NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor
Proposition 8 discriminates
Monday, October 06, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
Dear 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.
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.
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
Napa
253 comment(s)

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:13 AM:

" Thank you for your comment. My partner and I are getting married and we will legally be wife and wife! I thank all of my family and friends behind me. It makes it that much more special. :) "

Raven wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:52 AM:

" Well said. Vote no. "

kevin wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:54 AM:

" Comparing sexual discrimination to racial discrimination is disingenuious at best. Except perhaps for Michael Jackson, I have never seen a person of color able to choose their race... "

kbf wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:30 AM:

" Sorry Michael, you are so wrong. I as a non homosexual, if I were to get married my license would say partner A and partner B, it would not say Bride and Groom and never would say that because of the california supreme court. I would be a bride and would want my license to say that. My rights are bring taken away (that have been there from the begining) to appease a segment of society that is pushing their agenda. Vote YES on 8 "

pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Well, kevin, I've never met a gay person able to choose their sexuality... "

Paddy wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Gay marriage is a direct attack on my religious and social beliefs. It is discriminating against me as a moral and traditional human being. Gay marriage is discriminating against the religious traditions of millions of humans in churches worldwide. Comments like this are from people who think spitting in the wind is normal. "

kbf wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Sorry pharper, every homosexual has the choice. and for imyourneighbor you will not be husband and wife you will be A and B, eheck the license when you get one.
well said Paddy,
NO on 8 "

John Richards wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:16 AM:

" There is that buzz word again: "discrimination". Most discrimination is actually good. We use discrimination every day to discern fine distinctions between between good things and not so good things. Using a cheap buzz word to whip up emotional frenzy leads to fallacies, not logic.

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:

" Paddy, gay marriage is no more discriminating against you " as a moral and traditional human being. Gay marriage is discriminating against the religious traditions of millions of humans in churches worldwide. ", than someone being homosexual is descriminating against your heterosexuality....You statements have absolutely no logic to them. You will still be able to be moral and traditional, still be able to worship as you see fit, and still be able to marry a person of the opposite sex. I suggest you look up the definition of descrimnation. As for spitting it the wind, that is exactly what your argument is doing as it makes no logical sense what so ever. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:27 AM:

" kbf - 'Party A' and 'Party B' are pretty common in contracts.

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:

" There are people who thought that voting rights for women, african americans, and chinese were "morally wrong", too. And mixed-race marriages were illegal, here in the USA, up through 1967. And some found it "morally offensive" that the slaves were freed and given status as equal beings to white people, too.

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:

" It's sad, Paddy, that you think that disagreement with your religious beliefs is an attack. It seems that you are mistaking “disagreement” for “discrimination”, and there is a huge difference. You are free to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs you choose, and to defend them when others disagree with you. However, my disagreement with your beliefs is not an attack, and certainly not discrimination. That is, you are not harmed by the disagreement. You may condemn gay marriage for religious reasons, and you are free to do so. But please realize that one’s religious beliefs are not (and should not) be the basis of law. To deny someone else a basic right based on a particular group’s religious belief is discrimination, plain and simple. If you oppose gay marriage, I would suggest that you not marry a gay person. And please don’t try to force your religion on the rest of us. "

Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:51 AM:

" kbf - just a quick question: when did you choose to be straight? If "every homosexual has the choice," I would imagine that every heterosexual does as well. I never "chose" to be straight, but that's what I am. Why do you think it gays are so different? "

amigo wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Micheal Dearborn present a weak agrument of antidiscrimination. The homosexual population is less than 1% of the populous. Therefore his exageration of " a large portion of the community is denied fairness" is mularky. Also how could it be a huge step "backwards" if it is the will of the people? American people? The american people have spoken for this "gay discrimination" in an overwhelming majority already! And they will speak again. Stand to your convictions and dont be suboed by this propoganist rhetoric!!!!!!! VIVA AMERICA "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:11 AM:

" People can still have their personal liberties without the government (representing the "people") endorsing it as what is best for our society.

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:

" Hola, mi Amigo – just a couple points of clarification. If we take your 1% figure as credible, that means that 300,000 Californians would be barred from marriage. That’s a lot folks, not an exaggeration. But the issue here isn’t numbers, the issue is equality. Denying rights to gays is wrong if three people are harmed, or 300, or 3,000,000. The point was made very well above by entity, and it’s worth reiterating here: our history is rife with examples of people being denied rights because the majority felt itself justified in doing so. Religious and ethnic minorities, women and the disabled have all been on the receiving end of “tyranny of the majority,” and we (thankfully) have come a long way in changing that. Our trajectory has been toward a greater recognition of rights: the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, ending Jim Crow, the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act – all are examples of expanding equality and of recognizing that each of us has inherent value. Prop. 8 seeks to change the law to specifically remove a right that gays currently have. That is a step backward. "

steph wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:00 PM:

" MYOB.

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:

" Fire Mike Mike MIke... First of all your agument is based on the assumption that the homosexual life style is something inernt like race or a mental or phyical malady. There is ABSOLUTELY no scientic proof of this! Isnt that what your whole philosophy is based on.. science?
Therefore you are advocating a choice! Sorry to break it to you! "

luv1mom wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Steph: Well said. May I just add "live and let live". "

Fire Mike wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Amigo - Please think very deeply about your "choice" to be straight. Is it something you had to figure out, or are you "just that way"? Once you understand why you're straight, and how much choice you have in the matter, go find a gay person - there are plenty around so this shouldn't be hard. Ask them about their "choice" to be gay. You may find that you have more in common than you thought . . . "

Sandra wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Common Sense, I have a question for you...If you believe this to be true, "However, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to give it special recognition (like "marriage"), ....", then I would ask you why not? What is the down side? Other than peoples private disagreement? You are lumping society into YOUR viewpoint. I would argue that "society" has as many viewpoints on this subject as there are people making up that society. There are people getting married all the time for reasons I disagree with, such as immaturity, lack of financial stability, desperation for love, etc. People get married all the time for reasons that I as a member of the society would be against. Yet they get to anyway. How is gay marriage any different? How would it affect me any more than any other person getting married?
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:

" I'd advise that you watch the movie For the Bible Tells Me So if you'd like scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice. I have to assume you did not wake up one day and choose to be heterosexual. Why would anyone choose to "label" them self as something that garners discriminatory bills like prop 8, not to mention the scorn, rejection, and blatant hatred of many people?

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:

" It is my understanding that Homosexuality is not proven to be a choice, but could be part of the genetic makeup. This is something that will be proven some day by advancement in genetics. But it is a silly side bar of the argument on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not.
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:

" I think gays should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage and the pain of divorce just like normal people "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:27 PM:

" kbf - they are putting the Brde and Groom option boxes back on the form - you're worries are all solved. Next... "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:31 PM:

" Sandra says: "What is the down side? Other than peoples private disagreement? You are lumping society into YOUR viewpoint."

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:

" Coomon Sense, you have just made Sandra's argument for her. Everything that you lay out could be said for interracial marriages, etc. In other words, you do not have a valid argument against the legal union of homosexuals, you have a personal agenda. You are of course entitled to your moral views, but you are not entitled to impose them on others, sorry. "

pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:02 PM:

" A clear benefit, common sense? How about equality for all? Like it says in the Constitution? "

napascot wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:13 PM:

" I rarely comment on the stories, but i have followed this debate for so long that i have decided to chimein.

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:

" btw.....the 1 percent figure is probably low....most current estimate is that about 8 percent of the male population is gay....and about 4 percent lesbian "

common sense wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:20 PM:

" napascot says: "This is making a constitutional admendment to dicrminate."

-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:

" Common Sense...you've lost me...
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:

" it may be the only way but it doesn't change the fact you are discriminating against a right that more than 500,000 of your neighbors have.....and it sets a dangerous precedent, for if you can use the ballot box to take away one group's rights, why stop there?.. "

napascot wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:31 PM:

" Common Sense

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:

" Civilizations need moral standards to survive - once hedonism begins, societies begin to break down, just as the Greek and Roman civilizations. This is about tolerating debase practices as normal and given equal standards under the law. Vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and don’t fall for the victimization emotionalism put forth by the democrats and leftists. Right is right, wrong is just plain wrong. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:57 PM:

" CommonSense: To call 4.6 million people a sizable majority of Californians is quite misleading. There are 33 million people in this state. The vote on prop 22 represents a majority of voters in that election.

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:

" Sandra, why do humans across nearly all cultures around the world (with the exception of modern "progressive" circles) regard homosexuality as taboo? Why do they regard incest as taboo? Why is bestiality taboo?

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:

" okay mark, show me an example of any civilization collapsing because they allowed same sex marriage....
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:

" "teacher" says: "To call 4.6 million people a sizable majority of Californians is quite misleading."

-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:

" I see that the NVR censor is hard at work keeping the pro-prop 8 comments to a minimum...

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:

" napascot says: "So if you truly believe your own statment, then a gay person getting married would not be an issue"

-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:

" Yes on prop. 8.

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:

" Common Sense, I do not know for a fact that most cultures across the world think of homosexuality as taboo. But I will, for arguments sake, say you are correct. I would hazard a guess that it had to do with procreation of human beings. Most cultures in the past needed children born to assure livelyhood for the family. Population is NOW a huge problem. So we do not need procreation to assure survival. In fact it is probably the opposite. So perhaps the removal of these taboos is a good thing. I think it is dangerous to have a constitutional change to limit what I think of as human rights. I hope this measure is defeated, as it would set a dangerous precedent.

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:

" anyone heard of incrementalism?
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:

" Sandra says: "Population is NOW a huge problem. So we do not need procreation to assure survival."

-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:

" Commonsense:

"-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:

" Common Sense, there is an overpopulation problem. Gay couples adopt children who are unwanted and unloved; they may not be able to reproduce with one another, but more and more gay couples are getting pregnant by use of in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy. Population is NOT an issue, I can assure you, and the percentage of gay people in the population is not large enough to somehow endanger the world's human population. It isn't as if gay marriage somehow "converts" other people to homosexuality, and homosexual couples have no higher rate of having homosexual kids than do heterosexual couples. By your logic, we should completely outlaw homosexuality and homosexual relationships on the grounds that they are a danger to the population.

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:

" Michael Dearborn objects to the "slippery slope" argument often used by proponents of proposition 8.

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:

" Pharper, I think you misunderstood Common Sense's point. I am really not sure if there was one, other than to elaborate on why the taboos towards homosexuality exist. The countries that are showing slower population growth will not cause their countries to fail, as the populations are HUGE, and need to slow their growth to level out. Also I do not think Gay couples will significantly add to population growth, in spite of in vitro, or adoption.

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:

" Amigo: Why do you think they will have to teach kindergardeners about same sex marriage? They don't teach opposite sex marriage now. Don't you think the answer to any kindergardener's questions about sexuality or marriage should come from their parents, not the government (as in school district doctrine)? I think you are the "Pure propoganda". "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Sandra says: "...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."

-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:

" "teacher", you are correct...I should have stated, "A sizeable majority of VOTING Californians voted previously to define marriage as between a man and a woman." "

Sandra wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Commen Sense, I guess we will see in the election what most people think. I hope they will agree with me that it is a dangerous precedent to add amendments that limit what I believe is a human right issue.
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:

" Moonstone -You've raised concerns regarding the 'slippery slope' argument that I think deserve a response. I think you're right that we on the No on 8 side sometimes are a little cavalier in our dismissal of that argument. From our side, the issue is equality, and we like to focus on that. However, I can understand how one could legitimately question where this might lead. So, if you're still interested in this thread, post a reply. My time is a little tight today (laundry, kids dentist appointments, etc.), but I'd like to explain my take on this if you'd care to read it. Let me know . . . "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Sandra, in principle I agree that an issue like this should not be dealt with as a state constitution issue. Unfortunately, the way California government works, we are stuck with it.

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:

" but so far,common, the courts have not supported rights in either...but they have supported a right for same sex couples to marry...and at different times in our history, the majority endorsed slavery as a right, banning interracial marriage and well, the list goes on...

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:

" Raven, I agree with many of your points. The Constitution says that all men are created equal, and there is a valid argument to be made that allowing heterosexuals to marry without permitting homosexuals to marry violates that equality. However, up until a few decades ago, nobody ever seriously considered that homosexual marriage was an equality issue. Trying to lump homosexual marriage in to heterosexual marriage, without giving the people an opportunity to respond to the issue in a democratic fashion, is a recipe for disaster.

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:

" Why so much hate?

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:

" and why do all you aggressive people that are gay marriage bashing always bringing up....


"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:

" so why is it opponents always bring up polygamy and bestiality when they cannot concoct a winning argument about why same sex marriage are not a right or should be outlawed ......to be blunt they are irrelevant because the issue is same sex marriage....if there is a ballot measure to legalize either I will be happy to discuss them...and frankly how India handles either is also irrelevant

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:

" "Support the individual right to engage in homosexuality, but limit government recognition to only those practices that are deemed beneficial by the majority."

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:

" "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?"

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:

" Raven says: "...and frankly how India handles either is also irrelevant"

-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:

" entity says: "Replace "gay" with black and "other gay" with white and see how that sounds."

-Lumping gays and blacks together is not a valid comparison. "

common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:10 PM:

" teacher says: "We draw the line at consent. Farm animals can't consent, neither can children."

-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:

" "is not a valid comparison."

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:

" CommonSense, you know better than that, you're just being contrary.

"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:

" To start bringing dogs and children into the conversation is so out of line it is just silly.

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:

" How would you prove that a farm animal or child is OK with it, common sense? It's not possible. A dog or a hamster or a cat cannot speak. They do not think in the same way a person does; I sincerely doubt that marriage is really a concept that a dog considers. Children are not adults; their capacity to understand and to cognitively decide are not developed in the way an adult's are. They cannot give consent. It is not possible.

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:

" entity says: "Tell me why not?"

-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, are you saying you cannot be homosexual unless you commit the "act" with another person? That is just ridiculas. I was heterosexual all my life...never committed the "act" until much along in years. I did not become heterosexual at that point. I already was. Why would homosexuality be any different? Sexual orientation is solely a state of being. Acting upon the orientation has nothing to do with it. "

common sense wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Sandra says: "common sense, are you saying you cannot be homosexual unless you commit the "act" with another person?"

-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:

" 'teacher' says: "The age for people to be able to give consent varies from state to state, but I think it's 18 here in CA..."

-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:

" Wait, wait. Now you're comparing being gay to murdering? Where's the "common sense" in that? Murdering kills people, destroys lives. Being gay and getting married does what, makes two people happy together? Gives them the same tax benefits that you share? You're pressing your religious belief on someone else when you deny them that right.

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:

" entity says: "You're pressing your religious belief on someone else when you deny them that right."

-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:

" common, never said anything about a yuck factor...who were you quoting?...

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:

" Whoops, my apologies Raven, the quote was from 'teacher'. "

OpenMindedConservative wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Our Constitution and body of laws that come from it are all about discrimination: against the violent, the untruthful, the manipulative, the unsafe, etc. "Nondiscrimination" statutes on sexual orientation discriminate against polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. Wouldn't it be "discrimination" to discriminate against these illegal sexual orientations when homosexual and increasingly transsexuality are permitted?

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:

" OpenmindedConservative, I highly suggest that you look up the lectures by John Corvino on homosexuality. "The parts don't fit" is completely irrelevant (and I promise you, were you to look it up, you'd find that the parts *do* fit). The type of intimacy that a couple shares has NOTHING to do with marriage. If it did, there are plenty of straight couples who never should have been allowed to marry, based on the perversity of their actions. The government needs to stay out of the bedroom, unless people are being harmed or injured.

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:

" "If they commit an act of murder, there are societal consequences." -CS

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:

" Here we go again...the slippery slope argument from OpenMindedConservative, ""Nondiscrimination" statutes on sexual orientation discriminate against polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. Wouldn't it be "discrimination" to discriminate against these illegal sexual orientations when homosexual and increasingly transsexuality are permitted?"... I want to point out for a third time...to have a slope, you must have a summit. When you have a summit it is all downhill from there. So if you are going to put forth this type of argument, how in the world can you think the slope only goes in one direction? Couldn't we by not upholding the human rights issue of Gay Marriage also slip down the slope in the direction Iran has gone? They have no GAYS whatsoever. To quote the President of Iran, "We do not have that here." Well I have news for him, he does have that there. Unless he has rounded them all up and killed them....NOW that's a slippery slope.

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:

" Sandra says: "Gay marriage has no victims, and creates no victims anywhere."

-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:

" Religious beliefs are a choice, and yet the government is not allowed to discriminate against a person's religious choices. So the "homosexuality is a choice so it should be discriminated against" argument doesn't hold water in that regards. That said, homosexuality is not a choice. Other animal species have shown that there are homosexuals in their populations, usually around 11%. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Common, Whether gays seeking the right to marriage actually get to or not, it's not going to change the fact that they are gay. Telling them they can't get married is not going to spur them into a heterosexual relationship producing children, so your reference to replacement rate is really reaching - and really very telling. As for being "universally taboo accross cultures", you know very well that has nothing to do with consequences to society and everything to do with people's hang up with what goes on in the bedroom - although it's perfectly acceptable to do those things with someone of the opposite sex, go figure. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:34 AM:

" CommonSense: the Replacement rate argument is illogical. Homosexuals don't produce children (not quite true, but lets go with that anyway). Married or not, they still aren't producing children, so being married is irrelevent.

OpenMindedConservative:Marriage has never been about children, it's always been about property and alliances. "

entity wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:35 AM:

" "Why is it nearly universally taboo across cultures?"

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:

" Homosexuality is not a choice - deciding to live as a gay person with another gay person IS a choice and all people should have the right to live with or be married to whomever they please as long as no one gets hurt and to have the benefits I have always enjoyed because I am white and straight. I have known gay people who refuse to live as gays because of the discrimination and have been miserable in marriages where they could not be themselves. I have a friend who just married her partner in June and I applaud their decision 100%. Since when was it ever anyone's choice to be born male or female, black or not, gay or straight, etc? You are born who you are and to deny that would be a disaster for your happiness. I am not married anymore and that was a CHOICE and it is a CHOICE for me never to be married again. That does not make me less woman, less white or less straight and there is no one married or not, straight or not, white or not who will ever convince me that because someone wants to marry their gay partner, I am somehow compromised because of the decisions of people I hardly know or don't know at all. Before 1920, I would not have been able to vote. Before 1967, I would not have been allowed to marry outside my race and even in 1970, I had to sign a statement to raise my children Catholic because I married a non-Catholic. All ridiculous and all against my liberal attitudes about civil rights. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Common sense, I think two same sexed people getting married would have the same impact on society as two opposite sexed people getting married. Can I prove this? Can you prove it would harm our society?
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:

" common sense:

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:

" mominnapa......I am so happy that you have been liberated from the oppressors of this patriarcle society.
Stay strong

Yes on 8
Its about the children "

St.Hell.comNative wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:52 PM:

" No on 8!!!! Just had to comment. Most of these read: blah, blah, blah! If anyone read the paper the other night, they will be changing the marriage license to read bride and groom. I think they should keep them both: bride and groom and party A/party B, so they people can have a CHOICE as to what they want on their license. Yes, I said CHOICE, as in gays should have the choice to marry or not just like everyone else. And if it is about the children, I know a few gay couples who are awesome parents to adopted children. They have wonderful relationships and are financially secure! Can't say that for too many "straight" couples! "

Raven wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:12 PM:

" I believe they are, St., my reading of the chron story was they will have the option to check bride/groom; party a/party b or not check any box at all "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:52 PM:

" I would love for somebody to present an OBJECTIVE study, done by professional anthropologists, that analyzes the benefits and problems society will experience with legalized gay marriage. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Amigo, no I have not been oppressed by anyone and I am very strong. I support myself and have for many many years. No, it is not about the children. It is about your homophobia. The friend I mentioned in my post has 4 children and they are all just fine with the arrangement. They are not the only gay couple I know who have kids and all of them are doing fine. I know so many more dysfunctional hetero families than gay families. Maybe the gay families try harder or maybe their priorities are in the right place, or maybe they just don't have the same "issues" as hetero couples. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am and, whether I know or like you, I will fight for your right to express them, just as I will fight for the rights of people of any sex who want to marry.

