Separate and not equal | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Separate and not equal

Monday, December 29, 2008

Comment

Dear editor,

Victims of Prop 8 are being accused of having “sour grapes.” We should be content with domestic partnerships, we are told. We should accept the disposition of 51 percent of the state’s voter population, who are clearly not comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage.

Do you know what makes me uncomfortable?

1) In a country founded on the separation of church and state, objections fueled by religious beliefs were allowed to alter the state constitution. Marriage is a civil right, transcending religious differences and definitions; it is not church property.

2) The California Supreme Court, created to impartially legislate ethical issues, granted me the right to marry, then permitted this right to be taken away by a popular vote.

3) Churches that sanction polygamy and harbor pedophiles are passing judgment on gay marriage.

4) At the time of this writing, my only option for legal union is a domestic partnership, which offers me no federal rights at all. I have no exemption from estate taxes and no tax-free transfer of ownership. As a non-family member, I have no legal right to be included in my partner’s employer’s health plan. Nor do I have any decision-making rights, even when my partner is hospitalized.

5) I am a gay citizen in a country that employs such policies as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. I am somehow expected to find this acceptable.

6) Children of same sex parents continue to be marginalized and humiliated by a society that refuses to allow their parents the right to marry. As long as this discrimination continues, so will hate, intolerance and ignorance.

“Just don’t call it marriage,” one woman recently wrote, chiding gay couples for their audacity in wanting to wed.

To which all I can say is, “Just don’t call it equality.”

Jean Ryan

Napa

62 comment(s)

Farmgirl wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Why is this opinion being printed again? Especially since none of my opinions were considered worthy of the register critics to be printed. Too politically incorrect, I guess! "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:32 AM:

" Well Said...

~Ruff "

Paddy wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Here we go again....let me address each point.
1) It is not so much a religious issue as it is a moral issue. Fortunately, most traditional religions around the world still regard morality (sodomy is not moral) as an important facet to living a godly life. Again, it's not necessarily a religious issue.
2) In a 4-3 vote a few humans on the state supreme court that fortunately millions of us were able to correct in yet another vote by a majority in ensuring a tradition that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years remained intact.

3) The only churches that might "sanction polygamy and harbor pedophiles" are the same churches allowing gays to marry.

4 and 5) You can move to a state that permits gay marriage. There are a few states that have lost their moral compass. You whine about demanding we, the majority, accept immoral behavior but it's not fair that we, the majority prefer a to keep your sexual preferences and the bedroom out of our lives.

6) Children of same sex parents have nobody but their parents to blame for how they may be treated. The hate, intolerance and ignorance is coming from you and the NO crowd who don't understand that this world lives to a higher standard, and that morality forms the base for how we should live. I know that's a foreign concept to you. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:11 AM:

" >>>Jean>>>>
I have another options....call it gay unions...civil unions.....same gender unions....anything but Marriage.... "

freeport56 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Jean-

1. our country was founded on freedom of religous beliefs. religous are core\foundational beliefs of 65%+ of the people of this country

2. Courts do not legislate and do not deal with ethics. The courts deal exclusively with the law.

3. i know of no church that condones polygamy, and as for the Catholic Church and the actions of some of it's priests(sp), they have paid dearly.

A majority of californians through a legal process of changing the law have stated their will. The courts and our state legislature are servents to the will of the people. Remember the opening line of the Constitution, "We the People", it is our will that creates and changes the law.

Civilian unions in California give the rights you list above. as these rights are granted by the state their is no Federal acceptance, marriage is a stste by state issue.

You fail to see, or more to the point, do not wish to acknowledge that our objection to "gay marriage" is the redefining of the term marriage. it has for thousands of years been between a man and a woman. I as many other Californians do believe that to be sacred. The more we are forced to accepted what you want, the less likely it will happen. "

JimClark wrote on Dec 29, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Mr. or Ms. Ryan:
Your focus on religion seems to be your emphasis on this issue. Historically homosexuality has been considered a defect in human character. The Romans where not Christians and they found homosexuality an character disorder. Until the mid-end of our last century the Medical profession considered homosexuality a character disorder until politics infected them and so many other professions and institutions.

You have the right to make you choices but it does not allow some nebulous Constitutional “right” to be recognized for what you choose to be.

The past two Propositions have continued to be the Will of The People. It exists well within The Constitution and no Judge should be altering the will of The People.
Equality? Please define that which makes you “unequal”? You are free to be who/what you choose. If you choose to be some kind of victim, that is your personal problem. "

crusherfan wrote on Dec 29, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Didnt gay marriage get voted down, then made legal by the state overturning the vote, then voted down again for a second time.I could really care less but am tired of hearing about it.The voters have spoken...Twice "

pharper wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:12 PM:

" We've been through this, JR. Homosexuality is not a choice. Science (and every mainstream medical association in America) has found homosexuality to be a normal, healthy sexuality and NOT a mental disorder, and that's based on research, not politics. Unless you plan on accusing the entire American medical community of being "lefties"...? "

pharper wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Oh, Paddy, I'd forgotten all that "sins of the fathers" stuff. Thanks for reminding me. I guess since a child's parents are gay, it makes it okay to tease them or alienate them. Thanks for clearing that up for me. "

Raven wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:39 PM:

" okay...for those who have missed this before...

California's court found the section one of the state constitution gave all people that right ... And two later decisions by the court - Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, (this is for you Paddy) moral disapproval of homosexuals and their relationships, without more, is insufficient to justify discriminatory treatment. And because same-sex marriages cause no objective harm, arguments about “protecting traditional marriage” are more rhetoric than substance. As Justice Scalia acknowledged in his Lawrence dissent, “ ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

as for the votes....again, it doesn't matter how many people vote for something, if the measure is unconstitutional, the court has a duty and obligation to strike it down....as the did with Prop 22 and hopefully with Prop 8.

as far as polygamy is concerned, the FLDS has it as one of it's tenets, but more importantly, has nothing to do with same sex marriage....another smokescreen tossed out to obscure the issue, like bringing pedophilia into the argument.

and again, our country was founded on secular principles, by a group of deists who wanted the power to the church and religion to be held in check.

regarding ethics....what is ethical about denying some equal rights because you dislike them? As for what the medical profession used to think Jim, they don't any more and haven't for decades, get used to it. and Jim, how would you define equality... I define it has have the same rights as my neighbors and in particular for one to marry the legal, consenting adult of their choice. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:11 PM:

" Paddy:
Here are coherent responses to your numbered talking points:
1. We are concerned with legality. Morality is not the same for all folks. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is moral. Sodomy is practiced by heterosexuals too. So what! Sodomy is not immoral. It's just another expression of sexuality between two consenting adults.

2. Tradition is not a basis for legality. The Constiution is that basis.

3. Try to have a gay wedding in a Catholic Church...Good Luck. That's where the pedophiles hide behind clerical garb. Creeps.

4. Gay married people do not want to be in your life if you don't want them there. They aren't coming for Christmas dinner unless you invite them. This doesn't affect your personal life at all. Do you bring heterosexual friends into your bedroom and life? I don't get the point you're making here.
No one wants your company if it isn't reciprocated. You won't lose your right to privacy.

5. That's not a whine you here. It's a demand for equal rights under the law. The majority cannot vote for a law that imposes unequal rights on a minority. That's why we live in this republic. The Supreme Court will decide if a passed law is Constitutional. This one isn't. Soon we will see the Supreme Court doing its work as it should. The is a legal matter.

6. Foreign concept?? Do you instruct your children to be rude and mean to children of gay couples? What would your God say about that? Hate and intolerance is oozing out of your post. Shame on you... "

Big John wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:09 PM:

" Are you people kidding me? Wasn't it voted on 4 years ago and lost by a 62-38 vote? Then this time 52-48? When the early polls showed the "nos" winning there was no complaint of it being unconstitutional. Now that they have lost they scream bloody murder! HELP, HELP Supreme Court of California...come save us! Take a hike and go to a place that wants to accept what 7 judges interpret what they want the laws to say. Stop your crying and live with it or move out of the state! "

justnana wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:27 PM:

" Well said, alucawanza! #3 was a good one... Mormons and Catholics performing gay marriage! Hilarious! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:56 PM:

" Since this is a reprint of Sunday's Letter to the Editor, I might as well reprint my comments to it. Incidentally, it was not a 51% majority, but 52.3%.

1. Gay marriage is not a civil right. The federal government and 47 other states have already spoken otherwise on the status of gay 'marriage'.

2. California's Supreme Court made a 4-3 mistake on May 15. Courts have been wrong before. I believe they have now seen the error of their ways and will vote to uphold Prop 8.

3. Their are some bad people in any organization, including churches. That does not negate the good moral principles that guide most churches.

4. Federal benefits for domestic partners has noting to do with Prop 8.

5. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act are good policies, supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

6. The first act of humiliation that such adopted children face is not being adopted by a traditional family. Society is not going to alter its values just to shield a few children from harsh realities. Do we tell a crippled child, "If you try hard enough, you can win this foot race"? No, that would be cruel. Then why pretend that a same-sex union provides as good an upbringing for children as a traditional father and mother would? "

JimClark wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Raven: For the most part I agree with you. Tour definition of equality has a few holes in it but it won't sink the ship.
e·qual (“kw…l) adj. Abbr. eq. 1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another. This definition brings about several questions. I must consider citizens such as victims of head injuries are they less equal than when they were “normal”? The Developmentally Disabled; are they held as equal? Many find them distasteful where those who provide them with care come to love them and genuinely miss them upon retirement.
I realize that some may find these comparisons offensive; however, one must see some comparison in the treatment of certain conditions be they from birth, injury or by personal choice. The freedom to chose is our Right as Americans yet what some choose may not fit the human character. Though the diagnosis of homosexuality no longer appears in The Diagnostic & Statistic Manual as a personality disorder, there are those of us who continue to see it as such. Do we not have the right to say so; all things being equal that is? "

Raven wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Is that your answer to anyone who uses their rights, Big John.....if you don't like it move out? Would you be so reticent if one of your rights have been removed by a simple vote...I don't think so
Jim, you can say you don't believe what the medical profession has said for decades now all you want, but it doesn't give you the right to impose your opinion to remove another's basic civil rights....and yes, both are considered equal under the law and can exercise their right to marry...Jim

And JR, your 52.3 majority was down from 61 for prop 22, as for your other points...every time you throw them out there they get refute for the mistruths they are.

The courts have said over and over again, all people have a basic civil right to marry....you may not like what the CA high court said, but a mistake?....they did their job...

The US supreme court has said in their two latest rulings on the subject that just because your 'morals' may lead you to disapprove, it is not justification for discrimination....

Don't ask, don't tell has been a disaster, forcing out highly qualififed troops at a time of manpower shortages and has been used a s tool to get rid of people who other don't like...it shifts the burden of proof to the accused in of the accuser and the defense of marriage act flies in the face of the constitutions full faith clause but has yet to be tested

Domestic partnerships do not provide all the rights that marriage does, if a company offer benefits to a married couple, for example, they are not required to offer those same benefits to domestic partners....

Dragging crippled children into the argument, a new low...jeezzzz "

pharper wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:43 PM:

" Oooooh, JR, you're right. Absolutely right. I mean, after all, you and a lot of other people disregard modern science and "still see homosexuality as a personality disorder." I'd forgotten that we cater to people who ignore all evidence, science, and fact based solely on the teachings of an ancient book and religious principles. I'm sure you have every right to believe homosexuality is a personality disorder, but it doesn't make you less wrong - ask any major medical association in the country. "

hospitality24 wrote on Dec 31, 2008 3:42 AM:

" I know your not gonna print this and I dont' care... I'm sick and tired of prop 8 ALWAYS being in our news. THIS IS NOT NEW NEWS!!! IT's OLD and belongs in the past.!!! And Farmgirl is right the paper is completely bias and only allowed the blogs that go along with their poltical beliefs. If this keeps happening i'm going to cancel my subscription and never log on to this website.... "

Raven wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:54 AM:

" so, let's see, the Register is biased against those who oppose same sex marriage, doesn't let them post but let's your post, hosp, and Farmgirl's, and JR's, and JimClark's, among others, go through, is that what you are saying? "

Tim wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:22 AM:

" pharper wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:12 PM:

"Homosexuality is not a choice. Science (and every mainstream medical association in America) has found homosexuality to be a normal, healthy sexuality and NOT a mental disorder, and that's based on research, not politics.

Not True....

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Factors other than it's "genetics" or "they are born that way" come into play...choice is one of them. "

winewoman wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Uh, I'm a no-on-8er and have had countless posts not printed. Don't dog on the NVR - they're listening to the public - this is what people are talking about. This is a forum for dialogue, debate and conversation. I'm finding that debate is becoming a lost art - with bloggers insulting and degrading opinions that oppose theirs. Not cool. Think back to high school and college debate class, people. Hospitality, you don't have to participate - but there are alot of other people out there - and this is what they're talking about. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Tim. Nothing you posted contradicts anything pharper has stated. She didn't say it was genetic, just that it isn't a choice. Here is the quote she was paraphrasing. The American Psychological Association 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.”

Nothing in there says it is genetic, and in fact as you pointed out..."Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."
That still does not make it a choice, or doesn't mean you aren't born that way, as it still involves the biological component.

Another APA quote: “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.”

So for people on the ends of that continuum, there is no choice, while for some between the two ends, it is possible to control your behavior if not your feelings and still live a happy life. But for people toward and on either end, there is no choice if you want to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People cannot be easily fit into boxes. Life is messy and difficult. The law shouldn't be used to make it harder for those we don't understand. "

pharper wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Oh, Tim. Your smokescreens are just so interesting to read.

I never said it was genetic. In fact, I never claimed that members of the scientific community said it was genetic. I did not say a single thing about genes being a factor in a person's sexuality. I did, however, say that it is something people are born with.

Think of it this way - lots of people are born with a sense of humor. No one knows why this is - there is not, after all, a gene for a sense of humor. However, there's no disputing that these people are born with theirs, just as some people are not.

There may not be a gay gene. I am not a biologist, and I can't speculate on that aspect. I can, however, often a very simple test - ask someone who's gay if they chose to be. You can cite all the little odd references you want ("well, my BEST FRIEND IN THE WHOLE WORLD IS GAY, and he said he CHOSE to be) but the reality is that 99% of people will tell you that being gay was not a choice for them.

And please don't go on about "sexual deviance" or any of that nonsense. I do know for a fact that the American medical community almost unanimously agrees that homosexuality is normal and healthy - and since it doesn't involve a victim, it's not a "sickness."

Ya might want to read more carefully before you try to refute a point. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Tim
Homosexuality is not a choice. Did you wake up one day and decide to be a heterosexual??? When did you make your choice?
Gay men, who I know, tell me that they knew they were gay when they were little boys.
It's as normal and natural as heterosexuality. We're all just human beings doing the best we can with what we're born with.
Ask yourself this Tim: With all the hate and malice directed toward gay people, why would anyone "choose" this life style? And again: When did you choose??? "

Tim wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:14 PM:

" pharper wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:12 PM:
Homosexuality is not a choice.

pharper wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:30 PM:
I never said it was genetic.

I find it fascinating that you do not see the ambiguity in your statements.

If homosexuality is not a choice then that would mean they are born that way which means it is genetic....so you are saying it is genetic in nature.

I would love to see your empirical evidence that shows people are born with and without a sense of humor....and your likening that to being born gay is both weak and laughable.

Dr. Simon LeVay who is gay and written two books on the subject differs with your opinion.
He says:"I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I DIDN'T SHOW THAT GAY MEN ARE BORN THAT WAY, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

Homosexual philosopher Camille Paglia is quite blunt in her assessment of the "born gay" theory: "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. ..."

Dr. Simon LeVay continues:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role. genetic, hormonal, psychological, and social.

So pharper if you want to say renowned researchers such as Dr. Simon LaVay and Dr. Dean Hamer (who are both gay) are "little odd references"...well hey, whatever blows your hair sideways.

Clear evidence shows that many factors are in involved...including social behavior. "

Tim wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:32 PM:

" pharper wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:30 PM: "the American medical community almost unanimously agrees that homosexuality is normal and healthy".

You have written that several times..please expand your thoughts on the "Healthy" aspect of homosexuality, because in my research it seems to be unhealthy unfortunately both mentally and physically.

In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

Four recent, well-designed studies have found that homosexual males have significantly higher rates of psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, and suicidal ideation than the general public.

I'm sure you will insist that all these problems are caused by society's negative attitudes, but the problems are just as prevalent in extremely tolerant countries, such as the Netherlands and New Zealand as well as Denmark.

so please explain what you mean by healthy. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:35 PM:

" alucawanza wrote: "With all the hate and malice directed toward gay people, why would anyone "choose" this life style?"

Then you tell me why alcoholics choose to drink until they die from cirrhosis; why do smokers smoke to the point of dying from lung cancer? There is plenty of negative feedback directed to those people also. Perhaps gay people know it is wrong, but just like alcoholics and smokers they can't help themselves. "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:22 AM:

" so now, homosexuality is like an addiction? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Tim. While the laws in those countries are tolerant, that does not mean all of the people are. Gay people are still beaten and killed in those countries simply for being gay. Some churches continue to preach hate and intolerance. Some are still rejected by parents, family, friends, and coworkers. So, yes, the higher rates of suicide and substance abuse are related to the negative attitudes and treatment toward gay people. That is one of the main reasons so much energy is being spent trying to convince you to accept that being gay is normal for a segment of the population, and quit trying to use the law to punish people for being gay. What is amazing is that so many gay people do not let the abuse destroy them.
The physical problems you list could all be addressed by encouraging monogamous relationships. But when any group is disenfranchised, they will form their own sub-culture which may be similar to or very different from the mainstream culture. Gay people are a very diverse population, but many are very mainstream and simply want the same rights and opportunities you have.
As to the nature vs. nurture argument, again, as your research shows, it is a complex combination that includes biological factors. Most gay people will tell you there is no choice involved. Only those who are somewhere toward the straight end of the continuum have any choice, and then it is a choice about behavior, not feelings. "

WorksInNapa wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:14 AM:

" Raven:
I've searched the web for anything linking homosexuals to DNA but found no scientific evidence of that. That surprised me. But I don't think homosexuality could be an "addiction" since I don't think that the cessation would cause any type of severe trauma. To me it seems more of an obsession.

I have several other questions floating around in my head: What makes the guy community a special group different from any other group which have common interest and desires? What exactly is a homosexual? Are those homosexuals by choice not true homosexuals? That sounds like the "they're not really black" arguments directed at black republicans. Finally, if homosexuals are not the result of DNA then why isn't that life style not a choice?

Winewoman said, "I'm finding that debate is becoming a lost art." Every debate I've seen provides evidence for their claims. Where can that evidence be found to support the homosexual claims. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:26 AM:

" And there are many studies that show the opposite, Tim. Studies conducted by Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Psychiatry in London to name just a few. You can't just pick and choose studies that fit with your argument. In fact, LeVay’s findings have been controversial. Despite the fact that recent research done at Oregon State University lends weight to the conclusions reached by LeVay, there is much other research to be considered. (And not that done by the Family Research Institute and NARTH, both of which are tied to right-wing religious organizations. NARTH advocates conversion therapy, which has been discounted by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. The Family Research Institute’s 2005 budget was less than $200,000, not enough to conduct any meaningful research. Its Web site lists only two scientists on staff, and the organization is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.) "

winewoman wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:15 AM:

" Works, I was referring to the fact that some bloggers are attacking others with insults and personal attacks - basically calling names - which is inappropriate and detracts from the issue being discussed. The "lost art" refers to the free exchange of information and dialogue - free of personal attacks and name calling. "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:20 PM:

" works, keep looking, it is out that and has been cited in the threads here a number of occasions. and btw...if it is a choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual and what made you choose it? "

pharper wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:25 PM:

" To call homosexuality a choice is to imply that one can choose who they fall in love with. There is so much fixation on the sexual aspect of homosexuality (kinda weird, don't you think?) but very little on what it actually is - in essence, heterosexuality; the only difference is that a person falls in love with and forms romantic attachments with someone of the same sex. Sexual relations are really a very small part of it, and if we're going to talk sex, a lot of heterosexual marriages should be annulled right this second, because some straight people do some pretty depraved things.

Tim, just so you're aware, MISH is a conservative organization with definite political and "moral" leanings. I'm far more inclined to trust associations without political ties or religious agendas. Can you cite the studies, please, too? I'd like to look them up but don't have keywords specific enough to do so.

Perhaps I should word my phrase a bit better, since again, I don't proclaim to be a biologist. I can't speculate very much on how human psyche is formed, nor can I speculate on genes and genetics. So how about this - people do not choose to be gay. Whether it is nurture or nature, a combination of both, genetic, or entirely psychological, people do not choose to be that way. "

alucawanza wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:34 PM:

" That's right J.R. They can't help themselves. But unlike smokers and alcoholics who are doing something wrong, and there is a choice involved, there is no choice in being homosexual. It's who you are. It's what you were born to be. It isn't wrong to be a homosexual. You aren't born to be a smoker or drinker.

Only when you accept the truth that homosexuality is not a choice can we speak together from a common beginning.

I can choose to drink or smoke. I can't choose my sexual identity. I was born with it. I didn't make a choice to be a heterosexual. I just am. Same for homosexuals. They didn't make a choice. They just are.

I've repeated this so many times. I'm done. Happy New Year Everyone!~ "

MyWrites wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:29 PM:

" So from all the arguments here and research proffered it appears the causation is...complicated. It's been my life experience that easy answers don't usually resolve complicated issues. Belief is not always based on fact. The prevailing theory for hundreds of years was that the earth was flat. Galileo spent the end of his life under house arrest for supporting Copernican theory that the sun was the center of our solar system, not the earth as the Church taught.

What we do know is that this behavior has been with us as long as human kind. We also know that most people refer to biblical teaching as a reference or guidance to moral action. Thus I would contend that the majority decision in this state was a "morally" defined response to the issue. Every church was engaged to some degree regardless of their stance.

Prop 22 was supported by a 30% majority; Prop 8 by only 4%. It would appear that we, as a society, are beginning to reflect differently upon this issue.

In an open and free society, understanding and fairness ultimately trump belief and bias. Personally, I doubt that gay marriage will harm anyone. It may offend those who have always been taught that what gays do privately is an abomination and immoral. But I subscribe to a "live and let live" approach to life.

Complicated issues take time to change. I doubt anyone is happy with Prop 8 (pro or con). Winning by 4% is a very thin majority that does not inspire much confidence. In another few years I suspect majority opinion will shift in favor of gay marriage.

Either way this election and results have not offered a solution, only a guarantee of more contentious litigation in our courts. "

JimClark wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:04 PM:

" Raven: It appears you seem to believe you have exclusive right to express your opinion and belittle those who disagree with you. Let us all practice the principle of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Though I may accept a few of your comments, I find it disconcerting that you tend to insult those who respectfully disagree with you. "

Sandra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:24 PM:

" I really do not care if homosexuality is a genetic thing, or a choice. It is irrelevant to this issue. As citizens in this country everyone has the right to be treated equally under the law, and as long as our government is going to be involved in marriage, every citizen should have the right to marry any other legally aged citizen in a civil ceremony. Religious marraige ceremonies should be conducted as each religion sees fit. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two seperate things. I think the best way to solve this issue is for the government to not call them "Marriage" liscenses any more, but to call them "civil union" liscenses. Each church can call it whatever they please, and conduct marriages as their tenets allow. But any adult citizen in this country should have equal protection under the law as far as insurance, hospitals, probate, etc. , when it comes to their spouse.
So when you all say just don't call it marraige, then I say what is in a name, as long as the rose smells the same, and all people are treated equally under the law? Call it civil union then for everyone who applies for a marraige liscense. Just do not treat people differently because they happen to want to marry someone with the same parts. "

Raven wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:49 PM:

" JC, comment to you heart's content, and i have the right to reply... and my insults to you were? "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:24 PM:

" I do not believe in gay "marriage". I voted for traditional values and stood up for marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe in.

Stop whining about the fact that the vote of the people was not in your favor. Grow up! "

winewoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:22 PM:

" Freeport56 - what kind of a statement is "grow up"? Uh, ok but we are grown up. I'm even middle aged. Does it make you feel better to say, "grow up", because it really doesnt provide any value to the discussion or anything, really. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:19 AM:

" freeport, it seems that the whining is more from the yes on 8 folks upset because those who favor equality won't give up and crawl into a corner....and you may keep your values, but the high court has said moral values alone do not justify discrimination, which is at the core of Prop 8. "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:16 AM:

" I guess JimClark is correct, you do get insulting Raven. My values come from my family, my religous beliefs, and my perception of what is right. While the courts do not make judgements based on morality (thank God!), the people do and they voted their conscienous.

Being forced and bullied by a minority to change my values is unacceptable to me. Funny how california gave them all these rights without the "marriage" title, the fight now is for the name marriage. i do not discrimination as an issue over a title. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:25 AM:

" freeport. Do you not find your words: "Stop whining about the fact that the vote of the people was not in your favor. Grow up! " insulting? Seems insulting to me. "Whining"? "Grow up"? Not insulting?

No one is forcing you to change your beliefs. No laws are being passed that restrict your freedom. While those fighting for equality would like you to change those beliefs that allow you to judge gay people as worth less than you, and arguments are being offered, no one is using the force of law to impose their beliefs on you. 8 however, used the force of law to impose your beliefs on others who don't hold the same beliefs. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, but 8 is an act of discrimination based on a title. "

sandra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:39 AM:

" I have just been reading some case law, and found this:
"Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, federal military and veterans’ programs, federal employment programs, and filing status for federal income tax purposes. All of these important federal benefits, however, also would be denied to same-sex couples even if California designated the official union of such couples a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, because, as noted, federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one
woman.”

Now the differences between federal rules of marriage and civil unions and/or marriage granted by the State of California are important. A General Accounting Office report in 1997 identified 1,049 laws where federal benefits, rights or privileges were contingent on marital status. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans.
Until the federal law gets changed the state by state granting of the right to marry by same sex couples will mainly be a political statement. Again, we should all be treated equally under the law.
And Freeport, while I think you are a fine human being, and hear you are a fair poker player, and totally agree that you have the right to follow your religious and moral beliefs, I do not think as a society we have the right to treat legal tax paying citizens differently under the law.
In fact I think the government should get out of the "Marriage" business, and stick to legal unions when defining the rules that govern all of our citizens. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:55 AM:

" freeport, if any challenge to your values is insulting, so be it. "

gateonfire wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:11 PM:

" I think that if people took a class or two in human anthropology, they would know that there actually are other people on this planet who do not find the idea of gays and lesbians an outrage. I say they deserve equal treatment no matter what the issue. If two people of the same gender want to marry, it hurts no one else. And to everyone who brings religion into this issue, please don't, the issue is a political one if people are voting on it. Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, but do not have the right to FORCE their beliefs on others. Leave people alone and stop spending tons of tax dollars on a non-issue. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Sandra. If you are up to it and haven't yet, you might want to read "In re Marriage Cases" by the Ca. Supreme court, especially p. 42, 43. where the court "identified nine various differences that exist in the corresponding provisions of the domestic partnership and marriage statutes and in a few other statutory and constitutional provisions".
Also see p. 117, 118 which include the statement: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." "

sandra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:33 PM:

" equalnotspecial,
It was from that document that I took the quote I posted. 300 words limits the amount I could include, so I put in what I thought was most pertinent to this issue.
I do understand the thinking behind Freeports stance. It comes from a religious perspective, and within his religion he has the right to believe what ever he wishes.
This is a right also, to follow the religion of your choice. BUT, it is also why I think the government needs to draw the line between RELIGIOUS marriage and the liscenses which are granted by the state for marraige. The government should not be in the business of hindering, or promoting religious beliefs.
I would think that the best solution would be for the government to no longer define these liscenses by the word marraige, or to even define what marriage is, other than a consenual union between two adult persons. The government needs to get out of the religious marraige business, and stick to just issuing liscenses that make sure people are treated equally under the law when they decide to become a joined couple. People deserve equal rights under the law. They are not required to have equal rights within individual religions. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:22 PM:

" pharper. I hesitate to raise this issue, as I think it applies to only a small percentage of the population, and probably will be misused by others, but I think it may be a key to why some people so strongly believe being gay is a choice. I agree being gay is about who you love and it is not a choice for most people. However, I believe the continuum concept is correct, so using the Kinsey scale, there must be some people at some point along the scale approaching completely straight, that have same sex attractions, but who are predominantly straight. So for those few people, they must feel they have a choice, and to some extent do. Given the social stigma some still attach to being gay, that must be a scary place to be for some people. And that is a reason they need strict rules to follow, so that they don't act on those feelings.
So, perhaps a minor detail that may just muddy the waters instead of clarify them, but I have often felt it is one of the reasons some are so insistent that being gay is a choice. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:20 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "the court "identified nine various differences that exist in the corresponding provisions of the domestic partnership and marriage statutes..."

If true, then the proper remedy for that is to amend the domestic partnership law so as to require equality of benefits and responsibilities. I thought it already did that. "

pharper wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:15 PM:

" And yet, JR, it doesn't.

So what now? Are you prepared to stand on the front lines to make sure the domestic partnership law is exactly equal to marriage? Are you prepared to work as ardently as you have against same sex marriage to ensure that civil unions have EXACTLY the same rights as marriages?

Somehow, I doubt it. "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:20 PM:

" it doesn't and why should we amend something when there already exists a vehicle to does the same thing and has been recognized as a basic civil right for all - marriage. "

Sandra wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:20 AM:

" JohnRichards,
It seems the state domestic partnership law does fall short in a few not so important areas, BUT the federal definition of marriage falls short in many important areas. UNTIL the federal laws are changed the state law will be overruled by the federal law.
It would seem to me that this movement is focused in the wrong area, but perhaps the attempt to go state by state is to set up the groundwork for the federal law change. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:07 AM:

" Jr. Even if domestic partnerships covered all of the rights of marriage, they would still not be equal. The US Supreme court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury".
The Ca. Supreme court found: "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same -sex couples. (p.118 In re Marriage Cases) "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:02 PM:

" Raven wrote " it doesn't and why should we amend something when there already exists a vehicle to does the same thing and has been recognized as a basic civil right for all - marriage. "

Very simple. Strengthening the equality provisions of the domestic partnership law would not be nearly be as controversial as changing the accepted definition of marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:31 PM:

" well glad to see you also agree that domestic partnership are not equal to marriage JR....be simpler to just have one marriage law for all, because it is still discriminatory to strip same sex couples of their right to exercise one of their fundamental rights. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:30 AM:

" JR. No response to the Supreme Court reasoning? "

JimClark wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:36 PM:

" Raven: I don't mind insults or kudos. Insults are more important as I have created debate. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: " JR. No response to the Supreme Court reasoning? "

My New Year's resolution is to cut back here so I can spend more time on much needed home improvement projects. :-)

The "separate but equal" concerns are not universally applicable to every situation and circumstance. Clearly it is legal to have 'separate but equal' public restrooms, and 'separate but equal' sports programs for men and women per Title IX.

In my opinion the separate but equal provisions of domestic partnerships versus marriage are likewise appropriate. "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:08 PM:

" >>Strengthening the equality provisions of the domestic partnership law ...<

but JR you already said that they were not equal so how can they be appropriate? But even if it were, it would not pass the separate is inherently un-equal bar the courts have raised "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:19 PM:

" JR. I don't blame you for wanting to spend more time on other projects. I can relate. Yet you didn't respond to the court's reasoning other than to say you think separate but equal is ok because of sports and restrooms, while the court clearly believes and gave reasons why Separate is not equal and does apply to marriage. I'm inclined to go with the court. "

Join the conversation

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

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: