In diverse land, a narrow-minded vote

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Comment

By Jeffrey Schulz

Nothing could better illustrate the deplorable condition of the California education system than the continuing furor over Proposition 8.

How else can a reasonable person explain the fact that, in the most ethnically and culturally diverse state in the country, the very diversity of which implies a wide range of belief systems, an amazing number of people don’t understand that their right to their particular beliefs is precisely what the Constitution exists to protect?

Over the last 300 years or so, people from all over the world have come to America generally, and California in particular, seeking opportunity and freedom from discrimination if not outright persecution.

Like the original Pilgrims, people of the Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim and Taoist persuasions — not to mention aboriginal faiths too numerous and esoteric to mention — have all at various times sought the protection of a constitutional government that distinguishes between beliefs and the right to hold those beliefs.

Never mind that all those belief systems disagree with one another — that’s a given. No one is likely to be shocked to find out that only Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, or that Hindus believe in many divinities or that Buddhists don’t believe in any.

Nor is anyone likely to be shocked to discover that there is enormous disagreement among sects and sub-sects within the same faith. While it may not be a popular topic at the dinner table, everyone is aware that something other than architecture distinguishes a Roman Catholic Church and a Mormon Temple.

The question that such diversity raises is, how are all these people supposed to live in anything like harmony except by virtue of a system that prevents any one group from imposing its beliefs on all of the others?

Or, put another way, in what precisely does the promise of America consist if not this constitutional protection?

Be that as it may, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church enables me to put the tire back on the road by way of an example. Considering the growing influence of the Hispanic community in California, it is not inconceivable that at some point in the near future it may comprise a voting majority.

Inasmuch as the Hispanic community is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, when that time comes it will be a matter of doctrine that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman who have not previously been married.

Will the people have spoken if they succeed in amending the state constitution to that effect?

I think we all need to pray on this matter — or should we chant? Before we do, however, we need to face the fact that, while everyone who voted for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their particular belief system, they have failed utterly as Americans. While we’re at it, unfortunately, we also have to admit that they can plead ignorance.

Shame on everyone. If this is what the founding fathers had intended America would now be a nation of Puritans and we would all be eking it out in our own private Somalias — or not. How did we fail to teach that?

(Schulz lives in Napa.)

74 comment(s)

pharper wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:17 AM:

" What a beautifully well-written letter. I couldn't agree more. "

kbf wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Mr. Schulz, you had better go back and read your history. Pilgrams came over here for freedom from religious persicution, and this great land was founded on bibical beliefs. Don't give me separation oof church and state, that was so the state couldn't tell the church how to believe. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:57 AM:

" Well put -- tyranny of the majority vs. constitutional rights & protections. I'm with you there. "

kevin wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:29 AM:

" You are obviously a product of the California education system yourself, Jeffry if you don't know the difference between religous belief and a sexual proclivity.... "

Hmmm... wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:30 AM:

" Mr. Shulz, this is an excellent commentary pointing out the fact that there are multitudes of belief systems and points of view. People that understand and respect that will applaude you. But unfortunately, you won't convince anyone who voted yes on 8. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:36 AM:

" How dare you try to shame me into believing that homosexual marriage is right? I have the right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and you have no right to try to shame me into believing otherwise! You have the right to your belief - but to totally put down everyone who does not believe as you do is wrong! And the California education system is supposed to teach math, science and English - not morals and values. That should be done in the home. And you saying this is further evidence that the homosexual community wants to indoctrinate children so parents have an even harder time teaching right from wrong to their children. I will continue to support marriage between and man and a woman so that people like me can continue to have a voice. "

common sense wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:06 AM:

" It's not a right unless the people vote to make it so. Polygamy is not a right either. Neither is driving in the carpool lane solo or smoking in public places. "

Rob C wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:19 AM:

" Beautifully written? Please.

Tucked into seemingly innocuous phrases is current and future blame for Hispanics. (You forgot to also blame African Americans who also voted for 8 in significant numbers, but that touches the third rail, doesn't it Mr. Schulz?)

And following that is the usual lumping of all other 8 supporters as poorly educated, narrow, failed, and ignorant.

Wrapping such familiar rhetoric around a several paragraphs of history "lite" ultimately tells us nothing new on this subject.

Of course the key tip-off is the use of the ubiquitous end-phrase: "Shame on..." which is a lazy, but expected way to end any polemic that has run out of steam. "

Hmmm... wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:37 AM:

" Farmgirl, as an educator, I will reassure you that we DO teach math, science, and English. I will also inform you that we DO NOT teach about who should marry. Never have. That was propaganda manufactured by the Yes on 8 campaign. Sorry to say that many people believed that lie. (By the way, I should have proof-read my earlier comment: applaud-no e!) "

Fire Mike wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:52 AM:

" kbf - please go read the Constitution. You will find not one "biblical belief" therein. References to supernatural beings were intentionally omitted because there was general (but not unanimous) agreement amongst the founders that this was to be a secular nation.

Farmgirl - no one is trying to shame you into changing your beliefs. You are free to hold whatever backward and irrational beliefs you choose - they are protected by the Constitution. And I will defend your right to hold them. What is at issue here is not what you - or anyone else - believes. The issue is whether one group's religious beliefs should dictate twenty-first century public policy. Your right to hold an opinion does not imply a right to inflict its negative consequences on others. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Sounds to me this guy is desperate for respect based on sexuality…….you have all the rights the rest of us have, you can call yourself gay or transsexual or whatever and do as please with whom you please so long as it‘s consenting…but you can‘t dictate morality to a church, too bad I couldn‘t either….I always thought beer tasted better than wine…or well.

By the way California didn’t begin attacking Northern Europeans, African Americans, Chinese and even large number of Mexicans until the Gold Rush….prior to that it was natives and Spaniards and they didn’t think too highly of same sex marriage either. "

pharper wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:06 PM:

" Good thing people voted on women's right to vote, then, common sense! Good thing they voted on slavery! Good thing they voted on interracial marriage!

Oh, wait...that's right, they didn't.

See, we always seem to fall short when we leave civil rights up to the masses. Luckily, our founding fathers were incredible men, and they came up with what is known as the judicial system - one of our three legislative branches and one of the instrumental parts of the checks and balances system. This branch looks out for everyone's rights, and makes impartial rulings (or attempts to) as well as interprets the Constitution and protects the minority from the majority. Thank God for them, right?

I think everyone needs another definition moment here. A civil right is something inalienable to a person because of their citizenship in a country, and is more closely related to a natural or "god-given" right. A civil liberty is a right granted to the people by the governing doctrine of the land, and is typically controversial. Marriage is not a civil liberty; it is a civil right.

And Rob C, I didn't see any blame for Hispanics. He was simply telling it like it is. Trust me, I'd have been the first to jump all over that one. But it is true. The Hispanic population is overwhelmingly Catholic, and since the Hispanic population is growing in numbers, we can expect to see more Catholic influence, I should think, unless we strive to keep everything secular, including our courts. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:10 PM:

" Fire Mike - Why are conservative values backward and irrational? I do not consider my beliefs to be either! And I agree with your final sentence - if homosexual marriage is approved, then your opinions will inflict negative consequences on people with conservative values - the street runs both ways. I just read where a homosexual couple sued a church that would not allow them to use the facility for their wedding. Is that not a negative consequence for holding a religious belief? It is actions like this that convince me that all this garbage about homosexual marriage only affecting the couples involved is just that - garbage. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:11 PM:

" This issue is the next Whack-A-Mole topic since it keeps coming up. The haters can't seem to stop trying different avenues of attack because they can't understand why the voters didn't give them what they wanted. Blame this church. Blame that church. Blame education. Blame blame blame. No constructive discussion, just blame. So much for diversity and inclusion and tolerance. No speech is acceptable and no church is acceptable unless it agrees with you.

Again: marriage is not a right, and government has no business being in the marriage business. End of story. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:45 PM:

" And to the teacher - I never said the schools taught who to marry - I was responding to the 1st sentence in the original commentary that apparently expects the schools to teach that homosexual marriage is a norm! Did you read the commentary? "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:29 PM:

" Schulz should prioritize and start with the more important things, like huggung terrorists to make them like us...

Morality is optional for liberals... "

cordell wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:40 PM:

" Farmgirl: Anybody can sue anybody for anything in our country. Before you get too excited, see how it turns out. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:00 PM:

" cordell - it is still in litigation, that is true. The point is that these homosexuals would sue a church to make them go against their religious beliefs to accommodate them. Then there is the pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy group in Lansing, Michigan, that infiltrated a large conservative church in November, lured away the church's security staff (I was interested in the fact that a church needed a security staff) and then proceeded to throw around condoms, put up profane signs on the pulpit, shout lewd comments and make out in front of the congregation. Strange this story did not make the national news media! And if you search on the internet you will find more incidences of intimidation by radical gay activists that only confirm to me that they want to totally destroy conservative morals and values. That does not just affect the people who want to be married - that affects the whole society and not for the better. "

common sense wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:58 PM:

" "Hmmm" says: "I will also inform you that we DO NOT teach about who should marry. Never have. That was propaganda manufactured by the Yes on 8 campaign."

-Tell that to the 1st graders in San Francisco whose class went to a lesbian wedding. And spare me the line about how parents could opt their child out of it...kids can be hurt by the peer pressure from not doing what the other kids are doing, even in 1st grade. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 4:43 PM:

" Farmgirl - I think that the reason the national press hasn't picked up on the story is because the church has a radical past themselves. The church does a "Haunted House" at Halloween full of "horrors". When you went through, WITH your children, their horrors were: A room depicting a young woman about to get an abortion. A pedophile shown assaulting a young boy. Two gay men about to have sex. A date rape. A terrorist beheading and a marriage between two men being performed by Satan. The reports are also exagherated. Apparently credible news agencies reported, "they (the gay radical group) reportedly pulled fire alarms, handed out pamphlets and yelled at parishioners. They also were said to have stormed the pulpit and held up a large rainbow colored flag that read “It’s Okay To Be Gay! Bash Back”. Bash Back is an ultra radical group and in no way represents the gay majority. You could probably make a comparison to religious radical/fanatics. "

Farmgirl wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:14 PM:

" winewoman - are there credible news agencies? I would just love to get both sides of a story in one article. I am so frustrated with knowing the truth - I will do further research on the church. (That explains the church security, I guess) I know these people do not represent my friends who are homosexual - but the commentator does not reflect the views of my friends either. A Church in Napa did one of the Haunted Houses several years back - don't know what to think - pretty scary for a child - why should children have to deal with any of these issues anyway! "

Paddy wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Yes Jeff, our Puritan Pilgrims bretheran came here to establish a strict religious and MORAL lifestyle. Gay marriage would have caused them to resort to extreme measures. Even for those of us who are not necessarily religious we still live by a moral code of ethics. The bisexual/transgender/transvestite agenda flies in the face of what is decent and moral as defined by thousands of years of historical teaching. Every culture, except the sodomic west, understands the difference between what is right and what is oh-just-so-wrong! "

antipc wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:52 PM:

" If being narrow minded is what keeps the progressives from turning this country into a homosexual utopia then so be it. Hetros have done just fine making this country into something to be proud of. Two hundred plus years of history without homosexual input seems to have worked well. "

pharper wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:09 PM:

" Oh, heteros, antipc? Only heterosexual people have contributed to this country's history? I do beg to differ. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. Alexander the Great was gay, for example. There is speculation by noted historians that Leonardo d Vinci was gay. Katharine Lee Bates, who wrote America the Beautiful, was a lesbian. Tchaikovsky was at the very least bisexual. Don't you dare insinuate that gay people have not had a hand in creating the incredible country we live in today. Every aspect of American life has had "homosexual input," from the days of the founding fathers, to the days of Harvey Milk, to our current times.

What an uninformed, completely false statement. I am shocked that you would even suggest such a thing, antipc. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:15 PM:

" antipc - The "homos" have been there all along- helping to make this country the great country it is - you just couldn't see them 'cause they were in the closet. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:16 PM:

" antipc -- you are blind to reality if you think there has been no homosexual input, hard work, and valuable contribution to our country in the past 200 years. "

msdemo wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:06 PM:

" Too many people hide behind their religion to justify their reasons for hating others. I think it is a sad state for our country which is suppose to be opening to all. It doesn't say give me your tired Christians on the statue. "

Raven wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:25 PM:

" so Paddy and kbf, you are ready to go back to the days of witch hunts, and prohibitions against the celebration of Christmas and Easter, as puritans found no biblical references for either celebration ... and lest us not forget hanging women who preached and exiling Quakers....the Puritans didn't come over for religious freedom, they came over to practice their religion and their religion was to be the only one practiced in their colony...

farmgirl....your disdain for legitimate news agencies limits your exposure to all the news. Winewoman is right about that church, but, anyone group that vandalizes should be dealt with by the law...You are free to hold your opinions and firemike is free to have his opinions about them...and how can anyone shame you about what you did if you weren't feeling what you did was honest and forthright?

PPF, maybe the whack-a-mole- nature should give the anti- same sex marriage an inkling that this is an issue that is not going away until there is equality. And again, the courts have ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, a fundamental right. Who are you trying convince it isn't so by constantly repeating what you know isn't true - yourself?

Common sense, the trip was not organized by the school or the teacher but by a parent; no students were dragged anywhere it was an authorized field trip where all parents whose children attended gave their permission, two whose parents did not stayed at the school, and yeah, i think seeing their teacher being a life with a loving committed partner is a learning experience. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:47 PM:

" Paddy, of course historical teachings will be puritan in nature considering that our founders were puritan. Duh! Also you said, (I'm paraphrasing to remove some of your vulgar text) "every other culture understands the difference between what is right and wrong". What? Perhaps some exposure to world history, art and culture - you'll find writings and art from the 5th century BC regarding human sexuality, erotic responses to both genders, and so on dealing with same-sex interaction. Finally, our puritan founders and church establishment edited our own art and history to reflect their puritan beliefs. Do some research and you'll see that Native American art and stories were altered and edited by the church establishment. Although, today you can find ancient petroglyphs remaining with anatomy intact. "

kdbk wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:06 PM:

" Jeffrey and the rest of the gay marriage advocates simply refuse to allow other Americans to live in peace with their beliefs and values. They are shocked and dismayed that in the year of Obama, they still couldn't defeat prop 8, in California of all places. Their reaction has been very angry and defiant.

It is pure hypocricy for Jeffrey and his fellow gay marriage advocates to accept the will of the voters when it comes to California's electoral votes going to Obama, but to not accept the same California voters' opinion on prop 8. When exactly does this "tyranny of the majority" principle apply?

They demand tolerance and acceptance of everything they believe in, yet offer none to those who disagree with them.

To all of you who voted in favor of prop 8, Jeffrey and others like him do not respect you. They think you're dumb and ignorant. They think you're confused and that you were bamboozled in to voting for prop 8.

Well, let's just wait and see how the tactics of the gay marriage proponents will end up effecting the public's sentiment on the issue. I think Jeffrey and his friends might be garnering less support than they think with all of these tantrums. "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:15 PM:

" msdemo wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:06 PM:
" Too many people hide behind their religion to justify their reasons for hating others. I think it is a sad state for our country which is suppose to be opening to all. It doesn't say give me your tired Christians on the statue. "

Looking down your nose at Christians, and yet holding Muslims in such high esteem, go see how they treat homosexuals... "

pharper wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:17 PM:

" Why are you assuming that people who voted against Prop 8 voted for Obama? I know plenty of people who are anti-8, but would die before voting for Obama. The two issues are completely separate, "

winewoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:58 PM:

" kdbk, I won't speak for other No-On-8ers, and I'd thank you to not speak for me or attempt to explain my position. I don't know any No-on-8ers that think Yes-on-8ers are dumb or ignorant - far from it. Yes-on-8ers are our family, friends, people we love and care about. Why would you want to say something so hateful? To further fuel the fire? I believe, more than anything else, that people should be left to live and believe as they choose - as THEY choose. Not in a manner chosen for them by anyone else -including the church establishment. "

mominapa wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:05 AM:

" pharper, thank you again for your insight and your intelligent comments. You are surely a bright light.

As far as Barack Obama is concerned, he is against same sex marriage so his name shouldn't even be mentioned here. I voted for him for other reasons and for the fact that he vowed to uphold the law whether he agrees with that law or not. No one should use his name in this issue.

I am in favor of same sex marriage. Can't seem to find a reason to object to it. It can never affect me. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry a person of your own sex. Period. End of subject. It is none of my business who marries whom and I just don't give a rip. I can't imagine anyone wanting to get married, but if that is what they want, fine. My life will not change one way or the other. Neither will any of yours. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:51 AM:

" This is another no on 8er denigrating religions and cultures and anyone else that doesn't agree with his very narrow minded philosophy that human's with moral character are wrong and bad simply because we don't agree with the bisexual/transgender agenda.

Spin it all you want. Morality is not up for debate. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:07 PM:

" keep your morality, Paddy, no one is saying not to, but the courts have said, differences in morals is not justification for discrimination against homosexuals. "

kevin wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:36 PM:

" Actually, according to the exit polls, it was the Black Obama voters that were instrumental in getting Proposition 8 passed... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:51 PM:

" ppf. Numerous courts including the US Supreme court have declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Without quoting them all, here is a line from the Ca. supreme court: "past California cases established beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution." (p.49. In re marriages) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Kevin. The vast majority of those who voted for prop 8 were members of conservative religious organizations. That included black and Hispanic people as well as white folks. Education level was also a factor. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:23 PM:

" kdbk The presidential election was different in that either way, a person was elected by the electoral college. Prop 8 was about a majority voting directly to remove a fundamental right as recognized by the courts from a minority population. No one lost any rights in the presidential election, while a right was taken away from a historically persecuted group by prop. 8. Of course those who's right was taken away would be angry about that, and some behaved badly. Yet the vast majority of those who voted no have behaved within the limits of the law. While we would like to persuade you to change your opinions, no one is using the force of law to restrict your rights or beliefs. But when you use your beliefs and values to restrict the equal rights of others, you should expect those who believe all men are created equal to speak out. "

Jose wrote on Jan 5, 2009 5:42 PM:

" My prediction: Prop 8 will be overturned by theCalifornia Supreme Court. "

Jose wrote on Jan 5, 2009 5:46 PM:

" PlasticPinkFlamingo, why if government has nothing to do with marriage, so does an (circunstancial) electoral majority? Don't lie, marriage is a right and rights can't be decided on the polls. "

antipc wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:15 PM:

" Most Californians understand that the desires of the few should not supersede the fundamental morality of the many. Currently three letters to the editor trying to convince the public how important the plight of gay marriage is to humanity. We read the posts referring to us as intolerant, h8ers, bigoted, & narrow minded as if we were guilty of some kind of crime. The agenda seems to be in your face, indoctrination, & the whole universe revolves around me, while ignoring the facts & laws of this state & the country. Well guess what, the future of the country does not hinge on the marital status of a group of people throwing tantrums. It does however hinge on morality as well as being a nation of laws that cannot & should not be overridden by Justices or groups of people that are so short sighted they are only concerned with their own desires while ignoring the long term effect on the country.
The voters have spoken twice so take your civil unions & let it go already. We have much larger challenges & more serious matters to attend to. Your cause is self gratifying & childish. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:12 PM:

" antipc. If you grew up being bullied by peers, rejected by parents, friends, family, church, teachers, employers, attacked and beaten by strangers, it might change your perspective. Because your rights are not diminished as others are granted equality, you may not understand what it is like to be considered worth less under the law.

The APA says: "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.”
Many people believe gay people are not immoral, and it is the judging them so and treating them as worth less that is immoral. So while your version of morality may be offended, there is no justification for singling out gay people for denial of equality. Any threat to our society comes from our failure to live up the promise of equal rights and protections under the law. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:30 PM:

" regarding the laws of this country anti, there is this...

Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, 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.”

Fighting for equality is never childish. "

kevin wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:04 AM:

" What to have some fun? Get a bunch of people together and ask them how they voted on Prop 8. Being liberal Napa, most will say they voted no.

Then ask how they would vote on marriage between multiple partners. Most will be appalled and overwhelmingly will be against the idea.

Go figure... "

anticommie wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Fire Mike wrote:

Farmgirl - no one is trying to shame you into changing your beliefs. You are free to hold whatever backward and irrational beliefs you choose

Backward and irrational? What if I was to say voting NO on prop 8 was "backward and irrational?" I would be ridiculed and shamed by the left. Oh wait, too late!

Hmmm:

In high school, i had teachers that very much put their personal beliefs into the days teachings. You may not, but realize that others do. And as far as the college level, almost every left winging teacher I had, ALWAYS tried to indoctrinate the students into following their beliefs. Humanities courses in paticular. When reading books in these classes, not one was written by a true independent or a conservative. They just all happened to be written by people like Christopher Hitchens and the like. I wonder why that is! "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:42 PM:

" anticommie...maybe they are written so people can get a different point of view that the pablum we do force feed our student thru elementary and high school. Diverse opinions help create a critically thinking mind, exposed to a number of different positions. As far as college courses are concerend, you have the freedom to not take course from a professor you think is indoctrinating. If enough students avoid a class, it becomes uneconomical to continue to offer it and the class either changes or goes away. But one further question, who is qualified to determine who is a true liberal or conservative?

and yeah, irrational fits, no one has yet presented a rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage. "

antipc wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:04 PM:

" Equal, spare me the over-exaggerated sob stories. We all had character building experiences when we were younger, some of us just adjusted better than others. There is one particular individual I do business with who is gay & has adjusted to an industry that has not traditionally been friendly towards homosexuals. I have a great deal of respect for this person because he never tried to change the rules to suit his lifestyle, he overcame & has the admiration of many.

Raven, defacing churches is both childish & pathetic. The methods of attention getting used by the radical faction of the gay movement are defeating the intended purpose. Hope they keep it up. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:36 PM:

" pharper wrote: "The Hispanic population is overwhelmingly Catholic, and since the Hispanic population is growing in numbers, we can expect to see more Catholic influence, I should think, unless we strive to keep everything secular, including our courts."

I wrote about this population trend earlier, but it was pooh-poohed, I think by Raven.
Catholics, like most conservative Christians, will continue to vote in accordance with their moral beliefs. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:43 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "Farmgirl...you are free to hold whatever backward and irrational beliefs you choose."

This is typical of the type of contempt and disrespect shown by libs toward those with centrist American values. Way to go, Fire Mike, that should win friends and influence people. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:57 PM:

" Jose wrote "My prediction: Prop 8 will be overturned by the California Supreme Court. "
What facts do you base that on? Insiders say Prop 8 has the 4 votes needed to uphold it. That includes the original 3 who disagreed with the May 15 ruling, and Justice Kennard, who voted against even taking Prop 8 on for review because she is so convinced of its constitutionality.
I suggest you Google on "Kennard and Prop 8". "

John Richards wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:09 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "there is no justification for singling out gay people for denial of equality."

So, you would have no problem extending marriage rights to polygamists? Aren't they also entitled to their 'pursuit of happiness'? "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:18 PM:

" Never said a word about it JR...sorry...but the subject is same sex marriage JR and the courts have yet to say that polygamists have the right to marry multiple partners. Matter of fact, the federal courts have said the opposite in the 19th century.

So it is okay for the yes on 8 folks to characterize opponents to 8 as immoral, whiners, among the nicer thing we have been called, but not okay to characterize unfounded beliefs as irrational?

and antipc, I believe I said that any caught vandalizing a church should be punished as the law allows. There is no call for it. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:34 AM:

" JR. Polygamists already have the exact same rights you have (assuming they are straight) All gay people are asking is for the same rights you and polygamists already have. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:16 AM:

" antipc. Those examples are not over-exaggerated, but downplayed, and offered in hope of helping you understand why this is so important to many. I didn't mention being raped, tortured and killed simply for being gay, all of which continue today, even here in California where it is now illegal. Many gay people remember being arrested, beaten by police, jailed, being sent to mental hospitals and subjected to "aversion therapies" simply for being gay. Too many countries still have laws that allow them to arrest, torture, mutilate, and kill gay people.
While not all gay people have experienced all of those abuses, some have, and most have experienced many on that list. Yet as you have observed, many do not let those abuses destroy them (if they survive), though some do, especially younger ones where the suicide rate is 4 times that of their straight peers. Yes, life poses challenges for all of us, but gay people carry the extra burden of being denied equal treatment under the law as well as the stigma associated with being judged to be immoral by many. While you may see persecution as "character building experiences", life is hard enough without being denied equal treatment under the law. "

zist707 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:40 PM:

" Protect marriage and children!
Ban divorce! "

John Richards wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:07 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote "Polygamists already have the exact same rights you have (assuming they are straight) All gay people are asking is for the same rights you and polygamists already have. "

I'm sure you realize that polygamist males want to marry multiple wives, which is not a right they now have. If marriage is not to be denied to anyone, why deny it to the polygamist version of marriage? "

CITIZEN wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:45 AM:

" Mr. Schulz, great commentary. I would only add that the religious right also believes that Jesus was a white man. God forbid, he was a middle-eastern! Today he would be called a terrorist.

To those of you standing on your church morals in opposition to civil rights, watch out for the second coming of Jesus and who you call a terrorist; you might miss your chance to be saved, by persecuting Jesus the second time around, as well. Who knows he might return this time as a gay. There you go, missed him again. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You just can't know, can you? "

CITIZEN wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:58 AM:

" Paddy, wrong again. The following countries have all legaized gay marriage: Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and South Africa (I think I missed one, who can add it)? Therefore the "sodomic west" is not as you think it to be, apparently. A bit more progressive, perhaps, by your standards? Oooh, I bet you hate that word, progressive, but there you are!

PlasticPinkFlamingo, wrong again. It was the government that gave the church the right to perform marriage ceremonies, only 200 years ago. So, what is your definition of a civil ceremony, anyway? It has been the religious right injecting the church into this civil ceremony/civil rights issue. To correct your statement, I say that the church has no business in the civil ceremony, which has been around world wide centuries longer than the religious ceremony. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:28 AM:

" JR Polygamy is a seperate arguement. They currently have the same rights you have. Equality was taken away from gay people, not polygamists. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:06 PM:

" antipc, you said, "Raven, defacing churches is both childish & pathetic. The methods of attention getting used by the radical faction of the gay movement are defeating the intended purpose. Hope they keep it up. "

To that I say, the bombing of abortion clinics, killing of abortion doctors, threatening and intimidation of young pregnant women, ostracizing groups of people from worship because of their "orientation", the threat of or witholding of "salvation", the psychological and emotional damage inflicted on those people is FAR worse - and has lasting and lifechanging affects. The radical faction of the religious zealots are FAR MORE frightening because they DAMAGE peoples lives forever. "

antipc wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:21 PM:

" winewoman, my response is for you to read the first sentence of the same post. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
(MLK) "

Raven wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:21 PM:

" so it seems the Yes on 8 folks are suing in federal court to overturn the state's campaign laws, particularly the part that makes donors a part of the public record. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:41 PM:

" Hahahaha - Yes on 8ers are going INTO the closet. Very funny. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:49 PM:

" Antipc -figures, a narrow minded response to a complex issue, antipc. Referring to people's suffering as sob stories and telling them to (paraphrasing) "get over it" is just (a negative word indicating not based in reality that keeps getting blocked). There is real suffering in the world - and for centures scholars have contemplated suffering. Sadly, the religious establishment is not immune from inflicting suffering on people throughout history. I'm happy that you are as well-adjusted as you say you are - though I question the validity of that assessment. (just something having to do with MY belief system). "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:54 PM:

" Raven wrote "the Yes on 8 folks are suing in federal court to overturn the state's campaign laws, particularly the part that makes donors a part of the public record."

As I understand it, this would only affect controversial propositions, not donations for political candidates. They have lots of documentation of actual harassment and vandalism that resulted from publicizing Prop 8 supporters. "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:26 PM:

" So, who would make a determination what is controversial and what isn't JR? "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:28 PM:

" And the letters written by the yes on 8 committee demanding payment to not 'out' people and companies that donated to the no on Prop 8 campaign? That isn't harassment? "

winewoman wrote on Jan 14, 2009 6:54 PM:

" Suppose it's possible that some business may have contributed to the Yes-on-8 campaign while actively marketed their products and services to the gay community - specifically having to do with gay marriage? Suppose the publication of the contributor list exposed their little secret? Yep. "

Raven wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:36 PM:

" just possible, winewoman ... as with people telling friends and relatives who were gay that they supported them while not telling them they were backing the Yes on 8 campaign with their hard earned cash. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:57 PM:

" Raven, I happen to know that it is so - local businesses here in the valley. Kind of reminds me of the deception of a cheating husband (or wife) hiding behind the institution of heterosexual marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:59 AM:

" yeah, it does sound like that, winewoman. "

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: