NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Commentary
Why I fight Proposition 8
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By Kristen Baslee
I have friends who are gay, straight, Mormon, Catholic, black, white and Hispanic. On Nov. 3, I sat comfortably on my couch naively thinking Proposition 8 would never pass.

I refrained from becoming vocal on the issue for fear of angering my nearest and dearest friends.
On Nov. 4, I sat on the same couch stunned. My elation over Barack Obama’s victory was painfully tempered. Disappointment burned in a wound I didn’t even realize was open.

I vowed on that day to get up off the couch and take part in an equality battle that will most surely define a generation.
In just a few days I’ve been involved in the fight.

I have received criticism from those nearest and dearest. Confused, they wonder openly why a straight, white woman is involved in a push for legalizing gay marriage.
 I respond back that it is my obligation as a U.S. citizen to advocate equality. In the case of Proposition 8, this veil of equality has been breached and I can no longer literally sit on the couch and hope in vain for Californians to return to the progressivism for which they are so well known.

The entire argument for Proposition 8 is built around an archaic definition of marriage.

A union will be recognized by the law only if that union exists between a man and a woman. The idea that the government can tell anyone who they can and cannot openly love and spend their lives with stings of the same arguments surrounding interracial marriages just a few decades ago.

No legalized civil union can provide the same sentiment, emotion or symbolism as a legalized marriage.

Separate was not equal 40 years ago, and it still is not equal today.

Proposition 8 addresses the right of one person to marry another. Nowhere does it state any moral implications regarding the adverse effect on family values.

The push to pass Proposition 8 was filled with ads about protecting marriage and teaching homosexuality in schools. All these ads convey is a fear of discussing sexuality. If Proposition 8 supporters want to keep their families protected and in the closet about a minority group, then that is their choice, but forcefully taking away rights from that same minority group will not keep children from questioning “Adam and Steve.”

It is troubling government allowed religious institutions to engage in lobbying at all. Even more staggering, less than 2 percent of Californians are Mormons but the Mormon Church and followers funded nearly half of the Proposition 8 campaign.

The vast majority of Christians in this country are gentle and kind people. They go to work each day, pay taxes and raise families. Interestingly enough, homosexuals follow the same routine.

We are not as different as a vocal few make us out to be and we are each entitled to our beliefs and lifestyles. Degrading equality in this state and country is not a means to protect any institution, be it marriage or church.

(Baslee lives in Napa.)
137 comment(s)

pharper wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:58 AM:

" I couldn't have said it better myself. I know exactly what you mean and where you come from, and I, like you, will continue to fight for equality. We haven't lost until we've given up the fight. "

common sense wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:07 AM:

" Even though I am not particularly religious, I find this issue troubling.

If you permit gay marriage, what then prevents things like polygamy and bestiality from becoming legal? Where do we draw the line?

It's one thing to have the individual liberty and freedom to be gay. It's a completely different story, however, when we're talking about society recognizing and condoning best practices. I personally don't care if people do drugs in the privacy of their own home, so long as they don't hurt anyone else...but I would never want to see society recognize it and give benefits and rewards for it... "

Rocketman wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Kristen,

I believe the "majority" of supporters of Prop 8 have no problem at all with the equality issue that you describe. The real issue is, that the term marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for all time in mankind. If these unions could be called something else other than a marriage with the same benefits, then what is the problem? Marriage between a man and a woman has been recognized for years and some people just want to save that tradition. Your article focuses on equality, so make gay marriage an equal union to straight marriage without calling it a marriage. If we follow your logic, then we shouldn't have African-Americans, Mexican-Americans etc. We should only recognize Americans. "

Raven wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:38 AM:

" well said... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:52 AM:

" Kristen. Thanks for your letter. Your voice is greatly appreciated.
While we are all taught prejudice for gay people from early childhood and throughout our adult years,
some people resist, while others embrace the teachings and pass them on. It is encouraging to hear you have rejected the prejudice you were exposed to and have decided to speak out against it. While some use the bible to teach discrimination, other religious leaders and followers read the bible differently and find only a message of love and acceptance for all of God's children. But religious or not, equal protection under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee and is the foundation of our society. Thanks again for helping America live up to the promise of liberty and justice for all by saying NO to prejudice and discrimination instead of making it the law of the land. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Rambling wreck of an excuse…. Civil Unions by law equate equally to marriage…gays are entitled to the same benefits, the same survivorship rights….the only thing that can’t get is a marriage certificate….which is the way it should be.

I doubt the activist California semi-Supreme Court will see it that way…. "

manxkat wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:36 AM:

" A 2 year old who didn't get her way would also have a tantrum. "

Newview wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:51 AM:

" But what happens when a minister, preacher or priest refuses to marry Adam and Steve on the basis of their own religious belief? Will the gay couple proceed legal action against the religious practice of the freedom of choice? What if Adam and Steve want Father Kelly to marry them just like Father Kelly married Steve's mom and dad? But Father Kelly believes that it is a sin to do so? Outside of all the hype and spin that is the issue. Two organizations are legally through political means working to force their beliefs on the public.

The Constitution guarantee's the right to religious freedom with out persecution. Gays should not be persecuted for the choices they make, they ultimately have to answer to the god of their understanding, should they have a moral and spiritual fiber. And individuals should not be persecuted for their religious beliefs or sued for choosing to follow the word of God as they understand it.

Ultimately all that has happened is now we have a legal movement to define a gateway law in concern of the compact of marriage. And that puts all of our freedoms at risk. Freedom is the right to choice.

Andrew Jackson woke one early morning and bumped his head because he heard a fire bell ringing in the night. Kansas and Missouri were deciding Free State or not Free State.

I have been bumping my head lately over division of church and state. "

pharper wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:00 PM:

" The choices they make?

That's so interesting. Last I checked, homosexuality was as much a choice as heterosexuality is, which is to say - it's not. But that's beside the point.

And Rocketman, that logic sounds pretty good to me. Again, though, beside the point.

Common Sense, you asked where we draw the line. First of all, I don't have a problem with polygamy in the first place (and neither does the Bible, if you've ever read it) except that the most recent cases of polygamy we hear of involve children under the age of consent. Bestiality does not involve two adult parties who can give consent (unless you're implying that a dog or a horse can do so) not to mention the practice is very obviously animal abuse. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:07 PM:

" common. Marriage equality for gay people requires informed consent. It has nothing to do with children, relatives, animals, or inanimate objects. The "slippery slope" argument doesn't apply here.
While some same sex couples can and do provide excellent parenting and the best possible nurturing environment, some straight couples severely abuse their children both emotionally and physically. So the " best practice" argument is just not true, and therefore no excuse for excluding one group from equal opportunities for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Allowing marriage equality does not endorse it as a best practice, it only allows everyone the same opportunities to succeed or fail that our forefathers intended for all. "

Raven wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:08 PM:

" common sense, we are talking about partnerships between legal actions between consenting adults ... and equality, not a continuation of the separate but equal movement...

Rocketman, I would wager the majority of people who voted yes on 8 would have a problem and if there were a measure to eliminate domestic partnership laws it would have large support ... the connection between ethnic identification escapes me....no one here is saying they are gay or lesbian Americans...just that they are Americans and deserve the same rights as other Americans, not more, but certainly not less...

and glenroy again you don't have your facts straight, domestic partners do not have the same right as married couples...and can be eliminated at the whim of the legislature...

and again I ask, what is the harm to traditional marriage caused by same sex marriage? Is there some underlying need to be superior to someone that is the basis of this need to deny everyone the same rights that you have? "

Dwayne wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:18 PM:

" We all "choose" not to behave in certain immoral ways...

Gay marriage is immoral, and would be demeaning to society...

No different than "illegals" demanding their rights... What rights...!!!

The bad guys must have put something in our water to cause all these liberal brains to misfire..... "

gogojr1 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:29 PM:

" There is equality because we have an african/american president.

duh "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:01 PM:

" New. Catholics won't marry divorced people, some faiths require the spouse to convert if they follow a different religion, and other restrictions any church decides to make are a recognized as their right and no religion would be sued for denying to perform any ceremony they don't believe in. But now, some religious groups have been prohibited from exercising their religious beliefs by a law that restricts freedom. While you are free to choose what is right for you, you should not be free to decide what is right for those who hold different religious beliefs. Freedom is threatened when you start to take it away, not when you apply it equally to all. "

verum wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:10 PM:

" To paly the History Card as validation, how does one explain slavery existing today? "

Rob C wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:15 PM:

" It is ironic that in one sentence Ms. Baslee affirms that each is entitled to their "beliefs and lifestyles", yet in the next she is troubled that government allows Mormons theirs.

Voters have spoken on two issues here - neither of which seem to pass judgment on homosexuality:

1.) Preemptive, judicial fiat by activist benches and politicians have angered many. The vote was a repudiation of that in a broader sense. This animosity goes all the way back to the Rose court and continues with the 9th circuit. (Or circus, given how many reversals that court has suffered.)

2.) The election strategy of equivilizing the issue to the civil rights movement did not have the intended effect. Indeed, while Mormons continue to be the easy target, less is mentioned of the significant minority vote - a vote expected to fall in-line, that rejected that argument. And understandably, the "No on 8" supporters are a tad more uncomfortable calling them out.

The failure of 8, (or success depending your preference) was more a matter of shrewd election strategy and tactics than the moral failure the losing party wishes to make it. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Dwayne. Being gay is a perfectly natural state of being for a minority of the human population. Maybe not for you or the majority of the population, but it has existed in statistically significant numbers such that it cannot be considered an anomaly. It has nothing to do with animals or any of those other things that don't involve informed consent between 2 humans. It is not a choice, illness, or defect. Every major professional scientific organization agrees, it is perfectly natural for some people. Your judgement that it is immoral is wrong, yet you are entitled to you beliefs, but you are not entitled to use the force of law to impose that belief on others.
1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Board of Education v. Barnette: "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free pass, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." "

tannerfolk wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:33 PM:

" I would love to talk to you when you have been married 29 years and raised five children like my husband and I. I KNOW from EXPERIENCE that children need both a mother and a father. It's so vital to gender identification, security and happiness. I am sure single parents have raised sucessful children but this certainly is not the ideal. Once you parent for yourself you will know how vital traditional marriage is. "

pharper wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Uh, Dwayne, who says it's immoral? Oh, that's right, you do. I'm sorry, but we don't live by your moral code. Being homosexual does not harm you or anyone else.

And I certainly hope you don't mean "what rights" in reference to gay people. Gay people pay taxes, go to church, go to work, raise children, and fall in love exactly as you do, so to imply that they are not equal human beings (or citizens) is un-American and highly immoral, I would say.

And gogojr1, just because one black man has made it to the top doesn't mean racism and inequality are not alive and well in everyday America. "

common sense wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

" If you go with the 'consent' argument given by several people above, then polygamy and pedophilia could be legalized too...it's just those silly discriminatory laws preventing them from having equal rights, too. (I find the comment, and I'm paraphrasing, that 'polygamy should be legal because it is in the bible' a bit ridiculous...but I'm not particularly religious, so that argument doesn't convince me.)

Society can't give benefits and reward everyone. Society routinely decides which things they will designate as beneficial and worth promoting. Carpoolers get special treatment because a majority of people think that conservation (in this case gasoline) is a greater net good than individual freedom (provided by an individual vehicle).

Again, just because you have the individual liberty to do it, doesn't mean that society should be forced to recognize it as a best practices method. We can't afford to do it anyway. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Rob. It is the role of the court to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A direct vote on rights of a minority was never the intent of the founding fathers, and history showed them the dangers of that. That is why they set up a representative democracy with checks and balances on power.
1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Board of Education v. Barnette: "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free pass, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." "

pharper wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:55 PM:

" I don't understand this "best practice" thing. Who is saying that being homosexual is better than being heterosexual? Who is telling anyone that homosexuality is a better "choice" than heterosexuality? I don't understand where this is coming from. All anyone is saying is that as law-abiding, tax-paying, equal citizens, homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Like I said, I have no problem with polygamy (except when it involves underage children) and pedophilia has a victim. Whether the child gave "consent" or not, pedophilia is harmful to that child, and is a horrible crime. It is in no way related to homosexuality. "

Raven wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:15 PM:

" explain to all of us how pedophilia can be legalized, common ... since it has to by definition, include a child ... last time I checked children were not consenting adults...

As for polygamy/polyandry, to be honest, I don't have a problem with it since it would involves legal consenting adults, and other than when Prop 8 supporters use it as a smoke screen to distract from the issue of same sex marriage, the only time polygamy has been introduced by opponents of Prop 8 has been to refute the notion that the definition of marriage has been static and fixed throughout social history, and that includes the changes in the definition of marriage in the Bible.

Comparing the laws on driving, which is not a right, to marriage, which is a right, is simply specious, common and another attempt at a smoke screen and while society is not obligated to allow everyone to do anything they want, our nation is obligated to respect the rights we have, of course, you might let us know which rights of yours you are ready to surrender to a vote?

Tanner, as a parent of two, I agree, two parents may be the ideal...but I would argue the key is to having two loving, committed parents, not the genders of the two parents. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:34 PM:

" CommonSense, you bring up bestiality, Polygamy and Pedophilia every time, and you get the same answer:

Consenting adults. Animals are not consenting adults, neither are children.

and...

Who cares if several consenting adults want to marry? "

verum wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:50 PM:

" The subject is Prop 8; this facination with pedophlia is sickenly perverse. "

sicksense wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:59 PM:

" first time posting. I've been reading different blogs over the last few weeks and thought I might join in occasionally. I've noticed that nothing really gets done here though. Just one side arguing, ad nauseum, against the other side.

Is marriage a constitutional right? I don't know the answer to that. Can anyone answer that and give me concrete evidence please?

I think the thing that upsets me the most about this prop 8 is that so much time, effort and money has gone into it from both sides and yet it hasn't even been judged as constitutional or not. Seems like it should've been deemed constitutional prior to being voted on so we wouldn't be here now. I'm ignorant of that process though. Just seems odd that twice the voters have expressed their will and yet we still can't figure it out. Wasteful. "

sicksense wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Is marriage a constitutional right? Can anyone answer that question for me please citing concrete evidence. "

Rocketman wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:48 PM:

" My real point is that the opponents of Prop 8 are fighting a tradition that has occurred for 1000's of years. That is a pretty substantial time. The term marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.........so why change it. As other writers have stated, most people except gay unions, so leave it as a union, not a marriage. This process was first voted in at 61%. This time just 52%, so there is a toleration for gay union. Just leave the marriage issue alone. I used the ethnic issue as an example of how are country is getting away from traditions. I don't agree with the Mexican-American title. Could you imagine if we did American-Mexican in Mexico or American-African in Africa. I use this as simply a point of tradition that American should hold on to. "

napapaul wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:54 PM:

" If you are not a member of the Gay,Lesbian, Bi-sexual, or transgender community and you want to support the cause, you are naive and are failing to understand the "greater cause" of G,L, Bi ,& T fight for rights. It was not that many years ago in America and yes, "progressive California," that being a member of such group was still considered aberrent or even illegal behavior. It is an incremental war, with small battles being won such as the domestic partnership battle, the fight for tax and medical benefits, property rights, parental "partner" rights, adoption rights, rights to be Scout leaders, rights to be religious leaders, etc..Once the G,L,B & T lobby can win the right to marry, the fight will move forward. Next it will be able to attack other states that don't recognize G,L,B&T marrage as bigoted, backward, and religiously oppressed. Recognize, if they can win another increment, another battle, it will move closer to winning the war. One day your children will be taught that they must not only understand that people make other choices than the ones they would, but that they MUST embrace the diversity of the other choice and to do less is bigoted and aberrant behavior. A small minority wishes to turn the tables on morality and societal norms. It has always been Adam and Eve..sorry Steve. You wont tell me or my children what I have to believe. The first amendment applies to the majority also. Love your partner as you will in your home, but don't expect me to embrace your lifestyle choices. For those that twist the context of the bible to justify "loving and accepting all", I encourage you to actually read the bible in context. Good luck with that on judgement day. "

Newview wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:22 PM:

" I am bumping my head so much that I hear fire bells all the time now. Why has this become so much about "us and them". Don't you get it? When the "us and them" enters the conversation objectivity is lost. The "us and them" is the seed of hate. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:34 PM:

" As seems to be par for the anti-8 crowd, this letter is riddled with half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Example 1: "A union will be recognized by the law only if that union exists between a man and a woman." That's false. California has recognized domestic partnerships for quite a while, which provide all the same rights and benefits as marriage.

Example 2: "The idea that the government can tell anyone who they can and cannot openly love and spend their lives with..." Another falsehood. The government does not tell gays whom they can love and spend their lives with.

Example 3: "the Mormon Church and followers funded nearly half of the Proposition 8 campaign." The truth is that the LDS church itself contributed nothing. Whether individual members contributed independently is immaterial since the use of the word "AND" makes the statement false.

Example 4: "The entire argument for Proposition 8 is built around an archaic definition of marriage." While we're at it, shall we change the definition of murder and rape also? After all, those are 'archaic' concepts too.

Example 5: "It is troubling government allowed religious institutions to engage in lobbying at all". Apparently the writer doesn't know that the government can't muzzle churches. They have as much right to exercise their First Amendment rights as any other organization, including labor unions and the ACLU. Does the writer really want to muzzle all non-profits? "

pharper wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:48 PM:

" No one wants you to embrace anyone's "choice" (even though, time and again, it has been shown that homosexuality is not a choice) napapaul. I hardly think a single gay person in this community, or this state, is looking for your approval. This is NOT a small minority. 10% of the population is a LOT of people, and it doesn't matter anyway. Everyone is equal. if peopel pay the same taxes, abide by the same laws, and live "regular" lives, they are entitled to ALL the benefits of being a citizen--including the right to marry whomever they choose (with obvious limitations).

Rocketman, slavery was a tradition for thousands of years...should we have just left it alone? Women being the property of their husbands was tradition. Should we have let that be? I hardly think so. This is an issue of civil rights, and should be treated as such. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:00 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "other religious leaders and followers read the bible differently and find only a message of love and acceptance for all of God's children." Those who are familiar with and understand the whole Bible would strongly disagree. The relatively few churches which pay only lip service to what the Bible actually teaches should not be mistaken for the mainstream Christian movement. The Bible is just as strong in condemning unrepentant sinners as it is welcoming those who repent of sinful acts. "

sickothis wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:13 PM:

" John Richards - Your argument is patently false. Civil Unions are taxed differently, have different rights of survivorship, and property rights. That is fact.

The real issue is that if the State is going to issue a LICENSE it cannot discriminate to whom it is issued. Period.

I could care less what the Church calls anything.

Oh and by the way John Richards - Churches get special TAX TREATMENT, with the caveat that they stay out of politics. Now, the Mormon Church wants to get into political wars, I want my tax money back. Get it? It's about taxes. Taxes are what the revolution was all about. Getting it yet? "

sickothis wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:16 PM:

" sicksense - it is a constitutional argument because marriage is a license sanctioned by the state and recognized by the federal government (read - IRS). It is just a (short) matter of time before this is overturned based that general premise. Same as the civil rights movement, Women's suffrage, etc. etc. "

misfit wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:25 PM:

" People...quit banging your heads trying to convince others that they are wrong. They choose to be the way they are. I feel that it much more important that children are raised by non-idiots, regardless of their sexual preference. "

Raven wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:36 PM:

" JR, again you must be reminded, this is not about civil unions or domestic partnerships, which don't bestow all the rights of marriage, which has been pointed out numerous times to you,it is about the right to marry....and by Prop 8 words, marriage is between a man and woman, thereby stripping your neighbors of a right to marry is they are gay.....a right the state supreme court has affirmed on May 15.

The definition of marriage has changed and evolved over those thousands of years, so to prentend it hasn't is to be blind to history and to the facts.

as far as the LDS is concerned, the state is investigating whether the church properly reported it's in kind donations to the campaign for Prop 8, for example the phone banks it ran from Utah...hard to be investigated for not reporting something properly if you didn't donate it in the first place...

and indirectly, the government, if Prop 8 is upheld, is telling gays who they can love and decide to spend their lives with by refusing them the right to marry. "

sicksense wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:03 PM:

" Where and when has homosexuality been shown that it isn't a choice? I know most homosexuals will say they didn't choose that lifestyle but they have a biased opinion about it so their opinion can't be used exclusively. What scientific evidence proves beyond a doubt that homosexuality is not a choice?

All the homosexuals I know have a history of family trauma as a child, either molestation or emotional abuse or neglect. They were hurt (many times by father figure) at a young age and have had trouble relating to the opposite sex because of it.

I know males who are effeminate and would outwardly seem homosexual to people who don't know them but are heterosexuals without a doubt. It seems like these effeminate males didn't choose the homosexual lifestyle.

Where is the evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice? "

Paddy wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:23 PM:

" verum - you state: "
" The subject is Prop 8; this facination with pedophlia is sickenly perverse. "

That's my point exactly. I find homosexuality as perverse as pedophilia. Don't open the doors to all of those just waiting in the dark corner to push similar agenda's. Polygamy and even pedophilia will all be next in line insisting that they have the same rights.

The Yes on 8 vote was a vote for higher standards and a greater responsibility to a moral society. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either been brainwashed by the degrading agenda of a very small minority or is part of the mutant machine that will stop at nothing to turn the global family into a lascivious cesspool. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Sicko wrote: "John Richards - Your argument is patently false. Civil Unions are taxed differently, have different rights of survivorship, and property rights. That is fact."

If you are talking about federal law, nothing before or after Prop 8 affects any federal law, so that's a moot point.
If you are talking about State taxes, show me the evidence. Unequal treatment would be in direct violation of California's Family Code provisions regarding domestic partnerships. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:42 PM:

" sicko wrote: "The real issue is that if the State is going to issue a LICENSE it cannot discriminate to whom it is issued."

Nonsense. For example, the state doesn't issue drivers licenses to blind people. "

ty2 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:43 PM:

" I love what Rabbi Shifren had to say in his essay named, "We are all Mormons" dated November 21, 2008:I thought we just had elections, where the majority of Californians expressed their views in a free and open manner. Are we not a nation of laws? Dare we relive the McCarthy era, where Americans were harassed and threatened with the loss of their jobs for believing in a certain way? If the Gay radicals should have their way, untold numbers of Americans would live under the threat of the Gay-Lesbian "thought police," where individuals that reject the Gay lifestyle would be sought out and have sanctions brought against them. It's bad enough for those working in the entertainment industry here in Los Angeles, where a fog of political correctness and a bending over backwards to accommodate, even promote Gay lifestyle is in full gear. Let none dare say that this type of activity is anathema to our country, our morality, and the debauchery of our young people...There was a time when what a man did in his bedroom was sanctified between himself and G-d. Now we are being served an "in-your-face" smorgasbord of smut and licentiousness as being between people who only "want their civil rights." Hogwash! We are dealing with the equivalent of a moral takeover of the country that has as its bedrock a belief in G-d and His promise for humanity. They don't want civil rights! What they desire is quasi Gay/Lesbian hegemony, where a huge "bookburning," reminiscent of the Nazis, will purge any remnants of the "Christian, White, mainstream America" that has given ALL AMERICANS the most profound scope of freedom, liberty, and justice that Mankind has yet to experience." Hmmm, makes a lot of sense to me. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:47 PM:

" sicko wrote: "Churches get special TAX TREATMENT, with the caveat that they stay out of politics."

No, that's not what the rules say. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with what restrictions are placed on non-profit organizations. The only thing they can't do is promote specific political candidates. By the way, does your labor union stay silent on political issues? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:52 PM:

" sicko wrote: "It is just a (short) matter of time before this is overturned..."

What do you consider a short time? I don't see either the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Prop 8 within the next few years. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:58 PM:

" Raven, you are defending what Kristen Baslee should have said, instead of what she actually said. My comments were addressing what the writer (Kristen Baslee) actually said. "

hospitality24 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:49 AM:

" It's so funny how you guys have nothing better to do with your lives than rave and rant about about weither or not it is acceptable for two men to call each other husband and husband... Our trooops are over in iraq getting bombed to death and you all waste your time by crying about your loss.. Californians have spoken and we do not want gay marriage for the time being.. If you don't like it then get the heck out of california!!!!! Pretty simple. As much as you may seem like smart,literate people I think your passion is clouding your mind.. "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:27 AM:

" sicksense, the people you know are exceptions, not anywhere close to the rule. Plenty of studies have been done; I recommend you look them up. Barring that, ask a gay person (not one of the scores of them who were abused that you claim to know). Perhaps you do know gay people who were abused as children, but homosexuality and abuse are not intrinsically related tragic coincidences, perhaps, but certainly not related. That's an archaic belief that is not upheld by any current science.

I find it so interesting that so many people who were pro-8 claim to have all these gay friends who oppose it. It is extremely difficult for me to believe that any of you have gay friends who are cool with you trying to take away their rights. I can't presume to know it for a fact, of course, but it is absurd to me that people who may have one or two gay friends claim that ALL the gay people they know (making it sound like there are many) were for proposition 8, or don't care. If I were your gay friend, I wouldn't discuss that issue with you, and therefore you'd have no knowledge of how I felt about it. But then, prop-8 people don't seem all that concerned with fact or truth.

Also, being effeminate has nothing to do with being gay. You act as though heterosexual men with effeminate characteristics should be gay, but for some reason chose not to be. I wonder what they'd say if you asked them when they decided not to be gay. I bet that'd be a fun conversation. "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:28 AM:

" And yeah, Paddy, YOU think it’s perverse (God only knows why). Lucky for you, homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. The kind of sex people have is none of your business, and neither is the kind of love they feel (which, I might add, is the exact same as yours, just with people of the same sex). Pedophilia has victims. Homosexuality does not. I bet you’d find some of the things heterosexual couples do pretty darn perverse—although I guess since they’re heterosexual, it’s all okay. "

Rob C wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Equal - The role of the Supreme court to enforce the law and to protect the specific language of the constitution.

Board vs Barnett was merely reaffirmation of a specific bill of rights issue - freedom of religion, specifically whether a Jehovahs Witness can be compelled by law to publicly pledge allegiance to the flag. It was not a sweeping mandate for courts to become a legislative branch of government. Unfortunately, many judges relish the role of activist, using accumulated power to overturn any law they personally find distasteful.

The actual disabilities suffered by this class of citizens does not appear to voters to support the civil rights "freight" proclaimed by proponents, nor the stasis of legal example in your rebuttal. "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:27 PM:

" so that is your answer, hospitality?....a state variation on the 'love it or leave'?....and explain to us why anyone who fight for their rights should leave their home because you don't like their fight? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:55 PM:

" pharper wrote: "homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone."
You might want to rethink that statement. The highest rate of new HIV cases in this country is for male-to-male contact. Check it out yourself:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Lucky for you, though, you don't plan to have intercourse with a male. So even if homosexuality is somehow harmful, it doesn't affect you. And homosexuality in and of itself does not have a victim. It has two consenting adults who want to be together, and that hurts no one. AIDS is not inherent to homosexuality, and homosexuality is not inherent to AIDS, so the argument is irrelevant. "

hospitality24 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Raven it's simply that I'm tired of this issue being discussed day in and day out. I think everyone has heard what you have to say and how you feel strongly against prop 8. Please move on with your life and find something else to fuel your fire and keep your life interesting. Please for the sake of us all... Pharper I would suggest you do the same. Were not interested in your statistics because overall they didn't help you when prop 8 passed so get over it.. All of you who voted No on Prop 8 get a life it's over!!! "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:23 PM:

" for those who think that civil unions are equivalent to marriage, please go to yahoo, search "differences between civil unions and marriages" and refer to the sixth link. the YFFN one. i am not allowed to site a specific web site so i am telling you how to get there instead because it is too much information to copy and paste.

anyway, there are over 1,000 legal protections, etc. that are afforded two people in a marriage that are not recognized in a civil union. the two are not the same.

people, the GLBT movement is not looking for you to "convert" or anything like that. they are simply asking for the same civil rights as their heterosexual equivalents receive. do you realize that homosexual partners cannot receive SS upon the death of their partner? on most state and federal forms there is a place to mark married or single. civil unions don't fall into either category and it can lead not only to confusion for homosexuals filling out the forms, but also can be considered illegal and they can be prosecuted for falsely filing the form. is that right? i don't think so. how about the fact that under a civil union, they cannot leave work to care for a family member like with a marriage. is that right? this issue has nothing to do with religion. the government cannot tell a religion they have to marry anyone. so people need to put their religious beliefs aside and see that this an issue of civil rights! this is an issue or equal treatment for all, regardless of sexual orientation! "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:06 PM:

" oh and for those of you who are so steadfast on the religious aspect:

look in any college-level human sexuality text-book (modern textbook. not 1960's for all you smart-alecks) and you will find that studies have shown that homosexuality is not just nurture. in most cases, it is nature. as in, it is NATURAL. not the upbringing. how can it be a sin if it is natural?

also, christianity teaches that animals cannot sin. yet, homosexuality has been seen in over 1500 species ranging from insects to mammals. (look on wikipedia. search "homosexuality in animals") animals cannot sin, yet they are homosexual. so how is it a sin?

regardless of that side-topic though, this issue has nothing to do with religion and religious views on homosexuality. the church didn't accept interracial marriages until the 1960's or 70's if i remember right (i may be wrong on that). however, the american people still voted to pass laws that ended bans on inter-racial marriages and sexual relationships. now it's time to do the same with homosexual marriage! "

707jng wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:10 PM:

" I loved your letter!!! It's hard to come out and speak against something that your friends and family do not agree with. One side of my family is against Prop8 and the rest are all for Prop 8. It starts many fights between me and those I love the most.... it's not easy.
I admire your stance on this position and thank you for joining our fight for equality.
This will be turned down

Common Sense wrote: "
If you permit gay marriage, what then prevents things like polygamy and bestiality from becoming legal? Where do we draw the line?"

this is most rediculous and ignorant statement anyone can make. I cannot believe that there are people who actually think this is possible AND fear that it will happen because of gay marriage. REALLY? What planet are you from dude? Seriously you need to get your head checked "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:00 PM:

" hospitality24- just curious....how do you feel about the prop that pushes for parental notification regarding abortion in minors? do you feel that they should keep pushing that one through? that one has failed just as many times in just as many years as prop 8.....yet it keeps getting put on the ballot and most of the people i hear that say "oh will you give up! the people voted it down twice!" don't ever say a word about the other prop....they keep pushing it and supporting it. women's rights was shot down time and time again. so were racial rights. as was medical marijuana in california. the gap between pro and con in prob 8 was very small. the majority is not such a majority. it was put on the ballot illegally anyway (not to mention it was ruled by state supreme court to be legal before the ballot measure was introduced). "

Rocketman wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:14 PM:

" pharper.........you are taking my comments out of context and exaggerating the issue. Slavery was never a tradition in the UNITED STATES. It was a small period in history that was NOT readily accepted.....get your facts straight. We are talking about California and the US, not the world!! "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Uh...you don't remember learning about the Civil War? An entire section of the country was ready to secede. Sounds like they were fighting for the tradition of slavery, which had at that time been around for thousands of years. The race of the slaves varied throughout that time, but slavery was still a tradition. So was the terrible treatment of women. Tradition can change, and often needs to do so, as in this case. "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:00 PM:

" actually rocketman, until the civil war it was a tradition, even a protected tradition in the constitution.... "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:05 PM:

" btw, rocketman, the first slaves were brought here in 1654 ... makes it a 200 year tradition by my reckoning. "

hospitality24 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:56 PM:

" GrapetownBankerBoi707 there are so many issues now a days where everyone is contesting that their civil rights are or were being violated. I find it extremely offenseive when these radical extremist compare prop 8 to the civil rights movement. They justify this by saying that gays have been targeted and or killed. Ummm correction gays arn't the only ones who have been targeted list goes irish,blacks,jews,mexicans,asians etc... Oh and by the way I've read your other blogs and coming from someone who knows I think it's funny that you have 707 in your screen name. You as well as everyone else knows that our area code is also affliated with the norteno street gang and for all of you who didnt' know now your informed. Say otherwise and your lying... Please NVR keep these wanna-be's off our blogs.. "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:24 AM:

" also hospitatlity, how would you know so well that the two are affiliated? do you have gang ties? are you a gang member? i find it funny that people like 707jng post things with 707 in their name, yet you don't accuse them of being gang members....i thought EVERYONE with 707 attached to them is a gang member though hospitality! better start calling them out so the rest of the bloggers can tell who's a gang-member or not since you OBVIOUSLY know exactly what you're talking about! i'll be waiting on that response to my challenge to you about quoting my blogs where i talk about supporting gangs and being a member of one.....but i'm sure i'll be waiting forever as you'll never find one.....

in reply to the other part of your post:

so then because the number of gays that have been targeted or killed is smaller than the number of the other minorities, that means they are less significant? the fact that any of them have been targeted or killed is an outrage! people equate the civil rights movements of the GLBT community to the civil rights movements of other minorities because there is a definite parallel between the two and since mule-minded people like yourself refuse to listen to anything else, they feel they need to give you that extreme example so that you might finally GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!

REVERSE PROP H8!!!! "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:26 AM:

" hospitality....why the hostility against anyone who disagrees with you..and I am sorry you are offended but live with it, the fight is for equal civil rights where you like it or not, and gays and lesbian are just the latest in a long list of people who have had to fight for theirs...when is fighting for civil rights being a 'radical extremist'?

Oh btw, If they disagree with you they are lying? Did you at some point become the infallible fount of all knowledge, the arbiter of truth? "

Paddy wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:07 AM:

" pharper states: "And yeah, Paddy, YOU think it’s perverse (God only knows why). Lucky for you, homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone."

If hetero's practice perversion it's still perverse. The difference is that a very small proportion might do so while the very act, and only act, of homosexuals is perverse. The moral character of our young people, and our society, is in deep trouble if you represent the mindset of youth of what is acceptable behavior.

You also weren't around when the gay community were blaming poppers at clubs for the wildfire spread of an unknown disease (AIDS) that was killing hundreds, thousands, now millions. The bisexual community are greatly responsible for it's spread to the hetero population.

You don't have any history, or experience that can help you understand the mindset of those of us who have watched friends die and who have watched the evolution of this disease in our society. "

whatevs wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:05 AM:

" A person's sexual orientation is a natural, normal part of who they are, like eye color or height. That being said, all tax-paying citizens of this grand country are guaranteed the same rights without discrimination. I find it amazing that so many will invest so much emotion in the continued discrimination against one segment of society.

If the 10% statistic is true, then there are as many left-handed people in society as there are homosexual people. There are one or two left-handed desks in every college classroom, and it causes no emotional reaction. The right handed people never accuse me of trying to undermine the "traditionally accepted" way of writing, or show any fear that I may try to convince children that they need to put that pencil in their left hand and give it a try... and no one ever suggested that I should settle for an "equivalency certificate" rather than a diploma because I am left-handed.

Ever since my first crush in Kindergarden I have known that it would be boys who captured my attention. No one could have told me to dream about a wedding with another girl, or practice writing Mrs. and Mrs. in my perfect loopy childish handwriting. That orientation was coded into me from birth. To say that homosexuality is a choice is ridiculous. I have a gay parent, and she had no effect on the chemistry I feel with other humans, and neither did my straight parent.

To deny homosexual citizens the same legal rights (and I'm talking about the marriage license that my husband and I applied for in preparation for our wedding, not any kind of religious ceremony) is discrimination. The "moral" beliefs of the slim majority should not, and will not prevail. "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:44 AM:

" actually paddy,, studies by the Kinsey institute and others would tell you that those perverse acts are practiced by more than half the heterosexual population...and a look at the younger generation is going to scrae you than, becuase studies show they are even more accepting of all these perverse acts you worry so much about....and much more apt to take the position that what soemone does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is 1) none of your business and 2) no reason to strip them of a basic civil right...

and as for the spread of aids....don't throw the blame onto the bisexual community.....the use of IV drugs was more responsible....

and while pharper may be younger than you, I have more than enough age and experience to cover both of us I have no problems with anything pharper has posted, in fact the posts have been a model of debate and should be emulated by all pharper's age group. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Hosp. It matters not what we perceive to be the level of the offense. What matters is that there is any level of offense. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. "

xmrs09 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:49 AM:

" tannerfolk wrote: "I KNOW from EXPERIENCE that children need both a mother and a father."

Maybe your "experience" is too limited. Close friends of mine, lesbians who've been together 30 years, raised a son anyone would be proud to call their own. He's bright, articulate, self-sufficient, secure, loving and, oh, by the way, straight –– not that it matters. I personally know of several children raised in same-sex parent homes and most are balanced, open-minded, caring individuals. I also know of many, many children raised in male/female parent homes and more, rather than fewer, of those are messed up in a variety of ways.

You simply can't base decisions for an entire population on "your experience." "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:39 PM:

" hey tannerfold- if children need a mother and a father in order to be raised right......does that mean that single parents shouldnt be allowed to raise their own kids? what about families like mine where my mom died when there 2 out of the 3 of us kids were still teenagers.....according to your logic, my dad shouldn't be allowed to raise us because he doesn't have someone around to be our mother! i LOVE when people try to use that to justify discriminating against gay marriage! it makes NO sense! "

Rocketman wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:45 PM:

" You people are arguing points that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Marriage has been a tradition worldwide since the creation of man. Slavery was not a tradition, it was the enslavement of people. Apples and oranges!! We are talking about a union between a man and a woman, not the brutal treatment of slaves. A gay union should be a union, WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. That is all I am saying. Leave the history of marriage alone. There is no comparison to slavery which existed in the US about 200 years. AND it was NEVER readily accepted by all people like the tradition of marriage has been. "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:41 PM:

" rocketman, the tradition of marriage has actually many, many times throughout history. for instance, 14 year old girls were given to 20 and 30+ year old men in exchange for property or power.

another example: marriages used to be arranged by the parents.

marriage has changed many, many times throughout history and currently constitution makes no distinction of sexes or sexual orientation when it comes to marriage. why do you think ..... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:13 PM:

" Rocketman. Marriage has changed from place to place and time to time, so it isn't a tradition worldwide in it's modern form as some would like you to believe. But tradition by itself is not justification for denying equal status to a minority, even if it is tradition. The examples of how tradition has been used to justify harm and mistreatment are offered only to show how tradition can be destructive as well as beneficial. When a tradition is destructive, it needs to be adjusted or abandoned. And yes, tradition as well as a few select bible verses were used to continue slavery even after other parts of the world and country had rejected it. Much like the persecution of gay people continues today, with full equal rights in some countries and a couple of states, and persecution including imprisonment and death continues in a few remaining countries. "

sicksense wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:22 PM:

" My thought is that the ONLY thing we as humans base our opinions on is derived from our own personal experience. Studies, reports, scientific polls, etc. are just ways for us to strengthen what we already believe to be true. You cite a study that supports your opinion and someone else cites a different study that contradicts it. You believe your set of data because you want to believe it because it supports your already established opinion.

My personal experience with homosexuals and homosexual behavior indicates to me that it is a learned behavior and a chosen behavior. For a society to maintain itself homosexuality should be avoided or minimized. It should not be encouraged. This is my opinion based on my personal experiences. You cannot say my experiences are not valid just as I can't say the same about yours.

No study you can produce will change my mind on this (nor many others). I've read plenty of intellegent discourse on the subject and I believe the sources that support what I've already determined based upon my personal experiences. I don't believe that "studies" are unbiased. There is always an agenda. "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:09 PM:

" glad to see you have an open mind there sicksense....and the latest evidence, whether you like it or not, says it is not a learned behavior or choice.....btw...when did you choose to be heterosexual? "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:00 PM:

" sicksense- if homosexuality is a learned behavior, then why do animals display it? "

napascot wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:04 PM:

" sicksense,

that's quite a statement "No study you can produce will change my mind"

Do you do that with everything that you form an opinion on, regardless of what you are able to learn. I find that very sad.

What is a "learned behavior" is discrimination. That is what this prop boils down to. Some of you do not see it this way but hopefully you will take the time to educate yourselves. You were told somewhere along the way that homosexuality was wrong and heterosexuality was right and so now that is your opinion. You may never change your mind and for that I am sorry.

I would think it would hurt to have to carry that burden.........

I have yet to see someone answer the question, who believes that homosexualityis a choice, when you chose to be heterosexual "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 PM:

" Sicksense – your last post, regarding the idea that “you believe your set of data because you want to believe it,” hits on an interesting phenomenon. It’s called “framing,” and the basic idea is that each of us looks at the world through pre-defined mental “frames,” and we will hold onto the frame even if it conflicts with evidence. It seems that many people currently use a frame in which sexual orientation, and homosexuality specifically, is judged “moral” or “immoral.” This frame seems to be based, at least in part, on archaic biblical passages. So what we are seeing in action is people clinging to their archaic frames, in the face of convincing evidence that they are outdated.

For example, the American Psychological Association is very clear in its assessment of homosexuality: “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.” Furthermore, the APA has found that, “Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

So, sadly, despite the confirmation of “all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country,” many of our neighbors hold on to outdated and destructive stereotypes, and on the basis of these obsolete frames, perpetuate discrimination against our friends and families.

It will take more than education to change peoples’ minds. It will take a change of frame. And a change of heart. "

asahigo wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:01 AM:

" People get your facts straight.

The Human Genome Project has been completed for awhile now. There is no gene that makes you a homosexual. There is a gene that MAY predispose some males towards homosexuality, but it doesn't make them predetermined homosexuals. So all the bs about it being hardwired and that the poor homosexuals don't have a choice is ...well bs. They can choose to not be homosexuals if their will is strong enough. They are not forced into homosexuality because some gene tells them to.

Visit the actual HGP site and do your own research to read more.

With that said, I don't care if homosexuals can get "married" or not. I don't hate homosexuals, I prefer not to associate with them, but I don't hate them and will not deny them their right to marry another homosexual. "

hoozcryinow wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:14 AM:

" Rocketman wrote: " Marriage has been a tradition worldwide since the creation of man. Slavery was not a tradition, it was the enslavement of people...There is no comparison to slavery which existed in the US about 200 years." I beg to differ sir. Slavery has been around A LOT longer than a couple of hundred years in the U.S. It has been the 'tradition' in many cultures from the dawn of time as well. It wasn't invented with the settling of America and has not been limited to white domination of blacks. The tradition of marriage has been equally evolving, as should all societal practices evolve. As has been pointed out, marriage used to be more about dominance and property. Marriages were arranged(and still are in some parts of the world). Women became the property (i.e.; slaves) of the men they married. I am a married , white female with 2 children and 2 grandchildren. I am not frightened by gay marriage. Honestly, I never wonder about people and what they enjoy in bed or who they enjoy it with. It's, quite frankly, none of my business. MORALITY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED because it is like beauty, or pornagraphy or art - it is in the eye of the beholder. EQUALAITY should not be this hard, people. "

Northside Resident wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:37 AM:

" I wouldn't care if you called gay marriage "macaroni" if all the legal and civil rights were exactly the same as for straight couples. But that's not what the pro-8 people are for. They want to make sure gays are not granted full rights and you are naive if you think otherwise.
I remember a Gap ad years ago declaring the return of khakis. There were many pants I would hardly describe as khakis. And yet both the Gap and traditional khakis seem to be thriving. Go figure. "

rage against wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:03 AM:

" First off, we all choose to be sexually active. Other than someone who is physically forced into the act, every person makes the decision to have sex with another, or be with another in an intimate way.

With that understood, all of us live in an uncrotrollable, random world, where you could be born poor with an abusive father or mother, born rich with nothing but the best upbringing, or simply have any number of completely uncontrollable things happen to you. These enviornmental influences have direct impacts on the person/s (let's not leave out the mentally handiscapped) we become and the decisions we make.

There is also the matter of genetic predisposition. Some people are better at certain things than others, some people are worse, some people's hair is red, some black, some folks like the taste of broccolli others don't, some learn things very quickly, some like to eat a lot (like me).

With all of these factors contributing to our personalities and our ethical perception of the world, there will never be a way to determine why someone decides to kiss a guy instead of a girl, or a vice versa. No one seems to worry, and or quote biblical text when johnny chooses a blond over a brunette as his prom date.

The most important aspects of anyone's actions or personality is their ability to bestow mercy instead of anger, kindness instead of hate, laughter instead of tears (unless they are tears of laughter), reliabilty instead of falciousness, truth and justice.

Who we choose to be with intimately, and how we choose to show that union shouldn't matter this much. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:33 PM:

" GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote "sicksense- if homosexuality is a learned behavior, then why do animals display it?"

Animals have no morals. They basically do whatever feels good. Hopefully humans have evolved beyond that narrow viewpoint. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:41 PM:

" pharper wrote: "I don't have a problem with polygamy in the first place (and neither does the Bible..."
The Bible documents a few instances of polygamy in Old Testament times, but it did not make a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of it, nor was it a prevalent practice. It appears to have been limited to kings and rich patriarchs. However, the New Testament clearly teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:50 PM:

" Northside Resident wrote
" I wouldn't care if you called gay marriage "macaroni" if all the legal and civil rights were exactly the same as for straight couples. But that's not what the pro-8 people are for. They want to make sure gays are not granted full rights and you are naive if you think otherwise."

This is wrong on so many levels. Believe me, the anti-8 folks care deeply if we called their unions "macaroni" instead of marriage. That's what this whole fight is about, the definition of one word. In case you didn't know, California law since 2003 mandates that gay domestic partnerships have all the rights and privileges that traditional married folks have. Prop 8 had no bearing on that whatsoever. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 3, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Raven wrote: "I would wager the majority of people who voted yes on 8 would have a problem and if there were a measure to eliminate domestic partnership laws it would have large support."
I doubt that very much. For example, in 2006, Arizona, a state much less liberal than California, soundly defeated a proposition that would have forbidden civil unions and domestic partnerships, yet that same state voted in 2008 to ban gay marriage. This tells me that people in general believe in equality when it comes to actual benefits. "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:33 PM:

" busy afternoon for ya, JR...where to begin..

okay...while sexual behavior may be moderated by some sort of moral code....there are no morals in the biology of sex....

regarding the new and old testaments, again you pick and choose which parts are pertinent and which parts are not...and if you can do that, it isnt the rock solid moral compass you make the Bible out to be...

and again, domestic partnerships do not have the same rights...

and based on the posts here and the results of prop 8, I would count upon the good wishes of those who dislike homosexuality for any chance on equal benefits if given a chance to vote upon it. "

zist707 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:28 PM:

" who gets to decide what is socially acceptable or not? "

Napagrrl wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Rocketman said," You people are arguing points that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Marriage has been a tradition worldwide since the creation of man."

Um, what kind of wedding did Adam and Eve have? And let's talk about their kids. Eww! Yuck! Just WHERE did the children come from? "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:46 PM:

" and where did cain's wife come from? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:26 PM:

" Raven wrote: "regarding the new and old testaments, again you pick and choose which parts are pertinent and which parts are not...and if you can do that, it isnt the rock solid moral compass you make the Bible out to be..."

Tell me, do you insist on enforcing the parts of the Constitution that are modified or superseded by later Amendments? As for the Bible, it's just like the Constitution: the later parts modify or supersede some earlier parts.
What is so hard to understand about that?

"and again, domestic partnerships do not have the same rights..."

And again, enumerate all those missing rights. You can't. "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:31 AM:

" JR, enjoy yourself....you keep posting the same information and I keep refuting it...okay, when an amendment is passed, in in effect deletes the part of the constitution it changed, or it adds a whole new section, so either way, the earlier parts have no bearing once the amendment has passed, and one follows the most recent change. So, unless you are saying the new testament deletes parts of the old testament, you are still picking an choosing, and because your particular brand of christianity looks at the bible in that manner, does not mean all sects do, hence the unreliability of using it as a basis for law, esp upon those who do not belive as you do.

and re domestic partners, they do not have the same tax rights, they are not recognized outside this state and companies are not required to treat them the same as they do married couples, in ways ranging from benefits to life insurance rates. "

csmingus wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:29 AM:

" Kristen I whole-heartedly applaud you for taking a stance. After reading everyone's comments I just find it incredible laughable the typical narrow-mindedness of some of Napa's residents; as exampled by the commits to this news article.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that State constitutions are designed to protect its citizens, and not discriminate. And while thinking about that, remember it was only a couple decades ago that Blacks and Caucasians could not legally marry. Can one generation already forget that?

This country was founded on the separation of Church and State in the belief that everyone is equal and has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Compounding false ideals into beliefs, such as allowing polygamoy or beastiality is truly absurd; those are generally ethical questions that the general public know are not accepted.

Marriage and Civil Unions may offer the same rights but it is only to an extent and when it comes to the core marriage is a universally recognized term, not civil unions. Would you settle for just second best?

And as to all the proponents who always state that allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry would erode the sanctity of marriage, please think about this, if marriage is so vastly important to you then why is your divorce rate so high?

The quiet voice will never change the world and when it comes to civil rights, then you should stand up against the others. Isn't that what the Revolutionary War or the Civil Rights movement was all about? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Raven wrote: "you are saying the new testament deletes parts of the old testament..."
You are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying the New Testament modifies or supersedes parts of the Old Testament, in the same manner that the Amendments to the Constitution modify or supersede some of its original content. It doesn't make the Constitution or the Bible any less reliable or less authoritative.

"domestic partners, they do not have the same tax rights, they are not recognized outside this state and companies are not required to treat them the same as they do married couples, in ways ranging from benefits to life insurance rates."
And again, explain how Prop 8 affects any of that? "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:37 PM:

" JR, just trying to see what parts you follow and what parts you don't....is there a list somewhere and to you always ignore those parts or is does it change based upon the situation? "

Rocketman wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:54 PM:

" .....lost cause.....no real common sense occuring with the opponents of prop 8. "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:28 PM:

" if it is a lost cause, why so much by the yes on prop 8 folks...? "

ReneeFannin wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Comparing gay marriage with doing drugs and bestiality is so far off target. As are the people who believe that their propositions and sad arguments to try to marginalize a group of people will actually work. to keep gay people and our marriages invisible. 52% of people in this great State knew right from wrong. What they fail to recognize is that all of the arguments, all of the propositions cannot take us out of society. Our children will still go to school with yours. We will still go to church with you and we will still live in the home next door. We are here. We are a psrt of your society. We are married with or without our civil rights. Marriage is an institution of God. Many of us have been married and will continue to be married by God. 18,000 of us also have our civil marriage rights. You have done very little to change society with your silly legislation. We aren't going away. Call it whining. Call it activism. Call it whatever you want, but you will see lots more of it. That Proposition attacked what we hold dear as Americans: Our Civil Rights. We will not stop until we are equal in the eyes of the law. In the meantime, we still have our "marriage".- Just not the civil rights that go along with it. "

lonesome moderate wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:17 AM:

" This opinion piece, and even more most of the comments that follow, is a perfect distillation of why the no-on-8 people lost my vote (I left it blank). I don't really understand why gay marriage is a big deal one way or the other, but I was ready to give the gays my vote. All I needed was to hear a message of "gay marriage will make California a better place because X".

