larger majority than happened with Prop 8 and enshrined in the constituion, would that be OK ?
common sense - priceless
Posted by Bajfa on May 23, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
actually, I tend to trust FoxNews more than other networks although you are the first person I've ever heard suggesting they were "notoriously liberally slanted media".
And, while Ventura County may be slightly more conservative than Alameda, last I checked, Alameda was in California.
Have you ever heard of SB777 ? If not, you should look into it. I'm shocked it was made into law without drawing any attention for it's content.
Posted by del on May 23, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is to hoping the courts overturn prop 8. That would help to keep 'government' out of people's lives and their pursuit of happiness. But as Lazarus points out, happiness is quite elusive.
“Copulation is spiritual in essence--or it is merely friendly exercise. On second thought, strike out “merely.” Copulation is not “merely”--even when it is just a happy pastime for two strangers. But copulation at its spiritual best is so much more than physical coupling that it is different in kind as well as in degree. The saddest feature of homosexuality is not that it is “wrong” or “sinful” or even that it can’t lead to progeny--but that it is more difficult to reach through it this spiritual union. Not impossible--but the cards are stacked against it. But most sorrowfully--many people never achieve spiritual sharing even with the help of male-female advantage; they are condemned to wander through life alone.”
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Del: Your quote was totally unnecessary.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peach224: "Every school district offers and "opt-out" option. It is ridiculous to think they don't."
Don't be so sure. Ever hear of Massachusetts? Ever hear of David Parker and the ordeal he had?
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting...
The California Supreme Court's Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans
by Chris Gacek
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled (In re Marriage Cases) that the male-female definition of marriage, made explicit by both a 1977 state statute and the state electorate's approval of Proposition 22 in 2000, was unconstitutional. The Court asserted that legal distinctions based on sexual orientation would be subject to "strict scrutiny" - in the same way classifications based on "gender, race, and religion" are. In point of fact, few laws, regulations, or state actions that distinguish among persons or groups in any way can survive the intensity of "strict scrutiny" legal review.1 Except in the rarest circumstances, California statutes that are challenged for drawing lines even implicitly based on sexual orientation will now be struck down. Here are some examples of what may happen in California and around the nation as a result of this ruling:
* Clear governmental disapproval, both direct and indirect, will attach to anyone or any organization in California that rejects the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
* Public schools will teach the fully equal status of homosexual and heterosexual conduct based, in substantial part, on state marriage law. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.2
* Religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples (like Catholic Charities in Massachusetts) will be forced to discontinue operations unless licensing waivers are granted; such waivers are unlikely to withstand constitutional challenge.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cont.
* Faith-based organizations that do not recognize same-sex marriage could lose their California tax exemptions (e.g., see the 1983 Bob Jones University case dealing with federal tax exemptions). Since the Bob Jones case dealt with interracial dating, it could now serve as an indirect precedent for punishing a Christian college that discourages or prohibits same-sex dating while allowing male-female dating.
* Although the court said in passing that "no religious officiant will be required to solemnize" a same-sex marriage, such protection may not apply to property owned by a church or ministry. For example, a boardwalk pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., owned by the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, lost its state tax-exempt status after the association refused to allow the pavilion's use for two lesbian couples' civil union ceremonies.
* Speech rights of state or local government employees will be trampled with greater force. We have already seen this in the case of two Oakland, Calif., employees who advertised a meeting of a pro-family group on a workplace bulletin board already used to promote a variety of political, sexually oriented, and pro-homosexual causes. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the "Good News Employee Association" had no right to post its message.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cont.
* State or county clerks may be forced to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite religious or conscientious objections. San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith is trying to protect the 115 clerks in his office who object morally to the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but his effort is already under attack from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
* Because California has no residency requirement for marriage - unlike Massachusetts - same-sex couples will wed in California and return en masse to other states, seeking recognition of these marriages pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
* The return to their home state of same-sex couples wed in California will allow for the constitutional testing of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress. Activist federal judges may strike down a state's ability to choose not to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cont.
1. As the majority noted, laws subject to this standard "must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest."
2. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class. At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. He later filed a civil rights action against the school district that was dismissed by Judge Mark L. Wolf (federal district court). The dismissal was affirmed in Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, whether you are for or against prop 8, to say it won't affect you...is ignorant at best.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 23, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Adam and Eve were made by GOD. They were put into a union by God. To go out and procreate. There were no priest around to marry them. They were brought together by the most devine of them all. It was a Union of marriage in Gods eyes.
Posted by Rabid on May 23, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ charlene805-
I don't buy that homosexuality is not a choice, if you separate the propensity from the act. We may have the propensity for all kinds of things, both good and bad. The decision to act on them is a choice. This begs the debate of what is good or bad, or the existence of any moral absolutes...
Posted by del on May 23, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mmmm...good or bad...who decides...the eternal question.
"Political [religious] tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically [religiously] into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
L.L.
Ahm Swasti Astu
Namaste
Blessed Be
Vaya Con Diosa
Shanti Shanti
Posted by VOPatrol on May 23, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's my big issue. Prop 8 did not restrict gay couples from being together, it simply states that two people of the same sex cannot be defined as "married" in the eyes of the law. However these couples have nearly all of the same rights as married couples already within the terms of "civil unions"
I have no problem with gay couples being together, nor with them having all the same rights as a heterosexual couple. My issue is with the term marriage. The term marriage has been defined for CENTURIES as the union between a man and a woman. Now, a very small group wants to change that definition for thier *own purpose*, no other reason than that. Gay couples are social accepted, civil unions carry nearly all of the same legal rights as a tradional marriage, they even are able to legally adopt children, yet they have to have the term "marriage" for their own personal purposes.
And after the election, so many of that group showed their true colors. For a group that has preached "tolerance" for decades, they quickly showed tolerance for them is simply a one way street. When they started throwing words like "hate" around and very quickly labeled everyone who voted yes on 8 as a homophobe, they closed the door of "tolerance" for good, in my book.
I have to agree with the poster who asked what's next, marriage between 3 or more people?
Posted by Johnd on May 23, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why would any man get married in the first place? There is no benefit to him; only to the women. Being married only benefits the lawyers, judges, & women.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, Johnd...do I sense a jaded tone? :-)
Posted by del on May 23, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Johnd, as we know marriage is not for everyone. Me...I like it so well I done it 3 times.
Posted by lagfactor on May 23, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i think marriage should be obsolete anyhow. it's ridiculous at this point. i love my boyfriend, live with him, and have no desire to marry him. however, our parents are constantly asking us when we are and want us to. it's strange.
as for prop 8, i voted against it, but i'm not freaking out that it passed. i feel that a re-vote would be more fair than this supreme court stuff. at least that way it would be a people's vote as opposed to a court deciding. unfortunately, this is a topic that people will always remain divided upon. there's prejudices, moral beliefs, and religious beliefs that play SO much into this.
we will seriously be fighting back and forth about this forever... just look how many comments on this stupid thread there already are.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 23, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by lagfactor on May 23, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HAHAHAHA!!! TakeBackCA, once again, you're completely hilarious and insane.
obviously sexual attraction to the same sex is a lot different than wanting to stick your finger in your own ear. and you forgot about the women wanting to marry each other and stick things in other places.
and some men like to stick their lizards in a woman's #2 spot. so what's your point? just cuz you don't want a #1 in your #2 doesn't mean that others don't and can't. #1's in #2's have been happening for a looooong time...
Posted by lagfactor on May 23, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh but wait, i just remembered that according to you i'm not a true american or an american at heart.
so i must not know my #1's and #2's as good as you.
Posted by NoGodLove on May 23, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bible thumpers, if the supreme court denies the passing of Prop 8, musn't you consider this god's will, or in god's master plan? If not, won't you go to "hell"? Keep living in fear and waiting for that prize at the bottom of the cereal box.
Posted by pennywise on May 23, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or, better yet, TakeBack, I have recently developed a strong attraction to my German Shepherd. Shouldn't I be allowed to tie the knot with Sparky? If not, why not, and how does it differ from the other perverse twist on marriage between the #1's and #2's?
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>we will seriously be fighting back and forth about this forever...
Nope. In the West, in less than a generation people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Here in California, Prop 8 will be overturned by legislative or popular vote in under five years. Opponents to gay marriage are dying off and younger people are not taking their place.
The Catholic Church will continue to teach against homosexual practice and marriage, but the hierarchy is very savvy about how they do direct political action. They like to remain in the background and work through others like Mormons and/or evangelical Protestants on this particular issue. They will continue to practice their faith as the see fit (as they do with divorce and remarriage), but once the legislative battle is lost will not seek to make Church law secular law, because their allies on this issue will not be the force in politics they formerly were.
The hard evangelical right in this country is poised to implode due to lack of interest among younger evangelicals in pursuing this type of politics and the drying up of funds to back it. The hard right think tanks and foundations have taken a huge hit in the financial meltdown. And the close identification of evangelical Christianity with the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican Party has greatly reduced its credibility.
Mormons will remain a cautious minority faith in this country. Many LDS members think that the church raised its profile much too high in the Prop 8 fight, so they are likely to be much more circumspect in round 2.
How can I predict this? It's easy -- it happened to the mainline Protestant churches when they got overinvolved with left-wing politics in the 60s/70s. History is repeating itself on the flipside.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 23, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@pennywise-I like germans and shepherds. I think they should all be allowed to love each other. On second thought, I don't like germans. Most Germans are gay. Either that, or they're homicidal maniacs. I do like shepherds, however. If you like sparky, you be allowed to like sparky. I should warn you, however, part of the romance for dogs is they want you to lick their a$$ and stick your tongue in the ears and other places... Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Posted by John_Galt on May 23, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey C-side - one thing you forget is that Hispanics/Latinos are the fastest growing group in CA. How do you think they feel about gays? I'll give you a clue, they despise them and mock them. Yes, the older generation that thinks gays are abominations is dying off, but a new group that likes them even less is growing to take their place. Don't smugly count your chickens before they hatch.
Posted by normaldude on May 23, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why have a pairage become marrige it makes no sense.
homosexuality is abnormal
yes on 8 forever
Posted by chumash1962 on May 23, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the voters have spoken
Posted by lagfactor on May 23, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
homosexuality is not abnormal. it's part of human nature and society.
c-side... i would like to think the same as you because it sounds awesome in theory, but i believe discrimination, hate, and misunderstanding towards homosexuals will continue via parental influence. a lot of people aren't religious and do not like homosexuals one bit.
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@John_Galt
I am mixed race, the son of a Hispanic mother and white father -- who married shortly after such marriages became legal in California. (See why I'm more than a little interested in who gets to legally marry?)
So I'm familiar, through family ties, with Latino culture and mores. In general, I'd say the concept of "la familia" is so important in that culture, that many Hispanics would be likely to honor the idea that people would want to form and preserve marriages and families, even if that family was formed outside the bounds of their cultural norms. My mom would mostly be worried that there wouldn't be enough good cooking in the household if two men were married and would probably rush over with some pozole to make sure everything was OK!
So, yes, in general, Latinos are more conservative on sexuality issues, but how that translates into political action, I'm not so sure. There's also the issue that Hispanos tend not to vote (about a 28 percent turnout last election) in proportion to their numbers for a variety of reasons.
I also don't see quite the hate that you see. More macho mocking of effeminate men than deep-seated anti-gay sentiment, but not a lot of "God forbids this" type of talk.
I stand by my prediction.
Posted by Splendor on May 23, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't know why 'marriage' is sought. What is truly gained? Legal reasons or financial benefits are miniscule. One can get those solved without 'marriage'. Really. What is it?
Posted by C_Side on May 23, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@lagfactor
I understand that some people will never support gay marriage and that there will always be prejudice against people who are "different". You can't legislate away hatred, just provide equal protection under the law and hope time and experience changes attitudes. My wife grew up with pretty rabid anti-Mexican prejudice, but it didn't "take" and she ended up marrying a half-Mexican, so just because parents teach something doesn't mean kids are going to believe the same thing. By the way, my in-laws love and respect me and no longer hold the views they once held as true.
But back to the main point: the political opposition to gay marriage has been largely funded and promoted through churches, so with their waning influence in elective politics, I don't think the base of "freelance" opponents will be sufficient to roll back the trend toward acceptance of marriage equality.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 23, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow...160+ posts...even if I were to read them all, contemplate responses...what's the point?
A very personal decision for one's life.....why do so many think then that they can make it for others?
Folks should really focus on their own life choices and a lot less on those that others make.
Posted by peach224 on May 23, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, the "teaching it in schools" argument has no bearing. It doesn't wash. If you are so worried about it, you teach your children what you want them to know and keep your kids out of school when what you don't want them to know is being taught. Concept! Parents being in charge of what their children learn. Guess what? When my daughter is being taught "Family Life & Health Education" in 7th grade science for the next three weeks, she will be re-learning concepts she already learning from me and my husband.
And I waited 30-odd posts for someone, anyone to give me a good reason or explanation as to how these people getting married hurts me or anyone else, and have yet to hear one. So again, get your minds out of the gutter, and other people's lives and bedrooms and move on folks.
Posted by daner420420 on May 23, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TOO MANY COMMENTS TO READ.. BUT I DO WANT TO THROW IN MY 2 CENTS... I SAY.. LET THEM GAY PEOPLE DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT TO DO.. WE DO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY! LET THEM UNITE AND HAVE A PARTY TO CELEBRATE, BUT.. YES THERE IS BUT. A BIG BUT..THEY CAN NOT CALL IT A MARRIAGE THEY CAN CALL IT REARIAGE INSTEAD!!it shouldn't be important what word you use to define your unity...gay girls rock, i don't blame you for liking panocha, it's good stuff.. i like it too..
Posted by ostentacious on May 23, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The difference between mob rule and democracy is the availability of the courts to step into cases that endanger civil rights of individuals.
It's not moral and it's not American for a majority to tyrannize the minority.
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 23, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peach, you didnt read ANY of my earlier posts, did you?
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 24, 2009 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
C_side: You tend to equate spiritual conviction with hatred, dont you?
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 4:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ThinkLogically
No, I do not think that spiritual conviction equates to hatred. If you read carefully and think logically, you will see that when I used the word "hatred" it was in the context of discussing posts regarding (a) supposed hatred by Hispanics of gays and (b) non-religious peoples dislike of the same.
That being said, I don't think any position gets a pass from critical examination simply because it is based on spiritual conviction. And there are certainly spiritual convictions that manifest themselves in hateful ways.
Frankly, I see your argumentation as fear-based, not hate-based.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Tom J
"A very personal decision for one's life.....why do so many think then that they can make it for others?
Folks should really focus on their own life choices and a lot less on those that others make."
Thank you for that.
What no one has mentioned is the 18,000,(1200 in Ventura county) couples who are waiting to find out if their constitutionally legal marriages are going to be upheld, or if they are to be forced into state mandated divorces. Is that democratic? Is that American? What if it was your marriage? Your childs marriage? Your parents marriage? This is a slippery slope my friends.
There is an initiative in the petition stage, the Domestic Partnership Initiative, that will change ALL marriages to domestic partnerships in the state of California. If it makes it to the ballot then millions of voters will be deciding on YOUR marriage.
What is it they say about payback?
http://www.dompar.org
Posted by ThinkLogically on May 24, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I asked ONE question, and I got quite the defense from you , C_Side...hmmmm....
I wasn't arguing...I asked a question based on your previous posts.
You go on and on about prejudice and hatred...as if *everyone* who voted yes on Prop 8 is bigoted, prejudiced and hateful. Hmmm...
I votes yes based on my spiritual convictions...yet I have close friends who are gay!
Am I prejudiced against them?
Do I hate them?
Nope. I simply do not condone gay marriage, according to my spiritual convictions, which rule my conscience.
Are you suggesting that people vote against their God-given convictions of the heart, ***even if they are NOT based in hatred,*** for the sake of "tolerance?"
Let's remember that the word "tolerance" means just that...to *tolerate* something without necessarily *agreeing.*
In this great country, we still (for the time being, at least), have the right to **tolerate** differing ideas and opinions without agreeing...and are therefore free to vote with our consciences.
This does not necessarily make those who vote more conservatively "hateful" or "prejudice."
Go back and re-read all of your posts. I believe this is what you appear to suggest...with all due respect.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ThinkLogically
Let me repeat my very simple statement:
"Frankly, I see your argumentation as fear-based, not hate-based."
Is that clear?
I think in particular, you fear that the state will prevent your free exercise of religion if marriage equality is enacted. Wasn't the point of the long article you cut and pasted into the discussion?
In fact most of the points you've made thus far are similar in tone and content to the ones that have been made in the National Organization for Marriages "Gathering Storm" ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly...
Here is a video response to that line of argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVACv...
Finally, please identify specifically where I've said anything about you being hateful or drop that accusation now, please. It's bearing false witness.
Posted by ironwoman on May 24, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith- I really don't care what other people say about MY marriage. It's a healthy marriage between a man and a woman. We also made children out of our marriage.
As far as your claim; what others do in society, normal or not, does have an impact on all of us. If we followed your rules, we should just turn our heads on everything.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I inadvertently posted a link to a different response to the NOM "Gathering Storm" video than I intended. Here's the one I meant to post:
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole argument about discrimination and hate is a false argument. There is NO discrimination going on here. Every person in California has EXACTLY the same rights with regards to gay marriage. Everyone has the right to marry ONE person of the opposite sex. No one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. When the rules apply to everyone equally, there cannot be discrimination. Also, no one is allowed to marry a pig, marry their mother, or marry three people. If we allow gay marriage, we will eventually be allowing these other examples as well.
There are other things we do not allow. We do not allow stealing, rape, murder, or baby sacrificing in religious satanic worship. If you gay people want to be allowed to get married, then move to a country that allows it. But don't tell us what we have to accept. We, the society of this geographical area, have decided multiple times now that we are not going to allow gay marriage. We've been very accommodating, I think, in allowing civil unions. Give it a rest, already, and go stick your #1 up your lover's #2 where the sun don't shine.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@TakeBackCA
Your preoccupation with anal intercourse is nothing short of astounding and no doubt indicative of a rich inner life!
However, as most people who have been married for any length of time (a quarter century for me next year) can tell you, sex of any sort is not the main focus of marriage. This makes me sad some days, but that's the way it is. It's the same for gay people, I imagine.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironwoman:
You are missing my point. I too have a healthy marriage. I was asking how you would feel when a goup of people that never met you got to decide to legally divorce you regardless of the quality of your union. I know from reading your previous posts how important family is to you. You seem like a reasonable person so tell me please how it is that you are ok with votng on relationships that do not impact you whatsoever. So how would you feel if the Domestic Partnership initiative is passed by a majority of voters who don't know you and you are given a state mandated divorce?
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And, and TakeBackCA -- can you see why people who hear you equate their loving relationship with murdering children or raping a pig might think you're hatin' on 'em or just a wee bit prejudiced in your outlook? But, hey, maybe they're just overly sensitive or something.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not compare gay marriage to murdering or raping. I was simply noting that there are many examples of activities that society has determined should not be allowed. Gay marriage is one of the activities that our society has banned.
As for my preoccupation with anal intercourse, I am simply reminding everyone that this is really what we are talking about when we talk about gay marriage. Having the desire to stick your #1 up another man's #2 is no basis for determining civil rights. It is a deviant behavior that should not be normalized by society by awarding civil rights to those who pursue that deviancy. While I do not think it is appropriate for society to intrude into the bedroom, I also do not think that society should promote deviant behavior as normal by giving those who partake in such behavior any special constitutional protections. And don't give me that "born gay" crap, either. We have all been born with certain tendencies. That does not mean we are justified in acting out those tendencies. The ability to resist our urges is what separates us from the animals. Men, for example, are born with a great urge to spread their seed far and wide and, yet, society asks men to control those urges and most men do. You show me a man who says he doesn't have this urge and I will show you a liar. Gay people may have been born with gay urges, I don't know. Simply having those urges, however, does not mean they should act on them.
Oh, and C_Side, my wife and I hit 25 years this year, so whatever argument you might have against me, arguing that I do not have a certain level of expertise in the area of relationships should not be one of them.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@TakeBackCA
I find your demurral disingenuous.
If someone said, "I find TakeBackCA's lifestyle offensive. But, hey, I find lots of things offensive, including child molestation and spousal abuse" could you not see how a reasonable person might infer that the speaker regards your lifestyle as the equivalent of child molestation and spousal abuse?
If you believe gay marriage is the equivalent of pig f*&#ing, I would respect you if you just said it plain and clear. I hate namby-pamby beating around the bush.
Frankly, I appreciate you just flat out saying "guy on guy action squicks me out". It's honest, direct, and real.
And, congratulations on 25 years of marriage!
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I stated that murder is not allowed and stealing is not allowed, no one who believes in stealing but not murdering is going to think that I compared thieves to murderers. There are many activities our society does not allow. Gay marriage is one of them. I am not comparing gay people to murdering and I never said anything about pig f*&#ing. A reasonable person would not interpret what I have said the way you have interpreted it. I can certainly see how an unreasonable person, such as you and others on this blog who support gay marriage, would interpret what I have said as you have because you have to be an unreasonable person to arrive at the conclusion that disallowing gay marriage is discrimination and hateful. No one is being discriminated in CA with regards to gay marriage. We all have exactly the same rights. As a society, we have decided to discriminate against gay marriage, but we, as a society, are not discriminating against any of its citizens: we are all equally prohibited from gay marriage.
Posted by minority_report on May 24, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ TakeBackCA
The charge that this will lead to other types of socially unacceptable relationships such as polygamy, incest or even bestiality are completely absurd. These are nothing more than phony "slippery slope" arguments put forth to generate false fears of what will happen when we give same-sex couples equal rights to marry. No one is pushing for any of these other kinds of relationships, except certain religious and social conservatives such as yourself in dishonest/disingenuous arguments of fairness. This is the same kind of tactic used in the "Yes on 8" campaign calculated to generate a response based upon certain unfounded fears. For example, the charge that all schools will be required to teach about gay marriages and parents will have no choice in the matter -- FALSE. Or even the fact that Prop 8 had anything specifically to do with schools in the first place was another fallacy perpetrated by supporters of the amendment. These are dishonest representations of the facts and could be called falsehoods or even lies. So much for the morality of those religious groups that so strongly supported the vote for this amendment. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Likewise, your argument that “NO discrimination going on here” is also idiotic because it is a false choice. You leave all couples with only one choice. The one that people like you would want to make for same-sex couples. Which would not be their choice obviously or themselves. Are they not also adults capable of making their own choice whether to get married or not?
Lastly, your comment that “We've been very accommodating, I think, in allowing civil unions” is so condescending in attitude that it speaks for itself. It sounds very much like the kind of speech you would have heard back in the days when we had Jim Crow laws. Remember those? If you were black, you couldn't use white facilities, they were clearly marked either whites only. Black people had their own adequate facilities clearly marked for "blacks" or "colored only". Fair right? Only if you still believe in the so-called "separate but equal" concept, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court way back in 1954. But this is exactly the same old lame argument that Pro-8 people are using when they argue that the California's current domestic partnerships laws offer the same rights as "traditional" marriage. If that were the case, then why do we need to call it anything else but marriage?
As for your reference to anal sex a “deviant behavior”, remember that many heterosexuals also engage in that sex act as well, whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. Many, no doubt, are Christians as well.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TakebackCA
The majority of same sex marriages are between women. How does that fit into your obessession with #1's and #2's? I happen to believe that spousal abuse is deviant and should not be tolerated by society - yet I don't see prohibitions against wife beaters or denial of constitutional rights to rapists either. It seems you have some deep seated fears of non consentual male contact. Have you been victimized? If so, I am very sorry, but that should not drive you to deny same sex couples equal protection under the law.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I don't follow your logic. Sorry about that.
And, again, I do not say nor have I ever said that those who voted for Prop 8 are "hateful". Some may very well be, but that can't be determined by the way they voted. Some of the people who voted against Prop 8 probably had bad attitudes, too. What difference does it make?
As for your contention that everyone is equally forbidden to marry a person of the same gender, I am reminded of this quote from Anatole France:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Gay marriage neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. On the balance, I think it's good for society to encourage and provide legal support for stable, monogamous relationships.
I was just in Spain, where gay marriage is legal, two months ago. Their society seemed to functioning as well as ever and whatever problems they have don't appear to be caused by gay marriage.
The sun still comes up every morning, children play in the park, families come together around the table for meals, the trains run fine, the church doors are still open, and people gather in the cafes to laugh and talk and eat and listen to music late into the night. Some of them are gay and they're married and it makes no difference -- the guitars still play beautiful music and people dance in the streets until, tired and happy, they go home with and to the ones they love.
Life goes on. It's a good thing.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cside
Thanks that's beautiful and eloquent.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am LOL. Why is it so easy to get under the skin of you thin-skinned deviants? Look, our society does not want gay marriage. The only false and disingenuous argument being used on this blog is the one that uses jim crowe laws and racism as an analogy to the the discrimination against gays. There is a big difference between the race you are born into and your sexual orientation. While you may be born with an urge to be gay, which I doubt, that doesn't mean you can't choose not to act gay. A black is born black and, other than Michael Jackson, cannot then choose not to be black. You can choose not to be gay. Society has certainly chosen not to recognize gay marriage.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ minority report-yes I am condescending, quite intentionally so. I learned this tactic from gay activists. I am deeply offended and outraged by the tactics used by the pro-gay marriage activists to interrupt church services with vulgar displays and to threaten to destroy, indeed to actually destroy, the careers of those who supported prop 8. The left used to carry the banner of freedom of expression. Now they only believe in freedom of expression if they agree with the expression. They can't win their arguments based on truth and logic, so they attempt to intimidate and control instead.
I did not used to be outspoken against gay marriage, but if the gay community is going to stuff their gayness in my face and try to force society to accept their deviance as normal, than I and many others are going to rise up and become just as outspoken in opposition. I was perfectly content for gays to be allowed to do what gays do without the intrusion of society on the subject, but I draw the line at having your gayness thrown in my face. There are many more who are opposed to gayness than there are who support it. The tactics of the gay community, in my opinion, are doing more damage to their cause than good when they intentionally attempt to defile and demean those who supported prop 8.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@TakeBackCA
Society spoke in these percentages in California regarding gay marriage in the Prop 8 vote:
Against gay marriage: 52.24%
For gay marriage: 47.76%
When that four percent margin is reversed in the very near future, as it most certainly will be, I trust that you will regard that, too, as the definitive voice of the people.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course I will abide by the law of the land. That doesn't mean that I won't fight to reverse it. In the wake of all the despicable acts by gay activists after the last vote, I doubt the vote would be as close today. A lot of fair-minded traditionalists who voted no on prop 8 have come to see the gay community for what it really is, a bunch of social deviants who do not value democracy, and would now vote yes.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you truly believe that, of all the ways you can spend your time, money, and energy, this is the cause the best merits your involvement, I wish you Godspeed and every joy on your journey.
I think you'll find fewer people understand and support your position as time goes by, but if it's honestly held and respectfully articulated in a legal manner, it's one of the great blessings of a free society that we are all entitled to our point of view.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI C_Side, my vote for proposition 8 was not against gay marriage, it was for respecting the previous vote of the people.
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of the State of California overturned a proposition that outlawed gay marriage.
The vote of the court was 4-3.
To me, those 7 voters should not subjectively thumb their noses at the electorate. So, I voted to overturn their overturn.
I'm sure there were many other 'power to the people' votes.
My position since then has hardened because of the pro-gay marriage crowd wanting to paint those who are against gay marriage as bigots and haters. They compare their plight with slavery and claim discrimination.
The majority of 'gay' people are honest, hard working and wanting to live the American dream. I have no issues with them. I take offense at the militant homosexual community who wishes to take what should be a personal choice and cram it down peoples throats.
We are accused of wanting to control their bedrooms. I could care less what two (or even more) consenting adults do in their bedrooms. However, I don't wear t-shirts and march in "BREEDER's Pride" parades.
Gay rights proponents will suggest that the picture of my family on my work desk is how I show my 'breeder rights'. It is not my fault that from a biological standpoint, persons of the same sex can not produce offspring together.
What I suggest is that the law allow same sex couples to wed and have a legal union that is treated completely and fully on par with a Marriage, but that the term 'marriage' be understood as a legal wedlock between persons of the opposite sex.
The gay militant crowd won't accept that. They are not fighting for the rights to civil union as is the mainstream gay crowd. They want the law to say that their sexual preference is 'normal'.
Gay couples should be allowed to enter into wedlock to give next of kin rights in medical emergencies, file taxes as a couple instead of two individuals, and have their union recognized in all 50 states. The arguement is, does that require changing the legal definition of marriage?
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen any posts calling any of you out as haters, yet you persist in saying that you are being called haters for your point of view and/or vote. Who are these folks accusing you and where are the specific posts - I'd like to read them.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith, do you recall the prop 8 campain... the posters people carried that said
"NO on H8!", etc.
I'll concede that this particular thread has not deteriorated to that, but many many others in the fore and aftermath of the vote sure did.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, we should start a petition that removes any reference to 'marriage' from state law. There would no longer be such a thing. We could still employ 'civil unions' and everyone is happy, right?
Posted by alwayswatching on May 24, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone else drawn a similarity between prop 8 and prop 14 from the 60's?
Voters passed a prop allowing housing discrimination on the basis of race. It may have been passed with the majority of voters, but it was still wrong, and over turned as such. Prop 8 is discriminatory, and should not be upheld because of that.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alwayswatching
that is not a fair comparison. A fairer comparison would be dictating that people can not live in a certain area because of their personal choices.
For instance, a child molester can't live next to a school. That is certainly discrimination, but not ILLEGAL discrimination. See my earlier post regarding people's misuse of that term.
If proposition 8 held that a hetrosexual man could marry another hetrosexual man, but that 2 homosexual men could not marry, it would be illegal discrimination. Since neither hetro nor homo sexual persons can marry into their own gender, it applies equally to all Californians.
I've not seen the text of proposition 14, but I'll take your word for it. If it restricted where one could live based solely on their race or creed then it should have been overturned because it is illegal discrimination.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
btw, I am not saying that homosexuality is a personal choice. I don't know if it is or isn't and could care less.
I am saying that wanting to marry someone of the same gender is a personal choice.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Talking about discrimination...
it is discrimination when a school district offers a position but stresses that qualified candidates must be fluent in english AND spanish?
Yes, it is discrimination, but is it illegal discrimination when the fact is, a much greater percentage of hispanics are bi-lingual than non hispanics?
The same sort of legal challenge is presented with the gay-marriage debate.
Posted by alwayswatching on May 24, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is completely unrelated, but...
"Couldn't care less" is the proper saying. If you could care less that means you do care.
Just a strange pet peeve of mine...
Back on topic though, so your argument that this is fair is because it does not allow heterosexual people to marry a same sex partner as well as homosexual people all around. (If I'm understanding correctly-- if not please correct me).
I'm wondering about your opinion about some of the arguments the pro 8 side has used, such as lawsuits against churches, caterers and photographers (etc.) who decline to allow or participate with a same sex ceremony?
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
my arguement is not changed.
If a church holds that their marriage ceremony is restricted to members of the opposite sex, should the law over-rule them?
The separation of church and state works both ways.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to go further by saying that a caterer or photographer who chooses to not participate in a same sex wedding should be free to make that choice. They are a private enterprise which should be free to chose their clientele without suffering consequences under the law.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd also like to suggest that fair and legal are not the same thing.
Is it fair? No
Is it legal? Yes
It is fair that the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance can hold audience with our school children on school grounds during the school day to teach tolerance, but the Bible Thumper Church can not because of separation of church and state?
No, it is not fair. It gives more legal standing to one group while a group opposed to their beliefs is left out.
But, it is legal.
Posted by minority_report on May 24, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa says: “To me, those 7 voters should not subjectively thumb their noses at the electorate.”
Who says their vote was “subjective”. According to their opinion, their decision had nothing to do with “thumbing their noses” as you say, but with upholding the constitutional principle of equal rights. They were in fact looking out for the best interests of the people by not letting an illegal law stand as precedent for future similar abuses against other minority groups. It was in fact their job to uphold and defend the constitution in such a manner. And you might note, the CA Supreme Court is decidedly conservative in its current makeup. By ruling as they did, that the previous Prop 22 was illegal, they have simply followed in the tradition of many high courts of defending the rights of the minority. They knew this could make them unpopular but their job is not to seek favor, but to do what is right by our constitutional principles. It was simply the right thing to do. Wouldn’t you agree that the rights of the minority should never be put up for a vote? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights after all. This is the concept of civil rights which many of you social and religious conservatives refuse to acknowledge as a legitimate defense, because of your own prejudice against same-sex couples in the first place. I certainly don't agree with Ken Starr's absurd interpretation of our Constutional rights when he says that "It (inalienable rights)cannot be taken away, except by the appropriate process."
The Pro-8 supports can try to deny it all they want, but the fact is Prop 8 was created solely for the purpose of TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS previously granted by the court for same-sex couples to marry. That is discriminatory on its face. How would you like to see the right of all heterosexuals to have civil marriages performed taken away because of a majority vote by the electorate? Sounds ridiculous and patently discriminatory, but that will be the same effect of this law for same-sex couples, if it is upheld.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa:
The signs "No on H8" are protesting the social injustice of a measure that deprives a law abiding, tax paying segment of the population their constitutionally protected rights. It was not only the LGBT community holding those signs up. The measure is hateful and I have yet to hear of any of these posters being called out as haters for as much whining about it I have read on this thread.
GET OVER IT!
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We'll see who needs to "get over it" tomorrow. As for decidedly conservative CA Supreme Court, I'm LOL. IF CA's supreme court is conservative then that makes Fidel Castro right of center.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and this is why I voted for prop 8...
"The Pro-8 supports can try to deny it all they want, but the fact is Prop 8 was created solely for the purpose of TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS previously granted by the court for same-sex couples to marry."
The courts don't grant rights, the constitution does. In this case, the court artificially granted by a 4-3 vote, a right that the constitution denied. The people clarified the constitution to amend what the court found objectionable.
Lilith:
I don't have to get over anything as I personally couldn't care less (thanks alwayswatching). The law is the law which does not allow same sex marriages.
Will you get over it if the court upholds proposition 8? Didn't think so!
My whole intent was to frame what the court was being asked into terms the lay person could understand.
They are not being asked whether gay marriages are legal or not. They are being asked if Proposition 8 was correctly placed on the ballot. The opponents of Proposition 8 say the initiative was a sweeping change to the constitution that requires a constitutional convention to enact it. The proponents say that proposition simply clarified an existing law.
On Tuesday, we will find out how the court held. On Wednesday, we will find out that someone is appealing that decision.
Again, I couldn't care less, so have nothing to GET OVER. I voted the way I did, but can live with being in the minority. Apparently some can't join such a consensus.
Posted by minority_report on May 24, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You may not want to believe it, just like you may not want to believe this is a civil rights issue, but here’s my reference to that statement that the CA Supremes are basically a conservative court. This is from an article written right after Prop 22 was overturned in 2008:
"California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...
[EXCERPT]
"The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that ANY LAW that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard…The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
Regardless of how the CA Supreme Court rules tomorrow, we will all have to live by that ruling…for the time being. But if the law stands, it just means that the people of California will need to wait just a bit longer until justice will be truly served and the amendment is overturned. I cannot believe that the people of this state will stand for bigotry and discrimination being actually written into our Constitution.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith:
Just so you know, the court did not find that persons had the right to marry a person of their own gender.
The court found that the legal restrictions forbidding it did not pass the constitutional muster. Note, it was by a 4-3 vote at that.
There was nor is a constitutional right at question. The legal challenge was on the verbiage of the laws that prohibited it.
Hence the court did not grant, nor did proposition 8 deny anyone their constitutionally protected rights.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
minority_report:
anyone to the right of the LA Times is considered by them to be conservative.
Given how liberal the LA Times is, being labeled as a conservative by them is pretty easy to accomplish.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bigotry... another misused term...
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
Don't both sides of proposition 8 meet that definition?
Posted by minority_report on May 24, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bajfa syas: “The courts don't grant rights, the constitution does. In this case, the court artificially granted by a 4-3 vote, a right that the constitution denied. The people clarified the constitution to amend what the court found objectionable.”
Wrong again. The courts did not artificially grant a right the constitution denied. They simply overturned Prop 22 because its intent was constitutionally illegal. In doing so they were obligated to clarify the rights of same-sex couples as having equal rights to marry, and “… ANY LAW that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender…”
That doesn’t sound like the CA Supremes are artificially granting rights but more like defending minority rights, as they should. So you see the law was already clarified by the previous Supreme Court ruling, and we really didn't need Prop 8 for further clarification, as you claim. It just that the ruling wasn't what you wanted to hear, was it?
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee Bajfa:
Thanks for your redundancy. I am aware of what your argument is. You apparently forgot what we were discussing. The topic was: The posters on this site who constantly complain about being called haters - which by your own admission isn't happening. Follow the bouncing ball "No on H8" is not a personal slur. That is what you need to get over.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"ANY LAW that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California"
first off, you are quoting from the LA Times, not the Supreme Court decision.
secondly, such laws always were constitutionally suspect or the court would not have heard the original case.
Understand, the Supreme Court is not a finder of fact, they are a court of appeals. They rule on how a law is interpreted with regards to the constitution.
Proposition 22 amended the constitution to disallow gay marriage. The court overturned it. Proposition 8 was written to address the points the court found objectional.
The court allowed same sex marriages when it overturned the law preventing it. There was not a constitutional right then, nor is there now. The right is what is in question and thus was never established.
If there was a constitutional right for same sex marriages, the court would have blocked the proposition from the ballot. It declined such intervention.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith,
I understand you to continue to frame my comments to the strict dialogue of this thread.
In a previous message, I stipulated to this thread not having deteriorated to that level.
My comments regarding opponents of proposition 8 labeling the pro 8 crowd as haters were based on the fore and aftermath of that vote which was replicated on this media's message boards and widely broadcast media reports.
I am sure we will see it again on Tuesday no matter which way the court decides.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith:
I'd also like to comment on your use of 'social injustice'.
I will agree is it a social issue.
In my humble opinion, it is not a legal issue.
The legal issue relates to laws the way they are written. The social issue relates to the politics of those laws and garnering support to change them.
As earlier stated, I don't have any issues with persons of the same gender being afforded the civil rights of a legal union.
I have a problem with them wanting it to be called a 'marriage'.
The main stream gay community is not stuck on the semantics, they want the rights to live as a legally recognized couple: Next of Kin rights in medical emergencies, recognition of their relationship in all 50 states, filing taxes as a family as opposed to individuals, etc.
The militant gay crowd feels that anything short of being seen as 'normal' is unacceptable.
In that context, it is not a legal issue, it is a social issue.
Posted by minority_report on May 24, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Bajfa
Of course, the article simply summarized the ruling itself and the statement made by Chief Justice Ronald M. George. If you want an excerpt of the text then check out Lexis Nexis. Here is an excerpt from that ruling in legalese:
“Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential "rational basis" standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review--"strict scrutiny"--is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called "suspect classification" or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme 6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents--like gender, race, and religion--a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.”
You also say that “Proposition 8 was written to address the points the court found objectional.”
Wrong! Prop 8 was not written to address the points the court found objectionable. The language in both propositions was exactly the same to the letter. The only difference was that Prop 8 was submitted as a constitutional amendment rather than part of California civil code. Again the only real difference is that Pro-8 supporters wanted to institutionalize their discrimination against same-sex couples. The court was right to overturn that previous unconstitutional law.
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
minority report...
we will see how things work out on Tuesday, eh?
have a great weekend!
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's much better that you openly articulate your true disgust for gay people rather than veiling it. I'm sure others agree with you. I'm equally certain others are appalled at your sentiments. But it's better to have them out in the light of day for all to see.
Posted by Lilith on May 24, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Takeback:
we knew you were a troll and are soooooo totally bored with your tactics - why don't you write to the president if that is how you really feel? Maybe he'll give a hang - I don't.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't you write to him, you're the one who disagrees with him
Posted by robbca on May 24, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No matter what happens. I will be in Thousand Oaks with my husband on Tuesday night supporting marriage equality and I will also be going to Fresno on 5/30 for Meet In The Middle. Our fight may or may not be slow but eventually it will be addressed at the federal level and will be made legal in the whole US. It will be no different than interracial marriage. Just like that took time so will this take time. The best thing that can happen is for people to continue talking about this in a constructive way and not attack other people. We are all entitled to our opinion but we have to keep religion out of this. This has nothing to do with religion this simply has to do with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination is dicrimination and it should never be tolerated.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 24, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for my disgust for gay people, I wasn't aware I was trying to hide it. Where have you been this whole time? Gay people are disgusting. I have been clearly articulating my disgust for sticking your #1 up another man's #2 for this entire thread. Not only is gay sex disgusting, it is no basis for determining civil rights. This is not an debate about civil rights. This is a debate about forcing society to accept a disgusting behavior. This is not a debate about equal rights. We all today have equal rights. We all have the right to marry the opposite sex. Gay sex is disgusting, it is not natural, and those who practice it are social deviants. When was I not clear about that?
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noted!
Posted by robbca on May 24, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TakeBackCA I sure hope you don't have kids or will never have kids with an attitude like that. We don't need more people breeding IGNORANCE, hate and intolerance in this world.
Posted by C_Side on May 24, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think TakeBackCA should become the public voice of the anti-gay marriage effort. He's got a tolerant outlook in that he doesn't think gay people should be euthanized, so it's not like he's some extremist, but he pulls no punches about what sub-human filth the gays are. None of this namby-pamby "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" equivocation: the sinners just flat out suck. And blow. And put their #1s in... oh, you get the picture.
Go, man, go -- keep saying it loud and saying it proud to whomever wherever! Straight talk like this will turn the tide!
Posted by williamblake on May 24, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This seems very straight forward.
Except
The California Supreme Court is a branch of the California Democratic party, which is controlled by Trilateralists since Carter..
So its policy is the same as the Trilateralists everywhere, modified by how they judge the public reaction to their decisions will be.
It's a political decision.
Posted by askyourself on May 24, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow the best arguement by handyhood
Charlene805- WWHHAATTT!!!! You are out of your ever lovin mind. IF the court rejects the outcome of prop 8 then there is no reason for the people to vote and we might as well get a czar to run things. This is the United States and the people are the ones who make decisions, not the courts!
makes me wonder about slavery and all civil rights laws in democracy.let the people vote and let the invisible hand take it course .i want a constitution law stateing these wrongs are forbiden. oh there is all men are created equal in fact i hope obama picks a mexican for supreme court. i think gayness is wrong and weird but the educated me knows its discrimination. this is why education is important
Posted by FlyingV on May 24, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no belief in God or any other higher power.
If being gay makes another person's life happy and complete, then why do you judge and discriminate against them?
If the answer is the Bible, then I have nothing left to say to you.
Posted by williamblake on May 25, 2009 at 5:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Bajfa on May 24, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bigotry... another misused term...
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
Don't both sides of proposition 8 meet that definition?
////////////////////////////////////////////////
No. Marriage is my societies way of defining the natural relationship between a man and a woman that normally leads to children and family.
The people I am opposing, are trying to impose changes on my society conventions, to suit their convenience and bias, and change it from survival to non survival mode.
The forces behind this is not our people, and are trying to force changes on us in order to destroy us, and subjugate our remnants as mind washed peons.
You don't care that your manipulated to think as you do Bajfa, and not for your own good or families and not even your nation, which has become a puppet of international bankers?
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 25, 2009 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ robba, at least I can breed. My kind will continue on. Your kind will either die out or must recruit from the other team to continue. Not much of an argument for a race, is it? Since you people insist this is a discrimination issue tantamount to the race issue, I am going to start referring to your race, the homo race.
I was quite content for everyone, including gays, to have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness until the gays became militant, defiling church services, destroying the careers of others, and waiving their race in the face of society. Robba, I know you feel in the pit of your stomach that something is not right and that you believe that it is society that is not right. I also know that deep down inside you keep telling yourself that, but that you know that you are really the one that is not right. You look in the mirror every morning and subconsciously know deep down that you are not normal, that you are a deviant. Everyone desires to be normal. Your race is so desperate to feel normal that you adopt kids and try everything you can to lead a normal life. You have all the rights of marriage with the exception of being able to call yourself married and, yet, that is not good enough because only when you can be married will you feel normal.
The truth of the matter is, you will NEVER feel normal because nothing you do or say will change the FACT that your race is NOT normal and you never will be normal until you stop letting your "husband" put his #1 up your #2. Robba, even if your race wins the rights you so desperately desire, the hunger to be normal is never going to go away. The day after you win the right to be married will be the saddest day in your life because you will wake up and realize that you still don't feel at ease with yourself and there is no longer anything you can do to blame society for. It is that day that you will realize that you have only yourself to blame for the profound emptiness and sadness of your life.
Which is where the irony lies because most people are not normal. I know I am not normal. The difference is that I celebrate being different. Diversity is what makes America strong. The tragedy of being gay is the desperateness of wanting to be normal in a society that celebrates diversity.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 25, 2009 at 5:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, this issue really is not similar to interracial marriage. Today we have interracial marriage and it is very accepted and is not unusual. The gay equivalent of interracial marriage is for a gay man to marry a straight woman or for a gay woman to marry a straight man. I just don't see that ever happening.
Posted by robbca on May 25, 2009 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TakeBackCA - What you write is so absurd it is comical. You are a very sad and ignorant person. From your writing it wouldn't suprise me that you are actually gay that has supressed those feelings. Just remember we are all part of the same race. I wake up every day and am normal. I have plenty of gay friends who have kids and are having kids all the time. They make the best parents. I will keep you in my prayers everyday.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 25, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
robbca-I wouldn't expect that you would respond in any other way. If you can convince your community be more civil in their dialogue and less militant, than I am sure that my community will become more tolerant. The anti-gay marriage side is less tolerant today of gays than they were one year ago because of the outrageous behavior of militant elements on your side.
Posted by pennywise on May 25, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The folks that are dependent on the courts to tell them how to live are the same ones that look towards the federal government to bail them out of home mortgages they didn't they shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.
This nanny-state mentality will be the demise of our society as we know it. The Irish writer, P.J. O'Rourke, summed it up superbly when he sais, "It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you're the child."
Posted by robbca on May 25, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TakeBackCA - I can't speak for other people but I will tell you that I don't have the kind of hatred and disgust towards anybody like you do. There have been a lot of bad things that have happened on BOTH sides. I am not a militant person nor am I filled with hate. If I want peace to happen then I myself have to be at peace wtih everyone and everything. Everybody needs to learn how to treat each other better and respect each other. I already feel that tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8 and keep the marriages legal. There is no way they could not keep the marriages because that would mean that EVERYONE that was married between those dates would have their marriages invalidated. I don't see that happening.
pennywise - I am not dependent on the courts to tell me how I have to live but what I will continue to press for is that same sex marriage someday be recognized at a federal level. The state level really doesn't do much for us at this point. It will take some time but I do have faith that someday same sex marriage will be recognized at a federal level so that ALL married people can have the same benefits.
Posted by minority_report on May 25, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I’ve been pondering the two possible outcomes of tomorrow’s decision on this issue and came up with the thought that it will be a positive result for No on 8 supporters regardless . Here’s why:
The issue before the CA Supreme Court is whether this particular constitutional amendment was properly submitted to the people in the election last November, as a simple amendment and not a major revision. If it is considered a major revision to the constitution, then it should be properly overturned because it should have first gone before the State legislature for review and approval by that body before being placed on the ballot (obviously a good decision for No on 8 supporters). However, if it is determined to be merely a simple amendment, then it should stand as the vote of the people. But the good news for No on 8 supporters in this case would be that this will mean that it should be just as easy to change back our constitution (repeal Prop 8) by a similar majority vote, and without the need of any legislative review, because it is not considered a major revision.
I can’t see the CA Supreme Court allowing such revisions to be made so easily however whenever any group wants to change the State constitution, by a mere ballot proposition. Therefore I am guessing that the decision will be to invalidate Prop 8 as a major revision that requires prior review and approval by our legislature before being placed on the ballot for a vote by the electorate. We shall see.
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 25, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not filled with hate, robbca, I am filled with disgust. 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable that society would allow disgusting immoral sexual deviants and perverts such as yourself to raise a family let alone get married. Look, just because you disgust me doesn't mean I am filled with hate. What is it with you f^gs, it's either love you or we're filled with hate? I do rather despise the militants among you, which you might equate to hate. As for the non-militant gays, you disgust me, but I don't hate you.
Quite clearly, mother nature does not intend for people to be gay. Fine, so you're not normal, there's something wrong with you. That doesn't mean I hate you anymore than saying I hate mentally disabled people because they are not normal either. Far from it, I have nothing but compassion and acceptance for mentally disabled people. But they don't have a choice about it. You do. I do not have compassion for you, but that doesn't then mean that I hate you. I believe in the ideals of America-freedom. That even applies to gay people doing gay things. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept you. It simply means that I should tolerate you, which I was doing just fine until your people tried to ram their gayness down my throat. Society is less tolerant of you now than a year ago not because you are gay, but because you are ramming it down our throats. I'm not going to tolerate your people when they won't respect and tolerate Mormon churches and other people who voted yes on 8. You shove your gayness down my throat, I'm simply shoving it up your a$$. On second thought, maybe I won't. Wouldn't want to get you too excited.
Posted by Fred on May 25, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by lagfactor on May 26, 2009 at 12:33 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by TakeBackCA on May 26, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Supreme Court decision is in. I wonder what despicable acts will now be committed by the gay militants, which will serve only to further harden the electorate against the gay community.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 237 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.