|
Proposition 8 discriminates
Share
Email
Print
CommentDear editor, Eric Daniel’s September 28 commentary is a clear and seemingly well-reasoned articulation of the reasons we should support Proposition 8, the gay discrimination measure, this November (“Vote yes on 8, support traditional marriage”). There are, however, a few of his points that need clarification.
The California Supreme Court has correctly ruled that discriminating against gays in matters of marriage is unconstitutional. Such discrimination stands in opposition to the core values of fairness, equality, dignity and freedom upon which we have built our nation and which are enshrined in the California Constitution. These values have been the driving force in securing rights for women, minorities and the disabled —and for all Americans — for most of our nation’s history. The point of Proposition 8 is to change the law so that a large portion of our community is excluded from the fairness, dignity and freedom that most of us enjoy. Changing our state’s constitution to legalize such discrimination is a monumental step backward and strikes me as about the most un-American proposition in recent memory.
The California Supreme Court has correctly ruled that discriminating against gays in matters of marriage is unconstitutional. Such discrimination stands in opposition to the core values of fairness, equality, dignity and freedom upon which we have built our nation and which are enshrined in the California Constitution. These values have been the driving force in securing rights for women, minorities and the disabled —and for all Americans — for most of our nation’s history. The point of Proposition 8 is to change the law so that a large portion of our community is excluded from the fairness, dignity and freedom that most of us enjoy. Changing our state’s constitution to legalize such discrimination is a monumental step backward and strikes me as about the most un-American proposition in recent memory.
As is sometimes the case when trying to defend the indefensible, Mr. Daniel injects hysterical and nonsensical justifications into his argument. He argues that following the law as it now stands will somehow lead to polygamy, incest and child marriage. Of course, these are all still illegal, and the passage of Proposition 8 will not change that.
He further argues that somehow the court was wrong in overturning the gay discrimination law passed in 2000. The fact of the matter is that the court did exactly the right thing; it is the court’s responsibility to strike down laws, whether they are enacted through the initiative process or through legislation, that violate provisions of the state constitution, regardless of how popular the law may be. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, and the court acted appropriately.
He further argues that somehow the court was wrong in overturning the gay discrimination law passed in 2000. The fact of the matter is that the court did exactly the right thing; it is the court’s responsibility to strike down laws, whether they are enacted through the initiative process or through legislation, that violate provisions of the state constitution, regardless of how popular the law may be. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, and the court acted appropriately.
Those of us who believe in fairness and equality and who work to protect human dignity and freedom understand that it is just plain wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I hope you will join us in supporting these traditional values by voting No on Proposition 8 on Nov. 4.
Michael Dearborn
Michael Dearborn
Napa
imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:13 AM:
Raven wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:52 AM:
kevin wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:54 AM:
kbf wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:30 AM:
pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:11 AM:
Paddy wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:28 AM:
kbf wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:02 AM:
well said Paddy,
NO on 8 "
John Richards wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:16 AM:
Michael, if you believe that all 'discrimination' is wrong, why do we often have separate public restrooms for men and women? Or do you believe that 'separate but equal' is OK? The plain fact is that gender *does* matter for some things, including marriage. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:24 AM:
Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:27 AM:
The 'marriage license' issued by the civil government is 'civil' as in 'civil law'.
I am sure you can find a minister to say the words you want to hear on your wedding day.
I am sorry but your desire for your favorite words does not rise above the rights of other Americans to be treated equally under the law.
Frankly, this is the most childish whiney excuse religious fundamentalists have come up with yet to deny equal protection under that law to people they don't like.
~Ruff and Mrs. Ruff "
entity wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:36 AM:
Guess what? They were wrong.
Or is it back to the fields and into the kitchens? Is that the "morally right" thing?
Gay marriage isn't "discriminating" against you, your church, or anyone. To be "discriminated" against means "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of predjudice". You have the freedom to not be gay married all day long. A gay person does not have the right to marry a gay person simply because "you don't like it". *That* is discrimination, and needs to stop. A gay person being married has ZERO effect on you.
Stop meddling with the lives of others where it doesn't concern you! "
Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:40 AM:
Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:51 AM:
amigo wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:55 AM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:11 AM:
Want to have a homosexual relationship? Great. Have a ball, I will respect your right to so. However, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to give it special recognition (like "marriage"), and we don't have to promote it as a societal "best practice". "
Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:51 AM:
steph wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:00 PM:
I celebrate the civil rights of my gay friends and family. My marriage is not at all harmed nor threatened by gay marriage. If you're wasting any time worrying about gay marriage, then you have your priorities mixed up.
Find something worthy to do. Help someone. Quit condemning people you don't even know. Try to understand people you don't understand now. Learn something. Open your heart. But above all, mind your OWN business. Fix your OWN relationships before you meddle in someone else's. "
amigo wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:17 PM:
Therefore you are advocating a choice! Sorry to break it to you! "
luv1mom wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:50 PM:
Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:12 PM:
Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:28 PM:
Most of the time your posts display common sense, but I am trying hard to find any in this stance of yours. And I am not being sarcastic, or flip. I am really trying to get a clear picture of what exactly the down side of this is. The negative responses really do seem to me to be totally emotional, illogical responses, based on fear of something I just do not see. "
pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:37 PM:
Apparently, the word "homosexual" is blocked on the school servers under the category of "lifestyle"--heterosexuality is not, I checked--but you can find hundreds of studies and surveys that can prove very definitively that most people knew they were gay from childhood, whether they denied it or not. People do not "choose" it, and you are offending millions of gay people everywhere when you imply that they've chosen to be discriminated against.
I sincerely hope that no one here ACTUALLY thinks that homosexual marriage is a threat to their heterosexual marriage—however, if that is the case, then there was something wrong with your marriage already. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:01 PM:
I did not choose to be heterosexual. Many gay friends tell me that they never chose to be gay. I can only take their word for it based on my own experience of not choosing. Perhaps bisexual people have the ability to choose, but what does it matter?
One thing I do know, MARRIAGE is a choice. And a part of our society has been denied that choice based on reasons that I see as illogical silly reasons. So far, not one argument put forth against Gay marriage has had any basis in logic. All arguments against seem to be fear based, or emotionally based.
The slippery slope argument is just foolish. If you can make that argument, then couldn't the slope slip in the other direction? Couldn't it be the same slope Iran has slid down? They have NO GAYS according to their President. Hmmm, where'd they go? That was one slippery slope...they have slipped away to somewhere...
The religion argument...well last I looked we have freedom of religion. That means people have the right to believe different than I do. And I have the right to believe what I will. I cannot subject them to my beliefs. I do not think anyone can force me into a gay marrage.
I am still waiting for a sensible argument denying gays the right to marry. "
musikluvr wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:23 PM:
srnitnw wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:27 PM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:31 PM:
Sandra, I do not have a problem with people exercising their personal liberties. I strongly oppose, however, lumping homosexual unions together with heterosexual marriage. Our society needs to deal with homosexual marriage on its own merits, and not by trying to attach it to something else for the purpose of advancing the cause.
We as a society collectively decide what is right and wrong, and what we will encourage and discourage. People can have personal liberties without our society endorsing those liberties as best practices. For example, I don't have a problem with someone wanting to smoke pot in their own home, but I don't think that our society should endorse pot smoking as a way of life.
Same for polygamy. If people work out an "arrangement" that they are happy with, it's none of my business. But I don't think that we as a society have any obligation to grant them legal privileges unless we as a whole (i.e. a majority) see a clear benefit. "
srnitnw wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:00 PM:
pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:02 PM:
napascot wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:13 PM:
Regardless if you agree with "gay marriage" or not prop 8 is not the way.
This is making a constitutional admendment to dicrminate. The states constitution does not have any place for discrimination. It is to protect its citizens from discrimination
Marriage is an agreement between 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together build a life and have that life protected.
For those who choose to make it a religious agreement as well before your god in your church that is your choice, not all people get married in a church or to pro-create.
I really think it is amazing how heated this discussion always get when we have way bigger things to think about and be concerned over. Our priorities are a little skewed.
If we as a whole spent half the time and money that goes into not allowing gays to marry think of all the good that could be done in our own communities.
Please think about what you are voting for this is a discrimination prop allowing gays to marry will do nothing to damage society and the world.
Vote no on prop 8 "
Raven wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:05 PM:
common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:20 PM:
-Unfortunately, an amendment is now the only way. A sizeable majority of Californians voted previously to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but it was overruled by the State Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Therefore, an amendment is now necessary.
This is a majority rule issue for me. As I stated previously, I don't really care what people do in their private lives. If gay marriage has any merit, it should stand on its own, without highjacking other entities. If it is the right thing to do, the majority will agree. Let's try a little democracy for a change... "
Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:24 PM:
What does this mean?:
"I strongly oppose, however, lumping homosexual unions together with heterosexual marriage. Our society needs to deal with homosexual marriage on its own merits, and not by trying to attach it to something else for the purpose of advancing the cause."
Advancing the cause? What cause is there behind wanting to be able to be married?
What purpose is served by passing a constitutional amendment to ban someone from getting married?
I can see many advantages, but no disadvantages to allowing Gay marriage. There would be no issue of "A cause", except for the big hullaballoo over objecting to something for no good reason. There would be no issue of a cause, except fot this amendment making a mountain over what I see as a molehill.
I am still waiting for a logical reason to object to gay marriage that is not based on personnel issues. "
Raven wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:26 PM:
napascot wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:31 PM:
How is a gay marriage hijacking other entities?
I think your statement of not caring "what people do in their private lives" is exactly the biggest issue because gay non private life is the same as straight non private life
So if you truly believe your own statment, then a gay person getting married would not be an issue "
MarkMathews wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:06 PM:
a teacher wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:57 PM:
I understand your argument about majority rule, but if I put aside my personal feelings on the subject, I think changing the constitution is a bad step. I'm mostly appalled at how easy it is. A constitution's function is to buttress rights against changing public opinions and cultural norms. It protects the rights of minorities against the majority. To be able to change the constitution with 50%+1 gives little protection against losing rights. I find it a little alarming. "
common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:09 PM:
Perhaps allowing gay marriage would improve the human condition in our society. However, it is also possible that these taboos are prevalent for good reason. Experts more knowledgeable than myself in these matters can be found on both sides of the issue.
If it is meant to be, then the majority will vote for it. When we legislate moral issues, it is paramount that the majority decides. If the cause is just, then it will have support. "
Raven wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:13 PM:
and you are right, right is right and wrong is wrong and Prop 8 discriminates and discrimination is wrong...simple as that...therefore by your own logic, you will be voting against Prop 8, right? "
common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:14 PM:
-It is also misleading to count voters that did not vote. We count votes only. Prop 22 passed with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against. That is in fact a sizeable majority.
"teacher" says: "I think changing the constitution is a bad step."
-In principle, I agree with you. Unfortunately, in California, it is the only way anything ever gets done at the state level anymore. It is embarassing that everything requires modifying the state constitution. "
Dwayne wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:14 PM:
That's certainly in keeping with the pro-Obama mainstream media (PBS, ABC, PMSNBC, CBS)...
Kinda makes you feel tingly all over with so much power to distort public opinion, doesn't it.... "
common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:22 PM:
-I think your argument is illogical. You do not seem to be able to separate the concept of "personal liberty" and "societal best practices". You can support the right of people to take drugs in their own home, but still oppose promoting drug use as beneficial for society. It is a subtle but important distinction. "
antipc wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:37 PM:
I want my marriage liscense to mean what it meant when I signed it. Not some new meaning of the word.
The world is an enormous opportunity, go invent your own relationship, live & let live, but leave mine alone. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:09 PM:
Mark, I find your views in your post of, "MarkMathews wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:06 PM:" very disturbing and sick....So should we make a law not allowing you to voice your views? If we follow your logic, the answer to that would be yes.
Debase practices? Marriage is a debase prsctice?. Showing love to another person is a debase practice? Is only your narrow definition of love not debase? Very disturbing views, Mark..... "
amigo wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:36 PM:
Pure propoganda under the guise of antidistrimination!
The public schools are next.They will have to teach children as young as kindergarden about " alternative lifestyles" and sexuality because johnny will want to know why sally has two mommies.
"The state did not create the family, Rather the family created the state"
Cicero, (106b.c.-43b.c.)
YES ON PROP 8 "
common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:42 PM:
-I would agree that population growth is a problem in some countries, but most industrialized nations have the opposite problem. A nation needs to maintain a population replacement rate of 2.1 kids per female to remain economically stable. Europe has dangerously low replacements rates...Germany sit at an economically destructive 1.4. France, Greece, and several others are now paying people to have more kids. China sits at 1.8. Japan is at 1.2. We in the USA are doing quite well at 2.1.
Importing people from other, more populous cultures/nations is not the easy solution it appears to be...it often causes major problems in the receiving culture. A recent example is the adoption of Sharia Law in England...a decision that could have devastating repercussions to Western Law.
Does promoting homosexuality lead to not being able to replace your citizens? Maybe. The famous warrior city-state of Sparta promoted homosexuality, since you were less likely to flee the battlefield (a big problem) if you fought next to your lover. Sparta won many battles, but there is evidence supporting the theory that they could not replace their citizens fast enough.
The affect on population replacement rates seems to be the best explanation for why so many cultures, with totally different origins and beliefs, almost universally view homosexuality as taboo. (To wrap up my earlier comments, bestiality and incest taboos seem best explained by disease-related issues.) "
a teacher wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:54 PM:
"-It is also misleading to count voters that did not vote. We count votes only. Prop 22 passed with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against. That is in fact a sizeable majority."
But that is what you did when you said: "A sizeable majority of Californians voted previously to define marriage as between a man and a woman"
Call it what it is, Prop 22 won, fair and square. However, I would dispute sizable majority of Californians. "
pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:07 PM:
And amigo, how do they "teach" gay marriage in schools? There is nothing that requires teachers to add new curriculum about gay marriage. There is nothing that requires anyone in public schools to teach that homosexuality is right or normal--even though there's scientific evidence that it is completely normal. What should we teach? That Sally's parents are abnormal and wrong? That Sally’s family is amoral and goes against society and nature? What should we tell Johnny instead? The only solution, it would seem, is to preach hate and discrimination in schools—and as long as I and the people I know are alive, that’s not going to happen. If you're worried about your child picking up his or her views at school rather than parroting whatever views you're giving them, then you should work on your relationship with your child—or better yet, allow them to decide for themselves. "
moonstone wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:14 PM:
The slippery slope argument goes something like this: if marriage can be re-defined as being between two people of the same gender, then why not 3 people (of any gender), or 4, or 5? Why not marry your cousin? Your sibling?
This argument is often made and then promptly rebuffed by opponents of 8 by simply saying that the issue is gay marriage. However, the definition of marriage has been effectively re-defined by the state supreme court's decision. The traditional line has been moved so to speak.
I think it is disingenuous not to address what happens the next time someone else wants to move the line further (i.e., the slippery slope).
I like to believe that if such a faction were ever to propose a redefinition of marriage (think of the FLDS church marrying off teenagers in Texas) that opponents and proponents of 8 alike would unite to defeat such an effort.
The problem would be that a failure of prop. 8 would set precedence for the "right" of anyone to marry anyone else. And the irony will be that if you don't agree with this new faction, then you are intolerant. If you don’t agree, then you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else.
As proponents and opponents of prop. 8 alike, I like to think that we would defeat such and effort, even to the point of changing the state’s constitution.
Unfortunately, all the anti-8 slogans and dogma could be recycled and used by this “new” faction. And I am curious how the opponents of 8 would respond, being on the receiving end this time. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:40 AM:
Common Sense...so ok, we agree that the whole Taboo thing had to do with population....yet the main point I was making is that I think it is dangerous to add an amendment to the constitution limiting what I view as a human right.
Moonstone, as for your rebuttal to the slippery slope argument, I will repeat what I already said earlier:
"The slippery slope argument is just foolish. If you can make that argument, then couldn't the slope slip in the other direction? Couldn't it be the same slope Iran has slid down? They have NO GAYS according to their President. Hmmm, where'd they go? That was one slippery slope...they have slipped away to somewhere..."
I think we need to look at this on an issue by issue basis, as slopes can slip in two directions. "
hoozcryinow wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:11 AM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:13 AM:
-This is the tricky part. How is a 'human right' defined and identified? I do not question the right of people to do what they will in their own home. But what happens when a polygamist demands society recognize their 'human rights'? Or a pedophile? It is the majority that decides, as it should be...we all have a stake in this society.
The argument comes down to 3 alternatives:
1.) Oppose homosexuality across the board.
2.) Endorse and publicly support homosexuality as a way of life.
3.) Support the individual right to engage in homosexuality, but limit government recognition to only those practices that are deemed beneficial by the majority.
I choose the latter. "
Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:14 AM:
Sandra wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:29 AM:
Also, there is a huge difference between a pedophile and a polygymist. Pedophilia victimizes children. Polygamy is a life style/religious choice. Who is victimized by it's practice? "
Fire Mike wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:35 PM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:51 PM:
I also agree that there is a huge difference between pedophilia and polygamy. Yet, each of those camps feels that they have a 'human right' to engage in those practices. The only thing preventing it is that the majority disagrees.
My litmus test as to whether a moral issue is the right choice is based on the majority vote. If the majority says something is a 'human right', then I will support it. Democracy works, and it works in the best interest of the people. "
Raven wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:18 PM:
rights are not dependent upon the will of the majority, one of the purposes of our federal and state constitutions is to prevent a tyranny of the majority and that majority depriving a minority group of any kind, of their rights.. "
Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:09 PM:
One possible repercussion is that the citizenry could vote to eliminate government involvement in marriage across the board. This would leave marriage solely in the realm of religion, thus removing a certain amount of power from the control of the state. I don't know what the consequences of that would be, and not being particularly religious, it concerns me.
Polygamists are a minority...do they have a 'right' to marry too? What about someone who wants to marry their dog? It's not as far-fetched as it seems...happens in India more frequently that people realize. Where do we draw the line? "
someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:26 PM:
Are gays human beings? Yes!
Are they citizens of the USA? Yes!
What ever happened to separate church and state?
What is with all you GOD FEARING people that you walk away from these brothers and sisters? Didn't Jesus say that we should love everyone equally? When Mary Madeline was about to be stoned to death, didn't Jesus say "let you without sin cast the first stone?"
What is wrong with you people? You are the real problem with America today. We are a melting pot of ideals, nationalities, beliefs, and religions. What would your Jesus do? Would he turn your brothers and sisters away because of their sexual orientation?
You are concerned that gays will destroy the moral fabric of America while the top executives of AIG are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a resort and spa immediately following their $85 Billion bail out. They even kept the CEO on for $1mil/month as a consultant. My friends the fabric of America is unraveling right before your eyes and the gays have nothing to do with it.
You folks who cling to your precious religious ideals are fools. Have a faith. Stick to it. But don't tell others that their beliefs are wrong.
What?
Did you think that God was only BIG enough for just one religion? Get over yourselves. Time has no meaning to God. God is not Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, Jewish, or any other religeous denomination for that matter. GOD just is; and loves us all not matter who we are what we do or what we believe.
Let them eat Wedding Cake! "
someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:03 PM:
"who'd to stop me from marrying my dog, brother, six wives, a donkey... etc. etc".
Pop your bubble all ready!
It's just marriage. My wife and I have two loving sons and I am not threatened in the least by homosexuality. Gays do have morals you know....
It's not like being gay is contageous! What are you people afraid of?
"Oh, Good God! Please help me! I just touched a deviant gay person and now I fear that I am too will become gay!"
GET REAL! GET OVER IT! MOVE ON!
Other things in life, in this town, in this economy, in this election ARE WAY MORE IMPORTANT than gay marriage!
GET OFF YOUR GOD SOAP BOX AND LET THEM BE!
This incestuous, beastiality, polygamy angle needs to end NOW! NAPA, Come on! I thought you were above all that crap!
imyourneighbor... you could live next door to me any old time! I support your right to live with, make love to, and be married to any PERSON (PERSON being the KEY WORD!) you want!
So, again I say, "Let them eat Wedding Cake!" "
Raven wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:23 PM:
just because a few years ago it wasn't an issue is also irrelevant....do you really want a list of rights that many people considered not applying to some group a few years before those rights were reinforced by either court action, amendment or war?
so the question is, show me a compelling reason why we deny a right to our fellow citizens? "
entity wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:40 PM:
That sounds like "seperate but equal" doctrine - spectres of jim crow. "You can be gay, just don't be gay here. Oh, and you can't marry other gay people."
Replace "gay" with black and "other gay" with white and see how that sounds.
How is someone's being gay "hurting" society, exactly?
And why you're turning to the government for validation of your religious tenant to begin with? "
a teacher wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:41 PM:
Dan Ross said it best the last ime this came around. We draw the line at consent. Farm animals can't consent, neither can children.
I don't see how polygamy is such a big deal, except anyone who wants more than one wife should have their head examined. Brother and sister? The yuck factor is huge, but I don't see it as being anything other than a tiny amount of very "interesting" people. So what?
The religious argument is bogus. All a church does is sanctify a marriage, that is acknowledge the marriage under the religious tenets of their particular dogma. The actual marriage is a civil matter, not religious. The presiding official is also a church official pulling double duty. They are not obligated to marry anyone, either. If a church doesn't recognize same sex couples, they don't have to marry them. The Catholic Church doesn't marry divorced people. "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:07 PM:
-I would disagree. We have a substantial number of Indian immigrants in our very multicultural Bay Area. In England, they just adopted Sharia Law for their Muslim immigrants. Our legal system has many similarities, and we could easily go that route here. So yes, it is very relevant.
Raven says: "The yuck factor (regarding incest) is huge, but I don't see it as being anything other than a tiny amount of very "interesting" people. So what?"
-Many said the same thing about gays decades ago. Should we also grant incestuous couples the same right to marry? "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:09 PM:
-Lumping gays and blacks together is not a valid comparison. "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:10 PM:
-So let me get this straight...if you can prove that a farm animal or a child is OK with it, you would support it? How do you define "consent"? "
entity wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:18 PM:
Tell me why not?
This is a civil rights issue. Black americans were denied voting rights because it "offended" white americans. You're denying gay people the right to be married because it "offends" you. Neither one hurts you, only empowers a minority to have the same rights as you do without taking anything away from you whatsoever. "
a teacher wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:51 PM:
"Consent", as you surely know, is the legal recognition that a person is capable of understanding the consequences of a contract, i.e. marriage. Unless PITA conquers the world, animals can't enter into contracts. The age for people to be able to give consent varies from state to state, but I think it's 18 here in CA, for marriage anyway.
I'm going to assume you are yanking my chain, you seem much more knowledgeable than that. "
napascot wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:02 PM:
We are talking about 2 adults that have been in committed relationships to eachother having the same benefits and rights as all. This is about equality.
I also agree with Raven on so many levels that people for prop 8 have never shown a valid reason to not allow gay marriage. "
pharper wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:16 PM:
And just as blacks do not choose the color of their skin, neither do homosexuals choose their orientation. My best friend knew he was gay from a very early age, (three years old) and his mother can vouch for that. Almost every single other gay person in the world will also tell you that they did not choose to be gay (although they may have realized it later in life), and frankly, I'd believe them over people claiming that it is a lifestyle choice--if you're not gay, how would you know? "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:54 PM:
-Homosexuality has an 'action' component to it, and actions have consequences. Race is solely a state of being.
As a person having African ancestry, I don't appreciate race discrimination issues being lumped in to the gay marriage category. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:12 PM:
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:32 PM:
-No, I did not say that. I said "Homosexuality has an 'action' component to it..."
If somebody thinks about murder, it's not a legal issue. If they commit an act of murder, there are societal consequences. "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:36 PM:
-Again, this 'age of consent' is determined by the voting majority. Our laws are created by the majority voting in what we think is acceptable. Regardless of the outcome, my concern is that we observe the wishes of the majority...if the cause is just, it will win. "
entity wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:35 PM:
Your "action" argument is fallacious at best. Did you "decide" to be straight one day, yourself? Or were you just born that way? Do you have to actively try to not "be gay"? I don't. Not being gay comes "naturally" to me, the same as gay comes natural to someone who is. It is an inherent state of being. "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:57 PM:
-Say WHAT? I'm not religious, and have previously stated so. You are apparently not following the posts very well.
entity says: "Now you're comparing being gay to murdering?"
-You are misrepresenting the logic presented. I guess that should be expected from someone who a few posts back tried to equate my African ancestry to homosexuality. "
Raven wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:12 PM:
regarding consent....the voting majority does not decide that unless you are talking about the voting majority of legislators...and the math involved in figuring out if those legislators acting represented the majority of voters is mind boggling...
and whether you like it or not, the discrimination shown gays is striking similar to that shown black americans "
common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:51 PM:
OpenMindedConservative wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:44 PM:
The state Supreme Court majority in this matter acted irresponsibly by 1) literally rushing to judgment in a 7-year-old case just months before a constitutional amendment election would have showed whether public opinion truly had shifted since 2000, 2) prejudicing the pending election by creating in case law "rights" by precedent, 3) further prejudicing the election in demanding same-sex marriages be allowed before the election so that measure proponents would have to undo not only the alleged new "rights" but also the contracts based on those alleged "rights," and 4) illogically comparing sexual orientation to race, when in the former case "form suggests function" (i.e., anatomy shows which gender "fits" with which gender) and in the latter case genetics has shown to be so insignificant as to be of interest only to the ill-informed. This is also a vote over whether Californians will tolerate judicial tyranny, in which the very few arbitrarily rewrite law largely without repercussion.
Marriage is about children, whether children result or not. The state has a high interest in regulating it. A rough comparison to a marriage license is a business license. Government requires such a license to collect taxes; government licenses marriage so it can promote successful future taxpayers. There are badly "run" marriages like there are badly operated businesses, but in both cases the goal is for the endeavor -- progeny or profits -- to outlive the founders -- and enjoy doing it. "
pharper wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:07 PM:
Marriage is NOT about children. In this case, it is a civil contract which allows two people benefits under the law and the opportunity to make their love public and legally binding. Religion and "the parts" have NOTHING to do with it, in this particular instance. The Supreme Court did not act with judicial tyranny; the Court's job is to protect the minority from the majority, and ruling in accordance with that job does not mean they were practicing any kind of judicial activism. The majority is not always right.
As for homosexuality being "permitted?" What on earth should we do? Criminalize gay people--a small but significant percentage of the population? We might as well make being African American illegal, or being female illegal. It is not something changeable. It is an inherent part of a person, like skin color or gender. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone; it is not a "practice" or a "lifestyle." Pedophilia, bestiality and incest do harm other living beings in many ways, be they children, animals, or family members, and they have NOTHING to do with homosexuality--there is absolutely no relationship between them, and it is ABSURDLY offensive that you would imply that they fall into the same category. "
entity wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:14 PM:
Are you saying that this quote of yours was a non-sequitor and entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, or will you admit that this was a comparison of being gay to murder?
The thing about "gay" versus "murder" is that "gay" deprives nobody of anything, whereas "murder" deprives people of life. Big distinction. Furthermore, even considering issues of biology versus choice in gayness there continues to be no loss of life, liberty or property to anyone (except, currently, for a gay minority being persecuted by a non-gay majority).
If your issue is entirely non-religious but rather populist in nature, then you will note that in the case of discrimination against a minority by a majority, that does not make the majority "right". The comparison between black americans historically is valid due to strikingly similar and horrible circumstances: public harassment, "not in my neighborhood" attitudes, refusal of employment, beatings and murders of a minority by a majority, simply for being different in some way that's non-destructive and not harmful to anyone.
The same comparison could be made with Judaeism, which has a long and terrible history of persecution for the "choice" of being Jewish - not just by descent but by belief. Was the Inquisition "right" because it was a "majority" of christians? While gay rights have not seen *near* the levels of horror that either of these two ethnic groups have - still we have a valid comparison, because though on a smaller scale, the exact same process is in action. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:10 AM:
My point is that the slippery slope argument is not worth the hill of beans it is built on.
This is an issue by issue situation. Pedophilia, bestiality, etc. VICTIMIZE living beings. Gay marriage has no victims, and creates no victims anywhere. "
Common Sense wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:45 AM:
-Can you prove that there would be no negative consequences to society (i.e. replacement rate, etc.) if we approve gay marriage? Our society lives by the decisions we collectively make...if there are no disadvantages to gay marriage, why is it nearly universally taboo across cultures? "
rbrink21 wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:25 AM:
srnitnw wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:59 AM:
a teacher wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:34 AM:
OpenMindedConservative:Marriage has never been about children, it's always been about property and alliances. "
entity wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:35 AM:
History has shown itself to be bigoted time and time again against minorities and indeed against entire beliefs, creeds, and races. That doesn't make it right. Crusades, inquisitions, pogroms and purges, general mistreatments and discrimination all darken our history. We can move beyond that now. Further, there were (and are) cultures both large and small that _did_ accept homosexuality as a norm with no difficulty.
"Can you prove that there would be no negative consequences to society.."
Can you prove that there *will* be some negative effect? We're talking about a minority here. Birth rates are still plenty high. Or is it the "duty" of every "good" person to breed? Who handed that memo out at the door, exactly? I didn't get that one. "
mominapa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:15 AM:
Sandra wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:45 PM:
I thought you and I had already agreed that most probably the taboo against gay unions came from the need of the population to grow in societies that needed to expand in order to stay viable.
I do not think that is an issue anymore in the U.S. It would not hurt for our society to evolve in this aspect, as it is now what I view as a human rights issue. "
someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:07 PM:
are you ready ti give up yet?
you are getting hammered here!
because, well, you're wrong to discriminate against HUMAN BEINGS! "
amigo wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:27 PM:
Stay strong
Yes on 8
Its about the children "
St.Hell.comNative wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:52 PM:
Raven wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:12 PM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:52 PM:
mominapa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:01 PM:
When you can prove to me, without a doubt that the children will or can be damaged, then we can argue. I get the idea you think gays are deviant. "
amigo wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:35 PM:
I dont think any one could prove anything to you regardless of what evidence presented.
Mattter of fact you sound a bit intolerate of my beliefs which you have assumed "
Raven wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:36 PM:
common sense wrote on Oct 8, 2008 6:33 PM:
-No. To imply that we can only rely on experiment and not theory is ridiculous. Do we need to genetically combine a human with donkey genetically to debate the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?
someguyinnapa says: "are you ready ti give up yet?"
-Attempting to silence the concerns and opinions of others is not an effective way to have a discussion.
someguyinnapa says: "because, well, you're wrong to discriminate against HUMAN BEINGS!"
-Except I'm not. Am I discriminating against polygamists because I don't think they should be allowed to marry until we are reasonably certain there will be no major adverse effects on our society? "
Raven wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:58 PM:
imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:48 PM:
Our first yes on 8 sign almost got me in a car accident. My partner and I were driving back to our home from Trader Joes (which we don't shop at regularly because we don't have money) and she shrieked. I THOUGHT I ALMOST RAN OVER A CHILD. It was a prop 8 sign in a yard... a first that we've seen. It was the house of her childcare when she was under 12. She spent 12 years there. She had tears running down her cheeks and blamed it on her seasonal allergies. RIGHT. It hurts. The signs make us feel MORE like second class citizens.
Regardless we will still have a family... I know some of you with yes on 8 signs in front your house don't like that but..... we are going to have kids... Just wait until they are old enough to say that MY family didn't have the same rights.
I am a good standing figure in the USA. I donate my time to children that don't have parents that have time for them. I have taught for over 5 years at one of the public high schools here. My partner and I are a nurturing couple and are looking forward to having a child.
It's all about religion............... isn't it.
I thought... there was a division..... but I guess not. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:26 AM:
Hello,
What planet have you grown up on? We socially experiment ALL of the time.
One of the the social experiments that turned out just fine was interacial marriages. There are a few problems created by the bigots that do not like mixed children, but this is the planet we live on. There will always be bigots, bullies, and those who think they should dictate how others conduct their lives based on their personal beliefs, even when they are not hurt by the others actions.
We do not evolve as a society if we allow bigotry and paranoia to rule our lives. Yes, there are some things we should fear, and react accordingly to. Marriage for gays is not one of those things.
So I say Hurrah for social experimentation...it is how we grow! "
Common Sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:43 AM:
-I'm not religious. But I still think we should be certain that allowing gay marriage would provide a net good to society before changing something this fundamental to the structure of our social fabric.
I'm willing to keep an open mind about the idea, but nobody seems willing to meet me half way...so far I've been called religious, discriminatory, a bigot, etc...none of which are true.
I know people who are gay...but that doesn't mean I have to support their right to marry. On the flip side, I would never attack their right to live their lives in their own homes as they see fit. I know people who have sold drugs too...that doesn't mean they should be granted the same legal rights as a pharmacist.
I'm a swing voter...make your case without temper tantrums. What are the advantages and disadvantages? Can anyone point to an objective study by anthropologists? "
mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:46 AM:
mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:01 AM:
mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:04 AM:
amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:10 AM:
I would like to say in my view that pro8 is not a personal attack on gay couples.
The implications of prop 8 extend farther than two people "eating wedding cake" as ealier stated
Prop 8 prevents children as young as kindergarden from being taught that...."tradition marriage = same sex marriage". None of us can deny that it is different!
Sorry friends but my interest are from the betterment of children and society in america.
We have to protect the rights of a child
It is clear that the best interest of a child is to have a household of 1 man 1 women. If we deny our children this basic right then we go against the betterment of society as a whole. "
amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:34 AM:
cicero
Yes on 8 Protect the children Yes on 8 "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:43 AM:
Well Common sense...
What do you think is half way? I have not called you anything...I think I have met you half way.
I just think the whole call for a "study" is kind of silly. As I said, this is the world we live in and social experiments are part of life.
There are things that we should worry about. But I do not thing gay marriage is one of those things. You keep asking for studies...I am wondering, what is your fear? What do you think is the downside? Gay couples already cohabitate, they already adopt children...what is the big deal over a marriage license? The world will keep spinning, the sun will still rise, and a portion of our society will have the same rights to stability in their relationships that you and I can have. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:47 AM:
Raven wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:58 AM:
the only people I think children have to fear is people who insist upon painting some of their fellow citizens as people they need to fear, who are somehow different and don't deserve the same rights as others
> so common sense, this means you do acknowledge they have a right to marry? "
mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:28 AM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:58 AM:
-So let me get this straight. You are willing to change a fundamental structure of our society without ANY objective research into the possible consequences and repercussions.
Respectfully, I strongly disagree with that approach. Why don't we go ahead and legalize polygamy as well, in the name of "social experimentation"? "
srnitnw wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:20 PM:
imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:59 PM:
Teachers have to deal with this all of the time. They have to foster THE BEST learning environment they can for every student in the class regardless of how they feel about the issues. "
napascot wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:28 PM:
Since 2004 MA has had over 10k gay marriages.
As far as I know they are still a state that is functioning within the US and have not fallen apart.
Since spring of 2008 CA has performed over 11k gay marriages and I think we are still functioning as part of the US and I have not seen or read about any backlash, riots, the sky falling, the end of the earth happening.
As far as the children argument goes children need a stable and loving environment that is nurturing. In our society this may be from one man and one women, married or not. Grandparents raising their childrens children, single moms, single dads, or same sex couples. The bottom line is love, affection, discipline and guidance.
Again this prop is about discrimination. Please regardless if you support gay marriage or not this is not the way to go about it.
As far as teaching same sex marriage in kindegarten, or any other grade, I don't re-call even learning about marriage period in school, maybe the cirriculum has changes since i was in school but I thought in Kindegarten we were learning numbers, the alphbet, and how to share with others I don't remember marriage discussions at 5 years old.......
Please do not vote to discrminate "
Joe wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:38 PM:
imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:16 PM:
Common Sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:47 PM:
-Jumping up and down playing the discrimination card accomplishes nothing. Nobody here, as far as I can tell, is trying to remove people's right to be gay.
The question is whether we as a society think gay marriage should be granted equivalency to heterosexual marriage. Society rewards the things it sees as a benefit, punishes the things it sees as a detriment, and pretty much leaves everything in the middle alone. Businesses are the same way...employees who do things that benefit the company are given performance bonuses. Employees whose work does not provide a clear benefit do not get rewarded.
Since I don't see a clear social benefit that gay marriage provides for society, I'm not convinced that we should be required to reward it. And since nobody is trying to take away their right to be gay, it is a discrimination issue. I'm sure that won't stop people from claiming discrimination, though.
So again...polygamists are a minority. By the gay marriage argument, they are being discriminated against as well. Should we legalize polygamy? "
a teacher wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:07 PM:
entity wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:07 PM:
Should straight couples who want to get married be forced to sign an affadavit that they WILL have children, to receive "official" recognition? Is that what's really best? "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:17 PM:
I think any changes that reflect positively on human rights will eventually have positive repercussions. I do not need a study to understand this. Just as I think changes that take away human rights will always have negative repercussions.
I can't help but notice you never addressed my question to you....What are YOU afriad/ worried/ concerned over if Gays have the right to marry? How will it negatively effect you? How will it negatively effect others rights to lead their lives? It is just a marraige liscense. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:22 PM:
common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:55 PM:
-First off, "afraid" is not the appropriate word (unless you playing debate games and trying to paint your opponent as foolishly paranoid). "Concerned" would be more appropriate.
Many of my major concerns have been expressed...maintaining popoulation replacement rate, where to draw the line (polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia). The motivation behind my asking for the issue to be studied is out of concern for the other impacts that us regular folk haven't considered.
And yes, would be a change to the fundamental structure of our society...gay marriage has been recognized until now. What are the repercussions? I don't buy all of the reasons listed by the religious crowd...but when the pro-gay crowd can't provide an objective analysis, they lose credibility too.
I know you keep trying to bring race in to this, but I just don't see it. Nobody is keeping anyone from being gay...the issue is whether being gay is worthy of societal recognition in the form of marriage. I'm not convinced it is. "
common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:02 PM:
-Well, at least you are honest. I suspect polygamy is illegal because there are societal problems that emerge when too many women are tied to too few men. At any rate, I'm not willing to legalize polygamy just to see what happens...just like I'm not willing to legalize gay marriage until we know what we are getting in to. "
Raven wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:19 PM:
you have failed to come up with a single credible reason why the right to marry should be taken away from homosexuals...you try to change the subject and ask about polygamy (does that include polyandry as well?)
so once again, how does same sex marriage threaten or demean heterosexual marriage....and just because you don't like isn't a valid reason...what about it justifies removing a right from one of your fellow citizens? "
Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:23 PM:
a teacher wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:27 PM:
common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:39 PM:
Sandra and teacher are OK with polygamy being legalized too. Raven doesn't see the connection (even though polygamists feel that they are a minority whose rights are being taken away).
teacher says: "Many societies are and have been polygamous. It hasn't destroyed them."
teacher, to the best of my knowledge, the women in polygamous societies tend to have very few rights. I do recall a case being made that Western Civilization's monogamy practices led to the rise of women's rights. Perhaps this is where the risk lies? Gay marriage leads to polygamy which ends in women losing their rights? As far as societies being "destroyed" (teacher's words), I would like to know how lesbians went from being accepted in ancient Greece to punishable with death in parts of the empire's current remnants.
These are the types of things that a serious, objective study would consider. Somehow, I don't think that people screaming "discrimination" are the best reference for an objective analysis. "
common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:54 PM:
-For someone who is usually a calm, cool head in these discussion forums, Sandra, it is sad to see you downplay the opinions of others whom you disagree with. Usually you are the one chastising others for the very same thing.
I've tried not to offend anyone, and I've kept most of my snarky comments to myself. I have humbly approached the discussion with legitimate concerns. I am not religious, don't particularly care what people do in the privacy of their own home, and yet have been attacked with cries of bigotry and discrimination. I have yet to see any objective evidence analyzing the pros and cons of legalized gay marriage, and am told by you Sandra that my 'concerns are moot' and 'this whole thing is just plain silly'.
If this is what the pro-gay marriage crowd is do