Never happened. All I heard was an endless litany of smugness, arrogance, and contempt for religion and middle America. The messages I heard during the campaign were all about "how can you vote to take this away", "how can you be on the wrong side of history?", "how can you be so ignorant?". Yuck.

The yes-on-8 people ran a smart, savvy, campaign with a much more positive message than the other side. Ultimately, they even wound up sounding more inclusive, thanks to the no-on-8 side's open contempt for anyone who would consider voting against them. Hint: if you want someone's vote, you should ASK for it. Nicely, if possible. "

Fire Mike wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Lonesome moderate – You chose an interesting way to look at your decision in voting on Prop 8 when you waited to hear that, “gay marriage will make California a better place because X". Suppose you had looked at the proposition by asking the Yes-on-8 crowd to fill in this blank: “Gays in California should not be treated equally under the law because . . . .” To my mind, when one group is proposing to deny rights to a minority, that group has the burden of trying to explain why denying those rights would be a good idea. To this day, the Yes-on-8 group has yet to provide a single rational reason to deny gays the right to marry. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:15 PM:

" lonesome moderate wrote: "if you want someone's vote, you should ASK for it. Nicely, if possible."
Agreed. About all that the anti-8 ads did was to get the pro-8 side angry enough to get off their duffs.

The current wailing about "you took our rights away" is not resonating either. They make it sound like some eternal birthright was taken away instead of a faulty ruling that only lasted a lousy four months. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Raven wrote: "is there a list somewhere and to you always ignore those parts or is does it change based upon the situation? "

Become a Bible scholar or join any of the mainstream Christian churches and you'll learn which parts of the OT are superseded by NT teachings "

John Richards wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:30 PM:

" ReneeFannin wrote: "That Proposition attacked what we hold dear as Americans: Our Civil Rights."

Please list all of the civil rights you lost as a result of Prop 8. The fact is, the one and only 'right' was to be able to call a gay union 'marriage'. Whether gay marriage truly is a civil right or not remains to be adjudicated. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't think so (see Baker v. Nelson), and I am confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8. So, tell me again about all those ficticious lost civil rights? "

cedwardswine wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Kristen,

Thank you. Concise, hearfelt and honest thank you so much for taking a higher road we all can learn from toward equality for all.

Chris Edwards. "

Raven wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:09 PM:

" JR, again you avoid the question...if each Christian sect picks and chooses between what parts of the bible they adhere to, how can you ask anyone to adhere to it who does not follow that sects beliefs...if Christians cannot agree among themselves as to what the bible says and what parts to follows, so again, why should anyone who is not accept it as a moral compass in stripping away rights from your friends and neighbors.

and the court didn't decide anything in baker, it declined to hear the case and the court addresses homosexuality again in 2003, striking down laws against homosexuality in Texas.

and when was the last time anyone maintained anyone's civil rights because people were asked nicely? "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:15 PM:

" John Richards: This is an opinion page. It is my opinion that gay marriage is a civil right which has been lost. The California Supreme Court will NOT uphold Prop 8. Law firms have been working on this since before the election. The California Supreme Court will act in favor of gay marriage.
I believe that ReneeFannin was saying that once one civil right is lost it puts all civil rights in peril. The only way to enjoy our civil rights is to protect them vigorously, employ judicious men to oversee them, and not imply that any of them have less importance than another.
On another note, remember, the bible also says it's o.k. to sell your daughter into slavery and to stone your wife. Keep your bible out of the Constitution. Your Christian-thinking legislators are Christian when it serves them to be Christian. Think of the scandals this year among our legislators. The cheat on their wives but go to church on Sunday. What a dishonorable group.
But legislators will not be working on Prop. 8. The judiciary will examine its implications and decide its merits. It will be held accountable to the Constitution of this state. Will it stand up? Probably not. The judiciary doesn't have to worry about your Christian vote. They are pledged to uphold the Constitution without the help of the electorate who sometimes forget the ideals of this country.
BTW, anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice doesn't really know any homosexuals. That is an outdated concept that has been scientifcally proven wrong. Google it and learn. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:22 AM:

" Raven wrote: "if each Christian sect picks and chooses between what parts of the bible they adhere to, how can you ask anyone to adhere to it who does not follow that sects beliefs..."

I don't speak for the sects, and I really don't care what they believe. However, mainstream Christianity is pretty much in agreement as to what the New Testament teaches.
Also, I'm not asking non-Christians to adhere to what I believe. That's everyone's personal decision. What I'm saying is that mainstream Christians know what the Bible teaches, and they should be free to use that belief as guidance for their moral compass. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:34 AM:

" alucawanza wrote "It is my opinion that gay marriage is a civil right which has been lost. The California Supreme Court will NOT uphold Prop 8."

Let me do the math for you.
Three justices opposed the May 15 ruling. We can safely assume that those three will uphold Prop 8. When the Court agreed to take on the question of Prop 8 constitutionality, the vote was 6-1. The lone dissenter was Justice Kennard, who originally voted in favor of gay marriage. Insiders say that Justice Kennard is so convinced of Prop 8's constitutionality that she does not even deem the question worthy of review.
3+1= 4 votes minimum to uphold Prop 8. Any questions on my math? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:40 AM:

" alucawanza wrote: "the bible also says it's o.k. to sell your daughter into slavery and to stone your wife."

Become a Bible scholar or join any of the mainstream Christian churches and you'll learn which parts of the OT are superseded by NT teachings, in the same manner as parts of the original Constitution are superseded by newer Amendments. "

Raven wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:38 AM:

" JR when you use the Bible as a basis for stripping away that right, you are asking non-christians to follow your beliefs. And I sure there are sects among the christians that will just as dismissive of your brand of christianity as you are of theirs. Course I am not a Bible scholar so i and all the other non-scholars probably don't understand the complexities involved. (BTW, show me in the New testament where it says what portions of the old testament it supersedes, I can figure that out with the constitution without having to be a scholar) And court observers will tell you to never count a courts decision before it is made and if it does go against the no on prop 8 forces, it just means there will be a ballot measures in 2010. So relax and enjoy the ride. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 2:28 PM:

" Raven wrote: "show me in the New testament where it says what portions of the old testament it supersedes..."

For example, read Acts 15:19-29, and it indicates that virtually all Jewish laws are not applicable to non-Jewish Christians. NT theologians deduce from this passage that unless an OT requirement is restated in the NT, it is no longer a requirement. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Raven wrote: "" JR when you use the Bible as a basis for stripping away that right, you are asking non-christians to follow your beliefs."

I don't follow your leap of logic. First of all, I'm not asking anyone to follow my beliefs. Secondly, it doesn't matter what my motivation is. I get one vote, you get one vote, it's as simple as that, no questions asked. "

Raven wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:19 PM:

" yes you are, JR, when you voted to strip away the right to marry - you don't get the luxury of removing the effect from the cause. And again JR, show unanimity among christians ... your particular sect believes that way, not all. And that is a matter of faith, not law, which we can rely upon to spell out exactly which portions are affected by any amendments. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:41 PM:

" Raven, look up the definition of 'sect'. It does not fit the meaning of mainstream Christian denominations. The mainstream Christian churches have remarkably similar interpretations of the Bible. "

Raven wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:40 AM:

" one man's sect is another's mainstream...i doubt if any members of a sect think they are out of the mainstream JR....and JR each church has their own interpretation, why6 else have different churchs if they all agreed? "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:47 PM:

" For example, read Acts 15:19-29, and it indicates that virtually all Jewish laws are not applicable to non-Jewish Christians. NT theologians deduce from this passage that unless an OT requirement is restated in the NT, it is no longer a requirement. "

Therefore, JR, why read the OT? Are the ten commandments restated in the NT? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:49 PM:

" alucawanza wrote: "why read the OT? Are the ten commandments restated in the NT?"

The OT is valuable for its historic background information on the Jewish patriarchs and the development of the nation of Israel, and also contains many prophetic passages that point to the Messiah.
Yes, the Ten Commandments are invoked in the NT. The information is too voluminous to reproduce here, but just Google on "ten commandments in new testament". "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:55 PM:

" Raven, I'm not going to dignify your stubborn refusal to see the difference between minor sects and mainstream churches with further debate on this topic. "

Raven wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:24 AM:

" don't bother to JR .... but again, you may classify a group as a sect but it members may not see it that way, as Christianity is not this monolith of identical though you would present it to be. So not debating it is your choice...enjoy the day "

napaoldguy wrote on Dec 12, 2008 12:49 PM:

" GET OVER IT THE MAJORITY HAS SPOKEN "YES ON 8" "

Raven wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:22 PM:

" no need to shout ... and just because the majority has spoken doesn't mean their speech was legal or constitutional "

Paddy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:19 AM:

" If the courts overturn the Proposition 8 majority it will then open the door the other obvious ‘rights’ that have been trod on as well. Polygamy is the most obvious but the definition of pedophilia will also be scrutinized: what is the definition of under age, eighteen? Why not seventeen, sixteen or fifteen? The age that has defined adulthood has ranged from 21 to 18 but is now predominantly 18. Why not continue to lower that age? Any girl beginning to menstruate has become, naturally, able to procreate. That should make her capable of determining when and with whom she wants to begin a family.

We’ve already taken a step through that door by striking down Proposition 4. We’ve made the family less of an entity in controlling our own children’s sexual practices and assisting in the recovery when bad decisions have been made. Why not legally eliminate parent’s rights completely beyond a certain age and allow girls and boys be able to make choices on their own? They are being given these rights anyway, one law at at time. "

Raven wrote on Dec 13, 2008 2:09 PM:

" actually depending upon the state paddy, people can marry as young as 14...and btw, at 18 we have removed the parents right to decide...but I fail to see what parent's right to decide anything have to do with two consenting, legal adults being allowed to marry...

not bad...how many posts has it been since the last time polygamy and pedophilia have been brought up? "

Paddy wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:51 AM:

" Raven - I have no idea how many posts it's been. You're the moderator here apparently, tell me. If so many have brought polygamy and pedophelia up in discussion of Prop 8 and other's rights I guess they're valid points and must be considered when determining what the boundries are.

If the rights of parents can be minimized without concern than why not the rights of any other adult? "

Raven wrote on Dec 14, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Paddy, we are talking about legal consenting adults and if you are an adult, legally, then your parents have no rights over you.

And the polygamy and pedophilia seem to be an obsession of the yes on prop 8, but that doesnt make them valid arguments regarding same sex marriage, they are simply distractions.
Keep bringing them up but each time it weakens your argument by showing you don't have logical and rational reasons for your opposition and want to change the subject.

The issues is again, the right of same sex couples, a right recognized by the courts, to marry. "

sicksense wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Paddy posted a well thought out set of comments. Raven, you seem to not understand how one brick is the beginning of a foundation to something substantial...or maybe you understand very well.

Paddy's points make perfect sense but Raven seems to not be able to comprehend what a slippery slope really is. Logically, catering to polygamists is the next step in the process and yes, redefining what an adult is would be next in line so that pedophilia can finally be accepted as legitimate and normal.

Of course those wanting a three-way or four-way or more-way marriage would have some precedence to fight for their rights also. It’s inevitable. Arguing that is disingenuous or naïve. They are consenting adults! Why can’t they do what they want?! We’re in a society, not an anarchy. Everyone can’t have their way. We have to work as a group to further the society. A line has been drawn by society. Some won’t like where but we can’t please everyone.

Homosexuals must learn to accept that their choice isn’t the best choice for our society and just settle for equal state rights without the moral acceptance. "

Raven wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:50 PM:

"

That is all that is being asked for sicksense...equal rights...what I understand is the issue at hand is equal rights for same sex couples....some people will never accept homosexuality the same way some will never accept interracial marriage....

as for the slippery slope, look at the places where same sex marriage is legal.....do you see a sudden demand for equal rights for polygamists or pedophiles....no, those are merely arguments that get thrown in as i said where there is a lack of rational, logical reasoning for denying same sex couple the same rights as heterosexual couples. "

pharper wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Exactly, sicksense. The key term there is CONSENTING ADULTS.

Quick question: In Massachusetts (or any other countries, such as Spain), since same sex marriage was legalized, have there been any significant cases that attempt to lower the age of consent? Has polygamy been legalized? Are people now allowed to marry inanimate objects or their siblings? I think you'll find that the answer is a very resounding no. The whole "slippery slope" idea is a red herring intended to direct people's attention away from the real issue - TWO consenting ADULTS who want to enter into marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.

Paddy, I’d also like to point out that this was the THIRD time Prop 4 or a variation of it was on the ballot. Unlike with Proposition 8, the majority (who voted against it) has not weakened or become more inclined towards it. "

pharper wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:46 PM:

" As far as the homosexual "choice" - I guess I can't convince anyone that it isn't a choice, because despite scientific evidence, despite testimonial from actual gay people, and despite common sense, people continue to believe that people choose to be homosexual. I would seriously advise the Prop 8 supporters who call homosexuality a choice to quit living by ancient notions, and step into the 21st century, where science can give us answers to many previously unsolvable mysteries.

Other than that, I can do nothing than hope that my generation is more interested in fact than assumption. "

sicksense wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:10 PM:

" I've read/seen scientific evidence and testimonials from actual transformed homosexuals that indicates it is indeed a choice. Which one of us will ignore what we've read/seen and jump over to the other side? You? Not me. "

sicksense wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Two consenting adults, three, five. Hey who cares? I can't argue with someone who hasn't a clue about consequences. My guess is that you're not married and haven't any children.

People practicing homosexual behavior have equal state rights. You are haranguing about the definition of a word being changed to allow sexual deviants to feel better about themselves. They never will. What they practice is self destruction.

The "ancient notions" I guess you're referring to aren't that ancient. Perhaps you are very young and don't know any better. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 14, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Raven - I understand a child becomes an adult, legally, at the age of eighteen....I do not hear the same arguements against the No on 4 vote as I do on the Yes on 8 vote. As the yesers point out it's the right of the adult to marry. Using that logic it should be the right of the adult parent to determine what is best for their MINOR child(ren). If they do not have that right than what is to say a child shouldn't have the ability to have a sexual relationship with anyone they choose without regard of parent or law?

Pharper - if homosexuality is not a choice but a natural predisposition, why wouldn't pedophilia be considered tthe same. What makes me angry is you all want to use an argument to support your point of view but refuse to acknowledge the same arguement can be made for pedophilia and other very unsavory realities. "

pharper wrote on Dec 14, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Those “transformed homosexuals" are very deeply in denial. I'd advise you to look up the information about the detrimental effects on a person who goes through one of those programs. I can't remember which American health organization(s) spoke out against them. I'm sure you could find it if you looked it up. Far more science supports the fact that homosexuality is not a choice than that it is. Most importantly, that science comes from objective sources, not religiously-affiliated doctors with something to prove.


Like I’ve said before, the only problems I have with polygamy are if children are involved (as we’ve seen in recent cases) or if the state is expected to support polygamist families because the man (or woman) with several spouses has gotten in over his head.


And…self-destruction? In what way, exactly? If that remark refers to your religion, then that’s kind of up in the air, isn’t it? I like the bumper sticker I saw recently—“I’m a militant agnostic – you don’t know, and I don’t either.” I think most homosexuals are about as happy with themselves as most heterosexuals are. I don’t know a single gay person who is out there looking for “approval” from people like you. I especially don’t think any gay person feels a need for your permission to be gay. Thanks for the thought, though.


Pedophilia is a natural predisposition. The difference is, pedophilia has a victim - children. Homosexuality has no victims, least of all straight ones. Pedophilia is vile, and hurts other people. Homosexuality hurts no one, including you. If your marriage feels threatened by the right of homosexuals to marry, there was something wrong with your marriage to begin with. "

pharper wrote on Dec 14, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I think my being young helps me understand this issue better, actually. Most people of my generation (I’m a senior in high school) are pretty accepting of differences, as you’ll see by the ever-growing percentage of people in favor of gay marriage in California. "

sicksense wrote on Dec 14, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Ok pharper I understand now. Your last posts have explained so much to me. "

pharper wrote on Dec 14, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Sarcasm translates poorly over the internet. I have to assume that you're only saying that because you have no form of rebuttal, for which I guess I should be glad. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, but I'm hoping I can at least help some people understand.

Equal rights. That's the bottom line here. Either gay people are equal citizens (and deserve all the rights as such) or they are not. It's really that simple. "

Raven wrote on Dec 14, 2008 7:35 PM:

" Paddy, the age at which one becomes a legal adult is determined by society as the age at which he becomes legally responsible for himself. For most things that age has been determined to be 18. A child, being a child...cannot consent...if they can, they are legally an adult. And a parent's right over a minor child are not absolute. Society has determined it is the best interest of the child to not allow parents to make decisions that harm the child. But you know that I would wager. "

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:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy