Posted by jill on November 16, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's so simple. People should not be denied equal rights because of race, gender or sexual preference. I can't wait for this unconstitutional, hateful proposition to be overturned.

Posted by NowHearThis on November 16, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't these anti-Prop 8 protesters go protest at black churches in south central and see what happens? After all, according to news sources, 70 percent of the black vote went for YES on Prop 8.

No instead, these people will shop around for a leftist-liberal activist judge appointed by a Democrat to again thwart the will of the people.

These people are sad; sore losers.

Posted by NowHearThis on November 16, 2008 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Jill; please cite the constitutional phrase that says, "civil rights should be afforded on the, "basis alone," of who one sleeps with. This whole hooey is about sex with the same sex and nothing more!

What's hateful darling is anti-Prop 8 loonies who are ramrodding their sick mentality on others.

Posted by crazymind20082009 on November 16, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad to see so many turned out.

prop 8 will never go away, and even in your circle of friends someone is gay. They just do not trust you, because you are close minded person who has no tolerance for someone different than you.

Posted by lakerboy805 on November 16, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

they'll burn out eventually...just keep them out of my neighborhood..

Posted by preschoolmomma on November 16, 2008 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish the no on 8 people would listen to Elton John - go for civil unions. It's silly to continue this and insulting to the citizens of California - twice now the people have spoken!

Posted by elgavacho on November 16, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by Sneed_Hearn on November 16, 2008 at 1:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm surprised PETA didn't show up while these losers were beating their dead horse!"

Priceless

Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Yes On 8 people marched also - to the BALLOTS on 11-4. And our march was bigger than their (gays) march. WE WON !!!!! This is nothing more than the gay agenda trying to normalize something that is simply not normal.

Posted by handyhood on November 16, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The gays are affording the same rights as heterosexuals right now. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex! They are trying to turn their agenda into a civil right thing like in the sixties. It isn't the same situation. I am tired of their crying about something that the majority has made a decision about. The battle cry for them was the quote by San Francisco Mayor Newsom," Whether you like it or not ". Hey, maybe they need to hear it again!

Posted by dwilson on November 16, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm curious why the Star only reports the one side of this issue. There have been many developments on the Yes side, including the CA supreme court discussion. What gives? Makes me suspicious of all their reporting.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What the article neglected to mention was the significant number of heterosexual couples and families in attendance yesterday. They were there to support equality for ALL Americans.
Many of sentiments shared by lakerboy, Snead_hearn, Legal_-american and other posters, were expressed to me by an angry skinhead when I was at the demonstration. Of course, his language and gestures more vulgar, however his thinking was along the same line.
I am saddened yet not surprised by my fellow Venturans. After all this county voted in the neighborhood of 60% for prop 8. This is also the same place that two of my friends in the last month were gay bashed, as well as the same county that produced the kid that shot a gay child in the head during class!
The beautiful thing is that I know this intolerance is not going to be the last word. Equality is coming no matter how much people kick and scream. It's our shared future and that gives me hope.

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually if there is discrimination here (and I don't beleive there is) it is gender not sexual preference. Two straight men cannot get married to each other, but a gay man and lesbian woman can!
The law does NOT forbid any gay person to wed, it only limits it to a man and a woman.

Common Sense!

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is NOT a "fundamental" right. Fundamental means long standing, not 6 months ago.

It seems that this angst is more about romance, and having a wedding to plan, and having a reception, and getting gifts, and putting your spouse's picture on your desk. All these things are NOT prohibited now that Prop 8 has amended the California constitution. Go have your wedding, but it will be called a commitment ceremony, not a marriage.

Something other than this legal definition of marriage, is just that--something "other".

Cassandra said on another post that she is looking forward to the day that homosexuality will be "normalized" in the view of children. Cassie, that is the crux of the Yes on 8 argument. It is NOT normal.

It's not just religious folks that voted for 8. Plenty of atheists and agnostics want a traditional definition of marriage. Funny, I don't see the angry LGBT crowds protesting in front of any Jewish Chabbads. I bet there were financial contributions from them, and from Hindus, and Muslims, as well as from Catholics and Protestants.

Homosexuality is not the norm. Even gays call themselves "queer". And I'm not saying that gays aren't human beings, and I'm not in denial that many gays are wonderful people with amazing talents, just like many straights are wonderful people with amazing talents. But, truth to tell, both sides have millions of clinkers--always will.

I am glad that Prop 8 failed. I am glad that straight parents, pastors, and traditional teachers in private schools will not be as afraid of being sued for a hate crime (defined under Senator Sheila Kuehl's whacky SB 777 effective January 2008) if they correctly tell kids that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Pay attention to this, so that it doesn't become the new weapon of the radical gay community against parents and their children. Watch for abuse of power with SB 777 in California schools by gay teachers and administrators. Prop 8 takes the teeth out of this dangerous bill, SB 777, and gays are upset about this. Parents who might be accused of a hate crime under SB 777, by an offended gay teacher, can now point to this definition of marriage. I'm glad for those parents.

And if straight parents, pastors, and traditional teachers feel that homosexuality is a taboo, a sin, or simply immoral, then their right to believe so under the First Amendment is now further reinforced because Prop 8 has legally defined marriage in California to be only between one man and one woman.

And I'm glad about that.

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lileth said;
"Many of sentiments shared by lakerboy, Snead_hearn, Legal_-american and other posters, were expressed to me by an angry skinhead when I was at the demonstration. Of course, his language and gestures more vulgar, however his thinking was along the same line."
Do you not see what you are doing Lileth? Of course you do!
By trying to tie a punk skinhead to anyone who supported Prop 8 you are calling them hateful and racist.
That is as unfair as me comparing you with those hatefilled gay extremists in San Francisco who dress up as nuns in drag and descacrate the Catholic Church.
I'm sure that would be offensive to you if I did that (at least I hope it would be)!

Calling someone who disagrees with your opinion a skinhead (or inferring a like mindedness) is extremely bigoted and is intended to encite hate against them.

Common Sense!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gays lost zero legal rights in California when Prop 8 passed.

So why all the whining?

Traditional marriage is not the same as a same gender union. A marriage couple has the natural potential to procreate and have a family. A same gender couple does not have the ability to naturally procreate. While there are many similarities between a married couple and a same gender union, the needs of a same gender couple differ from that of a married couple.

Why will the no on 8 crowd recognize this?

They have not lost any legal rights in California.

If they have, I invite you to list them.

Posted by dwilson on November 16, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

elephantpower, please further define SB777. It sounds a little frightening to me. If someone is offended by something I say then I could be charged with a hate crime? Please tell me that's not true. It's a fundamental right to speak your mind in this country, even if others disagree or are offended. Sticks and stones.....

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

crazy mind said: I am glad to see so many turned out

==============

ROFLOL

That is truly funny. Crowd of 300-500 out of a county of 800,000. If you are talking about just Ventura/Oxnard/Camarillo/Ojai/Carpinteria still has a population of 400,000+ and the most you can muster at a your hate fest is 500.

ROFLOL

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction--Of course I didn't mean I was glad Prop 8 failed. I meant I was glad the opponents of Prop 8 failed to defeat the bill. I need another cup of coffee. And a doughnut.

The wind is nasty now. I'm going out for a drive and look around. The air is so full of smoke. I feel so sorry to be breathing the ashes from family photos, furniture, heirlooms, clothes, keepsakes. It is so sad. Life's a b___, then you die. All is vanity, said Shakespeare. Someone post the precise quote and the play, will you?

When the wind storms are over, remember to buy a new air filter for your car before you travel for Thanksgiving. After the last big fire 4 years ago in Ventura I remember the long lines at Pep Boys to get air filters, and lots were out of stock.

YES ON 8.

Posted by Cat on November 16, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew 2 weeks ago that Lassens donated so much money....and because of that, I won't be shopping there anymore. If the owner didn't want to be "found out" and that his donation was "private", then he should have left that information off of the donation form...duh. It's all public record. Whole Foods, here I come!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why aren't the no on 8 bigots being charged with hate crimes as they deface churches, temple and assault people? They are screaming hatefull things as they commit these crimes.

Posted by handyhood on November 16, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lileth- What huntram said!!!! I predict that this topic will not have as many post as it has in the past, as people are really tired of hearing the whining of the gay community. Let it go and move on people! All this protesting is hurting your cause!

Posted by cmnelson7890 on November 16, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was for the No, but NOT now. Shame on the Marchers for taking UP the time of the Public Services and The TAX Payers MONEY when there are Families lossing their homes to FIRES maybe even their lives. They should be trying to HELP SAVING THE TAX DOLLARS to help these poor people. I will VOTE YES if there is another VOTE.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Cat, Lassen's has not missed your business. they business has picked up with many new customers that have seen the hate spewed towards them by the likes of you.

For every person that I have heard say that they will never shop at Lassen's again I have heard 10 say that will start to shop there.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Huntram - I am merely pointing out that the views the skinhead expressed and the "will of the people" were in alignment. If you choose to own that as being bigoted or racist, don't attribute that to me!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CMnelson, thanks for seeing the light and that the no on 8 side is truly the side of hate. We welcome you to our cause. You will not see yes on 8 counter protesters because they are too busy helping the community. Today rather than be at a hate rally they will be in their churches praying for those that lost everything, for the fire fighters safety. When they are done, they will go and render service where they are needed. How ironic that the no on 8 side calls this hate.

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To DWilson: Here is the bill, SB 777.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill...

The Legislative Counsel's analysis says this in Section 1:

Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a
school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of
discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities
and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race
or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is
contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual
orientation for this purpose.
------------------------------------------------------

That means that LGBT is now added to the list of "protected persons" who have suffered discrimination, and they get special treatment. This bill now defines LGBT as such. Teachers in California must fold into the curriculum, the social contributions of protected persons. The list is: Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and now LGBT. This must be taught from first grade. Kindergarten is only optional, not mandatory in California, and that's why it isn't mentioned.

Yes, LGBT history will be taught in our public schools.

Sec 12 thankfully amended Kuehl's bill to omit religious schools from being charged with a hate crime if they taught anti-homosexual teachings, such as lessons learned from Sodom and Gomorrah. But that WAS in her original bill.

Posted by kenternst on November 16, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was curious what the demographics of homosexuality were in terms of percentage of population. There was a lot of different surveys that ranged the total homosexual population to be from as low as 1.5% to as high as 6% of the nation's population. Assuming that Calif. is 6%; I find it amazing that 6% of the population insists that the world history of sociology (to legitimize the procreation of children) and thousands of years of religious beliefs in all religions be rewritten to accmmodate their desire to redefine marriage for their own benefit. They lost the election and their only answer is to call anyone who believes in the established marriage definition to be bigots. They have engaged in domestic terrorist tactics by stealing and/or damaging property, intimidation, threats and assault. These are hate crimes against people's religious beliefs and this country's system of democracy. They are planning boycotts on people, organizations and businesses that supported Prop. 8. I do not think the gay's planned boycott of businesses will be as effective as the retaliation boycotts that will be placed on the gay community. Where are the police? Why are there no arrests?

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More on SB 777, The California Student Civil Rights Act of January 2008, authored by lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica and Oxnard.

Here's the kicker. This is the intro to the bill, making LGBT a protected class, and discimination against LGBT in schools subject to hate crime laws. Read the end, 210.7. This allows the kids to cross dress, and attend opposite gender PE classes, and no one can complain. Or they can be charged with a hate crime.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill...

----------------------------------------------------

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the
California Student Civil Rights Act.
SEC. 1.5. Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender,
nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any
other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate
crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights
and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The
purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that
policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 2. Section 210.1 of the Education Code is amended and
renumbered to read:
210.3. "Educational institution" means a public or private
preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the
governing board of a school district; or any combination of school
districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for
public elementary or secondary schools.
SEC. 3. Section 210.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.1. "Disability" includes mental and physical disability as
defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

c.m.nelson and o.p. rockwell:
I am shocked at the depth of your ignorance! How many fire fighters were rerouted to Ventura to cover the march? Just what sort of tax paid services monopolized those few hours? The police get paid to patrol that area anyway for crying out loud. Lastly, how do you connect the fires with the march?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elephant power, FYI pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, bisexuality are all sexual orientations. So teachers cannot speak against them either. The scarrier part is that all teacher union contracts have non discrimination language to protect and defend the teachers against sexual orientation discrimination. Thank you CTA.

Posted by Wendy71 on November 16, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To all you yes on 8 people. Think about this.
If marriage is so sacred between a man, and woman then why is there abuse, adultry, divorce, & murder going on between men & women? " HE THAT IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE "

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lilith what an ignorant statement. "The police have to patrol anyway". Well today the police are needed to be patrolling with and supporting fire crews not babysit a bunch of hate filled bigots protesting.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy 71- You forgot to mention how people honor the sanctity of marriage through game shows such as; Who wants to Marry a Millionaire? and Temptation Island.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

op rockwell: Thank you for proving my point with your well thought out eloquent response backed by solid reasoning and pure logic.

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OP Rockwell - Our teachers are well protected as they should be. My gay husband is a special ed teacher at a high school. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Our equal rights give us that protection.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy, people are not perfect. Divorce should be harder to get especially when there are children are involved.

The problems occurred when bad behaviors become normalized and legitimized. Thanks the media for normalizing divorce, infidelity, teen pregnancy, etc. there was a time when all of these bad behaviors were taboo. It is sad that they are all now widely accepted as "normal".

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To OP Rockwell:

I got chills reading your info. The CTA is evil. Boycott the PTA--they actively supported SB 777.

The California PTA is in bed with the CTA. There are only 6M PTA members in the USA. 5 M are in California. That means that the rest of the USA only has 1 million members spread over 49 states. The PTA is very weak outside of California. Americans have rejected the radicalism and the politics of the PTA. It is only in nutty California that we think the PTA is "normal". Does that remind you of any other group that wants to be called "normal"???

Are our schools better off with the PTA? No. 75% of American schools are PTA free. Please tell people to switch to non-political PFAs or PTOs, of PTCs. Just google PFA and you can learn how to switch.

The California PTA is a registered political lobbyist. They exist to work on bills that they say protect children. They have 5 ways to lobby for bills. Support, Oppose, Support with Amendments, Oppose with Amendments, Neutral. The State PTA actively Supported SB 777, and they are on record for this.

If you supported Prop 8, then you need to drop your membership in the PTA, and don't buy any wrapping paper, chocolates, or magazines from the neighborhood kids. UNLESS the school parents' group is a non-political organization, such as Parent Faculty Association PFA, or Parent Teacher Committee PTC, etc.

Google "Losing the P in PTA" from the Wall Street Journal. Read the book "The Politics of the PTA" by Charleen Haar.

Google Alinsky method, and you will recognize how schools manipulate parents. Saul Alinsky was a communist labor organizer in the Chicago in the 40s, 50s, 60s. He was a mentor to Bill Ayers. ACORN follows his teachings. MoveOn.org and the radical gays follow his teachings.

Here is a link to a recent Star column, pooh poohing the danger of Alinsky, and his connections to Ayers and Obama. It was written by an Associate Prof at Channel Islands.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...

And now I'm leaving to get my doughnut.

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is amazing to hear everyone talking about this issue. It was a mere 50 years ago when people were saying similar things about interracial marriages. There were christian leaders who said that if we allowed interracial marriage it would destroy the white race.

Eventually gay marriage will become an federal issue and will have to be dealt with just like interracial marriage was. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal for the whole United States. We need to keep religion out of this issue. This has nothing to do with religion or forcing anyone to accept anything. It is a matter of equality for all.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well robb, the same language that protects your husband also says that a school cannot discriminate against a zoophiliac.

Posted by bigperrowear on November 16, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not gay or anything, but I support no on 8. Everyone has someone or knows someone that is gay in their family. Just think how they feel. Equal rights for everyone.

Posted by ironwoman on November 16, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lilith- And don't forget the Bachelorette and the Bachelor? That has nothing to do with it.

Marriage IS between a man and a woman. It is natural, God's Way, for a man and a woman to have sexual intercourse to create life. Homosexual intimacy does not have the ability to do so so.

All you NO people have problems because you can't accept the voting results.

Posted by Rocket81 on November 16, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

F Y I Halloween was on October 31

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way OP EVERYONE is protected against discrimination in regard to employment, housing and many other areas. It is not just teachers who are protected employers cannot discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

op rockwell:
Why the fascination with zoophilia - anything you want to share with us?

Posted by olreliable on November 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see nothing wrong with teaching students to treat all people with dignity. Kids should learn not to hate others. Just because California voted against changing the constutution doesnt mean we hate LBGT. I'm sure gay people know we don't hate them, but what is said in this post implies that we do. To point fingers at the black community is wrong. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (who started the equal rights movement) was a pastor and naturally people would follow his lead because he was a Christian.

Posted by ironwoman on November 16, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lilith- Are you blind? Have you been reading the newspaper? Police and FIre should be available to respond to emergencies, not have to babysit a bunch of crybabies because they didn't get what they want.

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ironwoman:
It has everything to do with it. My marriage poses no threat to anyone else's, yet you say that ridiculing marriage on tv poses no threat to the sanctity of it? Traditionally marriage was to join the wealth of two families - there is no mention of it being between one man and one woman in the bible. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. I respect your religious beliefs, but do not share them.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just observing trends.

1970 homosexuality was illegal in all 50 states. Here we are not 40 years later homosexuality is not only out of the closet but in your face with gay pride parades and a demand to have their behavior accepted as normal and legitimate.

There is a trend in Europe to push for a lower age of consent. In 40 years time I would not be surprised to see zoophiles and pedophiles demanding that their right to marry the ones that they love. Gays have paved the way and cleared the path for other deviant lifestyles to follow. In 1970 if you would have asked if gays would permitted marry or teach in public schools everyone would have laughed you to scorn. now it is expected and protected.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What exactly does "separation of church and state" mean?

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ironwoman:
I am not blind - just smart enough to know that the police will never be completely diverted from a town to go help another. Chaos would ensue. Why do you hang your hat on that point? Afraid to look at the real issue?

Posted by ironwoman on November 16, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't share my religious beliefs? Isn't this America? I will share whatever I like just like you NO'ers are distracting our society with your pure irrational logic of hate and discrimination to oppose what the voters voted for.

I will tell you again. God made man and woman to procreate. A man and a man cannot do so. A woman and a woman cannot do so. Only a man and a woman can.

Posted by ironwoman on November 16, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hang my hat....let's see. I voted YES on the matter. The proposition passed yet a bunch of crybabies are protesting all around the State. Hang my hat? It's time for the no people to hang theres.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wendy71 I don't understand your reasoning. Who says that prop 8 supporters condone those behaviors? Why don't you just ask us if we stll beat our wives.

I think that the behaviors you list only highlight the sorrowful condition that some people are in. Sadly, our culture teaches us to be selfish, not selfless, and that is why we see a sustained increase in the behaviors you bring up.

Since you brought it up, and to also answer any questions of WWJD, the full context is that as he forgave the adultress, he also said "Go, and sin no more." Forgivening her didn't mean carte blanche to continue sinning.

Posted by NightLight on November 16, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether you're for or against Proposition 8, I don't understand what the marchers hope to accomplish now that the vote is over. Even if they manage to change some people's opinions, that won't do any good since the matter is no longer in the hands of the public. They can challenge it in the courts, and have every right to do so, but it doesn't seem like public marches can really do anything to help their cause.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What exactly is being protested?

Prop 8 did not take away any legal rights.

So why all the fuss?

This all about forcing Americans to accept and validate the homosexual lifestyle as being normal. Well guess what. Homosexuality is not a normal expression of sexuality for a 98% of the population. We acknowledge that there are those, for whatever reason, choose to express their sexuality with some one of the same gender.

Same gender unions are NOT the same as heterosexual unions. There be many similarities but the needs are different.

Posted by susiebarry on November 16, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted no on prop 8, but after seeing the way that these protesters are acting, if the vote is cast again, I will vote YES. The actions of these protestors are the very reason that this proposition passed. Keep acting like this and you will keep losing support. You say that this is all about equal rights, but I do not believe you. If I decided to hold a rally for the rights of the unborn, many of these same equal rights people would be on the other side, protesting my rally. You are hypocrits!

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ironwoman-
again I am in shock and awe at your well reasoned argument. I will reiterate that it was very vocally thrust at me by a skinhead at the rally. Peace and blessings to you.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 16, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram, Well put!
Handyhood,Morning! I agree with ya!
Although I think its just a waste of time to read all this stuff. Cause its the same people saying the same stuff over and over and over again.... The vote is in, its been counted. Now lets get back to living....

Posted by Jerry36 on November 16, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If all the "yes on 8" folks want to discriminate in their homes or even their churches, I have no problem with that. When they illegally and immorally change our secular constitution to discriminate, it is wrong.

Anyone who thinks domestic partnerships are the same as marriage, think again. When we were only DP's, we got taxed on health insurance benefits. Married couples, which we are now, do not get taxed in such a way. Just one example of the inequality.

Perhaps the government ought to stop calling anyone's commitment a marriage and leave that to the religious organizations. As long as the constitution and laws of the state use the term marriage, it needs to be legally applied to everyone-without discrimination.

Posted by US_Citizen on November 16, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe this is still going on. The no on 8 protesters are just making themselves look worse every day. I also know people who are straight who were in support of the no side but they are so sick of this they are now saying they will never vote FOR gay rights again. Wake up! Not once but twice, TWICE, this was voted against by the MAJORITY of Califoria.
I have not heard, yet, any protesters marching in front of black churches or businesses either, just the Mormon Church and Lassens, hummm. Before now I may have been more open to listening to your side, but not any more. Lassens, here I come.

Posted by 50Luva on November 16, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't even read these comments. They're so awful. All I know is that I was fortunate to find someone I love and marry. Why shouldn't everyone have that same right? STRAIGHT AND NO ON 8!

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are more gay people out there than you think. Many gay people feel forced to stay in the closet because of religious and family reasons. There are churches out there that will excommunicate someone for being gay. There are plenty of gay people out there who commit suicide because they feel they will never be accepted because of their religious beliefs. Religion is supposed to give people hope and something to learn from to live their lives. Unfortunately it has become in some areas very oppressive. What about all the married men that are on gay chat lines to hook up with other guys while their wives are at home or at work. Let's spend some time focusing on our family and not worrying about gay marriage. My gay marriage has not impacted anyone except for my husband and I.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fellow citizens that voted for prop 8, now is the time to lobby the judges who struck down prop 22 that put us in this mess.

There names are

Chief Justice Ronald M. George
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/su...
Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/su...
Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/su...
Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/su...

Make your voice heard to them.

Flood their offices with letter in support of prop 8

Email your friends.

Posted by US_Citizen on November 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ironwoman said,
"Hang my hat....let's see. I voted YES on the matter. The proposition passed yet a bunch of crybabies are protesting all around the State. Hang my hat? It's time for the no people to hang theres."
Again, I agree with you. I will be hanging my hat on the YES side of this issue too.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lilith You are incorrect when you say that the Bible doesn't say anything about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Genesis 2:24 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It is important enough to be mentioned very early.

Posted by sheltonclan on November 16, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually if there is discrimination here (and I don't beleive there is) it is gender not sexual preference. Two straight men cannot get married to each other, but a gay man and lesbian woman can!
The law does NOT forbid any gay person to wed, it only limits it to a man and a woman.
_________________________________________________
Yes - this is exactly what I have been thinking for sometime. It is an invalid argument that gays "cannot marry" - that is not true. A gay man may marry any woman who he can convince to do so. EVERYONE has the right to MARRY. What is at issue here is wanting to change a basic definition of what marriage IS. Californians have voted twice. Our governor needs to get on board to support what the people have clearly expressed. Gays and lesbians desiring same-sex committed relationships have the civil union option - with all the legal benefits accorded a married couple. What they want - and I do not believe should have - is the "approval" of society, saying that relationship is the "same" as marriage. It is not.

I have no "hate" for anyone, I don't want to deny anybody any rights - they have the right to "marry." And all these called for boycotts may just backfire. I have never shopped at Lassens before in my life, but I intend to start on Monday. The idea of blacklisting businesses,and individuals - even attacking churches - for speaking up for what they believe is anathema to all it is to be an American.

Everybody that voted yes on 8? Let's go shop at Lassens this week.

Posted by janusjuris on November 16, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The anti-Prop 8 whiners should quit snivveling and look at WHY the general public doesn't wan't same-sex marriage! It's the whole "in your face whether you like it or not attitude" displayed by almost every gay person I have met. People don't want to see a pair of gestapo-lezbos locking lips on a street corner or leather-clad men walking down the street in SF with exposed buttocks and arms around one another. Maybe if gays were more respectful of OTHERS rights not to have to be exposed to that deviant behavior, then people might be a tad more sympathetic to it. Just a guess, after 3 failures now...

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The election is over! Stop your whining! Protesting will change nothing. Get a Life. Homosexuality is a Mental Illness!!!! You are a very small minority!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dairyclown Are you trying to start a ruckus again, like on Friday and the fires?

Posted by longshot911 on November 16, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fair-minded Californians, please do not waste your time responding to these bigots online. Their minds are made up, and there is nothing you can type in the comments section of a newspaper article that is going to change their minds. Instead, go out and talk to your friends and your family about this issue. We will win this fight, but we need to reach out to those 5 percent of voters who were on the fence but voted against us because they believed the other side's lies. These 1-on-1 conversations can change minds. I know they can because I've had them. Don't let our newly found energy die. Keep the conversation alive.
Read this to understand the most effective talking points when talking to people who are on the fence about this issue, or even when talking to your own friends and family who might have voted against us: http://www.noonprop8.com/about

Posted by Drew on November 16, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, I do NOT condone any protest that is violent and destroys property, however "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" cannot be prohibited by law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. This applies to people on BOTH sides of ANY issue.

I'm a heterosexual male who voted NO on Prop. 8 because I felt that Prop 8. was unconstitutional. I still do. I also believe that it will be overturned by the California Supreme Court because it will be ruled unconstitutional.

No doubt the frantic cries of "legislating from the bench" will be shouted by so-called conservatives, IF Prop 8 is overturned, as the conservatives conveniently ignore that our Supreme Courts were founded to rule on the constitutionality of laws and have been that way for over 220 years (159 years in California).

The larger problem, (in my opinion) is how we actually amend a Constitution. I feel that greater care should be considered, and perhaps California should use the US Constitution amendment process as a model (a has bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states) and I for one would support a ballot initiative or legislation that would move us in a direction towards a more cautious amendment process.

As "conservatives" advocate for a smaller less intrusive, stay out of my life government, and demand the return of so-called traditional values, they are often the first to try to force a anti-American, theocratic agenda of "morality" upon the rest of the electorate.

Enough!

Posted by karberry on November 16, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All people deserve equal rights! Gays and Lesbians do not have equal rights! My sister cannot live in this country because she is not allowed the same rights straight people have. She cannot legally get married and obtain legal citizenship for her partner through marriage. I was at the march, and I found it peaceful and not hateful. The hate I experienced came from some very scary people enshrined in their religion.

This will not go away. Seperation of Church and state!

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Longsh*t911 you are deluded. OjaiGuy No I am not.

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YES on 8.

Let's all shop Lassen's this week. Their hours are 8am-9pm, Monday through Saturday. Be sure to tell them why.

Posted by venturajam on November 16, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lost in all the confusion over the outcome of the election is the fact that Church and State have been completely merged through this legislation. The state constitution should protect all of its citizens and provide for them equal protection and access rather than being used to limit the rights of certain classes of citizens due to the religious beliefs of some of the population.

To compare being gay to pedophilia or other non consensual forms of sexual exploration is inappropriate. The issue at hand is about affording equal access among consenting adults to marry and nothing more.

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe we should give them their own state! I was thinking maybe Texas*.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

venturajam OK, so which church? Catholic, Mormon...? Since these are all churches with some common ground, but mostly different befiefs, which church has the government merged with?

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not the Unitarians or the fellowship type churches. WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY!!!!

Posted by oldteacher on November 16, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks to the Yes on 8 crew, same-sex marriage will be legalized (again) based on our (federal) anti-discrimination laws and will eventually be legal across all these 50 states. Hate will lead to common-sense in the courts, based not on a feeling that gay is good or bad but on civil rights for all.

Oh, and as I keep saying, separation of church and state means YOUR religious views do not trump anyone else's rights. Too bad, huh? You don't like it, move to a country where the rights of the church are more important than those of civil authorities. Say, maybe England, from whence the Puritans fled to the Colonies to escape State-mandated religion (Church of England). THAT is why we have that separation.

Teaching "gay" in school? Please give me a break. Teaching tolerance in school. Please do! This is a false argument, as is the "save my marriage from being devalued because gays can get married, too" argument. Your (or my) marriage doesn't get its strength from others' marriages. That strength comes from our commitment to our spouses. How do our marriages weaken because of others' marriages? They don't. And as far as god/God is concerned, using that argument makes god/God a hater like you. If Jesus taught hate, that would make him a hater like you. He didn't, but you manage to subvert him to your hateful ways. If you want to say that Jesus hates, just come out and say it. I always thought that particular message was Jesus loves, but, hey, maybe you know better. Or maybe not.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dairyclown Jesus already said it...

Matthew 5:11-12 "11. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Posted by VenturaBrian on November 16, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If Prop 8 had failed I guarantee you that all these religious bigots would be saying that the fires this weekend were divine retribution. Perhaps they're actually retribution for voting Yes on H8? After all, who WOULD Jesus hate more?

Posted by minority_report on November 16, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram says: "Actually if there is discrimination here (and I don't beleive there is) it is gender not sexual preference. Two straight men cannot get married to each other, but a gay man and lesbian woman can!
The law does NOT forbid any gay person to wed, it only limits it to a man and a woman."

You make idiotic sense. The core issue is whether the CA state consitutution should discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage. What same-sex straight couple would feel this law was designed to discriminate against them? There aren't any! That is a perverted logic because only gays and lesbians are the true injured parties in the Prop 8 amendment. You only try to confuse the issue with upside down thinking like that.

If you, as a straight man now want to claim Prop 8 discriminates against you as well, then why don't you join the campaign to repeal Prop 8?

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojaiguy I think U are taking that out of context.

Jesus did not hate. but he did pass judgement.

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

or was that his Apostles.

Posted by handyhood on November 16, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dairyclown- Jesus would say,"Go and SIN no more"

Posted by US_Citizen on November 16, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

longshot911,
Fairminded Californians? Those who are on the fence are sick of this issue. And, one one one conversations will not help when the protestors are out there acting like maniacs. Like I mentioned before, I may have been willing to listen to the arguements, but not anymore. I will now hang my hat on the yes on 8 side. Look at how many people have already stated they will go shop at Lassens. What does that mean? Your protests are not effective. They are hurting your cause.

Posted by US_Citizen on November 16, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lassens,
Get ready, I think this is helping your business.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dairy, I didn't take it out of context at all. Just answering your question of WWJS. As far as Jesus not hating, well, He hated sin. Hated it then, hates it today and will hate it tomorrow. So any passing of judgement is on the bahavior, not the person. Re-read John 3:16-20, we only condemn ourselves. Yes, some of the Apostles were judgemental, and it grieved the Lord in that respect. I'm sure he rebuked them many times.

I don't want to get into bible lessons here. I'm still waiting for an answer from Venturajam. He/She makes a statement as fact/truth, and I want to know what evidence there is of that. Since there is none, I do not expect an answer. However, since I'm working at home today, I'll check in an see occasionally.

Posted by bleshon on November 16, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ventura store manager Scott Parbell said the owner's donation was a private contribution and not tied to store operations." This is not True, the Secretary of States donation records show that the Donations came from Lassen's Markets and were not an individuals contributions by the owners of the Ventura and Camarillo stores. http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org...

Posted by lakerboy805 on November 16, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

they should hook up with the illegal alens and fight for equal rights..

Posted by xrl650 on November 16, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Separation of church and state means: Freedom FROM religion.

Posted by VenturaBrian on November 16, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So should atheists and agnostics not be allowed to marry as well? If this is a religious institution why aren't people asked if they are atheist when they go to the county clerk to get a license? Oh wait, they can't ask that. That would be a violation of church and state. Hmmm.

What about Muslims and Hindus... according to the Christian bible they're living in sin too by rejecting Jesus as the savior. Why are they allowed to marry if marriage is governed by the bible?

This issue is bigger than anyone on this board. Go outside and enjoy your Sunday.

Posted by sparks240 on November 16, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry36 gave the real reason gays wanted to defeat prop 8. They wanted the tax benefits that come with marrage. This whole thing is about a small percentage of the population that wants a tax break.

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People tend to believe whatever suits their needs.

Posted by Jerry36 on November 16, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sparks240 just doesn't get it. First off, I said this was only an example, and more importantly, it shows that there is a government-given benefit (there are also responsibilities) that is being denied to a segment of the population illegally. Your own words and thoughts are twisted enough, please don't twist mine.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dairy, I was reponding to Venturajam claim that the "church" has taken over the government, a false statement. That seems to be a common argument with the opponents of prop 8, along with the "church" being a bunch of bigotted, intolerant, hateful homophobes. I won't say that there aren't people like that, but I am not any of those, thus John 3:16-20.

I forget the name of the so called church that is back somewhere in the Southeast, but I'm speaking of the group that was going around to military funerals with their disgusting protests and truly hateful messages. As a Christian, do I adhere to that? Certainly not. Do I believe they are speaking for Christianity? Nope. WWJS? "You shall know them by they fruits they bare." This groups fruit is hate, and are only speaking for themselves.

I do agree with you on your point that people will believe what suits their needs. Look at xrl650's post. He has apparently bought into the belief that the U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment declares the separation of church and state, which it doesn't. He's confusing the establishment/infringemnent clause.

Posted by npcody on November 16, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do people care so much about other peoples' lives? So what if gays want to get married, how in the world does that affect you?

Bible thumpers

Posted by lloydleb on November 16, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you were at the rally and march, you would know that these people were not "sore losers". These people do not consider the game over. You can't be a loser if the game continues. Protesting and demonstrating for change is as American as apple pie. Women and Blacks did not get the vote without considerable protest and demonstration. Unions had violent demonstrations with injuries that lead to simple human treatment inside factories. So, to say you would have considered listening to the no on 8 folks if they hadn't turned "ugly" seems sort of petty and intolerant, since this was a peaceful demonstration in every way.

There was a very brief speech made to the crowd before their march. The speaker said, "It's good for us to express our frustration and outrage today. But tomorrow we have to start to build bridges. Tomorrow we have to go to those who despise us and embrace them, forgive them and then ask them to try and stop thinking of us as second class citizens."

It seems like a reasonable request.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

npcody It isn't just about same sex marriage. It is the precedent it will set, which is the among the reasons I supported it. The ripple effect.

If same sex marriage is deemed unconstitutional, then so is polygamy. Keep in mind that the Mormon's had that "right" taken away. Isn't that an infringement on the sincerely held religious beliefs? And who's to say what constitutes a ploygamous marriage? If not 1 man and XX women, but 1 woman and XX men, or 1 man and XX men and XX women. The legal ramifications are also there. Are all parties involved also not married to each other? If it's about love, who's to say that a brother and sister can't get married. It's not unprecedented, there's a brother and sister in Germany, I think it's Germany, that have even had children.

I remember the big todo about Playboy and Hustler and their first amendment right to free speech. What was once magazines that displayed bare breasted women has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry that exploits both genders and children. Kids can stumble on hardcore porn sites while researching a homework assignment.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lloydleb You lost me with "...who despise us and embrace them, forgive them and then ask them to try and stop thinking of us as second class citizens."

You will not get any sympathy from me when you make claims that I despise you. Because you say that, doesn't make it true. That sort of posturing is only alienating yourself.

Posted by scottyspasm on November 16, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks, in a democracy the majority voted and the majority chose to vote YES on Prop 8. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. So lets move on and get over it!!!

Posted by horsespinner on November 16, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The constitution does not mention the separation of church and state. Oh yeah its article 1 of the bill of rights. I can read and it does not say that at all. Of course there is that right to bear arms thing that is always miss quoted as well. What part of "NO LAW" do you not understand? Courts cannot even create laws. We are getting so lost, and that is sad....

Posted by sparks240 on November 16, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry36 correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a legal vote we had wasn't it? You can fight the decision in court, but as it stands now, you lost.

Posted by HOOPDAWG on November 16, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow too many too read, but I'm going shopping at Lassens tomorrow.

Posted by lloydleb on November 16, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear OjaiGuy,
I was quoting a speaker at the rally. I know it is difficult to read each post in it's entirety when you are monitoring everyone's comments here, and thereby make a few small mistakes. It's okay. I embrace you and forgive you, even though you don't despise anyone, and I ask that you take a break from writing here and take some time for yourself.

Posted by Now on November 16, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The actions of these No on 8 zealots are helping the Yes on 8 cause.

Keep it up!

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lileth said,
"I am merely pointing out that the views the skinhead expressed and the "will of the people" were in alignment. If you choose to own that as being bigoted or racist, don't attribute that to me!"

I am going to assume that you are inteligent. For that reason I will only attempt to explain this one more time!
I am not saying that supporting Prop 8 is a bigoted or racist view. It is wrong to put us in the same group because a punk skinhead supports prop 8. It is clearly an attempt to paint all Prop 8 supporters as racist!
Osama Bin Laden and the Hamas supported President Elect Obama, however it would be hateful and unfair to suggest that anyone who voted for Obama had ANYTHING in common with Bin Laden or the Hamas!
See that was easy!

Common Sense!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love everyone.

Go out and help your neighbors.

:-)

YES on 8

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiMan said;
"Since you brought it up, and to also answer any questions of WWJD, the full context is that as he forgave the adultress, he also said "Go, and sin no more." Forgivening her didn't mean carte blanche to continue sinning."

Well put. Some people have left out the "sin no more" oart of it.
God Loves EVERYONE, so much that just as a parent teaches a child not to participate in distructive behavior, even more so does our God!
Common Sense!

Posted by smithjc on November 16, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lassen's here i come!

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

lloydleb I quite aware that you were quoting a speaker. So I'm in agreement with you. It's hard to monitor clearly the points some may be making. So, since you apparently mistook what I said, let me be more clear. When the speaker, or you, claim that I despise you(a very strong accusation), you will be met with resistance, not just by me, but by many others (if you go back and read the previous posts). You, or your speaker, do not seem to understand that by being in disagreement with you, whatever reasons cited, does not constitute hate, bigotry, intolerance and homophobia. It only serves to alienate yourselves even further. But that's your choice, but I don't have to suffer the consequences for that.

Now, if it makes you feel better that you forgive me for not being in agreement with you, well I'm glad that you are taking the first step to your emotional well being.

Posted by reader52 on November 16, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

once again the ppl who voted against prop 8 dont accept the vote of the ppl of calif. GET OVER IT!!! Live your life style as you wish. We the ppl of calif. have spoken. Stop whinnying

Posted by gasman on November 16, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those of us who voted "yes" on 8 just wanted to keep the tradition of marriage. The gay community got their rights as domectic partners. They still have all the same right just differnt name. We may not like that either but to be far we have to give something, But I will vote over and over again to keep marriage between a man and a women.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a bigoted bunch. No one can take away a right they have from anyone else because it annoys them. I wish all smokers would croak, but I don't try to outlaw smoking.

(Oops. Did Jesus smoke?)

Prop 8 will never stand. This is an abomination.

Straight and Proud.

Posted by mac94 on November 16, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

California has a history of overturning propositions approved by the electorate.

Posted by mac94 on November 16, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, PE is supposed to be taught in the primary grades too, but go to some schools and see how many primary teachers are teaching it.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ajmcmau How does having a different opinion constitute being a bigot?

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look up bigot int he dictionary:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Posted by ironwoman on November 16, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So all of these protesters are bigots?

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being a domestic partner is not the same thing as being married. Let's get that straight. Our goal eventually is to get this at a federal level so that we can have the same rights in all 50 states. I think EVERYONE including same sex couples should be able to get married legally by a CIVIL UNION. So this way it is equal for everyone and then you can go to your church, mosque, temple or where ever and get a religious ceremony. This is now being done in parts of Europe and I think it's a great idea. This way it keeps religion out of the legal part of marriage.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Certainly not. They can soften the word and call themselves anything they want that makes them feel better, and rationalize their argument however they need to support their position.

Everybody does that, to some extent. Some more than others.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ajmcmau OK, thanks for the answer. I already koew what bigot means. Now I can call you a bigot, since I can say your sarcastic remark about Jesus is offensive to me, and that you are a intolerant, theophobic, evolutionalist. I should then click on "Suggest Removal" because you are espousing hateful, disparaging remarks based on religious intolerance.

I'm sure you would disagree, you are only expressing your sincere opinon, which seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, which also makes my point, well, more pointed.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on November 16, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just skimming through the comments, but a few things jump out at me. Like the person who said marriage was not a fundamental right. Well, from a human standpoint, I suppose Christians wouldn't mind being barred from marrying too on that basis. Does anyone seriously doubt that the ability to make a public commitment and declaration of their intent to spend the rest of their lives with someone is not a fundamental right? C'mon.

There seems to be a profound inability on the part of many to separate what is legal from what they don't like. Rights are not a gut reaction; they're the foundation of our entire democracy and republic. In this case, California had conferred the "right" of marriage -- legal marriage -- on all citizens and residents of this state and the YES folks took that right away.

Like it or not, that's what happened. I always wonder whether the "Yes" voters would have voted for the same amendment if it had limited the definition of marriage to a white man and a white woman. Something tells me they wouldn't have.

You all are hung up on gay stuff and so toss out the principles that we hold dear in this country. It's typical, but disappointing. Our educational system really needs to do better in this regard.

Of course, I think the idea of amending the state Constitution by simple popular vote is absurd and this vote proves me right. Voters vote emotionally and send the law right out the window. A pure question of rights should not be subject to popular vote. Period.

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiMan said;

"ajmcmau OK, thanks for the answer. I already koew what bigot means. Now I can call you a bigot, since I can say your sarcastic remark about Jesus is offensive to me, and that you are a intolerant, theophobic, evolutionalist. I should then click on "Suggest Removal" because you are espousing hateful, disparaging remarks based on religious intolerance.

I'm sure you would disagree, you are only expressing your sincere opinon, which seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, which also makes my point, well, more pointed."

Now that is funny, but painfully true. The funny thing is that they name call, espouse hatred to opposing views and call us bigoted.
They don't understand that even though we disagree with them, we respect their view and cherish their right to say it.
God Bless,

Common Sense!

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbca, I like your idea.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojai man, I am neither intolerant or theophobic, but I am an 'evolutionalist'.

My reference to Jesus with respect to smoking was neither intended to offend nor disparage. It was just an afterthought (WWJD? kind of thought) and if you were really offended then I offer my apologies.

Intolerance isn't truly applicable either. I respect your right to marry in a church by a religious leader. I did it once myself. It also means I respect others' right so marry in a manner that is befitting to them. If I was invited to a gay wedding I would proudly attend and celebrate the love they declare for one another, I don't understand it, but I respect it. That is tolerance.

(If you are also invited, you can just say no thank you and get on with your day.)

Their marriage doesn't minimize or threaten mine. That is also tolerance too.

Why are we even arguing the point? Rodney King was no philosopher, but when he asked 'why can't we all just get along' it made me think.

Posted by tathiba1 on November 16, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the owners of Lassens gave $30,000 to Yes on H8, they have seen the last of me.
I have been shopping at Lassens for over 15 years.
I don't care who the employees of Lassens give contributions to, or who they support.
I refuse to let someone be able to use profits from my purchases at Lassens to be able to contribute to what I believe as a HATE cause.
Only wish that they had the guts to put up a sign in the store window to really show their support of this H8 Prop.
Any suggestions of a new store for me to shop at?

Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

robbca - drumsnwhistles - et al: Limits on marriage have ALWAYS been a part of our civilization. Blood relation, age, etc. are used to define marriage everyday. Gays are trying to "steal" the definition of marriage. Marriage is not intended to "include" everyone. Just the opposite. It is intended to be special, limited, and between a man and a woman. It is NOT advanced dating. Marriage is a religious sacrament and the basic foundation of a solid society. Gay marriage is not normal - period. To allow anything and anyone to marry makes marriage meaningless. As the "kids" of gay couples grow up, There is nothing more selfish than gay couples "having" kids.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistles You said "Does anyone seriously doubt that the ability to make a public commitment and declaration of their intent to spend the rest of their lives with someone is not a fundamental right?" Good point, one of the best I've read. Same sex couples do have that ability at this time.

I do disagree with the rest of your argument, though. The US and State Constituition are approved with the blessings of the people. We elect representatives, and give them the authority to make laws and ratify amendments.

What took place was not democratic process, but a judicial ruling. The people of California passed Prop 22, which was deemed unconstitutional by 4 appointed judges. These judges subverted the democratic process, what we hold dear. Prop 8 was a reaffirmation of what the majority of voters to also be held dear.

I actually find that your concluding statement that you find the simple majority vote absurd, that decisions are emotionally driven. I see your point, but it was that emotion driven process that gave birth to this nation. Nobody wanted a Revolutionary War, but when King George declared opponents to his decrees were to be tried for treason, that is what pushed the Colonists over the point of no return and the democratic process, including how the amendments can be ratified.

It seems that you were somewhat contradictory there.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tathiba1;

Whole Foods market sells many of the same type of products.

I don't mean the Lassen's any harm, I'm sure they are lovely people. But they should have known better than to take sides on a such a volatile issue. (El Pollo Loco should have known better too). Their customers from all sectors of society can speak with their wallets as well as bumper stickers and placards. Lassens will be OK since there are a few more people that voted yes on 8 than no, and not all No voters are going to withhold their patronage. I might.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ajmcmau I was not offended by your Jesus remark, so no apologies is necessary (at least to me that is). I was just using that to drive mny point that most, but not all, of the Prop 8 opponents always inject terms to demonize supporters. So I just spun it back, that's all. When the No on 8'ers realize that the name calling and offensive remarks are hurting there cause, and engage in a meaningful dialogue, they will find less resistance. I don't think this will ever happen, because they just don't seem able to accept that people disagree with same sex marriage, and not strictly because of religious reasons.

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Graesan - so based upon what you are saying people who dont believe in the religious sacrament of marriage should not be allowed to be married as well like atheists.

What you are saying is the religious view of marriage. I keep taking about equality not about religion.

All of you people who support this discriminatory proposition sound like the same people who were in favor of not having interracial marriage.

How is it selfish for a same sex couple to have kids?

What is very selfish are the drug addicts, alcoholics and people like that to have kids. What is also selfish are all the men that go to church on sundays, go home to their wife and kids all the time but once in a while the hook up with their gay secret lover they met online.

To provide a warm, loving home to kids is the most selfless thing that anyone could do regardless of sexual orientation.

Posted by smithjc on November 16, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

let's talk about intolerance of other peoples' beliefs and rights to express those beliefs. i had to go out of town for the week proceeding the election, and i left one of my vehicles parked in front of my house. when i returned on the night of 11-4, i found that someone had stolen my "yes on 8" sticker from my vehicle. apparently the right to expression extends only to those who subscribe to the beliefs systems of the leftist whack jobs.

Posted by robbca on November 16, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

smithjc - That is awful that someone stole your sticker. No matter how I feel about the subject. I never took one bumper sticker off anybody's car or pulled up even one Yes on 8 sign. Regardless of how wrong I think this proposition was people still have the right in our country to have bumper stickers and signs on their property expressing their beliefs.

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

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/art...

"... It is now generally recognized that many of the most fundamental principles of Old Testament law are expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis. This applies to the laws on food, sacrifice, the sabbath as well as on sex. Genesis 1 repeatedly insists that God created plants, fish, birds, and other animals to breed 'according to their kind'. God created the different plants and animals to reproduce according to their own particular type. Hence the law forbids any mixed breeding or acts that might encourage it (Lev 19:19; Dt 22:9-11). The worst case of mixed breeding is described in Gen 6:1-4) and that prompted the flood.

When Genesis comes to man's creation, it states that God deliberately created mankind in two sexes in order that he should 'be fruitful and multiply'. This is the first command given to man and is repeated after the flood; contrast the gods of Babylon who introduced various devices to curtail man's reproduction. In that homosexual acts are not even potentially procreative, they have no place in the thinking of Genesis 1. Nor do they fit in with Genesis 2. There the lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.

It therefore seems most likely that Israel's repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation. God created humanity in two sexes, so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Woman was man's perfect companion, like man created in the divine image. To allow the legitimacy of homosexual acts would frustrate the divine purpose and deny the perfection of God's provision of two sexes to support and complement one another. St Paul's comment that homosexual acts are 'contrary to nature' (Rom 1:26) is thus probably very close to the thinking of the Old Testament writers. ..."

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/art...

Posted by janusjuris on November 16, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is noted that this thread seems to be the winner in comments on todays Star so this subject is HOT! As a 'bible thumper' (probably, as referenced by a previous poster since I voted yes on 8, although I have never read a bible) it is because no-one likes change FORCED upon them, especially with the segment of folks who (gawd forbid I defend them) link thier identity and patriotism to the ROOTS that this country was founded in: you cannot almost blame them (me included) for seeing their country "go down the tubes" with all sectors of their identity and security as a country on a daily basis! Probably EVERYONE needs to calm down, take a deep breath, and let things and time sort themselves out. JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ if you please!
Nastiness and violence close the DIALOGUE!!!

Posted by chumash1962 on November 16, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

let it go people you lost

Posted by JusticeEquality1213 on November 16, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Keith Olbermann said it very well:
"If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world."

It's just sad that so much money has been wasted getting this on the ballot, campaigning for and against it, and so much will have to be spent to overturn it; and yes, like Romer v. Evans, it will be overturned. Imagine if all of this money had been spent on projects to alleviate poverty instead.... What a better world it will be when we all overcome our prejudices.

Posted by venturadude on November 16, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gay Vandals suck!

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojai man I am pleased that we can have a reasonable discussion, at least among ourselves.

But I have to disagree with you. I truly believe that the opposition to same sex marriage is almost entirely based on religion. Just read the posts.

Until this country becomes the Christian Republic of America, the constitution and the bible ought to be held in separate hands. We cannot forsake one for the other, but the bible should never subrogate the constitution. I am not an expert on government, but that is in my opinion based on study of early American history, what the separation of church and state intended. The early Americans knew their oppressive religious heritage, and knew that democracy is already too complicated to let religion into the mix. We can still be Christians, but we are Americans, too.

I feel that all marriages are a civil union as a basis, and a religious sacrament an addition to that base.

Question...If I was married by a justice of the peace instead of our pastor, would I be considered not married or less married? And by whom? And why should they have any say in my marriage?

Posted by dairyclown on November 16, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow!! Such Hate!

Posted by mac94 on November 16, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good question, ajmcmau, if I'm only married in the courthouse is that then a civil union? not a marriage?

Posted by johnnsc on November 16, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is time that we start taxing the politically-active churches of the religious right. That way Man's Law will prevail.

Posted by lthrnek on November 16, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it always me that has to be tolerant?????

Posted by Lilith on November 16, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Domestic Partners do not get automatic tenancy in common for homes they have purchased together - married people do.
Domestic Partners do not automatically get their partner's pension when they die.
Domestic Partners do not automatically receive their partner's Social Security benefits upon death.
Domestic Partners are taxed as single individuals.
There are hundreds more rights that married couples enjoy and often take for granted that Domestic Partners just don't get, although we are held financially liable for one another.
STOP SAYING THAT DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP IS THE SAME AS MARRIAGE - IT JUST ISN'T TRUE!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JusticeEquality1213 To answer your, or Keith Olberman's question, my repsonse is unintended consequences. If you look above, I've already laid out my polygamy argument, so I won't go all over it again, other than to say that it opens the door for all kinds of untraditional marriages, and that the Mormons had their religious rights violated by the government outlawing polygamy, if regulating marriage is unconstitutional. Would Warren Jeffs then become a political prisoner?

Another unintended consequence argument is the infringment of sincerly held religious beliefs. The ripple effect is tremendous. Already there are cases of where medical professionals are being sued by same sex couples who want artificial inseminations or dispensing birth control pills. If it is against their religion, how can they be forced to do so? The case down in, I think it's Oceanside, is a good example. The doctor gave them referrals to clininc that would do it, but he wouldn't. There are other resouces available without forcing and possibly criminalizing someones convictins. Aren't their 1st Amendment rights being violated?

Are we going end up like Canada, where it is considered a hate crime to teach the Bibles position regarding homosexulaity?

We claim to embrace diversity, and even celebrate it. We have cultures living here in the US that in their native country, minor children have arranged marriages. So, aren't we discriminating against them by saying they can't do that here? If they are naturalized citizens, are we then not violating their rights?

I mentioned Playboy and Hustler fights for "freedom of expression" rights. What was once deemed innocent photos of half naked women is now a multi-billion dollar industry that exploits women and children.

Some of the pro same sex arguments I've read in previous threads point to the fact that other countries allow it. OK, but there is greater number of countries whose culture believes that dogs are a great source of protein. Here, it's against the law. Who to say I can't eat a dog, epecially if the taste makes me happy, and preventing me from doing so violates my right to the "...pursuit of happieness?" We eat cows don't we?

There are probably a host of other unintended legal ramifications that I have failed to mention. These would reverberate not just into the public sector, but the private sector as well.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy, once again I beg to differ. Your argument about unintended consequences doesn't work for me.

Every law that gets passed anymore seems to have unintended consequences because that is how the much of the law profession makes their money...exploiting them on behalf of special interests.

My favorite example is the one a long time ago that allowed the referendum process that puts all of these nasty propositions on the ballet every election. (Even ones that presume the electorate has the direct authority to modify the state constitution.) We need another law that requires no-spin no-b.s. advertisements of these propositions. It really frustrates me to see the political ads that say that some proposition is about something other than what it really is. (I'm not talking about Prop 8 specifically, it was really all of them this time, and usually is all of them.)

Of course the legal profession, the authors of the proposition that allows the ridiculous victimless class action suits they bring, will exploit that, too. They can't help it. Cha-ching.

No disrespect to real lawyers, I have one in the family and though I tease him mercilessly, he does important work and I respect what he does.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ajmcmau Civil dialogues rock!

Many Biblical influences are written into the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Many of the signatories were clergymen, maybe teaching at Cambridge. Harvard, Princeton or Yale. Not all were, certainly, but they had a voice in what was written, at Jefferson penned them so eloquently. Yes, they were extremely concerned about the establishment of a National Church, similar to the Church of England, and I thank God for that. :-)

I agree that the Founding Fathers had a vision, but due to the influences of the culture of that time, plus the Biblical infleunces, I rather doubt that they would be supportive of same sex marriages. I doubt they ever intended hardcore porn sites to be available on library computers, accomplished by "free speech" fights.

That many people based their voting decision to vote yes on 8 is true, but many voted for it for other reasons, and some voted with a combination, I being one of them.

As far as your marriage vows and who officiated it, if you chose a religious ceremony before God, and made a vow in His presence, it's 2 fold, a legally binding contract with the earthly as well as heavenly. If you chose a justice of the peace, mayor or even ships captain, it's an equally binding legal contract, and God is expecting you to live up to your vows, whether you invited him or not. God takes promises very seriously.

It's interesting that you should this up. I know a couple who had a combination Hindu and Chumash ceremony. They had their friends witness it, made their vows to each other, did the sweat tent thing, and have tatoos on their arms as wedding bands. I've often wondered what the bride would do if they should ever break up, which I hope they don't, and she spends the rest of her life with the tatoo depicting her and her husband engaging in a steamy sex act.

Why should they have a say? Only because you asked them to. If you don't want them to have a say, the current approach is get a legal binding agreement regarding personal and shared property, have a commitment ceremony and enjoy your partner.

It's interesting that you should mention this. I know a couple who had a combination Hindu and Chumash ceremony. They had their friends witness it, made their vows to each other, did the sweat tent thing, and have tatoos on their arms as wedding bands. I've often wondered what the bride would do if they should ever break up, which I hope they don't, and she spends the rest of her life with the tatoo depicting her and husband engaging in a steamy sex act.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ajmcmau I agree with you about lawyers, but I do so very carefully, like looking over my shoulder right now, because my wife's family are lawyers, with some becoming judges, dating back 4 generations.

I know my argument about eating dogs is extreme, but it just accentuates that what we deem unpalatable now may not be tomorrow, and using forceful means to accomplish an agenda only tends to create greater resistance.

Quickly, post, post, post.

Posted by del on November 16, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would seem the yes on 8 folks are out in force going about their Sunday preaching, their typical Sunday hypocrisy.

Posted by ajmcmau on November 16, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy, I think if ALL of the rights and privleges the law extends to married heterosexuals applied to homosexuals, this could be reduced to a semantical argument. But there is inequality between marriage and civil union, other posters have detailed them, and I believe what they say.

Call it anything you want, but depriving the rights and privileges of one segment of the population is simply discrimination.

Here is another thought before my wife hides my keyboard, women fought for and earned equal rights (most of the time; a whole different argument for which I have no time now!), so since men and women are equal, the marriage of same sex partners is just haggling over body parts.(Sound like a Gilbert and Sullivan finale.) Lawyers could have a zillion dollar payday with that. Gotta go, she's getting really testy with me... DISCOSURE: aj is her screen name..I used it today because I didn't have my own and my views may not be the same as hers. (they rarely are)

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fortunatly for me, my wife is watching Monk, so I'm currently safe.

"Call it anything you want, but depriving the rights and privileges of one segment of the population is simply discrimination." I read this as reinforcing my point that the lawyers can then represent the Mormon's, as well as anyone else, to have polygamy reinstated.

Nice chatting with you and have a good night, Mr. and Mrs. ajmcmau.

Posted by mishie358 on November 16, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

people that voted yes on prop 8 seem not to understand that we as americans are singling out a group of people for what they are!!! Now I understand why we have so mush hate in our lives.. Prop 8 is unfair. People should have the freedom to marry who they wish if they love someone what is wrong with that at lest they have some one to care and love..Americans are surly selfish people I guess we should all go back to the time when black and women were treated different and I am sure alot of people are pissed because our new president elect is Black.. Every one that voted Yes on prop 8 must not know or even care to know a family that are gay how sad because my friends that are gay and have familys are better then some of the familys with traditional marriages there childen are so well rounded and understanding how sad that a church funded the yes for this prop but there fundemental group of LDS think it is Ok to have many wifes ..Strange we din't think that is wrong Humm . Plus what ever happened to separation of church and state quite funny how this was funded by a church .........I still think it is wrong to single out a group of people for what they believe I sure hope they over turn this.... and the church minds it own business not the states.oh and I am a Catholic but I don't vote yes because my church said to I voted No because it is WRONG

Posted by jamaro099 on November 16, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: " I read this as reinforcing my point that the lawyers can then represent the Mormon's, as well as anyone else, to have polygamy reinstated."

Ojaiguy, NO segement of the population can marry muliptile partners so there is not discrimination. In the case of marraige between two people, SOME people cannot marry the ONE person they choose to marry while other people can marry the ONE person they want to.

Again, since NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, it is not the same as the case we have here, where SOME peole can marry their PERSON of choice while others cannot.

Posted by xrl650 on November 16, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If marriage is a sacred religious ceremony, at what point did the churches share this function with government? If government has a roll in a sacred religious ceremony (marriage) shouldn't it be available to all individuals?

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi jamaaron999,
you said;
"Ojaiguy, NO segement of the population can marry muliptile partners so there is not discrimination. In the case of marraige between two people, SOME people cannot marry the ONE person they choose to marry while other people can marry the ONE person they want to."

Why do you decide marriage can only allow ONE person to marry ONE person? See you have standards too that you feel is appropriate to the understanding of marriage.

"Again, since NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, it is not the same as the case we have here, where SOME peole can marry their PERSON of choice while others cannot."

But since NO man straight or gay is allowed to marry another man, and NO woman straight or gay is allowed to marry another woman, it is identical!

Common Sense!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 16, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The argument that is presented is that the government cannot, or should not regulate marriage, regardless of sex. That is the opponents of Prop 8, not mine. By that argument, it can also be said that the government cannot regulate how many times a person can be concurrently married. The precedence has been set by the government prohibitting Mormons from practicing polygamy. By stating that same sex marriage is unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, then so is polygamy based on the infringement and establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendments. Although not currently in practice, polygamy can easily be argued as unconstitutional using the same arguments that same sex marriage. To prohibit is discriminatory against a segment of the population who believes in it. In other words, unintended consequences.

Although it's not a moot point, we aren't even at this stage...yet. This is still a state issue, and the state constitution allows the process that took place...twice.

Mishie you said "Americans are surly selfish people I guess we should all go back to the time when black and women were treated different and I am sure alot of people are pissed because our new president elect is Black.." Most blacks, 70%, vote in favor of prop 8.

Posted by Tom_Johnston on November 16, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I did try to read through the posts but its just about polemics. Ho Hum.

The reality I think is that this is far more gradual shift in public opinion.

The issues of black/white racism in all it's ugly forms, including miscegenation, have taken a course of better than 40 years to overcome. The military became integrated in the late 1940's and 1950's. Landmark decisions and policy shifts occured throughout the 1950's, 1960's and '70's.

Even then it took some time for things to settle down to now where people watch TV fluff like "Dancing with the Stars" and see black and white dancing, even dirty dancing. What was shocking has become mundane.

It takes time. Younger generations are clearly not as hung up about these issues that concern older generations.

Prop 22 passed some 60 to 40. Prop 8 lost what...52 to 48??

Change is a coming, it takes time, a generation or so maybe, but come it will.

I have no doubt that in say, 20 to 30 years folks will look back at this and wonder what the fuss was all about.

Posted by oldteacher on November 16, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just on a rational level, a civil union between gays is only recognized by states which have the same laws on their books. So, if a gay couple travelled to a state which did not recognize civil unions, had a car crash, and one member ended up in the hospital, the other would not be allowed in because he/she would not be considered "family."

And, again, no one has the religious right to affect anyone else's civil rights. This is not a theocracy- you would need to go to Iran to find one of those. You don't like gays, ignore them. Their getting married is none of your business. No one in this country is the Ayatollah. And that includes all 50 governors and the president. We are a state and a nation ruled by laws.

As to a "vote" being the be-all end-all, plenty of Propositions have been voted in and then tossed out by judges. That is the job of judges, after all. They judge. Especially on constitutional issues. They even toss out bills signed into law by governors and presidents. That is their job, and it does not make them "activist." It makes them dedicated. Just imagine that someone in the great "non-White majority" state of, oh, say, California passed a law affecting oh, say, you, a white person. And it was unconstitutional. Wouldn't you then be happy to have an "activist" judge to affirm YOUR rights?

As to demonstrators, since when is demonstrating illegal or bad? Seems to me we would still have no Civil Rights or Voting Rights acts if we didn't have that right. I seem to recall demonstrating for the right of minorities to live anywhere they wanted in 1964 here in California. Is it too bad that is legal now? Do you hate me for doing so?

bigot |ˈbigət|
noun
a person who is bigoted : religious bigots. See note at zealot .
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin.

bigoted |ˈbigətid|
adjective
obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 16, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojaiguy, many arguments have been presented for and against prop 8. However, the legal question that is emerging, the one I am arguing is whether or not it is discriminatory.

Laws that ban some people from engaging in activities and actions because of race, gender, etc. have been deemed discriminatory. Since everyone is banned from marrying multiple partners at once, there is no discrimination based on that criteria.

Prop 8 does amount to discrimination because women have certain choices on who to marry while men do not and vice versa...... if you allow this, then this opens the door to say women can choose certain professions that men cannot and vice versa....white women can marry certain race/ethinicity that other women cannot...so on and so forth.

By contrast, nobody can marry multipile partners at once, just like nobody can go 150mph on the freeway just because they want to, nobody can buy gasoline and not pay the federal taxes just because they don't want to.

Posted by terryt6666 on November 16, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ALL THIS FUSS OVER A SILLY LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SINCE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO RECOGNIZE A RELIGION ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION THEN WHY IS IT DOING SO BY ALLOWING PROP 8 TO STAND...IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN ONE DECIDES TO GET HITCHED THEY CAN EITHER GO TO A CHURCH FOR A CEREMONY OR GO BEFORE A JUDGE. THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY NO WAY BUT THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT NOR CAN IT LEGALLY BE FORCED TO NOT GRANT THAT RIGHT FOR SOMEONES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

Posted by Vox on November 16, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These protests are now old and will eventually lead to negative fews of homosexuals as zealous and intolerant.

The anti-African American sentiment, while currently subdued, still exists among the homosexuals. It is readily apparent when the organizers of these protest need to remind the organizers not to use derogatory names about the Black population. Also, go check out websites like "queer.com" to see the venom towards Blacks.

Screaming at little kids on their way to Sunday school, scaring them with over-the-top screams and wails, while cursing their faith, is also out of control.

Intimidating those who gave either their money or time to the vote yes on 8 cause is a dangerous move and will backfire. Most voted for 8 and the idea of being intimidated because they did subverts the secret ballot and voting one's conscience and just in very poor taste.

The public will grow tired of this very soon, much like they did with the illegal immigrants were marching with the flags of other countries. Any future vote will be more like the original proposition 22 with 60% of the voters favoring marriage only between one man and one woman. It is already happening.

Posted by oldteacher on November 16, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vox: Homosexuals are being discriminated AGAINST. It is not THEIR intolerance that is at issue.

Homosexuals are no more or less bigoted than any other group. Their cultural likes and dislikes are entirely different than their DNA- driven sexual orientation.

A secret ballot is a secret ballot, unless you choose to make your voting choice known.

The public is clearly getting more liberal, as evidenced by my students, who really don't care about sexual orientation. They still have what can be called racial bigotries, but very few of them seem to care about homosexuals. The world is changing, just as it did with race relations and women's rights.

Your feelings do not relate to anyone else's rights.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with VOX

Posted by Nosmo_King on November 16, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is Lassens anything like trader joes? If so, where is it located? I would like to shop there.

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Google Lassen's for the towns. They have a map showing locations in Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and elsewhere. They are closed on Sundays. Open 8-9 M-F.

I haven't gone there too much before. Sort of like an old Berkeley health food store. Not cute like Trader Joes. They take their business seriously. I like more salt in my food than is good for me. Lassen's has cereals and breads that are more wholesome than flavorful. It is a good place to go for special food additives like flax seed, brewer's yeast, and that kind of stuff from my pseudo-hippy days. (It was important to look and eat the part, but I never really went for the idea of dirty clothes and fingernails.) I can kind of "converse" in New Age dietary lingo, and I even tried being a vegetarian for a year to please a lover. But I'm not "fluent" in the vocabulary of this health food culture. Anybody have suggestions on what to buy there?

But, what the heck! I'm going to shop at Lassen's on Monday and like it! I'm sure there is some kind of honey or jam or tofu there that I'm going to enjoy. We need to give the owner some business, so he can donate again on Round 2 of this issue. God bless him!

YES on 8! Shop Lassen's!

Posted by CamFamFour on November 16, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the media needs to go back to school and learn to count. The media reported that 5,000 people participated in a march in San Fransisco yesterday. My son-in-law is a police officer that was there and he said that there were really only about 200 people. So don't believe all the numbers you are reading in the newspaper, they are significantly inflated! The media has a habit of adding zeros to that acutal number of participants to make it sounder "bigger" than it really is.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are a minority.

We will always be a minority.

But, just because we are a minority does NOT mean we are not entitled to EQUAL RIGHTS as everyone else in the USA!

We will fight for those rights until they are a reality!!!

And we fight to make sure no one else is ever a victim of discrimination from our government!!!

GOD BLESSES US AS WE ARE!

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's what Mr. ajmcmaau at 2:33 pm said earlier about Lassen's...that they should have known better...

"I don't mean the Lassen's any harm, I'm sure they are lovely people. But they should have known better than to take sides on a such a volatile issue. (El Pollo Loco should have known better too)."
------------------------------------------------------

So, business owner's should stay out of politics? Is that your advice? Should movie stars also keep their mouths shut and not donate to liberal causes? Oh, I bet you are alright with that.

I'm always amazed at the Hollywood "experts" on the war and the economy. Some of the most vocals experts never went to college, never had a class in economics or political science or even world history. But they know that they are influential, whether they have their facts straight or not. Lots of them can't help themselves--they love the limelight.

And speaking of boycotting stores, let's remember to boycott Starbucks. I stopped buying their coffee at least 2-3 years ago after they put provocative statements and quotes on their paper cups. Several of the quotes were promoting homosexuality. I'm sick of the LBGT in your face agenda. I don't want to think about s*domites first thing in the morning, with suggestive words printed on a paper cup touching my lips. I wrote to Starbucks and complained. I've boycotted them ever since. Children go to Starbucks for their iced drinks. Maybe pro Prop 8 parents should have a talk with their families about this.
----------------------------------------------------
Here is info on the boycott from August 2005
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissi...
----------------------------------------------------
(from the above link dated 8/2005)

It looks like some conservative groups are getting all itchy now that Starbucks has started their "The Way I See It" cup quotes. Baptist Press has run a story today on it.

What's the issue? Well, it seems that Starbucks is pushing the homosexual agenda because cup #43 gives a racy quote on homosexuality. As I read this BP article, I noticed my grande skim 3 pump mocha was being carefully and providentially cradled in cup #43 which reads...

My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short.

- Armistead Maupin, author

Posted by venturajam on November 16, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojai homophobe: I meant church in the general sense of religion interfering with law, not any particular congregation. Truth be told, I was probably picturing the LDS and/or Catholics mostly though. BTW, for someone working from home today, you sure spent a lot of time blogging. Glad you don’t work for me on at least two counts. Here’s to hoping you work for Lassens!

Posted by elephantpower on November 16, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More about Starbucks. Here is a post from that website I referenced at 9:29. A mom tells about her 3rd grader getting his cocoa in one of those cups with quote #43.

Posted by: Wes H | 11/07/2005 at 08:32 AM

I RECENTLY WENT TO STARBUCKS WITH MY 10 YEAR OLD SON. I HAD A LATTE` AND HE HAD A CUP OF COCOA. Nice innocent cocoa for a nice innocent child. A 3rd grader with great reading skills who decided to read his cup. Cup # 43. He says to me "Oh my gosh mom , there`s a BAD WORD on here!!!" He points to the word "DAMN" So I read the cup. YIKES! My 10 year old is now asking me as I`m reading, "Mom what does that mean?" I said " What?" He says "gay, I heard if before but what does it mean?" So I got to explain sexual orientation to my son that day. Blind sided, unprepared, and in a public place.
As to my personal view about everyones` sexual identity I say to each their own Their own way , their own journey and their own set of consequences .Whatever they may be. But these issues should not have to plague the mind of a child who just wanted a cup of cocoa.
I do not object to the freedom of speech exercised on the starbucks cups but I very much object to profanity and sexuality being placed in the hand of my child.
Perhaps Starbucks could get some support from National Literacy Council if they were to get a line of "The way Kid`s see it" cups. With exerpts from child oriented books. Or maybe a cross word or word find?? Or maybe they could stop serving cocoa and post a sign that says adults only.

Posted by Vox on November 16, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep on protesting. Keep screaming at children on their way to Sunday school. Keep whispering among yourselfs how ignorant the Black community is for upholding the views of traditional marriage. Keep making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons, etc who keep true to their faiths. Keep making it difficult for parents waiting until the appropriate age to discuss sex due to sexual orientations/preferences being marched up and down the main streets of cities. Keep on using profane language, intimidating those who disagree, and stepping on the traditional values of many. Keep on protesting, and then watch your once gained goodwill among 48% of the electorate be reduced. Keep on protesting. The rest of the public is watching. Keep on protesting.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:04 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posts by Jeffy from Ventura:

"And we fight to make sure no one else is ever a victim of discrimination from our government!!!"

Like who? Transgender cross-dressers who want to have marriages of 3 or more people? You blow up traditional marriage what's left?

"GOD BLESSES US AS WE ARE!"

You tell "God" who to bless and who to not bless? Are you okay with "God" blessing those people who disagree with your chosen lifestyle? How do you know that "God" agrees with you and not vice versa? You claim to know the mind of
"God" but ignore the words of "God's" commands that are in the Bible? Did "God" change his mind on the rules of man, woman, marriage and sex?

Either you agree or disagree with God's Bible - and you should be man enough to admit it if you do. But you cannot have it both ways and tell "God" who to bless or remake "God" so Jeffy can do his own thing.

Just try and be a man for once and say that "God's" rules don't jive with Jeffy.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 16, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slkrchck - one word: consent. Everything being discussed here assumes the ability and willingness to give it.

Children can't give consent so your argument has no merit.

Posted by jjohnjj on November 16, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a straight, married, father of two. I marched with the demonstrators on Saturday for three reasons:

1) The purpose of a Constitution is to place limits on the powers of government, not to limit the freedom of citizens. Prop-8 is a dangerous precedent that threatens all liberties.

2) The First Amendment prohibits government from "taking sides" in religious disputes. Your church does not hold a trademark or patent on "Marriage". Your church's narrow definition of marriage should not be promoted over my church's broader definition by any action or policy of the government.

3) Civil Unions do not bestow the same legal protection on couples that marriage does. If an employer offers fewer benefits for a "domestic partner" than for a "spouse" then "separate" is definitely not "equal". No American should be treated as second class citizen... even if a majority of voters approves. That's why we have a Bill of Rights, and that's why we have courts of justice.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffy won't be man enough to answer my questions above either. It will be something whiney like - 'hate, hater, discriminate, you hate, blah, blah, blah, hate, yada, yada, yada, GOD BLESS'

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Checkitout -

You have no knowledge of my faith.

You have no right to judge my faith.

I do not promote ANYTHING that would bring harm to ANYONE!!!

You support taking away CIVIL RIGHTS from law abiding AMERICANS!!!

I do not have to prove or justify ANYTHING to you or anyone else!!!

As an AMERICAN I am entitled the EXACT same rights as everyone else!!!

I will fight for those rights and I am not afraid to face bigotry that you promote!!

We shall overcome!!!!

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!!!

GOD BLESSES ALL FAMILIES EQUALLY!

MY LOVE IS EQUAL TO YOUR LOVE!!!

Posted by Vox on November 16, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnjj-

Your argument failed with your quote:

"Your church's narrow definition of marriage should not be promoted over my church's broader definition by any action or policy of the government"

I did not realize there was more than one definition of marriage. I guess you live in the world of what is relative to yourself where nothing is absolute and true. In your world of what is relative to one's self there could be many, many different definitions of marriage according to what feels right at the time. In your world there could be many "truths".

How confusing it must be to teach right and wrong to your children if everything is relative. "Tolerance" over truth, and by definition there can be only one truth.

So, johnjj, whose truth will it be today? Your's, mine, your buddies, your wife's, or your boss's.

Read the Bible and find you what it says about truth, or don't, and just make it up as you go to what makes you feel right.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:53 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VOX -

There is no religious requirement to a civil marriage from our government.

People from ANY religion or no religion at all can enter into a legal marriage.

Religion plays NO PART in our laws.

Our government does not recognize ANY religion over another.....ALL of our faiths are treated EQUALLY by the government.

The government CAN NOT take sides in matters of faith.

This is why our courts WILL find Prop 8 to be in violation of our Constitution.

In fact, the passage of Prop 8 will force the NATION to address the issue of civil rights for same-sex couples and GAY MARRIAGE will be a reality across the USA sooner than later!!!

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU!

ALL FAMILIES ARE CREATED EQUAL!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:55 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am secure with my faith.

I know God blesses me as I am.

I am saved and have no fear of death or diversity!

Only those whose faith is weak allow fear to dictate their lives and try to oppress other people who pose no harm to them or anyone else!!!

The foundation of ignorance and bigotry is irrational fear......address your fears and then see if you can embrace the diversity that God intended in all people!!!

I will pray that you will one day enjoy God's love in your heart.

Today that place is empty and dark.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh little Jeffy,

Vox and johnjj were discussing "churches" and "marriage", not anything "civil", you know, "religionnnnnnnnnnnnnn".

Hope I didn't hurt your wittle feelings. Please don't cry.

Most girls are tougher than you.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

checkitout -

Your disgusting posts continue to prove that your mind is filled with immoral thoughts and immature ideas. You have no moral high ground to stand on in judgment of anyone else.

May God's love find you some day.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffy,

Does "god" listen to you? You sure invoke the name of "God" a lot. How do you know that "God" blesses you the way you are? Really? How do you know?

Oh yeah, you are not a man, or the man is not your role, so you cannot answer questions but only whine.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

checkitout -

It seems you are not educated enough to understand the topic of CIVIL marriage.

Seek out an education....it's never too late!!

May God's love fill your heart someday!!!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by CheckItOut on November 16, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffy,

Does "god" listen to you? You sure invoke the name of "God" a lot. How do you know that "God" blesses you the way you are? Really? How do you know?

Oh yeah, you are not a man, or the man is not your role, so you cannot answer questions but only whine.

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know the No on 8 (which is a misnomer because there is no more yes or no on 8) people keep talking about taking away a right. What right are we taking away?
For all of eternity there was no gay marriage! For 5 months, 4 judges overruled the will of 61% of Californian's, that's 4 Californian's imposing their will over 36 million Californian's!
Yep, the right of self determined democracy was taken away by 4 misguided Califonian's that chose to legislate from the bench.
Californian's then decided by over 52% to continue the eternal held belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
To date there have been 30 support of traditional marriage proposals on ballots around the USA. All 30 have voted to support traditional marriage definitons.

Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

checkitout -

There is no need to discuss this with you anymore.

You are too much of a coward to spew your hate face to face with anyone from the gay community.

I can just dismiss you as uneducated human garbage.

Until you grow up and get educated, there is nothing else to discuss with you.

This GAY CHRISTIAN takes pity on you.

I will pray for your salvation.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram -

That is why it will be all the more sweet when the US Supreme Court rules discrimination against same-sex couples to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The judicial system is an integral part of our government and those CONSERVATIVE judges who ruled gay marriage legal were doing their jobs!!!

The majority DOES NOT have the power to impose discrimination on minorities in this way and it is the express role of the courts to settle these disputes!!!

I will I can see your face when Prop 8 is overturned just as Prop 22 was!!!!

GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS!

Those 18000 same-sex marriages CAN NOT be dismissed or taken away!!!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Romans 1:26-28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

I'm just saying....

Common Sense!

Posted by huntram on November 16, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, now I've done it.. I've let you know the heart of God! How? By reading his Word!

Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 16, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to see your face when Prop 8 is over turned!!!

It would be priceless.....please take a picture!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by 126west on November 16, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you Y folks really want to preserve marriage, ban divorce.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 17, 2008 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

venturajam I'm not too sure if you'll read this, but if you do, I had choices of how to spend my day. Since my wife has to work on Sundays, I could have gone fishing at the lake, but it was too windy to hold my boat in the good spots. I could have sat around and watched football and drank beer, too. Instead I chose to work on a presentation I will be doing this week involving the homeless in Ventura. It's not my fulltime job, but a second part time role that I've been doing for about 12 years.

It's interesting you would label me a homophobe. Homelessness does not distinguish between genders or sexual orientation. It has been my experience through the years that there are many gay/lesbian/bi-sexual homeless folks out there. Some engage in prostitution in order to feed their substance addicitions. But this also is true with some of the hetero female prostitutes.

One of the interesting tendencies that I have observed these years is that the guests that are gay who come to us needing shelter and food always seem to make a point that they are gay, like it makes a difference. We don't ask the question, either on our registration forms or verbally, some just seem to need to make the point. My response is always the same, I shrug my shoulders, because I really don't care if they are gay or straight. On the otherhand, I have kicked guests out of our system for making racial comments directed at minorities, as well as bigotted remarks towards those of different sexual preferences.

You seem to be under the impression that I would discriminate against those whose orientation is different then mine. I can assure you I don't, and neither does the organization I work for. We welcome all who ask us for help.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go get ready for my primary job and join my co-workers, some of whom are gay, and focus the day on helping to save lives in other capaciities.

Have a great day, and be safe.

Posted by oldteacher on November 17, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya know, gays don't have a higher rate of forcible rape than straights. They don't have more multiple marriages than straights (um, what group is known for polygamy? Which church? Yeah, that one. Ironic, ain't it). Gays don't have a higher rate of child abuse than straights. They aren't asking for these rights, just for the right of one person 18 or over to marry another person 18 or over in a civil ceremony. Not in your church. So why are you all upset? Threatened? Psychologists say that homophobes are acting out their latent fear of themselves being homosexual. What do you think? Any truth in that? As for all the religious talk, your religious views are YOUR right. Gays are not taking them away by marrying each other. By the same token, your views should not be allowed to limit anyone else's rights, either religious, civil, or whatever. If you want a totalitarian state, go to a communist country. THIS IS AMERICA. We are free here. Learn to live with it.

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If a civil union does not bestow the same rights as a marriage, maybe people would be better served to try to legally change that? Just a thought.

Posted by yellowdvr on November 17, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yes on 8 is not automaticaly hate. Being mean or belittling someone because there gay is. The no on 8 crowd say there rights are being taken away. The rights of 52 precent of californians will be taken away if this is overturned. This state has voted it down for the second time.voters have spoken.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those judges were doing their JOBS....you are just too ignorant to know much about our legal system or our government.

Those judges upheld the Constitution when they overturned Prop 22!!!

It is what they were bound to do in order to protect the rights of ALL people, not just the ignorant majority.

As AMERICANS we are all entitled to EQUAL RIGHTS!

GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yellow -

What rights are you losing if gay people are allowed to marry?

What did you win when Prop 8 passed?

The rights of those 18000 same-sex couples who married can not be taken away by Prop 8!!!

California has to honor those LEGAL MARRIAGES!!

GOD BLESSES ALL FAMILIES EQUALLY!

Posted by Cat on November 17, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 16, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, O_P_Rockwell - Your holier-than-thou attitude is what makes people hate you so much. What exactly is all your praying going to do for the victims of the fires do??? Is it going to rebulid their homes??? Is it going to give them the money they need to rebuild and survive for the next how many months??? Is it going to replace their valuable and invaluable family photos and memories??? Are you opening your home to families so they can live with you?? NO!!! The only thing praying does is make YOU feel better. A checkmark in your god-book so you can earn your Brownie points. Just because you "pray" doesn't make you better than me.....

Posted by ushldcallme on November 17, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Traditional marriage as envisioned and patterned from our Creator's design, however imperfect, is still profitable in all aspects, under all circumstances. They form strong families, a basis for a strong society, and its main object is procreation. It promotes healthy and positive environment for their children. This is a precious gift from God, our Creator, and preserves mankind.

The love expressed within the confines of marriage as our Creator blessed us is, "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

We cannot redefine marriage. Even in any kind of battery: UNLIKE POLES (negative and positive) ATTRACT, while LIKE POLES REPEL. Science supports this concept.

Not accepting this reality leads to complacent, egoistic, egotistic (or egotistical), overweening, pompous, prideful, proud, self-conceited, self-important, self-satisfied, smug, stuck-up, vain, vainglorious attitude towards society as whole.

Posted by elephantpower on November 17, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shop Lassen's 8 am to 9 pm today. Tell them why.

Tell them you are sorry that there is a boycott against them in the pro-gay community. Tell them you are a supporter of the owners' right to express their religious beliefs through campaign donations, and they should not be afraid of the violent protesters. We will rally round Lassen's and protect them. And we will Shop Lassen's!

YES on 8!

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It shouldn't matter what the bible says. That's why there's a seperation of church and state. I don't practice your religious mythology, so if I were a homosexual, why should I have to abide by your laws of marriage in the eye of your god?! And protect traditional marriage?! If we hadn't changed the view of your 'traditional marriage' 50 years ago, blacks and white still wouldn't be able to marry each other. I'm sure all you bigots who want to protect this marriage would still vote against blacks having any rights if given the chance. Go ahead and keep your marriages, which will fail and end up in the hands of divorce anyway....

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think exposure to homosexuality will also influence them to be gay."

This is, hands down, the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. You probably think you can get AIDS from sharing the same cup, too.

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The owners of Lassens are mormon. Just a little information no the intolerance of the church of LDS....ugh.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You can not indoctrinate someone to be gay!!!

It just is not possible.

Children raised by gay parents turn out to be the same as children raised by heterosexuals!

And as for grouping pedophiles with gay men, that is a bald faced LIE!!!

Most sexual predators who prey on children are HETEROSEXUAL....no matter what the gender of their victims happens to be.

It is ignorance and bigotry like this that makes protests necessary!!

We will continue to fight against IGNORANCE and HATE!!!

We will continue to form families and raise our children!!!

And we will fight for EQUAL RIGHTS until those rights are a reality!!!

GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS!

Posted by lakerboy805 on November 17, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They god they don't protest in Oxnard...

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems a number of people are claiming Prop 8 violates the separation of church and state without understanding what that concept really means. It means that people who follow a certain religion have no more authority than those who don’t believe in that religion, but it also means the followers have no less authority. An atheist, an agnostic, a Catholic, and a Mormon go to the voting booths on November 4. How many votes does each person receive? One. Religious followers have as much right as anyone else to make their opinions heard, whether it is through newspaper editorials, demonstrations, or the polls. Everyone votes, a proposition is passed or defeated, the issue goes to the courts if necessary, then the proposition is either enacted or not. This is the democratic process. It is not totalitarianism, just the opposite.

It seems some would like voters to fill out a questionnaire asking why they voted the way they did, and if the answer is because of religious principles, that vote would not be counted. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and it would be the authoritarian state that you claim to be against. You say it’s hypocritical for people to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow. Well, it’s also hypocritical to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you choose to support. The Bill of Rights protects all of us. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” When basing an argument on the First Amendment, use the whole thing and not just the part of it that suits your wishes.

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

8 WILL be overturned, not because anyone is a sore loser... is that what you call women who insisted on their RIGHT to vote?? Sore losers? I call it EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

This shouldn't be a matter of opinion of gays, or religious practices. This is about constitutional rights to equality, and will be fought for until won.

It was truly amazing to walk over the bridge and see hundreds of people supporting Prop. 8 being overturned!! We cannot and will not be silenced!!

Posted by lakerboy805 on November 17, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets also stop buying at stores and restuarants that hire illegal aliens...

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Night: I'm pretty sure it also means is that the government shall establish no nationl religion and that legislation and public policy shall not be based upon any religion's ideals.

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The separation of church and state limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters. Prop 8 isn't violating these terms, but when most people who vote yes on 8 make their battles with religious statements, a red flag should be raised. They don't want to get married in your church.

Posted by mamaof2 on November 17, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HumptyDumpty: your children are going to be exposed to gays no matter how hard you try to keep them away, the same goes for drugs and violence and sex. all you can do is teach your kids what is expected of them and what you feel is right. but do not shelter to much because trust me they will run wild when they are released from your shelter and the outcome will be very shocking to you.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 17, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL @ Jeffy "boy" with the repeat button:

"Hate", blah, blah, blah, "human garbage", blah, blah, blah, "gay christian", "know the mind of God", blah, blah, blah, GOD BLESS

Same spew, no facts, no higher thought processes,....only the script that is in front of Jeffy.

Posted by CheckItOut on November 17, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffy, who claims to be a "gay chritian" will not produce any scriptures from the Bible that state that his sexual lifestyle is condoned by God. Now there is a coward!

Google the Bible and find out what God thinks about your homosexual lifestyle, not what little Jeffy thinks...

Posted by yellowdvr on November 17, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No Jeff they dont, And hopefully they won't. Gay marriage is not the law. Again the voters have spoken. the ban should stand.

Posted by robbca on November 17, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by HumptyDumpty on November 17, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think exposure to homosexuality will also influence them to be gay."

This is one of the most ignorant things that I have ever heard. Your kids cannot be influenced to be gay. You are born that way. I was born gay and tried many times to be straight but was miserable. When I accepted myself for who I was I have had a much happier and peaceful life.

You also said that most male pedophiles are gay. Where did you get your facts from? Again very ignorant statement.

This reminds me of the Yes On 8 campaign full of lies and misinformation.

Posted by Vox on November 17, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interestingly,

JeffinVentura posts:

"Most sexual predators who prey on children are HETEROSEXUAL....no matter what the gender of their victims happens to be."

???

So, a man that preys on little boys (like many of them do) is not really into little boys but into females?

No, "Jeff", a man that preys on little boys is into little boys (ie MALES that are young)

It seems you agree that child molestors are bad, if they are heterosexual, but it is almost like you are apologizing for these monster child molestors who happen to be homosexual and are into boys.

Is there no wrong homosexuals can do, even to innocent children? You are disturbed and disturbing.

Posted by Vox on November 17, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep on protesting. Keep screaming at children on their way to Sunday school. Keep whispering among yourselfs how ignorant the Black community is for upholding the views of traditional marriage. Keep making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons, etc who keep true to their faiths. Keep making it difficult for parents waiting until the appropriate age to discuss sex due to sexual orientations/preferences being marched up and down the main streets of cities. Keep on using profane language, intimidating those who disagree, and stepping on the traditional values of many. Keep on protesting, and then watch your once gained goodwill among 48% of the electorate be reduced. Keep on protesting. The rest of the public is watching. Keep on protesting.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gay people are a permanent part of society!!!

You will not get rid of us or silence us!

We will fight for EQUAL RIGHTS and we will not stop until we have them!

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Keep making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons, etc who keep true to their faiths."

We're not making fun of you because of your faith. You chose to practice your religious mythology. Good for you. But if your faith is not the same as a homosexual, then why should they have to abide by your laws of marriage?

"Keep making it difficult for parents waiting until the appropriate age to discuss sex due to sexual orientations/preferences being marched up and down the main streets of cities."

Just because a child sees a protester who was denied the right to get married, does not mean you have to discuss "sex" with them. All you have to tell them is that mommy and daddy voted for a proposition that denied two people who love each other the right to get married. That mommy and daddy voted Yes on Hate. That mommy and daddy helped insue pain in peoples hearts, when it had nothing to do with them at all.

"Keep on using profane language, intimidating those who disagree, and stepping on the traditional values of many."

Profane language is a two way street here. Nobody is innocent. And they're not stepping on anybody's traditional values. They're not denying straights anything. I am not a homosexual, but I will fight for basic human rights. I will fight with my friends. No matter who is watching.

Posted by mdquick01 on November 17, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This will again be overturned. It is nothing but a form of discrimination. Also it is against the law for a religious organization to be involved in a political campaign. The Mormon church was the biggest supporter of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. I urge you all to go to the IRS website and download form 13909 and send it to the IRS. It is callled the Tax Emempt Organization Complaint. If enough of these are sent to the IRS they will be forced to investigate the Morman church. They have violated their tax emempt status. They were bringing their followers to California to walk precints and spread their HATE agenda. Now we need to work on their tax exempt status. We will prevail in the end. The voters can not vote to add discrimination into the California State Constitution. It is against the law and the California Supreme Court again will find that Same Gender marriage is legal and that the Constitution can not & will not be changed to add marriage is between a man and a woman. Go to this website http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5... and sign this petition. It is a petition to get a Proposition on the 2010 ballot to stop divorce. The gay community wants to protect marriage. (We know what it means to have to work so hard to get it we don't take it for granted)How would you YES on 8 people like to know that when you say I Do that it is for life? I bet you would not like that. I do not mean all of the heterosexual population feels this way so don't get me wrong. Love does not discriminate against anyone. Everyone has the right to marry the one they love. Have a good day and remember Love has no boundaries.

Posted by CALA on November 17, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SSDD

Posted by yellowdvr on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Md the mormon churh along with all the other churches had every right to fight this. There tax exempt status wont change. The majority of american disagree with you. This won't be force fed to the majority of americans.

Posted by yellowdvr on November 17, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Md marriage Should be for life.

Posted by jdub17 on November 17, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sore Losers. The majority has spoken. And the majority has spoken not only in California, but also in Florida and Arizona! They also passed State Constitutional bans on gay marriage. Arkansas passed measure to prevent same-sex couples from adopting.

Gays have equal rights as registered domestic partners. Now they want it to be defined as marriage. This is an attempt to normalize their lifestyle and to make society accept their choices. But there is a fundamental difference; a gay marriage will never be normal because that is not how God created marriage or if you don't believe in God, then look to societal stnadards of marriage for the past 5,000 years...doesn't fit the paradigm. And the gay agenda to make people accept them is fundamentally flawed b/c sincere acceptance can never be gained through bullying tactics or propoganda schemes.

Remember when the gay agenda was all about tolerance? Now it is about acceptance. The agenda is moving further to the left, and the passage of 8 was the voters way of saying that it has gone too far.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

natieg said: The owners of Lassens are mormon

=============

If you would like to know more about the Mormons this is the place. http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Valeria'S said: 8 WILL be overturned, not because anyone is a sore loser... is that what you call women who insisted on their RIGHT to vote?? Sore losers? I call it EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

=====

FYI: The right to vote for women was note gained in the courts but at the ballot box. that is where gay marriage should acquire its rights. It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people not 4 attorneys in robes.

Posted by yellowdvr on November 17, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Notice the headline, hundreds protest prop 8. Guess what thousands upon thousands voted yes on 8.

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Caroldammit wrote:

"Night: I'm pretty sure it also means is that the government shall establish no national religion and that legislation and public policy shall not be based upon any religion's ideals."

Carol - exactly. No single religion is to automatically receive preference over any other religions or over people who don't believe in that religion. Putting propositions to a popular vote assures all people (registered voters, anyway) have a say in the matter.

Posted by jstabratt on November 17, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Get to lassens early.... The lines are freakin LONG..
If they are boycotting, it sure isnt working!!!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mcquick said: This will again be overturned. It is nothing but a form of discrimination. Also it is against the law for a religious organization to be involved in a political campaign.

============

md do you ever discriminate? I bet you do every single day. not all discrimination is bad.

If marriage is truly a civil right then it must be a civil right for all including bisexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, pedophiles and zoophiles, etc. If you withhold marriage from any of these sexual orientations then it too would be discrimination. would you agree or disagree?

Secondly, exactly what law did the Mormon church break?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MDquick I would be happy to sign a petition that put severe limitations on divorce, especially when children are involved. Children would much prefer an intact dysfunctional family over a happy family broken in two. I would not ban divorce altogether because there are times that divorce is legitimate like in the case of physical abuse.

I am certain that most that voted yes on 8 would agree that the divorce rate is way too high because people are too lazy to solve relationship problems and divorce is the lazy coward's way out. Likewise, people need to take more care in making a good selection for a spouse.

Posted by mamaof2 on November 17, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"All you have to tell them is that mommy and daddy voted for a proposition that denied two people who love each other the right to get married. That mommy and daddy voted Yes on Hate. That mommy and daddy helped insue pain in peoples hearts, when it had nothing to do with them at all."

i'm not sure how not allowing someone to get married would hurt there hearts... they can still be together and love eachother, they can still have a commitment ceremony and they can still recieve the same insurance benifits as a spouse would (at least at my job). civil marriage is just a stupid piece of paper and doesnt change much. if people need that in there relationship to feel some type of security in there relationship then they need to re-evaluate the love they have for each other. just my opinion.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

to Nightlight and carol ALL major religions including but not limited to most sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, B'Hai Faith, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastroism, Sihkism hold or teach or regard homosexuality as a sin or something that is not condoned, practiced or encouraged.

Posted by Vox on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

natieG: LOL! Way to spin it: "That mommy and daddy voted Yes on Hate. That mommy and daddy helped insue pain in peoples hearts, when it had nothing to do with them at all."

Hah! "Yes on Hate". Why didn't you just spell it as "H8"? LOL. What a nut! Is that how you talk to children? I know, I know, you choose to scream at children on their way to Sunday school.

LOL! You fit the picture alright! natieG, LOL!

Posted by NowHearThis on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm tired of the liberal news reporting media continued glamorization of this lifestyle, and protest rallies.

This, "voting YES on hate," line is a huge lie. The hateful ones are the homosexuals themselves. They are damaging "pro-Prop 8" businesses who donated money which is their constitutional right. THIS ISN'T HATE? The homosexual activists are the same people who support killing of unborn babies. THIS ISN'T HATE? The homosexuals from all forms of media, the educational system jam their warped behavior down our throats. THIS ISN'T HATE?

Homosexuals are the hateful ones!

Posted by Vox on November 17, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep on protesting. Keep screaming at children on their way to Sunday school. Keep whispering among yourselfs how ignorant the Black community is for upholding the views of traditional marriage. Keep making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons, etc who keep true to their faiths. Keep making it difficult for parents waiting until the appropriate age to discuss sex due to sexual orientations/preferences being marched up and down the main streets of cities. Keep on using profane language, intimidating those who disagree, and stepping on the traditional values of many. Keep on protesting, and then watch your once gained goodwill among 48% of the electorate be reduced. Keep on protesting. The rest of the public is watching. Keep on protesting.

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"to Nightlight and carol ALL major religions including but not limited to most sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, B'Hai Faith, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastroism, Sihkism hold or teach or regard homosexuality as a sin or something that is not condoned, practiced or encouraged."

Good point O_P, this is one reason it can be argued that Prop 8 does not violate the separation of church and state. It is not favoring the ideals of one religion over another, and it is nowhere near trying to establish a state religion. It happens to strike a chord that is common to many religions (as do laws against murder, theft, etc.) and not all people who voted in favor of 8 did so for religious reasons.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We will demand that we get EQUAL RIGHTS and we will not stop protesting until those rights are a reality!!!

GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS!

Posted by natieG on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like you have nothing new to say, Vox. And I don't scream at children on their way to sunday school. I am against filling childrens head with biased views like yours.

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffinventura wrote: You can not indoctrinate someone to be gay!!! - Yes you can

jeffinventura wrote: It just is not possible. - Yes it is

jeffinventura wrote: Children raised by gay parents turn out to be the same as children raised by heterosexuals! - Not enough data supporting this yet

jeffinventura wrote: And as for grouping pedophiles with gay men, that is a bald faced LIE!!! - Gays claim they're born that way, so do pedophiles.

jeffinventura wrote: Most sexual predators who prey on children are HETEROSEXUAL....no matter what the gender of their victims happens to be. - Pedophiles who's victims are the same sex is are exhibiting homosexual behavior. If they also exhibit heterosexual behavior, then they are bi-sexual.

jeffinventura wrote: GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS! - Not if those "rights" go against His law.

Posted by getreal on November 17, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm so sick of this, really! The people voted, yes on 8 won. Get over it! All I have seen since this election is how full of hate and discrimination the no on 8 voters are. All I have seen is the no voters being rude, nasty and confrontational to the yes voters. The no voters are foul mouthed and hateful to others who have an opinion different to theirs. Check out the definition of a bigot because thats what the no voters are turning in to. A business owner is able to freely donate money anywhere he pleases but you choose to discriminate against them. I don't see any yes voters boycotting all businesses that employ gays. The no voters need to change their tune if they plan on accomplishing anything. I have spoken to so many people that voted no and now wish they hadn't because they are sickened by the behavior after the election.

Posted by robbca on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's so funny how this issue is facing the same dilema as interracial marriage did. People are taking about same sex marriage in similar ways people did regarding interracial marriage. Many people religous leaders included felt that interracial marriage was going to destroy our country and morals. Ulitmately it was up to the US Supreme court to decide that issue which is what I feel will happen eventually with same sex marriage.

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mdquick01: I'm not aware of any human law that makes it a crime for "a religious organization to be involved in a political campaign." It would be just as discriminitory to ban churches from lobbying for their political ideals as it is to ban homosexuals from entering into a "marrige" contract with their chosen partner.

jdub: Once again, domestic partnerships DO NOT carry the same rights and responsibilities as marriage.

Night: Yes, voting does allow us to know the "voice of the majority" however, even if the slight majority prefers to discriminate against a segment of the population, it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional or fundamentally opposed to the spirit and ideal of "Equal rights for ALL".

OP: 1st of all, I think you should look up the definitions of the terms you are categorizing as sexual orientation. 2ndly, some of the conditions of marriage eligibility are that each of the 2 participants be competent, consenting, human adults (that means of legal age).

OP: Most children would also prefer ice cream for dinner instead of a nutritious, balanced meal.

Mama: Wouldn't you be hurt if someone said to you that your primary relationship is not valid or deserving of the rights and responsibilities that some other people's relationships are? Civil marriage is more than a piece of paper; it is a binding, legal contract and it changes MUCH!

NowHear & Vox: Some pretty broad generalizations in both of your comments. The same could be said of a small segment of individuals on either side of any issue. Let's not characterize an entire debate by the relatively few mean spirited, profane or violent extremist who sadly exist on both sides.

Vox: Regardless of your tendancy to demonize all who disagree with you based upon the actions of a few, thanks for the encouragement! I will always protest injustice and inequality. I hope that someday, there will no longer be a need to.

Humpty: Wow. Just wow. Thank you for clearly illustrating why Prop.8 became commonly known as Prop. H8.

Get: The hatred and disrespect from both sides makes me sick at heart also. A businessman is free to donate to whatever cause he chooses, and customers are free to patronize whatever establishments they choose, for whatever reasons.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff said: We will demand that we get EQUAL RIGHTS and we will not stop protesting until those rights are a reality!!!

===

What rights are not equal?

Could you please explain what rights you do not have and how they are unequal?

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Night: Yes, voting does allow us to know the "voice of the majority" however, even if the slight majority prefers to discriminate against a segment of the population, it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional or fundamentally opposed to the spirit and ideal of "Equal rights for ALL"."

Carol: You're absolutely correct, and Proposition 8 should be reviewed in court before it is implemented. That is our system of checks and balances at work. My point is that if it is eventually overturned, it should be because it is found to be unfairly discriminatory, not because it violates the separation of church and state.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffinventura wrote: Most sexual predators who prey on children are HETEROSEXUAL....no matter what the gender of their victims happens to be.

====

Jeff could you clarify this statement please.

Are you talking in pure numbers or percentage of population.

what percentage of the heterosexual community are child predators vs what percentage of the homosexual population are child predators.

I will tell you this. 100% of the priests and scout leaders that molested young men were homosexual child molesters.

So there may be a greater number of heterosexual men preying upon young women than there are of homosexual men preying upon young men. but the question is which group has a larger percentage of child molesters?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol said: OP: 1st of all, I think you should look up the definitions of the terms you are categorizing as sexual orientation. 2ndly, some of the conditions of marriage eligibility are that each of the 2 participants be competent, consenting, human adults (that means of legal age).

OP: Most children would also prefer ice cream for dinner instead of a nutritious, balanced meal.

==

I have looked up the definitions, have you. I thought the major argument that it was discrimination to deny you the right to marry the one that you love.

You need to realize that if it is a civil right for one it is a civil right for all to marry the one that they love regardless of age gender, religion, number, species, etc.

So what you are really saying that it is appropriate to discriminate. I agree. not all discrimination is bad. Everyone discriminates everyday. It is how we make choices. In this case, the voice of the people, for whatever reason, feel that homosexual marriage in not in the best interest of society.

2ndly, what is your point? You are comparing a dysfunctional family to ice cream and divorce to a balanced diet? I would not agree with that in a million years.

Why isn't family counseling mandated before a divorce can be granted? We mandate rehab for drug users. Divorce is a major scourge on our society.

I will once again advocate for the children of divorce. the children should be awarded the family home in every divorce and each parent be required to secure a new personal residence. the parent would come as a visitor to their children's home when they have visitation and vacate when it is the other parents turn for visitation.

That way the children have some stability and are not the ones paying the price for the the selfishness and childishness of their parents.

Posted by jstabratt on November 17, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets just say for a second that ( and i believe it will not be anyhow) this is NOT overturned by the courts.
Then are they gonna continue to protest it until they have absolutely NO credibility at all?
What will there be left to protest once they have gone as far as they go and its still banned?
Are you all gonna keep whinning when there is no left to listen?
I know I know.. it will be overturned ( you think) but when it doesnt then what, will you all stop when the final word comes down, or do you plan to keep this up until people are so tired of you all they just start shooting?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be lesbian.

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Gay acvtivists being classified as terrorists? Suspicious powders being mailed to Mormon church.
FBI is investigating as this is a Federal Crime."

There are extremists on both sides of the issue. That doesn't increase or decrease the credibility of either side.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It does not matter.....I am not a child molester and I am offended that anyone would suppose to treat me or anyone else who is not a predator of children as if I am.

Even if it is only ONE person whose rights are violated....it is ONE TOO MANY!!!

GOD BLESSES EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 17, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm curious how some Prop 8 opponents will answer this question in regards to boycotting those who supported it.

If you call 9-1-1, are you going to ask the operator to send only responders that voted No on 8? Or only those that are gay? Since many of the responders, be they police, fire or EMT's, are church going people, and I know many of them, are you going to boycot their help, which you called for?

I know that there also gays and lesbians who perform the same roles, and in the roles they play they are just as brave and selfless. Whether they are straight or gay, that is the furthest thought from their minds when they are putting their lives on the line to save yours.

Much of the postings on any of these past articles contain a lot of name calling, labeling and hateful comments directed at the pro Prop 8 posters. So, are you going to require that only anti-Prop 8'ers respond because you don't want a hateful, ignorant, religious Bible thumping bigot, who couldn't care less of your sexual preferences, to save you? Or would you really care at that time, you just want help?

The fact that gays and lesbians are police/sheriffs, fire and EMT responders indicates that there is equal employment opportunity. However, many, not all, of their colleagues don't agree with the lifestyle and voted in support of Prop 8.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 17, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: "You need to realize that if it is a civil right for one it is a civil right for all to marry the one that they love regardless of age gender, religion, number, species, etc."

OP - really? Are you really trying to make that argument? C'mon this is a serious subject.

From a LEGAL standpoint:

AGE - EVERYONE must be a certain age to marry.
RELIGION - EVERY religion must be eligible to marry.
NUMBER - EVERYONE must be able to marry the same number of people
SPECIIES - Only humans can give consent.(Really - this one is just dumb).
GENDER - Each gender should have the SAME choices.

Ahhh- here is the problem - by saying men can choice certain people that women cannot and vice versa, you open the door to say women can choose certain professions that men cannot.

Again OP, if you want to be taken seriously - at least post serious arguments.

Posted by jstabratt on November 17, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, and it has nothing to do with in schools huh??

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/...

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

op: yes, I have looked up definitions such as:
zoophile
1. A lover of animals; especially one more fond of animals than of people.
2. One opposed to any animal experimentation; an antivivisectionist.
Origin: zoo-+ G. Philos, fond
eg: a lover of animals, not a LOVER of animals, y'know?

No. The discrimination comes not from "to deny you the right to marry the one that you love." but from denying 2 competent, consensual humans individuals the right to enter into a legal contract based upon their gender.

Yes. Discrimination, in the sense of discernment is appropriate and necessary. Discrimination, in the sense of granting or denying rights or privileges based solely on reace, gender, religion etc..., is not.

No. I am not comparing a dysfunctional family to ice cream. I was illustrating that children do not always make the best choices for themselves in response to your statement that children would rather have an intact dysfunctional family...

And...YES! I LOVE your idea that the kids should get the house!!! :o)

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamarro said: OP - really? Are you really trying to make that argument? C'mon this is a serious subject.

From a LEGAL standpoint:

AGE - EVERYONE must be a certain age to marry.
RELIGION - EVERY religion must be eligible to marry.
NUMBER - EVERYONE must be able to marry the same number of people
SPECIIES - Only humans can give consent.(Really - this one is just dumb).
GENDER - Each gender should have the SAME choices.

======

So you support discriminating on the basis of age and species. Which discriminates against pedophiles and zoophiles.

You discriminate on number so you support discrimination against polygamists, polyandrists and bi-sexuals.

And with regards to gender, the options under prop 8 are already equal.

So what is the problem?

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

carol said: No. I am not comparing a dysfunctional family to ice cream. I was illustrating that children do not always make the best choices for themselves in response to your statement that children would rather have an intact dysfunctional family...

===

In this case the children did not make a choice at all. The parents chose each other before they were born and it is the parents choice to divorce. Where exactly was the kids choice ever considered. Children are entitled to be brought up in a home with a father and a mother. The parents chose each other to be mates and made vows to be committed to each other for life. They have an obligation to make things work for the benefit of their children.
Divorce is for cowards and lazy people and people who are abused.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jx...

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 17, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've argued that if prop 8 is overturned and same sex marriages are allowed, then polygamy should be ruled unconstitutional as well, and anybody can marry as many people concurrently as they want. I think that this newsclip supports my argument.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/playe...

On the spin side, at least they're green.

I can hear it now, "Free Warren Jeffs!!!"

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OP: Got some divorce issues, huh? I never said that children made a choice...nevermind...If your issues are current, I sincerely hope that things get better for you & your family real soon.

Posted by camgurl on November 17, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(On the subject of game shows, like Temptation Island, and Who wants to marry a millionaire)---DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS EVER WATCHED THE SHOW TILA TEQUILA!
BUT.. WELL SHE PRETTY MUCH SOLICITS DATES TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, BEING THAT SHE IS BISEXUAL.
Just sayin. TM(Jiminy)

Posted by JohnDoe on November 17, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HumptyDumpty: "My dog loves me"

How can you be sure? Does your dog talk to you? Does your dog offer to rub your neck after a long day at work? Does your dog have dinner ready for you when you get home? Does your dog stay up with you when you are sick? Does your dog remember to send your mother a birthday card when you forget? Does your dog put up with all of your quirky BS for the sake of you feeding it?

Or.....
Does your dog expect you to feed it daily? Does your dog ask you to pick up its sh*t after s/he does its business? Does your dog act excited at the sight of you?

Don't confuse inbred reactions to love. When your dog wipes your a$$ after a good dump, then it is love. Otherwise you are only there to feed and pick up after it.

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

So you think the whole judicial system should be abolished?

WOW!

Talk about not knowing ANYTHING about how our government works!!!

Jeez, I wish half the people here had at least a tenth grade understanding of government and civics!!!!

But, alas that is not the case....and so they will all be very upset and unruly when a judge tells them that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS!

Posted by didwhat on November 17, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

equal when was the last time you got elect. by pluging two female outlets together. when you are NOT capable of making babies without outside help that is NOT equal or a marrage, and don't even talk about adoption or rasing kids from a previous marrage gone bad or a transsexuals asexual births. it takes one man & one woman to make a baby thats a family thats a marrage.... sorry jeffy it,s an equipment issue.

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did: So you're saying that hetero couples who are infertile should not be allowed to marry?

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffinventura wrote: "Talk about not knowing ANYTHING about how our government works!!!

Jeez, I wish half the people here had at least a tenth grade understanding of government and civics!!!!"

The pot calling the kettle black. Most people are uninformed/uneducated on these issues and simply speak/rant based on emotion.

Posted by didwhat on November 17, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

caroldammit: your so right i for got about those poor souls, maybe i am discrminating. NOT !!! but to answer your question wouldn't the couple all ready be married trying to find a solution to a problem?

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

camdaddy101 wrote: "the Prop 8 supporters can not point to ONE SINGLE WAY that gays being married has hurt them." - Actually this has been addressed so many times here lately, but it falls on deaf ears when the truth doesn't align with desired outcomes.

camdaddy101 wrote: "The best they can come up with is what might happen." - Based on events that have occurred at other times/places from similar situations? So we should never look at history and learn from it. Wait isn't that the main argument the "no" people are using, "we should learn from the past/civil rights/etc"? Sorry can't have it both ways when it's convenient for your agenda.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read and saw reported that eventhough this proposition passed, the State's Constitution cannot be changed/altered by this Proposition ALONE and thus has much room for derailment prior to the constitution actually getting amended.

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did: Not necessarily. Some people are well aware of their fertility issues early in life. Do you also think that a hetero couple who do not plan to have children should not be allowed to marry?

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Humpty: Oh yeah...we all know how great recalls have worked in the recent past for CAW-LEE-FOWNEA don't we?

Don't be such a homophobe. Your grandchildren will be gay no matter if they can marry or not. It's not the "marriage between a man and woman" that's keeping you straight is it? If that's it...then maybe "someone" should open that closet door "sunshine". ;)

Posted by JohnDoe on November 17, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HumptyDumpty :
"All of you No on 8...listen up some day you will reget allowing the gays to marry especially 10 to 15 years YOUR children or grandchildren will believe that they can marry the same sex and you have no more bloodline left. You will rue the day. And when you do, remember you read this and laughed at me and called me a hater."

Bloodline? Please... are we a monarchy?
Here's an alternative view:
The earth is overpopulated today. In 10 to 15 years there will be too many people for the earth to sustain. Your children or grandchildren will start dying off taking your 'bloodline' with them.

Besides, as long as their are ignorant people there will be babies to take care of. Just because it is impossible to have a child in a natural way does not mean that you can NOT have a 'family'.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 17, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Removal from office

Bird was the first Chief Justice to be removed from that office by a majority of the state's voters. California justices are selected by the governor but must be regularly reconfirmed by the electorate; prior to Bird, no California appellate judge had ever failed such a vote.

She was removed in the November 4, 1986 election by an overwhelming margin after a high-profile negative campaign that cited her categorical opposition to the death penalty. She had voted against the death penalty in all 61 cases that came before her.[5] This led Bird's opponents to claim that she was substituting her own opinions and ideas for the laws and precedents upon which judicial decisions are supposed to be made. In addition, the Bird court struck down California's "use a gun, go to jail" law that made a prison term mandatory for any crime in which the use of a gun was involved. Critics and even some supporters could not find any justification for making this law unconstitutional. The anti-Bird campaign ran television commercials featuring the children of the victims of the murderers whose sentences Bird and her allies Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin had voted to reverse. In addition to Bird, Reynoso and Grodin were also voted off the bench. Justice Stanley Mosk, who often joined Bird, Reynoso, and Grodin, was not challenged and remained on the court.

As a result of the 1986 election, Governor George Deukmejian was able to appoint several more conservative justices (including new Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas) and move the court to a more pro-business and pro-law enforcement judicial philosophy.

The campaign to oust Bird is considered a triumph for social conservatives. However, the campaign was also supported by business interests, who felt that California's legal system had become too anti-business under prior chief justices like Roger Traynor, and Bird was compounding the liability crisis with opinions that were muddling previously-settled aspects of contract law.

The California State Library is the repository for the archive of Californians to Defeat Rose Bird.

Career after ouster

Bird appeared as a family court judge in an episode of the 1984-85 TV series Pryor's Place starring Richard Pryor. In 1987, Bird appeared as a judge on a television program called Superior Court (a show somewhat similar to The People's Court).

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

humpty: hmm...interesting idea you have there. Perhaps homosexuality is God's plan to stem the tide of overpopulation.

Posted by mamaof2 on November 17, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

why is it such a big deal to marry anyway? you can register as domestic partners and basically have the same rights as a married couple. marriage is just a stupid piece of paper and should not define your commitment. if you really love someone you shouldnt need a piece of paper to tell you this. the divorce rate is high too, at least 50% of marriages end in divorce. now tell me how is marrying someone really going to change your relationship?

all this energy is being wasted on both parts and could be used for something a little more productive, instead of trying to educate people on what you believe in and "the law says this" and "the bible says that" why dont you take your brains and use them to tutor some kids who need help, or go collect some canned foods for a needy family for thanksgiving? all of the money spent on campaigning couldve been used for a better cause. just my opinion...

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnDoe wrote: "The earth is overpopulated today. In 10 to 15 years there will be too many people for the earth to sustain." - Have you actually looked at the population projections over the next 50 years? In 10 to 15 years? Wow, how long-sited you are. Exactly how are we going to attain un-sustainability in 15 years?

JohnDoe wrote: "Just because it is impossible to have a child in a natural way does not mean that you can NOT have a 'family'." - And here we have it, you claim that you should be able to have a family, even if by un-natural means.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Besides...it's not only judges that will affect this decision...it HAS TO pass through the state legislature. (i.e., a bicameral body consisting of the lower house, the California State Assembly, with 80 members, and the upper house, the California State Senate, with 40 members)....it's NOT just about a few judges.

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mama: Civil Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It is a legally binding contract that grants the two competent, consenting adults entering into it certain rights and responsibilities that are NOT available through domestic partnership. I agree that the tons of money and effort expended here would do much good elsewhere, however, civil rights and equality are very important causes.

Posted by iam_caine on November 17, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, where were all these NO proponents BEFORE the referendum was voted upon? There were YES proponents on every street corner and freeway overpass, obstructing traffic, distracting drivers and causing accidents, all over Ventura County for at least a month before the elections. If the NO people had turned out and occupied half of those street corners and overpasses, maybe the outcome would have been different.

Second, it doesn't matter whether anyone voted YES or NO, because regardless of what the majority of the people think they want, you can not legislate discrimination in this country. If you could, when Obama visited the White House last week, he and Bush would have had to drink out of separate water fountains.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mamaof2: It's like saying that legally, you're not a true "Momma" because the we're changing the law to state that "Momma" is used to define women who have 3 or MORE kids. Which you have 2, so that means you cannot call yourself "MOMMA". Use "Parental Unit" instead....AND...since the law states that you are not a "MOMMA"...if your kid ends up in the hospital (hope them don't) and lays in the ICU, you cannot be allowed to visit them because (again) you're not a "MOMMA"...AND..if there's a decision to be made about whether to keep them on life-support or not...no matter that they have shared their feelings on the subject and you'd be the best person to KNOW what they would have wanted...your word means NOTHING...because you're not a "MOMMA". It doesn't matter how much you love them...you're no longer a "MOMMA" because of the definition change.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HumptyDumpty: If you can't explain "gay" to your OWN 9 year old...then you've got MORE problems than gay marriage.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

correction: "hope THEY don't"

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

camdaddy101 wrote: "MyOpinion so in other words, I'm correct. You couldn't name one way gays marrying has hurt you. Thanks for making my point."

Actually, me and others did address ways that gay marriage has adversely effected people, you simply choose to ignore it since you don't agree.

Then when people remind you these issues were address you simply take things out of context to meet you agenda. I didn't write the same things yet again because I realized that you simply ignore what you don't like (that's what "falls on deaf ears" implies).

Posted by JohnDoe on November 17, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HumptyDumpty:
"I want to explain to MY KIDS about life then I FEEL it APPROPRIATE> Not When the s--- is hitting the fan. If a teacher were to be doing this to my kids I might go to prison, but I would be paying that teacher a visit with MR. 2x4"

You do realize that 9 year olds talk on the playground about life. All manner of life (as they see and know it).

You do realize that you as a PARENT have the option of pulling your children out of ANY class that you feel violates your beliefs. If you as a parent object to how your child's math teacher is teaching the multiplcation table, you have the right to pull your child and teach them yourself.

I'd suggest you spend some time on the playground and find out what your 9 year old already knows..... it might have something to do with doggie love.

Posted by didwhat on November 17, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

car: isn't life a wonderful thing that, that couple one man one woman infertile as they maybe would still wed. and you? would you now say whats the difference and i have to say it is the equipment and how its used because somethings are so basic. however you justify your position or me mine it is not EQUAL and no way for the two sides to become equal because it is equipment related. that is what all the discussion is about.

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iam_caine wrote: "There were YES proponents on every street corner and freeway overpass, obstructing traffic, distracting drivers and causing accidents, all over Ventura County for at least a month before the elections." - Proof? Or simply your unfounded opinion?

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Humpty: "your kind" ... "s--- is hitting the fan" "would be paying that teacher a visit with Mr. 2x4"

You're funny...let me help you....If by "your kind" you mean open-minded, accepting, tolerant and fair...then...you hit it RIGHT ON Humpty...that's me. Now...if by "your kind" you meant "Gay" or any other derogatory term you are accustomed to use, then you're off....waaay off.

"s--- is hitting the fan"....yeah...and the sky was going to fall too right?...and Noah REALLY had an Ark...and lived to be 800 years old too. Come on, think for yourself...it's very liberating.

"would be paying that teacher a visit with Mr. 2x4"....All but stated that you're dumb as a post and can only resort to violence because you can't put together the words well enough to hold a level-headed "grown up" conversation with another grown-up about what you two disagree on.....AND...you're so mis-informed to BELIEVE whatever the Yes on 8 commercials tell you...again...think for yourself...do some research....talk to your kid's teacher and ask them if they are ALLOWED to teach your kids about a definition of "family" that is not "pre-approved" by way of a parental consent form. Geez...they can't even show your elementary kid a PG movie without your prior written consent. Get a clue Humpty.

Posted by caroldammit on November 17, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did: Oh. I could swear you said that it was all about procreation. Respectfully, it is not all about the equipment. It is about a legal contract.

Posted by JohnDoe on November 17, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MyOpinion:
"And here we have it, you claim that you should be able to have a family, even if by un-natural means."

Sure, why not. Just like hundreds of thousands of infertile couples. Unless you want to make their marriages illegal because they can't reproduce either.

BTW for the record. I'm a married father of 2.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by HumptyDumpty on November 17, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did Camdaddy and Babyzdaddy take over the Jeff in Ventura shift? His butt got handed over on a silver platter Who is next?

Just curious...why are you serving up a man's "butt"? Do you enjoy it? Personal preference? Don't answer that...just keep it in the closet with your "secret".

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnDoe: "BTW for the record. I'm a married father of 2."

Me too!! That means HumptyDumpty was referring to you too when he said "your kind".

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnDoe wrote: "You do realize that you as a PARENT have the option of pulling your children out of ANY class that you feel violates your beliefs." - No you don't, only sex education. Gay marriage is being pushed to be taught in diversity education, which can't be opted out of.

JohnDoe wrote: "If you as a parent object to how your child's math teacher is teaching the multiplcation table, you have the right to pull your child and teach them yourself." - Not out of just the math class, you have to completely withdraw them and home school them. Which may the best thing to do until the state dictates that for your child to be considered educated, you must teach them diversity education, including gay marriage.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 17, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The judges know too well that they will be up for judicial review......and STILL they knew the right thing to do is to approve EQUAL RIGHTS for all LEGAL ADULT RELATIONSHIPS in California!!!

GOD BLESS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MyOpinion:

You're mis-informed. Sorry to say, but you are. You CAN opt your child out of any topic such as sex ed AND diversity education. Really though...you'd rather they find out from their friends later? (Possibly through curiousity and experimentation)

Also, you can also send them to private school that teachs the values that you would like your child to learn. You don't HAVE TO home school or publicly education your child.

Really...what' so wrong about your child being informed about the world and what's in it? The TRUE world...not just what you describe to him and he then finds out is wrong which then leads him to not trust you when it comes to your opinions of the world? Or maybe he believes whatever you say and adopts the "just part of the herd" mentality and never really develops the ability to reason and make informed decisions in life. Really...is it REALLY THAT bad?

Posted by didwhat on November 17, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

car: but it is equipment and usage issue if that were not true wouldn't your time / money be better spent changing what is available through domestic partnership.

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyzDaddy_01 wrote: "You CAN opt your child out of any topic such as sex ed AND diversity education." - Continuing to say this still won't make it true.

BabyzDaddy_01 wrote: "Also, you can also send them to private school that teachs the values that you would like your child to learn. You don't HAVE TO home school or publicly education your child." - So I have to pay taxes AND pay extra to ensure my child gets educated. What happens when the state dictates what private schools teach or they lose their accreditation? And don't say that would never happen, because we all know it will.

BabyzDaddy_01 wrote: "Really...what' so wrong about your child being informed about the world and what's in it? The TRUE world...not just what you describe to him and he then finds out is wrong which then leads him to not trust you when it comes to your opinions of the world? Or maybe he believes whatever you say and adopts the "just part of the herd" mentality and never really develops the ability to reason and make informed decisions in life. Really...is it REALLY THAT bad?" - I won't debate your opinions that are based on your history/background.

Posted by JohnDoe on November 17, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MyOpinion: You would be surprised at how accomodating the VUSD is about which classes your child may opt out of.....

Posted by oldteacher on November 17, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pedophiles are about control. Many young women are abused as well as young men. To say young men are abused more is ridiculous. Ask ten women and ten men and see which group has more abuse stories.

Priests (ooops!) were abusing boys because they had ACCESS to boys. Which church had that problem? And again, which church was that that allowed polygamy? Oh, yeah, the same one that pushed so hard to disallow gays from marrying. Don't hold up religion as the leader of morality, unless each religion's hands are clean. (Clunky metaphor, sorry.)

Yes on 8 equals a group of citizens being denied a civil right. No on 8 affects no one except the people who marry.

Women did NOT get the right to vote at the ballot box. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified by the majority of states in 1919, become a Constitutional Amendment in 1920.

You can't CATCH gay. You can be born gay. You CAN catch bigotry.

A change in civil unions doesn't help unless it is enacted on a federal level, so why not just fold in gays in our civil rights laws. If you don't want "them" marrying in YOUR church, don't let them. After all, I'm sure Jesus would lock out gays if he were still around. OIh, wait, Jesus was Jewish (well, he was), and Jews are not against gay marriage. There goes that argument.

Just admit that religious bigotry is bigotry and move on. SAY you are bigoted and accept your failings. It's ok to fail, you will be forgiven.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MyOpinion: "Continuing to say this still won't make it true." Why not? It worked on "your kind" when the Bush Administration did it....thought I'd try it.

States CANNOT dictate what a private school teaches in their curriculum because they are not FUNDING the private school on behalf of the students. You get what you pay for with private schools (some more than others).

As for the opting out clause...you'll never know until you ASK. Geez, I'm teaching my child that very same thing (you'll never know until you ask)...talk about history and background....how were YOU raised if you weren't taught that simple idea.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 17, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just like you can repent for voting for Obama...I'm sure you can repent for being a bigot.

Posted by Whodathunkit on November 17, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YES ON 8!!!!!

I would the rainbow would be replaced with the floral "pansy" symbol.

Posted by ValerinaS on November 17, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so ridiculous. Your bigoted opinions don't count. You're religion doesn't matter. It will NOT take away RIGHTS.... it may be stalling them, and it's sad that so many people are bigoted and don't see that just because they pretend gays/lesbians don't exist, doesn't make it any less real. Your sons and daughters will one day wake up and realize they've been told a complete lie, because they are attracted to the SAME SEX... but because they were raised in a prejudice household, may will keep it in the closet. My kids will NOT be raised that way. Open your eyes....

Proposition will be overturned soon. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is the whole point. I don't care about anyone's opinion!!!

Posted by huntram on November 17, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Most sexual predators who prey on children are HETEROSEXUAL....no matter what the gender of their victims happens to be."
---------------
If you are a man and molest boys.....GAY!

Common Sense!

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oldteacher wrote:

"Priests were abusing boys because they had ACCESS to boys. Which church had that problem? And again, which church was that that allowed polygamy? Oh, yeah, the same one that pushed so hard to disallow gays from marrying. Don't hold up religion as the leader of morality, unless each religion's hands are clean."

I'm actually glad you brought up those examples, as awkward and weak as they were. First, regarding the Catholic priests, you act as if all priests were abusing children, or if it was condoned by the Church and its followers, which it wasn't. You can't take the misdeeds of a relatively few people and use them to condemn the religion itself. Did you read about the Oxnard police officer who was stealing money? I guess this means you believe all police officers are crooked, and you condemn law enforcement everywhere?

Now regarding the Mormons and polygamy, your statement implies you think polygamy is wrong and immoral. Care to explain (rationally and logically) how you can condemn polygamy and yet support gay marriage? We've yet to receive a well thought out response to that question although it has been posed several times by different people. Since you brought up polygamy in your argument, maybe you'd care to give it a try.

Posted by jamaro099 on November 17, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: "Since you brought up polygamy in your argument, maybe you'd care to give it a try."

Sure, I'll give it a shot.

A law that applies to EVERYONE is not discrimination. NOBODY - regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, language..etc, can marry more than one person at a time. Get it..the law applies EQUALLY to EVERYONE.

In the case of marriage between two people; Women have choices that men don't have and vice versa. Get it....some people get a choice that others DO NOT. UNEQUAL application of the law.

Get it? If the applies to everyone EQUALLY it is not discrimination. Nobody can do 150 on the freeway even though some people would like to. The law applies to everyone EQUALLY. Get it.

If some people can do something that others can't and the only reason is gender, that is UNEQUAL treatment..UNEQUAL. Get it.

Probably not.

Posted by huntram on November 17, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Romans 1:26-28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

I'm just saying....

Common Sense!

Posted by jamaro099 on November 17, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram - God isn't going to judge YOU because two other men got married. So, the only way supporting this law affects you is that you have some burning desire to be with another man and feel this is the only way to keep yourself from sinning.

When your time comes, do you really think God is going to give you credit for trying to force other people to obey his law?

Posted by jamaro099 on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

errr... Should read: ....His law?

Posted by wolf9walker on November 17, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leahb78_1999

You still out there? Remember when I post a link the killing of a 13 year old?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/wor...
and you posted back “Oh please, quit being so dramatically over the top... This is not Somalia.”

Well it may be closer then you think.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ss...

We have a lot more problems in this country, then who marries who.

Posted by huntram on November 17, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jamaro099'
"huntram - God isn't going to judge YOU because two other men got married. So, the only way supporting this law affects you is that you have some burning desire to be with another man and feel this is the only way to keep yourself from sinning.

When your time comes, do you really think God is going to give you credit for trying to force other people to obey his law?"

That is not my intent. This is for jeffinventura who says he is a gay Christian.
First of all, God does love Jeff! But to continue in what the bible clearly states as sin and claim to be a Christian is absurd.
Might as well say you are a Christian adulterer, or a Christian thief, or a Christian devil worshiper.
God loves all those people, and we ALL sin. The difference is Jeff continues, in fact revels in the sin of homosexuality.
Now in your religion or lack of it, you may feel that there is no problem with being gay.
I'm not trying to convince you that your wrong, but if you beleive in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the Holy Bible as the devine inspired word of God, then don't be offended if I quote it.
Again, if you don't believe it is the word of God, that's your decision and I respect it, however if you are a true Christian, and the bible says something clearly is sin, you have to, in fact should want to turn your back on that sin.
I know that getting angry at "stupid" people on the road is sinful. Do I do it once in awhile? Yes, but I try not to manifest it at the other person, and in fact I ask God to help me with it all the time and do pretty good at it.
What I do not do is be proud and claim to be a "Road Rage Christian"! :)
I hope that helps you to understand why I quoted direct from the bible without any intepretation.

Common Sense!

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jamaro099 wrote:

"A law that applies to EVERYONE is not discrimination. NOBODY - regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, language..etc, can marry more than one person at a time. Get it..the law applies EQUALLY to EVERYONE."

"If the applies to everyone EQUALLY it is not discrimination. Nobody can do 150 on the freeway even though some people would like to. The law applies to everyone EQUALLY."

Under Prop 8, nobody can marry someone of the same sex even though some people would like to. The law applies to everyone equally. So, under your line of reasoning, it is not discriminatory.

Posted by Fred on November 18, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was raised catholic and it is exactly this type of hatred why I left the church. I feel the position of the church on gays reflects poorly on the church and is a central reason that people are leaving in droves. The vote will stand for now and eventually be overturned and history will look back at this as another fear-driven shameful act.

Posted by janusjuris on November 18, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I advocate same-goat marriage LOL!!!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Being gay is NOT a sin. It is not an action or a choice anyone makes.

Gay people can sin, this is true....but gay people can also resist sin and refrain from sinning too. It will never make them heterosexual, but it makes them just like every other sinner!!

Gay people are no more sinners than any other Christian!

GOD BLESSES GAY CHRISTIANS!

Posted by sheltonclan on November 18, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, I see the "civil rights" and "equal rights" lines are the talking points for the "No on 8" folks. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true.
This line of faulty reasoning is just the same stuff we've been hearing - but it is not logically correct.
Right now, anyone can "marry" - everyone has the right - any gay man can marry any woman who agrees. Just like any heterosexual man. Same for any lesbian - she can marry any man who agrees. What the opponents of Prop 8 want is NOT equal rights. They HAVE that. What they want is to change the definition of marriage to include partnering in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. This is not a civil rights issue - gays and lesbians have higher education and income levels on average than any socioeconomic group.
Frankly, the people of California have spoken twice. Arnold needs to get on board. Between the protests, Gavin Newsom's rants, the demeaning of the civil rights movement, and now the "backlash" movement - I'd be surprised if you could get 40% on a revote.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

shelton -

People like you said the exact same things when people of different races wanted to marry.

At that time they were told they had equal rights because they could marry anyone of the same race that they wanted.....LOOK HOW EQUAL THAT IS!!!

No, you can not marry the adult whom you love.....why would we approve of such a thing???

No go back to your own people and enjoy your "EQUAL RIGHTS"!!!

For the same reason that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person of their choice, the one they love and want to create a family with till death......WE WANT THE SAME RIGHT!!

This is of course the CIVIL RIGHTS issue of our day.....and we will not be dissuaded by ignorant suggestions that we already have EQUAL RIGHTS!

That is painfully not true!

GOD BLESSES GAY CHRISTIANS!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff, you are soooooo in denial, my friend. You claim to be Christian, yet call God a liar? OK, you say you are born "that way", so you don't have a choice, and it's OK with God. That is completly false, God does view homosexuality as sin, no greater and no less than any others.

You can't claim to be a Christian, then chose what you want to believe that is written in the Bible. You may not like what you read, but you have to believe to be a Christian. I may eat vegetarian food now and then, but that doesn't make me a vegan, no matter how much I may claim it does.

I really to hope that you'll read John 9, as it does deal with birth conditions. Read the whole thing, not parts of it.

If you chose not, too. Here is a passage:

41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

GOD BLESSES REPENTENT GAY CHRISTIANS

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Repenting is how to address sin.....no amount of repenting will turn someone gay into a heterosexual.

Being gay is neither a choice nor any kind of action.

Gay people can repent sins just as anyone else does.

GOD BLESSES ME TO BE WHO I AM!

Posted by jamaro099 on November 18, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: "Under Prop 8, nobody can marry someone of the same sex even though some people would like to. The law applies to everyone equally. So, under your line of reasoning, it is not discriminatory"

NightLight - You just described gender discrimination. Men cannot marry men because of their gender and the same for women If NOBODY could marry men(or women), regardles of gender, that would be equal application of the law.

Posted by united_we_stink on November 18, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear gay people and Prop8 opponents. You have to stop screaming that Prop8 supporters are haters and bigots, you have to stop making people angry. No one really cares what anyone else does in his bedroom, no matter if he is straight or gay. You have to stop shoving your stuff in people’s face.

These are the examples why people are angry with you:
'GAY' PLEDGE CARDS GIVEN TO KINDERGARTNERS
First-graders school field trip to teacher’s lesbian wedding

Actually, first step for you guys to some closer to your opponents is get rid of ‘whether you like it or not’ Gavin Newsom guy. He is the face of gay rights and, unfortunately, his greatest talent is in totally infuriating others. His pompousness is becoming legendary. If Gavin is for it, you can be sure that people will vote against it - he is disliked that much.

All you have to do is stop making people angry – don’t you get it???????

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Um....The San Francisco area voted NO on Prop 8 in record numbers....some counties were at 80% NO.

Does not seem like your theory about Newsom holds any water.

He has been a major supporter of EQUAL RIGHTS and there is no reason why those he supports would deny him support as well.

Even in San Francisco, gay people are a minority.

But at least in that part of the state, people were not swayed into supporting bigotry and discrimination!

GOD BLESSES GAY CHRISTIANS!

Posted by united_we_stink on November 18, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are not hearing me guys - you have to accept responsibility for people being angry with you because of the things that I mentioned in previous post. You will see the world spin your way once you do. We are not angry with you because you are gay, WE ARE NOT! I, for one, have bunch of friends that are gay - fine responsible people they are.

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

United: I understand that there are ridiculous, out-there factions on either side of any issue. What the rational, thinking majority (I sincerely hope!)of human beings needs to do is ignore them, not paint all supporters as sign waving, profanity spewing extremists, and not propagate the twisted factoids, paranoid delusions and out right lies. For instance: the pledge card incident you mentioned was part of a comprehensive diversity & tolerance lesson plan designed for older students (NOT "gay pledge cards"-a misnomer which seems malevolently designed to lead the uninformed to believe that schools are asking kids to pledge to be gay-as if that was even possible for goodness sakes!)which made it's way to the kindergarteners through a simple clerical error, and the field trip was a parent initiated and permission slipped event. I think the majority of people on earth have no intention of "shoving your stuff in people’s face." (interesting metaphor, btw) but, by the same token, no longer have the inclination nor feel no obligation to hide away in "the closet".

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

united -

Nah.....it is not time to give up the fight.

It is time to fight harder and NEVER give up until EQUAL RIGHTS are a reality in all states!

GOD BLESS!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Jeff, you are only fooling yourself in hopes of having your cake and eating it, too. If I turn off the grill when I'm done cooking, does that make me a fireman? Since I use a computer all day, does that make me Bill Gates? You cannnot call yourself a Christian without believing what the Bible teaches. You may embrace some or most of it's teachings, but that doesn't make you a Christian.

They only way I could be a Catholic is to adhere to the Catholic theology, so there is no way I can make claim to being a Catholic. Had I ever been a member of the Catholic church, then left and ceased practicing Catholism, I cease being a Catholic.

Sincerely, I put this to you, you cannot claim to be a Christian and call God a liar. Read this from 1Cor6:9-20.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sexual Immorality
12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura,
you can deny the scriptures all you want, but they do discuss homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

God Bless,
Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know I am saved.

I do not have to prove that to you or to any person.

I do not call God a liar.

You have no right to judge my faith.

I do not have to subscribe to ANY organized religion in order to know God.

Your faith and your ideals are great for YOU to follow....but you can refrain from trying to convert me to what you personally believe.

My faith is strong and requires no additional validation from you or anyone else.

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 18, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nightlight: To answer your question about comaring polygamy to same-sex marriage and prop 8. Here it is:

Legal Marriage is a legal binding agreement/contract between TWO legal (of age) adults that consent to entering into this contract and deeming themselves "Married". (Just like a contract to do business between two parties is binding and makes them "Partners").

Because this is the definition of the marriage agreement/contract, BY DEFINITION, the agreement CANNOT involve MORE than 2 people. If you want to change that, create and fund another proposition so that you can marry more than 1 person. BY DEFINITION, the agreement does NOT discriminate (in it's original wording) between same-sex couples. (i.e., it does NOT say the agreement must be entered into SOLELY by 1 man and 1 woman. Prop 8 is discrimination because it's attemting to CHANGE IT so that it DOES exclude same-sex couples. You can't deny the logic behind this. If you want to argue polygamy, that's a whole other discussion as POLYGAMY is NOT part of Prop 8. They're not changing it to say MORE than 1 man can marry more than 1 woman.

If you ask me, the Mormons are simply trying to make a point that if their religious beliefs were suppressed by not allowing for polygamy, then why should same-sex couples have that freedom to marry as they wish. While you can argue either way on that, this is not the forum for it as (again) it was NOT part of the Proposition.

NOW, I would not argue with you if the ORIGINAL wording of the state's constitution and laws ALREADY said that marriage is between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN....then the argument would be to INCLUDE and then it can be up for debate as to whether to include this caveat or not. As it stands, this is what makes Prop 8 DISCRIMINATORY.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cam Why not? Jesus did.

Jeff You say you are saved, I won't dispute that. Can you tell me how you were saved, and by who?

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 18, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram: Can you PROVE that the Bible isn't just a book of Jewish Stories? If you CANNOT, then why should we live by the phrases and passages in it?

Because of FAITH in someone/something that cannot be PROVEN....and please spare me coincidences in life and pass them off as miracles that only God could create. Please.

Let's pretend there IS a God. First and foremost, before ALL his rules and suggestions for life that you continue to quote for us, he gave you FREE WILL. Do you know what that is? It means you have the ultimate ability to make decisions and live your life as you wish. Live life as each person feels is right for them. "FOR THEM"....NO WHERE in your Jewish Storybook does it say that YOU as a "Christian" or "Catholic" or (just choose any religion for that matter) have the AUTHORITY to judge ANYONE else. Just going by your Storybook...God created EVERYONE...including GAY people. He gave them the FREE WILL to choose to live a Gay lifestyle. He NEVER says it's YOUR JOB to judge them and decide how THEY should live. NEVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Now, please....spare us the scripture....it's just filling up space on this thread.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am saved by God.

No one needs anything else.

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 18, 2008 at 9:45 a.m.

huntram: Can you PROVE that the Bible isn't just a book of Jewish Stories? If you CANNOT, then why should we live by the phrases and passages in it?

------------
Never said you should live by it. However, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus by calling yourself a Christian as Jeffinventura does, you should stive to follow the scriptures.
If you don't believe it and believe it's just a book of Jewish stories, anything I wrote does not pertain to you.
It's kind of like if you claimed to be a major league baseball player, but NEVER followed the rule book. You decide the MLB rulebook does not pertain to you.
Stike 3 your out... But wait a minute ump, I decided that Strikes don't count for me...
Your still out!!!
But if you choose not to be a baseball player, that's your decision and the rules of baseball do not apply. (however they are still true!)

God Bless,

Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I deal directly with the manufacturer and cut out all the middle men.

My faith is not up for debate or discussion.

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!

Posted by jamaro099 on November 18, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram -- my only point of contention with your argument is that despite knowing better, I still sometimes sin, you admit that you sometimes sin even though you know its a sin.

So, my question is: Why is a gay persons sin any different than our sin?

Or have I misunderstood your position?

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 18, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram: "(however they are still true!)"

Prove it.

I think what Jeff is saying (that seems to not be processing on YOUR side) is that he believes in GOD. He may not believe in GOD in the interpretation that YOU follow...he considers himself a Christian as he believes in some of the tenets of the religion but has the ability to question other parts of it. Believing EVERYTHING BLINDLY is just stupid, you'd have to be pretty naive to do that. By the way, YOUR GOD gave him that "ability" to question parts of the tenets of the religion. Why NOT question the HUMAN interpetations and applications referenced in the Bible. After all...those stories were NOT literally WRITTEN by God. They were told and scribed by HUMANS....who (again) have the "ability" to interpret...in THEIR view...what was said. So again...please PROVE that the words used in the BIBLE are the ACTUAL words from God. THEN...maybe Jeff should consider jumping into the tub and getting "re-baptized" in Ojai by Grandpa (Ojaiguy). Heck...if you could PROVE IT...you could slap ME on the forehead and call me a Christian!

In all, organized religion should just be honest about it's purpose...(political mind control through persuasive speak to highly suggestible followers).

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Camdad, here you go. There's more, but this should suffice.

Lord of the Sabbath
1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

13Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

Keep 'em coming. I'm having fun!

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OG: "3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here."

Sounds like an argument for equal rights to me. :o)

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

carol I would call that a stretch, since in the context Jesus is saying "Aren't the priests working on the Sabbath?"

Since the all of the text I posted is related to working on the Sabbath, trying to pull a couple of passages out and applying it to something completely different is misleading only to yourself.

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

og: exactly-"Aren't the priests working on the Sabbath?"...so why shouldn't everyone?

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol, The Lord has no problem with people who work on the Sabbath. Trying to apply these passages into same sex marriage advocacy is completly out of context. This is clearly demonstrated by the other passages, which you have intentionally left out.

You would have done better to try and make a case if you had gone back to the other post I made from 1 Corinthians (posted above). If I had been you I would have done this.

12"Everything is permissible for me" You can then make claim that the Bible says that anything and everything is OK.

But that is deceiving only yourself because...

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

So, in essence, He is saying that you can chose to engage in anything you want, and the Lord will not lift a finger to stop you, but there are consequences for what you chose to do.

Well, it's lunch time. Be back later.

Posted by NightLight on November 18, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyzDaddy_01 - Thanks for your response to the polygamy question. I don't agree with a lot of what you have to say, but your argument on this question made a lot of sense. You know (I hope) that I wasn't trying to start an argument in favor of polygamy, I was trying to wrap my mind around the question of how denying gay marriage is more discriminatory than denying polygamous marriage.

I still question it from a philosophical standpoint, since both involve an agreement between consenting adults; but from a legal standpoint, your answer made a lot of sense.

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OG: I didn't copy & past all of it because it was a lot & it was readily available in your post above, however, if it will make you happy, here it is:

Lord of the Sabbath
1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

13Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

ALL of it speaks to me of the hypocrisy of those who would deny others the rights (not to mention bread)they reserved for themselves, and Jesus' rejection of such. And the very last line here sadly conveys how badly those hypocrites reacted to being called out.

Have a nice lunch!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jamaro099 said;
huntram -- my only point of contention with your argument is that despite knowing better, I still sometimes sin, you admit that you sometimes sin even though you know its a sin.

So, my question is: Why is a gay persons sin any different than our sin?

Or have I misunderstood your position?

I think your close, but do not quite understand.

I agree with you that a gay persons sin is no different than anyone elses!
Just as if I had a friend who was committing adultry while saying he was a Christian. I would tell them to repent and do not continue in that sin.
If he said, God loves me just as I am, an adulter Christian, and I was born this way to cheat on my wife, so God accepts me this way, I would also share with him God's Word.
Ultimately God decides your eternity, not me(Thank God for that, because I couldn't be as forgiving, heck I would not enter the kingdom if I was deciding!).
I just know that to say I am Gay, or Adulter, or Lying, or Abusive, or thieving, or gossiping Christian without repentance and change is contrary to God's Word.

thank you for trying to understand my position, it is appreciated!
God Bless,

Common Sense!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol, I'm sure you can agree then that we should apply SOP Rule 23 and move on.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being gay requires no action or choice.....you just are.

Simply being gay is NOT a sin!

Many religions understand this.....it is only the ignorant few that still demand the right to be ignorant about the facts.

GOD BLESSES ME AS HE CREATED ME!

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OG: Might. Which SOP Rule 23?

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol SOP Rule 23? I have no idea. I made it up. For all I know, it can be from some company's Standard Operating Procedure manual for tagging out a circuit breaker while perfoming maintenance on an air conditioning unit. But I can say it has to to with same sex marriage and equal rights, so it must be so.

Posted by wonderman on November 18, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by O_P_Rockwell

Just observing trends.

1970 homosexuality was illegal in all 50 states. Here we are not 40 years later homosexuality is not only out of the closet but in your face with gay pride parades and a demand to have their behavior accepted as normal and legitimate.

There is a trend in Europe to push for a lower age of consent. In 40 years time I would not be surprised to see zoophiles and pedophiles demanding that their right to marry the ones that they love. Gays have paved the way and cleared the path for other deviant lifestyles to follow. In 1970 if you would have asked if gays would permitted marry or teach in public schools everyone would have laughed you to scorn. now it is expected and protected.

My prediction

THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR!!!!!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.
Being gay requires no action or choice.....you just are.

Simply being gay is NOT a sin!

Many religions understand this.....it is only the ignorant few that still demand the right to be ignorant about the facts.

GOD BLESSES ME AS HE CREATED ME!

-----------------
And as a "Christian" how do you handle the scriptures that specifically say that homosexuality is a sin?

Common Sense!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Camdaddy No, you are saying that the Bible has contradictions. The Bible has 2 sections, Old and New Testaments, the Old for the Jews and the New for everyone. First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.

You are clearly missing that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees with their legalisms. But he specifies how they are doing it. When Jesus talks about the Sabbath, he is saying the Lord is the Sabbath, and to keep Him holy in your heart. Now that's 24/7/365.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is not OK, then retract it and say it is.

I responded to your comment about working on the Sabbath. However, this thread is about same sex marriage. Let's try and keep it on topic. If you want to have a sincere general discussion on theology, we can do it elsewhere. I would be happy to do so.

Posted by caroldammit on November 18, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OG: Oh. I guess that's your way of saying "Go away, kid. You bother me." Have a nice day!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are no scriptures that specifically say anything....the bible has been interpreted many times and each time the interpretor imparts his own prejudice into the text.

There is nothing that prevents it from happening.

In my view, the bible must be viewed as one document and no part of the bible stands alone.

I would NEVER quote any part of the bible separate from the entire text just to support my own personal belief....I would find that use of the bible to be a sinful use to promote personal hubris.

Instead of seeking one or two specific passages to support a personal belief, I look at the entirety of the bible and it's overwhelming theme is taking personal responsibility for one's own actions......and not inflicting pain or suffering onto anyone else.

To rip the bible apart in order to support a personal agenda is doing just that - ripping the bible apart.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol No, at times it's my way of driving home a point. Admittingly, sarcasm is not always the best thing to do so, and I sincerely apologize if you had taken any offense to it.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 18, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There has been some discussion on working on the sabbath. I have not been one to quote scripture here, I, for one, do not make it a habit to to work on the Sabbath. When the ox is in the mire, I take care of business.

Furthermore, the Lord said that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. It should be a time for man to reflect upon his relationship with God and give his spirit a feast. It should not be a time filled with the distractions of the world.

Now preachers do work on Sunday and get paid for their work. It seems like a conflict of interest. The preacher gets paid in direct proportion to the number of seats filled in his chapel. In my church is there is no paid ministry. Everyone volunteers their time and talents for the benefit of the members of the church. Some give more than others and nothing remains static. Positions are rotated frequently so as not to be an undo burden on any one.

Posted by iam_caine on November 18, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MyOpinion on November 17, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. "Proof? Or simply your unfounded opinion?"

Proof? You don't get out much, do you? What kind of proof do you need, other than an eye witness account?

I drive 100 miles every day, round trip, back and forth to work through Los Angeles and Ventura counties. I saw the bigots at every major intersection, and on every freeway overpass along the 101, waving their YES ON 8 signs in drivers' faces. I'm sorry I didn't think to take some photographs to post for recluses like you.

Posted by venturajam on November 18, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy: Glad to hear you devote your time to such worthwhile causes. I too support efforts to help the homeless in Ventura, so we probably have worked together or at least toward the same goals within the scope of the larger picture (ten year plan and so on). It may be that some of the homeless gays and lesbians seeking services self identify so that you might be aware of the likelihood of them being further victimized while in your care. It has been recommended to me by a good friend and police officer that should I ever find myself under arrest that I voluntarily self identify as being gay in order to have similar protections afforded me. I hope I am wrong, but I swear that I still read bits of homophobia between your lines of type.

A general statement to all site bloggers. Many gays are religious. I am Christian and count among my close gay friends, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Buddhists. The importance of keeping Church (religion) and State separate is so that no one faith gets to impose its values on the rest of society.

Also of note….the boycotting of businesses that supported Prop 8 is now extending outside of California and has popped up in New Mexico where a chain of fast food restaurants is being boycotted called “Blakes Lotta Burger” because its owner donated over $10,000 to the Yes on 8 California initiative. So much money came in from out of state sources which is also unfair. This was a California constitutional amendment and as such its support or defeat should have rested at the hands and wallets of Califonrians.

Posted by robbca on November 18, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep in mind that technically Sabbath is from Friday Sundown until Saturday Sundown.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 18, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

venturajam You are probably right, our paths have more than likely crossed. I am at a disadvantage, since there are many more agencies in Ventura than in Ojai, you probably have a better idea as to my secret identity than I have with yours. If you do, shhhhhh.:-) If you do know who I am, you will also know that I have absolutely not a single homophobic bone in my body, or in between the lines.

I understand your comment about gays identifying themselves when incarcerated so they don't get singled out by others. However, the same sort of treatment is also afforded to other groups, such as gang members. To me, it is cruel and unusual punishment to deliberately place anybody in a jeapordy where they would be more than likely harmed. For the Sheriff's Department it should be made criminal, if it is not already so.

You apparently read a post I had written way up the line. In it I said that gays/lesbians have a tendency to make a point of telling me they are gay. It isn't just in the shelter I here this, but in social gatherings as well. My response is still the same, I shrug my shoulders because it doesn't matter to me. Except for your very good response, no one else has answered my question of why that is. I certainly don't "look" or "act" gay, and if when I'm there with my wife standing next to me, they know I'm already taken anyways.

You mention the 10 year plan to end homelessness. I attended the first meeting in Camarillo a couple of years ago and, upon seeing the plan, I doubted then and still, that it will work. It will help some, but even the speakers at the breakout sessions clarified that it could not end homelessness. One big reason is that it costs to much money to sustain.

Now comes the darned religious reason why I don't think that it will succeed. Jesus said that there will always be poor, hungry and homeless. Does that mean that I say, "Well, then what's the point of helping them then?" Certainly not, because, despite what Jeffinventura keeps saying, we aren't all blessed equally, and the Lord does command us to help those that are less fortunate.

It is with this sincere belief in helping those less fortunate with food and shelter, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference, national origin, etc., that I am an instrument of God's love. It is with this same sincere conviction that I believe what the Bible teaches regarding homosexuality, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Keep up the hard work down there. Hopefully our paths will cross and we can join together for this common cause.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 18, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ventura jam: Lots of money came form out of state on both sides of the issue. the money trail from both sides is a red herring millions flowed into the state against prop 8 from Washington DC and New york and Utah. I have posted the donation source previously.

Robbcaq: You have defined the Sabbath for the Jews. For Christians it was changed to Sunday because Christ was resurrected on the First day of the Week, Sunday. Remember the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

Posted by littlepowers on November 18, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gays are a minority.

And their rights need to be protected, just like anybody elses.

We (we being not only gays, but those who fight for freedom), will continue to march, and write letters, boycott, protest, and take any measure necessary, to ensure that the rights of a minority is not taken away)

If people have the right to celebrate their religion, then gays should have a right to celebrate love. Declare their love, and be legally recognized.

By calling it a "union", it discriminates. It places them in a different category. Whether you think their lifestyle is normal or not, you are discriminating them and at times causing them fear.

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are no scriptures that specifically say anything....

We have posted some that specifically say something about homosexualality being a sin. Just saying they don't doesn't make it so.
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind"
Pretty clear wouldn't you say.

No opinion needed. Just read it!

God Bless,
Common Sense!

Posted by scenicroute on November 18, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am hoping that every protestor around this country understands a few things: Same gender unions are already legal in California; Prop 8 does not negate nor reduce these rights of homosexuals to become partners in this state. Due to the preamble to Prop 8 that was added by our State Attorney General, it seems as though current rights are being denied or rescinded - they are not. Because the votes of over 4 1/2 million people[Prop 22 in 2000] were disregarded earlier this year by 4 judges, it became necessary to once again put this definition to the voters - that's called Democracy; majority vote rules. Now I see a trend if this gets overturned again: John McCain and Sarah Palin could sue to get into the White House in January [majority vote is so discriminatory], special interest judges may someday take away your precious vote as well, and we will perpetuate this myth that it is a civil right to get married. I've been a heterosexual all my life, and I don't remember anyone telling me that I had a constitutional right to get married. By definition, marriage is a Holy covenant between a woman, a man, and their God. If you are going to embrace a non-maintstream lifestyle, you'd better be ready to embrace it whole-heartedly; there shouldn't be anything empowering for you to get 'married'. You can most certainly have a wedding - weddings and marriage are two different things; most people put more work into their wedding than they do their marriages. I believe everyone has a civil right to live in peace, not to be harrassed because of your lifestyle or skin color or religion or voting preference. You can petition to receive benefits, et al, for you and your partner, but that can be done [and has been in California] without usurping the definition of marriage - and that is all Props 22 and 8 were about. And since you don't know me, I wonder why I get labeled as a hatemonger and homophobe - I don't label you, nor do I use slurs of any kind. It's interesting to see how the theme of 'tolerance for all' gets lost in some of the more violent protests that have been shown on TV.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ripping apart the bible just to prove your personal opinion is not a very Christian thing to do.

You left 99% of the bible on the floor over there while you were ripping a few pages out to shove in my face.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by littlepowers on November 18, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can't use the law to discriminate!!

It's to protect.

It doesn't matter that same sex unions get the same benefits, but by calling it something else, by placing them in that different category is what the discrimination is. You are segregating them!

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 18, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Little Powers said: Gays are a minority.

And their rights need to be protected, just like anybody else's.

We (we being not only gays, but those who fight for freedom), will continue to march, and write letters, boycott, protest, and take any measure necessary, to ensure that the rights of a minority is not taken away)

If people have the right to celebrate their religion, then gays should have a right to celebrate love. Declare their love, and be legally recognized.

==========

When Prop 8 passed exactly what rights were lost? No legal rights were lost at all.

Gays still have the right to declare their love to each other.

On the other hand when prop 8 passed, it meant that 1st amendment rights were preserved.

To me this is a great compromise and is what makes America great.

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 18, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is some interesting information on the effects of gay marriage in other countries

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
Basically it rips apart the nuclear family unit as we know it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content...

Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 18, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://portolanispecial.blogspot.com/...

Posted by littlepowers on November 18, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OP, How do you account my the accusation of discrimination under the law?

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura,
EVERYWHERE in the Bible that it mentions homosexualality it says it is a sin, EVERYWHERE. You keep accusing me of ripping out pages to shove in your face.
There is NOWHERE in the Bible it says homosexualality is of God, just as it never says adultry is of God. Do you deny Adultry is a sin? Is anything a sin? Do YOU get to decide what is? Does the Bible mean ANYTHING to you?
Rather then attacking me for ripping out pages, why don't you explain why those pages are in there! You know the ones you say I have ripped out.
Why would the Word of God say that men sleeping with men is an abomination to God, and that God gave them over to reprobate minds? Give me any other interpretation of what it means when it says commiting homosexual acts is vile affections!
Seriously, rather then attacking me for what the Bible says, explain it to me! You know for someone to rip out a page, the page had to be there!

Common Sense

Posted by robbca on November 18, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OP - Jews are not the only ones who observe Sabbath on the actual Sabbath day which was meant to be at the end of the week. There are Chrstians like Seventh Day Adventists who take the Old Testament meaning of the Sabbath.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram -

Prove to me that the bible you believe in is the so-called "word of God".

How do you scientifically prove that to me and anyone else?

How can you prove that the bible has not been altered in any way since it was written?

Don't bother trying to spin some kind of clever answer....I already know you can not prove anything.

And I do not have to accept YOUR interpretation of the bible....or anyone else for that matter.

All that matters to my faith is that I do have God in my heart....I am saved.....and I know the most important thing in this life is to NOT reign suffering and misery onto other human beings.

With that is my guide, I will always support EQUAL RIGHTS for all law abiding people!!!

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura,
Now that you have admitted you don't beleive in the Bible, I WILL judge you and say you are not a Christian.
God Bless,
Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram -

Your judgment of me is irrelevant to my faith.

I have God in my heart and I know I am a Christian.

I do not need anyone's validation to know this as fact.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeffinventura,
Just curious.. If you don't believe in the Bible, do you just make up what and who you want Jesus to be?
Real question, not a flame? Try to answer seriously...
Thanks

Common Sense!

Posted by wonderman on November 18, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huntram:
Jeffinventura dosent realize what lies before him when his soul gets called up before God.

Casted into the "lake of fire" and "eternal damnation" for him and all gays and lesbins.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your assumption that I do not believe in the bible is totally false.

I do not believe it is right to rip the bible up and only use certain pages to promote a personal agenda.

The bible is only useful as a complete document......nothing more or less.

And since I can not change the fact that I am gay....your ideas that I will go to hell should not concern me. I can not change what YOU think and really do not care that you think what you do.

All that matters is my relationship with God!

Nothing more.

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!

Posted by elephantpower on November 18, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to jeffinventura: The Bible is an instruction book on the human condition and how to reach salvation. Let me guess--you are one of those people who NEVER read the instructions when you have to assemble something. You know better than the experts. Am I right?

And even though you would like to call yourself a Christian, I bet you don't go to worship services because you have severe attention deficit problems and you get bored easily. And since you don't bother with "instruction sheets", there really isn't any purpose to listening to a pastor who has had years and years of study in Hebrew, Latin, and perhaps Aramaic, not to mention Greek. And you think these professionals really don't know much, despite their seminary classes in advanced logic and history, and their studies of the debates on the Nicene creed, Luther's revolution that started Protestantism, and the persecution of the French Huguenots, and the convictions of St. Thomas Moore that caused his friend the King of England to have him murdered in his cathedral. Nah. Christian pastors who have gone to seminary and have earned a doctorate degree are just stupid, right Jeff?

I bet you prefer the "do it yourself" kind of Bible study, where you tell each other that women have one less rib than a man, and you tell your kids the same thing. Do you also do brain surgery and dentistry on yourself? You are convinced that you don't need to look to the Bible regarding sin. You are convinced that homosexuality is not a sin, you wrote. Sounds like you are in denial that God says so very plainly. You prefer a "revionist history" version of the Good Book. Since you want to re-define marriage in gay terms, why don't you re-write the Bible while you are at it. You've already started.

Be sure to tell all the Orthodox Jews you meet that you know better than God what He meant in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe now is a good time for you to tell us YOUR interpretation of this story. What do you think Lot learned from his visit to these immoral villages? Oh, I forgot. Immoral isn't part of your vocabulary in your version of the Bible. And "sin" isn't a big part of it either.

Posted by elephantpower on November 18, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff,

How about shame? That was always a good one when I was growing up. It was a strong motivator in a Lutheran home. Were you ever taught about shame? With 5 kids we heard "shame on you" from morning 'til night. Now a days there is little shame. Girls show their thong straps even at work. People talk about their sex lives to complete strangers on tv, and millions of people watch. Teens have babies out of wedlock and often their parents aren't even ashamed here in Southern California. In San Franciso during October there is a gay pride parade with nakedness and public debauchery. They go out of their way NOT to have shame that day.

And for those readers who are atheists, please consider WHY the human psyche has shame. It was needed for survival. We don't have surplus emotions, as a species. This is a very important emotion for developing balanced mental health. Some shame is good. Too much is neurotic. No shame also leads to neurosis. The Bible says, all things in moderation. And that includes lust. I feel that homosexuality in some cases is lust gone wild. The gay marriage issue is not about "marriage". It is about getting approval for the gay lifestyle.

Gays say they want to be liked. Here's a news flash. You can't make everybody like you. You can't force acceptance of you with violence and threats, like in Castro Street today in San Franciso. These protests are hurting your cause.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I could care less if you "like" me.

I am not seeking your acceptance at all.

But we will not allow you to discriminate against us either. As law abiding Americans, we are entitled to the EXACT SAME rights as everyone else....and that includes forming families with the legal adult partner we love.

Those families desever the EXACT SAME treatment by our government....no more and no less!

As for my faith, that is for me and me alone.

I do not preach my faith and I do not seek validation of my faith from any person. Having God in my heart is all I need to guide me to do what is right and correct.

Causing pain and suffering to other people for no valid reason is NOT a part of my faith and it never will be.

GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM....no matter what anyone else thinks.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL FAMILIES!!!!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and elephant -

Those religious leaders you mention, they are in no way in agreement on what the bible says on most topics. There were as many as 1000 religious groups and churches that oppose Prop 8.

You have no monopoly on God or religion.

GOD BLESSES US ALL EQUALLY!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jeffinventura on November 18, 2008 at 8:57 p.m.
Your assumption that I do not believe in the bible is totally false.
...But YOU said;
"Prove to me that the bible you believe in is the so-called "word of God".
How do you scientifically prove that to me and anyone else?
How can you prove that the bible has not been altered in any way since it was written?"

It seems that you just said you don't beleive in it!
.............
"I do not believe it is right to rip the bible up and only use certain pages to promote a personal agenda."

So in less I quote the ENTIRE Bible to you, it is not valid?
No personal agenda here. Clearly you have one. Of course since you claim you are a homosexual Christian it is the scriptures about homosexuality that I have quoted. Does that seem out of context?
I have asked you to explain what YOU think they mean and you have refused!
While I can show you many scriptures regarding hetrosexual relationships being in God's will, you cannot show me any scripture to show homosexual relationships are! But there are NUMEROUS scriptures that say homosexuality is VILE in God's eyes. The GREAT news is that YOU are not vile in God's eyes, he LOVES you!!!
..............
"The bible is only useful as a complete document......nothing more or less."

That would make a LONG sermon! :)
..........
"And since I can not change the fact that I am gay....your ideas that I will go to hell should not concern me. I can not change what YOU think and really do not care that you think what you do."
1. I NEVER said you were going to hell!

2. You can change that you are gay.

Make a serious prayer to God to deliver you from sin. It won't be easy, beating drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and different types of sexual addictions - staight and gay are difficult. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
The first step is TRULY asking for God's will, without skewing it with yours!
Don't try to change on your own, PRAY, PRAY, and then PRAY! Come to God as you are, full of sin! Let him change you.
Read his Word! It is truly life changeing! Find a good Bible believing church to attend. Attend with a willing heart!
................

"All that matters is my relationship with God!
Nothing more."

There is ALWAYS more, especially with God. There is a difference in making him your savior and making him your lord! Lose YOUR will!
........
"GOD BLESSES ME AS I AM!"

I believe that, but trust God that there is SO much more when you make him your LORD! Submit to his will instead of expecting him to submit to yours. You will not believe the BLESSINGS you will recieve!

God Bless and Good Night!

Common Sense!

Posted by WolfWalker on November 18, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...

Posted by WolfWalker on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is God worried about the most, gays getting married or his children dying?

Common Sense!!!!!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by wolf9walker on November 18, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...

Good point! Some of us have just donated to Food Share of Oxnard. I am also going to make a monthly to them. It starts in our own backyard.

Also consider "adopting" a child through WorldVision or www.worldhelp.net. Both seem to be very good. Almost 90% goes to helping the children.

God Bless,

Common Sense!

Posted by huntram on November 18, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by wolf9walker on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is God worried about the most, gays getting married or his children dying?

Common Sense!!!!! ......Thief! :)

Good question.. Deep question...

Getting past your obvious point..Your eternal soul is more inportant then this short time spent on earth!
Jesus said, "For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always", but he also said, "But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.

So God cares mainly about eternity for his children, but also for their temporal bodies here on earth.
We as followers of Jesus need to follow God's heart and preach the Word to all nations, but also feed those in need.
Whoever does for the least of them does for God!
We just had a group of kids from Uganda at my church Sunday. Their families are riddled with HIV/AIDS and several of the children themselves have the disease.
We raised over $6000.00 in a special offering for them and we sponsored over 52 children with monthly pledges.
I am ashamed to say that I only sponsored one, but will increase that as I can.

So in answer to your question, God cares about your soul and your body.. They are not exclusive of each other...

Common Sense!

Posted by jeffinventura on November 19, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

God gives me the ability to love and be loved.

Would you give up that part of the human experience because some group of people told you that your love was not real???

Would you leave your spouse because someone told you they did not approve of your relationship?

Would you abandon your children because someone else's religion told you they did not think you should have kids?

I really doubt that anyone would.

And in America, we should not be subjected to such discrimination and judgment!!!

The laws of the USA should treat everyone with dignity and respect......EQUALLY!

And yes, there are many benefits that come with marriage that are NOT included with Domestic Partnerships.

GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!

Posted by 805grl on November 19, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree I had to vote yes on 8! I am very hopefull marriage will continue to stay between a man and woman! Why cant heterosexual couples keep their traditions.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 19, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

805girl -

Allowing gay people to marry will not change heterosexual marriage traditions, unless it is a tradition for you to discriminate against other families and deny them basic civil rights.

You can hope all you want.....but discrimination has NEVER lasted in the USA and this will not last either....PROP 8 will be overturned.

GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL FAMILIES!

Posted by Rocket81 on November 19, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff, you just dont get it. As do all the protesters.

Posted by jeffinventura on November 19, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rock -

Nah, I "get it" just fine....I understand that there are people who want to discriminate against me and other families because they are different.

And I also understand that as an American I have the right to demand EQUAL RIGHTS for all!

And I will exercise that right!!!

GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL FAMILIES!

Posted by didwhat on November 19, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffinventura: some suggested reading for you I and II Corinthians believed to have been writen by Paul to cornth a city that sufered the same problems as some of our local citys today. do it or not no difference too me for three days i've read your rambling and ranting, so consider you have been counciled by more then one i leave you to your own, and any book that has been around since the before the 16th centery, one of the first books printed kind of hard to change things around. and remember the answer to some thngs even Prayer is no...

Posted by WolfWalker on November 20, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Ne...

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Ne...