Where was the No on Prop. 8 support BEFORE the election?

Home » Opinion » Dan Ross

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Comment

By DAN ROSS
Register Online Editor

Talking Points

June 17th, 2009

30 days in jail for manslaughter?

June 16th, 2009

30 days in jail for manslaughter?

May 20th, 2009

NOW the pay gets cut for state elected officals?

May 8th, 2009

My pharmacy is now also a flavor bar?

April 27th, 2009

A sad commentary on blogging life

In the weeks leading up to election day -- especially in the final four days -- I saw a tremendous amount of Yes on Prop. 8 support building throughout northern California. I was in a number of different cities in the election's final days, and in each city I came across a large curbside gathering of placard-waving Yes on 8 supporters.

I saw a grand total of zero No on 8 activities in those same cities in the final days leading up to the election.

With the election results showing that same-sex marraige is going to be banned in California, NOW the No on 8 crowd starts gathering in massive numbers for unorganized, and sometimes organized, protests about the decision of the electorate.

Hey protesters, if this was so important to you, why didn't you get out to the opposite streetcorners and work to generate support for your position? Why wait until after the decision is made by voters to get outside and be so vocal about something you feel so passionate about?

Before any of you begin trying to label me as a Yes on 8 supporter, I voted the opposite, but I can easily admit that the Yes crowd sure appeared far more effective in drawing attention to themselves and their cause in the days before we all voted.

I do not like some of the TV ads I saw from the Yes on 8 crowd. I do not like the incredible amount of money that came in from out-of-state to support the Yes on 8 crowd. Despite that, I do need to give credit where credit is due.

Those who supported Prop. 8 in Napa, in Vallejo, in Fairfield, in Davis, in Sacramento, in Citrus Heights, in Folsom, in Auburn and other cities by becoming part of the curbside crowd definitely were out in public to show their voting preferences.

Would the vote been a No on 8 if those opposed showed in as large a force as they are doing in their post-election protests?

101 comment(s)

napablogger wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Its a good point, but I think what happened is that No on 8 was securely ahead and they got caught a bit by surprise when the big Mormon bucks came to town. Then with the massive lying about schools teaching your kids to be homosexuals they got traction.

Then the No on 8 got going, but by then it was a little late.

I think they really need to rethink how they campaign. It is time to stop p*ssy footing around and say it is not perverted to be gay. It is time to show to people that gays have always been here, just like marriage has always been here, and it is not abnormal, just less frequent.

They rely on the civil rights issue, and the other side relies on scaring the hell out of people about perversion.

They should use clips of Brittany Spears drunken marriage in Vegas to someone she had been with 24 hours to do a "this is real perversion" campaign. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:05 PM:

" I think the answer to that is complicated. First off, I think opponents to Prop 8 woefully underestimated it's support (I confess I did). When you get down to it, there are two Californias. The more liberal coastal counties and the more conservative interior. I think we on the coast don't really get how conservative the rest of California really is.

The proponents of Prop 8 waged a very effective campaign, albeit it was mostly distortions and lies, but those played into the fears and prejudice of the Prop's supporters. They were also well funded and I believe they out spent Prop 8's opponents.

Finally, I think many supporters of same sex marriage are politically tone deaf. That class field trip to their teacher's wedding, presided over by Gavin Newsome. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING! That was the last straw for many Prop 8 supporters and perfect ammunition.

In defense of same sex marriage supporters, they walk a fine line. To be more strident, they run the risk of alienating their supporters and scaring people who sit on the fence. It would just be more ammo for the other side. But I am surprised they didn't put up more of a fight against prop 8.

I'm hoping that it gets overturned in the courts, but it's not clear how the courts will go. "

ldfrmc wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:13 PM:

" Maybe we feel marriage is a personal and private matter, not some spectacle to parade on a street corner with blaring horns.

Maybe some of us can still be fired from our jobs, be shunned by "neighbors" or just accosted.

Notice what large cities the protests after the election were held in? Do you need a hint about safety in numbers?

Maybe the TV ads changed the venue to schools and churches hoping an appearance of gays there would "confirm" their lies about an "agenda."

Maybe an elementary school class can not attend their teachers wedding when ALL of the parents who went approved and other parents withheld their child's participation, but that gets reported as "news" omitting the facts.

Maybe people were intimidated.

And maybe those who opposed Prop 8 were individuals with individual beliefs and not willing to be turned into a MOB for an election.

We have a right to marry. Now that has been taken away by a MOB.

So all your baiting for another mob makes sense.

Not to this voter. "

misfit wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Well, I think a little bit of complacency set in because, who after all really believed this kind of thing could pass in California. However, since 75% of African American voters voted for it, perhaps the larger turnout in support of Barack Obama contributed to this. Pretty ironic but, that's how it goes. "

amigo wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:13 AM:

" I think the no on 8 supporters prefer to take the victim role. The are good about going on the defense with all the whining and crying.
BOOO HOOOO "

napamama wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:28 AM:

" I was out there demonstrating before the election. In fact, I have demonstrated for equal rights over the years. I'm a straight, married female and I feel that civil rights are for all, not just the majority.

While I agree that perhaps a bigger show in force against Prop 8 might have helped, this letter sounds like blame is being placed on those who believe in equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

I believe we will get there because on the whole, we will not stop fighting for what is right. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Maybe people don’t want their children being taught same sex-sex in early K education…

Maybe people have tired to the constant media attention given to gay lifestyles and the phony victim in your face confrontations that seem to occur daily….

Maybe the people understand the cost we all pay for lifestyle health benefits, why should ‘I’ subsidize their benefits …..

Maybe some of the people who have rented or employed a gay activist or half dozen watched the agenda grow from mere equal rights to special rights…

But then again…maybe not….I wouldn’t get too worked up over all this….reality is that sooner or later gays will get their special status….regardless how the majority votes. "

winemd wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Regarding the teacher's wedding: I don't think ANY teacher, gay or straight, should have a wedding during school hours and set it up as an (optional) field trip. If a teacher (gay or straight) wants to send an invitiation to thier wedding to the students' houses for an event that is not during school, that is fine. "

Native74 wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Pro on 8 people were intimidating?

I was intimidated going to work on November 4 for the opposite reason. I happen to work near a polling location and had a No on 8 Supporter asking me if I had any questions. Um, isn't this illegal on election day? Plus, the person was by themselves and made me feel awkward and that my personal space was invaded. Very intrusive. It could have just been the individual, but yikes!

I not a phobic person on the issue, but was perturbed nonetheless. Someone else who may have differing opinions on the subject might feel accosted by this same situation. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Winemd,
This was not a school field trip. It was a private school, not a public school. The teacher was getting married, and invited her students. The parents chose to allow their kids to attend.
End of story. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Let's take GlenRoy's answer step by step, because it illustrates the lies the supporters of prop h8 used to inflame and distort their way to victory:

"Maybe people don’t want their children being taught same sex-sex in early K education…"

NO ONE teaches sex ed to kindergarteners, let alone elementary school. All that would happen is that students may be taught that same sex marriages are legal, which would have been true.

"Maybe people have tired to the constant media attention given to gay lifestyles and the phony victim in your face confrontations that seem to occur daily…."

Constant media attention? Hardly. Perhaps Glenroy can provide us with some data to support that charge.

"Maybe the people understand the cost we all pay for lifestyle health benefits, why should ‘I’ subsidize their benefits ….."

perhaps GlenRoy is talking about AIDS, which inflects both hetero and homo sexuals. About 1 million people in the USA have AIDS.

How many have lung cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and the myriad of lifestyle diseases that we pay for, but you apparently have no objection to.

"Maybe some of the people who have rented or employed a gay activist or half dozen watched the agenda grow from mere equal rights to special rights…

But then again…maybe not….I wouldn’t get too worked up over all this….reality is that sooner or later gays will get their special status….regardless how the majority votes. "

Homosexuals want equal rights, not special rights. They want to be treated like everyone else.

Glenroy typifies the lies and prejudice used to put prop h8 over. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:54 PM:

" winemd: First of all, teachers, like everyone else, occasionally need a day off to attend to business. Given the shortage of available dates and times to have a wedding performed at the SF City Hall, it's not surprising that this teacher may have taken a day off.

The "field trip" was not the teacher's idea, but the parents of the students in her class' idea, as a surprise for the teacher. Had this been a hetero wedding, everyone would have thought it cute.

That the school thought to call this a "field trip" during a period of more intense scrutiny on same sex marriages shows that someone wasn't thinking about how this would look. The fact that Gavin Newsome was there was icing on the cake for prop h8 supporters.

However, it's not the "teaching children same sex marriage (whatever that means" that prop h8 supporters portrayed. "

winemd wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:03 PM:

" It was a public charter school, not a private one. And it was an approved field trip. Apparently, it was a parent's idea, not the teacher's, and the school justified the trip for academic reasons. This information comes from sfgate. "

Sickothis wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:19 PM:

" And what "special rights" would they be glenroy?

More of the same ol hateful bigotry we have come to expect.

Hopefully the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) will loose it's tax exempt status. "

prop8goaway wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:43 PM:

" This is so lame. We lost, it is over, let it go. Try again in 4 years. Let's face it, the Yes on 8 folks were much more passionate about this from the get go than the No on 8 folks were...until we lost. Sad but true. I think it is time to stop blaming others for our lack of conviction. In 4 years this will be reversed no problem. But is someone else's dedication to the political process wrong? Is their belief wrong? It is just a difference of opinion. I know plenty of mormons that voted NO. But I know very little No on 8 voters who walked door to door week after week for their cause. Maybe next time the No on 8 voters will actually care.
As for the Mormons, it is lame that people want to crucify them for this loss. Just because people are more dedicated to the cause than we were is no reason for this to turn in to bigotry on our side. If you want to hate the mormons, you have a lot of other religions and racial groups that you need to single out. Remember that the mormons were less than 5% of the yes vote...you have another 95% of the yes voters to rage against. Your post of "...same old bigory" followed by a hateful statement speak of a very hypocritical way thinking. Remember that the SF Bishop of the Catholic church asked the mormons to get involved so you need to hope for bad things to happen to the catholics too. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:30 PM:

" LOL>………gee my feelings are hurt...LOL... giving Pelosi/Obama partisans references is like stuffing it in a trash can…they‘re programmed for jingo and propaganda that correlates with their agenda……we’ve all heard it….'we just want equality'...‘the Islamist threat has been blown out of proportion‘…‘the Wall Street meltdown was caused by Republicans‘…‘our continuing energy dependence is the Oil Companies fault‘…‘Bush made up excuses to invade Iraq.’ The bottom-line is if you don’t agree with them you’re a homophobic racist… I’d wager, gentleman’s wager, over the years I’ve employed more gay employees than 99% of the libs around here know or think they know, besides there are many gays who don’t wish to be associated with this agenda.

There are countless posts, articles and stories…written by parents and educators who are forced to teach a gay and lesbian driven curricula or risk losing their jobs….it starts benignly....‘Derk and Donald are Sally’s parents‘ taught in the earliest children story books from pre K through middle school, in virtually all the public schools in states where gay marriage is sanctioned…..and that’s a fact.

Health costs…. there are medical journals dating to the mid 1980s detailing costs associated with lifestyles, smokers, drinkers, potheads, gays….10 years ago they were still accessible on the net and we studied the data trying to determine the various cost differences, which we were paying as part of our benefit packages. There are also studies in printed form, likely at the library, and all it takes is an honest effort to find the real costs..….for politically correct reasons they were not contrasted…but how hard is it to subtract B from A to reach an educated conclusion? I guess too hard for some…

LOL>>>>>…….racists…homophobe…LOL>>>>>>… I‘m still Laughing out very loud...... "

pharper wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Uhm, that would be because there is no agenda, glenroy--I wouldn't want to be associated with a non-existent agenda either, because it's a "Scary word" that people bandy about in order to make people fear the "other."

Derk and Donald ARE Sally's parents sometimes, glenroy--what should we do? Ignore that there are very valid families with two parents of the same sex? Teach kids that it is abnormal when kids have more than one mommy or daddy, and to shun these "weirdos" out on the playground? Children are remarkably resilient and accepting when bigotry isn't being rammed down their throats.

I do agree that the Yes on 8 campaign had more heft behind it. I honestly did not expect 8 to pass, but now that it has, I have every intention of fighting it. I will be at the protest on Saturday and at every protest I can attend thereafter. The majority is not always right, and it has proven itself wrong again, though by a slimmer margin. We cannot allow a tyranny by majority—we have our courts for a reason. "

NVGal wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Same sex proponents think that supporting Prop 8 is voting against same sex couples and their constitutional right to marry, but they fail to realize when a voter goes to cast their vote, the voter only thinks about themselves and what they value. If you hold marriage in high regard and value it, but see it as a failed institution around you, you are going to do what you can to protect either your own marriage, or what your idea of one would be. And if the only control you feel you have in protecting marriage is voting for Prop 8, that is what you will do. With a divorce rate so high, most of us no longer have a close network filled with friends and family that are good influences for a strong and long term marriage, so you grasp at what you may feel is a best effort at preserving and protecting it. You are not likely to vote new members into your sacred club until you have the unruly members already sworn in under control.

I think their image right now is critical and they are blowing it. What people really need to see it that they can and do value marriage and family. They need to show that given the right to marry that they will do their best to preserve the sanctity of it and not run amok with the Madonna’s and A-Rod’s. The bitter angry resentful groups that I am seeing on TV now does nothing to help move them forward at this point. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:25 PM:

" Wow glenroy, is that the best you can do? Lemme see...

I know quite a few homosexuals and I've yet to meet one who doesn't want to be treated like anyone else, that is equally.

I have been an educator for 30 years (and a parent of 4 children) and I've yet to meet a teacher who complained about having to teach the "homosexual agenda". Now, if by "the homosexual agenda" you mean that some elementary school literature acknowledges the fact that some of the students may have same sex parents, well BIG DEAL. We live in a diverse society and children's literature tries to accomadate that.

Gay couples have been adopting kids for years and many parents who have come out still have kids, so having two mommies or daddies is not that unusual. AND it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with same sex marriage. There are, BTW, currently only two states that allow same sex marriage and those have been in the last two or three years.

So is it your contention that teaching the homosexual agenda amounts to acknowledging a fact of life in 21st century America?

As usual you ducked my critique of your statements regarding diseases caused by the gay lifestyle. One doesn't have to dig to deep to see the ridiculousness of that claim. Heteros outnumber gays by at least 10 to 1. The incidence of lifestyle type diseases in the hetero population far outweighs the incidence of AIDS in gay populations. I would just need to go to the CDC's website for that information.

So, as usual, anyone who doesn't see it your way is lazy, an idiot or duped. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:33 PM:

" NVGal. The only thing that protects your marriage is your commitment to being married. All that outside stuff is irrelevant. A marriage is a lifetime commitment of two people, how can someone else' marriage effect that? "

Rich wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:10 AM:

" Definitions of 'marriage' (măŕĭj)
The American Heritage® Dictionary

[Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry; see marry1.]

(noun)

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:36 AM:

" You know, Dan, in answer to your question I would look to some of the posts over these last couple months by pro8trs and wonder if the answer isn't looking us right in the face. With words being bandied about like 'perversion' and 'disgusting' ciuple with constant references that the majority shares these beliefs, I could see why someone might be a little fearful of coming out with there opposition in public. Take Napa, specifically. With networking being so important in being successful in this town, would you really want to put yourself out there when you could be devestated by the stigma attached? It's really not hard for me to imagine with all of the uproar over the Register's endorsement of McCain, that some might be a little intimidated by publicly voicing their views on gay marriage.

The sad thing is, that is the whole point of the opposition - why should they be made to feel this way? "

Raven wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:55 AM:

" "They need to show that given the right to marry that they will do their best to preserve the sanctity of it and not run amok with the Madonna’s and A-Rod’s. The bitter angry resentful groups that I am seeing on TV now does nothing to help move them forward at this point. "

So NVGal...they need to prove to you they are capable of treating marriage right?..prove what? that they are good little homosexuals?...and how can they prove anything about marriage if they are not allowed to marry...but the bigger question is how arrogant can you get? They don't have to prove anything to you, it is their right to marry just as it is yours....

Did you have to prove you were capable before being allowed to marry....if that were the standard, we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of straight marriages we do. "

Raven wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:08 AM:

" and that will change like other definitions have Rich.... "

funnyme wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:04 AM:

" And now I pronounce you...

And now I pronounce you...What? "

a teacher wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:18 PM:

" How about ...Married?

Is your objection that you can't think of a good phrase to end the wedding? "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:02 PM:

" It is intereesting to me that you have to re-define the term to fit the agenda! "

pharper wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Yes, and trying to attain equal rights is such a dangerous agenda, freeport. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:51 PM:

" Sicko wrote: "Hopefully the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) will loose [sic] it's [sic] tax exempt status. "

Why would that happen? A non-profit is allowed to promote causes, the only thing politically they can't do is promote candidates. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Why weren't there more anti-8 demonstrations prior to Nov. 4th? Simple, their leadership knew the anti-8 rank-and-file could not rally without breaking all sorts of laws, like blocking traffic and rowdy behavior. The backlash among the undecideds would have been enormous. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:20 PM:

" What exactly is wrong with "husband and husband" or wife and wife". What's the big deal? You seem to be reduced to grasping at straws here, suggesting that uttering these words is somehow obscene? "

pharper wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:24 PM:

" JR, I think people underestimated the support of 8. It had nothing to do with expecting rowdiness from people who were against 8. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:42 PM:

" A teacher, not sure what you mean by "lifestyle type diseases in the hetero population", but the incidence of new HIV infections among gay males in the U.S. far outstrips the incidence among the hetero population.

Take a look at this CDC article:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
It shows that 53% of new HIV cases are due to male-to-male contact, while 31% were due to male-to-female contact. Those are raw numbers. If you factor in the fact that heterosexuals (male and female) outnumber gay males about 30:1, you begin to see the enormous difference in the incidence rate. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:59 PM:

" napablogger wrote: "they got caught a bit by surprise when the big Mormon bucks came to town." That was hardly it. According to CBS, the anti-8 campaign outspent the pro-8 campaign by $37.6 million to $35.8 million.
Which goes to show, the right cause doesn't need to be the biggest spender. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:23 PM:

" John Richards: Lifestyle illnesses would include diseases related to obesity, smoking, drinking, etc. Since as you pointed out heterosexual men out number homosexual men by about 30 to 1, it is safe to assume that the cost of diseases caused by lifestyle (other than AIDS) far exceeds the cost of AIDS. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:53 PM:

" pharper wrote: " JR, I think people underestimated the support of 8."

I'm sure that was part of it, thanks to the grossly inaccurate Field Polls. For months I warned against believing in those poll results, but the anti-8 decision makers didn't listen to me. :-)
Even had they known what they were up against, I'm not sure it would have made a difference. Increased militancy and stridency on their part would have spooked the undecideds. As it was, extremist TV ads, like the one equating the pro-8 viewpoint to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII - did not help their cause. "

Raven wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:18 PM:

" nice lil fantasy JR but i think the biggest reason is the idea that people would actually strip away rights came as a shock to many.... "

ADark1 wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Do I hafta? Guess I do! I for one , was lets say vigorous in my support to vote NO! Then again being a minority I have a different opinion when it comes to the denail of civil rights to the rest of the population.

How may of you here are silly enough to think this issue will go away?

Gay people are responsible for so many things in this world we take for granted, its a shame we still have so many close - minded folks out here. Trust me as a straight person we have nothing to fear from gay folks....except those who are homophobic.! "

winemd wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:01 AM:

" Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you fear them or hate them. Good thing, too. Do those people who support gay marriage fear or hate those who are against it? I am basically neutral on this issue. I think the state's contracting issues are separate from the sanctification by a religious institution and should be kept that way by taking the word marriage out of the CA civil codes. But I object to the characterization of those who are against gay marriage as hateful or fearful. Some are, I know, but most are not. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:39 AM:

" a teacher wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:18 PM:
" How about ...Married?

Is your objection that you can't think of a good phrase to end the wedding? "

No darling, not at all, I'm just amazed that the actual phrase used in gay marriages is:
"And now, I pronounce you...married"

Why not "husband and husband, or wife and wife"?

Should we redefine what a husband or a wife role in a marriage is too? "

kevin wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Don't forget adark1, B.O. came out firmly in favor of "one man and one woman" as defining marriage. And Black supporters overwhelmingly followed his direction according to the exit polls.

I was surprised to see the Mormon's supporting Prop 8. I would have thought they would WANT it to fail because the NEXT obvious expansion of the definition of marriage would be to include MULTIPLE partners! "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:47 AM:

" I didn't know there were specific roles in marriages, funnyme. I thought we'd outgrown that "specific duties" of the husband and wife thing about a hundred years ago--was I wrong?

It doesn't matter what they're called, and it has little relevance. I've heard the ending, "I now pronounce you partners for life," as well as "husband and husband" and "wife and wife." It doesn't really matter.

Actually, "partners for life" sounds quite nice to me--maybe that's what I'll have them say at my wedding. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Funnyme: The role of husband and wife has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. When I was a boy the husband's job was bread winner and the wife's job was domestic diva. Not so now.

I've been Bread winner and house husband. Primary child rearer and secondary. As you know I'm a good cook, so guess who did the cooking and shopping.

The role of husband and wife has already changed. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:18 AM:

" funnyme, you are not serious about the husband and wife role are you? what exactly is the difference in their roles. This automatically brings to mind the whole barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen image.... "

funnyme wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:49 PM:

" teacher,
You are certainly an excellent cook, and so are my dad and my husband (no they are not chefs by trade =D)

What's a domestic diva?

pharper, you can certainly do whatever you like and call yourselves whatever fits you best. I'm pretty sure your future partner will agree with you, is that what you would call him/her, your partner?

srnitnw
I am very serious about a husband and wife role in a marriage. That's why it is a marriage and not solely a domestic partnership.
If that is your image of a husband and a wife in the marriage...well, you might need to hang out with a different crowd 80

I am sorry if you didn't like the way your parents raised you "fifty" or "hundred" years ago (that is if you are 40 plus, like me).
I liked being raised by a mother and a father. I liked coming home from school and having my mom at home knowing that my dad will be coming home from a hard day at work so we could be a family. I wouldn't change it for the world!

..and then the women's liberation movement came and washed you up making you believe that women's value in society is placed ONLY if they go out there and work and make money... and men became less essential and with that the rate of divorce, broken homes and subsequent problems increased. Nice. "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Yes, I would call him my partner, because we are equals--not two different beings or different roles. I have no plans to get married or to have children, but were I to do so, we'd be aprtners, not man and wife.

There ARE no "domestic roles," funnyme. My father was "Mr. Mom" to my two siblings and me until I entered kindergarten, at which point he went to school to become a truck driver and my mom started staying at home. "Traditional roles" are outdated and promote the ideal that people are fit only for one purpose based solely on their gender. All the evidence suggests that there are no detrimental effects on children raised by gay aprents because of the parents' orientation, so the only plausible reason I can think of that you would use to defend your position is that "men and women have roles." Thankfully, we as a country and as a culture have outgrown that sexist ideal, because men and women are fit for the same jobs and positions. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:15 PM:

" And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

So in your case, you had a dad at home and a mom at work. I am sure you loved coming home to find your dad at home knowing that your mom will be home from a hard day at work so you could be a family...and then it reversed. Why? "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:35 PM:

" My mom went back to work less than a year after my dad started working again. She worked (and still does) as a school librarian and a "yard duty."

The point is, familial "roles" don't matter. That's like saying that in a homosexual relationship, one must be the "woman" and one must be the "man." It's not true, and it's a stereotype--a detrimental one. I have plenty of friends from single-parent homes, or homes where both parents work, and it's not somehow bad for these kids--as long as children get care and attention, it doesn't matter what 'role" their parents play.

Perpetuating this myth of "family roles" is to bring back the sexism that used to rule American families-- women weren't considered smart enough to do anything but stay at home and care for the house and children, much less to vote. Later, discrimination still existed--and does today. A woman is paid $.75 to a man's dollar for doing the same job--for minority women, it is less. These stereotypes and disparities are dangerous to the hard-won freedom of women and the continuing struggle for equality.

The point here is that when we try to fit every family into having roles and places, we find that it's not possible, nor is it good for our society. Every good family is unique and special--regardless of what the kids call the parents, or the parents' gender and orientation. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:36 PM:

" pharper wrote: "men and women are fit for the same jobs and positions."
I agree that any job should be open equally to both male and female applicants. But you can't get away from the fact that the average female has different qualities than the average male. For example, males on average tend to have more muscle and skeleton development, while the average woman tends to excel in the ability to express themselves orally. Nature has equipped women to be better at nurture (think breastfeeding). Even after many years of educational equality, women tend to dominate nursing and K-12 teaching jobs, while men tend to dominate engineering and construction jobs. "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:49 PM:

" It doesn’t mean that jobs can discriminate between male and female. I can understand that women are physically different than men, but they are no less capable. A woman can be equally as effective at a construction job or other physically demanding career as a man can be—sometimes even better. The point is not whether or not women go into certain jobs, it is whether or not they have the opportunity—and I’m sure you agree that the pay disparity is wrong and completely sexist. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:00 PM:

" The roles in the family are given to themselves by themselves depending on the circumstances, abilities, family dynamics and so many other factors. Each member of the family has a role.

That is how "partnerships" work. A company does not hire two identical people to hold the exact same position, do they? Each one has a different role that complements one another to make that company successful. "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:17 PM:

" A company is not a family. Families don't have roles. Each person's "role" overlaps; everyone does the same things and some different things. That doesn't mean they're stuck in a "role" or a position.

I still don't really see what this has to do with same sex marriage. "

Bill wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:54 PM:

" Are there Identical people? Are not we all different in some way. If my plumbing is the same does that make me identical or similar? "

opiniateen wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Of course each family memer plays a role, otherwise the family would not function. It is why absent fathers affect the family unit so intensly. Just because roles may overlap somewhat does not mean the roles don't exist. Obviously same sex couples are lacking either a mother or father figure "role" in the core family unit. An absent parent "role" cannot be filled by some part time outsider. What will result is generations of children confused about sexuality and gender identity. "

pharper wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Absent mothers affect the family equally as intensely, but that's not the point. People don't have "roles' in that sense. They may have roles in the sense that the father might be known as being the soft, playful one, the mother as the loving but firm one, the sister as the athletic one, etc. But Families (at least mine) do not have roles that dictate what the members do, how they act, and how they live. Putting people into neat little boxes like "provider" and "caretaker" is wrong.

And what you're saying isn't true or backed up by fact, either. All the research and evidence shows that children of gay and lesbian couples are a) no more likely to be gay or lesbian than children of heterosexual couples, b) teased no more or less than children raised by heterosexual couples, and c) not adversely affected by their parents' sexual orientation. By the same logic, we could make divorce illegal, since it apparently denies a child the right to have two parents of the opposite sex.

You seem to think that when a child is raised in a same sex household, they are isolated from all other members of the opposite sex, and that isn't true. The gender of the parents doesn't matter; what matters is that the child gets loving, nurturing care and all the opportunities in life that can be provided for them.

Ask a child who has been in foster care for years whether or not they’d care if they had two mommies or daddies. I can almost guarantee that any normal child would tell you they didn’t care, as long as they had a family. And who would deny children in desperate need of family that chance? "

opiniateen wrote on Nov 15, 2008 12:47 AM:

" ALL the studies, huh? ALL? My dad was in foster care his whole life and was actually placed with a lesbian couple for 4 months. There was a HUGE difference, he had no father figure to lean on, ask advice from, learn about how to be a man from, he requested to be moved at the ripe old age of 10 to a more balanced environment, even though he liked the women he lived with, he was aware that there was something missing. You assume too much without ever talking to someone who has experienced it. For every study backing your claims, there is another saying the opposite. In a perfect world, everyone can skip over little hills singing tra-la-la and doing whatever they choose without impacting our society. Well we don't live in that world. The decisions we all make impact each other. 1 person impacts a family, one family will impact a neighborhood, one neighborhood impacts a community, one community impacts a city, one city impacts a state, one state impacts a nation. There cannot be a live and let live mentality that will not impact this nation, it's not scientifically possible. We need to hold on to the best of our society. The ability to have a successful family is the most important. Now before you write another 4 paragraphs about “successful” defined, note that nearly everyone agrees that the ideal situation for the raiding of children is a mother and father household that takes the raising of their children seriously. "

amigo wrote on Nov 15, 2008 3:27 AM:

" Yea
The child has a right to 1dad and 1mom!

The masculine and feminine dynamics in a family unit are not interchangeable.
The child can only get a male bond from a male and a female bond from a female. ITs the way it was DESIGNED

Pharper you clearly have no clue about the dynamics of a family "

ADark1 wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:13 AM:

" When talking about the dynamics of a family...I say to those of you who claim father and mother are what is needed..then what about all those 1 parent homes? So is it better to deny a child a LOVING home of two parents who happen to be same sex, as opposed to no parents?

Pretty twisted logic to me.

Kevin Kevin Kevin, unlike you I do NOT walk lockstep to whatever candidate I supported for President of the USA.

Perhaps, thats what makes us different as Democrats! "

pharper wrote on Nov 15, 2008 1:37 PM:

" I think the best way for you to really understand that a homosexual family is in every way equal to a heterosexual one is to speak to children or people who were raised by gay or lesbian couples. Your dad is one example, and I guess I can understand it to a certain extent, but in almost all cases, children are not negatively impacted by their parents' homosexuality.

I guess it was a little short-sighted of me to say all of the evidence. However, I'm citing actual physical sources, and until someone provides me with sources that say otherwise (that WEREN'T conducted by religious institutions or people with agendas far more definitive than the "gay agenda) I'll continue to cite those sources as fact.

Can you please explain to me how one homosexual couple raising children negatively impacts a community? If their children are happy and well-adjusted, I really can't see what problems it presents for a community. Can you also explain to me how the union of a loving, consenting, adult homosexual couple affects your future marriage? I guess I just don't see how.

And amigo, I'll thank you not to make assumptions about my knowledge of family. I have a great family, and everyone's idea of family is different. "

debstallings wrote on Nov 15, 2008 5:05 PM:

" Dan:
The YES on 8 campaign was organized from pulpits across the country! Pastors instructed their faithful to donate millions to pass the inititive and they did! Church leaders used deceit and scare tactics to motivate congregants, so of course they turned out in droves!
Maybe you should have spent more time in your own back yard where we were actively engaged in NO on 8 activities. Several weeks before the election about 150 NO on 8 protesters demonstrated at a YES Rally on school board property. The next weekend, dozens spent many hours in front of Bel Air businesses like Target, Trader Joes, Whole Foods and along Trancas Street distributing balloons and No on 8 information. The last weekend before the election, we were at South Napa Marketplace at Raley's, Home Depot and Target doing the same. We engaged hundreds of people on both sides of the issue in respectful, productive dialogue.
During the last three weeks of the campaign we distributed more than 400 NO on 8 signs right here in Napa Valley- some of which had to be replaced DAILY because the haters kept taking them down, ripping them up and littering the streets with them.
More importantly, Dan, what's the point of your comment? It's true that the number of protesters has grown since the election. Many have said to me that they never in a million years thought Prop 8 would pass, but now that it has - they are spurred to action! Today in downtown Napa over 400 gathered for the National Day of Protest. Maybe they are new to the fight for equality - but the important thing is they are here now! And together we will continue to fight for Equality until it is won. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:33 PM:

" PHarper, don't apologize, several studies on families show that there isn't much difference between same and different sex parenting. You know the drill here. Make about the children instead of about equal rights. When they have to talk about equal rights they are stuck with no arguments. "

shareathought wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:59 PM:

" I agree many were taken by surprise; it is difficult to believe that any sector of our society can still lose rights.

There were some things that seemed acceptable by 8-promoters. Many "yes" signs were placed on public right-of-way (like along county roads and highways), while, many "no" on "8" signs were removed from private property.

(In north Napa, an adult, white-skinned, male rode about on his bicycle, stealing signs, at sun-down. One might think he was unsure of his own sexuality or held a bigger, yet ignorant belief, that homosexuality is contagious. Perhaps he felt that it was his place to deny others the freedom of speech?)

Many just forget that prejudice of any kind continues (whether, it is anti-brown-skinned people, anti-gay, anti-over-weight, anti-smokers, anti-someone-else-for-some-reason); other rights can be in jeopardy.

NVGal, I agree, many people that voted yes on 8 did so believing they were rescuing their idea of a marriage (perhaps, their unrealistic image is much like other fairy tales of childhood).

Some people must blame others, or homosexuality for their own failed relationships (many of us look for someone else to blame for what-ever may go wrong in our life).

I agree that "yes on 8" won in part, due to the promotion of fear. I'd add that the warped opinions of what "they" may do to the children went a long way (the promoters of 8 seemingly blamed both child-predators and the pregnancy of teen girls, on homosexuality. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:39 PM:

" pharper wrote: "I’m sure you agree that the pay disparity is wrong and completely sexist." Perhaps not. If you compare the careers of men and women you'll find that the woman interrupted her career to have children, or she took more days off because the baby sitter didn't show up. So, from management's viewpoint, the woman is often less reliable and less experienced than her male colleague, which is why she gets paid less and receives fewer promotions. "

pharper wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:46 PM:

" The average woman never deserves to be paid less than the average man on the basis of her gender. I'm talking about salary, not hours worked or days taken off. Across the board salary should NEVER be unequal on such a ridiculous basis. Besides, how then do you explain the disparities among minority women, like African Americans and Hispanics? The average black woman is paid $.60 to a Caucasian man's dollar for doing the same job, and the average Hispanic woman is paid $.55 in comparison to that dollar. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:49 PM:

" ADark1 wrote: "what about all those 1 parent homes?"

All we are saying is that a parental unit consisting of one man and one woman is theoretically the best environment for a child. People don't get married and have children with the intent of divorcing a few years later. Children are quite resilient and often do OK even under less than ideal conditions, but to deliberately subject them from the start to a less than ideal home life is not a good thing for society. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:45 PM:

" debstallings wrote: "Today in downtown Napa over 400 gathered for the National Day of Protest."
Mark my words, those rallies will see sparser and sparser attendance as the months go by. There's really no point to it anyway, until after the state Supreme Court rules on Prop 8. Do you think the rallies will influence the Court? "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:30 AM:

" A less than ideal home life is a home life where the child is abused, or the parents neglect them or leave the care up to someone else—or one where there is only one parent. Being the child of homosexual parents does not "subject" them to anything. I'm sure most normal children who have been in foster care for a significant period of time would not object in the least to having two parents of the same sex, as long as they got the love and care they required. "

opiniagirl wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Pharper
Sorry Honey; this time you are flat wrong. Do not presume that you know anything about the feelings of foster children. My daughter shared with you that her dad - a LIFETIME foster child asked to leave a some sex home, are you suggesting he isn't normal??? In a same sex household there is one absent full time genetically opposite parent. OF COURSE that is a problem and not an ideal situation for a child.
The fact that most children being raised by homosexuals came from previous heterosexual relationships or a marriage, (now dissolved) doesn’t speak to the possibility that homosexuality is a choice? What about bisexuality, is that genetics taking turns?
While it is important to accommodate people who make alternative lifestyle decisions, it is also important to value the foundation of this country, the traditional marriage. Your whole "why would they choose this hard horrible life" argument attests to the fact that even you acknowledge that it is not an ideal lifestyle for the raising of children.
Since you are a child yourself, you are not able to fully encompass the global impact of these types of decision, which is why you are not allowed to vote.
Homosexuals have not been denied any rights, they may still marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like every other citizen in this country, and many of them have chosen to do just that. "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:44 PM:

" I ask why they would "choose" a life of persecution--do you think anyone would intentionally subject themselves to ridicule, hatred, and bigotry? It has nothing to do with raising children--an ideal environment is one where the child is loved, nurtured, and cared for. I don't know anything about your daughter’s father, and I don't know the situation. There are exceptions to everything, but I won't speculate further. It's not my place.

Many people refuse to acknowledge their sexuality until late in life, due to the social stigma. I'm sure if your life, reputation, and social status depended on your being homosexual, you could pretend for society's sake.

The foundation of this country is not "traditional" marriage. It is the creed that all men are created equal. Now we have a very simple example of that--either gay citizens are equal to heterosexual ones, or not. It is that simple. I have to assume that you as a straight woman wouldn't marry another woman. Why would you assume that a homosexual woman would marry a man? Sexuality cannot be changed. I don't pretend to know the exact science behind it, but I do know that homosexuality is not something that is chosen, just as heterosexuality is not. There is plenty of evidence to support that claim.

I would appreciate it if you could take my arguments and apply them as you would any adult's. I am less than a year away from voting age, and I do not form my opinions based on emotion. Hopefully, I am articulate and well-researched enough that my opinions can be taken as valid. I back up everything I say with concrete evidence and personal knowledge. I wish I could say the same for most of the people on the Prop 8 side. "

opiniagirl wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:04 PM:

" My daughter - opiniateen, above!

She's at school, not playing on a computer.

I am really questioning public schools policies regarding internet use... "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:29 PM:

" I am at school in the research center at New Tech High, having finished my work. I have a free period right now; I have nothing that I am "supposed" to be doing. Again, my side of the argument has nothing to do with when I make it. If it is respectful and well-reasoned, age and time of day are not issues. I am sorry that you feel that they are.

I could hardly play on the school computers anyway--most "frivolous" sites are blocked. "

opiniagirl wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

" internet tidbits are not concrete by any means.

What about bisexuality, is that genetics taking turns?

What about pedefilia - while it has victims, under the same theory, people are born with it, shoud we let them out of jail? Maybe send them to a country where consenting age is younger.

If this is genetic, shouldn't we be researching to prevent it. You know, reverse the abnormality.

If it is a choice and you are wrong, whcih any logical person admits, than wouldn't it feel foolish to be fighting a battle that people have created for themselves. Many "gays" ADMIT IT IS THEIR CHOICE. People can stomp and scream thast it isn't but they ADMIT it! Now what? They have the same rights as everone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, what they want validation, not rights. "

Just Concerned wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Prop 8 is not just an issue in California. It affects the Nation, and as such should be put before the Nation as a vote. How does this Nation want to define marriage? Should it be the natural act of nature between one man and one woman, or the acts of multiple people of the same species? Let's put it to the Nation for a vote once and for all. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:48 PM:

" One of the things I've noticed about this argument is that when the issue turns to civil rights, the usual suspects hide behind protecting children. "

winemd wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:58 PM:

" pharper - I understand that it seems hard to fathom that others would disagree with your opinion because you do your research and your opinion is very logical to you. I wish you had not added the sentence "I wish I could say the same for most of the people on the Prop 8 side." It does nothing to advance your argument. Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does not mean that their opinion is not well thought out (in their view), not based on research and that they don't have personal knowledge of any given subject. There are intelligent conservatives and intelligent liberals (and ignorant conservatives and ignorant liberals). Learning how to disagree without thinking badly of the "other side" is a useful skill. I wish more people would learn it, from both sides on any issue. "

pharper wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:42 PM:

" I can understand that, winemd. I didn't mean to sound petulant or rude, and in hindsight it was probably a poor addition to my post. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I won't lie and say it wasn't kind of an intentional dig, but it wasn't very nice or very helpful to my argument.

I do try to listen and be open minded about other people's opinions, even when I get very frustrated. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:05 PM:

" debstallings:
My point is this. In the days leading up to the election that -- as a whole -- the Yes on 8 faction appeared to do a better job of being visible about their support for the proposition than -- as a whole -- those opposed to 8 did in getting their collective message out. That and by vehemently protesting in the days immediately following the vote, the No on 8 crowd was coming across to many as poor losers whose inability to collectively promote their voice surprised them so much they had to publicly protest the decision of the majority.
Yes, some groups did organize small activities, but in a larger, more spread across the state function, the Yes on 8 crowd showed to be better organized.
If these who so loudly protest now could have organized for small visible gatherings statewide before the election, do you believe the vote could have come out differently?
I do. "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:33 PM:

" I don't know about that, Dan. At least judging by the responses in these blogs, those that voted for Prop 8 vehemently defend their vote and state that it will not change should this issue continue to be brought up. Repeated cries of "get over it" come to mind. Unless you feel that a larger showing of opponents would have urged some to vote who did not...? "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Pharper must be doing a good job expressing her point based on a couple peoples petty, off-topic and intrusive attacks on her. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:59 PM:

" A series of comments to this column have been deleted due to baseless attacks at some of the people making comments. All comments in response to the initial comment have also been removed. "

pharper wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:24 PM:

" opiniagirl, I said that homosexuality is a choice, not that it’s genetic. No one knows for sure why people are homosexual, just that it’s not a choice that people make. There may or may not be people who claim to have chosen homosexuality, but they are the vast minority. Some may choose to engaged in sexual encounters with the same sex, but one cannot choose to simply “become” homosexual. Do you think you could suddenly “switch teams?”

Bisexuality is another story. Sexuality is not chosen, but it isn’t concrete, either. Have you ever heard of the Kinsey Scale? Not everyone is exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual.

And why on earth would we need to “reverse” homosexuality? Like you said, it has no victims, and because it is only an estimated 5-10% of the population, homosexuality does not threaten the human race. I don’t see why people who are homosexual shouldn’t be free to love whomever they choose, regardless of how you and a tyrannical religious majority feel about their sexuality.

I have to say, I sincerely doubt any homosexuals are expressly looking for your “validation” or anyone else’s. People who are homosexual do not need you to tell them whether or not it’s okay. They just want equal rights. "

coigue wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Glenroy: My kids were taught same-sex marriage in K and 1st grade...in my home.

Guess what? It did not turn them gay. "

pharper wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:52 PM:

" is NOT a choice.***

Oops.... Sorry about that!

One typo can make all the different. "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:16 AM:

" kevin...

while obama said he favored one man, one woman for marriage, he also explicitly said he was opposed to Prop 8... "

opiniagirl wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:53 AM:

" You don't know that it is not a choice. Your agrument is..why would they choose a hard life. Look at drug addicts, people with dangerous jobs, peple with extreme hobbies, people that sit in trees for months to "protect it". It quite possible is a choice. People choose a lifestyle because it "feels good to them", no matter what the consequences. It is POSSIBLE that homosexuality is one of those choices. Even the most sophisticated scientists have not been able to answer that question, but YOU can??? Wow - that's pretty arrogant. "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:03 PM:

" opiniagirl ... the current research indicates it is not a choice...keep doing your research and with an open mind you may see the same? "

pharper wrote on Nov 19, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Nobody knows what "causes" homosexuality or where it comes from, but that doesn't make it a choice. Science points to many different things (for example, a younger son in a family of boys is more likely to be gay than a first son or the youngest son in a family of girls) but almost none of it points to choice.

I guess the simplest way of proving that is to ask a gay person, since you won't bother to research empirical fact. Most (not all; if I said all I'd be attacked) will tell you that they did NOT choose to be homosexual. That's like saying you can choose who to love or fall in love with. I'm sure any of us who've ever had unrequited or impossible loves can testify that that's not the case! Do you think you could fall in love with someone of the same sex just because you felt like it? For the same reason, no gay person (oh, wait--MOST gay people) could fall in love with someone of the opposite sex just because they feel like it, or because your religion says their love is wrong.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that ANYBODY would choose to be persecuted. Your examples are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the debate at hand. "

napascot wrote on Nov 19, 2008 2:31 PM:

" opiniagirl,

check out the american psychological association, you can just google it and go to their website.

Some great answers to some great questions there is a Q&A in the sexuality section. Might just be some good reading "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:45 PM:

" The suicide rate for gay teens is 4 times that of their straight peers as a result of the intimidation and moral judgements of some who think being gay is a choice or is simply immoral. If being gay was a choice, wouldn't people simply make the switch rather than kill themselves? The only choice is whether to accept yourself as you are, suffer in silence, or end it all. To be, or not to be. "

napalawyer wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Just wanted to add that I was one of several people I know who had our "No on 8" sign stolen out of our front yard. Ours was taken less than two hours after we put it out! "

cocktailnapkin wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:28 PM:

" EQUALITY FOR ALL! "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:46 PM:

" You wrote: "The suicide rate for gay teens is 4 times that of their straight peers as a result of the intimidation..."

How do you know that one is the result of the other? Perhaps the teens exploring their gay feelings were less stable mentally to begin with. At one time kids of Asian extraction were a despised minority, yet their suicide rate was not elevated, in fact, their academic achievement level was better than non-Asians. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Yet another reason some of the NO people were not out on the streets or putting up signs is that many gay people have been beaten and had their homes vandalized when found out to be gay or even gay supportive, so they are reluctant to take a public stand. Some of the comments I've been seeing demonstrate just how strongly some people despise gay people. Fortunately, education can overcome prejudice, so there is hope. "

pharper wrote on Nov 20, 2008 6:56 PM:

" JR, they ARE related. I'd advise you to look up the studies. Your implication that homosexual people are "mentally unstable" is out-of-line and plainly wrong. "Exploring their gay feelings...." Hm, so are you admitting that people are born gay? What do you propose these teenagers do? Remain closeted and celibate their entire lives because your religion says that being born homosexual (oh, sorry, "homosexual activity") is wrong? I hardly think so.

The suicide rate among gay and lesbian teens is because the troubles they face every day go far beyond what a black or Asian child currently goes through. A gay kid has to deal with everything from simple phrases like "that's so gay," to name-calling, to beatings, and with general social stigma. There's also the fact that children don't get disowned for being born black, or being born Asian. They get disowned for telling their parents how they feel. They get beaten and murdered because of their gender (Gwen Araujo and Michael Shepherd, for example) or sexuality. Frankly, I can see how that would be depressing, particularly when a child lives in a world where people constantly tell him or her that loving who they love is wrong and disgusting, even though it hurts no one.

THAT'S why the suicide rate is high among gay and lesbian teenagers. Not because they're "mentally unstable." I'm appalled that you would even suggest that. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 2:01 PM:

" pharper, what happened to Gwen Araujo and Michael Shepherd made all the news headlines precisely because it is so rare. Every day gangs of Nortenos and Surenos kill each other, but we hardly blink an eye when we read about it. Is one kind of human life more precious than another? Homosexuals occupy top positions in the fashion industry and many other creative arts. Hollywood dotes on them. The average education and income levels of gays is above that of non-gays. Spare me your "Oh, the poor picked on gays" reverie. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Raven wrote "while obama said he favored one man, one woman for marriage, he also explicitly said he was opposed to Prop 8... "
Right, but only because it involved a taking away of a right (gay marriage) that had been in existence for 4 months. Had the Prop 8 vote been held 6 months earlier, Obama would have been in favor of it. So, if the CA Supreme Court comes out with a split decision, allowing already married gays to remain married (which is what I think will happen), then everyone should be happy, right? ;-) "

pharper wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:12 PM:

" The "oh, poor picked on gays" reverie?

Why don't you tell that to a group of gay and lesbian teenagers? How about using that line to convince a homosexual teen not to kill himself because of the relentless teasing and cruelty he faces at school? Yes, Matthew Shepherd and Gwen Araujo were extreme cases, but less extreme things of the same theme happen every single day to millions of teenagers and young adults across the world. The fact that homosexual population has a higher average income and education level than the heterosexual population doesn't mean that gays aren't discriminated against every single day, from simple language like "that's so gay" to assumptions about their lives, to outright bigotry in the workplace and elsewhere.

The issue of gang violence is completely separate--one doesn't hear about young gang members being picked on by other students or abused by Bible-thumping adults who condemn them. Beyond that, gang members choose that life, and although I would willingly admit that there any many young adults roped into or born into the gang life, I'm fairly certain the vast majority choose to be members of a gang, and therefore accept the consequence of that decision. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Hard to say some same sex couples can be married and some cant, isn't it, JR?....that would make a great case in federal courts for a violation of the 14th, equal protection clause.... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:07 AM:

" The anomaly that exists in California (4 months' worth of gay marriages) is an artifact of a mistake by California's Supreme Court. They were duly advised to stay the effect of their ruling until after Nov. 4, but they were too arrogant to do the sensible thing. The U.S. Supreme Court (if the case ever gets that far) will recognize that folly for what it is. They've already had lots of practice overruling the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. ;-) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

" JR Obama has been against writing discrimination into the law and has held that position throughout his career. While his personal religious belief is one man, one woman, he does not believe in using the force of law to impose his personal beliefs on everyone else. He has consistently and publicly stated he believes in equal rights for all Americans. If you can't overcome your judgement that gay people are immoral, that is your right as a citizen, but please don't use the force of law to punish those you judge as inferior. It is for this very reason the founding fathers did not trust direct democracy and set up a representative democracy with division of powers with checks and balances. The knew from history checks were necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Even if the supreme court doesn't reverse this act of discrimination, the equal rights struggle won't be over untill equality is achieved. "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:55 PM:

" they were asked, not advised, JR, by proponents of Prop 8 ..who didn't want same sex marriage...hardly an unbiased source of advice...the fight wont end until there is equality.... "

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: