Prop. 8 leaves gay marriages in limbo : Local News : Ventura County Star

Posted by handyhood on November 6, 2008 at 4:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's a shame that the gays are protesting the will of the people. Marriage has always been from the beginning of time between a Man and a Woman. If they truly wanted to have a commitment that under the law would mean that they are a legal couple, they could have a measure passed that would in effect mean the same thing as marriage but called something else. I think the gay community is using this issue to stick homosexuality in the face of the heterosexual community as shock value.
The protesters are basically saying that they believe the democratic system is only right if they agree with the issue. Well, we voted and they lost. Now they have to accept it. It's called D E M O C R A C Y ! As their beloved San Francisco Mayor said,"Weather you like it or not!". This of course is my opinion.
Note that I have kept my comments civil. I believe if you can't express yourself without respecting others, then you need to keep your thoughts to yourself. After some of the things that people posted yesterday, I don't blame the Star for shutting it down. Please Star staff, ban the people who can't keep these threads within the confounds of common decency.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I have grown older, I have witnessed the growth of the pornographic industry. What started out as magazines delivered in brown wrapping paper has now become multi-billion dollar industry that exploits women and children. This was accomplished by using the 1st ammendment right to free speech. Pornography is so widespread that it is quite common children to inadvertantly find themselves in a hardcore site.

During this same time period I have witnessed the same progression for the gay and lesbian movement. I have seen our culture change. What was once considered taboo is now promoted as normal and healthy. I have seen laws change to the point that this post may soon be called a hate crime and my right to free speech is superceded by the gay/lesbian promoters.

My point is this. Homosexuality may not be taught in schools now, but that can easily change, and as recent events indicate, it probably will be mandated that young children be taught of the lifestyle. There are homosexual advocates that have already tried. Sheila Kuehl is a perfect example as a legislator who's agenda is/was the promotion of educating elementary age children the 'alternative" lifestyle.

The advocates of the gay/lesbian lifestyle are fully aware that as time passes, they make huge advances under the guise of equal rights. Schools will be a tool used by these advocates for their social agenda. As parents and grandparents, you will be labeled as intolerant, and possibly face prosecution for hate crimes, if you oppose your children and grandchildren being taught that lifestyle.

Posted by jill on November 6, 2008 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MRSSMITH,

I agree. People are horrified by rights denied people throughout history, but they do not learn from it. I was surprised to see that blacks were big supporters of prop. 8. If anyone knows about discrimination, they do. I guess it's okay to discriminate as long as it doesn't affect them. We haven't come very far after all.

I had no idea that there were 18,000 gay marriages in the last few months. So it obviously didn't affect me. This has to be overturned in the courts. It's unconstititional.

A young Mormon girl I went to high school with got pregnant by a black man while her Mormon boyfriend was away on his mission. Her family shipped her off to Utah so she could have her baby and give it up for adoption. Then she came back and married her boyfriend and they had their little perfect family. The hypocracy is rich.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 6, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

handyhood ,Very well said. This site does need to be respectful to others also I strongly agree with that statement. We are all human, no doubt and there should be no reason to be hostile.

Posted by ironwoman on November 6, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad 8 passed.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 6, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as the young Mormon girl shipped off to Utah. It seems her family is the prejudiced ones here. Not all families would react the same way. What her parents did will probably haunt her for life. Then again she may have been able to become emancipated and did what she wanted to do with her baby. There are many options out there for her where she could have gotten help and kept her baby.

Posted by illuminate on November 6, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I checked, our constitution is supposed to provide us all with equal rights. Having individuals vote on whether or not a certain group, in this case gays, should be afforded equal rights should never have happened in the first place. As Americans, we are all entitled to the same rights under the law. I sincerely hope this is overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. My heart hurts that over 50% of the people in this state voted for discrimination. I am hopeful, however, that nearly 50% voted against and that the tide will continue to change. Next time you say or hear the pledge of allegiance, think about it when you say, "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Prop 8 divides us, and takes away liberty and justice from thousands. It's not the American way....

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MRSMYTH,
You said, "Obviously the proposition was put on the ballot because the state legislators would not enact a law to please the anti gay crowd"

In all respect let me correct that. The proposition was on the ballot because WE, THE PEOPLE, voted 61% to uphold traditional marraige just 8 years ago. Activists on the pro same sex marraige side, did not approve of our democratic process and got the judicial system to legislate OUR vote away!
IF, the state legislatures would have passed a bill banning same sex marraige which is highly unlikely given the political makeup of it, the courts would have overturned that too.
That is why the common sense people had to make it a constitutional ammendment to keep the judges out of it.
Apparently the pro same sex marraige people will not even respect this democratic vote and have already gone to court to overturn this.
I guess WE THE PEOPLE only applies when THEY agree with THE PEOPLE.
Common Sense!

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

illuminate,

If it is in the Constitution then it is Constitutional! You may not like that, but the Constitution is THE law of the land. It does not allow absolute freedoms to everyone. For instance, is it unconstitutional to not be allowed to marry your dog?
As far as taking away rights, I do not beleive prop 8 took away the right for gays to marry, only to the same sex. A gay man may marry a lesbian woman, just as a straight man can marry a straight woman. But just as a gay man cannot marry a gay man, neither can a straight man marry another straight man.
You may feel the argument is ludicrous, but the point is that as long as they are treated equal under the law, there should be no problem.
Common Sense

Posted by socal2310 on November 6, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I noted yesterday (before things evidently got nasty and all posts were removed) this is not fundamentally a rights issue.

Yes there are rights enjoyed by default by married couples, but if those rights were separated from the institution of marriage, most of us who are married would still marry and I'm reasonably sure most homosexuals would still favor being able to marry. This is fundamentally an issue about the 9th District Supreme Court granting a facade of moral equivalence to BEHAVIOR that many of us consider immoral.

Even if we were to grant the premise that some people are born homosexual it wouldn't change anything. Men are genetically predisposed to be adulterers - I didn't suddenly stop finding other women sexually attractive after covenanting with my wife to love honor and cherish her as long as we both live - but I don't think even a bare majority of people are prepared to say that I would be justified in having an affair just because some hot chick made herself available (I will grant that my argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that we now accept serial adultery generally even if we are appalled by specific instances - John McCain's shameful behavior toward his first wife for example).

Ryan

Posted by illuminate on November 6, 2008 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Huntram, thanks for bringing up the Preamble to the constitution. Let's recall what comes after we the people. "...establish justice," "promote the general welfare," "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity....". No exclusions here. For all people. Not just people who have traditional marriages. ALL PEOPLE.

Again, we should NOT be voting on issues that take away the rights of others. We've had to pass constitutional amendments to stop this from happening. If Prop 8 holds, it creates a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent. We all need to fear that our rights could be voted away in the future.

Posted by US_Citizen on November 6, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe some of who voted for prop 8 are sending a message to the judges who decided on thier own to say the hell with the law, we will marry you anyway. Then everyone rushed out to get married, right down to the last minute. Even knowing the prop may not pass. Then the same people are now crying "we got married yesterday and today we may not be married". I really believe some voters may have been more on the no side if it was a different situation. Judges have to get the message that they can't just go against the will of the people and make their own rules.

Posted by JEH on November 6, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its not the end. Obama didnt support prop 8, Arnold didnt support prop 8, it will now go before the court again. Prop 8 may have passed but it may very well get over turned again considering its UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 6, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do any of you pro 8 people understand: WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PURE DEMOCRACY! Our founding fathers were afraid of exactly what you are doing. They wanted to protect us from the "tyranny of the masses".

The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES that we ALL have the SAME rights. They CANNOT be voted on. If one person gets to enjoy a right we ALL get to enjoy. That is the basic principle that has made America great. This is why ammendments to the U.S. Constitution require a 2/3's vote, not a simple majority.
I am confident that when weighed against the law of the land (U.S. Constitution) this discriminatory law will be overturned.

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing, this is about making sure we ALL enjoy the same rights and privileges

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute... I'm trying to find in the Constitution where it addresses that marriage is a RIGHT. As a matter of fact, unless I'm overlooking it, I don't know any legal document that establishes marriage as a right, but rather a privilege. We LICENSE marriage, just like we LICENSE the privilege to drive. We set parameters to what we believe constitutes a person's ability to drive a car, just as we have now (again) set parameters as to what we think should give people the privilege to marry. If you think about, no matter how much this is going to hurt, the reality is that marriage is a union of two parties under a contract and licensed by the government. It is up to the government to set the rules, which means, in a democracy, since the voters choose the government, the voters should choose the rules. We did that (TWICE!). No matter what you may believe the religious or moral implications are in this matter, that means nothing. Marriage is a legally binding contract, not a right. The majority of people have decided to add this new parameter to rules of that contractual process. To challenge that result seems like a challenge to our overall RIGHT to a democratic process.

Posted by US_Citizen on November 6, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robb, good post. You stated what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. I don't see anyone else protesting the president elect. or other props. that passed. This is a waste of time and frankly I am tired of hearing about it. The people have spoken, not once but twice. Accept it. Just like we have to accept our president elect and other props whether we like them or not.

Posted by lawabider on November 6, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The passage of this law is a criminal violation of human rights and those that supported it should be ashamed of themselves. Your children, that you are so worried about being taught about homosexuality, will be FAR more tolerant than you and (most likely) are already AWARE of the existence of homosexuality. This law will be challenged -- and, if America is remain proud of it's FREEDOM, it will be defeated. Enough said -- now you folks play nice in this sandbox so the editor doesn't have to kick you all out AGAIN!

Posted by US_Citizen on November 6, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. If the no side of prop 8 was approved by the vote of the people, we would not see the yes side protesting and marching up and down the streets of California would we. No, it would be accepted. Again, accept it gracefully and move on.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 6, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: "Wait a minute... I'm trying to find in the Constitution where it addresses that marriage is a RIGHT."

1. We ALL have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

2. We All have the right to "Equal protection under the law".

Let me say it again, "Equal protection under the law".

The privilege of a drivers license is based on our ability to actually drive, but ANYONE who has the ability will be granted a license.

In the case of prop 8, you're saying only SOME people can get a marraige license. That violates 1 and 2 from above.

Posted by camgurl on November 6, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jamaro099--I totally agree with you!
Prop 8 should have never been passed and I am almost sure it will be overturned!
Da*n right it's unconstitutional.. The gays are soo concerned about their marriage because it means so much to them.. Can you PRO 8 people see that.. They are still fighting for their rights.. That is just awesome and I fully support all of them..

Posted by godslove1 on November 6, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This has been ruminating in the back of my head for a couple of days now...as extreme as it sounds you say it is unconstitutional to take away the rights of others and that just because one group may consider the actions of another group immoral does not mean that rights should be limited or removed. Well, what about pedophiles, misogynists, polygamists, satanic churches...should they be allowed to practice what they feel is right with no consequence?

Ok, so lets change the constitution that includes the words "...however many wives you choose..." or "...breeding and murdering children in the name of your beliefs is acceptable under the law..." or "..it is acceptable to abuse women in a consenting relationship..." or the list could be endless. Morality has nothing to do with it, don't you see this? LGBT lifestyles are "alternative". Being black or female is not an alternative lifestyle, nor is being a little person or disabled mentally or physically.

The constitution provides for the common welfare...that means the majority rules. I am so grateful that the people have spoken once again and I pray that we continue to speak and be led by what is good and righteous for ALL.

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Citizen. The one thing I would like to point out is that I don't think the people who are so passionately against Prop 8 are wrong, just misdirected. They are looking at marriage as a right and it's not. When you look at it from the standpoint of being a licensed union, it changes the scope. It's not a fundamental right to get be able to get married. You can APPLY for a license to get married, and because 99.99% of the applications have historically been approved, people automatically assume it is a right. I seem to remember a long time ago when you had to get a blood test before you could get a marriage license. It was part of the rule, regardless of how rediculous it sounds that you couldn't get a license to marry if your blood test came back a certain way.

Posted by mishie358 on November 6, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

all of you still don't get what prop 8 is about..People whom voted for prop 8 just voted to take away the rights of a singled out group of people.. You whom voted yes just set us back to the day of where black couldn't marry whites and I am sad that we as americans can say Oh Yes this is wrong for a man to marry a Man ...Who are you ya'll to say anything about who I could or could not marry This is a sad time for california and Now I know how self centered california's really are.. and you all follow the money funders the Morman church what happened between sepration of State and Church I guess nothing since you whom voted yes took away some ones fundemental rites So sad ...I guess people are still afraid of change so sad !! you just set us back 100 yrs So sad

Posted by jamaro099 on November 6, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robb,

I understand it may be a privilege, but again, because we are all granted Equal protection under the law, everyone should be eligible to enjoy the privilege. Just like everyone should be eligible to be able to get a job, even though jobs are not guaranteed.

Prop 8 has declared that only some people are eligible to get marraige licenses. That, is what makes it unconstitutional.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 6, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

illuminate posted,Last I checked, our constitution is supposed to provide us all with equal rights. Having individuals vote on whether or not a certain group, in this case gays, should be afforded equal rights should never have happened in the first place. As Americans, we are all entitled to the same rights under the law
Nope we are not, not everyone is entitled to Free Healthcare or food stamps , only a certain group. Pretty much your theory. Are 14 year olds allow to marry? No , is that unfair also. Felons can not carry guns, is that descrimination since they are not the same as us, they are being descriminated against? NO!!!!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 6, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prop 8 is in violation of California's constitution just as the wording of Prop 22.

The legal challenges will be fast and furious.

Face the fact that gays and lesbians will NEVER submit to being considered second class!!!

Same-sex couples want to protect their families and children just as any other people would want to protect and provide for their spouse and children.

Why would anyone think that this ridiculous Prop measure would stop gay people from wanting EQUAL RIGHTS???

Now that Prop 8 has passed, it can be challenged.....and those challenges can propel the issue to the Supreme Court.....which can rule and effect ALL states!!!

This Prop 8 issue may just be a blessing in disguise for same-sex marriage!!!

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

Posted by handyhood on November 6, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robb-murphy- Wow! You hit the nail on the head. Marriage is NOT A RIGHT! Marriage is a privilege. This is what I too have been trying to put into words and couldn't. The gays have every right afforded to them as everyone else. They have the privilege to marry the opposite sex like everyone else. They don't have the right to marry the same sex, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! We don't allow a female to walk about with her breast showing because we feel it it morally wrong. A man however can. Is that taking away the rights of the female? NO, it is not. Because of the morality of society we have certain laws. Now one of them is that one cannot marry the same sex. One cannot marry their sister either.Should the Brother and Sister be upset and scream equality? The people have said what they believe is morally right, so the Gay community needs to quit shoving their ideals down out throats. This is now constitutional. Get over it and move on people.

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok Jamar, by your thinking:

1. Grants the "right" to the PURSUIT of happiness. People pursued it, they didn't get it. No one stopped them from pursuing it.

2. What exactly does prop 8 "protect"? Aren't there already domestic partner laws that give gay couples the same basic "protection" as marriage laws.

Unfortunately your argument falls right in line with most others, you are looking at marriage as a right. It's not a right, no matter how you slice it. It's licensing governed by a set of rules. Prop 8 is a new rule that was declared by a majority of the democracy to be a rule that should be placed on who gets a marriage license. That's the paradigm shift. If a law were passed banning marriage for men of 6'3" to women of 5'6", I would still live with my wife, love her, have children with her, and so on, we just wouldn't be married. It's the law, crappy as it might be...

Posted by waterworld on November 6, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MRSMYTH

You sir are who is missing the issue. Amending the state constitution only became a necessary measure as a result of the judicial branch of our state government legislating from the bench. On March 7, 2000 with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against the state adopted Prop 22 stating that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized in California. A very biased San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. Subsequently a state appeals court reversed this lower court decision. Ultimately the California Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008 that prop 22 violated the state Constitution. The dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter nicely summarizes the problems with the majority opinion. In it, he states a number of problems with the court’s ruling:

“In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.”

“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.”

“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative”

Given the state judicial decision to violate the separation of powers and legislate from the bench defying the will of the people left the people with no choice but to clarify the constitution with an amendment.

Posted by ribbypaultz on November 6, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to see a breakdown by county of the yes/no vote.

Posted by socal2310 on November 6, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa There, hold your horses!

Rights are given by God, privileges are granted by the State. Marriage existed before the State and in much of human history it wasn't regulated by the State, it was safeguarded by religious institutions (of course, they aren't doing so hot right now).

You'll be choking on your privileges after the 9th Circuit (inevitably) overturns prop 8.

Ryan

Posted by twbeem on November 6, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can it be unconstitutional if it is now part of the constitution of California. If you don't like what the voters decided TWICE then leave. Not like California is a great place to live anyway.

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamar, to your second reply to my post, NOWHERE in the STATE constitution does it say MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT, it simply defines the parameters of marriage laws!! Therefore, to set a rule to the law of marriage is, by definition, CONSTITUTIONAL!! The state constitution defines the laws governing marriage, it doesn't make marriage a right. You can't call a constitutional definition unconstitutional!! Is anybody else getting this??? The LAW is what the constitution is made up of. If you ADD a parameter to the LAW, it makes the parameter part of the definition and therefore it HAS to be constitutional!! Am I missing something???

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Handyhood,
you are exactly right. It is not unconstitutional because it IS now the constitution. The original prop 22 was deemed unconstitutional, and if this was not a constitutional ammendment it could have been deemed unconstitutional, but it is now part of the constitution and IS constitutional. A different arguement could be made that it is unfair, but as you (and I earlier) have said, a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can, so there is equality under the law!
Common Sense!

Posted by LoopbackIP on November 6, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can give you the breakdown :

Churches and their narrowminded flocks - 100% Yes

Everyone else - 100% No

Next proposition I want to see on ballot :
TAX EXEMPT STATUS REMOVED FOR RELIGION

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

twbeem:
How can it be unconstitutional if it is now part of the constitution of California. If you don't like what the voters decided TWICE then leave. Not like California is a great place to live anyway.

If the USSC ends up getting this (very likely), they could construe that is violates the US Constitution. State law can not over ride the US Constitution.

Posted by anotheropinion on November 6, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a unfortunate and sad day when we live in a state and "community" where we would give fundemental rights to farm animals and take them away from our own good, law-abiding, tax paying, decent people.....Very very sad

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I, to this day... still have not seen a REAL logical reason why California should ban gay marriages. Why, because God and the Bible said so? Well I'm not religious. Because schools will begin teaching Gay Marriage? No.. next... My kids will see gays and question that? Well people they already do! I know of a teen t.v show that has a lesbian couple on it. So once again.. how does gay marriage affect us?

Posted by jamaro099 on November 6, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robb,

All Americans are protected against discrimination based on race,ethinicity,gender, and sexual orientation. This means that we cannont set parameters based on those characteristics. Even though driver's licenses are a privilege, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that parameters will not be set that prevent people from getting licenses based on the above characteristics.

Likewise, the law should protect against marraige parameters being set that discriminate against sexual orientation in this case.

Posted by whatevers on November 6, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You mediator people get a kick out of this don't you? You stopped the ability to comment yesterday beause it was getting crazy, what makes you think its going to get any better today?

Posted by jamaro099 on November 6, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

let me add one more thing before I have to get to work. The U.S. Constitution is the "law of the land". All state laws must be deemed Constitutional based on the U.S. Constitution. We compared to the U.S. Constitution, this law will be found to be discriminatory. The U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 vote (not simple majority) for any ammendments.

p.s. Thanks robb for a civil debate. Even though we don't agree, we didn't have to call each other names. :-)

Posted by waterworld on November 6, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamar

Your reference to the "right" to the PURSUIT of happiness” comes from the US Constitution not the state constitution. If you would like to apply the US Constitution to this issue I submit that nowhere in the US Constitution or the state constitution for that matter grants “rights” to an individual on the basis of a behavior. The US Constitution also gives us the right to free speech however that does not mean you can walk into a movie theater and yell FIRE”

By your analysis of the "right" to the PURSUIT of happiness” would imply we should have allowed Jeffrey Dahmer to continue to murder and eat his victims on the basis that it made him happy.
Before you unilaterally apply rights I suggest you actually read the California State Constitution and the US Constitution

Posted by chair on November 6, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1. Homosexuality occurs in nature among most species.

2. Insofar as the law is concerned, only the domestic partnership aspects are of interest -- just about the same as for business partnerships.

3. We supposedly have separation of church and state. How many of us heard sermons on this and other political issues last weekend? Those religious institutions should be examined by the IRS as disobeying their permits to operate as non-profits and thence be duly taxed!

4. Many other nations ignore all this hoopla by requiring all persons interested in any sort of domestic partnership to be legally recognized at City Hall. After that, if the new partners so desire, they may apply to the religious institution of their choice to be "married." Separation of church and state in nations that have no such constitutional or legal premises!

5. Our various religious constructs are mythologies not based in legal fact. God has allowed our species to progress to where we can actually know something is so, or is not so, or we at this time cannot prove that it is or is not so. This ability is called science. Let's start using it on which to base our laws rather than on beliefs, opinions, and mass hysteria!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The logic I see used by the gay marriage supporters is that the government has no right to ban the practice of same sex marriages. True, it isn't in the U.S. Constitution, but neither is the often used term separation of church and state.

Using this logic, the government has no right to outlaw polygamy. It is not the governments role to determine who can marry whom. If 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 women want to willingly marry 1 man, or vice versa, that is their right, especially since the U.S. Constitution does not give the government the authority to interfere with an individuals religious marital beliefs. These marriages can involve young girls, since some cultures and religions allow this practice, and the government is Constitutionally prohibitted from interfering.

In addition to this, my wife can also marry someone else while still married to me, and in doing so, it should be my right to also marry someone else while still married to her. This would be our Constitutionally guaranteed right because the government has no authority to make the determination of who or how many times we can be married. So, I should be allowed to be married to, let's say, 5 men and 5 women at the same time.

That is the logic of anyone should be allowed to marry whom they chose. However, if you respectively argue that this doesn't apply to polygamy, then it is contradictory because the argument is now I can't marry whom I chose with willing partners.

Prop 8 is equal, since it does apply to me, too. As a man, I can't marry another man. I can't marry multiple women at the same time. I can't marry 5 men and 5 women at the same time.

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamar, where is that protection stated as it applies to marriage laws? I know it is clear as it relates to employment laws, but I am not aware of the wording that "marriage licenses cannot be issues based on race, ethinicity, gender, or sexual orientation". Again, paradigm shift. Marriage is NOT a right. Your arguments have all been directly applicable to rights, and marriage isn't a right. No one is discriminating either, gay people can get married, they just have to get married to the opposite sex. I know that's not the fun answer, but it IS the answer. We are not preventing anyone from getting married or staying together or being protected by laws, we're simply saying if you want a license to enter into a marriage agreement, here are the parameters.

Has anyone considered that gay people could always form "corporations" with each other and not only get the same benefits as married people under law, but also get better tax breaks??? There are ways around everything!!

Posted by cha on November 6, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

It truly shocks me that so many minorities voted yes on this unbelievably discriminatory proposition.

Never stop fighting for equal rights for all!

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - If you recall, other things were considered taboo as well that are acceptable today. These include interracial marriages, desegregation, and the right for women to vote. Should we make these taboo once again? Some things used to be acceptable a century and a half ago that aren't today. Girls being married once puberty hits is just one example. Should we once again consider that practice acceptable?

While I agree that pornography has become way too available, a homosexual lifestyle is nowhere in the same league. It is not as if homosexuals have sex in public (at least not anymore than heterosexual couples do per capita).

Gays do pretty much everything you and I do the same way with the one exception of sexual orientation, which is a mental precondition they were born with. This very simple bit of education has yet to sink into the majority of our countymen. One day it will, but we are obviously not there yet.

Posted by waterworld on November 6, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jamaro099

You stated “All Americans are protected against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.”

I have a copy of the Constitution right in front of me can you please tell me where it says All Americans are protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Posted by handyhood on November 6, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that every woman should go to the beach today nude from the waist up. After all, you have the same rights as a man. Good luck with that!!! You people just don't get it and the pea size brains of some of you will never get it. Hey why can't a blind person get a drivers license? Aren't they equal under the law? Why can't a person marry a pig? Don't they have the right to marry whom they please? Come on people. IT IS WHAT IT IS! Get over it! I don't like that Obama got elected. Should I, and all who agree protest in mass? D E M O C R A C Y. Come on now, say it with me. D E M O C R A C Y. I knew you could :~)

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

waterworld - The Jeffrey Dahmer right to pursiut of happiness argument has a severe flaw. If one's actions infringes upon another's (such as pursuing happiness by killing and eating another human being), then it becomes an unconstitutional act. Your comparison allows every criminal to be set free. Gays are not infringing upon anyone else's rights. They are both happy being together. No one else is affected.