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:

" A bit hostle.

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:

" well, common sense, wouldnt have to allow gay marriage before you could do such a study? or would you just use the data from say, Massachusetts, or Canada or the European countries that allow it? "

common sense wrote on Oct 8, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Raven says: "well, common sense, wouldnt have to allow gay marriage before you could do such a study?"

-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:

" ..... so who is the donkey in your example.....homosexuals or heterosexuals?...and what is this fascination with people and animals that opponents of same sex marriage have... "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:48 PM:

" are you in favor of gay marriage... and my marriage soon... will some of you put up a no on 8 sign in your front yard. please.

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:

" Common Sense...your common sense has slipped a notch or two. You state, "-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? "

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:

" imyourneighbor says: "It's all about religion............... isn't it."

-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:

" No, amigo, I have not assumed anything about you. You have made your position very clear, and I told you that you have that right and you also have a right to your closed mind. I am not trying to convince you of anything, only stating my own beliefs - I don't call that hostile, I call it a debate with teeth and that is the only kind I will tolerate. You have not answered my "accusation". Are you homophobic? Do you know or tolerate gays or does it disgust you like so many people I know. Don't make so much of it. It won't and can't affect your life if you don't let it. You are stressing yourself out for no reason. They don't care about how you feel. They are here to stay so welcome them or fight about it for the rest of your life. I choose to relax and go easy and maybe make a new friend or two in the process. Good true friends are hard to come by. I don't make an issue of what they do in private and neither should you. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:01 AM:

" to "imyourneighbor" - yes, you are my neighbor, maybe not literally, but you are everyone's neighbor and someday, God willing, your house won't be the one on the block that people point to as "those people". You are a curiosity, at best and deviant at worst. I don't think either way. You are not a curiosity,nor are you deviant. You are people who want to live and let live, love whom you please and raise children. Not so different from us heteros who had the same idea once upon a time. When I got married, we were the newlyweds on the block - when we had kids, we were the young parents on the block and when we were divorced, people were sad. Normal, or at least as normal as you aspire to be. To me, you are, but you already know it is an uphill fight. Keep fighting. Keep going uphill and enjoy your life. The "yes on 8" group will lose this election - expect some consequences, but don't knuckle under to them. You are fine, doing the right thing and you will be happy. Stay in love, stay focused and good luck to all of you. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:04 AM:

" I like "someguyinnapa". Got the right ideas and not afraid to express them. Good for you. If you tell me your name, I'll tell you mine. "

amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Im sure ya'll would be great loving parents.

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:

" The state did not create the family, rather the family created the state.
cicero

Yes on 8 Protect the children Yes on 8 "

Sandra wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:43 AM:

" "I'm willing to keep an open mind about the idea, but nobody seems willing to meet me half way..."
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:

" Protect the children???? FROM WHAT? Kids can understand love....They understand mommy and daddy love each other and marry, so what is so hard about understanding mommy and mommy love each other, or daddy and daddy love each other? What is there to protect them from? LOVE???? "

Raven wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:58 AM:

" amigo there is absolutley nothing in Prop 8 that addresses educating anyone ... it is simply to remove rights from of our fellow citizens...or dont you think all our citizens have the same rights....

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:

" amigo, homosexuality is not a new thing or even different. It is as old as human beings. What is different is that they are finally being realized and recognized as viable members of society, not that scary man around the corner of the street little children should not walk down. The deviants are the sex slave traders and the child molesters. None of the gay people even approach anyone they know is straight. I would say let's get together and discuss this, but unlike my gay friends, I don't want to know you that well. No one is going to teach your children that gay marriage is the only way to go. You don't have anything to worry about unless, God forbid for you, one of your children was born gay. Yes, I said BORN, gay. It is not a learned thing. It is a congenital thing. They are either born gay or not. Period. "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Sandra says: "I just think the whole call for a "study" is kind of silly."

-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:

" Amigo, your argument with regard to educating children is not completely thought out. If some of those children happen to be gay, your argument also serves to discriminate against them by telling them that they do not have a right to a full and happy life, married to the person of their choosing when they reach adulthood. Kudos for suggesting it is better to teach our children that they can look forward to being discriminated against if they aren't wired the same way you are or that their feelings don't matter as much as the majority and that they are somehow inexplicably less entitled equal treatment. Those are not the values I want taught to my children in school or elsewhere. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Protecting children? Prop 8 will not protect my child. They will grow up in a school system where they will be told that our family isn't as strong, right or important. What effect will that have on them and the other students around them?

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:

" Ok Common, this is not exactly a documented social experiment but the closest I have for the sake of this discussion.

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:

" I will be voting yes on prop 8. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

" And I don't mean TEACHING homosexuality. Let me clarify. I mean teaching tolerance for the greater good. That the learning environment is a place where everyone comes together, works together regardless of disagreeing opinions. You know... like having to work with someone that has differing faiths, values, political views etc... tolerance. "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:47 PM:

" napascot says: "...do not vote to discrminate..."

-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:

" What's wrong with polygamy? Why is it illegal? The Bible is full of polygamous marriages. I don't see the states interest iin keeping polygamy illegal. "

entity wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:07 PM:

" There you go again comparing homosexuality and polygamy. Slippery slope, yet again, and that's been defeated time and time again. What benefit is the ability to squirt out even more children when there is already a surplus of children without homes? What harm is there in allowing two same-gender people to share a life together and enjoy the same tax benefits?

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:

" Common Sense, I see no problem with that, as long as I am not froced into that type of marriage, why should I care?...Are you suggesting that we should of done a study to see all the repurcussions off interacial marriage? Should we have done a study on ending slavery, giving women the vote? All of the social changes a society makes has repercussions...
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:

" Oh, and Common Sense...as for changing the fundamental structure of our society??? That is pretty funny....Gays live together,have children, adopt, split up, cheat or remain faithful...everything heterosexual couples do. The only thing they do not have is that peice of paper....so what do you think that paper will change in a negative way? "

common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 6:55 PM:

" Sandra says: "What are YOU afriad/ worried/ concerned over if Gays have the right to marry?"

-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:

" 'teacher' says: "What's wrong with polygamy? Why is it illegal? The Bible is full of polygamous marriages. I don't see the states interest iin keeping polygamy illegal."

-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:

" common sense, what you are trying to do is deny people their rights under the law....

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:

" Common Sense as I said before, gay couples already do everything heterosexual couples do except having it legally acknowledged by a piece of paper. So I would suggest all of your concerns are moot. Having a peice of paper will not rock the society we live in. Society does recognize it already by the fact it it exists. Some do not like it...but that will not make it go away. Not acknowledgeing it legally will not make it go away. To me this whole thing iis just plain silly. What is the big deal? "

a teacher wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:27 PM:

" CommonSense: Many societies are and have been polygamous. It hasn't destroyed them. "

common sense wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:39 PM:

" So, just to summarize...

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:

" Sandra says: "So I would suggest all of your concerns are moot....To me this whole thing iis just plain silly."

-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 doing to swing voters like myself around the state, then I suspect Prop 8 will pass by large margins. "

amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:12 PM:

" Anyone seen the "folsom street fair"? "

amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:28 PM:

" Idont think you guys are going deep enough.

What are the fundementals of a family?
1man 1 women =1 child
That is the only way it can happen.
Lets leave out sythetic process for the sake of this point.
Thus the human right of a child is to have 1father 1mother.....
Not 3 moms 2 dads, 4dads 1mom, 0dad 0mom,ect
To compromise this childs right consciously would be a great disservice to humanity "

amigo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:09 PM:

" Unregulated sperm donations are leading to unusual situations in which the children of lesbian are mixing socially- creating a risk of incest.

Implication are far greater than "eating wedding cake!

YES ON EIGHT Protect the children "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:14 PM:

" what a cheap shot...folsom street fair...I HAVE never been, and it is like the male version of Mardi Gras. Testerone on the 100% side.

That is just a punch in the wrong direction. It seems to me that you don't really know any gay people. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:26 PM:

" what a cheap shot...folsom street fair...I HAVE never been, and it is like the male version of Mardi Gras. Testerone on the 100% side.

That is just cheap a punch in the wrong direction. It seems to me that you don't really know any gay people. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:27 PM:

" testosterone on the 100% side "

a teacher wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Commonsense: You're reaching, dude. You're making connections that are dubious at best. What makes you think that polygamy would be at all popular? "

Raven wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:52 PM:

" Dont forget a large number of the people who go to Folsom are hetero and out for a walk on what they perceive to be the wild side....and has nothing to do with same sex marriage


and common sense, there is no connection between same sex marriage and polygamy/polyandry....Prop 8 doesnt address polygamy...so for the purposes of this discussion there is no connection....if there is a ballot measure on the poly's, I will be happy to argue the pros and cons of it...but your sole purpose in even mentioning it is attempt to deflect attention from Prop 8 and the failure to sway any minds....

and amigo, so if a couple has no children then they are not a family? "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:59 PM:

" check out the Berkeley Sperm Bank. That is sooo far from the truth. What are you making up? "

amigo wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:05 AM:

" Thats why this marriage for gays is so crucial.....
Because its the children stupid.
If 2 people want to be gay and live together frankly who cares....
But the states recognized marriage of gay couples= hetro couples basically removes any barriers in all aspects of the family. Adoption/procreation.
This is the prize through the subversion of equal rights that the usefull beep keep talking about.
If 2 gay people dont intend on having children whats the point of being recognizes by the state of california?
do you really think people will change their belief about homosexuality because of some piece of paper and a fee?
Is that the last means by which a gay couple will be validated?
I dont know you tell me? "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:19 AM:

" This "If 2 gay people dont intend on having children" thing has already been said again and again. If two straight people don't want to have children, should they not be allowed to be married? Should they be forced to breed? What if one of them is sterile through genetic, accident, or, you know, choice, since CHOICE is what this is all about? "

Joe wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:31 AM:

" Gay people should be glad they are even allowed to have an openly gay relationship. In many countries you couldn't. "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:10 AM:

" Joe:

To put your remark in the context of the 1960's: "You should be happy that you can ride the bus in the back seat. In many countries you couldn't ride the bus at all."

or "you should be happy that women get to leave the house, let alone vote. In many countries women have to stay indoors."

Second-class citizenship status, for no other reason than what, loving someone? Wanting the same tax benefit as anybody else? Being born a certain way? "

amigo wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:20 AM:

" entity: this is for you!

Choice? Is it a Choice?Are gay couples denied a choice?What do they wish to choose?

Can i be a fisherman with out a boat?

I think we must first look at the meaning:
What is the purpose of marriage?
Marriage was instituted for the creation of the family?
To ensure the continuance of the human race?
1man 1woman= 1child
Even though marriage today might have faded from the meaning.
The marriage role to the family is irrefutable.
What choose do we have of who we really are? "

Raven wrote on Oct 10, 2008 5:53 AM:

" amigo, okay....you dont answer the question...what about hetero couple who are or want to be childless.....no marriage for them either?...

with todays medical technology and the use of surrogate biological mothers, any couple of any gender combination can have a child if they desire...so come join the 21st century,,,

the child reasoning is flawed at best...and marriage was a property contract and still is...that is why the state even gets involved at all....

joe keep talking...your statements are great example's of the bigotry behind this prop... "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 7:47 AM:

" LOL Common Sense...I said I find the whole thing silly, and I do. I never said you should find the whole thing silly. I get that to you, this is huge.
I have absolutely no insight as to why you find this huge because all the reasons you give for it to be something to have concern over are already happening and nothing terrible has resulted. Nor have you clearly explained why you feel the way you do. I do not find much legitamacy in your arguments for concern. As for this, "teacher, to the best of my knowledge, the women in polygamous societies tend to have very few rights." Well, I have to ask you, how many women in this country are going to enter into a polygamous marriage, and give up their rights (Your words) if it was legal to do so? I do not think it would undermine the foundations of our society, any more than gay couple cohabitating does, with or wothout a marriage liscense. Most women in this country do very well without a man, and would never give their rights over to one.
You seem to be defensive because I have argued aginst your stances, with logic. When looked at with logic, your argument does not hold up very well. You are offended that in my opinion this is a silly issue. I have a right to my opinion, just as you do to yours.
The main reason you state for concern is the impact on society.... Gays already cohabitate. When asked what impact you think there is, you call for a study... You are dodging the issue. People say they see this as a human rights issue, an issue of fear and bigotry, because that is how they see it. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:02 AM:

" Amigo, you say a child has the right to one mother and one father....Have you looked around you? Do you know what the divorce rate is? Do you know how many dead beat fathers there are? If we follow your logic, then it should be illegal to have children and get divorced. All dead beat fathers would be locked up...and what would happen to the single parent kids? Would they be taken away and given to a 1 man, 1 woman family to be raised?

As for this, "Unregulated sperm donations are leading to unusual situations in which the children of lesbian are mixing socially- creating a risk of incest."
WHAT????

Common Sense, you have to see why people see an element of bigotry when people make comments like that one.

Marriage is not for just procreation of children. It is a legal issue having to do with property, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.
Heck, children get born all of the time with out a marriage liscence, with out a father in the picture, with no means of support.... AND, heterosexuals did this all on their own, without any influence from the gay portion of our society.
So with all of those things going on, which SHOULD be real areas of concern, we want to put a constitutional amendment taking away the rights of gay marriage. Because gays getting married will destroy society? Give me a break.... "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:05 AM:

" 'teacher' says: "What makes you think that polygamy would be at all popular?"

-Popularity is not the issue...the argument being provided by gay marriage supporters is that a minority is being discriminated against.

Where does it end after gay marriage? Polygamy? Bestiality? What are the ramifications of legalizing gay marriage? Why can nobody present an objective assessment? "

pharper wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:17 AM:

" I think it's amusing, amigo, that you find gay marriage so offensive, and yet Britney Spears' 48-hour marriage is not of as much concern as this. I don't understand how that is less detrimental to society than two people who love each other and wish to stay together permanently getting married. Doesn't that seem strange to you? People get married every day--straight couples, mind you--for literally hours before divorcing or separating. Some do it for fun, others do it during a drunken gambol. Whatever the case, I'd say that people who finally have the right to marry their partner of years actually taking that opportunity is a far less serious concern--and really, not a concern at all.

As for your "procreation" argument, it doesn't hold water. Many straight couples do not produce children; by your logic they should never have gotten married, or should be required to have children no matter what they want. Many gay couples adopt unwanted children--there are plenty of them--or have children through in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy. Studies have shown that there is no psychological or developmental difference between a child raised by straight parents and one raised by gay parents--this may surprise you, but the children of gay parents have no more chance of being gay than those raised by straight parents.

Marriage was NEVER instituted for the creation of a family; it has historically been a contract between two parties regarding property, land, and family ties and affiliations.

As for gay marriage being taught in schools--I don't even remember MARRIAGE being taught in schools, gay or straight, so I think that's a moot point. My young cousin goes to elementary school and her teacher says that marriage isn't taught or part of the curriculum...so again, moot point. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Common, how about listing the pros and cons as you see them of why heterosexual marriage is a benefit to society. Then apply the same list to homosexuals and show why or why not it isn't the same? "

lwright wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:30 AM:

" I saw a clip from Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been on the books for some time. Kindergartners are now being given books introducing them to homosexual marriage and lifestyle. The parents in the clip, who had a moral issue with this subject being discussed with their 5-year old, asked to be notified so they could pull their child out when these issues were discussed. The school district refused. When the father in turn refused to leave the office until this issue was resolved, the police were called and he was handcuffed and jailed.

You can’t claim that gay marriage is about personal liberty and does no harm to anyone else. It does do harm by forcing a lifestyle belief on an entire culture. It seizes rights for one minority group by taking them from other groups.

Please explain to me why a teacher in a public school can’t talk to children about God, yet they may be not just allowed, but REQUIRED to talk to children about the supposed normalcy of homosexual marriage and lifestyle.

So who’s being discriminated against? "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:38 AM:

" sandra says: "You seem to be defensive because I have argued aginst your stances, with logic."

-Painting someone as 'defensive' (along other words you've used like 'fearful' and 'afraid') is a common tactic to minimalize the opinions of others.

It is unfortunate that you choose to debate in this matter. I would not use the term 'logic' to describe the defense of your positions. In fact, I usually your positions objective and logical...however, in this topic, you seem rather subjective and emotional.

Regarding what I think the impact would be, I've expressed legitimate, logical concerns, and clearly stated that I am not an expert on all of the anthropological issues related to this...thus a study by experts in the field would be more appropriate. Do you want a burger-flipper determining how the current economic crisis should be handled? No...you bring in the expert economists to analyze the situation.

Your position on polygamy is that we should legalize it too, because it meets similar criteria as gay marriage. Sorry, I'm not willing to change such a fundamental piece of our society without knowing what we are getting in to. And while I'm not religious, I recognize that religious people are a big part of our society...I'm not going to write off their concerns because liberal progressives say to do so. "

winemd wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Actually, I think that the California Marriage Protection Act does address polygamy, doesn't it? It defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If one assumes that a means one (the common usage) and that the terms man and woman refer to adults, then gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and child marriages will not be valid or recognized in California. "

amigo wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Raven: We must not stray from the fundamental meaning of marriage.
It might seem easy in a demoralized community.
Of course not all married people are willing or are able to procreate BUT...
Does that change its purpose?

Yes on 8 "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:00 AM:

" It's about the *choice* to fix a second-class citizen problem. It's the choice to be accepting of a minority, a choice to share a simple freedom denied to a few just because they're different. It's the choice to do the right thing by our fellow man.

The "fisherman without a boat" thing completely avoids the question asked, and just goes backwards to the fallacious "tab A/slot B" argument - one that's based solely on methods of physical intercourse between two consenting people.

So, I'll ask again. What about heterosexual couples who decide not to, or can't, have children? Should they be denied marriage as well? What about post-menopausal women - should they be denied being able to be married? Should marriages cease to be recognized once the partners are incapable of breeding? Is it some sort of "national duty" to have children - in a nation, and a world, full of children who have no parents? Is the human race really in desperate need of bolstering? And let's not forget here that we're also talking about a *minority*. This ruling is not going to MAKE you get married and take people out of the breeding pool. Homosexuals didn't just suddenly "magically" spring into existence - homosexuality has been around since time immemorial. And yet, somehow, we have *six billion people* on the planet, and growing. Population growth arguments are cooked and done, too. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:26 AM:

" amigo says:

" Idont think you guys are going deep enough.

What are the fundementals of a family?
1man 1 women =1 child
That is the only way it can happen.
Lets leave out sythetic process for the sake of this point.
Thus the human right of a child is to have 1father 1mother.....
Not 3 moms 2 dads, 4dads 1mom, 0dad 0mom,ect
To compromise this childs right consciously would be a great disservice to humanity "



My heteo parents got divorced when I was 4. My dad re-married THREE MORE TIMES creating 2 more children; giving me a plethera of women to call Mom...

My Mom (with whom I was raised), on the other hand spent many nights at the bars looking for a husband. She re-married TWO MORE TIMES (to the same guy, an abusive alcoholic) and dated several others leaving me to wonder why these men so frequently stayed the night.

And now both of them are approaching 60, and they each live alone, with no one to love them. Because of their abusive relationships with other people, they both lost their way to being parents. My Dad's two other kids don't talk to him and neither do I really. And my mother is not allowed in my house because she is just plain crazy.

So let's see... I have had 2 fathers and 4 mothers in my life. Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce. Think about that! Divorce is too easy!

You and common sense are discriminating against HUMAN BEIGNS. Yeah, I said it again. What real difference will it make in your lives if gays get married?


NO ON 8! "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:33 AM:

" NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8
NO ON 8



I just don't know how else to get through to those of who are scardy-cats and are discriminatory against this precious right to be happy!

imyourneighbor... where can I find that NO ON 8 sign? I will put one in my yard! "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:36 AM:

" "We must not stray from the fundamental meaning of marriage. It might seem easy in a demoralized community."

Who wrote this so-called "fundamental" meaning, and why? We've determined that it can't be solely for procreative purposes. It's a governmental certificate, so it's not religious in nature. So what does that leave? "Traditional"? By who's traditions, exactly?

Saying "a demoralized community" says that homosexuals and supporters of gay rights are not "moral" - hence, the making a moral judgement on someone (a minority, no less) and trying to enforce it by the power of law. That's discrimination by any textbook definition, and is *ethically* not right. "

amigo wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Entity I think it is too late!
You seem to have been subdoed by the subversion so popular today!
The purpose of marriage is more than the 2 people in it. It about the person who comes from it!
Is that that hard to understand?

Lets me ask you this!
Are there human breeding stables where babies are coming from?
baby factories?
Where are they suppose to come from? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:00 PM:

" YES ON MEASURE 8! PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!

Measure 8 does NOT take away a person's right to lead the lifestyle that person chooses. Rather, it preserves the traditional definition of marriage which is between 1 man and 1 woman.

The issue here is not discrimination or unequal treatment. Analogizing this issue to that of prior racial restrictions on marriage is just plain wrong and misleading. Unlike race, sexual orientation is not considered a suspect class by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Under CA law, homosexual couples have the same legal rights and privileges as spouses. Prop 8 does not change that.
So, "live and let live" while still voting YES on Measure 8!

Activist judges have no constitutional right or power to legislate from the bench. Let's send a clear message to those judges and vote YES on Prop 8.

Finally, as a Catholic, I must stand up for what is right and what is true. And to my fellow Catholics out there, please uphold the principles and beliefs of our Catholic faith. Preserve the traditional definition of marrriage and Vote YES on Measure 8! "

Raven wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Amigo, the fundamental meaning of marriage is a property contract between two people....that fundamental meaning? "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Common Sense, I am being just as logical and objective as I always am. I would suggest that you saying things like, "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.", is inflamatory, and emotional...Allow gays the reward of marriage? It is not an issue of reward. It is an issue of legality. I think you are the one reacting in an emotional way. From my perspective the things you raise as concerns have been countered in a very non threatening logical way, yet you continue to not acknowledge that, and persist in being concerned.
You do not address what you think would hurt our society if things were allowed to remain as they are. You are the one reraising the same questions over and over that have been more than adequately addressed.
Affect on population? There would be no affect by allowing a marriage liscense. We have gays cohabitating already...Has there been any affect yet on population? It would not change with a piece of paper.
Slippery slope argument..I have addressed that so many times it is making me weary. Slopes can slip in both directions. This is an issue by issue thing.
Polygamy, beastiality?....Two totally different things...again, issue by issue...
You have yet to show what you think would happen, in spite of being asked this a few times. You can deflect by saying "debate tactics" are being used...but that is not what I was doing. I used the words afraid/worried/concerned to allow you to differentiate what you really feel, not to cast aspertions.
The conclusion I draw from this is you seem to have unrealistic concern, and do not seem to be able to articulate why. "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Today the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that "civil unions" are an unjust institution equivalent to "seperate but equal", which is ultimately unconstitutional.

"[neither] the length of time a majority [of the populace] has held its convictions [nor] the passions with which it defends them can withdraw legislation from [the] Court’s scrutiny."

How would you feel if you were no longer "married", but were in a "civil union"? If that's OK with you, then let's abolish marriage as a state institution. You can be married by a church and make a religious commitment, and if you want the government to grant that status recognition for property and tax benefits you can register as a civil union.

That's not OK? Then why is it OK to say that a civil union is all that *someone else* can have? Because a civil union is "basically the same" as marriage, but "different"? Seperate but equal doctrine. You're denying the right of someone else on the basis of "tradition", which has just been shown to not be a valid reason for legislative action to the benefit or exclusion of any party.

And, for the record: The United States government IS NOT YOUR CHURCH. More power to you for believing in what you do. You're free to do that! Now stop telling other people what they have to believe when it has nothing to do with you. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:27 PM:

" Miss Napa Valley,
I think you need to realize that not everyone adheres to your catholic faith and YOU have no right to tell anyone they need to adhere to it because catholics do. To push that onto others is neither right or true according to the U.S Constitution.
I think we have no constitutional right to discriminate against consenting adults by not allowing them to legally marry. Individual religions have the right to their own beliefs. That will not change. In fact if there was an attempt to change that, you would find me just as vocal in support of freedom of religion.
Adults have the right to live their lives as contributing members of our society. They should not have to adhere to what you believe, if they think diferently. As long as they do not break any laws, and do not force us to do as they do, then we as individuals and as a country need to butt out. "

winemd wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:28 PM:

" So when he says will you marry me, he's thinking about his/her property? "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Amigo: Search for "entity" above and see my discussion on this topic. As has been beaten to death in the 160 comments above, babies come from the portion of the +/-90% of people that are heterosexual. An ever-increasing population shows that the minority homosexual population *which is not new on this earth and has been here the entire time* hasn't had any impact on population growth. How exactly is allowing homosexual marriage going to change that?

I note that nobody on the "yes" side has dared yet to address my question of non-breeding heterosexuals (whether through biology dysfunction or through choice) and whether people should be forced to breed or be denied marriage if they can't or won't. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:50 PM:

" MissNapaValley

My mother is Catholic. And yet somehow I was conceived out of wedlock. She divorced my dad and her second husband twice.

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.


Besides that you habitually ignore your First Commandment which is WRONG to GOD!!!!

Why is there a STATUE of St. Apollonaris at the school? Why do you pray to STAUES of Mary? Why do you pray to the SAINTS? All of these things are FALSE IDOLS and have no place in any Christain religion, especially the Catholic Religion! I am sorry but the arguement of a Holy Sacrament that is proposed by any Church entity that is blatantly ignoring the First Commandment has no business chiming in on who gets to get married and who doesn't. I spent 12 years in a Catholic school and I realize that the religion is full of Hypocracy. Open your eyes and see it; Believe it!

So who do you think you are to impose your "moral" beliefs on gay people when your religion cannot even follow the First Commandment?

Let them eat Wedding Cake! " "

imyourneighbor wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:52 PM:

" I know it is said again and again, but there is something called "separation between church and state." "

Raven wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:58 PM:

" MNV, I am sorry but the issue is discrimination and the taking away of one group's civil rights....and if you truly belive in live and let live, why are you stripping rights away from your neighbors....and this is an issue dealing with the state constitution, not the federal and the state supreme courts has ruled that there is a right for same sex marriage....there is, as has been said many times in this thread and others, no activist court at work here, merely a court that did its job, and interpreted the law and found laws banning same sex marriage to be unconstitutional.....and lastly, why should I, or anyone, who am not catholic, be forced to live my life in accordance to your religious beliefs? If your church doesn't want to recognize same sex marriages, go for it...but you don't have the right to impose that upon me

and amigo, do you have any ideas on the state of infertility medicine right now..?...if you did maybe you wouldn't be.....well, babbling is a good word...about where babies can come from... "

napascot wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Miss napa valley your are right that sexual orientation is not a suspect class.

However race was not always protected that way and it was changed and women were not always protected and that was changed as well.

The questions of polygamy, beastiality and pedophilia are all very far fetched.

Polygamy, is done in the name of regligion, you are not born a polygimist. it is a lifestyle you choose typically based on religion.

Beastiality, is just a lame argument, animals cannot nurture you take care of you when times are tough, support a family o yeah and there ANIMALS........ lets just stop with this one

Pedophiles, hurt, and violate, don't know why I even have to say anything, but people want to keep comparing.

Marriage is not about pro-creation. If you choose to have children in your marriage then thats great if you don't you are not denied the right to marry.

We are talking about 2 consenting adults making a contractual agreement to spend their lifes together that all humans should have. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:16 PM:

" This dialogue has become a fight between homophobia and tolerance. Amigo, the fact is that your marriage, life, children and home will not change because two people of the same sex want to marry and even raise children. That is the fact. Someguyinapa and Entity have it right and they aren't stressing about who to invite to the barbeque. The worst that can happen is that your boy, girl, boy, girl seating arrangment might have to be rethought. Anyone who is worried about someone else's sexuality might have to rethink theirs. "

meltoes wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:38 PM:

" I am so glad for our first ammendment rights and the separation of church and state, the principles upon which our country was founded. I am so glad we are keeping religion out of our government...and as a heterosexual happily married,God loving, mother of 3 I will be voting NO on Prop 8...Whatever your ORGANIZED religion is you should let people choose what they want to do and they can take it up with their maker when they meet. No one is asking your church to recognize them as a married couple. We are voting to keep their legal rights (LEGAL - not RELIGOUS) equal to a hetero marriage.
Tend to your own, teach your children what you will, but leave these people alone to live their lives and enjoy the same tax breaks and property and inhertance rights recognized in a hetero marriage. "

amigo wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:12 PM:

" who let the spam in? what a joke! "

a teacher wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:25 PM:

" "Activist judges have no constitutional right or power to legislate from the bench. Let's send a clear message to those judges and vote YES on Prop 8."

The definition of Activist Judge: A judge whose ruling you disagree with.

Supreme Court Judges have the right to declare laws unconstitutional. It's their job. "

common sense wrote on Oct 10, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Another concern...the California educational code requires kids in the early grades are taught about "marriage". When gay marriage is legalized, this will in fact become part of the classroom.

Here where marriage is brought in to the code:
"51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood."

That means anywhere we find "comprehensive health education programs" listed, gay marriage can be taught.

I do think that some people, due to brain construction, are more prone to homosexuality. Others, however, are induced by environmental factors. It's the classic nature versus nurture argument, and the general consensus is that 50% of who we are is innate, and the other 50% is externally driven.

Call me crazy, but I would prefer my kids to be heterosexual. If they choose differently, fine...but I don't want to put them in an environment where they are coerced by a liberal progressive public school teacher into thinking the gay lifestyle is desired.

Kids are influenced by their surroundings...that's why we carefully choose which things to expose them to at different times.

How many other legal and economic issues are there that would be impacted by legalizing gay marriage? A study would lay it out for us clearly...

People can be gay if they want. I don't think that society should be forced to reward it with the same status as heterosexual marriage unless there are clear advantages and minimal disadvantages. "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 6:43 PM:

" Surely what you want is for your children to be happy and be themselves regardless of their sexual orientation, and not to try and force them into a mold of your own design.

How many legal and economic issues are there with *straight* marriage? Why are you making a distinction, exactly, between homosexuals and heterosexuals, beyond the genders, which matter exactly not at all in legal or economic issues? "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 7:39 PM:

" Entity...LOL I can only say in regards to Common Sense...I GIVE UP. I am still waiting for an answer as to what the impact would be....Now its schools and education....Kids are taught age appropriate material. I also do believe as a parent you can opt out of the sex education, if that is the choice you want to make for your child. I would not have had a problem with my kids being taught about marriage and all the parties involved. Male, Female, Male, Male, or Female, Female, or, being taught about one parent families. They are not going to explain the dynamics of the sexual relationship to kindergartners...They would probably only show the different types of families there are. What is the big deal? I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer. "

antipc wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:14 PM:

" I want my children to lead NORMAL lives & not be influenced by a minority of radical homosexuals who can only further their personal agenda by recruiting in our educational system. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:22 PM:

" amigo...

babies come from... well;

two horny kids in the basement or the back seat of a car...

a rape...

incest rape...

a test tube...

fetilization in a petri dish...


and sometimes... babies come from a loving couple who really want a baby and they plan for and then one day they get it right. and their lives are filled with joy and jubulation, diapers, crying, teething, growing, soccer practice, scouts, school, heartaches, head aches, and lessons; some lessons are about tolerance; which is one you obviously missed.
but sometimes babies come from loving couples who all ready spent years raising little ones and then they have an accident.

and some babies come from two women who visit a sperm bank.

some babies come from other families that do not have the means or ability to raise children.

tend to your garden and don't mind mine. for I am busy preparing my sons for the reality that all walks of life are different but equal. that no man or woman is better than any other; we are all brother and sisters here. we all came from the same puddle of ooze; sorry super christians but it's true;

EVOLUTION HAPPENED!

and that is what should happen to our laws... they should evolve with time to encompass a more beuatiful world where poeple can be who they want to be...

what if it was your child?
so who are you to say where a baby should come from? grow up. it is 2008 all ready!

word to your momma! "

common sense wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:38 PM:

" someguyinnapa says: "EVOLUTION HAPPENED!"

-Hey, what do you know...we agree on something.


Sandra says: "I GIVE UP. I am still waiting for an answer as to what the impact would be."

-No, you choose to ignore my answer. I've expressed areas of concern, and I've made it very clear that I don't know what the impact would be...thus my call for a thorough, objective study on the pros and cons of gay marriage. I want to know what the legal and economic consequences are. I wish I knew everything like you...


Sandra says: "They (teachers & schools) would probably only show the different types of families there are."

-Even though I'm not religious, at a minimum, I don't think the religious half of our society would appreciate that. I'm not willing to let one half of society violate the rights of the other by ramming gay marriage down their throat.

The independent middle has spoken. "

pharper wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:33 PM:

" How does one "teach" gay marriage? What are you afraid of? That they'll tell your kids that all families are different, and no one family is better than another? That they won't tell a kid who has parents of the same sex that these parents are living in sin? What exactly is it that you're afraid of your children learning? You can't shelter them forever; whether they learn it from a teacher of a classmate, they WILL learn about gay marriage--and if Prop 8 passes, the number of people who were denied a civil right. Like I said, I don't remember ever being taught about marriage in elementary school, and even if it is part of the Ed Code, it's clearly not touched upon very heavily. I don't know any elementary schoolers who can define marriage in any cognitive way, shape, or form.

And HOW is this ramming gay marriage down your throat? You don’t have to have one. Your marriage will not be affected. No one will attempt to change who you are or who you fall in love with, or your sexuality. No one’s ramming anything down anyone’s throat, except for Prop 8 proponents with their religions—although I realize that some are just bigoted, not religious. Gay marriage, I promise you, will not be forced on anyone.

If you're worried that teachers will try to "convert" your children, or make them marry someone of the same sex, I wouldn't; it's not possible, I assure you. And if you're worried that your children will be taught that same sex marriage is normal and okay, then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about--no matter what the teacher says, I'm sure you're doing a great job of teaching them intolerance at home. "

Raven wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:48 PM:

" no common sense it is you who ignored numerous questions from people to explain exactly what harm you would suffer because of same-sex marriage.....which to many is an admission that you will suffer no harm, unless it is self-inflicted....

and yes, Sandra, you are right, parents can opt their children out of the sex education or family programs so no child will be forced to hear anything about gay marriage....they will pick it up where all children should get their sex education....the gutter...

regarding the gay lifestyle...take a look at your own...it is probably pretty darn close to it... "

entity wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:56 PM:

" Is the basic civil rights issue not getting through, here? Would you have demanded a study for to give voting rights to women and racial minorities? How about a study on interracial marriage and the legal and economic consequences - which was only made legal in the US in 1967? What's the difference between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage?

For the nth time, nobody is interfering with the beliefs of the religious.

Nobody is being forced to be homosexual, or to be married to the same gender. What's happenins is that the views of a religious majority are being shoe-horned into government recognition, to the loss of a minority. It's pure christian doctrine that homosexuality is a "sin", no more.

You are free to tell your children what you like about homosexuality. Remember, you ultimately can't change their feelings any more than you can change the color of their eyes or skin. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:57 PM:

" Geez common sense...I thought I was the independent middle...or was that FMC? hmmm ....or was it token woman terrorist?...nope that was another thread.... "

Jose wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Well. CommonSense seems to be convinced to hold the right to determine limits for other people's rights.
I think democracy impinges on majority not only rights but also the duties emerging from minorities human rights.

So, who is in the position to determine what's "right" or "wrong" for others choices? "

common sense wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:47 PM:

" From the front page of the Chronicle website today:

"A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage."

Well, so much for that argument that little kids won't be indoctrinated into gay marriage by the public schools. "

amigo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:30 PM:

" 1 st. graders taken on a field trip to a wedding of thier lesbian teacher!
Right there in the chronicle.

"Get em as early as you can" says one supporter of no on 8

What kind of teacher would take young kids to a wedding? "

mominapa wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:03 PM:

" I find it very interesting that the Catholic religion is brought into this. First, entity, I have agreed with most of what you have said about gay rights, etc. and I agree that religion has no real part in this, but you got one thing wrong. Catholics do not pray to statues. I was raised to believe (in Catholic School) that the statues are about the same as the cross worn around the neck of many Christians - it is an honor thing, not a worship thing. They are really just a meditation aid - they are not false idols anymore than the pictures of your kids that you carry in your wallet. We do not worship Mary, we honor (venerate) her as the mother of Jesus. We believe she deserves a place in our hearts as well as our churches. I don't know how Mary or Jesus would feel about any of this, never having had a conversation with them, but I do know that Jesus loves all whom his Father created. Thank you for having taken the time to read this. All of our feelings are worth the time to express and to read. Without change there would never have been progress. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:07 PM:

" The anti-8 crowd likes to wail that Prop 8 would enshrine 'discrimination' into the Constitution. The plain fact is that our society practices legal discrimination every day. For example, we don't allow a topless woman to walk down city streets, although men can do so. Some discrimination is good, and is based on common sense. It is also common sense that historically marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. "

Raven wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:21 PM:

" apples and oranges JR and you know that....and there are locals and cities where a woman being topless is not a big deal nor against the law...big case a fews years ago where topless women were protesting, in Santa Cruz I believe but i could be wrong, and wanting to be arrested and were told by the police...sorry, it is not against the law here.....face it, there is no common sense reason to take away rights from our fellow citizens....

common sense and amigo, every one of the children's parents signed a permission slip allowing them to go...two objected and did not allow their kids to go and those kids were kept at school.....and if seeing two people who love each other commit themselves to each other is being indoctrinated then let's indoctrinate.... "

John Richards wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Sandra, I fail to see where MissNapaValley is telling anyone they need to be pro Prop 8 because Catholics are. You are putting words into her mouth! All she did was call on her fellow Catholics to honor the teachings of that particular faith (whose pro traditional marriage stance, I might add, is shared by many other faiths). "

Sandra wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:22 PM:

" lol kids went to their teachers wedding...OH THE HORROR!!!! "

Sandra wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:29 PM:

" John,
Reread her post. I refer you to this sentence in particular:

"Finally, as a Catholic, I must stand up for what is right and what is true."

So it would then follow, if you disagree with her catholic stance , you are wrong and false....
Seems pretty clear to me. She did not need me to add any words for her. "

Raven wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:32 PM:

" and more power to her, JR, but when she asks those who don not believe as she does to follow those precepts....that is crossing the line.... "

common sense wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:12 PM:

" Raven says: "..two objected and did not allow their kids to go and those kids were kept at school..."

-And now those kids will forever be remembered as THOSE kids by their classmates.

Wouldn't it be nice if our public schools simply taught reading, writing, and arithmetic? Instead, OUR tax dollars are funding a liberal progressive agenda that indoctrinates 1st graders into gay marriage. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:21 PM:

" As the the 1st graders at the wedding. While I have to admit that seems rather tone deaf on someone's part, the other side is that you don't kidnap your students and take them to a wedding. Parents would have had to OK their presence. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:39 PM:

" "-And now those kids will forever be remembered as THOSE kids by their classmates."

Boy, are you giving a lot of credit to 6 year olds. I dobt most of those kids will remember anything but that some of thier classmates missed out on the fun.

"Wouldn't it be nice if our public schools simply taught reading, writing, and arithmetic? Instead, OUR tax dollars are funding a liberal progressive agenda that indoctrinates 1st graders into gay marriage. "

Wow! Rightwing paranoia at it's finest. You might have a point if this was done on school time, but it wasn't. In fact, this is a rather unremarkable story until you hear that it was a lesbian couple getting married. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:40 PM:

" Someone must be stealing all those memos I'm not getting about the progressive/liberal agenda. "

Raven wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:04 PM:

" missed my copies too, common sense...you want to forward your copy to me? "

amigo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:04 PM:

" As an american citizen and a product of public school nor have i ever experienced a field trip to a private wedding nor have i ever ever heard of public school feild trip to a private wedding?

This is a clear demonstration of the irrational thinking of these agenda driving maniacs.
Thier actions tend to be extreme and purely emotional based.
Wake up people.
The people posting keep minimizing all evidence. bUT HAVE NEVER PROVEN IT FALSE.
Read the comments of 1 of the justices in the conn. ruling. Ill paraphase:
The purpose of the states marriage is to regulate procreation.
1man 1 woman = 1 child
It can happen NO OTHER WAY!
tHIS IS BIOLOGY NOT BIGOTRY! "

entity wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:10 PM:

" mominapa:

That's great, but I never said a thing about false idols or anything similar. Regarding religion, all I've said is that a) the government is not anybody's church, and b) for the rabidly devout to stop pushing their beliefs *into* government by attempting to remove the rights of a minority that has nothing to do with them. Religion is a very personal thing; the great thing about the idea behind the United States is that the constitution allows for everyone to believe as they will without any religion becoming a tool of the state or the state becoming the tool of any religion. Real equality means not acting in the interests of any one group, but rather all of the people. Those overall interests are generally assumed to be freedom for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as they say. "

entity wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:18 PM:

" amigo:

When your husband or wife is found infertile, is your marriage license revoked by the state for not being able to produce offspring? No? Why isn't there a questionnaire on getting married asking if you intend to have children? Why has nobody been denied marriage due to infertility or the choice not to have children? What about adoption? Both arguments about "tab a, slot b" and government regulation of childbirth have been debunked thouroughly. Please stop bringing it up unless you have something new to add, besides insulting people by calling them "agenda-driven maniacs".

Isn't denying a right of a minority group for the sake of a religious majority "extreme"? "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:13 AM:

" entity:
I think openmindedconservative stated it well.
"Marriage is about children, whether children result or not".

Just answer 1 question:
Does a child have a human right for an equal opportunity to have a 1father and 1mother?

If not which matters less: mother or father? "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:26 AM:

" entity: John Adams said:
Our constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.

Our country was founded religion regardless of the idealogical subversion.
Votes yes on 8 "

Raven wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:05 AM:

" amigo, you dont want to hear any opposing view...you keep recycling the same mantra every time some one tries to answer your questions...

as for the parents who signed the permission slips, just because you wouldn't have done doesn't mean it was wrong, or they weren't being good citizens, for these parents to have let the children see their teacher marry someone she loves....or are you saying that all parents must parent according to your standards and in that case...just who is driven by an agenda here? "

a teacher wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Amigo:That was not a field trip. The teacher invited her students to her wedding. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. If she had been marrying a man, it would be unremarked. You're being silly. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:33 AM:

" "-And now those kids will forever be remembered as THOSE kids ...."
This is just silly. When my son was in the 5th grade he finished his work early and sang the Chuck berry song "Ding-a-ling" Now he did not have any clue what a ding-a-ling was. He heard the song on the Simpsons. But there was a girl who had a crush on him, which was not mutual. She told on him for revenge. My son was niave, and pretty clueless at that age. He was sent to the office for sexual harrassment.
I knew he was sent to the office and spoke with the vice principal about inappropriate behavior, not sexual harrassment.I spoke to my son and asked him if he knew what a Ding-a-Ling was supposed to be in the song. He had no idea, and when I told him what it was, he was pretty mortified. He was sent back to his classroom where his teacher preceeded to lecture the class on why what my son had done was sexual harrassment. My son was forever known by his classmates as "THAT BOY".
Another incident at out door ed that happened was another student fell asleep in the middle of the night sitting on the toilet. The door had to be unlocked and by then the whole cabin was up and witnessed the boy sleeping on the toilet...you can imagine the rest. He was forever known as "That Boy".
My point?
Things happen to everyone that they have to deal with. IT PREPARES US FOR ADULT LIFE! It is part of growing up. "THOSE KIDS" will survive and be stronger for it.
Common Sense watching you argue this position is a lesson in how far someone will reach to defend the indefensible. "

entity wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:33 AM:

" First words of the First Amendment, United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Though many of the signers were religious, they also understood the important need for fairness and equality in government, thus including that sentence as the *very first thing* in their new Constitution.

Marriage has been "one man, one woman" because same-sex couples have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in western culture due to a majority christian influence. But no more.

If we're "considering the children", what about divorce in 50% of heterosexual couples, single parents, parents lost to accident or illness? Who defined this "nuclear family", anyways, of "man and woman"? What is this "irreparable harm" that a same-sex couple is going to do to a child, exactly - above and beyond the harm that straight couples can do to a child - maybe that it's OK to be gay? That gay people aren't monsters lurking in the night waiting to ambush unsuspecting straights , but normal folks who love and live just like anybody else? Is that the "horrible harm"?

Denial of gay marriage isn't going to make gay people go away. As a minority they've always been there, and they'll always be there. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Sandra, reread that sentence you isolated in the context of the rest of that paragraph. It is very natural for a person of faith to believe that their faith represents that which is is right and true. What do you find strange about that? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Entity, there is a big difference between the case of individual heterosexual couples not being able to reproduce, and a group of people not being able to reproduce AS A CLASS. If you don't understand that difference, then I feel sorry for you. "

Raven wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:13 AM:

" oh boy, dueling John Adams quotes.....yours seem at odds with this one from his signing of the treaty with Tripoli, amigo...

>>As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; .... The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation. < Nov, 1797... "

entity wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:02 PM:

" John Richards: The government makes no distinction between heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to reproduce, and those who do. Why, then, would it single out another group of people on that same basis? That is a civil inequality. "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:11 PM:

" teacher: The kids in s.f. were bussed there on public funds.
Or did the teacher fill the tanks with gas and drive them herself?

Vote yes on 8 "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Raven: Which of those is a proponent aof same sex marriage?

Vote yes on 8 "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:36 PM:

" nobodys even addressed my qustion!

which matters less the father or the mother? "

pharper wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:40 PM:

" JR, you seem oblivious to the evidence that everyone has already given that yes, actually, same-sex couples can reproduce, using methods that many heterosexual couples use. It's a moot point, and shouldn't be used as criteria for who can marry and who can't. "

amigo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:59 PM:

" entity: To answer you...

I believe hetro marriage is different than same sex marriage. Procreation with the childs' human right to 1father 1mother being why!
i believe we as a society have a greater civil duty to our future children than to any other group.

VOTE YES ON 8 "

Grammie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:13 PM:

" DEFENDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE supporters use the following argument:

"....following the law as it now stands will somehow lead to polygamy, incest and child marriage...:

Do any of them READ or watch the news? THESE horrible things ARE already happening...through RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS throughout the united states...including ARIZONA, and Texas where Senator McCain and George Bush come from.

McCain has been representing Arizona for 26 years and the problem has GROWN, not stopped. WHY is THAT?

TITLE 13: ARIZONA CRIMINAL CODE:

Chapter 36 Family Offenses "

Grammie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:17 PM:

" DEFENDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE supporters use the following argument:

"....following the law as it now stands will somehow lead to polygamy, incest and child marriage...:

Do any of them READ or watch the news? THESE horrible things ARE already happening...through RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS throughout the united states...including ARIZONA, and Texas where Senator McCain and George Bush come from.

McCain has been representing Arizona for 26 years and the problem has GROWN, not stopped. WHY is THAT?

TITLE 13: ARIZONA CRIMINAL CODE:

Chapter 36 Family Offenses

FELONY CRIMES:

13-3606. Bigamy
13-3607. Marrying spouse of another
13-3609. Child Bigamy

How can he solve corruption problems in the WASHINGTON DC, if he can't solve a simple problem in ARIZONA, that has a criminal code, a police force, a court, a jail, already set up and ready to prosecute?? "

Sandra wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:20 PM:

" John, I never said it was strange. I said she did not have the right to impose what she thought was right and true on others, or to infer if someone thought differently their view was somehow wrong.
People believe in the religion they follow because they think it is right. BUT they do not have the right to make others follow their beliefs. If they did we would all be in someplace like Iran. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:21 PM:

" Amigo...no one answers you because your argument doesn't hold any water. It is a repeat of the same thing over andover. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:48 PM:

" " teacher: The kids in s.f. were bussed there on public funds.
Or did the teacher fill the tanks with gas and drive them herself?"

They took MUNI, read the article.

No one answers your question because it's ridiculous.

I already voted no (through the magic of absentee voting) on prop 8. "

Raven wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:14 PM:

" and so have I "

mominapa wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:36 PM:

" entity:

Sorry, if I misunderstood or misquoted you. Someone mentioned praying to statues and without going back and reading this endless thread to find out who it was, I mistakenly attributed it to you. My statement stands, but not directed to you. I thought you sounded more intelligent than that. It seems we agree on a lot of points, but most importantly, this one NO ON "8"!

Isn't this fun? Certainly this subject isn't one for us to have strokes over and I appreciate NVR giving us this opportunity to comment in this manner. Good debate even if some of the comments are blatantly bigotted and intolerant. I will not mention your names. You know who you are. "

entity wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:20 AM:

" This has been the most active comment thread I think I've ever participated in, mominapa. You're right - thanks to NVR and the moderators for letting it balloon up to well over 200 comments and going! (Enough that it's managed to send Firefox into conniptions, I'll note. Something isn't right with the style sheet I suspect, in a 'friendly to IE-only' kind of way...)

I hope that at least one person reading any of this somewhere has been convinced through logic, reason, and the understanding of basic human, civil, and constitutional rights that proposition 8 - a proposal that states bluntly that it is "eliminating [a] right" - should be shot down and forever marked off.

No on 8, get your church out of my state! "

l707 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 7:50 AM:

" I really dont know why gay marriage its a big deal i mean if you really look at it it doesnt have no point. It is not hurting nothing not the economy, not global warming and it certainly doesnt effect other people's religion. So next time you descriminate gay mariage think it over twice. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Grammie,
Regarding your statement concerning J. McCain:
"How can he solve corruption problems in the WASHINGTON DC, if he can't solve a simple problem in ARIZONA, that has a criminal code, a police force, a court, a jail, already set up and ready to prosecute??

That would not be under his control. He is a U.S. senator in the FEDERAL government. You would need to address these criticisms to the STATE senators in the STATE government, and to the Govenor of Arizona.

Grammie...your comments worry me. I assume you will be voting in the next election. You should understand what you are voting for, and what power the person has. I would suggest a good text on the Government, state and federal, and how all the branches work. "

ADark1 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Here we go again....

No on 8! Get over yourselves. Go pray for their souls whatever...we live in a community of humanity so do the humane thing and let people be. THEY will have to answer to your gods ( as you think) so what does that book say? Judge not lest ye be Judged?

NO on 8 Obama /Biden! "

amigo wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Marriage is about children whether children result or not.

Hetero marriage is different than same-sex marriage; to protect the childs human right to 1father and 1mother is why we must make this distinction.

It is imparative that together as a society we the the people MUST not denied our future generation an opportunity to a father and a mother.
Because the children are the most vunerable group in our collective society, we must do everything in our power to ensure that their human rights are not jeopardized.
It is our civil duty to put forth only the best interest of society

YES ON 8 "

Sandra wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:07 PM:

" So Amigo, just curious...If they called it anything but "Marriage" but it allowed all the legal privilages of marriage, would you then be OK with it? "

Raven wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:29 PM:

" waiting breathlessly for amigo's answer... "

Paddy wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:07 PM:

" It's refreshing to see all the "Yes on 8" bumper stickers and lawn signs around town. I'm glad to see that we've begun to have enough of the left-leaning, liberal minority who have decided that decadence in the name of "fairness". It's not fair when it's a slap at the hundreds of millions that see the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender to be offensive and grotesque. Sorry, I don't hate you. "

Raven wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:18 AM:

" paddy, it frightens me to see how easy it is for a group to have their rights stripped away because other feels uncomfortable about them....and yeah, looking at some of the comments here, I would their are quite a few people that m,ight fall into the hate category. And they are very, very scared of something they don't understand.... "

Sandra wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:38 AM:

" "It's not fair when it's a slap at the hundreds of millions that see the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender to be offensive and grotesque. Sorry, I don't hate you. "....if that's not hate, what is it? "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Amigo, please try to think this through more thoroughly. The idea that gay marriage is going to deny a child the right to 1 father and 1 mother is quite frankly ridiculous - no offense intended. Regardless of who is allowed to get this piece of paper, the parents children end up with are not going to change. It may be 1 father and 1 mother, a single mother, a single father, 2 fathers, or 2 mothers. What they have a right to is parents that love and respect them.

What you are saying is that we should teach them that those parents, whoever they might be, may not have the right to a piece of paper because you and like minded individuals have decided it doesn't reflect your lifestyle or beliefs. You are wanting to teach them that if they happen to be an individual who does not fit into your lifestyle or belief system, they do not have the same rights. You are advocating discrimination of those same children you claim to be so concerned for.

Gay marriage is not just about the rights of two consenting adults to the same legal recognition heterosexuals enjoy, it is also about the children who will grow up to find love and want the same rights. If any of my children happen to be gay, I do not want them exposed to the intolerance displayed here and I want them to know they are not any less deserving than you or I of the happiness marriage can offer. "

entity wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:27 AM:

" You can think whatever you want about homosexuality - that's your right. What's not right is using government to enforce that. Nobody's asking you to be gay, nobody's forcing you to be gay. However, a lot of people seem to want to force gay people to be straight, when it's none of their business to begin with. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Think globally. Think historically. Over millions of years there has been a revulsion to homosexuality because it, primarily, negates procreation. This is the base human directive from the beginning of time.

I've had many gay friends over decades and we've agreed to disagree on sexual orientation. Now, it's become a hateful agenda for those finding a foothold and throwing this into the faces of those who have tried to understand immoral, anti-social behavior in the name of 'rights' while at the same time my rights, the rights of my children, the rights of my extended family, church and friends are trampled because our desire to NOT condone homosexual behavior is abhorrent and and tragically wrong on our part!

We've provided domestic partnership rights to homosexual couples; now the fact we prefer to maintain the sanctity of marriage between man and woman makes me a horrible, hating, spiteful person. This appears to me to be the real agenda of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:57 AM:

" the "sanctity of marriage" argument belongs in your church, not in my government. The issue of religious marriage ceremonies involving agy couple is a separate one entirely and has no bearing on constitutional rights. "

entity wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:44 PM:

" paddy,

please read upwards in the comments to find much, much discussion on the points that you bring up, such as the illegitimacy of "seperate but equal" doctrine, the separation of church and state and the first amendment (it's not just for freedom of the press!), and the untruth of marriage being for "procreation". "

Raven wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:49 PM:

" overeaching there a bit, paddy....since the beginning of time?....

It is time to call this what it is...an exercise in bigotry...because you and other are uncomfortable with homosexuality, you want to strip away a group's right to marry.....no one is asking you to marry anyone of the same sex nor asking your church to marry them....those are specious arguments at best along with 'marriage is for procreation'....you dont have to condone anything to do with homosexuality and you know that if you will be honest with yourself...This is simply an exercise in bigotry and hate.... "

napascot wrote on Oct 14, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Paddy,

the real agenda of the gay community is...... here it comes......... watch out it is a big shocker......... wait wait wait.......


EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!


wow that was'nt so bad "

a teacher wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Millions of years, Paddy? "

amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:32 AM:

" Go paddy tell how it reaaly is!!!

Dont be subdued by the subversion!

Vote yes on 8 vote yes on 8

I love a true man with conviction "

Raven wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:31 AM:

" so, it seems the biggest supplier of manpower in the yes on 8 campaign is the LDS, the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus....

glad no church is trying to impose its version of morality upon the rest of us.... "

listening napan wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Eric, author of article referred to in Michael Dearborn's article above. When I talk about the four pillars of marriage held for centuries, I not saying that any of them will change automatically. However, if you discard one because it is no longer popular, what will stop you from changing another when it becomes unpopular? We all know incest is illegal, but what will stop it from becoming legal, when a minority or majority starts to promote it as normal? That's the point of my argument. There must be some things we hold to as Truth outside ourselves - and I don't think "everybody doing what is right in their own eyes" is a good truth to govern society. "

amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Where in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state?

If you repeat something over and over into the minds of the people is it the truth? How long does it take to become the truth? False doctrine over and over.

Wheres my freedom of religion?
That is in the constitution.
Why am I attacked and slandered for practicing my religion in public?
Iam declared that right in the constitution. I dont need to only do it in a back room.
Where are the freedom of religion fighters? Raven entity?

VOTE YES ON 8 VOTE YES ON 8 "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:56 PM:

" amigo, The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikepedia "

entity wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:43 PM:

" amigo:
As I posted on October 12th(and you ignored):

'First words of the First Amendment, United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".'

The original founders thought that this point was so important that it's the *very first thing* in the US Constitution.

You're allowed to tell people all day your religious convictions on homosexuality. Be morally outraged, fine. However nobody is in any way obliged to listen to you, nor are you permitted to force anyone else to follow your beliefs - as your discriminatory, bigoted, religiously-charged amendment is trying to do.

Lovers of freedom and civil liberty will be out in force this voting season, to make it clear that religion has no place in government and that discrimination is not ok. Proposition 8 is going to lose. "

jonb3333 wrote on Oct 16, 2008 10:28 PM:

" I have no problem with gays getting married, but... I believe since a baby comes from a man and a woman being together, then children should not be moulded any other way. What if a child isn't gay and is pushed that direction from being forced to "learn"it in school?
Doesn't make much sense, does it???
But, then again look at all the other useless crap they teach kids in school that is only harmful for them to know.
So we'll probably be stupid enough to pass this crap proposition.
Next thing you know molestation will be legal. We can't vote yes on this crap!
My opinion, my right. "

Raven wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:22 PM:

" so jon, yes on 8 or no on it? "

jonb3333 wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Raven...
NO! We should not teach this in schools! If the parents want them to learn this as they are growing up, that's their choice. Definitely not mine.
Schools should stick to academeics, arts, music, sports. As kids turn into adults they will make their own choices. If one is gay, he or she will know it. Then they can make their own choice as an adult.
Does that clear it up for you enough Raven???
And I am very happily straight, with 2 kids and 2 grandkids so if thats what you were wondering... "

jonb3333 wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Church and laws should not mix!!!
Haven't we learned anything over the last 10000 years???? "

jonb3333 wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:17 PM:

" Sorry raven...
Definitely yes on 8
my bad "

entity wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:24 PM:

" You can teach your children whatever you want - but shouldn't you also teach them tolerance, the ability to get along with people who don't necessarily share your same beliefs? In today's multi-cultural world, we often have to live and work with and near people with different backgrounds, cultures and ideologies. That's just a fact of life.

Or would you prefer a good old fashioned inquisition again? So long as you're on the "winning" side, right?

Live by the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. Vote for tolerance, peace and understanding. Vote no on Proposition 8.

And vote for, well, anybody but "Bomb Iran" McCain, really. "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:35 PM:

" well, jon, they are teaching it now and if they were, any parent has the right to opt out of the instruction, as they do now....


and frankly jon, your sexual orientation was of no interest to me...but in the interest of openness....heterosexual, with two daughters and a granddaughter

and if church and laws shouldn't mix, why vote for a proposition that imposes a religious position on the rest of us..can you explain that contradiction for me? "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley || Parade Magazine
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy