Home › Elections › Local election news
Same-sex marriage ban is losing, state pollsters say
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Local election news
Likely voters in California would soundly reject a ballot measure to ban marriage between same-sex couples if the election were held today, a Public Policy Institute of California poll finds.
Through telephone surveys of 2,001 California adults, the poll found that 54 percent of voters said they would vote against Proposition 8, while only 40 percent said they would support it. Results of the poll were released late Wednesday; the surveys were conducted during the period Aug. 12-19.
On the broader question of whether they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, voters were evenly split, 47 percent to 47 percent.
The reason for the disparity, suggests the manager of the opposition campaign, is that some voters, while personally against the notion of same-sex marriage, do not want to take away a right that was granted earlier this year by the California Supreme Court.
"Proposition 8 eliminates marriage for same-sex couples," said Steve Smith. "I don't think Californians want to eliminate a fundamental right for their neighbors, their friends and others in their community. It's one thing to be supportive or not supportive of something, it's another to take away someone's right."
Supporters of Proposition 8 said the survey results reflect voters' reflexive response to a revised ballot title written by Attorney General Jerry Brown.
The original title, written before the initiative could be circulated for signatures last year, was "Limit on marriage." The revised title, written after the Supreme Court decision in May invalidating gender-based discrimination in marriage, says, "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."
That change, said a spokeswoman for the measure's proponents, has at least temporarily given some voters pause.
"He handed the opposition a small victory in unfairly restating the intention of the proposition," said Jennifer Kerns of Brown. "It's early in the campaign. We will let people know what Proposition 8 stands for."
The measure would amend the California Constitution to read: "Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
That same language, in the form of an initiative statute, was approved by state voters in 2000, with 61 percent of voters favoring the idea. That statute was overturned by the state Supreme Court, which held that it violates the California Constitution by discriminating against same-sex couples.
As a constitutional amendment, if Proposition 8 is approved, it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling, since it was based upon the court's interpretation of the California Constitution.
The survey found voter opinion closely divided on two other high-profile ballot measures.
It found that Proposition 4, which would amend the Constitution to require that parents of girls be notified in advance before a girl could receive an abortion, is in a statistical tie, with 47 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent.
The parental notification measure has twice before been on the ballot in recent years and was rejected both times.
The survey found that voters are divided and uncertain about Proposition 11, the measure that would create an independent panel to draw new legislative district lines in 2011, taking that authority away from legislators. Under the proposal, state lawmakers would continue to draw new congressional district lines.
The poll found 39 percent in support, 36 percent opposed and 25 percent undecided.
California voters also continue to favor Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential race, although Obama's level of support has dropped significantly since July. Obama leads John McCain by 9 percentage points, 48 percent to 39 percent. A month earlier, the PPIC poll showed Obama with a 15-point lead.
In other findings, Californians continue to express great pessimism about the direction of the state and heightened concern about the economy.
Two-thirds of Californians believe the state is in a moderate or serious recession, and 42 percent cited jobs and the economy as the No. 1 issue facing the state. Additionally, 34 percent of likely voters said it was the issue they would most like Obama and McCain to talk about, far outdistancing the issue of secondary concern, the war in Iraq.
Concerning the state budget stalemate, 84 percent of likely voters now say the budget situation is a "major problem" — the highest percentage to believe that in more than four years. Consistent with three earlier PPIC polls conducted this year, 44 percent said they believe the state budget shortfall should be resolved through a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. Another 8 percent said it should be resolved "mostly through tax increases" and 38 percent said it should be done "mostly through spending cuts."
Posted by NowHearThis on August 28, 2008 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll state straight out, (pun intended), I'm voting for Prop 8. I don't think civil rights should ever be afforded on the basis alone of who someone sleeps with.
The liberals on the CA Supreme Court legislated from the bench. The story says voters, "do not want to take away a right that was granted earlier this year by the California Supreme Court."
Since when is it the CA Supreme Court's job to enact laws? That's the problem when liberals lose elections, they rely on liberal judges to overturn the will of the people. Happens all the time.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 28, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Straight out"...I'll vote against Prop 8.
It doesn't matter one bit to me who marries who. It's none of my business.
Folks who want to defend marriage should start at home and consider heterosexual divorce rates first.
Clean up your own house, then worry about someone else's.
Posted by JohnInSimi on August 28, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't get it, one justification for voting no on prop 8 due to hetersexual divorces? That doesn't make a bit of sense.
Posted by laurarmc on August 28, 2008 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No on 8- even my 11 year old sees the wrong in amending the state constitution to *remove* civil rights.
BTW: The judges didn't "legislate from the bench". The judges did their job, which is to rule on whether a law or provision is constitutionally viable.
Like, if 88% of Californians voted to approve a law that said you had to get a sneetch star tatooed on your belly, you'd probably be grateful for a judicial review before meeting the needle.
Your republican legislators can write whatever crazy law they want, and the mob can vote the law into the books, but our system of government provides for a constitutional check in the courts.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Polls are notorius for being wrong. Especially depending on who takes it. Marriage is not a civil right! It is a right passed to us from God. God as said that a man will take a woman for a mate. God as said that homosexuality is an abomanation. The only reason that the divorce rate is so high is because people marry for the wrong reason, or they are unwilling to make the marriage work. Marriage is not always easy and even the gays world will find that they will also have a high divorce rate. Who do we think we are to change Gods law? Vote yes on 8.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 28, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, leave the gay people alone. Are you in their bedroom? Do you see what they do when they're alone? Doubt it, mind your own buisness and worry about your own life...
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Huenemegirl. I guess that according to your point it would be ok to make beastiality legal too! I mean those sheep aren't being hurt and what happens as long as we don't see it is none of our buisiness, right? So as long as no one else is affected it's OK? Your talking a very long list there.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 28, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
handyhood ,Very well said.
And to the other comment, what goes on behind closed doors?Hmmmmmm Molestations, rape, murder, Yes its our business.....
Posted by GDOG5 on August 28, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are the justices to take OFF the bench!
Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Joyce Kennard, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Justice Carlos Moreno.
Next time they should enforce the law and not try to change it. I believe the people of California already voted, Prop 22. If you want to change it, take it it to the polls. I don't belive some left wing, liberal judges should change it just because...Thanks for underminding the majority of people in Califonia, now OFF the Bench with you!
Posted by bombero42 on August 28, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
handyhood, that is one of the most idiotic statements about gay marriage ever.
Animals cannot give consent, and how do you know they are not hurt.
Posted by gme on August 28, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can you twist Romans chapter 1 to suit your liking? It is clear God states marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also clear that this country is sliding down the slippery slope in these "votes for rights". This is just one vote to continue in wicked ways, and that includes murder, lust, etc. (Read Romans chapter 1 in the Holy Bible). I have gay friends but do not condone their lifestyle and they know it. They do respect my views as I respect them as a human being who God loves. However, He doesnt condone their lifestyle either as He CLEARLY states in His Word. God loves you, repent and be saved. this is intended to you with Love...
Posted by Legal_American on August 28, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no problem with gays & lesbians; I just don't know why it is so important to them to stick it in everyone’s face??? Why can't they just be happy being with their partner? Are they trying to make a statement? And as to them staying together longer than opposite sex marriages, that is NOT true. Statistics show that the percentage is very close to the same. The statistics also shows that the transmission of AIDS is quite a bit higher in gay men. I believe that god created an @$$ as an exit hole only. I just have to ask what’s next... Will we have brothers marrying their sisters, will we lower the age limit to maybe 12 years old and what will we consider transvestites?
Posted by Legal_American on August 28, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the year 2000, the people of the state of California voted to uphold marriage as “The union of one man and one woman” and in November, they will vote on a state constitutional marriage-protection amendment. Now, because of the California Supreme Court's refusal to delay its ruling ordering same-sex "marriage" until the vote and because California has no rule limiting "marriages" to state residents, thousands of homosexual couples from all across the nation will rush to California to get "married" in the months ahead. These couples will then return to their home states and file lawsuits demanding that their "marriages" be recognized. This is just what Gloria Allred wants, more lawsuits. She will make an unbelievable amount of money throughout the United States.
We Californians need to stand up against this ridiculous abuse of the legal system and not be afraid to speak our minds. Today we had major television networks showing a live feed of a lesbian couple that had been waiting to get married for quite a long time and who do you think was standing there with a big smile on her face?
Gloria Allred.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 28, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HandyHood-
Get your mind out of the gutter. I'm talking about same sex marriage, not molestation - not getting it on with sheep. Geez, find something else to argue about, if you're going to take my comment to such an extreme. At least Patticake knows what I'm talking about with out putting disgusting thoughts into my comment. Get a life.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wdwinder, Marriage was being done long before a civil court granted it. God did create marriage, not the courts. The only reason the courts got involved with marriage is so they could make a dollar on it. Marriage was performed first by law of God. Not law of man. Law of man is trying to change law of God. Whose law is most important? I'm sticking with God! If we all followed law of God(through Jesus Christ) there would be a perfect world. No stealing, rape, murder, etc. etc. All Christians need to unite on this one! Yes on 8!!!!
Posted by Deek56 on August 28, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
On March 7, 2000, with 61.4% approval the citizens of the State of California voted in favor of Prop 22, which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Courts 4-3 decision (In re MARRIAGE CASES) over-stepped the will of the people. Unfortunately, only 3 Judges got it right. It’s that simple when if comes to the question of “legislating from the bench.” In July 2008, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown (pro-same sex marriage) re-wrote Prop 8 so that it gave ‘rights’ to people that don’t exist in the law.
I’m also always humored by persons who make such feckless comments as, “It doesn't matter one bit to me who marries who. It's none of my business,” and “mind your own business and worry about your own life.” I guess it’s okay to marry your sister and/or your niece or nephew? How about four or five husbands/wives? It is a slippery slope argument.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
huenemegirl. I was just using an example of the reasoning that some have expessed as nothing is wrong with homosexuality. The bible clearly states that sin is sin. Murder, theft, homosexuality, and yes even beastiality, all sins. I don't hate. I hate the sin,not the sinner. But should we make it easy to commit sin? No. I know that some don't believe in God, and I feel sorry for them, but if a person believe's in Christ and his message, then we can not advocate same sex marriage. Period!
Posted by mmlove38 on August 28, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know how to resolve this issue, let's do away with "Marriage" completely. We can leave it to everyone's religious belief and leave the state out of it. That way, we can also stop allowing the tax exemptions that are given with being married, your medical and estate rights, and all the other rights that are given by being married. Let's just make it that ALL people are SINGLE in the eyes of the public system. That way, those that are whining over it being God's word, can have their "Marriage" through their church or place of worship. Everyone is deserved to be equal in the eyes of the public system. Why is religion ALWAYS being brought up in it? We really need to enforce the "Separation of Church and State!" God is wonderful and I believe in a higher power (whatever anyone wants to call it). But I also believe we as a society, need to quit "JUDGING" people. Hetero and Homosexuals were all created the same way and are children of God.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 28, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GM Junior-
LOL- Yeah, even those of us that arent married know that it's not all it's cracked up to be!
Posted by wolf9walker on August 28, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question. it the bible states that a marriage is between a man and women. then why do you have to go to the state to get a licence?
you can't have a marriage without the state. you can get married without the pastor or bible.
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have yet to figure out how and why folks keep talking about Prop 22 was passed by a majority. Yes, of the people who voted, 61% favored the proposition. But that only represented 19% of the adult population of Calif. This is the results of the stupid, apathetic nature of our society is another subject.
If anything the proposition should have been nullified due to lack of interest. It is obvious the numbers of people who wish to have others controlled are more "vocal" than those of us who do not wish to "control" the lives of others.
And that is what these religious types (ALL religions) want; control over everyone’s life.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 28, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmlove38 ,Sorry but your comment was quite insane. I married my spouse before God , family and friends. I made a vow until death to we part. SO if we parted I would not remarry. I took my vows very serious. Others think vows are a joke. Its really sad.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pog, if the bible is a "fairy tale" with it's values and stands on right and wrong. If it is a "fairy tale" with it's lessons on love and caring. If it's a "fairy tale", with making the distinction between good, and evil. Well call me cinderella then!
Posted by bbbdugout on August 28, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it's to bad to see that we actually fear people who might have a different sexual orientation than others - some say, oh it's the liberals....when it's actually your own fears - it's to bad we fear our fellow Americans because they might have different living stiles then others --- but isn't that what America is all about - it's why this great country was formed - so each and everyone of us can have freedom without persecution - Currently the running of our government has been all about "Fear" - there's an enemy under every rock - that's what the Bush adminstration wants us to believe - instead I wish to submit to you to believe and trust in each other - when we all bleed, we all bleed red blood, so we really are all the same in many ways - only different in some - but still the same
Posted by wdwinder1 on August 28, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
handyhood, which of God's laws lets priests think pedophilia is OK. I mean if there is ANYBODY thats gonna be following Gods Laws, it ought to be our religious leaders, right?
And marriages were performed by witchdoctors and shamans too. But Today, it is licensed by the state. And dissolution is granted by the court. And and mmlove38 pointed out, there are a whole host of other 'rights' that go along with marriage that have nothing to do with Gods Law and aren't talked about in the bible.
Guess what, I don't believe in God. But I can still get married. And divorced. Twice even. LOL. And even without Gods guidance, I have somehow avoided beating, robbing, raping or molesting anyone, haven't wanted to marry my sister, or bed a lamb or a goat. Go figure.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 28, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love my dog, should I marry her? Are you people ok with that? Don't be silly, marriage between a man and woman is for procreation. Any other type of marriage is just a statement. The final destruction of the family is nigh. Thank you libs, thank you Hollywood.
The Larry King murder was the final nail in the coffin for me. The Homosexual agenda pushed down into junior high school was sickening.
And remember this, the only group that will benefit from homosexual marriage are divorce lawyers.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Love the sinner, hate the sin. I guess I can agree to disagree, can you? Gotta go to work. Love and peace to all. I'm out.
Posted by rebel123 on August 28, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish people would get as fired up about issues that actually affect their own lives. Nobody is going to be affected personally if two people of the same gender are married in the eyes of the state. If, on the other hand, you lose your medical coverage and are driven into bankruptcy with medical bills, or if you lose your job due to outsourcing to China, or if you can't afford to send your kids to college because it costs so much and it takes everything you make just to live, or if you can't buy groceries because the cost of food has sky rocketed, or if many thousands of dollars you've paid into social security over your lifetime is no longer there, or if you work and pay taxes yet can't get ahead while corporate entities pay less in taxes percentage wise than you do.....gee, those seem like things we should actually worry about! Fringe issues like gay marriage and abortion have little or no affect on the vast majority of citizens yet politicians will use them to be elected and divert attention away from the real issues that impact most of us daily. Amazing.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 28, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No on proposition 8!
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 28, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage is a right provided by the state, not religion. Seperation of church and state, remember? Not everyone who marries does it in a church. Athiests get married all the time. What about pagans? Handyhood, what gives YOUR religion the right to dictate everyone else's life? Did it ever occur to you that not everyone believes in the same religion and/or god(s)? Marriage is also not for pro creation, people who are unable to or do not want to have kids are allowed to get married. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. But don't push your religious views on everyone else. Our country was founded on freedom of religion, meaning freedom FROM religion.
Posted by mendozadonna on August 28, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on prop 8!!!
Posted by Scapegoat on August 28, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just got this email, maybe I'll reconsider:
THE NEW 4-POINT REPUBLICAN PLAN
1. Back off and allow all the men who want to marry men, marry men.
2. Allow all the women who want to marry women, marry women.
3. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
4. Within three generations, there will be no Democrats.
Damn ... don't you just love it when someone comes up with a perfect plan!
Posted by at8man on August 28, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnMuir96 I agree with you 100%.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 28, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnmuir96, people of all ages need to be taught not to discriminate against someone you may view as different than you so that we can stop all the hate and ignorance in this country. The same way we taught white people that blacks weren't second class citizens.
And how is the gay lifestyle being shoved down your throat? Because gay people want to be afforded the same rights as others? Because they want to be able to walk down the street holding hands with thier spouse the same way heterosexual people do? Because they want to be able to hold their spouses hand while they are in the hospital, on their death bed?
Posted by nancy_4ever on August 28, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is just a part of what is going to happen....
"2Peter 2:6 God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes. He made those cities an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them."
Humans never shock God, this is just a repeat.
Posted by Resolute_Yet_Ambivalent on August 28, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No on 8. It's just in-your-face discrimination. I am resolute on this one.
Posted by Angelito on August 28, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YES on Prop 8. this is not about excluding homosexuals, gays, lesbians or anybody else from choosing their partners. All it does it reaffirms that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
It does not take away any rights that gays, lesbians etc have been enjoying since the late 1980's. all it does, it re-affirms what the people of California voted. Lets understand that we do not want to eliminate any rights, we only want to re-write the constitution to say that the marriage its only between a man and a woman.
Posted by nancy_4ever on August 28, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jude 1:7 What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No on 8! It's more about hate and less about the "sanctity" of marriage.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 28, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Angelito, you're wrong it does take away rights. It takes away the right to have medical insurance and life insurance. It takes away the right to claim taxes together as a married couple. It takes away the right to be allowed in the hospital with your spouse, just a few examples.
Posted by nancy_4ever on August 28, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YES ON 8
Posted by vickicassidy2 on August 28, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These people so upset about gays marrying I bet have gay stuff on their computers. They protest a little too much.
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The justices who affirmed this decision were all appointed by Republicans.
The Pilgrims and others came here because the government of England was forcing them to abide by one interpretation of the Bible that disagreed with the Pilgrims and to do so was a crime. (Sound familiar?)
The Bible doesn't say anywhere that gays and lesbians can't get married. Even if you grant the prohibition against sex, it doesn't say they can't MARRY.
The biblical tradition of marriage was polygamy and concubines. As we've seen from Sen. Vitter I guess he really does want the old fashioned marriages that would allow him to visit prostitutes. Hey, it's Biblical!
If we allow the church to tell us who we can marry, will we allow the Catholic church to forbid civil divorce as well since it is again their marriage?
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And as for the tired argument of we voted for this 8 years ago -- Californians have defeated the Parental Notification, Reapportionment and several other issues repeatedly (As recently as two years ago) but yet you won't just take those votes for an answer. And look how long the shelf life of Grey Davis re-election was good for. The rest of California citizens have gotten over this and moved on. So should the rest of our Republican Party. Or perhaps our platform should include calls for Prohibition and opposing Women's Suffrage as well?
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
note to mention that as the next generation reaches voting age, they tend to lean toward tolerance and largely count this as a non-issue - their no votes will lead to this prop's defeat.
Posted by interested on August 28, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Posted by Poppa on August 28, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gays have been getting married now for a couple months in California. The only effect I have seen is more business activity that is helping the state economy. I have seen no proof or heard anything about anyone being harmed by gays getting married. The Mormons and others should practice what the bible says and stay out of other peoples lives and let God decide who is good and who is bad. I have known plenty of Mormons who sin and members of other churches who sin, but I don't judge them and they should not judge anyone.
Posted by Ventura_Native_1963 on August 28, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ignorance breeds contempt. To those who think they have the right to know what goes on in my bedroom . . . if you can't distinguish the difference between what goes on between consenting adults versus rape, murder, bestiality, etc. give me your address so I can send you money to buy a clue! The issue, by the way, has nothing to do with whether or not two men or two women should be able to marry - it has everything to do with HUMAN rights. We are all supposed to be created equal (long ago, some very intelligent men wrote that down somewhere . . . ) and this means that rights afforded to one should be afforded to all. Can you not see the forest for the trees?
Posted by BeaHappi on August 28, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys...no one's mind will be changed here about this topic.
Instead of arguing back and forth, how about heading over to the story about Thomas Hearn, who is fighting for his life because of a brain tumor. He's 8-years old.
After you read the story I'm sure you'll want to donate something to help out this family. This is our opportunity to band together, despite our differences, to support a common good. A donation, no matter what size, would be appreciated.
And no, I don't know this family. Having an 8-year old myself, I was very, very moved by this story.
Posted by dgonzales121 on August 28, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I've said before and I will say it again. Live and let live. We should not be denied the right to marry if we choose to and who we choose to. People will be people and throw biblical scriptures at us to prove that what we are doing is wrong, but remember this scripture:
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why would you teach your children to hate and stand in judgement?
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why would you teach your children to hate and stand in judgement? that's in response to 10:50.
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John Muir - AIDS is most prevalent in the world amongst heterosexuals. Are you suggesting that we ban them to stop this under your scenario? And what does marriage have to do with what you teach in schools? That lie has already been disproved that not amending the constitution to prevent marriage would make it mandatory to teach "s odomy" to elementary school kids. At least have the courtesy to just state you have personal prejudice against the issue rather than promote unrelated topics to cover your lack of solid facts. Saying you aren't ready for this is valid justification in my book. Change can be scary and you're just not ready.
Posted by dgonzales121 on August 28, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is some interesting things I wanted to point out:
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
Posted by dgonzales121 on August 28, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And some More...
Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a great retort someone sent to the intolerant bible-swinging Dr. Laura a while back that continues to circulate:
"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from these posts, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Thanks for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."
Posted by philster662002 on August 28, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I say let them get married and that way when they get divorced they will know what it is like to have to pay lawyer fee's along with Alimony/Palimony like the rest of us.
Please enough with the bible lessons. If I wanted the bible lessons I would go to church.
Posted by noonespecial on August 28, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know many of you will probably go off on me after this but this forum is here for people to voice their opinions so that is what I am doing.
First off, I am not against gay people. While I do not have gay friends, I know of co-workers that are gay and my respect level is no different for them than for those that are straight. Having said that, I know that when I was in school, (which wasn't that long ago) if there were openly gay kids, not many people knew about them. Now days it just seems like the "cool" thing to do because it’s become sociably acceptable. I believe going through puberty is difficult enough without kids having to deal with the “maybe I’m gay” aspect of things. If adults feel that what they do in their bedroom is their business, then they should keep it in their bedroom. Therefore, I need to know, if I am against gay marriages do I vote for or against Prop. 8? Someone please let me know so I make sure I don't screw up...I don’t want suggestions put in my child’s head, causing her confusion because some adults choose to live the way they do.
Ok, I’m done with my thoughts. Let the verbal thrashing begin.
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, when I was in school, there were all these openly straight heteros, it was crazy! In fact, there still are, jeeze, they're everywhere.
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnMuir - Talk about reading propoganda. Just go to the CDC website and look at the international statistics. And so isn't the antidote to promiscuity, getting married? Oh wait. That didn't stop Sen. Vitter and the other social conservatives preaching what others should do. I have no problems with morality so long as it is practiced by those who preach it rather than foisted at the point of law on others because they can't practice it themselves. I'm a Republican because I think people know better than government. Social conservatives are nothing more than "government knows best" liberals in Reagan clothing.
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NooneSpecial - You have valid fears. People get woozy when schools talk about heterosexual reproduction in schools much less other forms of activity. That SHOULD be taught at home. But most people won't do it and the rest of us are left cleaning up the babies that follow.
But NOTHING in this amendment will prohibit or insist on that kind of teaching. Whether this passes or not that issue will be addressed by other legislation or rules. If you don't have an issue with marriage, then vote against it. But don't let the fear of what is taught in schools drive your vote. It's the only scare tactic they have -- invoking children and making people nervous. It's a red herring.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 28, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
noonespecial, weather you vote for or against gay marriage, your children are still going to be exposed to the gay lifestyle. Making gay marriage legal isn't going to all the sudden bring the gays out of the woodwork. There are already gay people living their lifes just like you and me, like it or not.
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not "normal" to hate. No on 8.
Posted by mmlove38 on August 28, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Annawhaat, I wonder how my comment is insane? It speaks the truth when it comes to separation of church and state, yet it's insane because I recommend we keep marriage where you all are quoting it from, the religious side? Why should the religious sect care whether or not it is accepted by the state? That's right, for the same reason a homosexual couple would care - the legal rights. Yes, domestic partnership does give homosexuals and heterosexual couples a fair amount of the same rights as marriage, but not all of them. Why shouldn't homosexuals be given the right to choose whether or not they want to marry in the eyes of the state? Let them worry about their creator and their own soul. It is themselves who have to answer to whomever they believe in. I believe society would be much better if every religious fanatic would worry about their own soul rather than judging and worrying about homosexual souls.
Posted by bnlsnider on August 28, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
me thinks thou doth protest too much
Posted by GDOG5 on August 28, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
equality you say, right to do what you want behind close doors.
Explain this..July 27th, 2008 San Francisco "Up Your Alley". Do a google search
"Perverse events like 'Up Your Alley' … mock any notion of right and wrong – as the reckless pursuit of anything-goes 'tolerance' leads governmental authorities to enable and promote evil, turning freedom into sexual anarchy while causing a breakdown in law and order." Sure....force your view and peversion and call it Freedom, but when a conservative/bible believing person wants their view heard, it called hate/intolerant. Wake up people to the real agenda!
Posted by mmlove38 on August 28, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnmuir - obviously we don't know the origin of where calling heterosexual people "straight" comes from. Why don't you do some research on it and then figure out if it does, or does not, pertain to homosexuals?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What Would FSM Do???
Posted by holdenon_2000 on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to marry my brother or sister. Is this OK. I'm not bothering anyone. We don't plan on having children. Why cant I marry my mother?
Evolution - Science - Humanity. That is why Gay Sex is wrong. Our body parts are made for reasons, you don't eat through your ears, or urinate out your mouth, so why would you use the rest of you body for purposes that do not improve on humanity? GREED, LUST, SELFISHNESS.
If we allow Gays to get married, because "it doesn't bother anybody else" then we need to legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize suicide, legalize marriage between brothers & sisters.
So when a judge make prostitution OK because every has a right to earn a living we should accept that too? If the Judge was an elected position, I bet they would not have even touched the subject, because the majority still has morals, not brainwashed by mental, socially rejected groups.
Remember Wacko Texas.
YES for PROP 8
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
High_Society:
You leave Hef alone! Don't hate the player, hate the game!!!
LOL
Posted by wdwinder1 on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to know why its 'Gay AND Lesbian'. Doesnt Gay pretty much cover it? I don't get it.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Holdenon:
You're soooo extreme. "remember Waco, Texas."
Which flavor of Kool-Aid did YOU drink?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon:
Why NOT legalize prostitution? Men have been paying women for sex in other ways for years and it's perfectly legal.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
johnmuir:
"Im still waiting on why homosexuals are not called crooked"
...because they're not.
Posted by boblaunius on August 28, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This might help, it may not be totally accurate however it is a good sign what the county and the rest of the state will vote- final poll by the STAR July 2008- do the math
Would you favor a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only involving a man and a woman?
Thanks for your vote.
Yes 52% 1646 votes
No 47% 1507 votes
3153 total votes
Posted by Fred on August 28, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This issue will come to a head right at election times - it is time to dust off and re-launch the republican fear machine = vote republican or the gay terrorists will get you (and please dont notice that we have bankrupted the country except for a few rich folks)
It worked before and I think it has a good chance of working again.
This is an important issue, but nothing compared to the raping and pilaging of our country by corporate greed, politicians, bankers and wall street. We make nothing here, consume everything, and the scam is now over. The time of entitlement is over (and I should get back to work or be fired)
Fred
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the fear-mongering to keep the 'sheeple' in-line has already begun.
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading these posts, it is easy to see that Lazarus has it correct.
"...The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled [religious types] and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Muir - self selecting polls are as valid as the people who self select which parts of the Bible they wish to abide by and those they don't (see shell fish, cutting your hair, divorce, etc.) And as for straight vs. crooked - Heterosexuals seem to have a lock on both terms (See Vitter, Edwards, Clinton, Young) Homosexuals got the term "gay" while heterosexuals got the term "straight".
Posted by rebel123 on August 28, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Banning gay marriage is not going to make homosexuals disappear folks. They are still going to be together, they are still going to have children or adopt children, they are still going to be considered "couples" by most insurance companies, they are still going to be with each other. They are not pushing their agendas in your faces. You're the ones that are making this into a huge deal. The vulgarity of the remarks in this forum as to your children being taught various sex acts are ok makes me worry about your thought processes. Hetero couples can (and do) engage in all the same acts, folks! Does your mind immediately leap into the bedroom when a man and a woman marry? No? Gee, then maybe you should consider getting it out of there for any couple. Can you ignorant homophobes get your minds out of the gutter and realize that people get married for a ton of reasons having nothing to do with sex at all?? They are already having sex and will likely continue to do so regardless of how prop 8 goes. This is simply a piece of paper that allows them full legal status under CIVIL law to make decisions for each other, to own property jointly and to be considered legal partners in all circumstances. It has no bearing on YOUR marriage what so ever. The sanctity of marriage is a joke! Half of all couples divorce. Men beat their wives. Spouses cheat on each other and lie to each other. The sanctity of marriage exists only between the two people in that one union. It is what YOU make it, not defined by anyone else. Your intolerance is justly noted. Now can you go mind your own darn business?
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The revolutionaries of the 13 Colonies were a minority??
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I should have said "treasonous revolutionaries".
Posted by NowHearThis on August 28, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
laurarmc: "No on 8- even my 11 year old sees the wrong in amending the state constitution to *remove* civil rights."
That's because your 11-year-old is constantly brainwashed in government school with every conceivable leftist-liberal ideology, including how the gay activists have infiltrated our schools. Our schools are failing for the very reason liberals have hijacked the edu. system
Homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population, yet they want to jam their ideology down the throats of the ignorant, ill-informed and under-educated -- and other normal people.
Gay folk were in the closet when I was a kid. Life was better when that was the case.
Posted by dom_kenpo on August 28, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who cares about all this nonsense....what in the heck is happening to the Dodgers?
Posted by CrazyCatLady on August 28, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand all of this God jibber-jabber. Church and State are separate! God has nothing to do with the court system. If a religious institution doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's okay, but the state should be completely objective. "This country was founded on Christian beliefs!" This country was founded (by mostly Atheists) on the belief that everyone should have freedom to believe whatsoever he or she chooses, and that the government would stay out of it! "The Bible says that marriage is for a man and woman only" The Bible also says that hands should be chopped off, and women who are menstruating should be kept sequestered until the end of their cycle! The Bible is first and foremost, mostly a story, was written over hundreds of years by a whole bunch of people, (not to mention mostly written over one thousand years ago) and is not to be used literally in today’s context. These Fundamental Christians use the Bible in a very literal for whatever means (especially political) they see fit. Years from now, we will be looking down on these fundamentalists like we look down on those people opposed to mixed- race marriages or people in support of segregation. This is a civil rights issue- not just a “homosexual issue”
Posted by ProudRepublican on August 28, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Muir - face the fact. The cultural wars are over and you lost.
Posted by rebel123 on August 28, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
johnmuir, you are not in the majority. If the true majority ever got up off their collective arses and voted, you'd be likely shocked at what would change in this country!
Posted by Comments on August 28, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will never, ever understand why some people feel so threatened by the love two people have for one another. Yes, I get that some heterosexuals can't understand why one sex would want to have sex with a person of the same sex. So what? That's fine - don't do it. The ignornant comments here saying that this type of sex is being forced in their faces and that their children are being taught the nuances of gay sex are just absurd. My heterosexual relations with my husband aren't being force fed to anyone and our particular likes and dislikes in the bedroom aren't being taught to your children in school. Why on earth would it be true simply because two people of the same sex got married? Simply ridiculous.
And, to those who keep spouting the bible - PLEASE, enough already. I respect your right to believe in the bible, but please at least face the fact that many don't. And, even those who do, pick and choose the parts they want. There is a difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. If one were to get married only in the church, but didn't get a license by the state, then the marriage would not be legal. The reverse however isn't true. Once can be married by the state, but not in the church and that marriage is legal.
And, I also find the arguments discussing the particulars of gay sex to be juvenile, paranoid and ridiculous. Someone said that various parts are meant to only serve one purpose. Where is that written? Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples who enjoy anal sex (uh oh, gasp!) as well. And, sex is not simply for procreation purposes. And I suspect the person who wrote that has had sex (with a partner or solo) many times without the express purpose to create life. Get over yourselves!
I just don't see how gay people getting married infringes on any single right of mine. I fully support it and hope that it stops being an issue in my lifetime. Like one poster said - surely we have bigger issues to focus on in this state, in our country and in our world.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NowHearThis: "Our schools are failing for the very reason liberals have hijacked the edu. system
"
Idiot. Our schools are failing because the C-student President we have pushed the "no child left behind" act on public schools AND didn't fund it. 2 + 2 = 5 to Dubya...what did you expect would happen to the education in America?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You people need to stop being so paranoid of the homosexual community. It "reeks" (sp?) of: "I'm saying this to over-compensate and further suppress the intense curiousity homosexuals feelings I have". Really.
Posted by Comments on August 28, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Myopenyun, I agree that my comment about anal sex was silly. However, it was in direct response to posts above discussing how that part of the body is for one purpose only (i.e. exit only). There were quite a few other posts talking about the abomination of that sort of sex and it was clear that the posts were geared toward it being an act that only gay people do. The fact is that's not true. While many might not admit to it, plenty of hetero couples also engage in anal sex. And, the bigger point I was trying to make (perhaps not so well) is that it's really none of our business what two consenting adults (and I mean two consenting adults, so let's keep the bestiality comments out) do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Posted by Comments on August 28, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And, I have yet to hear one single person who is against gay marriage say how it harms them or what right it takes away from them?
Posted by daugtherofimmigrant on August 28, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Beahappi, we get so fired up with all the crime and gay marriage stories there are more than 100 comments on each of these stories and only 29 on Thomas' story. A family needs our help, how about a helping hand or wallet? :O)
We can do this!!!
We all come from different cultures, religion, cities, and we disagree with each other, but one thing we all agree on is no one should go through what Thomas and his family are going through please help!!
Posted by at8man on August 28, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Proud Republican...Aids and HIV might be more prevelant today amonst heterosexuals,but it didn't become epidemic until a certain gay flight attendant started spreading the infection by having unsafe sex with numerous men.
Posted by Deek56 on August 28, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Del - your comment, "I have yet to figure out how and why folks keep talking about Prop 22 was passed by a majority. Yes, of the people who voted, 61% favored the proposition. But that only represented 19% of the adult population of Calif. This is the results of the stupid, apathetic nature of our society is another subject" - it's lacking in facts. Please cite your source re 19% of adult poputlation? According to the California Secretary of State Records (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2...) 37.15% of the adult population of registered voters voted in the 2000 primary election. Why the other 62.85% failed to vote has no bearing on the fact that the citizens of the State were in favor of Prop 22.
Posted by garion246 on August 28, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do people have to get married at all? For spousal health benefits, for survivor retirements benefits I can understand. Both of those should be able to be implemented w/o being married. With 401k’s retirement plans you can name a beneficiary. I am not sure about health care benefits. Getting married for Tax reasons I can understand. Getting married with the idea of starting a family or raising children, I can understand (standard society ideals).
You don’t however need to get married to have sex.
You don’t have to have sex if you are married.
You can have sex with someone else if you are married.
You can have sex with someone who is married to some on else.
You don’t have to get married to love someone.
You don’t have to get married to pronounce the Love between two people.
You can wear a ring on you left index finger whether or not you’re married.
Adoption: There seems to be a belief that you need to be married to adopt. Is that so?? I don’t really know. I believe, it is better for a child to be adopted than not adopted under most circumstances. If it’s a gay couple that’s that adopting I am ok with that, if it’s a sibling couple that’s ok too, if it s a heterosexual couple that’s ok too. I don’t believe any particular group is more loving or less criminal than the other. However due to the makeup of our society as whole and all other things being equal, I believe that a heterosexual couple is a slightly better option.
Surrogate parenting: To me this is about the same as adoption above.
Marriage laws were made with the intent of being a bond between a man and a woman. Marriage itself is historically between a man and a woman.
What about other types relationships? Can they be married? Are they now being discriminated now?
Even though the majority already said it is against same sex marriage, the majority could change their mind. What’s great about or government is that we can re-look at issues and adjust to changing times. ---- Well for me marriage still means between a man and a women. ----
Maybe the best thing to do is take away marriage as a legal right all together. Separate marriage and state.
Posted by Poppa on August 28, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnMuir96 would you shake the hand of Larry Craig, or are you afraid he has aids? What about Foley or Ted Haggart? Ignorant people like you ruled the Dark Ages and psychologists say the more homophobic someone is the more likely they are to have latent feelings of homosexuality.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tanknows:
Add close-minded, homophobe and unreasonable to that list.
Posted by truereality on August 28, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The bible thumpers are scared. They see the more open minded this country is becoming, especially California. Aren't religious people supposed to be the calm, cool and collected people? Didn't there used to be this idea that religious people were kind to all, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs? What are you so afraid of? Fighting the constant battle of trying to explain to your kids why gay is so wrong, yet it's not an issue to them because they've grown up in a time where it's more accepted in society than ever. There shouldn't be two sets of civil rights. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay people getting married. The more power to them. Legalize!
Posted by turchotk on August 28, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tan: Isn't it funny how all the name calling starts when you mention Liberal, Democrat and Socialist in the same sentence? Every single time with this group of misfits. As I recall they used to be proud of that! My how times have changed. I suggest you stop the banter with the likes High Marxist Society and BabyDizzy or whoever. You know as well as anyone, that they're not worth it.
Posted by sdetatae on August 28, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Muir - First I just have to say that it saddens me and gives me hope that you take your name from one of my personal heros.
As for your straight vs crooked question... I would assume it is a hold over from the derogatory term "crooked" or "bent".
So yes, you can smirk & giggle all you want that yes you were correct.
Just because one half of a slang term is still in use & accepted by society doesn't mean its source ever had any validity. I can think of many words in use today that I have no desire to ever use.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 28, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
high_society:
turchotk won't look it up, he's waiting for Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Coulter to provide the definition for him.
Posted by vickicassidy2 on August 28, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnmuir,
Do you have gay porn on your computer? Just curious! You seem really like a obsessed religous fanatic.
Posted by lizlemon on August 28, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pogmothoin..."Gee, god hasn't pulled a Sodom and Gomorrah in well, a heck of a long time." Don't forget that according to Pat Robertson, god sent Hurricane Katrina to display his disapproval of Ellen Degeneres' lifestyle. I think she's responsible for Sept. 11th, as well.
No on 8.
Posted by Fred on August 28, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of your opinion on this matter - either way - do you really think that it should be an important issue in this election? (cause I dont)
Posted by Fred on August 28, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
p.s. yes, I am a democrat - but one who is pretty pissed off at my party for rushing out to rescue banks and wall street. The republicans have this one right - let the banks who made crappy loans fail.
Posted by tesseract on August 28, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a mormon and voting No on 8. People need to seriously use their brains and their hearts and not vote based on fear tactics.
From my study of the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah's primary sin was lack of hospitality - they were unkind to each other, to helpless, needy people, and to visitors.
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My bumper sticker says, "My karma ran over your dogma"
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 28, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, 158 messages on this subject.
The fact is that this is a distraction from the real issues, like who can we vote for besides McCain and Obama.
I am not choosing the lesser of 2 evils this year. I am voting for someone that isn't evil.
Wish me luck!!
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...voting for someone that isn't evil"
That stuck me funny, for in my cynicism, anyone who runs for office is to be distrusted.
I do believe this is an issue. This is an attempt to change the CA. Constitution so as to limit the civil rights of a small section of our population. Who will they come after next?
Posted by del on August 28, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But as we have seen in recent administrations, it does not take much intelligence to be elected president.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 28, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
del,
You are right, we have seen that all politicians are easily bought. McCain and Obama have already said they are continuing the same old #@#$.
Posted by Tita805 on August 28, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I simply will vote yes on 8. I pray for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Please Lord make your coming be soon, so all this can end.
Amen.
Posted by Deek56 on August 28, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dr Jennifer Morse had this to say on this topic: McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society. Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order. Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex "marriage" is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple. The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex "marriage" in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require. Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.
http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/...
Posted by BillyBob on August 28, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
johnmuir96:
You nasty rhetoric defames the character of John Muir. Please go take a walk in the woods.
Posted by isisreptiles on August 28, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for gays and lesbians having the right to marry. We should all have the right to marry the person of our choice whether opposite sex or same sex.
The idea that "marriage is for procreation" is beyond asinine. There are any number of reasons to get married. What about hetero couples who cannot have children, or choose not to have them, or older couples past the age of procreation. Should marriage be banned for these people as well?
The gays and lesbians are not trying to push any "agenda" on anyone. They simply want the same right to marry the person of their choice, just like the rest of us.
The only ones who are pushing their "agenda" on the rest of us is the backwards thinking, right-wing, bible-thumping religious fundies. THEY are ones who are trying so hard to force their "agenda" on the rest of us. They are the ones who would like to see the rest of the world living according to their views.
Live and let live, people. This is 2008, not 1908. Times have changed. Deal with it.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 28, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I tried to read through all the comments, but it just got to be too tedious.
I'll say this.
The Bible...sorry, it might be a source of wisdom, but it really is mostly a work of fiction. It is really the work of Men who purport to know what "God" thinks.
Marriage is a construct of man....not "god", whoever that is.
Marriage sanctioned by the State is a consequence of laws created to prevent "miscegenation" or basically prevention of folks of different races marrying and then "interbreeding". It is a creation of the post Civil War era and as such, is a recent concept.
People should mind their own business, and leave others to theirs. THe so called religious communtiy would be better off dealing with the pitfalls of heterosexual relations than gay relations. It's a bigger segment of the community, and frankly most of their flock.
Posted by handyhood on August 28, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, I did the math, and just with this blog the percentage of yes votes is 52% to 48% no. So who did this poll? Who was polled? Probably liberal democrats in San Francisco! I didn't count the same people more than once cause you can only have one vote, and beleive it or not, out of 178 blogs there were only 49 bloggers. 26 said yes and 23 said no. So accordingly Prop 8 should pass. Sorry gays, you'll just have to continue to call yourselves,"Life Partners". Oh yeah, A lesbian couple I know were going to get married, but one of them decided that just maybe she was Bi! Another confused hetro.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 29, 2008 at 3:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who here is for civil rights for all? well we sure don't have them in California where gays can participate in Civil Unions yet heterosexuals cannot. That makes me assured that gays don't want equal rights, they want MORE rights and that's exactly what gays have right now.
The same California Supreme Court that violated the California Constitution and overruled a Constitutionally mandated vote of the people, declared that civil unions for gays and those over 63 was Constitutional.
I'm sick of leftist courts defecating on the State's and the U.S. Constitutions and I am voting FOR Prop 8 solely to shove one back down the California Supreme Court's throat!
I don't expect anyone that is gay or leftist to get my reasoning but I guess they will if Prop 8 passes, you just can't violate the State Constitution at your convenience because many people won't stand for it, and get this, I didn't vote for Prop 22, but I'm voting for Prop 8.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 29, 2008 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People wonder why folks in other states call this Commiefornia, land of fruits and nuts? Isn't it pretty clear, California violates the U.S. Constitution more than any other state.
Posted by Ross on August 29, 2008 at 4:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The notion that rights are subject to popular vote is ridiculous and ignorant.
The fact is that our Constitutional system was specifically and deliberately constructed to prevent mob mentality from voting away rights from unpopular segments of the citizenry.
Fact are, gay people are CITIZENS. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact is, this is (or at least aspires to be) a free country.
The California Supreme Court did their *JOB* and struck down an illegal and invalid law. Agree or disagree with the reasoning, but shut up about "the will of the people." If "the will of the people" operated in many parts of this country, we would still own slaves. Forget it.
Religious fanaticism is not the basis for sound legal or social policy. Nor is irrational hate, which is why all 8 supporters are on here foaming really disgusting crap. Hating freedom is not our way. Most Californians know better.
No on 8. Don't be un-American. Vote no on ignorance and hate. No on 8.
Up with American freedom. Down with ignorant haters.
Posted by Ross on August 29, 2008 at 5:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just to clarify, it is ignorant to believe that matters of civil rights are decided by popular vote. All other matters, of course, are legitimately voted on.
Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the havoc that would result if popular prejudices were enshrined in law. That's why the Constitution was written, to guarantee that ALL citizens are equal before the law regardless of popular prejudices.
To the poster who noted that gays and lesbians have civil unions, and tried to argue that this is somehow "more equal", this is absurd. The point of domestic partnerships was to serve in the absence of marriage. Now that same-sex marriage is legal, perhaps you should use your energy to overturn domestic partnerships now that they are no longer required to fill the gap they were originally created to fill.
Posted by handyhood on August 29, 2008 at 5:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK folks, thats two more no votes. That put the poll at excactly 50/50. What a mess the people of this wacky liberal State has made.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 29, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you get my yes on 8 vote?
Posted by jeffinventura on August 29, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is time for EQUAL RIGHTS for all LEGAL ADULT RELATIONSHIPS!!!
Vote NO on Prop 8!
GOD BLESS!
Posted by srcheek on August 29, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please keep your God out of my marriage. My husband and I married because we love each other and want to spend our lives together. Getting married was the next step for us in our relationship when we realized that. Why should we deny someone else that same joy because they're gay?
Posted by bnlsnider on August 29, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Check out this KEYT news report from last weekend featuring Ventura's Community Memorial Hospital CEO Gary Wilde going door-to-door with the LDS church encouraging people to ban same-sex marriage:
http://www.keyt.com/news/local/273305...
I'll be at County hospital. Stop the hate, NO on 8.
Posted by freethought on August 29, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Polls are notorius for being wrong. Especially depending on who takes it. Marriage is not a civil right! It is a right passed to us from God. God as said that a man will take a woman for a mate. God as said that homosexuality is an abomanation."
Handihood - God told you that hiself, did he? No! Marriage was around long before the Hebrews laid claim to its invention, and there's plenty of written history to prove it. Keep your right wing nut job religious convictions to yourself.
"Huenemegirl. I guess that according to your point it would be ok to make beastiality legal too! I mean those sheep aren't being hurt and what happens as long as we don't see it is none of our buisiness, right? So as long as no one else is affected it's OK? Your talking a very long list there."
????? Are you comparing the completely consentual actions of pleasure between two humans to that of mammals that cannot verbalize their consent? Can you tell us what high school you graduated from, so we can all make sure our kids avoid it? Try comparing apples to apples for once.
Posted by freethought on August 29, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Holdenon:
You're soooo extreme. "remember Waco, Texas."
Which flavor of Kool-Aid did YOU drink?"
BabyzDaddy_01 - I think the Kool-Aid thing was actually in Jonestown.
Kidding, of course. I know what you're trying to say.
Posted by freethought on August 29, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"handyhood ,Very well said.
And to the other comment, what goes on behind closed doors?Hmmmmmm Molestations, rape, murder, Yes its our business....."
AnnaWhaat - No, not everything is your business. Are you some sort of peeping Tom? Like Handyhood, you are comparing apples to cannibalistic zombie fish. Consentual sex between two adults is not rape, murder, molestation, traffic violations, or any other crime. It's completely legal and completely none of your business.