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) "[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistent with binding precedent. "[Summary decisions] prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. "[L]ower courts are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are not". Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d 537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

Common Sense!

Posted by wonderman on November 6, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BOTTOM LINE PEOPLE:

Mother earth does NOT have all men or all women, men and women were put on the earth to multiply and that can only happen (are you ready)....... between a man and a woman.
Humanity CAN AND WILL NOT exist without women and men having intimate love with each other.
Gay community, remember that a man and a woman created you, without that you would cease to exist. Something to think about

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think that every woman should go to the beach today nude from the waist up. After all, you have the same rights as a man. Good luck with that!!!"

Handihood - Actually, they should be allowed. Most European and Asian countries do not have the same uptight view on the sight of a woman's breasts that the U.S. does. I personally wouldn't mind, even if the woman wasn't in "model" or "centerfold" shape. Equal rights should apply across the board.

Posted by wolf9walker on November 6, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

handyhood

Protesting the will of the people

What I get a kick out of people like handyhood, prop 4 failed 3 times by the “will of the people”. Abortion laws have failed, people have failed to over turn roe vs. wade. “
Will of the people”

I’m not taking about life vs. choice that’s for a different story. I’m taking about most Americans are against abortion laws. Yet some one you people still keep trying and not moving on with your lives. Because you believe in something so you fight for it. I don’t have a problem with fighting for what you believe in. but these people against prop 8 are fighting for what they believe in. and I’m not saying that these things are the same. I’m having some understanding for those you believe in something. Not just religious people can believe and fight. We all can, after all God gave us free will, he didn’t want mindless subjects. he wants all to choose him, but he wants us to choose. And prop 8 forces his will on people and that’s not in the bible. The bible says to bring his word to his children. But no were dose it says to force his will.

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is up to the people to decide what they want by way of vote. It is then up to the courts to decide if it is legal/constitutional or not. Both sides did their function the first time around, at which time the courts did what they are supposed to do in rendering their decision. It's wrong to call the judges activist or say it is not their job to take the law into their own hands. In a way, it is their job, at least in this respect.

The people have spoken again, and I'm sure it will again end up in the courts, which is absolutely the correct democratic process. This is how it should be done.

That said, however, it would be nice if, as part of putting a measure onto the ballot, we could get a court ruling beforehand as to whether or not it would be constitutional if it passes. This would save so much time and money for those measures that are subsequently overturned.

Posted by bill on November 6, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From many of the arguements presented by the NO ON 8 issue I assume they also would support the right for an adult to marry a 6 year old child? Otherwise we would be discriminating against the adults right to marry who they wanted. Also what if some man wanted to marry his horse? A society has a right and duty to control morals. The supporters of YES ON 8 have done this.

Posted by reader52 on November 6, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

prop. 8 passed. votes are in and counted. twice the people of calif. have spoken. aren't you listening?
unbelievable you keep pounding on gay rights to marriage. enough already.

Posted by wolf9walker on November 6, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"the will of the people" Have spoken they want Obama yet some of you people are crying big time and are saying you are going to fight anything he dose. When you should be working with him to make America what it was and better.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 6, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage is NOT A RIGHT! Marriage is a privilege. This is what I too have been trying to put into words and couldn't. The gays have every right afforded to them as everyone else. They have the privilege to marry the opposite sex like everyone else posted by Handyhood.
The best comment I have read!!!! Exactly!
HarryKrishna,Wouldn't that take away your right to stand at the airport????????????

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

to chair

If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature.

Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

Posted by GDOG5 on November 6, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twice the people of California have spoken. Quit the whining, and suck it up already!

Now the people are taking it to the streets....gimmini crickets......Get a life already folks. Democracy in action, give me a break....sheezzz

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

re: "will of the people" "people have spoken" etc...

"Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute..."

Posted by dwilson on November 6, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Part of the article above:
The Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks said the vote sent a definitive message.

"I think America is open for change. ... They've expressed a dissatisfaction with politics as usual," he said. "But there are some things they are unwilling to see changed. That's foundational, timeless principles like the sanctity of marriage."

===

This is very basic and people shouldn't be condemed for it. There are other ways to get what you want without taking away from others. Respect all views, and make another type of commitment that fits. Then all will be happy.

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by JayAllen on November 6, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by HarryKrishna:
Next proposition I want to see on ballot :
TAX EXEMPT STATUS REMOVED FOR RELIGION

Harry, im beginning to think thats a good idea
----------------------------------------------
I guess you didn't realize that a state proposition cannot take away federal tax exempt status. Let's try to stay away from emotional arguments!
Common Sense!

Posted by godslove1 on November 6, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This has been ruminating in the back of my head for a couple of days now...as extreme as it sounds you say it is unconstitutional to take away the rights of others and that just because one group may consider the actions of another group immoral does not mean that rights should be limited or removed. Well, what about pedophiles, misogynists, polygamists, satanic churches...should they be allowed to practice what they feel is right with no consequence?

Ok, so lets change the constitution that includes the words "...however many wives you choose..." or "...breeding and murdering children in the name of your beliefs is acceptable under the law..." or "..it is acceptable to abuse women in a consenting relationship..." or the list could be endless. Morality has nothing to do with it, don't you see this? LGBT lifestyles are "alternative". Being black or female is not an alternative lifestyle, nor is being a little person or disabled mentally or physically.

The constitution provides for the common welfare...that means the majority rules. I am so grateful that the people have spoken once again and I pray that we continue to speak and be led by what is good and righteous for ALL.

Posted by wolf9walker on November 6, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

something to think about for you handyhood's out there. if prop 8 failed, would you of just moved on and forgot about it? or would you still try to fight and change it?

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonderwoman.. all you need to create life is an egg and a sperm. Those nowadays can be harvested. You don't actually have to have sex to create a child. Hell.. if the only reason we have men and woman on this earth is to procreate then we are doomed! With the way this ecomony is going right now, who the heck can afford to have children!

People get married because they love each other... not because they want to mass produce children. Some couples never even have children!

Posted by getreal on November 6, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with Twain. If this gets overturned, I will never vote again. This election as proven to me that my vote will not ever count because anything can get overturned. I too served my country and this is a disgrace. All the fighting and hating eachother for their beliefs. The elcetion occured. Deal with it. How stupid would we as a nation look if EVERYONE protested whatever prop or president didn't go their way? Pretty stupid right? Well thats what the No on 8 protestors are beginning to look like. Cry babies who obviously shouldn't have voted in the first place because they are not capable of having the maturity level to accept defeat and grasp democracy. if you are unhappy, move, leave California, GO! It was voted on, it passed. Grow up, wipe your eyes, accept it and move on or please, please move away.

Posted by Rocket81 on November 6, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe the correct term is LAMEBO, not limbo.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chair, Your comparing yourself to the animal kingdom. They are an inferior species.. Nice Thought there, Thank you

Posted by mdquick01 on November 6, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Handywood you should read the State Constitution. The change of amending the state constitution to this degree can only be done by the legislature not by a vote of the people. You YES on Prop 8 people need to get your facts together. Who will be next to lose their rights? Maybe blacks will be the next target. Put them back into slavery. You people need to wake up. This again will be overturned by the California Supreme Court as a discrimination against a group of people that are being singled out because of their sexual orientation. You people say you want to protect marriage then we should stop all divorces and when you heterosexuals say I Do in sickness and health till death do us part should be enforced on you. Stay married to that individual even if you hate each other. How would that work. I have been with my partner now my husband for 24 years. You heterosexuals have screwed up the definition of marriage so maybe it is time to pass the torch to the same gender couples if you want it to be protected. Same gender couples will protect marriage because we have had to work so hard to get it. You people take it for granted. Get married and if you don't like the milk trade it in on a new one. You go and keep protecting marriage you hypocrites. May God Bless these Hypocrites. Is traditional marriage Britney Spears getting married in Las Vegas for a total of 55 hours? Let's Protect marriage. Ya right. You all need to stop the HATE!!!!

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought,
They are infringing upon my rights not to have to tolerate it. They are trying to force me to have to look at them holding hands, making out and other sorted issues i should have the right not to look at.

Posted by srcheek on November 6, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The "will of the people" is illegal, attempts to classify an entire group of people as second-class citizens, and is WRONG. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, be sure not to marry someone of the same gender. How it is your business what happens in another person's private life is beyond me. The passing of prop 8 will be overturned as it is constitutionally illegal and "separate but equal" is also illegal. Get over yourselves.

Posted by peach224 on November 6, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I tried to be civil yesterday, but apparently other people were just not going to allow it to be so. Anyway, a couple more cents from me:

First, laws should not codify discrimination. Our history as a nation has been blighted by both gender and racial discrimination, and now we’re facing discrimination against the makeup of certain families — specifically those of same-sex couples. Good law should strive to be non-ideological; discrimination is nearly always ideologically driven.
Second, if marriage as an institution stems from a religious foundation, but is represented in law, by the principle of the separation of church and state and presuming the importance of tolerance to culture, we should cleft out the religious underpinnings of marriage from law and return it to the domain of the church, especially if the church mandates that the definition of marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. The state should therefore only be in the business of recognizing in law civil unions, or the lawful coming together of two people in union. Marriage itself would be a separate religious institution, having no basis in civil law.
In other words, should marriage persist in law, then it should not be discriminatory against same-sex couples. If marriage must only be for heterosexual couples, then it should be removed from the state constitution and replaced with civil unions, which would be available to any two willing citizens.

Posted by wolf9walker on November 6, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People behave today. I would like to read all the message’s tonight when I get it. Thank you. Have a good day all

Posted by wonderman on November 6, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

miss_califoria; if it's all women where are you going to get the sperm? all men, the egg? think, use you your brain!

Posted by jill on November 6, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I cannot wait until this discriminatory, unconstitutional proposition is overturned by the courts. The millions of dollars spent by the supporters of Prop. 8 will be flushed down the drain. And it will happen...just a matter of time.

I wonder how many Mormons, Christians, etc., out there are pretending to be straight? It must be awful for them to live a lie.

Posted by sefanzed on November 6, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps eventually, the good people of California will propose another constitutional amendment That excludes Latinos from marrying. The theory being that Latino offspring will naturally dilute the English language. That will effect our kids! It might even become mandatory to speak it at school! Even some churches may perform entire ceremonies in Mexican!

I am of course being facetious, but the metaphor is comparable to the "family values" message that was basically crafted to frighten people into voting to discriminate against a group with whom they don't agree. Maybe separate water-fountains and bathrooms are next.

As PT Barnum said (I think),"No one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American Public.

Posted by getreal on November 6, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jill this wasn't JUST a religios vote. After reading your comments for weeks now, I think YOU are tired of living a lie and just really want to come clean.

Posted by ribbypaultz on November 6, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How the state broke down:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jill

Thank you for the laugh. Do you honestly think that there are that many people in the world that are homosexual let alone homosexual and hiding. The majority understand that two women or two men is NOT natural. The pieces DON'T fit. As to the NO on Prop 8 people, it is not just about what you choose to do in the bedroom, it is the impact it would have on the majority that do not participate in or approve of your lifestyle. It will affect my family, my daughter.

51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health
education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any
kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the
appropriate courses.

4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with
pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and
cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and
committed relationships.

http://law.justia.com/california/code...

And take a look at (12)

Posted by kelbs on November 6, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robb and Anna's assertion that marriage is not a civil right is simply wrong. See the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Loving V. Virginia (1967). The ruling states that marriage is a fundamental civil right of ALL men.

All that's required to obtain a marriage license is having right "private" parts. You can get married 2, 3, 4, 5, 6+ times just becuase you are heterosexual (ridiculous). A privelage indeed!

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnMuir, your kind of comments will get this mostly civil, intelligent string of arguments cut. I'm against gay marriage and I voted FOR prop 8 because I don't want my daughter to be told (or encouraged) that it is ok to be gay, for personal reason and nothing else. I am not a religious person so religion has no impact on my decision. Having said all that, I TOTALLY disagree with your posting comparing homosexuals and "normal" people. You don't list your qualifications for determining what or who is "normal" so I think your statement is unfair. I know a few gay people that, while I am not inclined to hang out with them or practice their beliefs (and believe me, I will argue with them as often as my wife will allow), are as normal as me or anyone else I know. All I'm saying is that ultimately the paper has the RIGHT to limit what is posted here as the owner of this thread, and I have had a great time debating the right and wrong of this issue today. I would hate to see that opportunity taken away because of a truely bad-taste comment being posted (much like what happened yesterday). Thanks!

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remove tax exempt status for religions? Boycott businesses that supported Proposition 8? I'm sorry if you don't think all people should have a voice in free elections, but don't complain about discrimination if you don't want a certain segment of the population voting, and if you want to try to drive out of business those companies that don't agree with you.

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peach: I've put for the same idea here before & been completely ignored. I don't think people really want a truly fair and equal resolution to this issue. Check it out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-ma...

Posted by Why on November 6, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sex ed or human growth and development which is what oxnard school disctric labels it. is an elective section of the cirriculum. all parents are allowed to say yes or know to this there are parent permision slips sent home which allow the parents to say NO! i remember when i was in elementary and middle school i brought home forms for my mom and she filled them out giving me permission to attend the classes i also remember people who didn't get to go. it's amazing how fast we forget about that. also if 5 year olds were takin on a field trip by the school permission slips were sent home to the parents which they should have read and signed acknowledging what the field trip was about. parents are always allowed to decide for there children!!!!

Posted by getreal on November 6, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should I deprive my child of human growth development and not allow him/her to attend that course so a teacher can preach homosexuality to a group of children that are probably not homosexuals?

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What does it mean that the schools would be required to teach "about homosexuality"? I don't believe I'm going out on a limb to say that these days everyone is aware that homosexuality exists. Schools teaching that Harvey Milk was homosexual and if necessary explaining that homosexuals are people who are attracted to people of the same sex, I don't see this as groundbreaking news and I don't see this as a threat to our children.

Posted by peach224 on November 6, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnMuir: Do your homework before you get such a high and mighty attitude with others. AB 2567 was vetoed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. There will be no Harvey Milk day. Additionally, the intention of that day was to teach children about activism, the same as Martin Luther King Day.

Also, I agree with robb_murphy, the inflammatory tone of your posts is going to get this comments sections shut down again. Scale it back. We are listening, how about listening to us for once?

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John: I think you know very well that the proposed "Harvey Milk Day" is not about "teaching homosexuality", but about recognizing the significant achievements of a civil rights leader. One cannot be "taught" homosexuality. Children are not going to "turn gay" if they are aware of the fact that some people are attracted to persons of the opposite sex, and some people are attracted to persons of the same sex.
Get: No preaching allowed in schools, remember? Besides, homsexuality is not a religion, it is a human characteristic that one has no choice or control over, unlike religion.

Posted by DoctorDude on November 6, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnMuir96, I love a man with strong opinions, we should date.

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If what we teach in schools is how reproduction takes place, then marriage and/or homosexuality has NOTHING to do with the lesson. Guess what, you don't have to be married to have a kid!! And guess what else.. Two people of the same sex can't make a baby. SOOOO, the answer is, teach sex education, what it means to reproduce, talk about sexually transmitted diseases, talk about protection, and leave it alone. There is no reason at all to even bring up sex and marriage OR sex and homosexuality. NONE! Even AIDS isn't JUST a homosexual disease. This whole teaching gay marriage debate is lame, why do our kids even need to be taught ANYTHING about marriage. Besides, a majority of my kid's friends are from divorced homes anyway. I bet those parents don't want marriage of any kind talked about in school. Leave that to the parents.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our US Constitution is an incredible document. It was written by men who wanted a country devoid of tyranny, unfair taxes, and the freedom to practice a religion of their choice. Truly an incredible document. But there were drawbacks.

Our Declaration of Independence states "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL..." But slavery was still permitted until the 15th Amendment outlawed it.

Women could not vote. They were second class citizens. It took the 19th Amendment to give women that right.

The religious groups of the '20's were succesful in getting the Volstead Act passed and the 18th Amendment added that outlawed liquour. Look where THAT took us. Thankfully, the 21st Amendment repealled it.

Now the religious groups are at it again trying to legislate hatred and bigotry.

Posted by getreal on November 6, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

carol it has never been proven that being gay is genetic. If it is PROVEN that yes, it is genetic, than I would reconsider my opinion. As of now, I feel it is a choice that one does have control over.

Posted by Why on November 6, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

getreal:
getreal do you really think all teacher are going to "preach" homosexuality? GETREAL! most teachers dont' want to teach it to children just like you wouldn't want to. informing children about gay people isn't such a bad thing. they really do exist.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously people???? If gay marriage were actually to be taught about in school, kids wouldn't be taught to be homosexuals they would be taught that some people are homosexuals. If people are just worried about their children knowing there are homosexuals in the world then it is an issue of discrimination not an issue of protecting the sanctity of marriage. And since when is the definition of marriage the same as the definition of sex?

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NightLight

It is not just "homosexuals are people who are attracted to people of the same sex" It is the physical act of their desire.

It's not just love of another human but the sexual act between the same sex.

Homosexual
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we should all meet for coffee!! Coffee Bean, Camarillo, 6PM... ;-) HAHAHAHA!! I'll call ahead and warn the staff....

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96- AIDS is not a "gay disease" people other than homosexuals get AIDS and they get it by not knowing the sex partners sex history (and them probably having sex out of wedlock). Also it is easier for men to pass it to thier sex partner than for women so going by your logic maybe it is just a "man's disease" and all men should be castrated.
(Don’t get too offended I don’t really believe it is a “men’s disease” and I don’t think all men should be castrated)

Posted by turchotk on November 6, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know the most liberal, outspoken, independent and down right crazy "the constitution is a living document" court in the land will attempt to overturn yet again the will of the people...for a 3rd time...and the "proposition" will end up in Federal Supreme Court. We can only hope that the Nations Supreme Court will look at it (and not laugh) and say...the people have spoken (on 3 different occasions) and not choose to accept it for a ruling.

I say let them all move to Massachusetts where they can run wild. And on the way out, they can stop in Arkansas and hold a "rally" and try to get the adoption rules (no adoptions to couples not married...gays and lesbians not recognized) changed in their favor. Good luck on that.

But who really knows. Even Chairman Obama could be talking out the side of his mouth saying he's for traditional marriage and so forth. Lets see if he really is committed to the traditional family when the gays and lesbians try and get a Constitutional Amendment...With 27 States already banning gay marriage, even with Obamas blessing that would be tough. But they will probably try anyway...

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Get: Given your statement "I feel it is a choice that one does have control over." in regard to homosexuality, may I assume that you, as a heterosexual, COULD be attracted to a member of either sex, but CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite?

Posted by robb_murphy on November 6, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I can hear it now... "Politically charged people should be banned from Coffee Bean"... "You can't take away my fundamental right to drink coffee"... "Drinking coffee is a privilege, not a right"... "I have a right to the pursuit of happiness and coffee makes me happy"... "Yes, but the laws state the establishment has the right to decide who it services"... "If it doesn't let me drink coffe because I am passionate about my belief in the legal process, that's discrimination"... Blah blah blah... Still, it would be fun!!

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"ahh wrong again...do your homework on harvey milk day...IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO TEACH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY...in public schools"

johnmuir96 - Ahh, you're wrong again. Harvey Milk Day was to commemorate the life of a man who overcame his difference and succeeded to becoming the first openly gay man to win an election in San Francisco. He was soon after murdered for simply for being gay. The point of the bill would have been to address bullying those who are different, not the homosexual lifestyle. In any case, the bill didn't make it past Arnold, so your point is moot.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, good one robb!

Posted by Why on November 6, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnmuir96 just like the wacko lefties lost the presidential election?!?! hahahahahaha

OBAMA '08!!!!!!!

the will of the people have spoken!!!!!!!

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96 - Again, "If people are just worried about their children knowing there are homosexuals in the world then it is an issue of discrimination not an issue of protecting the sanctity of marriage. And since when is the definition of marriage the same as the definition of sex?"
Also, yes the percentage of people living with HIV/AIDS is higher with homosexual men but it is also higher in heterosexual men than homosexual women and men over all are the 3x that of all women. Additionally those who do have HIV/AIDS contracted through high risk sexual contact, generally people who are married are less likely to engage it high risk sex. It is also spread through drug use not just sex.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would still like to know how what you choose to do in the bedroom dictates who and what you are? I am a heterosexual and I do not put stickers on my car, go to rallies, march, or keep trying to validate my bedroom habits to those that have different ones. What I do in the bedroom or my home stays there. That is MY private business.

Posted by cassandra2 on November 6, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(You can take the teacher out of the classroom, but you can't take the classroom out of the teacher.)

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is part of the wording of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The former is a revolutionary document written near the start of the long Revolutionary War; the latter normally considered a counter-revolutionary document, except for the addenda known as "The Bill of Rights" both written after the war.

Mr. Handyhood, "weather" may get a pass with the spellchecker, but in this context it should be "whether."

Also marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, as you assert. It is sometimes between a man and more than one woman, as it occurred in the Bible and still occurs in some places in the world. In some tribes in the Himalayas, marriage may be between one woman and more than one man, (an exhausting thought!) In earlier times, marriages between a man and a man were recognized by some Native American tribes. I have no data at hand on lesbian marriages but I would not be surprised if they occurred; certainly such powerful romantic relationships occurred throughout time.

So you can add cultural bias to your others, as well as historical ignorance to that of English usage.

Other people no doubt need chastising for their remarks, but I can't read all of this stuff, so I just caught some early ones.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnmuir96: THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS BEEN SPOKEN
NO ON HOMOSEXUAL MARRIGE

Actually, Prop 8 only changes the State Constitution's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Gay people will not be able to get a marriage license, but can still have civil unions. You need to be better informed AND spell "marriage" correctly.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Um does that even make sense???
johnmuir96 thier are a lot of heterosexual child abusers do they need a class on what they do as well?

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnmuir again (sigh)
CALA THEIR ARE A LOT OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSERS DO THEY NEED A CLASS ON WHAT THEY DO AS WELL???

They are called pedophiles

Posted by Why on November 6, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96:
funny thats how i felt when bush was first elected into office and even worse the second time. and wait he did ruin our country. When you hit rock bottom only one way to go!!! UP!
OBAMA '08!!!

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain: "Did you all realize that it is on the Gay agenda to next lower the legal age of sexual consent to 14 yo?"

Where did you get this from?

And Cadreamer, I know the definition of homosexuality, but that doesn't mean the sex act would be taught in the schools!

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"They are infringing upon my rights not to have to tolerate it. They are trying to force me to have to look at them holding hands, making out and other sorted issues i should have the right not to look at."

jstabratt - To use another poster's advice - then, turn your head. Did you stop to think that maybe you offend them when you hond hands or make out in public? Are we now to ban hand-holding? How about when dogs or some other pair of mammals are mating in the open? Should they be shot on sight for offending you? The point I was trying to make before is this: One's pursuit of happiness should not infringe upon another's rights or pursuit to happiness. If your pursuit is made largely of your desire never to see another affectionate gay person in your life, then you might try buying up several acres of property in a state where land is still cheap, and have all goods and services delivered to your door step there. Thos way, you get what you want, and the affectionate gays get what they want. So basically, your pursuit has not been halted or made impossible to achieve.

The ideal in your statement is actually quite selfish, as you only take yourself into consideration. The golden rule should apply here. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Christians do still practice that edict, don't they?

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can see it now.. New bumber stickers
"My kid beat up your gay kid"

This is going to be such a sad country if the peoples vote gets overturned ( i dont think it will) People in general then will know beyond any doubt that their vote means nothing all because a few "different" people want to shove their beliefs down our throats.
Instead of teaching equality and tolerance to our kids, we need to be teaching them how to make informed choices and that its OK to have different opinions then others and thats what we vote for and your vote should count for something ( apparently not in this country however). After all AMERICA is about choices and the freedom to believe and honor what your own personal choices are, isnt that why we voted on this issue?

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote:
"They are infringing upon my rights not to have to tolerate it. They are trying to force me to have to look at them holding hands, making out and other sorted issues i should have the right not to look at."

No one is forcing you to look. Apparently you are homophobic

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96-You do know it is possible for men who have anal sex with women and I think it may be a little difficult for homosexual women to have anal sex (please don't bring up sex toys because I really doubt they teach that in sex ed).
Really people they don't describe sex that grafically in sex ed classes nor do they show porns. And again, "since when is the definition of marriage the same as the definition of sex"

Posted by Mr_E_Man on November 6, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I'm not sure who.

1) I'm pretty sure you can't change the state constitution by a simple majority vote. If you can, there's something inherently wrong about that. The constitutuion was written to protect the minority from the majority mindset, particlularly in issues that are based on emotions.

2) I don't particlularly care about gay marriage per say. I'm happily married to someone of the oposit sex and doubt that gay marriage will cause me to get divorced.

3) My biggest problem with this is that if this change should pass, we have basically given the government the authority to decide who churches can and cannot marry. in my mind, that's no different than telling them what they can and cannot preach.

4) Which lead to my final thought. If marriage is a religious issue, the government has no place in deciding marriage rights. If marriage is a civil issue, churches should not be involved in issues that affect the state constitution.

Either way, the issue may very well lead to bigger issues and some unintended consequences.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont know what christians practice, I am not christian. I am a practicing Strehgan!
I got it now free, Thank you for clearing it up for me!! I now know in order to not have it shoved down my throat on a daily basis, I should move instead of them moving to where its tolerated and the people have voted to allow it be tolerated, rather then living where the majority of people have said it shouldnt be tolerated just so we dont inconvience them!! Lets all NOT inconvience the people who are such a small amount in the country in general. Lets inconvience the HUGE amount of people that think its wrong instead.
Thank you again, free for clearing that up for me!!

Posted by svwl on November 6, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People who voted Yes on prop 8 are in one of two groups:

1. Confused by the wording of the proposition (many young voters have told me they made a mistake)

OR

2. HOMO-PHOBES. You are lying to yourselves if you think it is anything else.

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 6, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a question to Freethought - how old are you and how many children do you have? I've often said there are two kinds of peopl in this world, not R's and D's, but parents and non-parents. When I had kids, I started looking at the world in an entirely different light. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's different. So, please share with us your age and the number of kids you have. Thanks in advance.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is that it is discrimination.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnmuir yet again:
"I dont consider homosexuals to be normal, in my opinion they are very abnormal."

Actually, they are normal. Their sexual orientation is different and is determined at birth. But you probably think it's learned behavior.

"thus i dont thing insane people need special priviages to do what they want, when they want"

You're again wrong in defining gay people as insane. Does that mean people who are mentally ill are gay? Where do you get your information from?

Posted by 10S_Gal on November 6, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It may not happen tomorrow, but one day we will live in a society that allows and recognizes equality for ALL. It says so on the “Heterosexual Agenda”…or did you not get the memo, Twain?

And, some of those homosexual child abusers are also known as “priests”.

Prop 8 may have passed but you can not prevent gays and lesbians from being together and raising a family.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would still like to know how what you choose to do in the bedroom dictates who and what you are? I am a heterosexual. I do not put stickers on my car, go to rallies, march, or keep trying to validate my bedroom habits to those that have different ones. What I do in the bedroom or my home stays there. That is MY private business.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

10S_Gal:
And, some of those homosexual child abusers are also known as “priests”.

Actually, priest is their profession, but they're still pedophiles.

But I like your reference :)

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cala... THAT is what AMERICA is about!!!!
That is why a vote took place!!

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icanilluminateu

I feel there are both genetic and learned homosexuals. I know a woman that has had 5 children from multiple husbands. She decided she must be gay and led a homosexual lifestyle for approx. 6 years. She has now met a man she has fallen in love with and is now straight again. How is that genetic?

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 6, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a question to Freethought - how old are you and how many children do you have? I've often said there are two kinds of peopl in this world, not R's and D's, but parents and non-parents. When I had kids, I started looking at the world in an entirely different light. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's different. So, please share with us your age and the number of kids you have. Thanks in advance.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but please do not speak for all parents. I myself am a heterosexual married female in my late 20's with kids.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is no different then having separate water fountains, bathrooms or schools. You may argue that they are the same bathrooms, water fountains and schools but guess what, they're not.
Our US and State Constitution have no statements saying "if in doubt open the bible" or that the church can dictate law, so the argument that somehow your primitive and perverted religion has any bearing on the rest of us is also invalid. That leaves the biological argument that child bearing should be a meter to determine matrimonial eligibility.

1. Mental Health - The majority of retarded kids would not survive without the intervention of science (not the invisible man in the sky). Therefore they are not viable members of the gene pool. Yet they have the right to marry.

2. Physical Health - Born with a childhood disease such as diabetes or leukemia, well guess what without treatment by science (not the invisible man in the sky) they would be dead. Therefore they are not viable members of the gene pool. Yet they have the right to marry.

3. Infertility - Which the rates of which are on the rise in our populations approx 1 in 44 or 2.24% or 6.1 million people in USA, but we still give infertile individuals the right to marry.

It's not about securing marriage as a tradition, it's about hate and intolerance for a group of people. We are all made in God's image and denying the way people are is denying God created them as he desired. Which you are then saying you are better then God.

Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) Status
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10...

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jstabratt - Just because barely over half CA voters voted for it doesn't mean it is not descrimination, I still feel it is wrong.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112 - In my 40s with two kids. Also, happily (most of the time) married for nearly two decades.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer

Can't answer that. Could be what we call in statistics "an outlyer". I also knew of a young lady that was unsure of her sexuality after years with men. She ended up enjoying the company of other women.

You never know

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 6, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The posters who think that homosexuality is a choice crack me up. Homosexuals are feared, discriminated against, hated, made fun of, picked on, singled out, treated like pariahs in some circles, some are closeted for fear that if their friends and family knew the truth they would be disowned.

So tell me, who in their right mind would KNOWINGLY choose that lifestyle? I'm a heterosexual, and the gay lifestyle hardly sounds like something I would consciously sign up for, given the choice. Get a clue, people!

The Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks said the vote sent a definitive message. “I think America is open for change. ... They've expressed a dissatisfaction with politics as usual," he said. "But there are some things they are unwilling to see changed. That's foundational, timeless principles like the sanctity of marriage."

With all due respect Reverend McCoy, that whole “sanctity of marriage” jig is up. Heterosexuals have sullied the institution of marriage to the point of no return. That ship has sailed! Come up with another argument that is at least believable.

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: "Some of those homosexual child abusers are also known as “priests”. Actually, priest is their profession, but they're still pedophiles. But I like your reference :)"

Would either of you like to explain how this kind of comment is relevant in a discussion of Prop 8?

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

eclipsewatcher wrote:

The posters who think that homosexuality is a choice crack me up. Homosexuals are feared, discriminated against, hated, made fun of, picked on, singled out, treated like pariahs in some circles, some are closeted for fear that if their friends and family knew the truth they would be disowned.

So tell me, who in their right mind would KNOWINGLY choose that lifestyle?

They do, and they know they are picked upon, beaten, and even killed.

They try to fit in and many do. But more and more are coming out of the closet and are standing up for what they believe is their rights.

I have both straight and gay friends. They have NEVER tried to hit on me or force their beliefs on me.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The one's that think it's a choice to be gay are the same that try to convert Jews. Religion of tolerance my left foot...

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortuanate for some, "just barely" was enough!
And like you should have every right to your opinion that passing prop 8 was wrong,
I am entitled to my opinion that it is wrong for them to marry.
It is nice to be able to disagree, and still have respect! Ty

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

coldwaternorcal wrote:
"The one's that think it's a choice to be gay are the same that try to convert Jews. Religion of tolerance my left foot..."

What are you saying? That being gay is taught by other gay people to convert straights to homosexuality? Is that what you are really trying to say?

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

coldwaternorcal

I feel as I stated above there are both genetic and learned gays. I am not of any religion. I have no problem with what people choose to do in the privacy of their own home. I unlike most of the homosexuals am not marching, putting stickers on my car, and holding rallies about my bedroom habits. Why does what you choose to do in the bedroom dictates who and what you are?

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is however a true shame, that they will not respect the loss they have suffered at the will of the PEOPLES CHOICE (no matter how " just barely" it was.. it still WAS)

Bet, if the prop 8 supporters had lost, they would be saying the same to us! Ohh wait they have been since it was overturned from the last time they lost and couldnt let it go!

I have the right to be unhappy to find out my vote really doesnt matter in this country because a small group of people simply do not agree with me!

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NightLight quote:
Quote: "Some of those homosexual child abusers are also known as “priests”. Actually, priest is their profession, but they're still pedophiles. But I like your reference :)"

Would either of you like to explain how this kind of comment is relevant in a discussion of Prop 8?

This was in rebuttal to a comment made by johnmuir96 earlier

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@NightLight

Quote: Some of those homosexual child abusers are also known as “priests”. Actually, priest is their profession, but they're still pedophiles. But I like your reference :)

Would either of you like to explain how this kind of comment is relevant in a discussion of Prop 8?"

I actually can see the point the "Christian" pedophiles are moved between perishes and empowered to continue molesting children. Where being gay has nothing at all to do with pedophilia, but the church is OK with one and not the other. I think the original post made a grasp at trying to compare gays with pedophiles but the context that the church is a perpetrator of allowing a true sin against our children isn't to far from being off base. We can also look at other sects that also abuse children such as the fundamental church of later day saints that claim religious persecution when children are removed from pedophile elders.

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wonderman.. honestly I need to think?... do you honestly think that the fate of this world would be only woman or only men? Com'on... unless there is a total nuclear destruction of the earth... men and woman will create sperm and eggs which can be harvested and used to create children for gay/lesbian AND straight couples.

As for the teaching of homosexuality in schools... NEW FLASH PEOPLE!... your kids already know about it! Some already are gay or have gay tendencies. Let's face it homosexuality is here whether it is shoved in your face or not. Get used to it, if you don't like to see two women kiss don't look at them, if you don't like to see two men kiss, don't look at them. Plain and simple. I have control over what my eyes see and I am a big girl enough to know to turn away when I don't want to view something. Quit using excuses and just say that you are homophobic or you yourself have had homosexual thoughts. It's ok.

Posted by keem_s on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“If you change the definition of marriage you sever it from its very purpose for existing -- you sever reproduction from parenthood. Marriage exists in order to perpetuate the human race; and that the union will provide children with what they need most -- a mother and a father legally bound together in a family relationship. The government has no interest in sanctioning love, friendship, or personal associations. It has a vital interest in encouraging what is best for society.”

http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendm...

Posted by NowHearThis on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that when a conservative type prop passes, the Libs and activists, this time the homosexual lobby, seek to have said "passed Prop" thrown out via the courts?

In a bygone era, life was easier when homosexuals resided in their closet. Some of you can castigate me all you want, but it's true.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"What are you saying? That being gay is taught by other gay people to convert straights to homosexuality? Is that what you are really trying to say?"

Actually that the church is unable to grasp the idea that gays are who they are and nothing more. I know and have very close friends and family in the G/L/TG community and would not have anyone try and tell them it's a choice therefore they are wrong.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 6, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icanilluminateu: My point is that people are born homosexual. Biology is not a choice. Homosexuality is not of their choosing anymore than eye color is. However, if they choose to deny their sexual orientation and live a heterosexual lifestyle in order to fit into the mainstream or to appease those who disapprove of homosexuality, then that is something completely different. In that context, it is a choice.

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NowHearThis: I don't want to castigate you, but I do want you to know that what I am hearing (reading) is that life was easier FOR YOU.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks coldwaternorcal. I understand your statement better now

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NowHearThis.. I bet it was a better life back when domestic violence was kept behind closed doors and excused the husband "because he had a bad day"... right.. EVOLUTION PEOPLE!

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

eclipsewatcher
Thak you for the clarification. I agree with you in that context

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to confess... I was born brunette but turned blonde after the influence of a very close girl friend... Damn those blondes! who knew!

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 6, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought - congrats on a good long marriage and two kids. One of my previous points was that if marriage depended on love, most would really be short lived as it is tough to stay "in-love" with the same person for a lifetime. As you say, happy most of the time - I feel your pain on that one! So nebulous a concept as "Love" would be the hardest thing to legislate in the definition of marriage. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If same sex marriage should be allowed based on equal rights reasoning, then polygamy must be allowed based on the same point. Banning multiple willing partner marriages infringes on their State and Federal Constitutional rights in the pursuit of happieness, and especially religious freedoms if their religion allows it.

To say that only 2 people of any sex should be allowed to marry is intolerant, hateful and discriminatory. The government has no right to determine who and how many people can enter willingly to a marital relationship.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the "learned gay" term - Only in instances where the individual had no control, such as with child sexual abuse from an early age, can you find occurrances of learned homosexuality. In those cases, it's so deeply ingrained into their psyche that they feel "normal" only in abusive gay relationships. The overwhelming majority of gays do not fit this description.

Also, when a heterosexual decides to "turn" gay (which you'll see much more with women than with men), that person is best describeb as a sexual deviant, meaning that they have deviated from what would be normal or natural for them. Again, this does not apply to the majority of homosexuals.

Education and understanding is key here. We have all read the posts in this thread and know who the homophobes are (no, that doesn't apply to all in the "Yes on 8" crowd). They should be ignored.

Posted by patronald on November 6, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'M NEW TO THIS.
BUT HAD ONE WORD TO SAY WHY I VOTED YES ON PRO 8.
DARWIN !!!!!
IT WAS NOT ON RELIGOIN,

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112 - Anytime.

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a question....

If a man and a woman marry but she was born a man BUT had a sex change to a woman.. is that still gay marriage? I mean technically she would be a he now. Why is this marriage legal?

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 6, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, I can't say that Dobson is the most scientifically neutral of sources but, I have read his book since I have two sons. That being said, I agree that sexuality is more amorphous than being genetically fixed. I've known women who dated women for years and then married a man and lived happily ever after. I've known women that left 20 year marriages for another woman. I've seen women flip back and forth between gay and straight lifestyles and been told that when they were "gay" it was because it was so accepted in their circle of friends (she was once a semi-pro athlete). So, I think it can be influenced because I've been told that its acceptance influenced them to think it was OK.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What does Darwin have to do with marriage? We're not talking about survival of the fittest. We're talking about allowing all U.S. citizens to enjoy the same freedoms, rights, and benefits equally, whether they were born blind or with Down Syndrome.

Posted by keem_s on November 6, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, it sounds like they are taught to be gay rather than being born gay. Being born gay makes no biological sense. Since they can’t reproduce, they are destined for extinction.

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Patronald: ??? I'm eager to hear what the theory of evolution, in a strictly Darwinian sense, has to do with marriage!

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - Although I believe one woman is plenty to deal with (for me anyway), I don't really understand why there's a problem with polygomy. Honestly, it would be simple enough to get around. Since a man can "live with" several women if he chooses, he could simply forego the marriage license part, and continue to sleep with the entire harem. As far as I know, that would not be against the law, but is almost identical to polygomy.

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kemm: Your statement makes no rational sense. There are people who are born physically unable to reproduce...do you think they are taught...??? yah. no sense.

Posted by definer on November 6, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All people are created equal and all words have definitions so that we can all understand the meaning of those words. Marriage according to the majority of dictionaries and voters is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Supporters of Prop. 8 wanted to keep the definition the way it is and the opposition wanted to change the definition so that homosexuals are included and have the same rights associated with the definition of the word marriage.
Why should the definition of any word be changed? Changing the definition of the word marriage opens the box to changing the definition of all words. Should a tree be a flower or a car be a bus? Should Heterosexual mean Homosexual? Should yes mean no? If Civil Union or Domestic Partner doesn't work for you then lets pick a word that everyone can agree on and give that word the same rights as marriage. How about a garriage? Garriage can be defined as the state of being united to a person of the same sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Give Garriage the same rights as marriage. Bob can garry Larry and they can live happily ever after. Everyone will then understand what a Marriage and a Garriage is and we all could move forward. Supporters of Prop. 8 will never accept the changing of definition of the word marriage so why fight them? Let's pick a new word and let all of us support that new word and that will solve this issue for most.

Posted by NightLight on November 6, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To say Christians support and condone pedophilia is one of the most ignorant comments made here, and that is saying a lot. Did some priests molest children? Yes. Did some members of the Church handle the abuse cases poorly? Of course. But to condemn all Christians for the horrible actions of a few individuals is wrong. If you were paying any kind of attention at all, you would know the Christian community was sickened by what happened and did not condone it at all.

Remember the story a few days ago about the umpire at a girls' softball game in Camarillo who was molesting the players? Does this mean that the city of Camarillo or the softball league support and condone sexual abuse? Of course not.

Let's try to keep the arguments on topic, shall we?

Posted by Angelito on November 6, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad that TWICE the voice of the PEOPLE has been heard through the lectoral process. "Marriage is only valid or recognized between a man a woman"

I mean if four judges took the liberty to decide that it also included the man to man, or woman to woman in those marriages, well then what its actually stopping the other groups from claiming the same rights? I mean there are people that choose poligamy, pedophilia, incest, and even sex with animals.

I personally don't care how you like to have sex, or who you have sex with, as long as you keep it to yourself in the privacy of your home. Here in California we have just passed this law again, and if you don't like it, well, Massachussets is willing to welcome you, and your open liberal views.

we have tried to accomodate the gays and lesbians, the bixesual, and the transgender as much as we could, we even gave them rights of domestic partnership wich were equal to the rights of marriage, and all the benefits that came with the law. BUT NO, they are never happy. They always want to shove down our thoats their beliefs, and how they practice their sexual acts wide in the public forum. The heterosexual groups never act the way the GLBT group does, and never is as explicit as they are.

why can't they be happy with the rights we have given them? do they want us to pass laws to take away those benefits? or do they want us to embrace the same sexual practices they enjoy? I wnat to know what is it that they want this time? IT never stops, they always want to be treated differently, but say they want equality. They preach tolerance, but practice violence (look at the news from hollywood demosntration yesterday, and all their violent acts).

I think its time that they learn to live with the majority of Californians who agree that marriage is a priviledge, and not a right. Otherwise a 60 year old male could marry a 12 year old girl, or viceversa, or the neighbor could marry a goat if he so desired. Lets undesrtand that marriage has some requisites that must be met, before a liscence is given. The same way we exclude people from obtaining a driver's licence, we apply the same rules for wedding licences.

Please grow up, and learn to understand the will of the people. we have twice spoken, and we have twice voiced the will of the People of California. Marriage its only bewteen a man, and a woman. Its just that simple.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain - There is plenty of scientific proof, along with a multitude of studies on children who are already predetermined to be gay. On the physiological side, gay men have virtually identical-sized brain hemispheres, as do women. Heterosexual men do not. Also, the membrane that divides the two hemispheres and enables communication between the two sides is thicker for women AND gay men. Gay men are almost always "wired" to be attracted to other men. The same goes for truly gay women (not the deviants).

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Angelito - If you'll take notice, you'll realized that (a) many, many more people voted this time around and (b) the margin was much smaller this time. Next time, such a measure will most likely fail.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, I asked my wife if it was OK to bring in a girlfriend, and she said over my dead body. She can be so stubborn. As far as cohabitaton, isn't that what same sex couples are currently doing, cohabitating without the need to be "officially" married?

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

definer - It's mainly about the benefits and recognizing gays as equal citizens. In my opinion, there should be absolutely no government benefits (like tax benefits) related to marriage. That would put us all on equal terms.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone asked why is polygamy outlawed even though its a marriage of men and women. I found this:

“The argument in the 19th century that Congress made is that polygamy is associated with despotic forms of government, because basically the most powerful men start hogging all the women,” Gallagher said. “There is something to be said for that. I think it’s also associated with less investment by fathers in their children. Some children get subordinated in polygamous marriage systems. The attention of the father and the family tends to focus on the heir.”

Other arguments against polygamy include an increase in child and spousal abuse, welfare fraud and forced marriages.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Congrats to Angelito!

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Twain!!!!

Posted by Ms_California on November 6, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This arguement isn't about sex.. who you have it with, how you do it etc. It is about two people that love each other enough to want to enter into marriage and spend the rest of their lives together (respectively) How does sex enter into this? I know straight couples who are married and don't have sex! Marriage isn't solely about sex, people!

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't suppose it would ever occur to some that the 'will of the people' is wrong? Perhaps they have been mislead for too many years and can no longer think for themselves.

The struggle for equality will be re-joined. Oppression has no place in our society, if you call yourself an American.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icanilluminateu... But this is the 21st century, there is more wealth. We no longer accept old thinking. Who is to say that polygamy is be limited to the opposite sex? Why next same sex? That eliminates the children argument. Polygamy can only be entered into willingly, including minors, as long as they have parental permission, no forced marriages.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well of course the Will of the People is wrong. It does not agree with what YOU/THEY think, so the People were all brainwashed and to stupid to be able to read a few simple words and understand them!!

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And of course lets not forget the "will of the people" should all move to another state so we dont "inconvience" the "non- Will of the people"
That way the state can go broke when the "just barely" enough voters to make it pass take their lives elsewhere!!

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy
I am only answering someone's question as to why polygamy was outlawed. That is what I found. True, this is the 21st century and maybe we should have this put on the next ballot.

Posted by JandDsMomma on November 6, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, they have every right to the comparison, because the point is that they did not CHOOSE to be gay, just like people don't choose the color of their skin. I don't think that anyone would deliberately CHOOSE to be discriminated against. People are so desperate to feel supported and belong to a group that they all have tendencies to shove things down people's throats- Just like blacks have Ebonics and Rap music. EVERY culture and creed has a gimmick! The G&L community should have their chance at Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness just like the rest of us.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, what you are saying is there is scientific proof that gay men are as thick headed as women? :-)

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the definition of "marriage" can only be defined by what it seems narrow minded hate mongers,me and my wife will be more then happy after 16 years to give ours back the church that issued it... Wait a minute it was the California government that issued it not a church, and there was no mention of god in our ceremony (must not be valid then)... Wait I live in a country free from religious persecution, and we have no kids (must not be eligible because we haven't contributed to over populating our planet)... Wait this is America where we are guaranteed personal freedoms. So from the sounds of it you fascist bigots need to move somewhere a little more like minded, may I suggest China or Saudi Arabia.

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is always good to have something help everything in perspective.

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/54...

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Twain

Are you kidding me
"The night of the day that Ca supreme court allowed the gays to marry there were over 800 lightning strikes in the San Francisco area without any rain"

So how do you explain hurricanes, floods, fire and tornadoes that hit the bible belt? Maybe you should be out sacrificing a animal instead of trying to participate in an adult conversation. I hope you post more just to prove your ignorance and intolerance, I heard the Taliban are recruiting.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geesh, all this talk about being "born that way" reminds of Jessica Rabbit's line, "I'm not really bad, I'm just drawn that way."

Posted by kelbs on November 6, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by NowHearThis on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 a.m.: "In a bygone era, life was easier when homosexuals resided in their closet"

Easier for who? For those who can't deal with it? I suppose it was easier when gays commited suicide at alarming rates as well. It was also probably easier when blacks were kept separate from whites. I mean.. let's not upset the apple cart!

This comment was as ignorant at they come!

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir96

"are you saying that homosexuals are the same as child molesters because they were born that way and they should get a pass on their unnatural and anti mother nature behavior

I mean after all a natural born killer is just born that way"

Let's just hope that your children or grandchildren never suffer from any mental health issues, since you have the same genes that can pass on "unnatural and anti mother nature behavior". There's a reason it was overwhelmingly supported by uneducated people I guess.

"It's got electrolytes"

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ NowHearThis

"In a bygone era, life was easier when homosexuals resided in their closet"

I had a woman that was like a grandmother and a WASP during WWII. She served her country as a test pilot at a time when the "Traditional" woman was bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen. She lived with her partner for 25 years. To think that such a great patriot and person had to hide who they were is asinine.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now here is a true worry for this state....

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...

Posted by patronald on November 6, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biological phenomenon that women become pregnant and give birth instead of men has shaped the formation of gender roles in world cultures. A single male can impregnate any number of females at once, while a single female is usually only impregnated by one male at a time. Even if there were only one man left on Earth, humankind could probably recover, depending on the man's health and fertility. The gene pool of the species would be somewhat impoverished, however, so the species would be less able to adapt to changes in its environment. On the other hand, if all but one female were wiped out, it is doubtful humanity could recover.[original research?]

In fact, it appears that even in early historical times, it was not clear that there was any male role in reproduction - there is no immediate correlation between sex and reproduction due to the delay in the obvious signs of pregnancy. However, all civilizations hit upon the concept of male reproduction and, even more importantly, paternity, most likely from the correlation seen during the development of animal husbandry. The discovery of paternity led to concepts such as fathership of children, the importance of ensuring fidelity, the ROLE OF MARRIAGE as prima facie proof of paternity, and holding individual males responsible for the support of their offspring.

Another school of thought (e.g. Jared Diamond in Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality) holds that the reasons behind the development of these concepts is biological, a result of a variety of unique elements of human sexuality (Sex for pleasure, hidden ovulation, etc.). Natural selection ensures that men that are able to be more certain of the parentage of the children they care for will be more likely to pass on their genes.

This division has shaped many of the gender roles that survive to modern times. As humans have gained increased mastery of the environment, these divisions become less and less relevant, but change, while it is taking place, happens gradually.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - I'll say no such thing. My wife might be reading.

Posted by JandDsMomma on November 6, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96, we are not going to compare the actions of two consenting gay adults to the illegal actions of an adult who likes to make victims out of young children.

But I guess you are right- We should rid the world of the people who are different than we are the same we we got rid of those ignorant, savage, heathen Indians that used to have this land, right? I mean, what right did they have to be here and claim this land as theirs, huh??

And all those nasty interracial couples- Wow, we better put a stop to that because NO GOOD will come of it, I tell you!

Yeah- It's the people who don't understand that have the problem. The descrimination against gay couples is just the new interracial couple on the block, that's all.

Posted by JohnBerlin on November 6, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Next Step:
Recall the Supreme Court judges who legalized gay marriage by reversed Proposition 22's gay marriage ban.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 6, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is nothing wrong with being proud. As a black I am proud of many things, including Mr. Obama being the 1st black president. I would be proud of McCain winning too just because he would be my next president and I am an American.

While I proudly voted for Mr. Obama I must say the thing I am most proud of is being an American.

What bothers me is when people like the media stereo-type blacks as being hip hoping thugs. I don’t even like hip hop. Another is when the media throws me into a pot of a bunch of minority groups.

Look, a minority is born that why and EVERYONE knows you are black without saying a word, without even blinking, you are judged. So it pisses me off when others say the civil rights movement for blacks and Latinos is the same thing as fighting for a “right” to marry just cause you choice to have sex a certain way. I wouldn’t know a homosexual from a straight man if they did not say so – which means it is nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING like being black.

You saw that 90% of blacks votes YES on prop 8, because black families believe that it is best for the child to have a MOTHER AND A FATHER. Anything less, especially when a parent chooses to deny a child both male and female role models is just selfishness about sexual pleasure and NOT the welfare of the child.

Stop using the black man and the black woman to push your agendas of homosexuality!

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - On cohabitation vs marriage, I'd say the biggest difference (and the reason Prop 8 was wrong) is the benefits married couples enjoy that those not legally married cannot. that's why I believe we should simply eliminate the government-sponsored benefits, such as tax status. Then, I wouldn't care who or what is allowed to marry, or how marriage is defined. The term "marriage" does not belong in any state constitution. The government needs to get out of the marriage business.

Posted by Angelito on November 6, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, alot of people are saying that homosexuals are born that way, I just wish they would show me the scientific evidence of those findings so we could publish them. My friend is gay, and he actually found out he was gay after being rejected many years in high school for the way he dressed, and girls took compassion of him, and I don't know wht happened next, but in college he came out after he adopted the lyfestyle of his new group. I mean he has never said he was born that way. For him it was his only sexual experinece that made him that way. For some people its the pleasure of going against the rules. The same way teenagers choose to rebel against their parents.

However, there is no scientific evidence that they are born that way. Otherwise, we would have given a nobel prize to whomever provided the evidence of homosexuality is a birth defect.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is about 14 simple words "marriage in California should only be valid or recognized bewteen a man and a woman."

We as people, have to put a set of rules for marriage. The prerequisites must be fulfilled before a permit, or licence in this case is granted.

If you think about it, its the same way we do with professions. Everybody has a right to be a lawyer, a Doctor, and astronaut, etc.. but they must complete a set of prerequisites before they can take a licence to practice. And their licence can be taken away by the state's governing board. Is it discrimination? NO, its simple logic. You would not want a lawyer doing a surgery in your heart, or a an astronaut defending you in court, or a Doctor fixing a satellite.

We as society impose a set of rules for everything, and must adhere to them wether we like them or not. However we must accept those rules of society, because they serve the greater good of society.

Its time we respect the will of the people, and accept the new amendment to the priviledge of marriage to the State Constitution.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 6, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So how many have attended any of these no on 8 hate fests / group temper tantrum.

I hope they continue so that those that were borderline against 8 will see and understand the truth of the YES on 8 arguments. I want them to see the hate and vitriol of the no on 8 side. I want it to back fire so that when they make their next move the victory margins will be even larger.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain - Air India flies to Afghanistan. Bon voyage! Don't let the door hit'cha where the good FSM split'cha!

Posted by kelbs on November 6, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have allowed myself to get caught up in all of the discussions and arguments, and for what?

Equality is coming.... And, yes, it will come whether you like it or not!

This is bigger than all of us.

Posted by caroldammit on November 6, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, Angeltio, does it follow then that you (presumably) were not born a heterosexual, but CHOSE to be?

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

O_P_Rockwell - it won't happen that way. No matter how hard anyone tries, you can't hold back truth and tolerance. For example of how our country is growing in the area of tolerance, please take a look at our president-elect.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, right, the Taliban

You have to grow a beard or die
You can not watch TV, listen to western music, or you die
You can not wear western style clothes or you die
You have to convert to Islam or you die

Still want to join the Taliban?

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We voted, and the majority was YES on 8. Plain and Simple.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

caroldammit - With a few exceptions (like OjaiGy), logic simply doesn't work on this thread. I know, I've tried.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, OjaiGuy, I misspelled your moniker.

Posted by patronald on November 6, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DARWIN!!!!!!! The biological phenomenon that women become pregnant and give birth instead of men has shaped the formation of gender roles in world cultures. A single male can impregnate any number of females at once, while a single female is usually only impregnated by one male at a time. Even if there were only one man left on Earth, humankind could probably recover, depending on the man's health and fertility. The gene pool of the species would be somewhat impoverished, however, so the species would be less able to adapt to changes in its environment. On the other hand, if all but one female were wiped out, it is doubtful humanity could recover.[original research?]

In fact, it appears that even in early historical times, it was not clear that there was any male role in reproduction - there is no immediate correlation between sex and reproduction due to the delay in the obvious signs of pregnancy. However, all civilizations hit upon the concept of male reproduction and, even more importantly, paternity, most likely from the correlation seen during the development of animal husbandry. The discovery of paternity led to concepts such as fathership of children, the importance of ensuring fidelity, the role of MARRIAGE as prima facie proof of paternity, and holding individual males responsible for the support of their offspring.

to pass on their genes.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ Obamayomama

"So it pisses me off when others say the civil rights movement for blacks and Latinos is the same thing as fighting for a “right” to marry just cause you choice to have sex a certain way. I wouldn’t know a homosexual from a straight man if they did not say so – which means it is nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING like being black."

Yeah forsake anyone that feels discriminated that isn't black. This again is where education would benefit you. The civil rights was a equality for all not just the blacks. It's hard to think of myself better then anyone else since we are all created in gods image. I want to congratulate you though you somehow have become better then God.

"You saw that 90% of blacks votes YES on prop 8, because black families believe that it is best for the child to have a MOTHER AND A FATHER."

A Brookings Institute study estimates that 29 percent of disconnected single mothers in 2005 were black or non-Hispanic. And though the 1996 legislation has moved many single mothers into jobs, poverty rates for single-mother families remain stubbornly high at 42.1 percent for white children and 49.4 percent for black children in families with a female householder, no husband present in 2007.

Are you excluding that 29% from your 90%.

In all bigotry is not consolidated to old white southerns I guess, Nice try though.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Angelito
As to the suspected origin of homosexuality, I found this. There are several theories but nothing absolute

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/hom...

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 6, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The posters who think that homosexuality is a choice crack me up. Homosexuals are feared, discriminated against, hated, made fun of, picked on, singled out, treated like pariahs in some circles, some are closeted for fear that if their friends and family knew the truth they would be disowned.

So tell me, who in their right mind would KNOWINGLY choose that lifestyle? I'm a heterosexual, and the gay lifestyle hardly sounds like something I would consciously sign up for, given the choice. Get a clue, people!
-------------------------
And why would pediphiles choose to be pediphiles? Are they not risking going to prison? Do you also beleive that they are born that way? If so, why should they go to prison?
Of course they are not a moral equivalent, but the point stands.
Just because you are involved with behavior that is out of norm with society does not mean you were born that way.
Homosexual rights activist have tried to prove it is genetic, there is NO scientific evidence that it is!
Rather then just saying I am wrong, prove it! Link to some type of proof that it genetic.
Having said that, it is my opinion that there is deep rooted reasons. It is not just one thing. The question "what turned them gay" is not a valid question. It is thousands of experiances from birth to now. It is probably not a conscious choice, but a choice it is..
Common Sense!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 6, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Freethought. It's been good debates. Seems like you were the only one who challenged my playing the devil's advocate for polygamy, and countered with good points.

Well, can't play anymore, recess is over. Have a good day.

Posted by cmpvr on November 6, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've skimmed through some of this discussion and have noticed that much of it is a back and forth between whether this proposition is legal or constitutional. We'll see what the courts decide on that issue. Even if Prop 8 does stand up in court, that doesn't make it right, just as segregation laws and laws against whites marrying blacks were not right so many years ago. Legislating morality is fine in many of the examples given. Laws should match society's norms. However, society changes and despite what some people think, homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by a good percentage of the population. Those percentages will continue to grow as people become more understanding, and tolerant. You can compare homosexuality to pornography and the like, but that is just backwards thinking. As backwards as segregation was.

I believe that the Yes on 8 folks introduced a whole new generation to the concept of intolerance and the idea that different people should be treated differently. My wife was flipped off by a Yes on 8 supporter that was well below voting age. Her mistake was in shaking her head no at them as she drove past. In your fear of teaching kids about homosexuality, you managed to introduce the topic to them all at once during this election. I am saddened by how popular this proposition was in our area, but hope that there will now be a strong backlash against it. One bright sign was that younger people generally voted against it. You may have won this round, but you can't turn back the clock.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Angelito - You jsut described someone who was "in the closet" for many years. He came "out" once he figured it was acceptable by his peers. If you talk to him, you'll find out that he probably knew he was gay since elementary or junior high school.

You asked for a link, so here you go:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

There are more, but I did not read through them. Just Google it, and you'll find plenty to read both or and against the argument.

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Take care OjaiGuy.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Twain

"Some people no longer consider it immoral anymore because it has been shoved down our throats through the media and activists"

Or could it be that we as a country have grow and are no longer hunting witches? I don't need a 2000 year old human owners manual to tell me my morality or any uneducated rednecks. I think that the Catholic church of millions of indigenous peoples around the world is immoral does that mean we get to ban them? I think that religion denying origin and science is immoral again does that mean they get banned? Well guess what this is America where we are tolerant, even of archaic belief systems that bode ill will towards others.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 6, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought, OjaiGuy, caroldammit, icanilluminateu, I always enjoy your posts.

Gotta go!

Posted by macdaddycrabby on November 6, 2008 at 1:43 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks.
Same here

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 6, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TWAIN-THAT IS PRETTY MUCH HOW I AM FEELING ALSO. CALIFORNIA IS TURNING MORE AND MORE INTO A SODOM AND GOMORRAH EVERY DAY.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So here is a question if homosexuality is genetic. With all the advancement in science. If there became a cure for genetic abnormalities, would homosexuals want to be cured? Would homosexuality be grouped with all the other genetic disorders that plague our world today?

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ MBDIAMOND

"TWAIN-THAT IS PRETTY MUCH HOW I AM FEELING ALSO. CALIFORNIA IS TURNING MORE AND MORE INTO A SODOM AND GOMORRAH EVERY DAY."

Run and don't look back least you be turned to a pillar of salt. I hear Texas or Arkansas feels the same way they'll even welcome you.

Posted by definer on November 6, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought - your correct in saying that it is mainly about the benefits. So, why try and get those benefits by changing the definition of a heterosexual word like marriage? You could easily achieve you goal by introducing a new prop that creates a new word such as garriage exclusively for gays that gives the same benefits to gays as marriage gives to heterosexuals. It's difficult to see how anyone is going to achieve acceptance from a group that your trying to take something away from. Hijacking the definition of marriage will create more suffering than good. Create a new word that represents the wishes of the gay community and you will get the benefits and equality that you seek.

Posted by JandDsMomma on November 6, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, there is a G&L Pride day at Disneyland...

Did you want tickets???

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Twain

Which version?
Which of the hundreds of Authors?
Which BS version that best suits your needs?

Gimme a break the NT is the most full of crap people taking way to many liberties with the word of God book there is (besides the book of Mormon).

But don't worry there's no such thing as Science and God will save you from everything. Just unplug and wait for the Rapture and leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer- If something is genetic it isn't automatically a disorder, its not like we are going to cure the world of redheads.

Posted by huntram on November 6, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought,
You said"You asked for a link, so here you go:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

This link you gave says that homosexuality in flies is not hard wired. Of course that is just in fruit flies, but it seems to disprove that flies are born that way! :) Thanks for the help in understanding. Here is the quote from the article.

"It was amazing. I never thought we'd be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired," he said. "This fundamentally changes how we think about this behavior."

Common Sense!

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir96

"whats so funny about about having a amother and a father, its better than two dads or 2 moms

we the normal people do not approve of unnatural homosexuals and their agendsa of showing their lifestyle down our throats

whay have homo day at disneyland?????????"

~ But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.~

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir9

We the normal people refuse your version of normal. The same that refuse to allow a theocracy or follow a Nazi pope.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MBDIAMOND quote:
"TWAIN-THAT IS PRETTY MUCH HOW I AM FEELING ALSO. CALIFORNIA IS TURNING MORE AND MORE INTO A SODOM AND GOMORRAH EVERY DAY."

Your reference to Sodom and Gomorrah as a den of homosexuality is wrong.

http://www.usbible.com/Sin/sodom_and_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_an...

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Twain

"The truth angers you doesn't it?"

No ignorant people that spout "knowledge" with what seems to be at best a high school diploma does.

Posted by ValerinaS on November 6, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For anyone out there that feels Proposition 8 is WRONG, please click on the link and sign the petition. For all of you 8/Hate Supporters, this will be an ongoing battle until we reach victory. I am not gay. I just believe in equality, across the board. There is a seperation of church and state for a reason... what's next, a church proposition against pre-marital sex??? Get over yourselves.

http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130...

Thanks for supporting equality to all who do!!! Please sign the petition. 8 Supporters, brace yourselves, eventually gays/lesbians will have EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Twain on November 6, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do the Taliban allow homosexuals? Maybe I will move to the middleeast just to get away from all of the immorality that is being spread here. Obviously, California is like the middle east in the fact that the peoples vote does not count.

You can try to join the Taliban but I do belive the majority of them don't like Americans. I don't agree with them not liking Americans but hey its there majority so it must be right.

Posted by macdaddycrabby on November 6, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow
With all this going on, I'm the only one removed and for laughing.
So I'll say it again....

AAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALA

Does red hair make it impossible to procreate with your mate? From what I understand from your post it is indeed genetic and it may be possible to fix in the future but shouldn't because it's normal to have this gene?

Posted by vcmann on November 6, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All of us, gay and straight, who have state certified marriage certificates are legally married. That will not change.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer - First off I myself never said it was genetic because I do not know for fact that, my comment was in your response to someone else's comment saying it was genetic, and no redhair does not make it impossible to procreate but not everyone wants to procreate that is why there are conreceptives and some people choose to have a vasectomy. And no I don't think homosexuallity is wrong and needs to be fixed. But maybe hate is genetic and can be fixed.

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First off, DoctorDude - LMBO. I'm not sure anyone else caught your hilarious proposition, but I did and I'm still giggling.

I still have a hard time believing that this prop passed, especially in this state. It hurts my heart to know that some of my neighbors, and likely some friends are bigots. And, I say bigot, because I honestly and truly feel that anyone who would deny rights to homosexuals are bigots. While I find JohnMuir to be incredibly distateful, at least he's honest about why he voted for Prop 8. Unlike many he's not hiding behind the need to "restore" or "protect" marriage. He's out front with his dislike (or even hate) of homosexuals. He's homophobic and proud. I wish more of the 8 supporters would at least admit why they voted against giving equal rights to a segment of our population. If you voted for 8 and say you're not homophobic, you're either blatantly lying or not being honest with youself. So much of the propoganda surrounding this issue was based on fear. I saw one poster here say that he felt that teaching about homosexuality in school might make his daughther gay or think it's ok to experiment. Oy vey. You don't "make" someone gay. You either are or you aren't. And, newflash daddy - many, many kids experiment when they're very young. It doesn't make them gay. And that has been happening for as long as I know and I'm 44.

I'm still so sorry this passed and as a hetersexual I feel as though I owe an apology to the gay community. I wish there were more I could do to help them have the rights I enjoy. I saw pictures of lesbian and gay couples being married and the joy on their faces was so nice to see. To see the tears today is just heartbreaking. I can't imagine someone having told me that I couldn't marry my husband or that our relationship wasn't as valid or special as someone else's. It's just plain wrong and mean.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 6, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually VCmann yes it will change.

The amendment says that only marriage between a man ana woman will be valid and recognized in California.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain - not unless the hiring manager is female. you know women can be successful too, using their minds even not just boobs

Posted by freethought on November 6, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

definer - Actually, that's not a bad idea. As long as we all have the same benefits, I'd personally vote for your idea.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir96

Get used to it you moved to California and like it or not we are becoming more blue. I was shocked when San Luis Obispo county was counted as a blue county. If you don't like the fact the state you invaded is open minded your more then welcome to leave, we don't want you here anyways. Want like-minded people that will agree with you I would suggest Alabama or Kentucky.

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few people have said that homosexuality does not appear in the animal kingdom. Presumably their argument is that since it doesn't appear in the animal kingdom that it's an aberration in the human animal. Hey news flash for all of you who think that: homosexuality does indeed appear in the animal kingdom. Indeed many animals are homosexual as well as bisexual. Some are monogomous and some like multiple parters (gasp - even at the same time). I suggest you do a simple google search before you say something that makes you appear incredibly silly.

And, the issue of taking tax exempt status away from churches has come up on this post as well as yesterday's post. I wish we'd have more deep discussions about that some day and I'd like to see that become a political measure that we can all vote on some day. And, I don't see this as discriminating against churches at all as one poster accused. We all have to pay taxes. Why are churches exempt? There are many parts of this country where people live in shacks w/o running water and electricity, yet the churches are magnificent and are on prime real estate. Why shouldn't churches have to pay their fair share? And, I feel this even more strongly in cases where churches endorse one political candidate over another and try to push through various policy. I respect that a church and its members have strong feelings and opinions and are entitled to them. Indeed they should be able to back a particular candidate. They just should not enjoy tax exempt status while doing so.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage isn't explicitly mentioned in the black letter text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, we can look at American cultural, social and judicial history as well as judicial precedent.

Since 1789 when the Constitution was ratified and the governmental institutions set in place, including the Supreme Court and other lower courts, the historical record overwhelmingly shows that legal marriage was 100 percent between a man and a woman only.

Marriage is a privilege not a right.

CALA

My point is that if you are homosexual and have to strap something on, or use alternate methods to mimic the REAL thing there IS something wrong with that. It obviously is not natural.

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, I am a woman married to a man. Why?

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A Brief History of Marriage

Despite what some of our more adamant posters would like to believe, marriage is not solely a religious institution, but civil institution - "...a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights...". As a civil institution, it has existed since ancient Roman and Greek times. Most marriages in the world were, until very recently, Arranged Marriages, for this purpose - business arrangements that were economic liasons for growing family wealth, rather than love or even procreation. While the "holiness" of marriage was recognized in Christianity early on (in Eph. 23-32, for instance), the actual marriage as a ceremony and a sacrament within the church did not take place until the 12th century:

"For much of the first Christian millennium, the imperial state regulated marriage (and thorny questions such as divorce), while the church was content to recognize and sometimes celebrate the holiness of marriage, if not sexual intercourse."

Further during the first 1200 years of Christianity :

"Christians married according to the civil laws of the time, in a family ceremony, and often without any special church blessing. Christians married according to the civil laws of the time, in a family ceremony, and often without any church blessing."

It was not until 1563 that witnesses to weddings, including an officiating priest, were required by the Church.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer - there are many things that are not natural. Is wearing clothing a sin? BTW, there are some hetrosexuals that "strap something on, or use alternate methods"

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

During this time civil marriage and religious marriage often did not coincide. The early Christian Church was more interested in celibacy as a sacrament, and often simply recognized pre-existing civil laws. For instance, same sex marriage was recognized in ancient Rome and this extended into the Christian period (see Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980). There is even evidence for Church-sanctioned same sex unions in ancient times, including a liturgy (see Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Villard Press, 1994). Ironically, it was an idea from Christianity that helped bring about one modern aspect of marriage that all sides agree on - consent. In 866, Pope Nicholas 1 decreed "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", thus bringing into marriage the idea that consent of both parties was required or the marriage was not legal. This helped bring about the end of marriage by kidnapping, rape or capture, which was, sadly, common in ancient times. Although arranged marriages continued for centuries, there was at least some input by the parties involved

Religious marriage is not a constant and is a varied as the religions themselves. In the West, the Christian and Jewish idea of monogamy for life is prevalant(with exceptions like in Bountiful BC). There are religous ceremonies for marriage. In the East, marriage ceremonises are a local custom rather than a religious institution. Buddhism, for instance, has no marriage ceremony. Islam and cultures in parts of Africa and Central Asia allow for polygamy, where marriage can have ceremony or not.

There are as many traditions about marriage as there are cultures and religions on the earth. Even those traditions are of fairly recent creations. Marriage itself has changed and evolved almost constantly throughout the ages.

Civil marriage - marriage recognized by the state for social reasons of property and family - has undergone some fairly significant changes, in recent times. It was not until 1948, in Perez v Lippold, that the California Supreme Court became the first court in the US to declare the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. Before that 40 US states, and most of Canada, banned the practice. Judges often used words like these to uphold the ban:

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnMuir you say: "homosexuals have their own phone books with homosexual bussiness now that is beyond discrimanation."

Why do you consider that discrimination? Are you allowed to have a copy of the phone book? Are you allowed to patronize those businesses? If so, then it's not discriminatory.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir96

"but I am a proud 5th generation Californian"

So what your family invaded our state during the dust bowl, well better pack back them into the Hillbilly mobile.

"homosexuals have their own phone books with homosexual bussiness

now that is beyond discrimanation"

~ But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.~

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALA

Agreed, but is that a heterosexuals ONLY option? Toys are great, but there is nothing like the REAL thing, specially when that leads to giving birth to your OWN children. I did not once mention whether it is or is not a sin to be homosexual now did i? I only said it is not natural.

Posted by icanilluminateu on November 6, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnmuir96
"but I am a proud 5th generation Californian"

Let's hope there isn't a 6th

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@cadreamer

"I did not once mention whether it is or is not a sin to be homosexual now did i? I only said it is not natural."

Neither is children with extreme retardation living through childhood, living to be 106, antibiotics, surgery, hair replacement/regrowth, flying, etc...

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer - yes it can be the only option for some hetrosexuals ...ever heard of the little blue pill? And I am sorry about the mention of sin, but still there are so many things that are not natural. Typing the keyboard of a computer, not natural.

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CAdreamer,

You said, "Agreed, but is that a heterosexuals ONLY option? Toys are great, but there is nothing like the REAL thing, specially when that leads to giving birth to your OWN children. I did not once mention whether it is or is not a sin to be homosexual now did i? I only said it is not natural."

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. And, I mean that respectfully, but saying you are ignorant about lifestyles that differ from your own. You prefer the "REAL" thing, but not all people do. I have quite a few heterosexual female friends who are much more satisfied with their, er Rabbit. I also know that many men prefer oral sex to the "REAL" thing. What is natural to you is not natural to homosexuals. What's so hard to understand about that? Homosexuals are not attacking your lifestyle or trying to tell you that what you do in the bedroom isn't "normal" even though to them it isn't.

By the way, I did give birth to my "OWN" child, but I did not do so by conventional means. My husband and I were unable to get pregnant on our own after many years (and lots of heartache) trying. Our son was conceived via invitro fertilization. My eggs were harvested medically and my husband (triggers, you may gasp here) m*sturbated into a specimen jar. His sperm was then added to my eggs, and thankfully a beautiful baby boy was the result.

My son is no less "NORMAL" then anyone else's. Just because something doesn't come naturally to you doesn't make it wrong. Just because you personally wouldn't engage in a lifestyle doesn't make it wrong. I happen to enjoy sex with men - and more specifically with my husband. I do not wish to have sex with women - so I won't. However, I have no issues with women who do want to have sex with women doing so. Great. Two consenting adults should have the freedom to do whatever in the privacy of their homes.

Frankly if more people in the world were getting laid regularly the world would be a much better place. Peace

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALA

It is natural for us to type on a keyboard,perform surgery, and live to be 106, antibiotics or have extremely retarded children live so long because it is in our NATURE to create. We learned how to harness fire and invented/created the wheel. There is nothing in homosexuality that has to do with creation. The uses of our creations are a moral issue for sure, but that is for another forum.

Again it still comes down to the fact that no where in the Constitution does it say that marriage is a right. Marriage is a privilege.

The MAJORITY of California for one reason or another has spoken and do NOT want marriage defined as anything BUT between a man and a woman.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer - then why is it not natural for humans to have "created" different ways to have sex?

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Comments

My point is that without a member of the male species you would not have been able to have that wonderful gift, your son. Two women cannot have a child nor can two men. Not without help. That brings up another moral issue.

This is not an issue so much of what someone does in the privacy of their own homes. I have asked the question before in this very forum of which I have not received and answer.

Posted by cadreamer on November 6, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would still like to know how what you choose to do in the bedroom dictates who and what you are? I am a heterosexual and I do not put stickers on my car, go to rallies, march, or keep trying to validate my bedroom habits to those that have different ones. What I do in the bedroom or my home stays there. That is MY private business.

The point still stands marriage is a privilege NOT a right.

Posted by patronald on November 6, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'M STILL PROUD I VOTED FOR YES ON PRO. 8
I DO NOT HAVE A RELIGOIN, I'M ATHEIST,
I do have 3 gay male friends, 2 are a couple,
That live in 1 condo, we BBQ together and have drinks, I help fix there car time to time, They have no desire for marriage, They know how I stand, There white,I'm white, They do not hold hands or any of that. They say get over IT.DONE

Posted by freaknnuts on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Overheard caller on a radio talk show:
"Even the CHICKENS have more rights than WE do...."

That made me laugh. No offense.

I believe the Supreme court will overturn the ban. Keep on smiling!

Posted by ValerinaS on November 6, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To JW...

Thank you for the percentages, that is very interesting indeed that there was a higher percentage of blacks and latinos that voted in favor of prop. 8, when they had to fight for equal rights themselves. It will eventually go through, this is just a hurdle to jump. Yes, California spoke for now, but in the interrum of it going back up on the ballot, some of the people who voted Yes on this will have sons/daughters who come home and divulge the information that they are gay, and maybe change the viewpoint of their bigoted parents and bring them back to the reality that some people are just born that way. In the meantime as well, the marriages that already took place will continue to be honored, and us sane people will continue to fight for equal rights for all.....

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir9

"twain you make a smuch sence as two ugly fat chicks getting married"

~ But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.~

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cadreamer - No one is say hetrosexualty is wrong and people shouldn't procreate.

You may not put stickers on you car proclaiming your sexual preference but I have seen plently of stickers that show someones preference, for example I once saw a man driving a car with a sticker that said "My other ride is a woman."
And the reason there are rallies and marches for gay pride is because obviously some people are trying to dictate what people do in the bedroom or life

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I just want to thank everyone here today!!
I have learned so much on this thread.
1. My vote shouldn't count because it does not agree with the gays/lesbians agenda....Even though it is what the majority of people voted for!
2. That since the majority of people voted to end gay marriage they should all move to another state and be happy destroying Californias economy, because our vote shouldnt count and we would not want to inconvience those that do not agree with the majority!

Best thing I learned today was that the reason it was passed was because the MAJORITY of people in California are uneducated and/ or brainwashed and not able to understand or comprehend the meaning of 14 little words and therefore voted incorrectly, ( because again, the MAJORITY did not agree with what THEY wanted)

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't suppose it would ever occur to some that the 'will of the people' is wrong? Perhaps they have been mislead for too many years and can no longer think for themselves.
THANK YOU for the learning experience!!

Posted by Rocket81 on November 6, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regardless how you voted, EVERYONE should be really concerned that if a court can overturn a vote, that jeopadizes democracy at work. How anyone feels about any topic is how they vote. The courts have no right to overturn the will of the people. Also, to insure everyone gets one vote, they need to use the system like the DMV has with your thumbprint as an ID. This needs to be done by the next election to eliminate fraud.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, what exactly is this gays/lesbians agenda every one is talking about?

Posted by Comments on November 6, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok CAdreamer, you continue to say, "The point still stands marriage is a privilege NOT a right." What did you do then to earn this privilege? Why don't homosexuals get to enjoy the same privilege?

And, I too do not advertise what I do in my bedroom. None of the gay folk I know do either. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make when you keep posting that.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@johnmuir96

"you make as much sence as obama as president"

~ But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.~

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@CALA

"By the way, what exactly is this gays/lesbians agenda every one is talking about?"

Don't you know they want to spread their gay "disease" to all the children. (Sarcasm intended)

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To those who believe the majority is always right and the courts should never overrule laws passed by the voters:
In 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned that state’s anti-miscegenation law in the landmark case of Perez v. Lippold, in part on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Court also rejected the argument that anti-miscegenation laws treated blacks and whites equally, arguing as follows:
It has been said that a[n anti-miscegenation] statute . . . does not discriminate against any racial group, since it applies alike to all persons whether Caucasian, Negro, or members of any other race. The decisive question, however, is not whether different races, each considered as a group, are equally treated. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. . . . Since the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice, a segregation statute for marriage necessarily impairs the right to marry.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 6, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram: According to your argument, even I did post a link here “proving” that homosexuality is genetic, it wouldn't matter because you would undoubtedly post a link “disproving” it.

Your comments comparing homosexuality and pedophilia shouts volumes to your homophobia and irrational fear of gays. And by the way, I do believe that pedophiles and serial murderers are born with some sort of brain aberration which predisposes them to this type of behavior. Why should they go to prison if they are born that way? Well, the last I heard murder is a felony. As for pedophilia, it is a psychological disorder, and pedophiles are not considered criminals until they have committed an unlawful act like child molestation or statutory rape. Homosexuality on the other hand is not a crime.

“It is probably not a conscious choice, but a choice it is.” If a homosexual chooses to wear make-up and dress effeminately, that's a conscious choice. Being sexually attracted to the same sex is not a choice. It's biology.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW cadreamer "The point still stands marriage is a privilege NOT a right."

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi¬
leges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with¬
out due process of law; nor deny to any person within its juris¬
diction the equal protection of the laws.

This Why a court CAN overturn the laws voted on by the majority, because the laws itself is not constitutional.
"Marriage is an UNABRIDGED privilege NOT a right"

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Twain

1. I'm not gay and have been married for 16 years. By you voting yes on 8 however you decided to attack mine and others families. From sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews to very good friends. So quite complaining when we call you out for being a bigot, if you didn't want the hat you should have been a little more considerate.

2. Unlike the "give us your weak and huddled masses" mantra, Californians neither want you or invited you to move here.

3. "I do not appreciate it when you make fun of us "rednecks and hillbillies" slavery, fishing shows and Larry "the Cable Guy" give us the right to make fun of you.

4. "What is next, lynching the priests and preachers?" Kinda like what the southern culture still does to this day with gays and minorities. Last time I checked they weren't dragging them behind trucks.

Posted by ValerinaS on November 6, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe in a democracy. I appreciate the right to vote, and I appreciate knowing that the State of California is still holding onto some religious roots. I respect religion. However, I don't feel this particular proposition should have been up on the ballot. I feel marriage, since it is a government union (I realize that to some it's religious, but when it comes to tax breaks and such, it applies to government only), should not be subject to religious definition. There were lies told on Proposition 8 to get a YES vote, I'm sorry so many people were gullible enough to fall for it. I think there should be a federal mandate that says a marriage is between two people, so it is fair across the board, and state's shouldn't be able to contest it under the constitution of the United States for equality. It is amazing that you can sue a school for saying God in the pledge of allegiance, but everyone gets all holier than thou when it comes to marriage. I personally don't believe in marriage. The sanctity was taken out by straight, religious people years ago. But I believe everyone is entitled to have the option. It is stupid to pretend it doesn't exist. I feel sorry for your chidren that are still taught bigotry.

And sorry to inform everyone, this proposition did NOTHING regarding education in schools, they will still learn about gay/lesbian couples, and they will still NOT learn about MARRIAGE!!!!

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The big difference between the is the issue of civil rights which is what Prop 8 was really about.

Black suffered slavery - Racism not funny
Women suffered segregation - Sexism not funny
Southerners held fast to slaves and segregation - Paint the target on your chest.

As for your service, Thank you. I hope that Uncle Sam treats you better then he has for the past 50 years. It's abhorrent what the VA does to the troops when it comes to available treatment.

Posted by turchotk on November 6, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Norcal and the rest who have a problem with the majority electorate. At the end of the day, having already voted in favor of banning gay marriage twice in this state, did you think it was going to change in any other way? Are you saying that you actually support those whacked out 9th circuit judges who literally are the laughing stock of the entire Nation? Is that where you stand? Supporting judges who time after time after time refuse to honor the will of the people and the Constitution? And you call yourself good Americans? Time to head to Massachusetts ya'll!

Posted by mmlove38 on November 6, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see how the heterosexual people like their rights taken away. From now on, heterosexual, religious bigots can not procreate! I think I will start the process to make this be a law and yes, I will fight for it all the way!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!!! Let's see how you like being told how you can and can not live your life! You take away my right, I should have the right to take away one of yours!!! The bible does say an eye for an eye, right?!

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 6, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

COLDWATERNOCAL-SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT,TWAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE CONSIDERATE BUT ONLY YOUR VIEWS MATTER.I HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHY DON'T YOU MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA AND TAKE YOUR BIGOT VIEWS WITH YOU. I THINK WE WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

turchotk: No but it proved how many of our neighbors, friends, co-workers are closed minded bigots... Again. It won't hold this time either since it's in direct conflict with not only the state but national constitution. Well hey though congrats for coming out of your bigot closet.

Twain: It was the Souths stubborn mentality on the issue that makes it a target for jokes. That and the fact as they revile in their own stupidity. Watch CMT for about an hour or listen to any of the southern comics. As for your serving I have a relative in boot camp right now so that was sincere as I saw how the VA treated vets after Vietnam and the first gulf war.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

coldwaternorcal-Not all Southerners owned slaves and supported segregations and the certainly were the only ones who did. I find your comment just as bigoted as those againts homosexuals.

turchotk - Prop 8 refuses to honor the will the Constitution...No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
Those who voted Yes on 8 should not be upset with the courts if it does get overruled, they should should be upset with those who wrote an uncostitutional law

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MBDIAMOND: ask an adult where the caps lock key is.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*...the certainly were the only...
correction:
...they certainly were NOT the only...

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALA and Twain: sorry for the generalization.

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

Henry Drummond (from Inherit the Wind)

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The struggle for equality and stamping out discrimination will continue.

"The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Clarence Darrow

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand things get a out of hand when it is such a heated topic, but when someones comments seem like personal attacks or "name calling" rather than rational arguments then a good point or opinion may get over looked.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not see the United States Constitution being re-written/changed/adjusted ( however you wish to put it) to oblige a very VERY small percentage of the population.
Go to the midwest once and announce your gay lol
However, If it does somehow happen, I doubt you are going to see to many of us "Supporters" whining about it afterward!
Knock it all you like, your name calling and rebuttles do not bother me, for every time you try to disprove one thing, someone else just points out another!!
Good night all, Sleep with peace in your hearts and remember this is not going to be the worst thing this world has to deal with in the next 8 years!!!

Posted by ListenToLyssy on November 6, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain-Can I be your lover?

Obamayomama- Right on.

Whether your gay or not, deal with what the majority voted and get over it.
Don't be a sore loser. You can still have your civil unions if you are gay and have all the rights under the law that everyone else has. You just don't qualify for "marriage." It's another thing that you have to deal with since you were born that way, right?
God intended marriage for a Man and a Woman. Whether it is to reproduce or not, the sanctity of marriage is holy and if everyone could focus as much time on how God intended life to be and what he wants for us, instead of what you want for yourselves, life would be a better place. Gay or not.

Yes, I have a child. I am a single mom. A young single mom. Does my opinion still count? ahahaha.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jstabratt - Prop 8 is rewritting the constitution.

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its re-writing the laws for California hence why the rest of the states do not see it as an okie dokie thing to do either!

Try to have a good night!!

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PROP
8 ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Posted by handyhood on November 6, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am amazed that some people who can't come up with an intelligent argument for their cause, will instead revert to name calling and correcting other peoples spelling. If you cannot come up with an intelligent post, please don't post at all. This issue is obviously not going to go away. California is not the only State that has voted to keep marriage between a Man and a Woman. It is the State with the largest Homosexual population. This is why we are getting the the whiners and name callers. Prop 8 passed. If it hadn't of passed I would have been upset, but I would have let it go and chalked it up to the will of the majority. Why can't others do the same. Women can not go topless at the beach because we as a society have said that it is obscene. Brothers can't marry their sisters because we as a society have deemed it socially unacceptable(that and because of inbreeding). There are many laws that could be considered to create an unequal situation. But, this is what the majority of those in our society have decided, and because we live in a democracy, we must bow to the majority. Whether(hows that cassandra) you like it or not! Homosexuality is still considered wrong by the majority. Judges don't make the law. They interpret and enforce the law. The majority make the law, and the new law is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If the gay community was really serious about having the rights of a married couple there are ways to get them. As far as I can tell this is just another way for them to stick their lifestyle in the face of heterosexuals, and we have said enough!

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Joseph Campbell's thoughts on marriage seem to transcend the gender aspect of this topic.

"When people get married because they think it's a long-time love affair, they'll be divorced very soon, because all love affairs end in disappointment. But marriage is a recognition of a spiritual identity."

Posted by jstabratt on November 6, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You said it
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
I was talking about the big one, the US CONSTITUTION!!!
Again sleep well

Posted by ribbypaultz on November 6, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just making note that 2 other states also voted against gay marriage. So 56% of Arizonans and 62% of Floridians are bigots and homophobes, or are they rednecks and hillbillies?

And leave Larry the Cable Guy out of it. He's my cousin and it's a stage act.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But once again the Fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution says:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

Posted by Angelito on November 6, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought: the bottom line is that biological factors such as low levels of progesterone, testosterone and other hormones give people some undesired tendencies, and the biggest factor for the sexual orientation is actually psychological.

we as society have been teaching our children that way. For example we give dolls to girls so they learn how to be mothers unconsciously, and we give cars, tools, or other manly things to boys, in order to teach them how to be men. I have rarely seen a family give boys toys to girls, and viceversa.

In the clinical setting I have seen the eefects of confusion of kids who have either two dads, or two moms. Unfornutately there is nothing we can do to teach the parents how their behavior confuses and affects their kids. I am not saying they will not be normal, but they do miss the role from the opposite sex parent.

Family is meant to be bewteen a man and a woman, and I think this is the reason the majority of Californians voted in favor of 8. I did it, because I seen the effect of those acts in the clinical setting. I wish someone would do a study to gauge the effects of those children. I mean gays and lesbian can be good parents, but they will never be the same as a Mom and a Dad. Especially when the child engages in activities at school, and its supposed to interact with both parents.

In order to put it close to your perspective, try to go back to your childhood, and delete all the memories that relate to one of your parents. It would definitely change your perspective, and your lifestyle.

I only wish people would educate themselves and vote for what is greater good of all the population, and not only for 2% of the community. This is why we have stablished laws such as the domestic partnership laws, and other to ensure equal benefits to everyone. But please keep your sexual practices to your bedroom. I am not interested in the school teachers teaching my children how two people of the same sex have their sexual relations. that belongs my right, but I will do that once they are old enough to understand, not in 1st grade, or in kindergarten as some kindergartens have already done it.

If we respect their lifestyle, its fair enough that the GLBTs respect our lifestyle as well. I know Mayor Gavin said that they will do that wether we like it or not, BUT they won't if we can stop it. This is why we voted yes on proposition 8. For the greater good of future generations.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jstabratt: The reason the judges over turned it was because it conflicted with the California constitution. The argument that they were activist judges was keyed by proponents that didn't agree. They are judges who study law and the constitution I'm not sure about you but I would rather have a doctor fix a broken leg rather then a auto mechanic. The US constitution guarantees us the separation of church and state and as soon as states got in the marriage business it kind of messed up the churches monopoly.
If they choose to redefine the term "marriage" to be inclusive to all then I know for a fact me and my wife would be there the first day and give "marriage" back to the church. Until that day the people that are trying to redefine a civil act because of a religious text and singling out a single group, are bigots.

bigot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not rewriting the constitution it's amending nit, that's not the same thing.

Posted by handyhood on November 6, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A little off the subject, but did anyone notice that the story about the Star reducing it's work force did not have a comments section? They are probably going to get rid of the reporters since they don't do a good job anyway. Seems the Star is taking away my right to freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Lets see if this thread gets removed :)

Posted by gratefulone on November 6, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have talked to a lot of people who voted Yes on 8 and a lot of them really didn't care which way it went. They voted Yes because they were trying to send a message to the judges (as many of you have said). They were also put off by the abrasiveness of the 'gay movement' as well as the name calling. Had the ads took a different, more humble tone, it might have passed.

Posted by CALA on November 6, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

handyhood...some people who can't come up with an intelligent argument for their cause, will instead revert to name calling and correcting other peoples spelling. If you cannot come up with an intelligent post, please don't post at all. ... This is why we are getting the the whiners and name callers...
This can be said of many of the comments on either side of the argument. Ignoranace dosen't discreminate nor does intelligence

Posted by del on November 6, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My good southern-baptist-bible-thumping-teetotaler mother introduced me to Marcus Borg. Some of you may find him quite fascinating.

"Ideas matter...much more than we commonly think they do – especially our world-views and values, namely our ideas about what is real and how we are to live. We receive such ideas from our culture as we grow up, and unless we examine them, we will not be free persons, but will to a large extent live out the agenda of our socialization."

Kind of reminds me of what Darwin said,

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 6, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am watching lots of hate and bigotry on TV right now.

It is all coming from the no 8 crowd.

Posted by Monday on November 6, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain: I feel no pity for the church but I feel nothing but pity for it's members. The church stands to lose it's tax exempt status, this is after it declared during it's own bout with trouble Brigham Young declared -

"Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk. "

But to put out a statement to all churches requesting members support as well as monetary support.

http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12218...

They became a political organization and no longer a church abiding by the laws that govern 501(c)3 organizations.

All their members however that did donate are now on a "Dishonor Roll"

http://www.californiansagainsthate.co...

I really hope that people are sensible and refrain from any action against these individuals.

Posted by wolf9walker on November 6, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If prop 8 had failed, you all would be angry and complaining and just try again. Be truthful God is watching you. prop 4 failed 3 times. Yet I read today that people are going to put it up for vote again.

What happen to you lost get over it. Move on, as someone said.

Posted by sparks240 on November 6, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't care who marries who, but there is one thing I don't get. Gays can have all the same rights as married couples except they can't call it marriage and they can't get the same tax breaks. So it all comes down to the money, doesn't it?

Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 6, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So because some don't like the fact that members of a particular church donated their PERSONAL funds to prop 8, they want to force the church to lose its tax exempt status?? Hmmm, I wonder if the California teachers union is tax exempt, and if so maybe THEY should taxed too... And what other non-profits payed for the "no on 8" side can we start taxing??

Churches ARE allowed to support political causes, they ARE NOT allowed to support a particular candidate... Maybe Obama's old church should be investigated for political misconduct??

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 6, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy raised an interesting point way back about the rights of consenting adults.

If we wish to allow individuals the freedom to marry whom they please, fully devoid of social constraints, then gay marriage must be legalized, as well as polygamy/polyandry, and marriage between family members.

If other people's domestic arrangements are truly none of our business, we have no grounds to deny anyone their preference.

Posted by WolfWalker on November 6, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is we happens when people take religion too far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/wor...

Don’t think Christianity would not do something like this. It has,
Christian crusades, Salem witch trials, trail of tears etc.

People can’t get married without the church, but they can’t get married without the state.

I think what is most interesting, is that you yes on h8ers only seem to care about the marriage, but don’t care as much for the people who are dying everyday.

Shame on you.. I’m sure God is proud of you all.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 6, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh please, quit being so dramatically over the top... This is not Somalia. Domestic partners already have the same exact rights as married people in California. It is not the end of the world. Nobody is advocating threats, bodily harm, persecution, or violence towards gays.

Are you are all really going to throw a big trantrum over a being able to receive a paper with the word "Marriage" on it?? Get over it already.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How many here have joined the hates fest and group temper tantrums like what are going on in LA?

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy - On polygamy, I'm not sure why it's outlawed. If a man wants three or four times the nagging and possible alimony payments, then he should be afforded that right. On marrying family members, there's a health issue. Watch the X-Files episode "Coming Home" for a look at the effects of inbreeding.

With two gay men or women who love each other, there is no health issue and both parties consent. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a legitimate coparison. Comparing it to marriage within a family is not.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like johnmuir was finally banned. All of his posts are gone from this thread (and all others, I'll bet). That's what hateful comments get you.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Domestic Partners do NOT have the exact same rights as married people!!!

Not even close!!!

Please get informed on the TRUTH!!!

I urge everyone to CONSTANTLY remind those who voted YES on 8 what they have done.

If you see them on the streets....remind them!

If you meet them at the mall.....remind them!

If they come to your house......REMIND THEM!

These people are NOT our friends......and they need the harshest reminders of what they promote that we can give them!!!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by handyhood on November 7, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is such an annoying article that the Star no longer has an article related to it. There is no mention in todays paper on prop 8s passing or the protest from it's opposition. Finally!

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought - I agree with the polygamy argument. If you cannot regulate marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman then logically, there would be no restriction on the numbers of people involved. However, since you remove the procreation aspect of marriage when allowing gay marriage, then any inbreeding concerns would have to be moot as well. Since procreation would no longer be the point of marriage, then there can be restriction. Also, the basis of the gay marriage argument, it seems is that the only requirment for marriage is who loves who. If family members are in love with each other then what is the argument of denying them their right to practice and affirm their love? Just because they risk briging a mutation to life? The couple can have a genetic screen during pregnancy to determine the genetic makeup of the child and can terminate the pregnancy if a problem is found. I honestly don't see denying two people who love each other the right to marry even if they are related as any different than extending marriage to include same-sex couples.

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 7, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, given your opinion about marriage, I hope you backed Yes on 8 to protect gay friends from harm. :-)

There are always potential health issues in intimate pairings, whether the people are related or not. Regardless, it's a different issue from marriage. Marriage is about the legal structure of familial arrangements.

P.S. X-Files is not one of my sources of information.

Posted by GDOG5 on November 7, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow.....can't belive this is still here. Enough already......talk about a broken record...

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Procreation has NEVER been a legal part of civil marriage laws!!!

The willing ignorance about our marriage laws on the part of every idiot who voted YES on 8 is astonishing!!

These blind sheep need to be led to the edge of a cliff.....and then let the lemmings drop off one at a time.

GOD BLESSES US EQUALLY!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We will NEVER let our voices be silenced!!!

We will fight this fight one on one if needed!

GOD BLESSES US EQUALLY!

Posted by wolf9walker on November 7, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Leahb78

No this not Somalia..
In America
How many people died in auto accidents this year? About 42,000 last year.
How many people died at the hands of drunk drivers?
How many people died at the hands of Gangs and lunatics?
How many people died while homeless?
How many people died from drugs and cigarettes?
Etc, etc. and yet you’re not doing much about these things.

Just FYI I’ve been married for 8 wonderful years now, with a wonderful son. No I’m not gay, (sorry gay people but, Ewwww) I just believe in rights for all people. And the fact that you fight for something you believe in, even if it fails, but you want others to give it up if you don’t believe in it. That’s called hypocrite. If prop 8 failed you would try again to ban it, and again, and again. If 8 would have failed you’d be angry. Prop 4 has failed 3 times, yet people will try again.

Then you got posters like Twain, if God was going to destroy anything, why is the porno industry still going after all these years? What’s God waiting for?

And one more thing. If it’s just a “paper with the word "Marriage" on it”. Then why are you fighting against it?

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura...How do you you reach your conclusion that God blesses us all equally?

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No terrorism needed.....those who voted YES on Prop 8 are dumb enough to walk over the cliff willingly!!!

They are that asinine and backwards....they can be led to believe ANYTHING!!!

I am not afraid to tell it to them face to face!

GOD BLESSES US EQUALLY!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People that voted Yes on Prop 8 are human garbage.

GOD BLESSES US EQUALLY!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are no terrorists here.....just angry American citizens who have been disenfranchised of basic civil rights!!!!

WE WILL NEVER STOP THIS FIGHT!!!

And you can take that to the bank!!!

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

Posted by whatsup805 on November 7, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anybody seen YES_ON_PROP_8?

Poor confused person....

As it turns out 70% of African-Americans voted YES ON 8.

Republicans voted 82% YES ON 8.

No rights were taken from them. They can still get a have a legal union.

They can still have insurance with their partner.

Why are they protesting? We all voted but the homosexuals did not like the end result.

FUNNY HOW THEY TALK ABOUT COMPASSION, LOVE TOLERANCE. WHEN THEY DONT GET THEIR WAY THEY START BEING HOSTILE TOWARDS A CHURCH GROUP.

GET OVER IT.

IF YOU DONT LIKE IT MOVE TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

LEAVE ALREADY....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/resu...

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prop 8 is in violation to the California State Constitution and it will be challenged and over turned.

It will not be up to the people anymore.....the courts will settle this mess now!

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura, You say that God blesses everyone equally. How did you come to this conclusion?

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112 - Alright, you got me on the gay brothers or gay sisters argument. There would be no resulting birth from that. I was thinking along the lines of brother and sister or something like that. However, you did mention that further down in your comments.

Specifically, you said, "If family members are in love with each other then what is the argument of denying them their right to practice and affirm their love? Just because they risk briging a mutation to life? The couple can have a genetic screen during pregnancy to determine the genetic makeup of the child and can terminate the pregnancy if a problem is found."

Here's the potential problem - What if the couple is pro-life? Now, they will knowingly bring a mutated child into the world. To me, this is extremely selfish and cruel, and should be considered a crime. It also still is not comparable to a gay couple who will not be party to bringing such a child into the world.

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 7, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

whatsup805-My guess is that he is protesting in LA. And yes he is confused.I voted yes to prop 8 and I'm still not going to the FLAMING HOT PLACE!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How does anyone conclude that God does not bless us all equally?

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought. G'Day. I am going to assume that you are pro-choice. Since the pr-choice position is that it is solely a woman's decisin to continue with or terminate her pregnancy, doesn't making a crime of a woman's choice to keep the child, despite any physical abnormalities, violate her right to choice? Also, what is to be considered adnormal and who is to decide that?

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are always potential health issues in intimate pairings, whether the people are related or not. Regardless, it's a different issue from marriage. Marriage is about the legal structure of familial arrangements."

Wendy, the risks are much, much higher within the inbreeding group. Health issues include:

-Reduced fertility in both sperm and egg cell viability
-Increased genetic disorders
-Fluctuating facial asymmetry
-Lower birth rate
-Higher infant mortality
-Slower growth rate
-Smaller adult size
-Loss of immune system function.

None of these will occur from the union of a gay couple.

By the way, the X-Files reference was just for fun.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...and I'm still not going to the FLAMING HOT PLACE!"

Where's that? Yuma?

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 7, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought-No not Yuma.I was refering to HELL as YES ON PROP 8 put it.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - Any characteristic that limits either physical or cognitive abilities is the type of abnormalities I'm referring to. Six fingers on one hand is fine. An enlarged cranium, reduced limbs, and Down Syndrome are not. Abnormalities are determined by average human characteristics. Physicians and simple common sense determines this.

On pro-choice - I am pro-choice to an extent. I base my opinion on science more than ideology. I do not think abortions should be allowed beyond the second month of the first trimester. During those first weeks, the embryo has been proven to have absolutely no cognitive perception - not even on the most primitive level. After that, neurons begin multiplying at a super-rapid rate, and very simple perception could have begun. After this point, the only reasons I would support abortion is if the child will develop life-altering physical or mental deformities, or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Basically, if a mother doesn't decide to terminate before the end of week nine, she shouldn't terminate at all.

Of course, this is simply my view, and the law currently allows for termination at anytime before birth.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MBDIAMOND - No such place exists, unless you are referring to Yuma.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you're wondering - yes, I hate Yuma. I had to deploy there many times during my Marine Corps days, and the heat during the summer was murder. If there is a hell, that place is it.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura...If God bless us all equally, then we would all be the same. No rich, no poor, everyone middleclass. We would all have no physical adnormalities, or we we would all have some. There would be no mental disorders, or we would all have them.

Getting more to the point, by your statement that God blesses all equally, I retain the same blessings from God for voting in favor of Prop 8, and you retain the equal measure of blessings for voting against it. If that is the case, then doesn't it seem to reason that your discourse should be directed towards God for His continuing to bless me and all the others who voted in favor of Prop 8?

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought - I agree with you in some aspects. However, even in straight pairings that are unrelated genetically, there is sometimes known risk where stright married couples "knowingly bring a mutated child into the world" but that is their choice. We have no laws preventing straight couples with known genetic mutations from breeding. Amazingly, my wife and I carry a similar mutation and our kids had a high risk of being born genetically messed up (to use the technical term if I may). We found out after we got pregnent with our first son and he came out fine but we opted to use IVF with genetic diagnosis to ensure our second was ok. But, no one would stop us from getting pregnant and giving birth. So, even though the risk is higher with related couples, why should they be treated any differently? It seems that the argument for marriage is trying to be re-defined as people that love each other in a committed relationship. This definition has no regard for offspring so I see no reason why, if the "right" can be extended to gay couples, why not related couples?

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 7, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, I know the possibility of certain genetic mutations are slightly greater among offspring of relatives. But our society does not generally deny the right to marry based on potential health issues of any children that may result from the union. If this were the case, the state would disallow older people from getting married because they, too, are at greater risk for producing less healthy offspring.

I think the expectation is that mates should/will be responsible for their own health issues, and those of their children. How much state intervention do we want here? Do we truly want the state to decide which sexual pairings are healthy and legal and which are not?

Again, marriage is about the legal structuring of domestic arrangements, broadly defined. State control of who may actually procreate is a separate issue.

And yes, I figured NOT watching X-Files was possibly my loss to bear. ;-)

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought - I've spent time in Yuma too. It was described to me as: if they were to ever give Arizona an enema, Yuma is where they'd stick the tube.

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 7, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought-I heard it gets pretty hot.No doubt you will not be returning there any time soon :)

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 7, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I agree with you, gdawg2112. If marriage is for adults who desire committed domestic relationships, there is no reason why the "right" should not also be extended to gay couples, related couples, or groups who choose polygamy/polyandry.

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy - you make the point exactly. It seems that so many are against Gay marriage because it "rubs them the wrong way" but there are many no on Prop 8ers that think that there should be limits on the number or whether they are related or not because THAT "rubs them the wrong way." If you redefine it from what it is now, then it should be re-defined to the description you propose.

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 7, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed, gdawg2112. If "equality for all" is truly the mantra, marriage should be redefined to include all these options. The state could eradicate all marriage discrimination simultaneously (except that based on age).

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy - looking at how fast my nephew is maturing these days, they say 12 is the new 14 so do we then drop the age of consent to 15 or 16? I'm kidding but re-defining things can surely make one think. I think your proposal is the ultimate re-definition. Either make it that or don't change it at all and call it something else but we all know how the separate but equal approach fails. So, re-define it to that and then let all those that want religious blessing can then have their church bless their union. Separation of church and state and absolutely no discrimination in the definition of marriage. So, seeing how hard it is to get the voting public to agree on re-defining marriage to include gays, I'd say it'd be a REAL struggle to include the definition you propose regardless of its precision and clarity.

Posted by lovelymom on November 7, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I keep reading here that "marriage exists to perpetuate the human race." Do you really think that if marriage did not exist, the human race would cease to exist??? I have to clue you in- people are having sex outside of marriage every day- even those who are married. Marriage exists to define a family and it is not up to me or you do decide how that family is formed. And as for your children learning about gay relationships, i have to tell you THEY ALREADY KNOW. Give you children some credit. They are not going to "become gay" by learning about families that include gays. And if they do turn out to be gay, are you going to stop loving them???

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, now observing the Pro 8 side of the argument - I can see the point of parents fearing that their child will be exposed to something they have no knowledge of or disagree with. That is natural. I think the fear is that parents feel that "normailizing" gay relationships will make them more palatable to the general populace and to kids. Being more palatable means that rather than denying their "gayness" kids might actually choose to come out and live a gay life. Many parents I think would rather have their child live in denial than be gay even though that is not right either. Based on my personal experience with my ex-wife, I do think that making it more accepted can open one up to the possiblity of making experimentation more likely. For those that consider even experimenting with it a carnal mortal sin, that is something they don't want to risk having their children do. I'm not saying it's right, I just see their point. Ultimately, in their eyes, it makes parenting harder (as if it isn't already). I can't keep my kids from being exposed to all kinds of things I find wrong (not including being gay but other things), I just have to hope that I'm a good enough parent to mitigate the effects of that exposure. God knows I try.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, are you a fellow Devil Dog? It was the most interesting 13 years of my life.

GDawg - Before the tube is placed, they'll need a large container, like, say, Lake Superior or the maybe Pacific Ocean.

MBDIAMOND - They'd have to pay me loads more than I was receiving as a Marine before I'll consider even a two-day trip.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GDawg - You have a point. My position on the matter is that government has no place in the marriage business. There should be no tax benefits, no alimony, nothing that monetarily benefits any single person on the government's behalf based on the term, "Marriage". Since the benefits aspect most likely won't change anytime soon, we should apply them equally. Currently, we aren't.

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 7, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112, I agree it would be a struggle if put to a popular vote. Unfortunately, as Plato said, the majority is often too irrational to make decisions for the entire populace.

"Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, I am not offended by your position, but by your criteria, I would not be here, and my mother, who was extremely liberal in her day, would have a rap sheet. This by the way brings up another question that I'll get to but first, let me describe myself a little.

I was born with birth defects. I have congenital nerve deafness in one ear. No one was aware of this until I was in kindergarten, everybody thought I was just a little slow. I had to take Kindergarten twice. In crowded, noisy environments, I can't hear what people are saying because all I hear is noise and can only distinguish parts of what people are saying to me. But, man, do I ever sleep like a rock on my good ear.

I have a defective scapula in my left shoulder that caused damage to the nerve leading to the deltoid an trapazoid muscles. They atrophied from not getting the proper nerve impulses. I was first diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy. Even after corrective surgery, I still cannot raise my left arm above shoulder level in an abduction position, and even trying to do so is to this day very painful to attempt.

Then there is a birth defect in my back, which is actually a very common condition, but usually not apparent unless aggravated by a traumatic event. In my case, it was getting low-bridged while making a lay up in high school basketball, landing on my back and essentially, breaking it.

I am currently 54 and despite all these congenital adnormalities, plus having partial amputation of the distil fibula due to my getting osteomylitis from reconstruction of my ankle due to a work related injury, I have not just been very athletic my entire life, but blessed with a lot of talent. During my career at Lockheed in Burbank, I had players tell me that I was the best shortstop they had ever seen, fastpitch and slowpitch. At 6' 4", 210lbs., I also hit alot of homeruns, as well as played center and power forward in basketball.

Although I am well aware that my glory days are over, I still play softball and at age 54 my batting average is around .800, and I pitch or play firstbase. This is not Senior League, either, but against 20-35 year old guys.

The questions I pose to you then, what would the punishment be for my mother for not terminating me?

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy - and that is why I get so angry at the propositions used in CA. It makes us sort of a republic with representative democracy but the props add true democracy with all the flaws Plato so aptly pointed out. I just wish the politicians had the courage to do their job and not let divisive issues like this percolate to the masses where all this animosity occurs. But that is off topic for todays comments.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

God's blessings have nothing to do with material wealth or superficial things....if that is how you interpret God, then you have a very immature view on faith and religion.

God's blessings of us all equally is a fact and God would not bless actions done in haste to create destruction of families!!!

May those ignorant enough to vote Yes on 8 be reminded on a daily basis what hate they have promoted!!!!

Posted by gdawg2112 on November 7, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glad to see the name calling is back. Let's see, ignorant, immature.... Just when we were having such an elevated conversation. It's as though someone comes to a nice dinner party and farts at the table.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura...Wealth is only one example I cited. I also used mental and physical blessing, which is certainly not superficial. Incidently, money is the number one topic used in the bible in parables and comparisons. It is used because mankind relates to it so well. In Job, wealth was defined in not terms of money, but in livestock ownership, and Job was considered to be a wealthy man. If you read my earlier response to Freethought, you will see that I have not been blessed with a body lacking in birth defects. My older brother has none. Doesn't that suggest that we weren't blessed equally?

You continue to say that we are blessed equally, but there are apparently exceptions, in which case God does not bless us all equally, therefore your statement is incorrect.

As discussed earlier by others, same sex relationships cannot reproduce, and without offspring, families can never be created, and you can't destroy something that never existed.

Posted by BeaHappi on November 7, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"As discussed earlier by others, same sex relationships cannot reproduce, and without offspring, families can never be created, and you can't destroy something that never existed."

Not biologically between the same-sex couple but they can and do have children, adopt children, etc. Families have been created and many are thriving.

In my opinion, this is not a valid argument against same-sex marriage.

Posted by srcheek on November 7, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BeaHappi, I agree wtih you. People don't marry just to have children. Lots of people have children without being married and sometimes have more than 1 child with more than 1 person. My husband and I were a family when it was just the two of us and we expanded our family when we had our son. Having our son didn't suddenly make us a family; we already were and our family simply grew larger.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bea...yes, they can be conceived through artificial means. Take one egg, add sperm and stir slowly until smooth, place in uterus and bake at 98.6 degrees for nine months. Just kidding. But you get my point that it still took a man and a woman to produce that child, regardless of the family dynamics.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

twain, close enough. Marines tend to have lots of respect for corpsmen and seabees. I know I do.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - I will only answer honestly, so I hope you don't take it the wrong way. If your mother knew you'd be born with these defects within the two-month window I mentioned AND she still decided to keep you, I'd find that to be the wrong choice. As for punishment, I have no idea, and I won't pretend that I'm righteous enough to decide that on my own.

Okay, maybe I am a feeling a little self-righteous today (too much caffeine?). I'd say mandatory counseling for the first "offense" and a tubal ligation for the second. Now that I type it, the second punishment sounds a bit extreme. So, basically, I don't know.

That being said, it seems to me that your mother was a wonderful one - someone who took the challenge of raising a child with physical problems seriously. Too many don't. Maybe that will change with time.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain - All are sinners, so I guess none of us are blessed.

I'm a Pastafarian (converted from atheism this year), and I know the FSM's noodly goodness continuously washes over me even when I'm "not so good".

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Understood Twain. I'm with you on the name calling.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"God does not bless a sinner"

--
But will accept a sinner who repents. God gave his only begotten son to die for our sins, heavens available to those who take him into their heart.
--

OK with that being said "man" was created in gods image. Not just a few chosen but everyone. To assume that good would make a less then "man" is a presumption I would hesitate to make. Assuming that any "man" is flawed is to assume that god is flawed.

Posted by H8War on November 7, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am amazed and not amused that so many voted to follow the religious bigots on this issue. I would never vote to take anyone's rights away, and I think you have incurred a heavy karmic penalty for doing so. Higher taxes anyone? While this is not a personal issue for be because a)I am not gay, and b)only an idiot would get married in California. I do have hope that some Christians are not so pathetically brainwashed, however as Billy Graham once said,"I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice."

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought, like I said, I'm not offended, although I think my mother would be, seeing that it wasn't your choice. My mother was a strong and courageous woman. She had to be, raising me. I sure put her through the ringer. As a supervisor in L.A. Child Protective Services, she saw things first hand the atrocities committed against children. I knew that a kid was murdered by their parents, usually by the mother or boyfriend, when she would come home, go to her room, shut the door and I could hear her crying. She'd get up the next day and get back into the fray and I know she saved many lives.

I pointedly stated that she was very liberal and very pro-choice. Your position is that you are pro-choice, but with exceptions, and that these exceptions should be defined by law. The whole concept of pro-choice is that it is womens right to choose, not you or the government. You take away that right when you start legislating exceptions. At least, that is what the current counter argument is when conservatives want to stop partial birth abortions.

I think we're getting off subject here. We'll save this for the future articles that are sure to come.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see the issue as one that puts the "church" and state at odds. I for one would live to see the state get out of the "marriage" business. They could offer everyone the same civil unions for tax purposes and those that chose to have a religious ceremony to sanctify their union in front of their "God" could. But as it stands their is a huge gap legally between marriages and civil unions, despite those that want to believe otherwise.

"I do have hope that some Christians are not so pathetically brainwashed"

People have reasons for faith and some take it to extremes within any religious group. The same can also be said about any activist group also has radical elements. You can compare the MLK movement and the black panthers for a perfect example. To assume that all Christians are brainwashed is being short sighted and intolerant yourself.

Posted by BeaHappi on November 7, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - wasn't the point that families could not be created in same-sex marriages? Some heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally so they use artificial means or adopt. Or some just choose to adopt period.

Obviously it takes male sperm/female eggs to create a new life. But the chances of the population dipping to a dangerously low point, because of same-sex marriage, are slim to none.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now."

That's science not biology that has prompted our species to be overpopulated not the idea of marriage. If nothing else marriage has curtailed the birth rate since it requires a man to only sire with one mate.

With that in mind most same sex couples either adopt or through other methods have small families effect the overpopulation problem far less then a heterosexual couple. So I would think that they are therefore being more responsible since they don't feel it's their personal duty to populate the planet. The three major reason behind the overpopulation of our planet, Machismo, Religion and Labor.

"Joe and Rita had three children, the three smartest kids in the world. Vice President Frito took 8 wives and had a total of 32 kids. Thirty-two of the dumbest kids ever to walk the Earth." -Idiocracy

Posted by jeffinventura on November 7, 2008 at 2:54 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@jeffinventura

- that kind of argument is sure to sway people. It's kind of like throwing a kitten in a mosh pit, the kitten doesn't get noticed just stepped on. Thanks for playing.

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Twain on November 7, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"...Wow. A gay Terrorist"

Posted by Twain on November 7, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...Just don't like it when people start name calling, putting others down, or threatening others..."

Really?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff in Ventura said": Those who voted YES on prop 8 are human garbage and are not worth the time it takes to hear their pathetic and fear based ignorant excuses.

They deserve to feel the discrimination they promote!!!

====================

Don't hold back you feelings and hetred Jeff.

Oh and Jeff, those that you are targeting have a very long history of being discriminated against.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

H8tWar said: I am amazed and not amused that so many voted to follow the religious bigots on this issue.

================

What was the alternative, follow gay the bigots on this issue?

Posted by info on November 7, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone who is anti-Prop 8 here keeps referring to marriage as a right. The State licenses marriage just like it licenses someone's legal ability to drive a car, therefore marriage is a privelege - not a right. Just like driving is a privelege and not a right. The People have voted (twice now) and the people have decided that the license to marry should only be granted to the union of a man and a woman. I noted in the argument against Prop 8 in my ballot pamphlet one of the points stated was that the State has no business telling us who we can and can't marry. If this argument was true then people should be allowed to marry their dog, brother, sister or more than one person (polygamy)as well as gay marriage. I'm glad Prop 8 passed. Marriage should be between only a Man and a Woman. That doesn't mean that two gay people can't live together and have a relationship, it just means that it is not licensed by the State.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What was the alternative, follow gay the bigots on this issue?"

How about worrying about your house before you worry about your neighbors?

I prefer to be a leader rather then a follower anyways.

There are definite bigots on both sides, the argument isn't about bigotry but rather civil vs. religious rights.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bea...yes, my whole point is that, for the human species at least, it takes a male and female to reproduce, and by doing so, a couple then becomes a family. I'm not worried about the world population declining due to same sex marriages. Heck, I think that there are alot of heterosexuals that shouldn't reproduce. I think that there are alot of same sex couples that would make great parents.

I know this is going to raise some blood pressures, but this is not just about the redefinition of marriage, but also about the redefinition of family. This whole same sex marriage and family thing is pretty a new concept in comparison to history and tradition. In a timeline, it would only be shown as a tick.

Historically, the traditional family concept has been pretty darn successful. There is a lot to be said about tradition because it only remains primarily due to positive influences. Here in the US, we have Thanksgiving and Christmas reunions, New Years Day with friends and watch the bowl games.....St. Patrick's Day and corn beef and cabbage. The same thing can be said about the traditional family of Mom and Dad 2.3 kids. Both parents have an influence in the development of a emotionally healthy child. There have been some short term studies of the impact same sex couples has on the outcome of children. But there is not enough data to conclude one way or the other how same sex families will be affected into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations.

I don't recall off hand what state it is, but this last election a measure was passed that bans unmarried couples from adopting. Now, I'm sure this will be contested in that state, however, this applies to hetero and homosexual couples as well, so in that sense, it is non-discriminatory.

Posted by freethought on November 7, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy - You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you. I base my opnion (and it is nothing more than that - an opinion) on science. If you had been aborted, the world would never have noticed. When you and I die, the overwhelming majority of th e planet won't notice that either. Basically, there are way too many of us on this planet right now. The more there are, the more severe our health problems and birth defects will be. That is nature's way of thinning out the species. The problem is that we can, for the most part, either control or steer clear of mother nature and her bag of tricks. Your ability to live a full life despite your physical problems is just one example of this. Gays are another. Although the percentage of homosexuals are on the rise per capita, our population is still exploding. It's like we can take anything mother nature has to throw at us. I do fear that, eventually, we'll be tossed a biological curve ball that we won't be able to either dodge or hit out of the ball park. If and when it happens, some will call it Armageddon. I'll see it as balancing of nature with horrific results for our species.

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain-
I was just pointing out that you were name calling too and I never wrote that I agreed with the negative nature of jeffinventura's comments

Additionally, you commented:
"...My wife is already afraid that there is going to be violence or retribution from the gay community based upon what happened at the mormon church last night. My family should not live in fear for their right to vote..."

You don't think that many homosexuals aren't afraid of violence everyday from the "heterosexual" community and that they don't live in fear just because they are attracted to someone of the same sex.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Everyone who is anti-Prop 8 here keeps referring to marriage as a right."

What did you do to earn that right? Did you have to take night classes?

"If this argument was true then people should be allowed to marry their dog, brother, sister or more than one person (polygamy)as well as gay marriage."

There's a huge difference between consenting adults and pedophilia, bestiality and incest.

And there is a separation between church and state. Since most/all of the arguments in based on scripture you can see the conflict there.

"The People have voted (twice now) and the people have decided that the license to marry should only be granted to the union of a man and a woman."

We've voted 4 down three times what's your point. Segregation lasted 100 years past the end of the civil war. And women only recently gained the same rights as men.

Please try to attain knowledge before you spew ludicrous claims.

Posted by mamaof2 on November 7, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

geees u people are still argueing about this?

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bea...yes, my whole point is that, for the human species at least, it takes a male and female to reproduce, and by doing so, a couple then becomes a family...I know this is going to raise some blood pressures, but this is not just about the redefinition of marriage, but also about the redefinition of family. This whole same sex marriage and family thing is pretty a new concept in comparison to history and tradition. In a timeline, it would only be shown as a tick."

Not every hetrosexual couples marries with the intention of having of having children and starting a family.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fitting this weekend is the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht here's a little bit about how slippery the slop can get.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Sir Francis Galton, aged 73 Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff in Ventura said": Those who voted YES on prop 8 are human garbage and are not worth the time it takes to hear their pathetic and fear based ignorant excuses.

They deserve to feel the discrimination they promote!!!

====================

"Don't hold back you feelings and hetred Jeff.

Oh and Jeff, those that you are targeting have a very long history of being discriminated against."

What that very long history that dates why back to October 1, 2007 when ProtectMarriage.com filed the initiative that became Proposition 8 or November 4, 2008 when they voted yes?
(Again not agreeing with the jeffinventura's comments)

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and on a side note

the concept of eugenics found a very welcome home among the christian faithful of the day from the late 19th Century through the first few decades of the 20th Century. The American Eugenics society sponsored an annual contest for the best eugenics sermon of the year and apparently many clergymen participated, readily supplying biblical quotations to make the case for eugenics. One of their favourite was Exodus 20: 5 which mentions "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation", implying that criminality could be genetically passed down.

One of the first American proponents of eugenics was Oscar McCulloch, a congregationalist minister in Indiana during the 1880s. According to the book, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement. By Christine Rosen. Oxford University Press.

"Oscar McCulloch made detailed histories of 250 unfit families and concluded that a "degenerate" heredity aided by "unscientific" public relief had resulted in "several generations of murderers, illegitimate children, prostitutes, beggars, thieves, and scores of ‘generally diseased' human beings." He called for an end to public relief, a register of dependent, defective, and criminal individuals, and the use of state power to stop these families from breeding. In 1907 his state was the first to pass laws for compulsory sterilization of the "unfit." Meanwhile, many clergymen would follow his lead and start preaching on the eugenic "preservation of the race."

Other preachers soon chimed in and a belief began to emerge that eugenics was the way in which humanity could regain the perfection ordained by god. It was pointed out from thousands of pulpits all across the country that this was an example of the "compatibility of science and religion". As such it showed the worst of both.

So what does it all come down to? The modern eugenics movement was a mishmash of pseudo-science, religious zealotry, racism and wayward public sentiment fearful of a rapidly changing society. There were many factors at work: resentment of increased non-European immigration, a misguided and errant view of evolution and twisted theology.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kristallnacht was the result of more than five years and nine months of discrimination and persecution. From its inception in Germany, Hitler's regime moved quickly to introduce anti-Jewish policy. The roughly 500,000 Jews in Germany, who accounted for only 0.76% of the overall population,were singled out by the Nazi propaganda machine as the enemy within who were responsible for Germany's defeat in 1918 and her subsequent economic difficulties.

During 1933, the German government enacted 42 laws restricting the rights of German Jews to earn a living, to enjoy full citizenship and to educate themselves. The most severe of these laws, the law "for the reconstruction of the civil service", forbade Jews to work in any branch of the civil service. The pressure against the Jews continued unabated. Historian Jesse Irwin and many others believe that the pogrom was the start of the Holocaust. During 1934, a further 19 discriminatory laws were introduced. During 1935, the government enacted a further 29 anti-Jewish laws. The Nuremberg Laws "for the protection of German blood and honour" were signed personally by Hitler. These laws prohibited Jews from being citizens of the Reich and forbade marriage between "those of German or related blood" and Jews, Roma (Gypsies), blacks, or their offspring.

In an attempt to provide help to those affected by these laws, an international conference was held on July 6, 1938 on the shores of Lake Geneva. The conference hoped to address the issue of Jewish and Gypsy immigration to other countries. When the conference was held, more than 250,000 Jews had fled Germany and Austria, which had been annexed by Germany in March 1938. However, more than 300,000 German and Austrian Jews were seeking shelter from the oppression. As the number of Jews and Gypsies wanting to leave grew, the restrictions against them also grew with many countries tightening their rules for admission.

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep allowing rights to be removed, it's all happened before. There's always some twisted view of morality that can justify evil actions.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

coldwaternorcal this was a very nice history lesson but you left some very important and critical parts of it. Namely Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and their role in promoting eugenics. Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate the black race. that is why she promoted contraception so that blacks could not reproduce. She formed Planned Parenthood and the rest shall we say is history. Besides contraceptives they also use abortion to control the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret...

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Homosexual concentration camp prisoners were not acknowledged as victims of Nazi persecution, this is because less than only 1% of those who died in concentration camps (somewhere between 5,000 to 15,000) were labeled "homosexual" when put in concentration camps (as opposed to about 6,000,000 Jews who were killed in masses because they were Jewish). Reparations and state pensions available to other groups were refused to gay men, who were still classified as criminals — the Nazi anti-gay law was not repealed until 1994, although both East and West Germany liberalized their criminal laws against adult homosexuality in the late 1960s.

Gay Holocaust survivors could be re-imprisoned for "repeat offences," and were kept on the modern lists of "sex offenders." Under the Allied Military Government of Germany, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment, regardless of the time spent in concentration camps.

The Nazis' anti-gay policies and their destruction of the early gay-rights movement were generally not considered suitable subject matter for Holocaust historians and educators. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that there was some mainstream exploration of the theme, with Holocaust survivors writing their memories, plays such as "Bent", and more historical research and documentaries being published about the Nazis' homophobia and their destruction of the German gay-rights movement.

In 2005, the European Parliament marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz camp with a minute's silence and the passage of a resolution which included the following text:

...27 January 2005, the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Nazi Germany's death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where a combined total of up to 1.5 million Jews, Roma, Poles, Russians and prisoners of various other nationalities, and homosexuals, were murdered, is not only a major occasion for European citizens to remember and condemn the enormous horror and tragedy of the Holocaust, but also for addressing the disturbing rise in anti-semitism, and especially anti-semitic incidents, in Europe, and for learning anew the wider lessons about the dangers of victimising people on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, social classification, politics or sexual orientation,...

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@O_P_Rockwell

I agree there are evil intentioned people in this world. To be complacent makes us no better then the perpetrators.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Waht is your moral view on infanticide?

http://bornalivetruth.org/jillstory.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKj109...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9qI1F...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMLhjG...

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you vote for Obama?

Posted by Monday on November 7, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't have an opinion since I'll never have to make that choice. But when it comes to late term abortions it's similar to first aid and applying a tourniquet "life or limb". I also disagree with abortion as a contraceptive. But I'm not about to force my views on any person, that's up to them to weigh against their own souls.

-off topic so that's the end of that.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

coldwater norcal every law we have is the imposition of someone views on someone else.

When are you going to get a spine?

Is eugenics wrong?

I believe you said "To be complacent makes us no better then the perpetrators."

and then you say

But I'm not about to force my views on any person

so am I to assume that you are complacent?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSiPqj...

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MijL...

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a difference in a law being an imposition and being discrimintory.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 7, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Law as you describe is still discriminatory.

It discrimnates against polygamists.

Why is that OK?

All laws discriminate.

Posted by CALA on November 7, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The law was written specifically against same-sex marriage: "PROP
8 ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY."
That is why I am stating my views as to why it is discriminatory towards homosexuals.

And besides, I have never said I have a problem with polygamy.

Posted by mandasue_81 on November 7, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just have to say this, if Prop 8 had failed, (which thank GOD it didn't)and those who supported it filed a challenge with the supreme court to have that decision over turned, gays/lesbians and their supporters would have been OUTRAGED! They all would have said "the voters decided what they wanted, get over it!" So why is it that since it passed, they have the right to overturn what the people decided? It just proves that it is almost certainly pointless to vote! This country needs to get it's "spine" back and stop worrying about being so darn politically correct, it truely has been the down fall of this nation. It also doesn't suprise me that the ACLU is heading up the fight, this is also the same group that will end up fighting for pedofiles to "love" who they want as well.

Posted by chair on November 7, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For cadreamer: Humans for eons offed their offspring. Still do. We call it "war." Given the need, humans do cannibalize. May not be our cup of tea, but facts are facts.

For jstabratt: We like to consider animals inferior to us but I think we should realize that we are not at the top of the food chain. Ask any tiger. We are programmed to do those things needed to survive and to reproduce. For humans, unlike for many but not all animals, sex is primarily recreational. Let's take an example from our closest species: the chimpanzees. There are two flavors of these, pan troglodyte or the chimp of the movies, circuses and the like, and there's pan paniscus, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee. The troglodytes have an Alpha male and an Alpha female. The female runs the show and her mate gets all the action. Or so he likes to think. On the other hand, the bonobos have random sex with each other -- opposite sex, same sex, kid sex. All the sex seems to keep them peaceable. They seldom fight and almost never kill each other. The troglodytes are just as nasty as we are -- well, almost. The bonobos run a _cooperative_ show but the troglodytes are _competitive_ as all get out.

You can take it from there. Google, library, experts.

Posted by info on November 7, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ColdWaterNorCal:
"What did you do to earn that right? Did you have to take night classes?"

ColdWater you are not making sense. You are still calling marriage a "right". It is a privelege granted to two people of the opposite sex as defined by our state constitution. It's not something you earn. It's something that you can participate in because your relationship fits the criteria for marriage as defined by the constitution.

ColdWaterNorCal: "There's a huge difference between consenting adults and pedophilia, bestiality and incest."

According to your thinking if all it takes to make a marriage is "consenting adults" then what is wrong with an adult marrying their adult brother or adult sister. Or what is wrong with an adult marrying two other "consenting adults"? You say Prop 8 discriminates. Well if you are against making it legal for consenting adult brothers and sisters to marry or for a person to be married to more than one person then you are discriminating against their consent to make a marriage out of those types of relationships.

ColdWaterNorCal: "And there is a separation between church and state. Since most/all of the arguments in based on scripture you can see the conflict there."

And since our nation's Constitution was written based on biblical principles and scripture and mentions the fact that all men were "created" equal I guess we should just get rid of the Constitution as well according to your reasoning.

ColdWaterNorCal: "We've voted 4 down three times what's your point. Segregation lasted 100 years past the end of the civil war. And women only recently gained the same rights as men.

Please try to attain knowledge before you spew ludicrous claims."

My point is we did vote on this issue and gay marriage was struck down by a majority of 62% of California voters. So since pro-gay marriage people could not get their way according to the principles of a democratic vote, they decided to file a lawsuit and convinced some overstepping judges legislating from the bench to overthrow the will of the people and instigate it like something that would happen in a dictatorship. As far as spewing "ludricous claims", I've only mentioned the facts and the fact now is that our state constitution says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". So instead of filing crybaby lawsuits why don't the pro-gay marriage crowd write their own proposition, get enough signatures to get it on a ballot and let the people vote on it. They won't because they know that it would never fly. That's why they resort to clogging the courts with lawsuits and trying to find some activist judge to overturn the will of the people. That is why this time around Prop 8 made it a constitutional amendment so these activist judges could not overturn the will of the people. And if judges should start deciding that our state constitution is unconstitutional we are all doomed!

Posted by robbca on November 7, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is amazing to me how people can justify that it is okay to take rights away from a group of people.

I really don't understand why the AFrican American population was so supportive of Prop 8. Perhaps they need to remember their rights were very different here in California 40 - 50 years ago. People forget very quickly.

I have faith that we will prevail and get our rights back. We can always get it put back on the ballot our next election. I was at the rally in West Hollywood on Wednesday and I was at the rally at the Mormon Temple yesterday. I will participate in whatever is necessary. We have to get back to a separation of church and state. People are confusing this with a religous issue and this has nothing to do with religion it has to do with equal rights. Domestic Partner rights are not the same as being married.

I am so excited that we have Obama for our new President but I am very ashamed to live in a community full of discrimination.

Posted by info on November 7, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbca,

Maybe African-Americans resent the fact that the fight for gay marriage is equated to their struggle for racial equality. Many African-Americans are God fearing with intrinsic religious beliefs which include that homosexual sex is a sin and is immoral. While most among different races believe that African-Americans are entitled to the same rights as everyone else (me included), many among different races do not believe that the definition of marriage should be changed to fit a particular lifestyle or relationship. After all, marriage is a privelege and not a right. So as you can see the Civil Rights struggle for African-Americans is something entirely different than a group of people trying to redefine a privelege that is licensed by the state.

Posted by robbca on November 7, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Info -

What I resent is the fact that people don't believe that I should have the same rights as you everyone else. Why can't people like you get off the religious aspect? I am a g_d fearing person as well and my g_d is not judgemental. Nobody is comparing the black struggle for racial equality as compared to gay rights. I just find it interesting that group of people that were oppressed are now part of the oppressors.

Why don't I deserve to have the right if we are traveling out of state and my husband or I are need emergency medical care and if that state doesn't recognize a domestic partnership without marriage we may not be able to make decisions for each other. How is that okay? When one of us passes away we should be able to get the others pension/retirement/social security just like everyone else can.

I do have faith that we will have our rights back. If we have to put it on the ballot every election year then that is what we have to do.

Perhaps we should put a ban on aethists being married since they don't believe in g_d, also buddhists, muslims, hindu, etc..... Where will we stop? People don't realize the backlash of this precedence of taking rights away. Again this is a equal rights issue not a religious issue.

Posted by ironwoman on November 7, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Go look at all the protests...really shows their true colors.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get over it already.

Posted by robbca on November 7, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have looked at the protests. I have been a part of them and I will continue to be a part of them when I can. We will get our rights at some point it is just a matter of when. Like I said before we will put it back on the ballot if we have to on our next election.

Posted by info on November 7, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbca,

Once again you are saying that marriage is a right. It is not a right, it is a privelege granted by the state via a license. Much like the state gives you a license to go fishing and the law says that you can only fish where the law says you can. So a marriage license says that as long as you are marrying someone of the opposite sex you are granted the privelege of marriage. I don't see where religion comes in on this explanation.

Robbca: "Why don't I deserve to have the right if we are traveling out of state and my husband or I are need emergency medical care and if that state doesn't recognize a domestic partnership without marriage we may not be able to make decisions for each other. How is that okay? When one of us passes away we should be able to get the others pension/retirement/social security just like everyone else can."

Even if Prop 8 was voted down there are over 30 other states where gay marriage is not allowed per their constitution. What makes you think that if you were legally wed in California as a gay couple and then moved to another state where gay marriage is not allowed that that state is going to recognize your marriage? They most likely would not.

Robbca: "Perhaps we should put a ban on aethists being married since they don't believe in g_d, also buddhists, muslims, hindu, etc..... Where will we stop? People don't realize the backlash of this precedence of taking rights away. Again this is a equal rights issue not a religious issue."

What Precedence? For centuries in this country, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. When some judges decided that they knew better then the voting citizens and decided that marriage should be something different now that was setting a precedence with a backlash. They had no right to do that without a vote of the people. So I don't see where anyone's rights were taken away by Prop 8 but these judges abridged the rights of the voters and the democratic process. As far as banning people who don't believe in God from getting married that is ridiculous. That is not part of the criteria for a marriage. Once again "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized". Pretty simple.

Posted by robbca on November 7, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a valid marriage license so I guess it is my right to be married.

Posted by info on November 7, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well licenses can be revoked.

Posted by robbca on November 7, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They have no way to prove who is a same sex couple or not. They would have to revoke ALL licenses issued between those time periods. All mine says is Party A and Party B.

Posted by BeaHappi on November 7, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My problem is why we had to vote at all on proposition 8. Marriage is a private matter and why anyone should have a say about who gets married is beyond me.

For anyone to care what other people do with their private lives, as long as they are not hurting others, is crazy.

The language of the proposition clearly stated that it "denied the rights." Amazing that so many people who love our country and the freedoms that it brings, would vote for something that denies rights to a specific group of people.

You can justify it anyway that you want, but in the end, it's pure discrimination. And some say that same-sex marriage is a sin, it's forbidden in the bible, it's not natural, etc. The bottom line is that people are afraid of a different lifestyle, afraid that they'll somehow catch "gay cooties" or they are just too darn concerned with what others do IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES.

robbca...I hope that you and your husband have a long and happy MARRIAGE. I am sorry that for as far as we've come as humans, there is still a huge number of people who obviously agree with discrimination.

God bless both of you on your marriage.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 8, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Camdaddy...Funny typo. Arraigned marriages. Well, I'm sure that there are many people that sadly view there marriage as a sentence.

I don't think that we are taking a step backwards. The passage of Prop 8 only reaffirms that the majority of voters believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's called the status quo. I do believe in time though that the majority of voters will eventually pass same sex marriage.

By the logic that the Federal government does not have the U.S. Constitutional authority to regulate marriage is a legitimate arguement. However, the 10th Amendment does give the states the right to make that regulation, and Prop 8 was put forth to the voters and passed, all very legal.

When Prop 8 is overturned, the courts will base it on it being "unconstitutional" and the government cannot dictate who can marry who. What this does is open the rights to not just same sex marriage, but polygamy, not just 1 man and XX mount of women, but also 1 woman and XX men, X men and XX women. The being married to multiple partners would be a "right".

Since the U.S. Constitution does specifically prohibit the Federal government from infringing on religious beliefs, this does open the door for arranged marriages, which you seem to oppose. In some religions, young girls can be given in marriage. By your reasoning, this is now permissable.

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beahappi: Thank you for the good wishes!!

We will be in Silverlake Tonight for a Rally.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbs said: It is amazing to me how people can justify that it is okay to take rights away from a group of people.

====================

What rights? Gays never had those rights until march of this year when 4 sympathisers decided to give them to you against the will of the people. The people have spoken against by saying that the 4 judges had no authority to give those rights to begin with. Approximately 30 states so far have amended their constitutions to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. It appears that most states and that number is growing do not like the gay morals and principles being shoved down their throats. they have done this because they see how militant the gay community is as evidenced by the temper tantrums, disruption and hate that they have been spewing for the past 4 days.

I am sorry that you did not you failed to do what was necessary before the election to champion your cause. The actions of the gay community, IMO, have been hurting their cause since the election. So please continue the temper tantrums, rants and hate speech. It will be remembered the next time this comes to a vote and you will lose by an even larger margin.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbs said: I just find it interesting that group of people that were oppressed are now part of the oppressors.

Why don't I deserve to have the right if we are traveling out of state and my husband or I are need emergency medical care and if that state doesn't recognize a domestic partnership without marriage we may not be able to make decisions for each other. How is that okay? When one of us passes away we should be able to get the others pension/retirement/social security just like everyone else can.

=====================

Roca where do I start with this emotional nonsense? 1st off IF you were married in CA and traveled to another state, there are ONLY two other states that would even recognize your marriage at this time, that would be Massachusetts and Connecticut. So there goes your " I could make medical decisions because we are married" argument. Your marriage is not valid or recognized in most states. The solution is what couples who are shacking up have to do. have a durable power of attorney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid...

They are easy to come by and in some cases free.

Now let's talk about your oppressed now being the oppressors argument. The oppressed, in this case the Mormons, did have their rights taken away and NEVER returned. It was their religious practice of polygamy that was stripped away from them. Clearly a 1st amendment violation. their pleas fell upon deaf ears. they learned how to deal with it and live with their 1st amendment rights being stripped away.

You might be a little more believable if you were fighting for every one's right to marry instead of just your own. But that is just my opinion.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BeaHappi said: My problem is why we had to vote at all on proposition 8. Marriage is a private matter and why anyone should have a say about who gets married is beyond me.

=================

Because 4 men decided to overturn the will of the people. So the people decided to overturn the will of the 4.

I hope this helps.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cam daddy said: I think it's a shame the people are openly showing their hatred and fear of gays and thinly cloaking it as protecting traditional marriage.

==================

You are projecting your hate on others.

You wrongly ascribe the motivation supporters of prop 8 as hate. How many prop 8 supporters have you talked to and asked their motivation for support?

If you make a rule in home that your children are to home at a certain time, it must be because you hate your children. I am sure that hate motivates all of your decisions that are contrary to the will and desires of your children.

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a truth: each and every person on this blog has a family member that is afraid to tell you they are gay/lesbian. They see your hate and fear the loss of love if they tell you who they are. How sad.

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am fighting for everyones right to be married and have the same rights under the law.

I think that EVERYONE should be covered under a civil union whether straight or gay couple. Then if you want to go have a religious ceremony then you can do that separately. This way everyone is treated the same and it keeps religion out of the picture.

By the way what difference does it make to anyone whether I am a same sex couple or not. It has no effect on anyones life who marries whom. Just like the over 50% divorce rate we have in our state doesn't effect anyone except for the children who are the real victims of failed straight marriages.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Coffee said: Here is a truth: each and every person on this blog has a family member that is afraid to tell you they are gay/lesbian. They see your hate and fear the loss of love if they tell you who they are. How sad.

===================

That is absolutley NOT true.

How many gay people do you think there are?

What is the percentage of population that is gay and please provide documentation.

You may then wish to revise your staement about family.

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OP ROckwell - I actually was not referring to the Mormons. I personally don't care how many people they marry. I do care that they like to marry underage girls at a very young age.

I was actually referring to the African Americans. It was not that long ago that their rights were very different and there is very little compassion in that community for another groups rights.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robca said: I am fighting for everyone's right to be married and have the same rights under the law.

=================

No you are not. You are ONLY fighting for gay marriage. What are bi-sexuals to do? pick the one gender that they want and leave out the other? What are polygamists to do? they are totally ignored.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OP - Whatever.... You make absolutely zero sense. Have a great life! I wish you all the health and happiness you want.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbs said: By the way what difference does it make to anyone whether I am a same sex couple or not. It has no effect on anyone's life who marries whom. Just like the over 50% divorce rate we have in our state doesn't effect anyone except for the children who are the real victims of failed straight marriages.

=========================

These, IMO, are truly ignorant statements. It does not matter who you cohabitate with. Marriage, on the other hand, is a different matter.

What the California Supreme court ruled and how they not only struck down prop 22 but also defined gays as a protected class. That set up a very serious conflict with the 1st amendment on which I have discussed numerous times. You may go back and read my other posts on that matter. That you choose to ignore how it will affect the 1st amendment is not my problem.

With regards to divorce, children pay a very heavy price for the selfish actions of their parents. Divorce should not be so easy to obtain when children are involved. I believe that parents are too lazy to work out their problems. Furthermore, I believe that if children are involved, that the family home should be awarded to the children and the parents on their visitation days can come and visit the children in their home and the parents can pack up every few days and move between homes.

The best circumstances for children is to have both a father and a mother and we as a society should do all in our power to provide that.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was actually referring to the African Americans. It was not that long ago that their rights were very different and there is very little compassion in that community for another groups rights.

================

Then why aren't the protests being directed at the First AME church?

Perhaps they know a little more about civil rights than you do.

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Op said "The best circumstances for children is to have both a father and a mother and we as a society should do all in our power to provide that."

The best circumstance is a home where a stable and loving environment can be provided regardless of the gender of the parents. These mother/father arguments are very archaic and lame. There are many same sex couples that have adopted babies from alcoholic mother, crack addicted mothers and other horrible situations and given these kids that nobody else wanted a very loving home.

Same sex marriage will come to fruition some day. Just like interracial marriage came to fruition some day. We are all entitled to our equal rights which is what makes this country great. It is just too bad there are alot of narrow minded oppressive people out there who enjoy continuing discrimination.

Posted by wonderman on November 8, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm getting so mad and angry over all the gay marching and the #$%^& gay hollywood stars ranting and complaining about the passing of prop 8, GO GET A %%$#$% LIFE!!! stop accusing the LDS of financialy supporting the prop. if they want to they have the right to do so, The backers of prop 8 inclding me should all march in support of the majority of the people period. if those people that support prop 8 want to get together and hold a rally at the corner of Victoria and telephone rd. at the goverment center, let's her a YES WE WILL!!!!! stop the gays all for 8

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OP: no, I will not do your reseach for you. I happen to speak from personal experience and the knowledge that being gay/lesbian is not a choice for the majority of those...they are born that way. And no, I am not. I also have the advantage of not being a bigot, accepting of others, and unfocused on the meaning of a word. There is nothing I can, or care to do to change your mind...it's already closed and not worth my time or effort.

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My suggestion is that all the fearmongers and uninformed homophobes...move to Iran where the death penalty is in place for gays/lesbians. You would fit in very, very well there.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbs said: The best circumstance is a home where a stable and loving environment can be provided regardless of the gender of the parents. These mother/father arguments are very archaic and lame. There are many same sex couples that have adopted babies from alcoholic mother, crack addicted mothers and other horrible situations and given these kids that nobody else wanted a very loving home.

=================

Robbs you need to take the blinders off. you vision is so jade by your point of view and trying to defend your position. Studies have shown that the best environment for children to grow up in is a stable home with both a mother and a father that are committed to each other.

Face it men and women are different and act differently and children learn this through observation in the home.

I am not saying that same gender parents are not good parents, just that the children are not exposed to the modeling of a person of both genders.

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Never heard of a gay colony but I'm certin that should their be one that they would accept my husband, myself and my children and not infringe on my civil rights.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbca, what part does not make sense to you. I can understand how it could be confusing when some on does not think like you.

So when that happens your solution is to give up and run away rather that to expand yourself and come to an understanding. "It does not mean you have to agree. It is simple the ability to acknowledge you understand. It is the behavior that you just demonstrated that causes so many marriages to end in divorce. It is too easy to run away and ignore that which you do not desire to accept or understand.

I too wish you well and happiness is not granted with a piece of paper. It is a state of mind on how we perceive things and choose to react to the environment around us.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Coffee67, Canada, Netherlands, Spain and South Africa will gladly accept you.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the type of love and tolerence that that the No on 8 crowd exhibits.

http://krishna109.newsvine.com/_news/...

N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest

he recent passage of California's Proposition 8 has exposed some of the latent racism of many within the LGBT community—instigated in part by many in the e-telligentsia such as revisionist Andrew Sullivan and sex advisor turned sociologist Dan Savage.

Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.

So which group is actually exhibiting hate and oppression?

From my point of view that would be the no on 8 crowd.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonlin...

N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU n-----, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FA**OT, I will call you a ni**er. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the ni**ers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

Jasmyne Cannick has a similar and unfortunate report. "I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called 'ni**ers' to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of 'you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back,' these gays have lost their damn minds."

A very civil group this gay and lesbian crowd. No hate here.

ROFLOL

what a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU7jkU...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG0HjH...
As long as we are posting links...enjoy.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 8, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In seems that many of the proponents of same sex marriages make the argument homosexuals are born "that way". Some cite scientific opinion that it is caused by hormones, which essentially is saying that there is an inbalance.

In order to reach the conclusion that there is an hormone inbalance, there first had to have been a study conducted in order to reach a baseline for what is considered average and normal. From that baseline they can then establish if there is a hyper-/hypo-hormone inbalance that is the physiological root cause of homosexuality. Think it through and you will see that what the scientists research findings conclude is that homosexuality is caused by an adnormality. Why anyone would cite those findings to further a cause based on that opinion is beyond me.

By supporting those scientific findings, it stands to reason then that a homosexual can be "cured", much like the hyperthyroid condition that my daughter has by taking medications.

Others have cited scientific findings that there are other physical differences in gay men when compared to heterosexual men. One such example mentioned was that there is a thicker membrane that that separates the left and right portions of the brain. Again, this is stating an adnormality as a root cause.

Genetic predisposition is cited. Again, this can be "corrected" by removing the gene that allegedly is the root cause in a laboratory, much like a gene that causes rare birth defects can be removed, but this is more futuristic. The scientists are basically saying that there is a genetic defect.

Keep in mind, these scientific findings are based on first establishing a baseline in order to determine what is normal, and make the comparisons based on those norms. This has to be done in order to be truly objective. The research findings are without bias, or promoting a cause. They are merely stating what their findings are.

Citing the scientific community seems like a compelling argument. However, if you really undertand the steps needed to conduct this research and reach these findings, and what they are really saying, it may not be so compelling afterall.

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 8, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OP Rockwell-Sounds to me like it is not a civil group at all.By degrading others for not having their views they will lose.I voted yes on prop because marriage is between a man and a woman.My
belief is that is the way GOD intended it to be.By
having rallies and calling people names it will not help their fight at all.They are acting like spoiled childeren who did not get their way.

Posted by coffee67 on November 8, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee...I was not married in an LDS temple..does that mean that I am not gonna meet my husband in the great beyond. Give me a break...ya'll are wacked I tell ya.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say let them protest and openly display their hate and immaturity. the longer this goes on the more people will leave their cause. They are acting like two year olds throwing a temper tantrum.

You do not see protests like this on those that supported prop 4.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Coffee67 I like how you picked out a on the street interview with a couple of kids. It reminds how the no on 8 crowd are acting. I presume you chose this clip because you view the two as equals. I agree the these kids are immature in the statements as well as the no on 8 protesters.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sec of state has a list of who contributed.

Here is a list of those donating to no on 8 in the county

JAMES MERRILL OXNARD CA 93033 VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COLLEGE PROFESSOR $25.00
JAMES MERRILL OXNARD CA 93033 VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COLLEGE PROFESSOR $50.00
JOHN LEMAY OXNARD CA 93030 AQUATIC TESTING LABS LAB TECH $100.00
JULIE HENDRIX OXNARD CA 93030 DEPARTMENT OF NAVY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE $100.00
KRYIJZTOFF NOVOTNAJ OXNARD CA 93035 REITER DIRECTOR $100.00
NEAL ORTENBERG OXNARD CA 93030 NONE RETIRED $100.00
NICOLAS CRISOSTO OXNARD CA 93033 CONSULTANT EDUCATOR $100.00
WILLIAM WHITLOCK OXNARD CA 93036 JENSEN TRANSFORMERS, INC. ELECTRONICS ENGINEER $100.00
SANDRA RUSELL OXNARD CA 93031 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA DEPUTY SHERIFF $173.00
CHRISTOPHER FAVA OXNARD CA 93035 US NAVY ELECTRICAL ENGINEER $200.00
NEAL ORTENBERG OXNARD CA 93030 NONE RETIRED $300.00
WILLIAM WHITLOCK OXNARD CA 93036 JENSEN TRANSFORMERS, INC. ELECTRONICS ENGINEER $500.00
NEAL ORTENBERG OXNARD CA 93030 NONE RETIRED $1,000.00
NWPC CA PAC OXNARD CA 93035 N/A N/A $1,000.00
WILLIAM WHITLOCK OXNARD CA 93036 JENSEN TRANSFORMERS, INC. ELECTRONICS ENGINEER $1,000.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CAROL MACK NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 WESTERN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR $50.00
CAROL MACK NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 WESTERN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR $50.00
EDWARD WHITE NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 BAXTER HEALTHCARE SCIENTIST $50.00
COLLEEN BRINER-SCHMIDT NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 COUEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATOR $100.00
EDWARD WHITE NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 BAXTER HEALTHCARE SCIENTIST $100.00
GEORGE SHERMAN NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 INGRAM MICRO TECHNICIAN $100.00
JUDY PACIONE NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 CENTRAL AMERICAN MANUFACTURING SALES MANAGER $100.00
PATRICIA KOSICH NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 ARENT FOX LLP ATTORNEY $100.00
SHELLY AUSTIN NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS PLANNER $100.00
THOMAS FROEHLICH NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 URBAN CHAPARRAL LDSC ARBORIST $100.00
JOSEPH VACCHIONE NEWBURY PARK CA 91320-6846 JET PROPULSION LABORATORY SENIOR ENGINEER $200.00
JEANIE MORTENSEN SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 LAUSD TEACHER $10.00
RUTH E. ARMENTROUT SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 NONE RETIRED $10.00
JEFF VIOLA SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SR. EMAIL ADMINISTRATOR $25.00
JEFF VIOLA SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SR. EMAIL ADMINISTRATOR $50.00
JOHN PENNY SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 WELLS FARGO PROJECT MANAGER $50.00
CHRISTOPHER GAGO SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 IXIA ENGINEER $100.00
DAN VIOLA SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 RETIRED RETIRED $100.00
DANI HEART SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 CENTERBAY MANAGEMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT $100.00
FREDERICK JOHNCOX SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 WORKTEC ENGINEER $100.00
JOHN PENNY SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 WELLS FARGO PROJECT MANAGER $100.00
JOHN PENNY SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 WELLS FARGO PROJECT MANAGER $100.00
JOHN PENNY SIMI VALLEY CA 93063-4568 SAME NAME SELF EMPLOYED PROJECT MANAGER $100.00
KELBY GLEGHORN SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 PINDER & PINDLER CREDIT MANAGER $100.00
KEN PFLUEGER SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 POMONA COLLEGE IT MANAGER $100.00
KEN PFLUEGER SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 POMONA COLLEGE IT MANAGER $100.00
LORI HAWKINS SIMI VALLEY CA CA NONE RETIRED $100.00
LORI HAWKINS SIMI VALLEY CA CA NONE RETIRED $100.00
RICHARD ROTHSCHILD SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY ATTORNEY $100.00
RUTH E. ARMENTROUT SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 NONE RETIRED $100.00
TONY GOMEZ SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 MILLER MAGAZINES TECH WRITER $100.00
ELESA BRODY SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE SECRETARY $173.00
RUTH E. ARMENTROUT SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 NONE RETIRED $173.00
JOHN JAMES SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. ATTORNEY $175.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JEANIE MORTENSEN SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 LAUSD TEACHER $200.00
SUSAN TESH SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 VIDEO EQUPMENT RENTAL MANAGER $500.00
JEANNINE BLAKEFIELD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 SELF GRAPHIC DESIGNER $20.00
KATHY LESLIE THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 CSU NORTHRIDGE INSTRUCTOR $50.00
KATHY LESLIE THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 CSU NORTHRIDGE INSTRUCTOR $50.00
MARK COHEN THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 DOCUFIDE, INC. VP, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT $50.00
CAROL JONES THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 WEST HILLS HOSPITAL MEDICAL ASSISTANT $100.00
CHRISANNE EASTWOOD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91361 BARNES AND NOBLE BOOKSELLER $100.00
CYNTHIA WYELS THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 CSU CHANNEL ISLANDS PROFESSOR $100.00
JEANNINE BLAKEFIELD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 SELF GRAPHIC DESIGNER $100.00
JEFF CONWAY THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 JEFF CONWAY AND ASSOCIATES, LLC CONSULTANT $100.00
JOYCE TABAK THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 NONE RETIRED $100.00
JULIA NUFER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 NUFER MARKETING RESEARCH, INC. MARKET RESEARCH $100.00
KAYVON SHAHIR THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320 SELF REAL ESTATE AGENT $100.00
MARJORIE HOSKINSON THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 LACOMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TEACHER $100.00
ROBB QUINT THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320 NONE RETIRED $100.00
SCOTT MCLEOD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 SAME NAME SELF EMPLOYED GRAPHIC ARTIST $100.00
THOMAS STAPLEFORD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 RETIRED RETIRED $100.00
WENDY PLYLER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 CVUSD TEACHER $100.00
JENNIE KELLY THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 REQ2008 REQ2008 $145.00
LAURA GESTOPA BAY THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP PARALEGAL $150.00
SHELLEY WHITE THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320 NONE HOUSEMAKER $173.00
TERRY HINRICHER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 HINRICHER AND KRASNICK CPA ACCOUNTANT $173.00
HARRY GRAUMAN THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 LITTLER MENDELSON REGIONAL SYSTEMS COORDINATOR $200.00
JUDITH NUTTER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY MANAGER $200.00
LAUREN DE SIMONE THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 DE SIMONE & HUXTER OFFICE MANAGER $200.00
PHIL LICHTENBERGER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 KREIDO MANAGER $200.00
STEVEN WOODWARD THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 SOFTWARE ENGINEER IBM CORP $200.00
WILLIAM R. COBB THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 NONE RETIRED $200.00
CHARLES HUFFER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 KIPP BRANDT & ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL MANAGER $250.00
CHARLES HUFFER THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 KIPP BRANDT & ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL MANAGER $250.00
OMER BLAES THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320-6846 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA PROFESSOR $300.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JULIUS BIANCHI THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320 CALIFORNIA LUTEHRAN UNIVERSITY IT MANAGER $500.00
MARGARET COYLE VENTRUA CA 93009 VENTURA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SENIOR DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY $100.00
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ VENTURA CA 93003 AMERICAN SHOLIN WEST KUNG FU TEACHER $19.00
SCOTT RIPPLE VENTURA CA 93001 SEMINIS VEGETABLE SEEDS BUYER $40.00
KIM SENTINELLA VENTURA CA 93003 BLOOD SYSTEMS, INC RN $50.00
SCOTT RIPPLE VENTURA CA 93001 SEMINIS VEGETABLE SEEDS BUYER $55.00
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ VENTURA CA 93003 AMERICAN SHOLIN WEST KUNG FU TEACHER $96.00
ADRIENNE BENTLEY VENTURA CA 93001 VMSG VETERINARIAN $100.00
ANNE RUSSELL-HURD VENTURA CA 93001 AGIA, INC. INSURANCE AUDITOR $100.00
ASHA GEORGE VENTURA CA 93001 VENTURA ADMINISTRATION $100.00
BOB AND JIM MEEK-LAVECK VENTURA CA 93004 REFLECTION VIDEO PRODUCTIONS VIDEOGRPHERS $100.00
BROOKE ASHWORTH VENTURA CA 93003 NONE HOMEMAKER/VOLUNTEER $100.00
CHARLES MURPHY VENTURA CA 93003 BRENT ST FAMILY PRACTICE PHYSICIAN $100.00
CHERYL DUNLAP VENTURA CA 93001 REQ2008 REQ2008 $100.00
DENISE SINDELAR VENTURA CA 93003 CITY OF VENTURA ART ADMINISTRATOR $100.00
EDWARD SUMMERS VENTURA CA 93003 AFFINITY BANK BANKER $100.00
JANICE VAN SLIMMING VENTURA CA 93003 VETRONIX CORP SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR $100.00
JEWEL WILLARD VENTURA CA 93001 CHW HEALTH CARE $100.00
JILL FORMAN VENTURA CA 93003 VC MEDICAL CENTER REGISTERED NURSE $100.00
JOY KOBAYASHI VENTURA CA 93004 VENTURA COLLEGE PROFESSOR $100.00
KAREN STAPLES VENTURA CA 93003 COUNTY OF VENTURA PROBATION OFFICER $100.00
LINDA HENDERSON VENTURA CA 93004 SOCIAL WORK MANAGER COUNTY OF VENTURA $100.00
LINDA KUENEMAN VENTURA CA 93003 COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REGISTERED NURSE $100.00
LUCIANNE RANNI VENTURA CA 93003 REQ2008 REQ2008 $100.00
MARIAN DRABKIN VENTURA CA 93001 N/A RETIRED $100.00
MICHAEL PULIDO VENTURA CA 93001 EDISON INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE SPECIALIST $100.00
PEGGY FRANDSEN VENTURA CA 93001 OLD CREEK RANCH WINERY TASTING ROOM MANAGER $100.00
ROBERT BRAGENZER VENTURA CA 93001 RENAISSANCE EVENT MANAGEMENT CIO $100.00
ROBERT MENDOZA VENTURA CA 93003 VENTURA COUNTY GOVERNMENT $100.00
SCOTT BROWN VENTURA CA 93004 GOVERNMENT ENGINEER $100.00
SCOTT KOPALD VENTURA CA 93002 METSON OFFSHORE, INC. CPA $100.00
SCOTT KOPALD VENTURA CA 93002 METSON OFFSHORE, INC. CPA $100.00
SETH HOCHBERG-MILLER VENTURA CA 93004 SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE STUDENT $100.00
TERRI A CARDELLINO VENTURA CA 93003 LUCKHEED MARTIN ENGINEER $100.00
RALPH KIRK VENTURA CA 93003 DIMENSION IN WOOD CONTRACTOR $150.00
JACKIE GRIFFIN VENTURA CA 93001 VENTURA COUNTY LIBRARY DIRECTOR $200.00
JANICE VAN SLIMMING VENTURA CA 93003 VETRONIX CORP SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR $200.00
THOMAS BERG VENTURA CA 93003 NONE RETIRED $200.00
LAURA KRIESE VENTURA CA 93004 BRASSELER USA PROD. DEV. MGR $250.00
MARY FRANCES OCONNOR VENTURA CA 93003 PROFESSOR UCLA $500.00
NANCY SCOTT` VENTURA CA 93004 VMSG VETERINARIAN $500.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most of the big money came from out of state and from GLBT groups.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and the California Teachers Association

NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $1,250,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $1,250,000.00
NO ON PROPOSITION 8 -- CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO CA 95814 $1,200,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $1,050,000.00
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ISSUES PAC BURLINGAME CA 94010 N/A N/A $1,000,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $1,000,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 N/A N/A $1,000,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 N/A N/A $500,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $500,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $500,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 N/A N/A $500,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 N/A N/A $500,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 N/A N/A $450,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $350,000.00
CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION ISSUES SACRAMENTO CA 95814 $250,000.00
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ISSUES PAC BURLINGAME CA 94010 $250,000.00
DAVID MALTZ CLEVELAND OH 44113 DOUBLE M, INC. PRESIDENT $250,000.00
FRED EYCHANER CHICAGO IL 60614 NEWSWEB RADIO PRESIDENT $250,000.00
GILL ACTION FUND DENVER CO 80205 $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 N/A N/A $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $200,000.00
LOS ANGELES GAY & LESBIAN SERVICES CENTER LOS ANGELES CA 90028 $200,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $200,000.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DAVID MALTZ CLEVELAND OH 44113 DOUBLE M, INC. PRESIDENT $250,000.00
FRED EYCHANER CHICAGO IL 60614 NEWSWEB RADIO PRESIDENT $250,000.00
GILL ACTION FUND DENVER CO 80205 $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 N/A N/A $250,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $200,000.00
LOS ANGELES GAY & LESBIAN SERVICES CENTER LOS ANGELES CA 90028 $200,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $200,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $175,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $150,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $130,000.00
ESMOND V. HARMSWORTH BOSTON MA 2116 SHUSTER HARMSWORTH LITERARY AGENT $125,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $125,000.00
NO ON 8 -- NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS SOCIAL JUSTICE FUND SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-3009 N/A N/A $120,000.00
SUSAN ORR STANFORD CA 94305 TESOLA SOFTWARE CEO $102,186.11
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST ELIMINATION OF BASIC RIGHTS, NO ON PROP 8 SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 N/A N/A $100,000.00

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 8, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CENTER ADVOCACY PROJECT ISSUES PAC SAN DIEGO CA 92103 $100,000.00
DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO CA 95811 N/A N/A $100,000.00
ELLEN DEGENERES LOS ANGELES CA 90067 SAME NAME SELF EMPLOYED ACTRESS $100,000.00
ESMOND V. HARMSWORTH BOSTON MA 2116 SHUSTER HARMSWORTH LITERARY AGENT $100,000.00
GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION (GLAAD) NEW YORK NY 10001-2505 $100,000.00
MICHAEL HUFFINGTON MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 NONE RETIRED $100,000.00
ROBERT HAAS SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 LEVI STRAUSS & CO. CHAIRMAN EMERITUS $100,000.00
SEIU GENEREAL FUND WASHINGTON DC 20036 N/A N/A $100,000.00
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 $97,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $75,000.00
NO ON 8 -- NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS SOCIAL JUSTICE FUND SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-3009 $70,000.00
ANITA MAY ROSENSTEIN BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 AR ASSETS INC. MONEY MANAGER INVESTMENT COUNSELOR $50,000.00
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ISSUES PAC BURLINGAME CA 94010 N/A N/A $50,000.00
CENTER ADVOCACY PROJECT ISSUES PAC SAN DIEGO CA 92103 $50,000.00
FRANK POND LOS ANGELES CA 90068 POND NORH LLP ATTORNEY $50,000.00
GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION (GLAAD) NEW YORK NY 10001-2505 $50,000.00
GEORGE LUCAS NICASIO CA 94946 LUCAS FILMS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER $50,000.00
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 WASHINGTON DC 20036 $50,000.00
JENNIFER RAININ PIEDMONT CA 94611 RAININ GROUP BUSINESS OWNER $50,000.00
JOHN AUGUST BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 QUOTE UNQUOTE FILMS SELF-EMPLOYED WRITER $50,000.00
KATE CAPSHAW LOS ANGELES CA 90064 SAME NAME SELF EMPLOYED ACTRESS $50,000.00
KATE O'HANLAN PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028 SAME NAME SELF EMPLOYED PHYSICIAN $50,000.00
KAZAN, MCCLAIN ABRAMS LYONS GREENWOOD & HARLEY OAKLAND CA 94607 N/A N/A $50,000.00

Posted by robbca on November 8, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...seeing that big list of people, companies and organizations who opposed Prop 8 is awesome! IT is very heartwarming!! We are off to have a rally in Silverlake tonight.

Posted by JEH on November 8, 2008 at 10:05 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Seeason82 on November 9, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Proposition 8 is in fact discrimination. Under domestic partnership, not only gays, but also heterosexuals can file. Under the new definition imposed by the very narrow majority, marriage is only for heterosexuals. It is not just a matter of a definition. If heteros have access to both, but gays have access to only one, that is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The entire rest of the modern world is legalizing gay marriage. The supreme court for the European Union said the same thing that our supreme court said, and the countries of the union are listening. Six countries now have legalized same sex marriage nationwide. More will follow, including the U.S.

My suggestion to the people who want to protect the definition of marriage: A new amendment that reverses this tragedy and at the same time revises state documents to use the term "civil union" (to apply to any two people exclusive of all others who want to dedicate their lives to one another) instead of using the word "marriage". Let the churches decide who will be "married". This would allow for separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and a discrimination free constitution. I believe this was Spain's solution to the problem.

Posted by MBDIAMOND on November 9, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbca-ALL that money and YES ON PROP 8
WON.That should tell you something.

Posted by JEH on November 9, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain: My kind? I am not gay if that is what your referring to. Im simply saying your a jackass for thinking anyone is going to care if you "report" people. Obama and our governor are both against prop 8. How long do you think until it is overturned? Not long

Posted by coastalslinger on November 9, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, reading some of these comments really has made me think.....

Am I NOT married because I am more spiritual than religous? I don't belong to a church, and didn't get married in one. So does that mean MY marriage isn't legal? Am I just in a union?

I must be a freak of nature, according to the church, because I decided NOT to have children. After all, I must have gone against God by not populating the earth.

I guess people like me are next. And as silly as that seems......it's scares the heck out of me. The church has much more money than I do to take this to the people, and strip me of my rights. Some of you may laugh, but once the church has spoken, the followers flock to see it through.

There is a reason we have a division set between church, and state. "TAX EXEMPT STATUS REMOVED FOR RELIGION". Maybe this should be on the ballot next, before we're ALL targeted.

Posted by JEH on November 9, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I guess we will just have to wait and see. Prop 22 was overturned because it was found to be unconstitutional. I wonder what the supreme court will say about prop 8?

Posted by opns on November 9, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain, your right, what a loss of money, where this could of benefited hungry children. So sad.

"...A couple of the people work for the US Navy. I am turning them in to the government ethics division. We each take a ethics class every year and since they have posted that they are affiliated with the government (representing the governement), they are in direct violation of the Government Ethics policies".----------------do it.

The people have spoken, everyone, (married, straight and/or gay, ALL BACK INTO THE CLOSET and RECOOP.

Posted by coffee67 on November 9, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.petitiononline.com/Prop8/p...

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 9, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JEH said: Well I guess we will just have to wait and see. Prop 22 was overturned because it was found to be unconstitutional. I wonder what the supreme court will say about prop 8?
=====================

Prop 8 amended the State constitution. Prop 8 is now part of the constitution.

How do you rule the the state constitution unconstitutional?

Posted by robbca on November 9, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MBDIAMOND - Yes it tells me that discrimation is alive and well in California.

It is a shame that all these millions of dollars had to be spent on this. The bigger shame is that it even started to begin with. If Prop 8 had never been created then we wouldn't have had to spend all this money to fight discrimination.

In regard to people calling black people the N word at the rallys. I was at the rally on Wednesday in West Hollywood, I was at the rally at the Mormom Temple on Thursday and I was at the rally last night in Silverlake. There were black people there and I personally never heard anyone calling anyone the N word.

Unfortunately there have been people on both sides that have done and said things that they shouldn't have. I have been called fXXXot more times on the street since this started then I ever had in my life. I know someone who had a cigarette thrown at him by a YES on 8 supporter and the YES on 8 supporter had his daughter with. I know people who have been spit on in public by old women. This Proposition has been very successful at bringing hatred back into the streets again.

This issue was overturned once before because it was found to be unconstitutional and I have full faith that it will be overturned again. I am glad that we got married last Saturday and have our certified copies of our marriage license.

Posted by coffee67 on November 9, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twain: Posted by coffee67 on November 9, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.petitiononline.com/Prop8/p...
http://www.petitiononline.com/Prop8/p..
Stop wasting the governor's time. We are in a state of economic meltdown.

Perhaps looking at the petition will make you better aware of what this pet. is about...it goes to the IRS to investigate the LDS campain spending and remove their tax exempt status

Posted by JEH on November 9, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

op rockwell: How do you rule the the state constitution unconstitutional?

If it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Federal trumps State. Changing the wording of the constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote by our elected officials, not by hot headed narrow minded people like you. It will be over turned.

Posted by robbca on November 9, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If need be we will get it back on the ballot.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 9, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Coffe67, why all the hatred and bigtry aimed at a group that thinks differently than you do. Isn't that discrimination too?

;-)

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 9, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ROBBCA said: If need be we will get it back on the ballot.

========================

That is where you should have started in the first place. It was the path that you should have taken to bgin with rather than the courts.

But when you ballot measure failes for a third time will then go back to court?

What would you sya when the opposition to your ballot initiative take you favorble election to court?

Posted by JEH on November 9, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

op rockwell: You have so many spelling errors in your statement I can't even understand what your saying

Posted by robbca on November 9, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is just a matter of time before this whole matter is resolved and same sex marriage is legal. It may take some time but it will happen.

Posted by coffee67 on November 10, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Local Elections

Home › Elections › Local election news

Prop. 8 leaves gay marriages in limbo

ELECTIONS '09

Local Elections

Home › Elections › Local election news

Prop. 8 leaves gay marriages in limbo

ELECTIONS '09

STORY TOOLS

More from Local election news