Overturn the judges, vote yes on 8 | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Overturn the judges, vote yes on 8

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Comment

By Kim Crowe
Napa

This letter is in reference to an editorial that was published in the Napa Valley Register on Sept. 17, cleverly titled “Vote no on Proposition 8.”

Proposition 8, which will be on the ballot in November, places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61 percent of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn a California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

For those of you who may have forgotten, the responsibility of any judicial branch of the United States of America is to interpret the Constitution, not overturn clear and voted-on decisions by the citizens of this country. It is an affront to every voting member of our republic for four activist judges in San Francisco to strike against the very fabric of our freedom.

The Sept. 17 article states: “We understand that many people are opposed to homosexuality and want to raise their children accordingly. That is a choice to be respected, and a choice that would be undisturbed by the outcome of Proposition 8, whatever it may be.” This is a tragic lie. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.”

In a New York Times op-ed piece on Sept. 19, David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat from the Institute for American Values, clearly lays out why he does not favor same-sex marriage: “Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing — the gift, the birthright — that is marriage’s most distinctive contribution to human society. That’s a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.”

In a society where logic escapes most of our decision-making on a daily basis, we must appeal to our individual common sense concerning Proposition 8. Why should we be forced to vote on the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61 percent of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”? How comfortable are you with having Nick being given away by Jack and Gary to David in your church? How comfortable are you with your impressionable 5-year-old coming home from school to ask you about homosexuality?

This is an aggressive assault by an agenda-driven special interest group parading under the guise of tolerance and equality. The tolerance that is desired has already been demonstrated in our state by the emergence of domestic partnerships and written non-discrimination policies that cover sexual orientation and gender identity, the majority of American companies offering health insurance to the partners of employees. This is simply an assault on the institution of marriage. Thus, just as you did in 2000, exercise your political freedom and vote yes on Proposition 8 in November to define marriage in California to be between a man and a woman. At least, until more judges overturn our decision again.

(Crowe lives in Napa.)

173 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Oct 14, 2008 5:04 AM:

" Excellent logic and very well written, Kim. I couldn't agree more. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Oct 14, 2008 6:33 AM:

" I couldn't care less what Kim Crowe does or wants to do at her church. We the People can't have state or local laws on the books that are unconstitutional, no matter how popular those laws might be. The judiciary is obligated to set aside laws that are unconstitutional. Even a five-year-old is able to understand that respecting the rights of others is a good idea. "

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

" I would be very happy were that to happen in my church....but it you don't want it in yours...fine...but how dare you try and impose your church's values on me...for shame...

and this measure has nothing to do with supporting traditional marriage...it a a bald faced attempt to take away rights from hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens...

so much for your tolerance, guess it is okay to be tolerant as long as you like what you are being tolerant about.

if you are uncomfortable answering question from your 5-year old about homosexuality my wager is you are just as uncomfortable about answering questions on heterosexuality...

and now for your constitutional law lesson for today....it doesn't matter how people for a statute, like prop 22, it is unconstitutional, the court has an obligation to strike it down...that is why Prop 8 was designed as amendment. I would also say the thing that is tearing at the "very fabric of our freedom" is this move strip away rights. "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:15 AM:

" And now we know that public schools will be more than happy to take 1st graders to see gay weddings on the taxpayer's dime (happened last week).

You can do what you want in your own home...but we as a society have no obligation to reward gay marriage as a 'best practice' when there are no clear benefits. "

Sharon wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:16 AM:

" I think society is getting too involved in a person PRIVATE life. We as a society are so busy looking into everyone elses life that we are no longer focusing enough on our own house. My mother always used the addage of "If everyone jumped of a bridge would you follow?". My mother said if I worried about my own business then this would be an obsolete saying. I agree with her. If we would worry about what we teach in our own home and teach our children that we do not have to agree with what is taught in other homes then measures like these, that try to deny an individual's right to live in peace, the way they believe, be it religion, inter-racial marriages, same sex marriages, or without marriage, in their own home would never be brought to ballot in the first place. Your beliefs do not have to be my beliefs for us to get along. We just have to respect that we can all have different beliefs, To do this we must defeat ANY measure that would prevent this respect. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:33 AM:

" An activist judge, it seems, is a judge who makes a decision that you don't like. These judges based their decision on the CONSTITUTION, which clearly states that all men are created equal. It also says that your religion has NO PLACE in law. The judges did their job, which is interpreting the law, and protecting the minority from the majority in the case that the majority is wrong--like with interracial marriage. It sickens me that people would spend millions of dollars on a campaign to take rights away from others--if you're so concerned about the state of the world, I suggest you take that money and do something useful with it, like help the needy or donate to an AIDS foundation.

Your child will find out about homosexuality at one point or another--whether s/he has a classmate who is gay, or a family member, or a friend...someone s/he knows will be gay. Everyone knows a gay person, even if they don't know they do. What are you afraid your child will learn about homosexuals? That they're normal? That they love and live the same as everybody else? Oooh, scary! Let me remind you, society has not fallen apart in any of the places that allow gay marriage--not in Massachusetts, not in Europe, not anywhere. It has not led to marriage between people and animals, has not led to polygamy, has not led to incest. These slippery slope arguments are childish, bigoted, short-sighted, and just plain wrong.

This has nothing to do with the church; it is a state matter. Churches can do as they please.

It genuinely makes me want to break down and cry sometimes, that anyone would deny a loving, consenting adult couple the right to make that love legally binding. "

rogers wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Maybe you should see it as an expansion of "the institution of marriage" and I'm not sure that it is necessarily bad - that's your homophobic religious bias speaking.

And what if this time the majority of voters support gay marriage, Then what happens to your argument? I'm quite sure you would see it as merely a temporary setback that must be corrected.

If there are churches which choose to participate or opt out, it is their choice based on their level of compassion or ideology.

Quite frankly, it is not the "activist" judges that bother me, since that is your definition. The judges were required to make a decision about a specific court case. They were doing their jobs - interpret the laws. Perhaps you find that your bible provides all the legal guidance you need, but the rest of us use the judicial system when it comes to difficult cases.

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to review the purpose of the courts - to interpret the laws made by Congress. The Constitution grants the authority to make new laws to the Congress. The Constitution is a dynamic document and that has been its strength, it is not static like the 10 commandments.

And lastly, I'm tired of religious groups from other states dumping 10s of millions of dollars into this California election. We are quite capable of handling our own affairs without the moral council or interference from others who don't live here. Live and let live! "

amigo wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Vote yes on 8 vote yes on 8

Were fed up and we will not take it anymore!
No more gay propaganda crammed down our throats.." whether we like it or not"

VOTE YES ON 8 VOTE YES ON 8 "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:02 AM:

" It genuinely makes me want to break down and cry sometimes, that anyone would deny a loving, consenting adult couple the right to make that love legally binding when there is no evidence that it would harm anybody or anything. The arguments about procreation and children don’t hold water. The pro-8 people have NOTHING to support their claims. My best friend is gay, and I have every intention of attending his wedding someday to the man he loves. "

ADark1 wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Sorry, you lost me at four activist judges! shouldn't that be four activist Republican judges? Get over yourself! If Sam and Mike want to get married or Cheryl and betty do what business is it of yours?

Will they make your property values drop?

Will they corrupt you and the very air you breathe?
Will you just consider you need to live and let live? "

steph wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Equal rights for all law-abiding citizens of the US: Vote "NO" on 8.

Keep your mean-spirited meddling to yourself. If you want to exercise your birthright to feeling superior to others, then do it in your church. However, you don't have the right to special protection and higher legal status than other law-abiding adults in the United States of America.

Jesus would not approve of your pride and vanity. Stop congratulating yourself for being heterosexual.

God forbid any of you have a homosexual family member who feels so ashamed by your dogma, that the only option they feel they have is suicide or pretending to be heterosexual and then behaving like Larry Craig.

Open your minds! Open your hearts! Learn something--become better people and celebrate the glory of God's gifts! "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Calling immorality a constitutional issue is a joke... "

selim wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:59 AM:

" What does ANYBODY care if two same-sex people get married, and what role does the government have in dictating the actions in people's private lives? Bringing the curch into any legal issue should instantly invalidate one's argument; the church should have no role in influencing public policy, and if you don't like what's going on in one church...(here's a novel concept)...STOP GOING.

And voting repeatedly on the same issue should tell you something: the cultural mores are changing and an increasing number of people are finding it an important issue.

It's very simple: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. If you want to "protect" marriage, try outlawing divorce first. See how far THAT gets you. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Upholding the right of homosexuals to marry does not having anything to do with whether or not your church allows homosexual marriage. Additionally, the idea that trying to shelter your children from the idea that homosexually exists is a viable, reasonable, or effective option is naive. Everyone carry7ing this banner also conveniently ignores the child who is himself (or herself) unavoidably gay. I am tired of hearing everyone's argument that their beliefs need to be shoved down my, and everyone else's throat. Go ahead and raise your children in ignorance, I will not. Go ahead and get yourself all worked up over whether or not your neighbors has the same right to marriage as you do because of your religious beliefs, I have better things to do with my time. "

coigue wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Don't let the out-of-staters tell us who can and can't get married.

VOTE NO ON 8 "

Paddy wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 AM:

" Great letter. The statement, "This is an aggressive assault by an agenda-driven special interest group parading under the guise of tolerance and equality" is the reason voting YES on 8 is important to those who are tired of being manipulated and bullied by a few with political connections and deep pockets that allow these types of social degeneration to be treated as normal and acceptable.

My children will be taught, as all generations of my family and families friends and church members have been taught, that homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

I will not let the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender agenda ever gain a foothold as acceptable behavior. "

comment wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:27 AM:

" Funny how the writer thinks allowing gay marriage becomes an "insult on the institution of marriage" yet there are still men and women who can run off to a place like Vegas and get married before they even know each other. What's more insulting, two people who love each other and want to make their relationship "official", or two people who have no respect for the word marriage?

There are lots of "different" people out there. The more you understand the differences, the more tolerant you can become. Children will learn about homosexuality whether marriage is allowed or not. This would not change anything. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Between the Presidential election and this Proposition we are really seeing the worst of Napans. So much hate and bigotry right here in our precious town. "

steph wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Great comment, comment.

Which proves the point that this initiative has little to do with the sanctity of marriage at all, and is instead an assault on liberty.

Paddy--I hope you don't deeply hurt someone you love with your dogma. It is obvious you don't know anyone who is openly gay, and that's just sad. "

rogers wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:00 PM:

" Paddy - what if one of your immediate family members or grandchild admits to being gay? What do you do? Love them for who they are or disown them? It's interesting what a family goes through and how they react when one of their own "comes out".

Regardless of your beliefs you might find the event - The Laramie Project Reading - engaging and thoughtful.

One night only event will be held on Sunday, October 19, 2008 at the Napa Opera House at 7:00 pm.

This is one of two nation-wide events featuring Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother.

She will discuss these issues as does the performance.

Just a thought. "

athought wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:01 PM:

" pharper- The Constitution does not state that "all men are created equal." That is from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution didn't exist when the Declaration was written. Furthermore, the Constitution is a federal document, and this is a state issue. "

napascot wrote on Oct 14, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Commom Sense, while you typically have your facts straight in your comments, the one you mentioned earlier was not.

The 1st graders that went are from a charter school and it was one of the parents that organised it as a suprise to the teacher for her wedding. Yes they did have to get permission to go and 2 of the children's parent opted them out. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I apologize for my mistake; however, that doesn't mean it's not a principle this country was founded on. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:04 PM:

" Paddy, that's like saying being black is wrong, or being Asian is immoral. PEOPLE CANNOT CHANGE WHO THEY ARE. Look at the FACTS, not towards blind hatred of people who are different. There's no evidence of a "gay gene," but there is evidence that being gay is not a choice--and disregarding all the science, ASK a gay person. They'll tell you the truth. They will tell you that no one in their right mind would CHOOSE to spend every day of their life being discriminated against. A person can't help being attracted to the same sex any more than they can help being black or white. The transgender issue is the same--people don't decide on a whim that they identify with the opposite sex. It is an inherent part of them.

I pray that the person in your family who is gay--and I promise that even if you don't know it, there is someone--doesn't feel that the only way out of their situation is suicide. I pray that gay children and teenagers don't look around seeing the hate and bigotry and decide that living as their true self is not an option. I hope that with the defeat of the discriminatory Prop 8, people everywhere--gay, lesbian, transgender, bis exual, AND straight--will be given another small beam of hope for a future free of discrimination and bigotry.

It’s because of situations like this, Paddy, that the suicide rate among gay and lesbian teenagers is three times that of heterosexual teenagers. It is because of cruel, narrow-minded comments that children grow up hating other people.

And deep pockets? I'd say the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Yes on Prop 8 is some pretty telling evidence of "deep pockets.”

NO ON PROP 8 "

winemd wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:21 PM:

" I must admit, this is the last issue I am still "on the fence" about. So I have continued to read the letters/comments, even though I find it appalling that both sides are treating those with opposing views as pariahs.

I am concerned about the implications of this amendment to the state constitution if it should pass and the implications if it doesn't pass.
If it does pass, the implications are that a group of people (up to 15% of the population) will not have the right to marry the person of their choice. Is marriage part of the "pursuit of happiness"? I can also defend the right of people to make the wrong choice as long as it is not infringing on someone else's rights.
If it does not pass, the implications are that the state will have a part in determining morality. Those who think that homosexuality is morally wrong will have to be the ones who "don't ask, don't tell". If it doesn't pass, I would absolutely support a measure that schools do not teach anything about marriage, family, which is not really their job.
Both sides want to force their views about whether homosexuality is normal or not on the other side, when it comes down to it, which disturbs me.
I really think that the best solution is for the state to stick to the contract side of the business and out of the marriage business. The word marriage doesn't appear very much in state law, anyway, so it would be easy to eradicate. Stick to property issues among couples who have been together for a certain amount of time, or who register with the state as a couple (civil union/domestic partner), and leave marriage out of state law. "

and now ........ wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Pharper - interesting that the California Constitution also states "Under God". Given Your view, something that has served residents of this great state for over150 years is not a document to be taken in it's totality but something you can pick and choose from.

I believe that the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender lobby already has every right that married people have right now other than it being called "Marriage." It is typical of the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender lobby that they want what they want now and don't stand in thier way, that is unless you are willing to be called Homophobic.

Let's be clear, This is a hissy fit over the word Marriage, gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender goups want it and they want it now eventhough they already have all of the rights and privledges of the same just without the name! "

GoMommyGo wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:28 PM:

" Ms Crowe makes her case as well as it can be made, but I agree with Sharon. Live and let live. I won't tell you whom to marry, you don't tell me.

One of the little girls in Kindergarten did have two mommies. It's really not as big a deal as you fear. If any of my children is gay (they're still too young to know) I want them to be treated equally under the law.

Yes on 8 = Yes on HATE. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing. Many businesses still discriminate on those grounds, and they often don't afford the same rights and opportunities. It's also a principle. Like you said, we can't pick and choose--so we have to stay true to equality for all. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 14, 2008 3:13 PM:

" To And Now:"Let's be clear, This is a hissy fit over the word Marriage, gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender goups want it and they want it now eventhough they already have all of the rights and privledges of the same just without the name!"

If they are the same, why then would they be called something different? It's either a marriage, or it isn't. That is the essence of discrimination. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 14, 2008 3:31 PM:

" winemd: The problem is that marriage is a state concern. A marriage is a specific contract between two people. The morals of marriage are not the concern of the state, in a strictly legal sense. The state needs to be concerned with the legal aspects of marriage, which generally concern property, child custody and legal and medical decisions.

Religions do not marry people, they santify a marriage. That is they give a marriage their seal of approval. Some religions, for instance, don't allow their members to marry outside of their religion. That does not mean that they can't get married, it means that their church won't recognize the marriage or perform the ceromony. The couple would have to get married else where.

From what i can see, most of the arguments against same sex marriage boil down to legitimate moral concerns (ie. it is against their religion), or bogus claims about how it will ruin society. I have sympathy for the moral concerns, but we live in a secular democracy. An individual is free to follow their moral compass as long as they are behaving legally. Using your religious beliefs to justify denying rights, however, is against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

Bottom line, if you think a same sex marriage is wrong, don't have one. "

and now ........ wrote on Oct 14, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Civil Unions have been legislated ad nauseum in California. Rights of Property inheritance, domestic partnerships for healthcare, visitation and even child custody exist for the same sex relationships as they do for tradional Marriages. Now, because gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender lobby "Feel" they are lacking validation and self worth without calling thier relationships a marriage they are adding confusion by making it an equality issue. Name a business that is not out of business for discrimination on the basis you state. Doesn't happen . Your paranoia and lack of self worth are showing by diverting the issue.
Marriage should be between 'A Man and a Woman" as it has been for a millenia.
Civil Unions are what judges have come up with to coddle the few in order to bring an imperefect peace to the many. "

winemd wrote on Oct 14, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Teacher, my point was that it would be easy for the state to concern itself with the legal aspects and call it a civil union (or domestic partenrship) every time. In common usage, people would still say they are married. But we wouldn't have to worry about the emotionally charged aspects of it affecting the governance of the state. Ultimately I think where the "line" is drawn is somewhat arbitrary and has changed. I think this "line change" is bothersome for some people and I can respect their viewpoint. There was a time when the rich wouldn't marry someone poor. Really it is only in recent times that love has become the primary motivator for marriage, and that is not even true worldwide. We in the US don't typically marry for gain anymore. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
So it boils down to people wanting the "line" to be in a different place than you. Yes, their reasons may not seem logical to you, but tradition is not a completely invalid thing. I do think allowing same-sex marriage affects more than just the individuals involved. It reflects our view as a society. Whether a person thinks that same sex marriage is good thing for society or not varies by the individual. "

glenroy wrote on Oct 14, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Yes on 8...

Get schools and judges out of homes. "

antipc wrote on Oct 14, 2008 6:21 PM:

" Great letter Kim,

Yes on 8, for the sake of the children. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 6:52 PM:

" I can't cite the source here, as I can't post outside links, but there's an article by the New York Times with very reliable citations and sources that says very clearly that there is no significant psychological or emotional difference between children raised by gay couples and those raised by heterosexual couples. As a matter of fact, men raised by lesbian couples were typically less aggressive and less likely to pursue a sexual relationship at an early age than those raised by heterosexual couples, and girls raised by lesbian couples (most studies were conducted with lesbian mothers) were more likely to pursue careers in the fields of medicine, science, and other gender-neutral or "typically male" fields. To say this is "about the children" is a lie. It is better for children if their parents can be married; there is absolutely no evidence that children need parents of the opposite sex in order to thrive.

Gay marriage can't be "taught." Although the Ed Code says that marriage should be taught in school, I can say for a fact that no one ever taught me about marriage in school, much less gay marriage or the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. The very worst that can happen is that your children will be taught tolerance—and at the least, politeness--and you have every right to undo that teaching at home. No one is stopping you. The students mentioned earlier in the comments were bused to their teacher's wedding on Muni, not school buses, and I have no doubt that people would even find it cute or heartwarming were it a heterosexual marriage the students had gone to be a part of.

It’s not about the children, and it's actually almost offensive that people say it is. it is about bigotry. "

skeptic wrote on Oct 14, 2008 7:06 PM:

" i pick and choose what i like in the constitution. i like the part of free speech but i don't like the part which endorses slavery. i like the part repealing slavery and i don't like prohibition so i like the amendment repealing it. we all pick which parts we like and eventually vote out the parts we don't.
so this vote will probably go like others. we don't want full equality for all yet.
it was illegal in 1967 for me to be married to my wife in california because it was interracial. still an abomination in some churches. but some "liberal judges", you know, the ones that think everybody is entitled to all the rights in the bill of rights, ruled that racial discrimination is illegal.
nobody will be able to force churches who disriminate on the basis of anything they want, to do anything against their religion, like perform gay marriage.most religions are quite exclusive for instance, most protestant,catholic, and jewish denominations require converts to do just that. officially leave one belief and enter another. courts have never required any denomination to allow the practice of another one on their property so i think that is a needless fear.
private clubs can do pretty much anything they want as long as it's legal. have you ever heard of a black person suing to get into the klan ? the scenario where a gay couple forces a fundamentalist church to perform a marriage is neither possible nor probable.
i have an idea that might appeal to both sides. how about the state butts out of marriage and leaves it to religious bodies ? why even discriminate against single people at all ? why a marriage tax ? why not treat single people equally ? "

comment wrote on Oct 14, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Would you mind giving us a further explanation, antipc? I'm wondering why someone should say yes to Prop. 8 for the sake of the children. How does this affect children? "

a teacher wrote on Oct 14, 2008 7:21 PM:

" "I do think allowing same-sex marriage affects more than just the individuals involved. It reflects our view as a society. "

And I agree. Personally, I think this really boils down to whether Homosexuality will be accepted as a normal variation in human sexuality or not. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. If you agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, then why not let them marry.

The science is coming down on the side of normal variation. Social mores are lagging beind. "

besmart wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:25 PM:

" What gay people have is not sex! Have ever been to a gay bar and see what goes on ? Our children can not be raised to think that this right. Let people do what ever they want to do in the privacy of thier homes. Just because it happens, is know reason to put it out and spread it. When someone is confused in life , don't put this choice out there like its a good one. When you gay men make love what is it that you do? Explain that to a child! Its realy not a subject to have to explain to kids. Keep it to your self, show some class. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:13 PM:

" Wow. That is some clever title. Almost as clever as liquor sold here, for example. "

Raven wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:17 PM:

" so besmart, are you ready to explain to children what heterosexual people do? and why do you think homosexuality is a choice...when did you choose heterosexuality? "

joining wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:29 PM:

" I'm voting No on Proposition 8.

It never made sense to me to not support 2 consenting adults to make a formal commitment to one another. I certainly do not want to deny non-heterosexual committed couples any civic legal benefit that heterosexual married couples have.

I'll raise my kids to accept differences in people and not to be afraid of their own identity. And no one is advocating teaching children about intercourse and reproduction until they are at that time of life when their hormones kick-in. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Uhm, besmart, there are far more perverted things that straight couples do. If we're going by the kind of sex that people have, there are literally THOUSANDS of straight couples who never should have been allowed to be married. Sex, unless it harms others, has NOTHING to do with marriage, and if it did, there are many, many, MANY marriages that should be immediately dissolved for their "perversity." Sex is not marriage and marriage is not sex and one should not have any influence on the other. That's a smokescreen and a scare tactic. "

lmiller wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:34 PM:

" Boy am I sick of this! I am so tired of being called a bigot or a "hater", just because I vote differently and have a different opinion! Uh isn't that intolerance? And about the kids, I think most of us don't have a problem teaching them about sex/drugs/homosexuality, it's just that I want to teach them. People (yes, even teachers) have their own bias and issues, and I don't want that being transferred to my kids, whatever it is. Stick to math, english, art, etc I'll be their mom, I don't need or want the government to do it for me. Although that's exactly what they do!

I personally don't think the government should be marrying ANYONE. Everything should be a domestic partnerships, and marriage belongs in a church. Everyone cries about seperation of church and state, yet what place does the goverment have in a contract between man, woman and God?

Why don't boyfriends and girlfriends get healthcare, hospital rights, etc? Isn't that whole segment of our society being discriminated against? You bigots! "

verum wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:41 PM:

" Pardon me, but dare I inquire why BESMART was in a gay bar? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:18 AM:

" The manifestation of sex is on a spectrum. Most of us are somewhere in center and to the left or right to a certain degree. There are actually hereditary and congenital conditions which some people are born with that make a female more male, or a male more female. Nature throws this out there on purpose. From a religious perspective which sees nature as an extension of God, I'd say there's a good argument for allowing anyone on the spectrum to marry anyone else on that same spectrum. From a legal perspective; if we know that people can be born with ambiguous gender, and the only way to determine the difference is through DNA testing, how can we legally impose gender limits in marriage?

For example, there was a man who married a woman but she could not get pregnant. After extensive testing, the man (photos of his ambiguous features were shown in the medical text and trust me, he looked like any other male) was discovered to really be a woman. I'm sure his wife was quite shocked!This is an extreme case. But should this couple be forced to divorce?

The hormones in our developing bodies and the wiring in our brains can be influenced by surges of hormones during embryonic development. Too much testosterone can make females left handed for example. Gender is not black and white. There are many different combination of shades. How many of you, for example, have seen a male with feminine mannerism with a macho bossy female? There is no right or wrong. It just is. "

amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:51 AM:

" Children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are second to none.
It is a FACT that children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are ideal

Vote yes on 8 "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I just got this in an email and it reaaly seems to fit this issue:

The Pastor's Donkey

The pastor entered his donkey in a race and it won.

The pastor was so pleased with the donkey that he entered it in the race again, and it won again.

The local paper read:

PASTOR'S AS* OUT FRONT.

The Bishop was so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the pastor not to enter the donkey in another race.

The next day, the local paper headline read:

BISHOP SCRATCHES PASTOR'S AS*.

This was too much for the bishop, so he ordered the pastor to get rid of the donkey.

The pastor decided to give it to a nun in a nearby convent.

The local paper, hearing of the news, posted the following headline the next day:

NUN HAS BEST AS* IN TOWN.

The bishop fainted.

He informed the nun that she would have to get rid of the donkey, so she sold it to a farmer for $10.

The next day the paper read:

NUN SELLS AS* FOR $10.

This was too much for the bishop, so he ordered the nun to buy back the donkey and lead it to the plains where it could run wild.

The next day the headlines read:

NUN ANNOUNCES HER AS* IS WILD AND FREE.

The bishop was buried the next day.

**continued in next post** "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:10 AM:

" **continued from previous post**

The moral of the story is --- being concerned about public opinion can bring you much grief and misery ... even shorten your life.

So be yourself and enjoy life.

Stop worrying about everyone else's as* and you'll be a lot happier and live longer!

Have a nice day! "

Raven wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:51 AM:

" those facts you are trumpeting say two parents are ideal....not necessarily a man and a woman as parents, amigo... "

NapaRedhead wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:09 AM:

" Sorry, however you spin it, a yes vote on 8 is a vote against equal rights. Bottom line. Anyone who does it will be on the wrong side of history on that one. "

Raven wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:39 AM:

" a vote for prop 8 is a move to strip away rights...no way of disguising as anything else... "

Sharon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:21 PM:

" amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:51 AM:
" Children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are second to none. It is a FACT that children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are ideal." I have to say that there are exceptions to this and I am very greatfull I was raised ONLY by my mother. My father was an abuser of the worst kind. I have a friend that was raised by her heterosexual parents and she has been thru 3 divorces and is on public assistance. I have another friend who has gay father and has been married for 15 years and owns his own home and has a great job. So as with any kind of relationship a child can be hurt regardless of the relationships demographics. Children rise above anything and survive if given love, guidence to make their own decisions not based on some one elses opinion, and support to be an unique individual.
I have to agree with the person who stated that SEX and marriage do not have to be dependant on each other. I also agree that Marriage is a legal contract between to people and the church can only give it's blessing on it....A pastor or minister not registered legally can perform a church ceremony, but that ceremony will not be recognized as a marriage for legal processes such as social security or health benefits or even inheritence. The ability for some people to legally marry their longtime best friend(non-sexual) is so that their benefits, medical, pension etc can be given to them and so that the friend can make other decisions as well. Having a narrow interpretation on same sex marriage is not just hurting homosexuals, but it is hurting some heterosexuals as well. "

sweetgrape14 wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Interesting how much discrimination there is in the world. We need to be able to give equal rights to ALL American citizens... and that includes marriage rights to homosexuals.

Or Kim, would you rather that we segregate the Black and White community and give colored people fewer rights simply because they are different and their skin color is unacceptable?

Or would you rather that we revoked women's right to vote because they are not as capable as men due to their strong emotions and there different sex organs?

Our country has a history of discriminating against those who are different from the ideal heterosexual White man. Fifty years from now, our children and grandchildren will be alarmed at how narrow-minded we are being. I know that change can sometimes be difficult, but it is necessary to ensure EQUAL rights to ALL... no matter what! "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:09 PM:

" I'm going to vote "Present" just like Obama. "

amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Facts are facts.
Are you people not concerned with the strength of our society?
Are you people not concerned with the strength of our country?
Where does your loyalty lie?
Anything but stong advocacy for a mom and pop to be a fundamental in a child life is a treason against a society.

This country need not worry about the enemies abroad it will be the treason from within that will lead to its demise. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Personal agendas like the ones displayed here are exactly why those judges had to step in and overrule the previous vote on this issue. Their job is to ensure that the laws and rights of everyone are upheld regardless of personal feelings. That is the spirit in which voters should be deliberating how they will vote this time around, not religious indoctrination or personal aversion, but what is right and just. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:27 PM:

" I'm not even going to show up to vote just like McCain. "

luv1mom wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:30 PM:

" NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! "

antipc wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Yeah comment, I knew I'd have to answer for that one.

My comment was in reference to the SF school teacher & the field trip.

In my view that incident legitimizes both the slippery slope argument as well as the homosexual agenda argument.

Sorry, but is crystal clear to me. "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:16 PM:

" From what I understand, the school teacher did not invite the children and plan the field trip, it was done by others as a surprise for her. The parents had the choice of allowing their children to go or not and some exercised that option.

It seems to me, looking at this with an open mind, it was a good opportunity for the children to witness something that contributes to our state's history. I don't believe the intent, or the outcome of this incident is to indoctrinate. And I don't for a minute think it was harmful to the kids, and apparently neither did most of the parents. "

Raven wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:17 PM:

" well we can all see how seeing two people who love each commit their lives to each would be traumatic to children, amigo....

and since each child's parent gave permission for their child to be there it should none of your business that they even went....unless you are advocating that all education has to be in accordance to your own dictates... "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:10 PM:

" PLEASE; stop infringing on other people freedoms and rights!

And Crowe says " strike against the very fabric of our freedom."

Isn't that what you and your friends at Church are trying to do Kim?

Jesus will not allow hypocrites into heaven. I know. He told me so. And if that weren't enough... so does the Bible.

You know... That little black book with all the "stories in it?"

Yup... Get a life! Tend to your own Garden....

And common sense.

You should take your kids out of school right now and home school them. I heard that children might actually "decide" to "turn" gay if homosexuality is discussed in class.

Ignorance should be painful.

"Dear Jesus...

Please... I know taht I do not always put my faith in you as I should; cause that is what I was taught. I know you understand me when I say that You and the Holy Father will accept me into Your Kingdom even if I do not put my faith into your teachings. I believe that YOU are TOO BIG for just one religion. Forgive these Napa neighbors for torturing gays the way blacks were tortured only recently in our history. I know You WILL ACCEPT my Jewish wife and 2 sons, even if we only celebrate Christmas for the marketing adventure that it has become! We LOVE presents. For I have lived by one simple rule; I have treated others the way that I want to be treated. And, this is ULTIMATELY what you have asked of me.

Amen"

Now let's put this thing to bed!

NO ON EIGHT! "

antipc wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:32 PM:

" The job of the teachers is readin', writen', & rithmatic....period!!!!!

I'll handle rest. "

Raven wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:04 AM:

" ahhhh.........I am sure you are doing the same fine job that you are doing here. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:43 AM:

" amigo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:51 AM:

" Children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are second to none.
It is a FACT that children raised in a home with 1father 1mother are ideal

Vote yes on 8 "

Please stop this abuse; amigo...

You are no friend to equal rights.

NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!

{takes a deeep breathe}

NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!

I hate discrimination in any form. This is what you people who are going to vote yes on 8 are doing to other deserving human beings. You are discriminating against them because they believe in something different. They have a 1st ammendment right to freedom of speach. You, common sense amigo,. are trying to take those rights away. As a VETERAN of this great Nation (in crisis), I implore you to vote NO ON EIGHT!

NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT!
NO ON EIGHT! "

amigo wrote on Oct 16, 2008 4:58 PM:

" SOMEGUYINNAPA:
Im sorry that you wish to shut me up.
Do you wish for there to be freedom?
Maybe some day every1 will be in total agreement with you!
And every1 will dress in red uniforms and march to a drum beat.

Please keep the hate out of our community "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 16, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Thank you, Kim, for your well-written letter in support of Prop 8. It was great!

YES ON PROP 8!

It is CONSTITUTIONAL to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. According to federal law, marriage is defined as a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman.

I support Prop 8 for many reasons, one of which is based on my religious beliefs. As a Catholic, I cannot in good conscience, support something which is immoral and wrong. I will PROUDLY stand up for what is right and true. YES ON PROP 8!

I strongly encourage my fellow Catholics to uphold our beliefs and our Catholic faith and vote YES on PROP 8! "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:33 PM:

" H8?

Really Amigo?

I have spewed HATE... HERE?

WELL... (is a deep hole; lots of water)

Here we go..

Apparently it is not apparent to me that I have become a HATER when I have clearly be asking for EQUAL RIGHTS for all HUMAN BEINGS; ah, but what is the point?

You will never understand the true meaning of self and how we are all equal.

You ultimately cannot view the greater good of equal rights for us all.

SAD...

I am sorry imyourfriend.

I have tried my best to reason with these people, but they too are Americans and have the right think anyway they want; no matter how backwards the thoughts are historically.

I will be voting NO on 8.

I would encourage you ALL to do the same before your rights are taken away as well...

I=U "

napascot wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Amigo writes,

"Please keep the hate out of our community"

Finally something worth noting comes out of your comments, you are absolutely right, please keep hate out of the communities and VOTE NO ON 8

Please do not vote to discriminate "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:02 AM:

" Some of the biggest latino groups are in favor of prop 8.
La Raza being one of them.
Almost every sentiment shared to me by a latino was one alligned with prop 8.
Are these people part of the VAST RIGHT WING EXREMIST? Or the HATE SPEWERS.
I dont think so. Most are just regular working people.

VOTE YES ON 8 VOTE YES ON 8 "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:37 AM:

" Well that's great Amigo; glad that you have the Latin Catholic community on your side.

But I have not spewed any hate in any way in encouraging you to vote No on 8. Even after you hit me with some pretty harsh words about the future in some HILTER-ESQUE sort of society (YOU SAID "Im sorry that you wish to shut me up.
Do you wish for there to be freedom?
Maybe some day every1 will be in total agreement with you!
And every1 will dress in red uniforms and march to a drum beat"). As you said let's keep the HATE out of our community. A yes vote on 8 equals a yes vote on discrimination which inturn equals a YES VOTE ON HATE.

Vote was is equal. Vote American; not religeous. NO ON EIGHT. "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:43 AM:

" MNV, you have tried that tracvk before and just because you wanted Prop 22 to be constitutional doesn't make it so...matter of fact the court struck it down as it should have...and now you are trying to strip rights away from your neighbors...no one is trying to do anything to your catholic beliefs but where do you get the right to impose those beliefs upon the rest of us?...where is that in the constitution? "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:15 AM:

" It sounds hateful to me!
It also sounds like I have to vote in alliance with you.
And if I dont Im a bigeot.
Well my friend sound to me like you cant agree to disagree.
What s up with all of your spam?What is the point? "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Amigo--
According to the noonprop8 website, you are not being truthful.

I also checked the La Raza website, and, surprise! No endorsement for prop 8.

If you have credible sources, let's hear about them.

No on 8! "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Hi steph. Nice to see you are paying attention.

Look at prop 8 dontations. There is 1 from la raza.
Thank you very much!

Vote yes on 8 "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Look at the donations! :)

It is an indicator of the REAL forces behind all the rhetoric.

Interst groups verses Family groups

It is crystal clear

VOTE YES ON 8 "

mgreene wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:34 AM:

" I remember a few years ago, there was a proposition to legalize marijuana for medical reasons. I voted NO on this, knowing that it was going to be abused by drug users.
It passed...BUT I did not go and get my non-pot-smoking friends, raise a bunch of money, and lobby judges. I put on my big boy pants and accepted the vote of the people!

Prop 22 was passed by the vote of the people. It did not take away anyone's rights to be "domestic partners". It just stated that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, no hidden agenda, black and white!

But...the pro gay community was not happy with the vote of the people, even though they still have the SAME rights under domestic partnership.

Why?

Prop 8 does not take away anyone's rights!

If Prop 8 fails, then let's talk about rights!

Our children will be taught about same-sex "marriages", without parental consent, IN KINDERGARTEN!! Don't believe me? it's happening in Massachusetts NOW!

Kindergartners need to learn their numbers and letters, not about marriage, or same-sex unions.

So, my rights as a parent will be taken away IF we don't pass Prop 8!!

When it comes to protecting my kids, I show no mercy!

read the facts and vote Yes on Prop 8 "

Sharon wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:39 AM:

" mgreene wrote: "they still have the SAME rights under domestic partnership. " Actually they do not have the same rights as a legal marriage. They can not file joint federal taxes, they can not file for spousal social security. And there are many other federal and state LEGAL benefits denied to domestic partnerships that legal marriages are not denied. We need to remember that all laws founded in this country can not be based in religious beliefs or that makes it unconstitutional.

By saying that someone's choice is immoral based on your religious beliefs and then encouraging a law to be passed on these religious beliefs you are then against true freedom of religion.

True freedom of religion also includes peoples right to have different belief systems. "

opiniagirl wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:41 AM:

" Yes on 8 -

The voters have already decided this issue and it was illegally overturned by judges that manipulated the law and REDEFINED what was ALREADY CLEARLY DEFINED.

If you want the law to change; work from the bottom up like everyone else, not from the top down. They tried, they failed. Americans spoke!

Since that didn't work, elected officials (i.e. Gavin Newsom) BROKE the laws that they were elected to uphold and defied the will of the American people to push a personal agenda.

This is not even about the rights of gays in my opinion, it is a opportunity to correct an injustice that has occurred against all Americans, including gays. Manipulation of the judicial system is injustice no matter what the issue.

American people need to send the message that this is NOT OK! We will not stand for the will of the people to be ignored, even if we don't agree with the majority.

What is next? What other loopholes do judges get to find and exploit according to their own agendas? These judges were nominated and chosen to enforce the current laws and create new laws DICTATED by the will of the people.

When that process is sidestepped, that is when democracy turns into a dictatorship.

YES on 8 "

winemd wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:07 PM:

" If prop 8 fails, homosexuals will be allowed to marry in CA, but they will still not be allowed to file joint federal taxes, etc.

Overall, this has turned into anoter thread that is not very useful. "Shouting" your position repeatedly is not helpful to someone who might otherwise seriouly consider your viewpoint. Respect each other's right to voice a different opinion, without saying they are bigot or immoral. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Nope, amigo.

I went to the prop 8 website (holding my nose) and could not find one endorsement from La Raza.

Hmm...

Lots of Christian organizations that, I guess, have helped all the world's poor and suffering enough--you know, Jesus's work--such that they now have plenty of time and resources to persecute God's gay children.

Another reason I will not be voting Republican, by the way. Bob Barr for president! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:36 PM:

" Raven,

If the traditional definition of marriage (1 man and 1 woman) is "unconstitutional" then the same-sex marriage advocates should have challenged the law on federal grounds, i.e. violating the U.S. Constitution. However, they did not. The truth is that sexual orientation is NOT considered a suspect class (unlike race) according to the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore, no equal protection analysis is really viable. The CA Supreme Court should have looked to the U.S. Supreme Court and to well-established precedent and case law to arrive at a judicially proper decision instead of overturning the will of the people and legislating from the bench.

Now with regard to religion, I see nothing wrong with voting in accordance with my religious beliefs. I am not imposing my religious beliefs on you. You are free to believe and vote as you so choose. I respect and value those rights.

The words "separation of church and state" are not found in the Constitution. Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that is often misapplied and misunderstood.

In fact, the doctrine of separation of church and state does not preclude a priest or minister from openly supporting a proposition dealing with a social issue that affects society, i.e. Prop 8.

It is perfectly constitutional for a priest or minister to tell his congregation during a mass/church service to support and vote for Prop 8.

My voting in accordance with my religious faith is not an affront to the Constitution or to the doctrine stated above.

I am voting to preserve the definition of marriage. Rights will NOT be taken away. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:50 PM:

" According to the definition of "suspect class" homosexuals are CLEARLY in that category--the California Supreme Court agrees with me.

As you know, case law evolves.

We'll just see what the will of the people is.

The California Supreme Court found that cities and counties in California could not disallow same-sex marriage.

I suspect, MissNapaValley, you, like John McCain, believe in state's rights? (Abortion?) This is a state's rights issue. Soon enough, it will become a federal issue. Case law will have evolved to the point where homosexuals will be able to claim their rights.

And, no, you don't have the right to use religion as justification for withholding constitutionally-protected civil rights. How would you feel, for example, about a municipality in, say, Detroit, voting to impose the will of the majority according to their muslim religion, and implementing sharia-based laws? I daresay you would object.

Your religion, no matter how badly you want it to be, is not the basis for establishing law in this state or this country. The California Supreme Court ruled so.

Sorry this gives you pain, but it is so, and I suspect it will remain so. The youth of California in large part don't agree with your bigotry, and that's a testament to their intelligent compassion. Good for them! Good for us! "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:50 PM:

" MNV, you have gone down this road before but the equation is simple....there is a right to same-sex marriages in California whether you like it or not, voting for Prop 8 will remove that right....what about that don't you understand...?

there was no reason for the state supreme court to look anywhere but at the state constitution for there ruling, since it was a purely state matter, no federal principals were involved..

never said a priest or minister couldnt say or endorse what he wanted from the pulpit, but I disagree with them maintaining a tax exemption while doing it...and the court didn't say heterosexual marriages were unconstitutional....just that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was...

and yes, when the reasons cited for supporting the prop are said to be based on your religious beliefs, then you are trying to impose your religious values on the rest of it... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:53 PM:

" BTW, the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional, and nobody is trying to make it so. But how clever of you to employ such misleading language in your argument.

On the other hand, the legal privilege of marriage cannot exclude another definition of marriage, that which includes two consenting adults of the same sex.

That's the law as it stands now. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Under CA law, domestic partners have the same LEGAL rights as spouses. Prop 8 does not change that. It merely preserves the traditional definition of marriage.

I believe we are all God's children and we should all be treated with dignity and respect. No one is being "persecuted."
Churches and religious groups supporting Prop 8 believe in the importance of preserving the traditional definition of marriage. While they may not agree with the morality of homosexuality, they advocate treating homosexuals with the decency and respect that we all deserve as human beings. This, however, does not militate that churches or religious groups must support behaviors/choices that are morally bankrupt in their view. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Nobody is forcing churches to support gay marriage. You all are free to define marriage however you choose. The law and legal privilege has nothing to do with your religion. You're free to go on feeling superior to others in the privacy of your homes and churches.

Those of us against Prop 8 will not allow churches/synagogues/mosques to dictate civil law in this constitutional republic we love. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

" HATE is not a thing that I wish to teach to my children. Therefore, I will be voting NO ON PROP 8.

Tolerance is something that I will be teaching my children. Therefore, I will be voting NO ON PROP 8.

It is logical.
It makes sense.
It is what is right.

If you are affraid that your children might learn about different lifestyles and cultures in school, then you should immediately remove your children from public school and put them into private schools or home school them.

Give homosexual couples the same rights that you have so that they too can enjoy medical benefits and death benefits...

Let FREEDOM ring! "

Sharon wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:12 PM:

" MissNapaValley, when prop 8 is defeated will you be forced to not practice your beliefs in your own church or home? the answer is no. If prob 8 were to pass would another person be prohibited from practicing their beliefs in their own home? Yes they would. So therefore this proposition must be defeated or else we will be denying a group of people from being able to practice their beliefs within their own lives.

This is a clear cut desicion if we would all put the questions to ourselves and be totally honest.

By 2 people getting married is it going to prevent me in my own home or church from living according to my beliefs?

Mine and my husband's answer is NO!
So therefore by answering that question honestly and keeping my boundries to within my home and church and out of anyone elses home and church I am voting NO on this proposition because I have a firm belief in our constitutional guidelines that state FREEDOM of choice of allpeople is to be protected. "

mgreene wrote on Oct 17, 2008 4:27 PM:

" As far as same-sex unions/marriage, why does this have to be taught in kindergarten? A 5 year old does not understand same-sex stuff and they should be left alone!!

LET THEM BE KIDS!!!

When children are being taught things other than academics without parental notification in our schools, then there is something wrong.

How dare you take away my rights as a parent!!

I want my 5 year old to enjoy being a 5 year old, because they grow up too fast.

So stay away from my kids and let me be the parent! "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:19 PM:

" mgreene, if you want to be the sole influence over your children, you must isolate them strictly from society. Or you might move to a society that is much more restrictive, maybe Utah or a strict muslim country.

What is your concern, really, though? If a classmate of a kindergardener has two mommies or two daddies, what do you think should happen? Should we shame the child and tell him or her that her family is illegitimate and wrong? Or, do we risk, what, a heterosexual child deciding to marry a member of the same sex? What's going to happen? Do your children's teachers have more influence over them than you do?

By the way, I haven't heard of any classrooms sitting all the children down for a serious discussion of family structures, with charts and diagrams and tests. I don't know what it is you're talking of, this teaching children about "this stuff" in kindergarden. Can you provide an example? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:04 PM:

" Raven,

From a substantive perspective, "same-sex marriage" does not confer equal rights to homosexual couples; they already enjoyed equal rights PRIOR to the decision handed down by the CA Supreme Court and they will continue to even after Prop 8 passes.

Under CA law, specifically the Domestic Partnership Act, homosexual couples have the right to commit to each other for life in a legally recognized domestic partnership. As a result of entering such a union, partners are confered the SAME LEGAL RIGHTS that have traditionally been enjoyed by spouses. (as stated in the opinion in the In Re Marriage case)

So what right would be taken away under state law? The right to redefine the traditional defintion of marriage?

This really is an issue of preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Also, it is about reserving the rights of parents to control what their children are taught with regard to homosexuality, a controversial/sensitive social topic.

Labeling marriage as "heterosexual marriage" is redundant. The term "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron - it just doesn't make sense.

In response to my comment above, you stated, " there was no reason for the state supreme court to look anywhere but at the state constitution for there ruling, since it was a purely state matter, no federal principals were involved.."

If you re-read my comment above, I was questioning why the ADVOCATES of same-sex marriage didn't challenge the law on federal grounds AS WELL if it was so clearly "unconsitutional." The same arguments with regard to equal protection, fundamental rights, discrimination, etc. can be applied to the U.S. Constitution. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:04 PM:

" Steph,

I sense a very caustic tone in your comments. Let me remind you, there is no need for anger or name-calling. It does not help one's cause. Granted, this is an emotional topic, but please try to debate with those who disagree with you in a civil and respectful manner.

Now, let's get started. According to case law and the U.S. Supreme Court, sexual orientation is NOT considered a "suspect class" (for purposes of a constitutional equal protection analysis). As acknowledged by justices in the In Re Marriage case and numerous legal scholars and judges, there was a blatent disregard for the law and for the doctrine of stare decisis (upon which our judicial system functions and relies). Four rouge justices substituted their personal beliefs for the will of the people. They ran afoul other provisions of the CA constitution in arriving at their decision, which had been decided even before the case was put in front of them. I could expand on this issue, but it would take an indepth discussion involving legal nuance that is foreign to most lay persons.

You stated, "Case law will have evolved to the point where homosexuals will be able to claim their rights." It's ironic that you would rely on case law to advance the rights of homosexuals in the future since that is precisely what the CA Supreme Court chose to ignore in arriving at its decision. So, it seems you are saying courts should follow case law when it's something you agree with, but when they ignore it, it's perfectly acceptable so long as it advances your cause. That is rather hypocritical. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Steph,

You stated, "We'll just see what the will of the people is."

With all due respect, we already know what the will of the people is... it's called Prop 22 and it was passed by over 61% of voters just a few years ago. Apparently, we have to re-visit the issue due to 4 activist justices. So be it.

You also stated, " Your religion, no matter how badly you want it to be, is not the basis for establishing law in this state or this country. The California Supreme Court ruled so."

Again, with all due respect, I believe you are confused. I'm advocating that my fellow Catholics vote in accordance with the principles and values embraced by our faith. There is nothing wrong or improper about that.

You vote your values and I will vote mine. Isn't that a given? Values are shaped by many things, including religion. I do not practice my religion in a vacuum. My faith and values permeate all aspects of my life, including the way I vote on a social issue that has moral implications. If that offends you, that's your issue. I'm not going to apologize for voting in accordance with my values and my Catholic faith. It's called freedom of religion and democracy at its best. Moreover, where in the Constitution does it say I can't vote based on my religious beliefs? "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:49 PM:

" we have had this conversation before MNV, and you have no new arguments.....they have the right because the court says so...that is the simplest reason....

and again...just because a majority of voters approved a statute that is unconstitutional, doesnt make it any less unconstitutional "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:50 PM:

" and when you use your faith to remove rights from Californians, you have moved beyond the free exercise of it..... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:02 PM:

" MNV--

Feeling condescending, are we? Aw...that's cute.

Why not put the definition of "suspect class" out for all to see, and then we can decide whether homosexuals fit the definition. Not that it matters--the supreme court majority put forth an excellent argument in the majority opinion, and it is law now.

As for Prop 22, it's history. Your side chose to put up Prop 8, and, again, we'll see how Californians feel now.

You go ahead and vote according to your beliefs. It is absolutely your right. I'll vote according to mine--and the constitution. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:33 PM:

" Steph,

You stated, " And, no, you don't have the right to use religion as justification for withholding constitutionally-protected civil rights. How would you feel, for example, about a municipality in, say, Detroit, voting to impose the will of the majority according to their muslim religion, and implementing sharia-based laws? I daresay you would object."

First and foremost, Prop 8 will amend the CA constitution to restore the traditional definition of marriage as exclusively between 1 man and 1 woman.

There is nothing in the language of the proposed constitutional amendment that favors a particular religion over another. Furthermore, the amendment has a secular purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits relgion, AND it does not produce any government entanglement with religion.

If my motivation in voting for Prop 8 is based on my religious values, that is my prerogative and my constitutional right. I do have a right to vote in accordance with my faith and I intend to do just that. Yes on 8!

Your analogizing this situation to the implemenation of Sharia-based law is just plain wrong, as any law that gives a preference to a particular sect (Islam, in this case) is a violation of the Establishment Clause unless it is narrowly tailored to promote a compelling interest (a very high constitutional bar). "

Raven wrote on Oct 18, 2008 1:56 AM:

" actually MNV, you and others have time and time again said either 1) you were voting for Prop 8 because of your religious values or 2) you were voting for Prop 8 to protect your religious values.....

so either way, you are trying to use a constitutional amendment to impose you religious values upon the rest of us.... "

amigo wrote on Oct 18, 2008 6:47 AM:

" Enough already lets vote YES ON 8 and get this over.
do it for the little boys who want to grow up to be strong men and have babies with a women! "

someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:11 AM:

" MNV says

"Again, with all due respect, I believe you are confused. I'm advocating that my fellow Catholics vote in accordance with the principles and values embraced by our faith. There is nothing wrong or improper about that."

So, basically it's ok for you obey some of your churches doctrines but not all. Again, I defer you to the statue of St. Apollonaris in front of the school. That statue is of a man that I was FORCED to PRAY to as a child attending that school. It is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the 1st Commandment; "I am the Lord, YOUR GOD, who broght you out of Egypt. You shall have no false idols or gods before me."

It seems to me your religion is full of hypocracies... I know that the nuns hated me for my independant thinking. Why, I was even smacked with the thin edge of a yard stick on more than one occasion for saying such thing to Sr. Philameana in the 4th grade. Talk about bad for the kids! But I spent 8 years at that school listening to how GOD is first, but the only place we ever saw God was INSIDE the church... Not in the yard like the other guy!

So, please, stop playing that religion card. It's not working. We are talking about the ability for all unions to be recognized by the state so that we can all have the same benefits. What's wrong with that?

And no amigo... LA RAZA is not behind your cause! I have scoured the internet for days since your rediculous claims...

NO ON H8
NO ON 8 "

winemd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Is anyone really advocating that MNV should vote against her (admittedly religious) values becuse YOU think said values are wrong? So if she votes her values that is wrong because they come from religion and if you vote your values that is right, because they are not based on religion. I am probably going to vote no on 8, because to me it is just an issue of semantics, and is a secular issue but I have NO problem with someone voting Yes because they believe in the traditional definition of marriage, whether that belief comes from their religion or not. "

steph wrote on Oct 18, 2008 12:14 PM:

" The secular purpose of Prop 8 is...?? How again does it protect the rights of all law-abiding citizens? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Someguyinnapa,

First, let me start by saying that I too attended St. Apollinaris for 8 years. Not once in those 8 years was I ever forced or encouraged to pray to any statue.

Catholics do NOT pray to statues, as that is against one of the 10 Commandments. So your comment about obeying some church doctines but not all simply does not make sense.

I, like you, had Sr. Philomena in 4th grade. Yes, Sister was strict, but she was a great teacher and I am thankful I had her. I'm sorry you were hit. That wasn't right, in my opinion.

Unlike you, during my Catholic school experience, I was taught that God is everywhere and that we can talk to him at any time, not just in Church.

Even if I leave religion totally out of this, I would still vote YES on Prop 8.
My Catholic faith is just ONE of many reasons why I will be voting YES.

You wrote, "We are talking about the ability for all unions to be recognized by the state so that we can all have the same benefits. What's wrong with that?"

According to the CA Domestic Partnership Act, homosexual unions are in parity with traditional marriages. That means that partners have the SAME rights under CA law as SPOUSES. Voting Yes on Prop 8 will NOT change that. It merely preserves the traditional definition of marriage. "

steph wrote on Oct 18, 2008 12:42 PM:

" MNV--
What if the citizens of a suburb of Detroit or El Dorado, TX, got together, at the urging of the local Imam, to put an initiative on the ballot that outlawed wearing bikinis in public (pools, beaches), because they were immodest? This would, of course, serve a completely secular purpose, of protecting families from pornographic imagery, and men from lust--in effect, it would protect marriage. And many muslims in town--let's say they might be able to swing a majority vote in this town with a little organization, and there was a good possibility that the measure might pass. Next would be all women's modern bathing suits, and no man would be able to be seen in public with his chest, knees or ankles showing, all in order to protect modesty. Later, there would be a law that unmarried men and women were not allowed to socialize in public together--all in the name of protecting marriage. What if a majority of citizens voted yes on these measures? Would that make them constitutional?

After all, these are not religious laws, you see, they just re-establish the traditional sense of modesty in a society with runaway immorality?

Then how would that work? Does a religious sect have the right to make laws that govern everyone else, even if the laws do not directly establish a religion?

Not to engage in "name-calling", but somehow I believe Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the US constitution is about to be exercised.

What did they teach you in law school? "

Raven wrote on Oct 18, 2008 1:38 PM:

" no, what we are saying is her religious values do not give her the right to discriminate by trying to impose her religious values upon other people...that is where her freedom of religion stops "

winemd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Haven't opponents of prop 8 been saying that "marriage" in terms of the constitution and state government is a secular issue (meaning a contract between two people) and that religion should be left out of "marriage"? Now I'm confused. "

winemd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 3:26 PM:

" So if voting for this measure is imposing their values on others, which is not okay, then they must vote against their values, according to your statement. If you vote for propostion 2, you are imposing your values (humane treatment of animals) on others. Everyone has the right to vote according to their own values, whether they are religious or not. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 18, 2008 3:55 PM:

" I explained in another NVR article how I came to the decision to vote NO on Prop 8. I still stand with that decision.

But after reading this article I can see that the people who choose to vote YES on Prop 8 are actually SUPPORTING homosexuals!

You see, if we allow gays to marry, they will be subject to every aspect of marriage. Including the horrors of divorce. If you vote YES on Prop 8, preventing gay marriage, then:

Homosexuals will never have to hire greedy expensive divorce attornies.

Homosexuals will never have to legally divide all of their assets if they split.

Homosexuals will never have messy child custody battles or child support payments: Without marriage there is only ONE adoptive parent.

Homosexuals won't have to deal with any legal obligation for alimony.

For anyone who has been through a divorce (that's 1 out of every 2 marriages, 50%) voting YES on Prop 8 sounds like we're doing homosexuals a HUGE favor!!! Vote carefully, Prop 8 looks different from many angles. "

Raven wrote on Oct 18, 2008 4:29 PM:

" we are saying if you dont want to have a same sex marriage fine, dont have one...but don't try and strip away that right citing your religious values....simple as that.....when the churches are spending money to take away rights, those churches are trying to impose their religious values on the rest of us...no one has yet to provide a valid way Prop 8 will do anything to support traditional marriage, all it does is strip away rights.

and frankly I think prop 2 is a waste of time on feel good legislation that wont markedly improve the life of any livestock.... "

Raven wrote on Oct 18, 2008 4:31 PM:

" and yes...and marriage is a property contract, that is the only reason for the state's involvement....I have no problem with a system such as the French....every marriage is civil...then if you want it blessed by your church...go for it "

winemd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Raven, there I agree with you (the civil license issued by the state). I just can't see saying that someone must vote against their own values, even if I disagree. I certainly don't want someone telling me I can't vote on something based on my values. There are circumstances in which you have to set aside value judgements and make decisions based on objective criteria. Is voting one of those? And how would you mandate that? In this case, I am not sure we can come up with objective criteria that would be generally agreed upon anyway.
And I would love to see marriage more supported than it is. I think that is much more important to society as a whole, because divorce causes a lot of havoc, even though I would not ban divorce, either. Hey even the Bible doesn't go that far ;-).
I think that churches are banned from spending money on political campaigns, but of course members can do so.
I've gone back and forth on prop 2, because I buy the cage free eggs and meat that is treated humanely for the most part anyway. I think farmers are going that direction except for big farms, so maybe the free market is working to help with this issue already. "

sweetgrape14 wrote on Oct 18, 2008 8:44 PM:

" VOTE NO! NO NO NO NO NO!! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 8:53 PM:

" Steph,

There are several constitutional issues presented by your hypothetical. Let’s start with the obvious. In your example, unmarried men and women would be prohibited from socializing. This is laughable as such a statute would be struck down as facially invalid. It would be a direct constitutional affront to the 1st Amendment, the freedoms of speech and assembly, and to one’s protected liberty interest. There are due process and equal protection issues. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the statute (as proposed by you) is CLEARLY overbroad and vague. Basically, it would be unconstitutional for a number of reasons. There is ample case law to support such a finding.

Moving on… the constitutional test that I mentioned in my earlier comment is applied where there is no “sect preference.” In your hypothetical, there appears to be a sect preference for the Islamic faith, and therefore, a different test would apply. "

sweetgrape14 wrote on Oct 18, 2008 8:53 PM:

" The LAW cannot cater to religion!!

FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!

So if your religious beliefs go against gay marriage... DON'T participate in one!

But let others, who's religion DOES NOT discriminate against gay marriage have one!

Vote against discrimination!

Vote for equal rights for all!

Everyone is made different and it is morally wrong not to let them be who their biology dictates who they should be!

It's like punishing a baby girl for not being a baby boy!

Just because someone doesn't fit into a perfect cookie cutter image of what you think they ought to be, does not mean that they should be discriminated against!

Religion is NOT a part of the law, and nor should it be... EVER!

VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!

With liberty and justice FOR ALL!!!!!!

*liberty, which includes freedom of sexual orientation and the option of getting married to the one you love! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:01 PM:

" Yes, modesty is a virtue endorsed and encouraged by many religions. However, in your example, all women’s bathing suits would be banned at public beaches and pools. An argument can easily be advanced that such a prohibition favors the Islamic religion over others. In fact, when I was at a beach on Lake Erie this summer a Muslim woman was covered from head-to-toe in 90 degree weather while her husband was shirtless and in shorts. Catholics, Protestants, and other religious sects would not object to a woman wearing a bathing suit at a public beach or pool, whereas Muslims would and do object. Such a law would clearly be preferential to the Islamic sect which has a strict dress code for its women followers. This just skims the surface; there are a multitude of other constitutional infirmities with your hypo that have nothing to do with religion.

In summation, I would encourage you to look at the big constitutional picture in analyzing your hypothetical and not just to the Establishment Clause.

Even if you take religion out of the equation, the statutes would fail to pass constitutional muster as they violate other important provisions of the Constitution. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:06 PM:

" WineMD,

Thank you for your well-reasoned comments. Although we are on different sides of the fence on this issue, I can appreciate your logic and your defending one's right to vote in accordance with one's beliefs, religious or otherwise. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:16 PM:

" MarshaMarsha,

Actually, domestic partners are subject to the same provisions in the Family Code with respect to division of assets in a divorce. They are treated in partity with spouses, which means they are subject to all the state laws that apply to spouses including the alimony, division of assets, etc.

Voting yes on Prop 8 will not change that. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Raven,

What substantive right will be taken away if Prop 8 passes?

Will homosexual couples still have the opportunity to commit to each other for life in a legally recognized ceremony?

YES.

Will partners in a domestic partnership still be treated the same as spouses under CA if Prop 8 passes?

YES.

So what "right" will be stripped away?

"Same sex marriage" is synonymous with "domestic partnership."

The issue here is preserving the traditional definition of marriage. "

steph wrote on Oct 18, 2008 10:26 PM:

" Prop 8 also fails to pass constitutional muster.

It violates the 14th amendment.

Prop 8 will not pass.

:(

And even if it does it will be challenged in court, making attorneys very wealthy.

Hopefully, eventually, the involved churches, which are trying to impose their particular religious bias here in California, will be able to return to their work on worthwhile charities instead of wasting money and other resources on persecuting Americans. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:57 AM:

" MissNapaValley: Domestic partners have to be registered as a participant in a domestic partnership before any provisions of Family Code will apply. Otherwise, anyone who gets booted out of a house after a sour relationship could just walk into court and claim whatever they want.

When a marriage ends in divorce assets are usually divided equally, regardless of who earned the money during the marriage. But domestic partners are recorded as "co-owners" of property, and after separation the court performs a legal action called "Partition" to determine the percent of interest each partner has purchased in co-owned property. It's a huge accounting mess if proper records are not kept. Also, only an ex-spouse can recieve alimony. Ex-partners have to file for palimony, which is much MUCH harder to prove in court. The term "palimony" implicitly analogizes the rights of a nonmarital partner to the right of a spouse to receive alimony.

I could suggest many examples of case law regarding differences between marriage and domestic partnership, but Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106] gives a great example.

I was being humorous in my last comment that YES on Prop 8 would be supporting homosexuals, but you brought up a valid point that any separation is a horrible mess, be it of marrige, civil union, or domestic partnership. "

Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:13 AM:

" the substantive right is the right to marry someone of the same sex...

and having been by the side of a pair of lesbian friends who are disolving their partnership, marsha has the best grasp of the situation...it is not treated as a divorce would be....

churches are spending their money, not just their members, on the yes on campaign...should they lose their tax exempt status? "

WorksInNapa wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:32 AM:

" My best buddy in the Navy was homosexual. The best man at my wedding was homosexual. As persons I liked both. We hiked, drinked, worked and played together. Yet I hated their homosexual actions on moral grounds. They knew it and we still stayed friends. One passed away of AIDS back in the 70's. I didn't like the idea of others keeping their distance from him during that period. Just because I like a person doesn't mean I have to like the things they do.

With all that said I'm still voting YES on Prop. 8. My morals haven't changed. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. "

Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:36 PM:

" so you like them but not enough to stop you from stripping their rights away ....

and no one is stopping a man and woman from marrying.... "

Joe B wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Homophobia or sexual misconduct. Well I believe......fill in the blanks. "

napanfrombirth wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Well there is quite a bit of info to digest here. I will have to do some serious thinking about both sides of this issue. The most resonable post imo was WorksInNapa. MissNapaValley was very interesting and seemed to be in touch with more of the legalese than most posters.

This thread will make me check out the facts. I am particularly interested in Skeptic's post about in 1967 interracial marriage in CA was illegal. I don't like it when anyone plays loose with the facts or parses it out to suit their view. I just want the facts please. If this was the case in 1967 then I can only shake my head in bewilderment.

I am on the fence on this one a bit. I disdain people who claim to be tolerant yet when it comes time to hear an opposing view they become very intolerant and get all lathered up. This goes for both sides. Put the bigot/hater card away for a few years ok. Just because someone disagrees with you it does not give you the right to label them and demonize them. This goes both ways! "

Rocco wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Raven wrote on Oct 18, 2008 4:31 PM:

" and yes...and marriage is a property contract, that is the only reason for the state's involvement....I have no problem with a system such as the French....every marriage is civil...then if you want it blessed by your church...go for it "

YES! YES! (This can't be from the same "Raven" I know...this makes too much sense!) Put the word "marriage" back into the churches where it belongs. And in the same sense, I don't want just any domestic partnership called a marriage. Yes on 8 "

Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:46 PM:

" it was the case....The issue was settled once and for all in 1967. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court ruled that all bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. at the time there were 16 states that still had bans in place. Californias was ruled unconstitutional in 1959. One of the people who was a part of the case....don't remember if it was the husband or wife...just passed away this year "

steph wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:53 PM:

" I have a question for the Prop 8 supporters: Do you all believe that homosexuals are really born heterosexual, and then decide to have sexual relationships with members of the same sex, even though they are really heterosexual?
If so, why would people do that?
Do you think heterosexual people are attracted to members of the same sex but they just suppress those urges?

I really want to understand you. "

winemd wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:21 PM:

" My gut feeling is that sexuality is a continuum of feelings/behaviors and is not always an either /or situation. So steph, to answer your question: I think that homosexuals are born with a predilection for attraction to the opposite sex, but many have some element of heterosexual attraction, too. Whether they decide to be with a person of the same sex or opposite sex depends on many other factors, including the individual's development, emotions, need for intimacy, etc. Some are certainly exclusively homosexual. Many heterosexuals have thoughts, feelings, dreams or fantasies in regards to homosexual attraction, but don't act on them based on a number of factors, similar to those listed above. Some are 100% heterosexual. The continuum probably leans towards the heterosexual simply because of evolutionary factors. Those who are exclusively homosexual did not reproduce directly until modern techniques afforded an alternative. I read an interesting study that indicated that the sisters of homosexual men reproduced at a higher rate than the sisters of homosexual men, and the hypothesis was that this is what enabled the incidence of homosexuality to remain viable in the population. "

steph wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:07 AM:

" winemd--
I think you're a tired mom! :)
I only say that because I read your comments over at the mom message board (thanks for them!) and also, your message above, written at night after a long day, has some confusing mis-speaks in it, at least I think. If you would kindly look it over? I think you meant to say that homosexuals are born (in your opinion) with predilections toward the SAME sex, right? Then, the sisters of homosexuals reproduce at a higher rate than /heterosexuals/?

Thanks for the thoughtful response, anyway. I think I do understand what you're trying to say. You're very compassionate and always weight both sides with an open mind, and I appreciate that as a fellow citizen.

I wonder, as a follow-up to your question, if you believe that homosexuals could be heterosexual if they really tried harder.

I'm a mother, too, and I can tell you I've met children who had mannerisms of stereotypical gay people and who self-identified as gay. Perhaps you have, too. Though children these days are so much more accepting of differences, it would be so much easier for these kids to be like everyone else, but they know they aren't. I truly believe there is a biological mechanism at work--perhaps hormonal. I believe these are God's children--a gift from God, because I think each person has a unique role and talents in this world. I can't imagine hurting them by making them feel immoral or lesser. It's not for me to judge how they were made, as long as they do not hurt another human being, or allow themselves to be exploited by another human. "

NValleygirl wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:45 AM:

" No on Prop H8te!!!

Keep discrimination out of the California Constitution!!

Thanks Kim for the letter, I do not wish to go to your church and I am sure that there are many others who don't want to attend as well. We surely do not need your church dictating what is right and wrong for this state, but thanks for trying. "

winemd wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:46 PM:

" OOPS! Steph, you are right.
No, I don't think homosexuals can "try" to be heterosexual. I am going to cheat and quote from Cal State Fullerton: "Our sexual orientation and preference is probably not one discrete and rigid reality. Many believe that our sexuality, and our sexual preference, lies somewhere along an emotional and physical continuum from 100% homosexual to 100% heterosexual. Not only might it be found somewhere along a continuum of sexuality, but it might also have the element of being “fluid.” That is, depending on our education, development, emotions, needs for intimacy, etc., as the years go on, our sexual preference may move along the continuum."
Here are some interesting definitions from the American Psychological Association (from 2005):
"Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another
person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender
identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural
norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual Orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to
exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience
sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a
homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women
only).
Sexual Orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and selfconcept.
Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."
I absolutely agree with you that homosexuals should be treated with respect (children included). People who believe that homosexuality is "wrong" should be treated with respect. I don't have to agree with someone to treat them as I would want to be treated. "

winemd wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Rocco, your statement is why I have decided to vote no on 8. If this proposition passes, then the state will have a definition of marriage on the books and marriage WILL permanently be a state issue, not a church issue. If a future proposition takes the word marriage out of state law and replaces it with something else (domestic partnership or civil union), and deals with the contract issues that pertain to the state, then I will vote for it. "

msdemo wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:16 PM:

" If #8 passes, I know it will be tied up in the courts again for who knows how long and in the end, based on the state constitution it will again be approved as a legal for gays to marry or have civil unions

I would urge people to not waste state resources this way. The outcome will be the same. All the money spent to pass this could have been in so many other issues that need help and support.

The buddha has advised "be kind to your fellow man" Kindness starts with each of us. "

Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:26 PM:

" respect...great description winemd.....same sex couples simply want to get the same respect and treatment that opponents wish for themselves... "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:04 PM:

" MarshaMarsha,

Thanks for the humorous reprieve. It was getting kind of tense in here. =)

Yes, I am aware that partners who qualify under CA FC Section 297(b) must file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership w/ the Secretary of State in order to receive the same treatment as spouses. Registering a domestic partnership was the unstated premise of my comment. If there is no registration with the State of CA, then 2 eligible partners living together are merely "co-habitating."

Family Code Section 297.5(a) states the following:

Registered domestic partners shall have the SAME rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the SAME
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon SPOUSES.

Family Code Section 297.5(b) states the following:

FORMER registered domestic partners shall have the SAME
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the SAME
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon FORMER SPOUSES. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Marsha,

With respect to the division of assets, CA laws governing community property are equally applicable to both spouses and partners. Unless otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a spouse or domestic partner during that marriage or domestic partnership while domiciled in CA is community property.

Community property is split 50-50.

With regard to holding title to community property ....BOTH spouses and domestic partners have the option of holding the property as joint tenants or tenants in common or as community property or as community property with a right of survivorship.

Any property that a spouse or a domestic partner has acquired prior to the marriage or domestic partnership is that person's SEPARATE property.

If two persons co-own property before marriage or domestic partnership, then each spouse or partner has a separate property interest in that property. Sometimes money earned during the marriage or domestic partnership (community property) is used to improve the separate property. Comingling separate property and community property complicates things. Just realize that the perils of co-ownership before marriage can apply to spouses just as it does with domestic partners who later enter into a DP.

Also, separate property can be transmuted into community property.

The moral of the story is that both divorce and dissolution of partnership are subject to the same legal issues and headaches and accounting nightmares when it comes to dividing assets. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Here's another reason why I voted YES on Prop 8.

Prop 8 protects the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion!

I do not believe it is right or fair that a religious organization/church can be stripped of its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow homosexual couples to legally consummate their union on
church-owned private property.

I do not believe it is right that an adoption agency can be put out of business because it refuses to allow homosexual couples to adopt children.

I do not believe it is right that a marriage counselor/psychologist will be forced to counsel homosexual couples even if it goes against that person's morals, beliefs, and/or religion. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:33 PM:

" MissNV: This:
"I do not believe it is right or fair that a religious organization/church can be stripped of its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow homosexual couples to legally consummate their union on
church-owned private property.

I do not believe it is right that an adoption agency can be put out of business because it refuses to allow homosexual couples to adopt children.

I do not believe it is right that a marriage counselor/psychologist will be forced to counsel homosexual couples even if it goes against that person's morals, beliefs, and/or religion. "

is total nonsense. If you believe that Prop 8 is morally right then vote for it. However, making up bogus scenarios to scare people and justify your vote is lame. "

msdemo wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:22 PM:

" Those in favor of this are reading too much into it. The couples I know who married had civil ceremonies, not religious.
And quite frankly I think except for the church itself, churches should be taxed on their income from property. There are some very rich churches in our country as shown by the amount of money they have put into this measure.

as to worrying about your kids asking why someone has two mommies, hopefully this will make them more tolerant and unafraid of gay people. "

elb wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:10 PM:

" missnapavalley,

You said: "I do not believe it is right that an adoption agency can be put out of business because it refuses to allow homosexual couples to adopt children."

I had not even thought of that ramification. See? The implications of legalized homosexual marriage are so far reaching.

We as responsible citizens need to truly spend time understanding the cause and effect that has been set in motion, or unleashed with the legalization of gay marriage.

Our Supreme Court, against the will and votes of the people have opened a Pandora's box.

Especially for the sake of our children, I am so grateful that we have a PROP 8 that was written powerfully enough to stuff that demon right back in that box where it belongs.

VOTE YES on 8 "

steph wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:45 PM:

" I just want to offer some of you reassurance that when you alienate your family members--possibly one or more of your children--because you castigate them in the name of your loving God for being made gay, rest assured that there are sane and intelligent people out here who will accept them and appreciate them and, yes, love them for who they are. You may not be a part of their lives, but there are those of us out here who will share their joys and sorrows in your place. We will work and live alongside them, and laugh with them, and listen to their stories and go out to dinner with them. If your rejection doesn't cost them their lives, there are people who will be happy for them when you are not. We'll go to their weddings and hug their babies for you. "

Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:57 PM:

" hate to disappoint you elb, but homosexual couple can be foster parents and adopt and nothing in prop 8 will change that.....

and your church argument MNV is completely specious and you know...if a church loses it's tax exempt status it will have nothing to do with its stand on performing same sex marriages.....and the justices addressed that in the majority opinion in May....

i think it is time for the charade to be dropped, it isn't same sex marriage that bothers you...it is homosexuality period... "

MissNapaValley wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:21 AM:

" Teacher,

Thank you for your comment because it brightly illuminates the fact that many people are unaware of the very scary implications of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

I must admit that I am a little surprised you would be so close-minded as to the very real and present dangers that are threatening and, in some instances already eroding, the constitutional right of religious liberty as we know it.

You described my previous comment as "total nonsense." Then, you proceeded to accuse me of making up bogus scenarios to scare people.

Well, my friend, unfortunately these are not "bogus senarios" or unlikely hypotheticals. Rather, these are REALITIES and a preview of what we can expect in the future if we don't preserve the traditonal definition of marriage.

Don't believe me? Just look at what happened to Catholic Charities of Boston which ran an adoption agency. I can cite other examples as well.

I do, however, take solace in the fact that you believe that the concerns I have brought to light might "scare" people because quite frankly they need to take a real hard look at ALL the facts and understand the unintended implications of "same-sex marriage" before they cast their vote. "

Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:06 AM:

" You cannot use things that happen in one scary scenarios for another...apples and oranges MNV....California laws are different than Massachusetts..

but one thing is clear..any agency receiving public funds cannot discriminate....if it does....it should either stop doing business or do business without the public funds "

Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:07 AM:

" hit the button too soon.....the other point is prop 8 has nothing to do with such scenarios...discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in California now...Prop 8 doesn't change that one way or another "

a teacher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Churches are not obligated to marry anyone. The Catholic Church will not marry divorced people, for instance. Your argument the churches will be forced to marry gay couples is nonsense and a scare tactic.

Raven addressed adoption.

All you guys have is lies and fear. Sad. "

steph wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:51 PM:

" ...and lots and lots of tax-free money, teacher. Don't forget that. And attorneys like MissNapaValley. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:40 AM:

" Good to see that the latest polls are narrowing the formerly reported wide lead of the anti-8 side.

More and more folks are realizing that gay marriage was rammed down our throats by a narrow and faulty 4-3 judicial decision. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Raven wrote: "California laws are different than Massachusetts." What a shallow assurance!

You can bet your boots that the same organizations that forced Catholic Charities of Boston out of business are waitings in the wings, ready to pounce. As soon as (God forbid) Prop 8 is defeated, they would sue to have the California Supreme Court throw out laws that, in their opinion, do not harmonize with the gay marriage hegemony. "

Raven wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:44 PM:

" JR, california already has laws on the books that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation...so if the challenging were going to happen, it already would have .... Prop 8 does nothing to affect those laws... "

Raven wrote on Oct 25, 2008 2:18 PM:

" and the latest from the backers of Prop 8,......letters are being sent to companies supporting the defeat of Prop 8 threatening them with being 'outed' as an opponent of the prop....I am sure steve jobs and apple are shivering in their boots "

khudson7 wrote on Oct 25, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Gay marriage has been legal now in California for over six months. Has one straight marriage even felt the slightest ripple effect in their own marriage, because of it? Has the school teachings changed, teaching kids about gay marriage? The answer is obviously no to both!

What if the situation was reversed. We propose that marriage be exclusively between gay couples only. How would that make you feel?

What has happened to that phrase, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?

Come on California, what’s fair is fair. I will not tell you how to live your lives, don’t pass laws that force your beliefs, on me!! "

John Richards wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:07 PM:

" khudson7, your statement about "over 6 months" is wrong. Gay marriages became legal on June 16, a bit over 4 months ago. You can rest assured that the pro-gay marriage folks have been tiptoeing through the tulips these past 4 months, so as not to rile the feathers of Prop 8 voters. Mark my words, once Prop 8 goes down to defeat (should that happen), you'll see all hell break lose as far as lawsuits demanding that all of California's laws and institutions be conformed to the pro-gay marriage ruling. "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:59 AM:

" JR...the laws that would allow such lawsuits are already on the books....so if we were going to see such an outbreak we would have seen it....nothing in Prop 8 changes any of those laws..... "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Raven I have a hard time believing your post.
Do you really feel that way or are you posting that from a tactical position.

What J.R. said is very likely to happen.
I cant predict the future but how can you be in opposition to it happening with confidence?

Sounds suspicious "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 6:28 PM:

" so what dont you believe...that I would stand up and fight for the rights of my fellow californians ?

that I think our homosexual neighbors have the same rights as you or I do?

that I object to having someone else's religious values imposed upon me?

or that I think a lot of the proponents of Prop 8 are operating from a position of hate and homophobia, and trying to disguise it in a mask of 'religious freedom'?

what dont you believe amigo? "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:16 PM:

" Raven you stated; the laws that would allow such lawsuits are already on the books....so if we were going to see such an outbreak we would have seen it.

Now in your opinion will there be law suits filed at every chance to demand pro gay advances in all aspects of society? "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 11:40 PM:

" there weren't before the decision of May 15......so why should it change? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:45 AM:

" Raven wrote: "the laws that would allow such lawsuits are already on the books." How can that be? Gay marriage has only been legal since June 16. If these laws already exist as you say, they are not being enforced at the moment for fear of affecting the Prop 8 vote. "

amigo wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Raven;
Ithink the gay mafia will keep pushing for more and more!
Why would they stop now?
Why wouldnt they want to homosexualize every community they can?
Its a juggernaut! "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:04 PM:

" laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation were already on the books JR.... "

napascot wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:18 PM:

" amigo,

who is this "gay mafia" you keep talking about and who is in charge of it??????/

also when you make comments like "why would'nt the want to homosexualize every community they can"

You continue to sound ignorant, if you think that homosexuals are somehow out there to change the world gay, you chould clearly do more research on the subject or for that matter open up and talk to some people who are gay and ask what their agenda is.

I pretty sure it would start with wanting EQUALITY and end with EQUALITY

No on 8 "

amigo wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:12 PM:

" napascot dont be so naive.
Ofcourse there is some kind of gay movement.You can feel it, hear it, see it everyday!
Let me ask you a few questions that give in an insight!
1. Why is there such a huge appearance of gays on tv and other media when they only comprise 1% of the total population?
2.Why is there a disportionate number of gays in education versus other work fields?
3.Why do gays position themselves in situations where they are seeking a discrimination lawsuit? i.e. boy scotts
I could go on but chew on that for now "

pharper wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:02 PM:

" You must certainly be joking, amigo. I honestly cannot think of a single other reason for you to make those comments. I don't know WHAT you're talking about, first of all, in your mention of a huge appearance of gays on television shows. I can only think of three television shows targeted towards mainstream audiences that center around gay people: Que*r As Folk (it won’t allow me to give the actual title), The L Word, and Will and Grace (which is no longer on the air). As for homosexual characters making appearances on other shows, so what? Should we pretend an entire 4-10% of our population does not exist? Feel free to simply not watch or allow your children to watch those shows you feel are "promoting homosexuality" or whatever it is you think they're doing.

What statistic do you have that suggests that there are a disproportionate amount of gays in education? I would like to see it. Until then, I can only dismiss that part of your argument.

And what do you mean, "position" themselves? Anyone has a right to do whatever they want with their lives--as long as it's legal and doesn't harm others. Joining the Boy Scouts does not "set a person up for a lawsuit." Again, where are your statistics, and what facts do you have? "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:46 PM:

" he doesnt have them pharper....he has no facts to back up any of assertions... "

napascot wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:22 PM:

" Amigo,

Sorry I did not realize I was the one being naive, I am still trying to find meaning in my marriage that has no kids and........

Also I am not sure what you are doing "everyday" that you "see, hear, and feel" the gay movement but maybe that is a different conversation, one you should have with your wife.......

Amigo, I have tried to read your posts with an open mind but I have come to the point where I can't you make these huge statements then when you are asked about them there is no response

My only hope for you is that someday you will come to a point in your life where you will not be so affected by what others do live and let live.......

good luck to you and yours "

amigo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Pharper i can think of alot more homosexual illustrations in the media than those 3 right off the top of my head. If you are unwilling to even expand your thinking to even consider this than i cannot do anymore. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:21 AM:

" amigo....you have yet to support your assertions with anything even close to be a factual reference....

so, come on, give us more illustrations... "

amigo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Raven are you oblivious to any gay presence on tv? Does that equally represent society as a whole, this disproportionate number of gay on prime time tv. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:17 PM:

" you have been asked before amigo and have yet to answer....tell us about the gay presence on TV...who are they...what are the shows.....and who says TV has to equally represent society? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

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: