Home › News › County News
Prop. 8 foes aim their ire at Lassen's stores
Owner backed ballot measure
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsAs a vegetarian, Jessica Pollack frequently turned to Lassen's Natural Foods & Vitamins in Ventura for its organic and dairy-free products.
"It's been a saving grace," she said.
So the 26-year-old lesbian, who got married in August, said she was shocked and angry to learn the store's owner contributed $27,500 to the campaign for Proposition 8, a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters this month.
"I haven't been back since," said Pollack, who has urged her friends to shop elsewhere. "I couldn't understand why they would be supporting this. It's incredibly disappointing and hurtful."
Although Ventura County's largest gay and lesbian organization has not organized a protest against the store, some activists have independently targeted it. Handmade signs calling for people to boycott Lassen's were on display at a rally of some 600 people Saturday in downtown Ventura, and a small group protested Sunday outside the Lassen's store in Thousand Oaks.
Gay activists say the backlash against Lassen's and other businesses that financially supported Proposition 8 is likely to intensify, fueled by text messages, e-mails and calls for action on Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
"There is definitely a movement to educate people," said J.J. Wilner of Ventura, who criticized the owner of the Lassen's store in Ventura forpromoting a position that he said conflicts with the egalitarian beliefs of many customers.
"People have always seen Lassen's as progressive and forward-thinking," said Wilner, co-founder of Community Organized for Liberty, Opportunity and Respect, or COLOR, a gay-straight alliance. "I know a lot of customers — gay and straight — who felt blindsided."
State campaign finance records show the Ventura store contributed separate checks of $25,000 and $2,500 to Proposition 8. The Lassen's in Camarillo also contributed $3,000 to the proposition, and the store in Simi Valley $1,000. Election law allows business owners to contribute as much as they want to ballot initiatives.
Other businesses targeted
In July, gay rights advocates called for a boycott of two San Diego hotels because owner Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8. And since the Nov. 4 election, California has seen an outpouring of demonstrations against passage of Proposition 8.
Sign-waving protesters have massed outside churches and temples, as well as a Los Angeles Mexican restaurant where employees contributed to the proposition. Gay activists have begun publishing lists online of individuals and organizations that donated money to Proposition 8.
Dentists, accountants and veterinarians who gave a few thousand dollars are listed alongside major donors like the Container Supply Co. of Garden Grove, which gave $250,000. The artistic director at the California Musical Theater, the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company, quit last week amid protests over his $1,000 donation to the Yes on 8 campaign.
National organizers are planning a Dec. 10 "Day Without a Gay" that encourages supporters to volunteer instead of going to work, and a Jan. 10 coast-to-coast protest.
"A lot of these events are going to be popping up, and many are from individual and grass-roots efforts being born from text-message blasts and the Internet," said Jay Smith, director of the nonprofit Ventura County Rainbow Alliance, a support center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and HIV/AIDS-affected individuals.
Smith said he has discouraged people from protesting in front of Lassen's, but some are angry.
"There are a lot of people in our community who have been continuous supporters of Lassen's who were shocked to see that much money going to defeat our civil rights," he said.
Word spreads via e-mail
Kasie Vinson, a longtime patron of Lassen's, sent an e-mail to nearly 200 local Democratic volunteers detailing the store's campaign contributions. Vinson, who is straight, was stunned to learn the contributions were collectively the largest in Ventura County for Proposition 8, according to campaign finance forms.
"I personally do not feel comfortable knowing that I contributed even a penny's worth to writing discrimination into the constitution," she said in the e-mail.
Owner Peter Lassen, who has held a business license for the store since 1986, did not respond to repeated calls seeking comment.
Store manager Scott Parbell said the campaign donations were private contributions and were not tied to store operations, even though the donations were listed under the store's name on the state finance forms.
"We have an extremely diverse staff that do not necessarily share the same views," Parbell said. "We're all about providing good customer service, natural foods and vitamins, and what the owner chooses to do with his money is his choice, and we don't have any say over it."
Family defends contributions
Lassen is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opposes same-sex marriage, and it was well within his rights as owner to put his money behind his beliefs, said his niece Else Endecott. The store in Simi Valley is the only one of eight with the Lassen name that is not owned by a Lassen family member, said Endecott, who personally contributed $250 to Proposition 8.
"We have a lot a gay and lesbian customers. We have nothing against them," said Endecott, who manages the Lassen's store in Camarillo, which is owned by her father, John Lassen. "To us, it (same-sex marriage) is a moral issue, not a civil issue."
Business at the Camarillo store has not been affected, she said, although she acknowledged her uncle has received some backlash, which she felt was unfair. She wasn't surprised he has avoided interviews, because the media have unfairly targeted Mormons for their beliefs and advocacy, she said.
"Sadly, people feel like they have to blame somebody," she said. "It's not just Mormons who voted for this. It was passed by a majority of Californians.
"We love our gay and lesbian customers," she said. "If they don't want to shop at our store, then that's their choice. I can respect that, but they should respect my family's beliefs, too. It's pretty sad how mean people can be."
Sonja Eddings Brown of ProtectMarriage.com, a Web site created to support Proposition 8, said boycott threats against business donors have been widespread, and some have reported losses.
Approach could backfire
Beverly Kelley, an author and communications professor at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, said protesting won't likely change Lassen's mind. In fact, it could have the opposite effect, she said.
"The protesters against this need to learn there could be a backlash against them," Kelley said. "Was this $27,500 contribution what turned the tide? No. It was all the new voters, the minority voters, the African-American voters who came out in record numbers and put Obama over the top and put this initiative over the top."
Same-sex marriage backers, she said, should focus on figuring out why people voted as they did. "You have to respect the other side if you want to convince them," she said.
In the parking lot outside the Ventura store recently, longtime customer Christine Burke said she voted against Proposition 8 and was disappointed to learn of Lassen's support, but it wouldn't change her shopping habits. "I believe he has the right to believe in what he believes in," she said. "It's a complex issue."
Shopper Chris Hoover, a Ventura contractor, agreed. "I don't support his point of view," he said, "but I think he has a right to it."
Posted by Reese on November 19, 2008 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These protesters are getting scary as hell. Going after people who have a different viewpoint than your own is just wrong. If you don't agree with their opinions then find a more positive way of dealing with it, but leave them be already.
Posted by live_for_purpose on November 19, 2008 at 4:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
danfuga--
Somebody's existence is not morally wrong. Their behavior can be. Everyone has the right to marry in California. You need to be 18 (with certain exceptions), cannot pick a close relative, may not choose more than one person with whom to be married to at one time, and may pick from anyone of the opposite gender. This law applies equally and fairly to all.
So, you see, there is no unequal application of this law. It applies to all without regard to color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. There is age discrimination, since you are supposed to be 18 to enter into contracts. Perhaps the 17 year olds and under should be out protesting. They would actually have a case. Not only can they not marry, but they can't even vote!
P.S. Although polygamy is officially illegal, you are free to live with as many "spouses" as you want, as long as you are not legally married to them. Many people commit fornication by living with someone out of wedlock. Go ahead and do what you want. Just don't expect the state to come in and sanction it. There is a difference between tolerance and state approval.
Posted by biorkman on November 19, 2008 at 4:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Targeting businesses and churches? Great way to get people over to your side.
Posted by patronald on November 19, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I BET WE HIT MORE THAN 800 TODAY AS LONG AS THERE ARE NONE REMOVED !!!!!!!!!!!!
HERE WE GO
YES ON 8
Posted by live_for_purpose on November 19, 2008 at 4:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps all who voted for Prop. 8 should stop by Lassen's and buy at least one item--and tell them why you stopped by. This could be called an anti-boycott. How about it?
The liberals in this world say they want "free speech." What that means is they want to be heard when they shout and spew and they want everyone else to shut up and go home. Well, too bad. I don't shut up and I don't gome home. And I vote (but not early and often like liberals try to do in Chicago).
Posted by janusjuris on November 19, 2008 at 4:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BACKFIRE??? You betcha! I will shop Lassen's more than ever now. In fact, maybe I'll look and see who contributed to the No on 8 and boycott and harass those losers. You folks LOST! No one wants same-sex marriage in California but perverts and deviants. Get over it already!
Posted by heregoes on November 19, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
live-for-purpose. Great explanation. I am going to Lassen's today!
Posted by live_for_purpose on November 19, 2008 at 5:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
janusjuris--
Great idea. I won't harass the No on 8 people, but I will boycott them. And I can patronize the Yes on 8 contributors. Does anyone know where I can get an accurate list of donors on this issue?
Posted by GWAR on November 19, 2008 at 5:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted no, now, I wish my vote was yes. Out of spite. Talk about sore losers. Geeze, could you imaging all the racism claims if Obama had lost?
Posted by beachmom on November 19, 2008 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The gay activists demand tolerance from everyone, but show no tolerance for someone else’s preferences or beliefs. They demand their “rights” be defended, but stomp on the rights of others. Amazing.
Shop Lassens, right on!
Posted by anaX on November 19, 2008 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I will check out Lassen's now as an alternative to Whole Foods. I can't believe the hatred and intolerance towards people who stood up for their beliefs.
Really well put Live_For Purpose. Same sex couples already have the same benefits as married couples under domestic partnership laws. There was no reason to come after marriage except to undermine our faith and values.
Posted by curious1 on November 19, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Don't hate the players... hate the game" A lot of hate on the no on 8 side.
Posted by ironwoman on November 19, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So we stop shopping at stores that we don't agree with regarding their donation habits?
Now, that is the most immature thing I have ever heard. That would be like not talking to my friends who voted for Obama or no on prop. 8.
Aren't we entitled to have opinions? Oh, that only applys to the no'ers in this case. According to their standards, the h8ters are just discriminatory and full of hate.
Posted by Lilith on November 19, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Protesting against injustice doesn't equal hate.
Activists are not "whining" they are exercising one of the few constitutional rights still available to them.
Amending the constitution like this sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is gay people.
Who's rights will be denied next time?
Posted by janusjuris on November 19, 2008 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
live-for-purpose
I think the secretary of state has a website where you can see who contributed how much for which causes. That's how the rabid pro gay-marriage folks found out about Lassens'. We should all boycott THEM and try to hurt those No on 8 contributors the same way TEHY are trying to punish Lassens' for supporting Yes on 8.
Turn about is fair play.
Posted by Lilith on November 19, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for boycotting Lassen's, it is not a matter of disrespecting others beliefs or opinions, it is a matter of not financially contributing to an entity that worked toward stripping away one's rights. This is America. Gay people pay their taxes, serve in the military, do their civic duty by serving on juries and have every right to demonstrate against injustices such as Prop 8.
Posted by janusjuris on November 19, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here it is: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
Have at 'em!
Posted by burbly4649 on November 19, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"To us, it (same-sex marriage) is a moral issue, not a civil issue."
Do people not realize that, by voting on a moral issue, it automatically becomes a civil issue?
Posted by jimc on November 19, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassens..my new favorite store..if they sold it I'd go out of my way to buy gas there!!!!
Posted by Adam_Monroe on November 19, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Was this $27,500 contribution what turned the tide? No. It was all the new voters, the minority voters, the African-American voters who came out in record numbers and put Obama over the top and put this initiative over the top."
Wait a minute...so is this person suggesting that Prop 8 opponents turn their attention away from business owners and should instead direct their anger toward minorities? Specifically Blacks?
That's what I read...
Posted by dwilson on November 19, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith, it takes a lot to push people to add to or change the State constitution. I was angry that the issue had gone this far and almost voted no on 8 for that reason alone. That is probably why more people didn't vote for it. But the fact is most did. If the owner of Lassen's gave money in support that is his right. Holding peaceful demonstrations is also a right. Aiming it at an individual simply because you disagree is wrong. The owner committed no crime and should be left alone.
Posted by Lilith on November 19, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dwilson
I am not disputing Lassen's right to believe and contribute to initiatives that support those beliefs. What I am saying is that I won't be giving Lassens my money to do it with.
Posted by frank14 on November 19, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll make sure to support Lassens!
Posted by handyhood on November 19, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith - You are obviously a gay person who has had your feelings hurt by the majority of people who don't agree with your viewpoint. I'm am sorry you are hurt, but you must understand that the majority of people (proven by yes votes) do not think that marriage should be between anyone but a Man and a Woman. We are not impinging on your rights to live together or your basic freedoms. No one has the right to marry the same sex. All are equal in this way. You want to change the equality of marriage not us. Don't be a hater because your gay. Most people believe homosexuality is not normal, but we don't harass gay people because of their no votes. Why do gays think they should have more rights than the rest of us? DONT BE HATERS NO ON EIGHTERS!
Posted by just_a_thought on November 19, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for reminding me.....I need to pick up my vitamins and some more shampoo at Lassen's today!
Posted by Lilith on November 19, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First - I don't hate anyone.
Second - Same sex marriage is a right as determined by the Supreme Court, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion over the proposition to overturn it.
Third - this proposition should never have made it onto the ballot as it takes a 2/3 majority in the Legislature to amend the constitution.
Fourth - I am not asking for any additional rights as a gay person, but am insisiting on all the rights given to any American - marriage being one of them as ruled by the Supreme Court.
Posted by yellowdvr on November 19, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Im in lassens ere I come
Posted by godslove1 on November 19, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I will definitely go to Lassens. Bullies never prosper...as a matter of fact there is a whole website devoted to bullies and how to counteract their bullying nature.
YES, YES, YES ON 8!!
All you bullies keep throwing your hisssy-fits show your true colors!
Posted by Drew on November 19, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beware! Free thought is all around you....and there will be more of those who may hold opposite views and think differently than you on many issues...be very, very afraid.
• Burn your iPods, iPhones and Macs..delete your iTunes songs and videos.. Apple donated $100K to NO on 8
• Searching for something on-line? Oh no.... DON'T Google... Google is evil! Google donated over $100K to NO on 8.
• Wearing anything with a Levi's or Dockers label?? Hurry,.strip them off quick, search your drawers and closets...burn it all!! Levi Strauss - another NO on 8 contributer.
• Amgen anyone? Employees? Stock holders? Prescribed any of their products? ...Quit your job, sell your stock, flush your meds...hurry!! Amgen - another NO on 8 contributer.
• Kill your car radio...evil lurks within, disguised as a Clear Channel station- another NO on 8 contributer.
http://www.clearchannel.com/Radio/Sta...
Oh no ... Clear Channel is also huge in outdoor advertising!!! Those evil billboards are everywhere...does Clear Channel own them???.Don't look, run away. fast!
Be afraid, be very afraid ...
Posted by lrgvanman on November 19, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How ridiculous to have this scenario! Voting is for the purpose of a majority action and part of Democracy while the latest protest related actions appear more like two year olds tantrums. People, grow up!
Posted by Old_Fart on November 19, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Look at demographics. Why are Prop 8 opponents only protesting in areas where they already have support?
Go to South Central LA where about 80% of the people voted Yes on Prop 8. They are the ones that need to have their minds changed. Scaredy cats.
Oh I forgot, the liberal judges dont live there.
Posted by yellowdvr on November 19, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The supreme court was worng the first time. The people of California sent them a clear message that they were wong this wont be overturned again.
Posted by lawabider on November 19, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You dolts keep saying that "the majority voted for it" -- the margin was indeed very slim -- and many college kids (who did not read the dang ballot) said they voted YES because they wanted the gays to have the right to marry -- confusing? -- so this was a mis-vote in my estimation... The majority do NOT feel that ANY ONE should be stripped of civil rights. Marriage is a choice of spirituality. A civil union is just that, a civil union. So why can't straight people file a domestic partnership?? This measure is WRONG and the folks that voted for it need to get their heads out of the sand before we become a dictatorship. I'm straight and married -- we have TONS of gay friends and I would attend any of their weddings. I never did shop at Lassen's -- nor will I EVER!
Posted by handyhood on November 19, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilieth- My point exactly. The court does not have the right to determine what the will of the people is. If the court determined that your right has not been impinged upon, will you still complain? We all have the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. If the court decided that a person had the right to marry their sibling would it make the court right? NO, because we as a society have determined that it is wrong. If the court determined that a Woman could go topless because a Man can would it make it right? NO, because we as a society have determined that it is wrong. Move on with your life and be happy with your rights afforded to you by society. Just like EVERYONE else! For the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, of the PEOPLE. The people have spoken on this matter and all your protesting and attacking people who disagree is counter productive. The people have the final say in the matter, and the people from 48 of the States in the USA have agreed on what marriage is. Work on trying to get marital rights in another way.
Posted by jamaro099 on November 19, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote: "....and may pick from anyone of the opposite gender."
live_for_purpose - That last part is gender discrimination - it is NOT equal. What you are saying is that because of their gender, some people DO NOT have a choice that other people do.
Posted by bruceski44 on November 19, 2008 at 7:33 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by yellowdvr on November 19, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the morons would have just read the ballot law they would have known how to vote. It was not confusing at all. thanks to all the young people who voted yes on 8 because the did not read.
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lawabider I'm not to sure what you're saying. It seems you are implying that that college students don't have the intelligience to read a ballot. Isn't that an education issue? What the heck are they doing in college? They can't all be football players on scholarships.
You seem to have math issues, too. Although it is a slim majority, 50%+1 equates to the majority.
I don't think that you can speak for the majority, only for yourself and then it is only an opinion, not fact.
It is a fact that over 50% of those who voted did so in favor of Prop 8.
For a governemnt to overturn that vote is more dictorial than the citizens choices on ballot issues who bother to exercise their right to vote.
Posted by handyhood on November 19, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassens- It looks as though you can expect more shoppers at your stores. :) I have never shopped there because I am a meat and potatoes kind of guy, but there must be something I can buy there. I'll find out today when my wife (opposite sex) goes shopping! We will definitely support Lassens in the future!
Posted by huntram on November 19, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lawabider,
You say that the Yes on 8 people are "dolts", yet you beleive that the voters that didn't or couldn't read the proposition meant to vote no? So who are you calling what?
Jamaro099,
So you agree that it is not sexual orientation discrimination, but it is gender discrimination.
The one problem with that argument is which gender is being discriminated agianst? Both male and female are being treated equally!
Common Sense!
Posted by CamFamFour on November 19, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Homosexuals complain about hate crimes against them yet they are encouraging others to boycott stores who disagree with their beliefs, protest and deface churches and even perform terrorism acts by mailing white powder in envelopes to the Mormon temples and the Knights of Columbus headquarters. I amazed at the lists of "Mormon" donations that they compiled during the campaign when religion is not required donator information and how they have used these lists to persecute members of the Mormon faith. It is evident that they have been planning their own set of hate crimes from day one! I will start shopping at Lassens right now because I won't be intimidated by people who feel the only way they can get their "rights" is by being ugly and hateful to those who do not believe in their lifestyle.
Posted by jamaro099 on November 19, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote: "Both male and female are being treated equally!"
huntram - During the fight to integrate schools the Courts determined that "separate but equal" amounted to discrimination.
The underlying principle is that EVERYONE should have the SAME choices available to them. The law does not allow one group to have certain choices while limiting that choice from another group.
Posted by sheltonclan on November 19, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"one of the few constitutional rights still available to them" - Lilith.
No, every constitutional right is available to all citizens. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, transgenders, all have the "right" to marry. Any gay man can marry any woman he can get to agree to do so. What is at stake is NOT the "right to marry" but the right to define a word to socially condone specific behavior.
I have now shopped Lassens for the first time. I am not Mormon, nor am I Catholic, but I do know this: CHURCHES do not donate money to political causes. Individuals who are members of those churches may. Targeting churches is unfair and shows either great political naivete, or purposeful intent to smear large conservative groups. Hm...I'm watching the graffitti on the gates of the temple in LA daily as I drive by. Looking pretty purposeful to me.
Posted by avuncular2008 on November 19, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen any persecution of Mormons from gays--I see anger and boycotts, which are not uncommon is our history. When movies not to the religious right's liking come out, they will march in front of theaters.
I think the gay community was a bit complacent about the proposition until it was too late. The good news is that in another 10-15 years the age demographic will shift and continually shift towards equal rights. The stats show that young people are not as afraid.
Finally, it's curious that people are taken aback that Lassen's or any other businesss would be boycotted. Imagine if a business donated to a cause that said that your right to marry (or whatever) was to be cut from the constitution. I'm sure you would be angry, too.
Posted by huntram on November 19, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously the No on 8 people do not realize that democracy worked and it is over.
Prop 8 IS state constitutional because it has become part of the constitution. The argument is over about that.
The anti-democracy activists are fighting whether it is a change to as opposed to an ammendment to the constitution.
If it is a change it cannot pass by a mere 50% +1 majority. If it is an ammendment a mere majority is all it takes.
Wish all you want, but the argument change vs ammendment will be a very tough sale!
Common Sense!
Posted by mmlove38 on November 19, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI - just for an educational aspect here: domestic partnership DOES NOT offer the same rights as marriage. Marriage gives an additional 1000+ rights and benefits that domestic partnership does not give. Research domestic partnership and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Posted by sheltonclan on November 19, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
avuncular2008 - have you seen the trashing of the gates & grounds of the Mormon temple in LA? The vile, profane, obscene shouts and signs that make it tough to take children anywhere near the church? I don't know how long those protests lasted, (or if they're going on yet - I try not to go by there in the afternoon now) but I saw a couple of them and that was enough to enlighten my mind about exactly what sort of demostraters we were dealing with. And, I'm not talking about one or two or ten people...there must have been thousands, and they were angry to the point that it seemed it would have been quite easy for it to tip over into violence.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Live for a purpose......... I have already started shopping there, and so have a great number of people. I couldnt believe the turnout there.
Them protesting the store is just increasing the stores revenue!!
Jokes on them i guess!!
Posted by DoctorDude on November 19, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassens prices are the highest around. You new "supporters" won't be around for long, you'll be back at Vons buying cheap chemically treated, processed foods in no time. Happy heart attack!
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassen's will definitely lose more business than they'll gain from this. If they thought differently they would've hung a "Yes on 8" banner on the store instead of making a stealth contribution.
And no, bruceski44, this was not a private donation made in the owner's name. It was made by the store and in the name of the store. I wouldn't boycott it otherwise. For instance the CEO of Cinemark donated about $10k to Yes on 8 but at least HE was smart enough to do it in his own name and not the theater's name. Apples and oranges in my opinion.
Posted by sheltonclan on November 19, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
whoops - sorry, hit that button a little quickly!
Also, those young voters will have families of their own someday soon, will see the issue from the perspective of the family and the future. It is not a fear issue - I stand unafraid! But...Remember the old saying “if you’re not a liberal when you’re twenty you don’t have a heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re forty you don’t have a brain.”
Posted by kate on November 19, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lawabider- you said the college kids didn't vote for it because they thought yes meant yes to marriage. Yet the first word of the text on the ballot said "eliminates ".
I agree that obviously it was a slim majority, but this is twice in a row that it has been voted on. I am not out picketing apple, levis, etc. because they donated a ton of money to no on 8. It was their right, as it was Mr. Lassen's right. In these economic times we need to support our local businesses and I will support Lassen's because he is unfairly being singled out because of his beliefs.
Posted by Relvd98 on November 19, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as the Star continues to run articles in relation to Prop 8, all this WILL NEVER stop.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know this isn't the place for rational arguments, but I posted this last time and didn't see any responses:
Should atheists not be allowed to marry? Should the county clerk start asking what your religion is when you apply for a marriage license and then turn you down if you're not a Christian, since marriage is supposedly governed by the Christian bible? Isn't the whole idea of the gov't being involved in marriage a violation of church and state?
Perhaps the government should just grant civil unions to everyone and then let churches perform marriages on whomever they choose.
Posted by lakerboy805 on November 19, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a new lassen's customer.
Posted by suzy0601 on November 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I was going to stop at Ralphs on the way home, but I guess I'll just have to go stop at Lassens on the way home instead! Way to go Lassens, I'll gladly support your stores!
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just find it odd that gay Christians are turned away and ostracized when it comes to marriage, while straight Atheists, Wiccans and Witches are welcomed into the marriage tent. Of course I find a lot of things about religion odd...
Posted by Rocket81 on November 19, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Up to this point I have never shopped there. I will begin doing my shopping there. The no people are very hateful.
Posted by damary on November 19, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Being of a particular religion is not one of the essential elements of marriage. This is pretty basic stuff. We've known for thousands of years what a marriage is.
I think that the confusion lies in the fact that the state recognizes marriage as a means of identifying a permanent union and ascribing certain benefits and priveleges to it. Same sex couples should be putting their efforts into creating legislation that recognizes their unions and ascribes same rights and priveleges without demanding that their union be called a marriage. I sort of thought that they were all about celebrating diversity.
Posted by elephantpower on November 19, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I shopped at Lassens yesterday and told them why. All the people in line were nodding in agreement that they supported Lassen's right to donate, and it was unamerican to harass them. When I said they were being targeted for being Mormons, all loudly agreed.
They do have meat. They have a delicious sandwich/deli set up. Kind of expensive--$7 for a sandwich and $4 for a half. I bought a loaf of Dakota bread at $6, and it must have weighed 3 pounds! Delicious. Its the equivalent of 2 loaves. The Kettle Chips, dijon and honey, were amazing!
Support Traditional Marriage. Shop Lassens.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
damary,
You mean like how Jim Crow laws celebrated diversity too? (from Wikipedia): They mandated de jure segregation in all public facilities, with a "separate but equal" status for black Americans and members of other non-white racial groups.
Posted by gonzo on November 19, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is the gay community so concerned about what 51% of the california voters think of gay marrage?Evel Kinievel: "when you get older you care less about what people think of you and more about what you think of yourself"
Protest up and down the streets make a lot of noise if you want but heteros in general just dont care much either way.
I personally think marriage is a religous issue not a state issue. Unfortunantly the progressive tax codes have written it into your 1040.
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian Your really stretching the comparison. No one is stopping athiests or agnostics from getting married, and was never the issue. The issue is same sex. Many reasons have been given to you, and you disagree with them, which is fine. Many reasons have been given by the opponents of Prop 8, none of which have convinced me otherwise, and that's should be fine as well. No one is required to find a reason that suits you.
You are implying that this is completely a religious issue. I won't deny that most of the Yes on 8 voters did so so because of religious convictions, but that doesn't constitute a violation of establishment/infringement clause. There were many who voted for it that had other compelling reasons not associated with religious convictions.
If "religious" leaders should not take part in the electoral processes, shouldn't the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton retire? Or is OK for them, since the opposed Prop 8?
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OjaiGuy,
I have yet to hear one valid secular argument against gay marriage. Please enlighten me with the "other compelling reasons not associated with religious convictions"?
And I wish all religious "leaders" would get out of politics, especially the ones you cited.
Posted by tathiba1 on November 19, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that people are missing the point as to why we are choosing to shop elsewhere.
Lassens was only able to donate to Prop H8 because of their patrons. They make money from the stores.
I ask any of you who feel that this is a bad way to win people over, how would you feel if someone was supporting taking away a right you felt stongly about?
I am sure that you would be more than willing to support any businesses they owned. RIGHT!
Your marriage does not affect me, any more than mine does you,so why do people have to butt into other peoples business.
This is a religous fight the for the people who were against this prop, but really it is a civil matter.
I would love to have a list of all Ventura County businesses that payed to further hate.
My hope is in the future. I have raised my children to love everyone. Let people practice their religion, and I will practice mine.
I am sure you all have better things you could be doing to help someone, instead of spending money on this.
Feed someone instead with the money.
Isn't divorce worse than John and John, or Jane and Jane getting married?
Posted by simivalleycoordinator on November 19, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
""Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. "
Live for a purpose......... I have already started shopping there, and so have a great number of people. I couldnt believe the turnout there.
Them protesting the store is just increasing the stores revenue!!
Jokes on them i guess!!""
That's funny, because when I was at the Simi store on Saturday, the place was a ghost town.
Two distributors that normally have items at Lassens are no longer selling to them (I found out on my store trip) so I promptly left...but found it immediately at Whole Foods.
There are better quality good-for-you stores out there than Lassens. Whole Foods and Trader Joe's give much better customer service, IMO.
Posted by DoctorDude on November 19, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian, your question is a good one. It's often hard to get straight answers to tuff questions, because in my experience the Christians have a difficult time looking honestly at some of the contradictions in their religion. Why wasn't their such fervor from their ranks for the proposition to help cancer children? is stopping gays more importasnt than cancer kids?Would they support a constitutional ammendment to outlaw divorce and adultry? It's in their bible. Too much hypocrasy in the christian religion for me. It seems to only be about gays and abortion. Here's a video from a church near Thompson and Seaward that used the cross to get their political opinion out. Sick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL7Z5H...
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Venturabrian This may come as a surprise to you, but some non-religious people believe that homosexuality is wrong. You a mistaken that only people of any religious faith are opposed to same sex marriage.
There are some parents out there that don't want to take a chance on the same sex life style be taught to their children in public schools, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
These may not be acceptable to you, but I really doubt that any reason will valid to you if it's contrary to yours, but it is still valid to them. I/They/We don't have to validate my/their reasons to you.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excuse me? Financially supporting people who use that money to take away your rights is somehow the wrong thing to do? What this does is open up the door to financing other measures where *your* rights might be in jeopardy. It's called the "tyranny of the majority" in law--and I suggest you Lassen supporters look that phrase up.
I'm not giving a dime to anyone who uses their money to try to write their religious beliefs into law. I'm joining the boycott--and furthermore, I'm alerting everyone I know about Lassen's and every other company who thinks they have the right to insert their religion into my private choices.
Go ahead and support them if you want--and remember what you did when the tyrannical majority comes after *your* rights.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 19, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is silly to say that "no on 8" supporters are being radical and trying to change other peoples viewpoints or beliefs. But why would you expect us to financially contribute to an entity that is actively using those contributions to endorse and support something I don't believe in?? Use some common sense, it seems a lot of people on here don't have any. There is so much hatred and bigotry in the comments posted, you should all be ashamed. And then you go and act like you're a christian who loves your neighbor??? Shame on you. God doesn't discriminate, why do you??
All of those saying for gays to shut up and accept this, SORRY!!! Until gays have equal rights, whether or not you approve of the lifestyle, or morality, or whatever, it really doesn't matter. No one is going home and being quiet until EQUAL RIGHTS remains true and upheld. You should all be terrified. What if you're rights are the next ones taken away???
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It wasnt a ghost anything yesterday.
And just like being able to choose how and what I vote for, I think I can choose how and where I shop. I will definately try out the other two stores as well!
Im always up for a good bargain!!
But I will continue to shop at Lassens as well!
~~Free American, Well over the age of 21~~
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lilith said: Protesting against injustice doesn't equal hate.
Activists are not "whining" they are exercising one of the few constitutional rights still available to them.
Amending the constitution like this sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is gay people.
Who's rights will be denied next time?
===============
guess what Lilith standing up for your convictions does not equate to hate either.
Prop 8 was not about hate as the no on 8 side projects. I thou dost protest too much. It is usually an indication of where the real hate lies, in the no on 8 crowd.
Prop 8 to me was about defending the US constitution and the 1st amendment. It was about overturning 4 attorneys in robes imposing their morality and beliefs on the rest of the state and shoving it down the throats of the citizenry.
NO LEGAL RIGHTs were lost when prop 8 passed.
I have repeatedly asked for a list of rights that were lost when prop 8 passed and there has been absolutely no body that has been able to respond to that request with a legitimate answer.
I will ask yet again, Please list specifically what legal rights were lost when prop 8 passed?
Posted by Mister_S on November 19, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just want to take a moment and thank the Star for providing this venue for public debate. Also, to my fellow members of this fine community for participating in a (mostly) civil discourse. It is always an interesting window into the thoughts of the community and there are many well reasoned arguments in both directions.
If your not a liberal at 20 you don't have a heart...if your not conservative at 40 you don't own a home!
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To comment on the actual article here:
Why has this story (in various incarnations) now been run 3 times, yet not one story about to contributors to the "No" side? What ever happened to equal, fair reporting? I expect biased reporting at the national level, but it would be nice if the local media would at least "appear" to be unbiased.
Like has been asked several time before, why haven't we read anything reported here about the California Teachers Association contributing over $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign.
I for one find it appalling that a union, who's funds are derived from my tax dollars, is financially supporting political issues. It's OK for private citizens to do it, so why didn't the CTA simply do like the churches and ask their members to individually contribute?
Come on VCS how about reporting both sides. What about a very probative report on teachers opting out of having their union dues be used for political agendas? Did they suffer any consequences? Is it fair/legal that our tax dollars and up funding political agendas?
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
O_P_Rockwell ~
A civics class is in order for you. The court (mostly conservative, by the way) recognized that separate is not equal. Does that phrase ring a bell?
The genius of our system of government is that the courts were instituted in part to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." The court did not "write this into law"--they looked at the constitution of CA and realized that equal rights for all are (ready for this?) equal rights for ALL.
If you post, get your facts straight.
Posted by npcody on November 19, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Won't be shopping at Lassen's
No on 8
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OjaiGuy,
You've made a lot of noise, but you really haven't come up with a good rational argument to justify your dislike of gays. Maybe you just don't like them because they're "different" and therefore they scare you. OK, but that sounds a lot like Alabama in the 1960s.
As for kids being "taught the gay lifestyle", I still don't understand that. Here's what I told my 8-year-old when he asked what gay marriage was: "In this great big world most men fall in love with women, and most women fall in love with men. But some men fall in love with other men, and some women with other women." THE END. Do you really think that by telling him that gays exist that I've predisposed him to being gay now?
Whenever a majority wants to oppress a minority they say that the minority threatens their children. Remember these greatest hits from the hate hall of fame? - Jews sacrifice and even eat gentile babies - Gypsies steal your kids and enslave them - Black men want nothing more than to defile your white daughters - and, of course, gays want to "convert" your kids into their lifestyle. Same tune, different notes. Very tiresome.
Posted by whatevers on November 19, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No on 8'rs have stopped shopping at Lassens the Yes on 8 have started shopping at Lassens, guess who looses again? Not Lassens!
Thanks NO on 8 I have found my new grocery store!
My question to you NO on 8'rs did you boycott family, friends, employers, co-workers, and everyone else who didn't agree with you?
Posted by yoda on November 19, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you havent trained as a Jedi you can not wield the saber!
It is true and I thought to myself what would I tell my child one day if they were gay and wanted to get married. I would explain that marriage is the ultimate bond between man and woman. And ultimately if you want to have a family you have to be with someone of the opposite sex. No matter what it takes a man and a woman to create new life. You cant be a doctor without a degree or a trucker without a license, it just doesnt work.
Marriage for man and woman only
Adoption for man and woman married only.
Have you ever heard a kid say, ohhh I want a momie and momie, or a daddy and daddy?????????
May the force be with you!
Posted by Ms_California on November 19, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I stopped eating at Carl's Jr based on their involvement with Anti abortion programs. Look into how much they have donated each year. You would be surprised at the amount of money that is donated each year by big name companies to programs or beliefs that just aren't accepted by all society. Did't KFC (years ago) donate to a KKK program? Each company and owner has their own beliefs just as every day folk. I personally do not find that addressing them or promoting them in a public forum like this is the correct way to act. I think it will definately hurt their businesses which is really bad timing for them right now. They aren't the cheapest store in town to begin with!
Posted by lawabider on November 19, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Ventura Brian -- something here finally made sense -- and, for the record, I did not ever say college kids were smart (look to the Montecito hills this week for clarification) -- I said the prop was misleading for those that did not take the time to read it in that many just voted YES thinking that meant gays would get the right to marry... I think MOST people are stupid or hypocrits, but that thought only comes from 46 years of experience!
Posted by slgentile on November 19, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I will ask yet again, Please list specifically what legal rights were lost when prop 8 passed?"
It's simple: The legal right to marriage that the supreme court declared in May was guaranteed to ALL people--gay and straight--by the equal protection clause of the constitution, and others. The Yes on 8 side stripped a minority of its rights by lying and making this issue about things other than civil marriage, in an effort to hide their real agenda to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Protesting and boycotting when you have been stripped of your fundamental rights is in no way childish or inappropriate. If we had voted to ban Catholics from marrying, or blacks, you could bet the backlash would be severe--and completely justified. The fact that people would understand their anger were others' rights taken away but condemn the boycott by gay rights' activists (many of whom are straight) only shows their latent prejudice and hypocrisy.
Prop. 8 seeks to dismantle the equal rights clause of our constitution by targeting a vulnerable minority group for discrimination. It is an illegal revision that can and hopefully will be invalidated by the court.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If there was a way to boycott something, the california teachers association would be on my top hit list.
I refuse to take it out on the individual teachers, a lot of whom I have talked to didnt agree with it either and are not happy with how they are being represented!
They have NO right donating my tax dollars to their private agenda's!!
I still believe they have their own private agenda if this had not passed, and since they can ALREADY teach it in schools, ( no im not posting the link AGAIN, look it up) to help them force it into schools even more so.
Sex education, relationships and marriage should start at home NOT in a classroom at a public school. It is a private matter and will always be a private matter.
I was floored when my 13 year old daughter came home and demonstrated what she learned in school that day in health class.. How to put a condom on a banana!!!!
That is MY job to teach my kids not a teacher that has no history of my family, beliefs or wants and needs!!!!
What happened to the three R's?
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bratt: FYI-unions are funded by thir members' dues, not your tax dollars.
Posted by lawabider on November 19, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
and the good new is, with the passage of this law, I can now marry my son!! hahahahaha! (sick)
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you look closely at the funding from the No on 8 you will notice a number of things.
1) Local voters gave small amount generally under $250 per person.
2) Gays hid their contributions by donating to gay activist groups who in turn donated lots of cash to no on 8.
3) Most of the big money for the no 8 side came from out of state. Generally Washington D.C and New York.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ojaiguy likes to revert to his "wiser-than thou" point of view. CHANGING a constitution to deliberately EXCLUDE a certain group from entering into a legal contract is DISCRIMINATION...no religion involved. It's EXACTLY like the ugly scar of segregation in this country. You cannot possibly (sanely) believe that there's NO comparison. The legal agreement as it stands (BEFORE ANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS) is that TWO (not multiple as per polygamy)...consenting adults of legal marrying age can enter into a marriage contract. WHERE does it state that a specific sexual preference is a pre-requisite?
Please justify (without using Religion) the altering of the constitution to SPECIFICALLY exclude a group of society. That's the ultimate argument here that religion and paranoid conservatives have muddled and made into a "ohhhh..you have to protect the children"...."oohhh...they're make you ALL gay"...."ohhh it'll be the end of the world".
Please.
Posted by mmlove38 on November 19, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The whole reason for the protest against the Mormon church is because $20+ million came from UTAH's Mormon church. There are tax exempt rules that the church violated. There are letters to their congregations from church representatives advising the congregation to give money, time, and whatever is necessary to pass prop. 8. The main thing is that UTAH is not California. WE allowed another state to come in and donate more than half the funding for the YES on 8 campaign. The vote should have been left up to Califonian's and not lies contributed and paid for by another states views. Churches are required to not participate in political issues. They are not allowed to place Yes or NO on 8 signs on their property. IF they do take a stand, they are in violation of their tax exempt status. I totally am a No on 8 person, and I agree that vandalism or harm to other organiztions is wrong. However, people have the right to decide where they want to shop or what items they want to buy, for whatever reason. If people don't want to shop at a particular store, that is their choice. If it causes a company to go under, then that is the chance it takes. If it causes a company to flourish, then the chance paid off. Either way, the courts will have to deal with legitimacy of the proposition and the IRS will have to deal with the Mormon church.
Posted by bbcake16 on November 19, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So many of these posts are so hateful. Do you people actually read what you write?
Here is just a sampling of the horrible comments that stood out:
"The liberals in this world say they want "free speech." What that means is they want to be heard when they shout and spew and they want everyone else to shut up and go home. Well, too bad. I don't shut up and I don't gome home. And I vote (but not early and often like liberals try to do in Chicago)."
"You folks LOST! No one wants same-sex marriage in California but perverts and deviants. Get over it already!" (This one is especially egregious because nearly half of Californians did vote AGAINST Prop 8. Are you suggesting we're all perverts? I think not. I'm married with a child...but I don't believe in discrimination, plain and simple.)
"You gays need to go do your thing IN PRIVATE and shut up."
The list goes on, but I won't. I will just say a couple of things:
1. It took a long time for black Americans to be recognized as citizens and not merely the property of their owners. It took a long time for women to be given the right to vote. They had to try numerous times, with huge sacrifices in both cases. Suggesting that prop 8 opponents should stop trying to effect change is proposperous. I am as straight as they come, and I'm board to help with any future campaigns in favor of gay marriage.
2. I am hard-pressed to understand how gay marriages affect MY marriage. My husband and I are very secure in our marriage. There is no outside "threat" to us that can do any damage to our happy home if we don't allow it to. And I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me exactly how a gay marriage has any impact on my own at all. Someone, please, tell me how gay marriage is a "threat" to me? (And how is it that we can act as if marriage is so sacrosanct when the divorce rate is still above 50%?)
3. I wish people would stop using the above, specious argument in favor of this ban and just admit that they are biased against gays. The comments I quoted certainly demonstrate this. Quit being such hypocrites and examine your true motives for not wanting gays to be able to marry -- you simply don't like them. And once you are able to admit that, maybe you will be able to delve even further and ask yourself why. Going through this thought process *may* -- if you are truly decent human being -- allow you to realize that gays and lesbians are people just like the rest of us, and they have every right to happiness.
Posted by bill on November 19, 2008 at 9:42 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: Please do your homework before you post. Unions are NOT funding by tax dollars. They're funded by member dues.
Also, if you're THIS shocked about your 13 year old daughter (who COULD technically make you a Grandma sooner than you think) learning about condoms and proper usage...I HIGHLY doubt you would have ever taught her at home by yourself. She knows a LOT more than you let yourself believe she knows.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Carol,
Thats a good thing!!!!!
However if there was a way to boycott them, thats the group I would pick.
They have no place in this at all, in MY OPINION!
They are there for the childrens sake as well as the teachers sake, which again falls back on the children of this state and THEIR education!
Not who marries who
Posted by dom_kenpo on November 19, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassens makes good egg salad sandwiches, regardless of what point of view they support.
Posted by littlepowers on November 19, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
male and female are being treated equally.
gay is not.
Law requires 2/3's vote to amend the constitution.
Plain and simple.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: The CTA (CA teacher's association) believes supported the No on 8 side because PUBLIC SCHOOLS and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS cannot support discrimination of ANY KIND. It's not about religion. They are a public service that by definition must accept every type of student and not be biased in the least, let alone stand by and not support the anti-discrimination movement that is No on 8.
If you STILL don't "GET IT"...then you REALLY need to do your homework.
Posted by 126west on November 19, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Preserve marriage?
Ban divorce.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on November 19, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Homosexual rights activists have well demonstrated why I will never support them. From "gay pride" parades to money against 8 by the teacher's union, they have sold me on the idea that they are not deserving of our respect or support. What they do in their bedrooms is their own business. They have gone over the line. There are more important issues on our plates now so why the inordinate focus and expenditure of resources on issues of homosexuality??? Out of my face!!!
Our children are not ready for the type of indoctrination that is being thrust upon them by SB 777 and other homosexual activism. The issues are not even remotely related to those of race.
How about the lesbian vice principal at E. O. Green school? Did her activism help set the stage for what happened to Larry King?
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
caroldammit wrote: "Bratt: FYI-unions are funded by thir members' dues, not your tax dollars."
Teachers salaries are paid from tax dollars and union dues are mandatory for employment. Therefore, union dues do come from tax dollars.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyz,
You have no idea about my family or my children!
You have no clue as to what they know or dont know!
I was shocked at the fact they teach that in SCHOOL! Thats a little graphic for 11, how old she was when she learned it( but as an American citizen over the age of 21, thats MY OPINION) you do not need to share MY opinion!
Further more, My daughter was raised with morals and values! I have no fear what so ever, with becomming a grandma at her age! She does not worry me with that!
And funny you should say i wouldnt teach her that...
My husband just taught our 15 year old ( because we as parents feel that was an appropriate age for HIM) son all about that ( he was more comfy learning from a guy about sex vs his mother, thats OUR choice as parents)
Wow, since WE are the childrens PARENTS, it should be OUR choice as to when OUR kids learn this stuff based on OUR KIDS' needs, not the schools needs!!
But thank you for your concern!
Again, I see the no on 8 people starting the "bashing" cus they promote tolerance and freedom so well!!
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Equitable_Enforcer - I'm aghast. I hope you and I are never on the same side of any issue. The fact that you invoked Larry King's name and somehow blame the vice principal at his school for his demise has left me speechless. I have a feeling this board is about to get shut down because that's the most uncivil discourse I could imagine.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion............. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!
But furthermore, NOT ALL the teachers agreed with what they did and it was THEIR money!!!
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmlove38 wrote: "$20+ million came from UTAH's Mormon church. There are tax exempt rules that the church violated."
Can you show proof that the church actually donated this $20+ million? No, it was individual contributions.
===========================================
mmlove38 wrote: "The main thing is that UTAH is not California. WE allowed another state to come in and donate more than half the funding for the YES on 8 campaign."
And much more than half of the funding for "No on 8" came from outside California. Isn't your reasoning just a little hypocritical?
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion and jstabratt -
LOL... so now you're NOT in favor of majority rule? The union voted to donate that money and the vote passed. Funny how that knife can cut both ways.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Equitable_Enforcer: It's the Yes on 8 side that is making this an issue. The legal agreement as it stands today does not include sexual preference as a pre-requisite. The YES ON 8 side is pushing for this type of discrimination.
Again....public schools CANNOT discriminate against anyone. The VP at E.O. Green cannot be blamed for NOT-discriminating against Larry because he was Gay. That's just a stupid point you've made...I expected more from you E_E.
Posted by lakerboy805 on November 19, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
just purchased some vitamins from lassens and some sports drinks..sweet
Posted by greengamer on November 19, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This debate reminds me of Brown vs. Board of Education. Desegregate marriage!
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian wrote: "so now you're NOT in favor of majority rule? The union voted to donate that money and the vote passed. Funny how that knife can cut both ways."
A vote to donate money?
Including every teacher?
And you're basing this "information" based on what?
Posted by lakerboy805 on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a girlfriend and a girl on the side, you think i could marry both of them and would anyone mind?
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bratt: Would you please share with us what school was teaching an 11 year old how to use a condom so we can all boycott it? I cannot help but question the veracity of that statement and will be just as shocked & apalled as most everyone here if it is actually true.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion.....
The teachers I have talked to, didnt know anything about a vote to do this, and they were extremely unhappy it was done!
Ventura can say what they like ( its their right) but I will trust the teachers I have talked to personally over anyone else. I would think they would know if a vote to spend THEIR money was done and how it all went down.
Posted by 805grl on November 19, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love lassens and will shop there more now!
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Carol...
Of course you question it. So did I until I went to the school and asked them if thats what the paper I signed giving her permission to attend health class meant.
I as any normal parent assumed ( yes we all know what that means) health class = basic anatomy, and health concerns,appropriate to age and gender.
In Iowa, they teach it all apparently. The next year she was dismissed from that class. Yes, I still had the right to opt her OUT of the class,and I did so!
What they dont tell you when you sign that paper, is WHAT they will be teaching in those classes. They slip it in with all the other paperwork and you skim through it and sign it. No where on that paper does it give the class specifics of the teachings.
My daughters school now ( here in simi), DOES send you home a class description of EVERYTHING that is being taught in the class, but only AFTER you sign the okie dokie to let them take it.
Please argue with me on it. I know how they did it here, i set up 5 different kids in schools this year!
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.bettendorf.k12.ia.us/bms/c...
Mind you this is 6th Grade classes
Health
The sixth grade health program is a one-semester course designed to offer students the information, skills and motivation necessary for the development of physical, mental, emotional and societal health skills. Content areas include: personal health-nutrition; family life and human sexuality; community and environmental management;
disease prevention and control;(spaced to see it better.. This is what they told me they classified it under)
mental and emotional health; first aid and safety; and personal safety.
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian Another reason why some people voted for Prop 8 is that they hear arguments of "You are a H8r if you are a 8r". That really turns people off and is not a legitimate argument, just an emotional one.
You presume that I hate gays, you presume that I am homophobic, you presume that I am intolerant, etc. This sounds like you are describing yourself as one of the people that you are describing as 'Bama in the 60's, gypsies, black men/white women.
You asked for a non-religious reason why people voted in favor of Prop 8, and I gave them to you. I never said that they were my reasons. I also said that no one will ever be able to give you an acceptable reason, because there is none accaptable to you. So, continuing to ask the question seems silly. The only time banging your head against the wall feels good is when you stop.
What you teach your children is your business, I believe you are executing your parental rights doing so and would oppose anybody who would try to stop that. I believe that parents have the right to determine what their kids are taught. Not all parents believe that homosexuality is OK. Are you going to deny them their rights to do so because they believe differently than you?
I think we can agree that kids have impressionable minds in all kinds of areas, especially family dynamics. Kids growing up in a 2 parent traditional family are likely to be more succesful and happy as adults. Kids that grow up in a 2 parent traditional family where there is spousal abuse are more likely to be abusers and unhappy as adults. I have seen opinions in previous posts that kids are being "brain-washed", or indoctrination, by religions. This comes from the No on 8r's. Why then is it that No on 8r's claim teaching children in elementary school, or at home, about same sex marriage not to be considered indoctrination?
Babydaddy "The legal agreement as it stands (BEFORE ANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS) is that TWO (not multiple as per polygamy)." Are you saying that polygamy should not be allowed, and if so, isn't that discriminatory? Polygamy is in the books as unlawful, not just for Mormons, but for everybody, even those who are athiestic or agnostic, and regardless of gender. That is discriminatory, right?
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday."
Just imagine how many children the Mormon Church could have helped to feed with the $20+ million they donated to take away the rights of gay people in California.
Oh, wait ... that would have been the CHRISTIAN thing to do.
Boycott.
Posted by godslove1 on November 19, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@jstabratt...OMG I would have hit the roof!!! I wonder how much time they spent on the topic of abstinence and self respect. Did they tell your daughter about healthy and unhealthy relationships and boundaries?? Did they happen to mention that the boys might be getting taught about integrity and respect for the girls and how to create friendships and meaningful interaction rather that seeing the girls as objects to posses? Probably not instead they teach and promote sexuality figuring that you must go with the flow and never mind about conscious and rational thought before reaction.
Sorry but your post really burned me up!! That is pathetic!! Imagine how they would explain/ teach about/ promote homosexuality...
Posted by LoveAmerica on November 19, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This reminds me of the time, not too long ago, when 9 "activist" judges ruled that Virginia had to release a man imprisoned for a year for violating their marriage law. 75% of the people in the state at the time disagreed with these "anti-democracy" judges yet they still overturned the law and let the law-breaker out of jail.
The year was 1967. The "activist, anti-democracy" judges were the Supreme Court of the U.S. and the Virginia law in question was the prohibition of "mixed race" marriages - a law that 16 other states also had in force at the time. The will of the people was thwarted! Shameful huh?
The reason we are a country of laws based on the Constitution is to protect us from the majority.
It is sad to me that in a time in our history when people are really struggling to make it, when emergency food pantries are empty, when people are unable to afford health care, when manufacturing jobs are being shipped to countries where people are willing to work for 89 cents an hour, when the typical new job created in our country pays about 9 bucks an hour - not enough to pay for rent and food, that churches and businesses are committing millions of dollars to fight the evil homos.
To think that everyone who was against Prop 8 is a gay activist is to think that you should only be concerned with things that directly affect you. Unfortunately in this era of self-interest, that seemed to be the case here. I am a married father of 3 who loves our country and loves our Constitution. We are a nation of diversity who should respecting eachother's rights and working together to make sure everyone's basic rights are protected - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I hope we all will be ashamed in 40 years when we look back upon this.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
myopinion & bratt,
Time for Civics 101 - it's impossible for every citizen to vote on how every dollar is spent. So they elect representatives who share their views. The representatives then vote in the interest of their constituents.
The same is true of the CTA which has 300,000 members. The CTA has an 800-member board of elected representatives that voted in an "overwhelming majority" to oppose Prop 8 with some of the roughly $60M they donate to political causes each year. Here's a recent quote from the CTA that you may find familiar:
"CTA is a democratic organization, and we recognize that not 100 percent of its members are going to be represented by the majority viewpoint, but the opportunity for representation is there."
So endeth the lesson.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gods,
I have one in High School and one in Middle school. I know they know about this stuff and life cannot be stopped because i would rather neither of them grow up ever!!
My daughter comes home and talks about all her "bi" friends because that seems to be the new "cool" thing to be in middle school.
at 13 they dont even know what love is let alone what being bi/gay/straight really truely means. They dont know what true love is at that age. It is just "COOL" to be in it ( hehe gotta love that age of independence and innocence)
But it is NOT right to be teaching kids this stuff at such early ages.
My son is in high school, he knows all about it. He knows the truth and very open and honest BLUNT truth because we as his parents CHOSE to make him aware when he thought HE was ready. Not when some dang school thought HE was ready to learn and be able to understand.
Now, my daughter does not "gay bash" her friends or demoralize them, but she does not believe it is right to walk around saying "im Bi / gay" because she knows most of them are just saying it to sound cool.
That is what scares me most!!
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Webster wrote: "Just imagine how many children the Mormon Church could have helped to feed with the $20+ million they donated to take away the rights of gay people in California."
Once again, the "Mormon Church" didn't donate money to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Do you know how much money the "Mormon Church" spends on humanitarian aid and welfare causes around the world? Go check the facts before spewing lies.
Just imagine how many children the "gay rights" groups could have helped to feed ...
It goes both ways.
Posted by smithjc on November 19, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i think it's really nice of these people to publish lists of the businesses that donated to the YES on 8 campaign. that's something good to know so i can patronize those businesses and make sure they get my money instead of places that opposed 8. now, where to i find these lists?
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura....
I just dont feel this was the correct politcal endeavor for them to take on. Way to controversial!
Why dont they do something to feed the Children in schools that are going without food at night, or maybe help them get clothing or housing?
They are about the "kids" correct? Or am i wrong about that too?
Why dont they get involved with improving teachers salaries ( so they are more willing to teach) or maybe helping to provide new books for classrooms or something usefull that SUITS what they are there for?
That is just my opinion of what they should be getting involved in, not someone getting married or not married
Sorry that my opinion disagrees with yours, but THEY should be there for the kids, not the kids mommy and mommy's rights or wrongs.
Posted by peach224 on November 19, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am pretty sure that saying that someone is a pervert or a deviant if they voted no on Prop 8 is as hateful as it gets, but if I am wrong I apologize.
If one more person spouts "but domestic partnership laws are just as good" I will scream. Have those of you who say that actually read them? They are not just as good! They are not the same at all and many employers and other organizations fall into loopholes that mean they don't have to abide by them.
And teaching kids about homosexuality in school is a bogus argument. I have two kids in the school system at various stages and plenty of friends with kids. It isn't going to happen. If you don't want your kids to learn about homosexuality, lock them in the basement without TV, radio, video games or any access to the outside world. That's the only way you are going to stop it. Be realistic people
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ojaiguy: "Are you saying that polygamy should not be allowed, and if so, isn't that discriminatory? Polygamy is in the books as unlawful, not just for Mormons, but for everybody, even those who are athiestic or agnostic, and regardless of gender. That is discriminatory, right?"
Prop 8 is not about polygamy. Actually...you'd be doing the reverse if you created a Proposition to allow polygamy. You'd be taking the law as it stands and choosing to "take out" wording that current makes polygamy illegal. Whereas with Prop 8 you're ADDING IN language to DELIBERATELY exclude a group of society from entering this contract because of their sexual preference.
Again, if you want to marry both your wife and her sister....then go ahead and gather the money and signatures to get it on the ballot bud. As for this, please enlighten us on how Prop 8 is NOT discriminatory?
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian wrote: "..with some of the roughly $60M ..."
Seems like the CTA should cut their dues so teachers have more net income rather than spending money on political issues that 100% of their members don't support.
I for one would like to sign a petition to disband the CTA so our teachers can keep more of their hard earned cash, which is really my tax dollars.
Posted by carefulnow on November 19, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. California
Here's a link that debunks your rumor that KFC supported the KKK.
http://www.snopes.com/business/allian...
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OjaiGuy:"You asked for a non-religious reason why people voted in favor of Prop 8, and I gave them to you."
Well I've re-read your posts, and the only secular statement you've made against gay marriage is that you don't want the homosexual lifestyle taught in schools. That's not really relevant to the issue of gay marriage. The existence of homosexuality is already brought up in the classroom and always will be because gays will always be around. I remember a discussion about it in my 10th grade sociology class in 1987. So maybe you just don't want to "legitimize" the gay lifestyle by discussing the fact that they're allowed to marry. Interesting.
What I'm looking for is a secular, non-religious, civil reason to ban gay marriage. For instance, something like proof that it costs the taxpayers excessive amounts of money or it puts an unfair burden on the legal system... something like that. To just say you want to deny someone rights because you don't like their lifestyle is ludicrous and has no place in a society where all men are created equal.
C'mon people... what is a civil, secular reason to deny gay marriage?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion: So you're saying that public school teachers for the most part SUPPORT an initiative that creates and promotes discrimination? What are you smoking?
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bratt: No the teacher's assoc. is not about the kids. It is a teachers' union and it does negotiate their contracts. It has nothing to do with students. The federal child nutrition program, however, does fund free and reduced price breakfast and lunches for those students you mentioned who may not be getting fed at night.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My(stupid)Opinion said:
"Just imagine how many children the "gay rights" groups could have helped to feed ... It goes both ways."
The 'No on 8' people wouldn't have had to spend so much if the Mormon Church hadn't given over 77% of the money (some $20+ million) to take away the rights of citizens.
You have a difficult time with logic, don't you?
Posted by tmh83 on November 19, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand why everyone is wanting to boycott for merely having an opinion. I thought that was what voting was all about? Just because Lassen's has more money than the average Joe Shmo and can afford to financially support what he believes in, doesn't mean that he is any different than all of us who went out to the polls on November 4. He just did it with money as well as a vote and now his business must suffer because of his opinion?
I commend the Lassen's owner and all who stand up for what they believe in. The majority will continue to support them. And for those of you who think that homosexuals "scare" the rest of us, that is the silliest thing I have every heard of. What would we possibly be afraid of? This may come as a shock to you, but your not that intimidating!
When I hear about people believing that college students were "confused" about what they were voting for, I just laugh and think, "Okay, what else are they going to blame for this?"
Posted by bbbdugout on November 19, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it's okay for the Mormons to have multiple wives, even as young as 12, but it's not okay for others to live the way they want to - it just doesn't make sense - I'll never go to Lassens again - shame on you
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 wrote: "MyOpinion: So you're saying that public school teachers for the most part SUPPORT an initiative that creates and promotes discrimination? What are you smoking?"
I'm pretty sure I never said anything close to this. But if you feel like you need to put words in peoples mouths to deflect focus away from real issues, then shame on you.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion & Bratt,
If you want to decide how the CTA spends your tax dollars then become a teacher, join the union and vote. Be warned though, you may have to become a firefighter and police officer too each time their unions vote to donate "your tax dollars" to something you don't agree with.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian: I'll do it for them.
Because they're "different".
Because it's a change from the norm.
Because it would mean that I have to change the way I see the world (through blinders).
Because the concept of 1 man 1 woman is just easier for my simple brain to understand.
Because I'm not gay (that I know of), but I think I might be raising a kid that might be and my Wife once told me about some "experimenting" she did in college...but she's ONLY straight because she married me and allowing gays to marry would only bring my kid and wife out of the closet.
Because it's contagious.
Because I read it in the book of Jewish Stories.
Because I'd rather donate money to the church I belong to so that they can payout child molestation lawsuits than see two same sex people that love each other get married and have the same legal rights as any other married couple in the state.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion: It's called deductive reasoning. Pay attention. You cannot make the statement that the CTA is who supports No on 8 but the teachers don't....but at the same time NOT be saying that at all.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Carol,
Then maybe I am missing something... ( and im honestly trying to understand ALL sides of this, so please dont think im being nasty im not trying to be)
If the teachers union is there to support the teachers and their contracts, salaries, benifits etc..What do the teachers contracts, salaries and benifits have to do with why mommy and mommy cant get married?..
Why dont they do something about those problems. None of our teachers are paid what they are worth or should be paid. Why dont they take some of that money and invest into something to help them get better pay - benifits etc?
I understand none of us can really answer that question, but it is worth thinking about. What are they really supporting here, our teachers or some politcal agenda that has nothing to do with out teachers directly
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bbbdugout wrote: "it's okay for the Mormons to have multiple wives, even as young as 12 ..."
Wow, how uninformed can you be? Maybe you should go research some facts before you type.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it hateful to not support a business that donates to a cause you diametrically oppose? Seriously. The donation wasn't made in the owner's name - it was made in the name of "Lassen's Natural Foods of Ventura." The owner could've made that donation in his own name but didn't. Can't you see how that would be a slap in the face of all the gay people and friends/relatives/moms/dads of gays that shop and work there? Of course they should boycott it.
I will never deny anyone the right to donate to whomever they choose. But I don't guarantee that I will continue to give them money with which to do so.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Webster wrote: "My(stupid)Opinion ..." (and more spewed hatred)
True colors showing.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's really very simple. Lassens owners decide to donate money to take away the established rights of gay citizens. Gay people and their allies decide not to give money to someone who wants to take away their rights.
Fair.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jstabratt: Please tell me you can read for comprehension.
CTA supports No on 8 because it cannot endorse discrimination. You should be worried if the association of teachers in this state are FOR an initiative that promotes discrimination.
Posted by peach224 on November 19, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Really whatever? As I pointed out before, I am pretty sure that a prop 8 supporter called those of us who voted against it perverted and deviant in one of the first posts of the day. So far, nobody has suggested that post's removal, so I think it is safe to say that you are getting your voice.
As for the majority v. minority theory, in true statistics, it takes 2/3 to constitute a majority. Since this proposition only passed with 52% of the vote, that hardly brings it to a majority. It just so happens that one or two more people are afraid or more willing to sacrifice their fellow man for their religious convictions.
I am fairly sure that as a Christian, God did not mean for us to throw our fellow man "under the bus" as it were in order to save ourselves. If you are doing what is right, why do you care so much what other people are doing? Do you honestly think you are going to save them by banning them from getting married? I would say the damage is already done.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JayAllen wrote: "i do not respect the mormon church donating money to it..."
Why do people keep posting this false fact? For what purpose? Is it out of desperation?
The "Mormon Church" did NOT donate any money.
Posted by h2oboy on November 19, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on 8 Yes on 8
Go protest something else. I will spend more at Lassens now.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion: You need to look up the word "hatred". It is NOT defined as merely an expression of opinions contrary to yours. Lighten up.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A relevant quote from Uncle Walt:
"Equality — As if it harm’d me, giving others the same chances and rights as myself — As if it were not indispensable to my own rights that others possess the same." Walt Whitman (1819–1892)
He certainly was way ahead of his time. Oh wait... he was gay... guess he was just promoting some crazy gay agenda with this.
Posted by NorCalCal on November 19, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can boycotting a business be wrong but contributing $27,000 dollars to a personal legal vendetta to destroy familes different that yours be "just politics". Same sex marriages hurt noone and help maintain stable gay families. Prop 8 supporters like the Lassen folks just wanted to throw their weight around and pick on an unpopular minority. I doubt a boycott will have any effect but the idea that it is "wrong" is bizarre. It pales in comparison to the mean spirited hate campaign that was/is Prop 8.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian wrote: "Why is it hateful to not support a business that donates to a cause you diametrically oppose? ... I will never deny anyone the right to donate to whomever they choose. ..."
Even though we disagree on some things, I will admit that agree with this.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyz.... Keep bashing, you just keep promoting more of that Tolorance you say your for!!!
Of course I can read and comprehend.
But either read all of the posts between carol and I or keep commenting on what your not reading!
They shouldnt be supporting EITHER way on this issue ( i forget you dont comprehend what MY PERSONAL OPINION means)
They should be promoting and fighting for things for our teachers since that is what they are there for.
Posted by Good_Granny on November 19, 2008 at 11:25 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Acutally, MyOpinion, the Mormons did donate $5,000 in the name of the Church of Latter-Day Saints of Utah according to the Sec of State website. But that's a lot less than the $20M figure that's been batted around. You're correct that most of that money came from individual donors in their "flock".
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have NEVER EVER Said not to boycott Lassens, if that is what you so wish to do. I just hope it remains peacefull is all.
I have simply said I will support them and I shop there.
It is the right of the donatee ( dont know about spelling here) to donate to whome or what they choose.
It is also the right of the protestor to boycott whom or what they wish based on their opinions.
Just as I have the right to shop where i see fit based on my reasons!
Posted by skmce on November 19, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have never shopped at Lassens before, but i will be SURE TO SUPPORT THEM from now on.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Good_Granny on November 19, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
you people make me sick! This is just another instance in which the Backbiting bible belt bit*ches want to take rights away. NO on PROP 8
WOW--- SO much for tolerance and peacefull!!!
BTW im not a backbiting bible belt... The other maybe.. Im a Strehgan!! But thank you for the comment on the last part.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian wrote: "the Mormons did donate $5,000 in the name of the Church of Latter-Day Saints of Utah"
Correct, and it was "goods in kind" (I think that's the right term) rather than actual cash contributions.
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyz: Play nice, now!
Brat: I think the reason CTA endorsed a "No on 8" and helped fund commercials advocating "No on 8" was the "Yes on 8"'s assertion that if 8 did not pass, schools would be required to "teach gay marriage". And, perhaps, also because they believe in equal rights for all. Just my guess.
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 Non-religious reasoning. The same sex marriage proponents argue that Prop 8 is discriminatory. Two people should marry whom they chose, regardless of gender. Government has no right regulate who should marry whom. That is their agrument, not mine.
Unintended consequences. If same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, polygamy is as well, because government cannot regulate who marries whom. There is precedence of polygamy being outlawed, so those laws must be overturned. 1st and 14th Amendments can be applied.
No new Proposition is necessary. Polygamous proponents, and there are many out there , merely point to the precendent of Prop 8 being struck down. Lawyers walk away with millions.
Same sex marriage proponents must also believe that polygamy is OK, otherwise, they are being discriminating themselves. If you say no, marriage is only between 2 people, you are then using the same argument the Prop 8 supporters are using. All you are doing is to determine where the line in the sand is drawn, even though it would be discriminatory.
Many people supported Prop 8 because of the long term, bigger picture, not the narrow outcome that those with the rosy colored glasses want.
By golly, not one single religious reference.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JW Rules, Said boycott the Lassen's to cause fear in those that might support banning same sex marriage on the next ballot.
So you support terrorism? That is what you are advocating.
You are no different than Osama Bin Laden.
As for the Lassen's, I know them personally and have known them for over 35 years. They are wonderful people and the temper tantrum boycott that is being supported by the Star and the article that we are responding to, will not do anything to dissuade them from their convictions. The Lassen's are honorable people and have contributed greatly to our community for decades.
The Lassens support the Boy Scouts of America and the participles and morals that organization represents. It has taught their boys great values. they inturn have taught hundreds of other boys the great values fo the BSA program.
I do not know why people find it necessary to destroy people and organizations that contribute so much to the good of the community so that they can justify their own shortcomings.
Gays want to destroy the Boy Scouts which teaches young men to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent. They teach young men how to be good citizens in the community, to give community service and to give back and leave things better than what they found. Because the BSA had the audacity to refuse to let Gays act as leaders in their Organization, the gay community has labeled the BSA as public enemy number one and has done everything within their power to destroy the magnificent institution. They desire throw out all of those good things so that the gay community can be satisfied. To the gay community the BSA is evil. Nothing could be further from the truth. NEVER has the BSA endorsed, taught or sanctioned the bashing of gays or any other group. No one ever considered the fact that men who molest young men are homosexuals and that it might be a smart thing to have a policy to protect these young men from predators and that the safety and protection of the young men of the organization is far more important that the selfishness of the gay community. I have never seen such a selfish group as the gay community. IMO, It is the gay community that is evil as they viciously go about intimidating and terrorizing our great state and nation to force everyone to condone their way of life.
Enough is enough.
I encourage everyone to go shop at Lasssens and learn for themselves what great members of our community the the Lassens are and witness for yourselves the hate that they have been smeared with.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After looking at the headline of this article, I should retract my first comment about the VCS not covering both sides. Not sure there are any cases of "prop 8 supporters aiming their ire at businesses" and boycotting them for supporting the "No on 8" campaign.
(I'll bet this get's removed, or at least suggested for removal) :-)
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they wanted to get technical, they are already able to teach it in schools according to the school code here. I have looked it up and pasted it many times.
I will agree to agree/disagree on this one, simply because i dont think they should be supporting EITHER cause on such a controversal issue. Who can marry who has nothing to do with the teachers contracts salaries etc....
They need to be working at getting our teachers better educating material, higher salaries ( i know my kids's teachers dont make what they should, cus i know my kids, them teachers aint earning nearly enough hehe < bad grammer yes i know)and the things these teachers need to teach!
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: YOU are the one that keeps inferring that you don't understand why they would be choosing an issue such as THIS vs. helping negotiate teachers benefits (which are already WAAAAY better than any privately employed person in this state. $50 per month for a family's worth of health insurance is insanely beneficial.) As for teacher's salaries...teachers with enough years of experience and enough higher education make just as much as their privately employed individuals. Master's degree education can net you pay equivalent to $80K per year. Now...no company allows for 3 months of vacation per year and you STILL keep your job. Don't worry too much about teacher pay. If they're worth it, they make it. You should concentrate more on how parent's don't do their part anymore in supporting schools and encouraging their kids to be active participants in school and not just use schools as "free" daycare. (not saying you specifically...just in general there are more fish to fry).
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love the way the gay community expresses their tolerence.
Shall we all do likewise?
Posted by carefulnow on November 19, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding the Boy Scouts of America, I think it's more on point that very few boys would want to join a group with "avowed" homosexual leaders. That's what the Dade case was about.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 19, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand why this is still being debated. Lassen's uses it's profits to support H8 and bigotry. People who are victims of H8 choose not to shop there. It's logical. It makes sense. Get over it.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyz.. All i can say to that is WOW!!!
You said enough on that one lol
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OP: I don't believe that gay people want to destroy the BSA and think it is evil. If I'm not mistaken, what they wanted was to be allowed to participate in that worthy organization, but were discriminated against. Men who molest young men are not homosexuals, they are pedophiles.
Posted by jeffinventura on November 19, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gay people had their civil rights stripped away......Lassen's supported that kind of discrimination.
Lassen's deserves to be discriminated against now too.
If Lassen's supports discrimination....we will give it to them.
GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL FAMILIES!
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ojaiguy: So your reason for supporting 8 is because supporting No on 8 is just as bad as supporting polygamy? Clear as mud.
What exactly is the long-term...and please explain how I can move to Ojai and become clarevoyant because obviously you see into the future and KNOW that will happen if we DON'T change the constitution to discriminate against same-sex partners.
By the way...as I said before...I'm not arguing the polygamy thing...but using the fact that polygamy is currently illegal to justify why we need to change the constitution to discriminate YET AGAIN holds no water pal. I'm sure in your many years you've heard the phrase: "two wrongs don't make a right".
I guess I'm just disappointed because I expected a better answer from you. Maybe the relgious aspect IS the SOLE driving factor huh?
Posted by carefulnow on November 19, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
caroldammit - Have you followed what has happened to BSA since the Supreme Court decision?
(I agree with you that "homosexuals" is not interchangeable with pedophiles or pederasts.)
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"WOW"....more than I expected.
Posted by MyOpinion on November 19, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said, I agree that if for whatever reason you disapprove of something a company does you have the right to boycott.
Which is why I no longer watch ABC since it used stars from popular shows and produced commercials for "No on 8". It is my right to boycott ABC and not watch them anymore.
Posted by CamFamFour on November 19, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My sister is here visting from CO and is shocked at all this! After reading this article and some of the comments, the first thing she wanted to do was go and shop at Lassens...and she did!
Posted by peach224 on November 19, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
O_P Rockwell - I think your point of view is slightly skewed. First, not all men who molest little boys are homosexuals. Second, by banning gay men from being leaders, the BSA did commit a discrminatory act. Not all gay men are child molesters. Third, there have been plenty of stories of straight men who acted as leaders who overstepped their bounds with young boys (Catholic priests anyone?) There again, calling gays perverts does nothing except promote hate.
And, no one is asking the nation at large to "condone" anything, just asking for a little "tolerance".
Condone: (1) To disregard or overlook (something illegal or objectionable; (2) to give tacit approval.
Tolerate: (1) To allow the existence, presence or act of without probibition or hinderance; (2) To endure without repugnance, to put up with.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on November 19, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
whatever is on target. Those in favor of 8 are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong. Though yes on 8 folks are said to suffer from homophobia, most of the hate and irrational behavior I've seen has come from the no on 8 crowd.
46 years into an interracial marriage, and married at a time when the miscegenation laws did apply, I am aware that we've had some bad laws in the past. My generation helped to repeal them. Back in the day, I strongly supported all efforts at full integration. I don't support, however, the concept that my generation "owes" anybody for sins of the past.
As to homosexual issues such as 8, it is not even in the same ballpark with racial issues. For personal and not religious reasons, I find homosexuality to be disgusting and the no on 8 crowd just another attempt to for me to accept a lifestyle with which I disagree. That is my opinion. Lets see what kind of hate comments my opinion generates.
Posted by DMW on November 19, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where is the pubic outrage? Here is mine!
I love Lassen's!
I read this article "Prop. 8 Foes Aim Their Ire at Lassen's Stores" by Kevin Clerici on Nov 19th. What a shame that angry people believe that another person's protected and private vote in a public election should fuel an attack on a person's business, employees and customers. Last I checked, we have private elections for a reason, so that people can vote their conscience without the fear of intimidation or threat. Apparently, not so in this last election. Thanks to our State's election finance laws, those who make legal, larger gifts to support their opinions, beliefs, candidates, and issues open themselves up to attacks by radical minded people.
That a local merchant's business and her employee's job security is threatened by a boycott for the owner's personal exercise of democratic rights is not just a shame, it demands public condemnation. Our freedoms require that our all of disagreements, even over highly controversial issues, (after all what is not controversial these days) be tolerated, debated, and ultimately solved through our votes. In this case Prop 22 was carried with 4 Mill supporters 8 years ago and now Prop was carried with 5.6 Mil supporters.
This silly but hurtful boycott and others like it are very likely to backfire on its foolish sponsors. Our family and hundreds of others like ours will go out of our way to buy groceries and fresh meals from Lassen's, BECAUSE we love their products and services, and don't want to see those values lost to the actions of bullies. We will make it a point to get our neighbors and friends to do the same. Think about it, there are of thousands of freedom loving people who will be motivated to shop at Lassen's or shop MORE at Lassen's just to support them, while a handful of existing angry customers might leave in protest. Hopefully, this will be a huge boost to this important local merchant.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: "( i know my kids's teachers dont make what they should, cus i know my kids, them teachers aint earning nearly enough hehe < bad grammer yes i know)and the things these teachers need to teach!
"
I'm not going to knock the grammar, but as for the teacher's pay...it's not so much the pay that's low, it's the resources and funding that the state no longer provides. Insufficient number of textbooks, basic school supplies (that's why you see teacher class lists and teacher wish lists now). Before, the state paid for all those things. You didn't need to buy glue, composition books and crayons. If you don't buy them now...it's only because your child's teacher is buying them at the beginning of the year for the students. The conditions that they work in are what makes them seem to be "underpaid". Yes the union fights for this, but really it's about funding from the state for education and programs. Conservatives don't feel that we need to spend on these basic necessities...but that's a whole other discussion.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People are free to believe in any Invisible-Sky-Thingy-in-Charge they want to. I don't have a problem with that. But when they try to write their religious beliefs into law--in a secular nation based on separation of church and state--then I have the right to not support the people who would write discrimination into law.
By the way, the over $20 million the Mormons donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign is well-documented--including the exhortation from the hiearachy, read to the congregations, that "good Mormons" should contribute in any and every way they can. Add to that the leadership of the campaign was spear-headed by Mormons, add to that the commercials (full of lies about "teaching about gays in school" and that "churches would be forced to marry gay people') were produced by Mormons--and on and on.
I will not support--and my friends and family will not support--any company, not just Lassen's, that voted for 8 and/or contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. This is a nation-wide boycott--including CineMark movie theaters and Marriott hotels. The protests staged last Saturday prove how many gay people and allies there are out there: 8 countries, and over 300 cities in all 50 states took part. Discrimination will not stand--not in this country--and we will prevail.
Posted by kkjjkent on November 19, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to give some suggestions for those of you who would like to become life-long Lassen customers (I speak from experience)
If you are new to the health food industry, I suggest you start by ordering something delicious from Lassen's deli or try some of their healthy snacks. Ask the employees which are their favorites. They may even have some out as testers.
If you would like to do MORE of your mainstream shopping at Lassen's (which I hope you would!), I would start by deciding what is important to you. For example, I purchase the hormone-free meat because, though it is much more expensive, I really want to avoid the hormones. I just purchase less and use smaller portions, which is better for me in the long run, too. I also try to shop for organic produce. Lassen's has very competitive produce prices. Lastly, I love the organic and raw milks, free-range eggs,Brown cow yogurt, and healthier snack alternatives for when I might be tempted by those yucky Doritos.
If you are shopping on a tight budget, like a lot of us are these days, stick to the sales and bulk bin items. Pick up one of Lassen's free magazines at the check-out stand. They are full of coupons.
I love Lassen's!
Posted by Ms_California on November 19, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
carefulnow... Thanks for the link. I remember sometime in the late 80's or maybe earlier... there was a food chain that did donate alot of funds to the KKK organization or one of them. For some reason KFC locked in my head. Maybe it was because both started with a "K"? haha not sure.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Webster said: "Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday."
Just imagine how many children the Mormon Church could have helped to feed with the $20+ million they donated to take away the rights of gay people in California.
Oh, wait ... that would have been the CHRISTIAN thing to do.
=========
Here is what the Mormons do for the World
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welf...
They give hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid. how much to you give? When was the last time you helped serve food at the Ventura County Rescue Mission?
You want to talk about a waste of money. Barack Obama spent over $700,000,000.00 To become president of the United States. Look at BO's charitable contributions. .5% Magically they became 6% when he was running for President.
Posted by del on November 19, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And let's not forget the "Knights of Columbus". They are just a front for the Catholic Church. Their name showed up on just as many 'mis-informational' ads.
We have shopped at Lassens for a couple months now and will not in the future.
Posted by del on November 19, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And I am sure the loss of our patronage is not going to harm them much, but we feel better for it.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
O_P_Rockwell said ~
"Here is what the Mormons do for the World"
Doesn't change the fact that the $20 million spent by the Mormons in attempting to strip away the civil rights of Californians couldn't have gone to a better cause, now does it?
The difference is--correct me if I'm wrong--Obama's campaign was a political campaign, the Christian campaign is supposed to be about "loving your neighbor" (doesn't mention whether or not that neighbor is gay or straight, by the way), doing unto others, and "clothing the naked and feeding the hungry."
Even *you* have to be smart enough to see the difference.
[Foolish me! Believing that logic will work on a closed mind!]
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 19, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian You said "To just say you want to deny someone rights because you don't like their lifestyle is ludicrous and has no place in a society where all men are created equal."
Seriously, at what point do we draw a line in which people have in self-determination? Do the voting citizens of a democracy have the right to determine what is right and wrong? If not, then we may as well toss the U.S. Constitution out the window. The Prop 8 passed the ballot eligibility process and the voters voted. Whether it stands up in court remains to be seen.
Many proponents of same sex marriages have argued that it is OK in other countries, so it should be here to. OK, we have many people in the US whose culture allows eating dogs. Here in the US, it is outlawed, right? Before anyone gets riled up and claims that I am making a comparison of same sex marriage to eating dogs, you are not reading this correctly. What I am saying is that we do discriminate in other aspects of our society that is acceptable to many, except maybe those from those countries where dog is a delicacy. Some cultures allow arranged marriages, family "honor" killings, eat things that would make us puke at the thought of, etc. These things are outlawed here because our culture finds them abhorant behaviors. Technically, we are be discriminating towards others, but these are acceptable biases?
From your quote above, it is wrong for prohibitting any type of behaviors.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
carol said: OP: I don't believe that gay people want to destroy the BSA and think it is evil. If I'm not mistaken, what they wanted was to be allowed to participate in that worthy organization, but were discriminated against. Men who molest young men are not homosexuals, they are pedophiles.
=====
Carol I do not beleive that you actually know the correct of a pedophile is:
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pe...
Description
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.
The sexual behaviors involved in pedophilia cover a range of activities and may or may not involve the use of force. Some pedophiles limit their behaviors to exposing themselves or mast**bating in front of the child, or fondling or undressing the child, but without genital contact. Others, however, compel the child to participate in oral sex or full genital intercourse.
Therefore men who engage with Peripubescent boys ages 12 and up are not pedophiles but homosexual child molesters.
I hope this helps.
Posted by nojustice_justus on November 19, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boycott all you want. What part of democracy don't they understand?
I can see one of the protesters getting hurt badly and/or killed by an individual who has had enough of their shenanigans.
Oh great! Then they will have a 'martyr'. Me? I'll have a martini...
Posted by cadreamer on November 19, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01
Just my opinion but, it is not the lack of funding from the state or federal government that is hurting the schools and children.
Someone needs to clean house. There is WAY too much money going to those higher up the food chain in the education field. My parents have neighbors both of which work for the Ventura County School Board. Both drive new expensive European cars, and bought a 1.3 million dollar house. My parents that I feel are upper middle class could not and to this day can not afford a mortgage that high. I say start cutting down all the wasteful spending, and put it toward the teachers, classes, and schools.
Between state, federal, and local funding we as a state are projected to spend $68.5 billion in 2008-09 on public education.
I say again is the money being spent wisely?
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
O.P. takes it off-message again. The majority of pedophiles are straight men--usually married. It's a sexual interest in children (which is not what same-sex marriage is all about in any case).
You are reaching for any justification for your bigotry against gay people. Just say you hate us--be honest--and be done with it.
Posted by GDOG5 on November 19, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I for one I'm going to start shopping at Lassen's, Think I will tell all my family and friends too!
Talk about a backlash, for a people who don't get their way...grow up already! Immaturity at it's finest....Jeezzzz
Posted by NightLight on November 19, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why Proposition 8 does not violate the separation of church and state.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The second part of this famous document guarantees the freedom of religious people to express their views just as much as non-religious people. The Constitution guarantees no viewpoint will be given preference because it comes from a religious perspective, and also that no viewpoint will be given less preference because it comes from a religious perspective. Everyone gets one vote. A Mormon, a Catholic, an atheist, and an agnostic go into a voting booth. As long as each person is allowed one vote, no more and no less, this is what is intended by the separation of church and state.
Not all proponents of Prop 8 do so for religious reasons. Yes, some do, but many religious people are also against murder, theft, and rape because of religious teachings. Just because someone’s beliefs may come from their religion does not automatically mean they are invalid.
Also, as has been stated, many religions have no problem with gay marriage, so should their votes/views also not be counted? That doesn’t make sense. Pretty soon no one’s views will count.
Is Proposition 8 unfair? Is it discriminatory? Is it unconstitutional? I’m sure the courts will decide that eventually. But does it violate the separation of church and state? Absolutely not. Everyone gets to vote. That’s the way it works.
Posted by reader52 on November 19, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
talk about gay bashing. now you ppl are bashing the yes on prop 8 contributors. All your whining has put me off. You've convinced me that my vote on prop 8 was correct. Keep it up. Your doing a nice job in turning ppl off in supporting you
Note: I haven't seen you protest any of the black business, churches or communities. Don't think you will.
Posted by GDOG5 on November 19, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Note: I haven't seen you protest any of the black business, churches or communities. Don't think you will."
yeah really.....then they would get a taste of their own medicine, cause people will be all up in their face, probaly get their butts kicked too.....lol
Posted by buster77 on November 19, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we are going about this the wrong way. It will be the government who will ultimately decide this issue. Look at all those wealthy counties that voted NO ON 8. They hold the large majority of the capital and wealth of this state. WE NEED TO BOYCOTT THE STATE AND REFUSE TO PAY STATE TAXES UNTIL EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUALLY!!
Posted by truereality on November 19, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This issue with Prop 8 is a prime example of why America will never be united again. Religion is out of control. Religion is the biggest cancer in this country right now. There is no such thing as a casual belief in faith. It's all the way or nothing. This plague is getting bigger and bigger. What happened to the idea of religious people being peaceful? You complain about the protestors. If the result of Prop 8 would have been the other way, do you honestly believe the bible thumpers would not be doing the same thing out in the streets telling everybody how immoral this is and that the end of the world is coming? Faith driven people are also the most naive people. Step outside of your holy box and see the world for what it really is. There are tons of more critical issues facing us abroad and around the world than if it's okay for gay people to get married. Faith is so self centered. Because with religious people, the decisions you make are all about salvation when you die, not about doing the right thing. There's this thought that if gay marriage is legal it will change everything. How? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. Do you think if it were legal all of a sudden gay people would be making explicit displays of their affection for each other around you? Do you think they would be having sex on your lawn? This is insane. Religion will be the downfall of America. The faith driven lunatics will lead us into another civil war. Think that's far fetched? Look at the electoral map from the election.
Posted by buster77 on November 19, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The state will not come after half of its population for not paying their taxes... they will be forced to give EVERYONE the same right to marry, regardless of their sex orientation. DISCRIMINATION IS NOT TOLERATED. They state made a huge mistake on allowing anyone to vote out a minorities right. TO ALL NO ON 8ERS... STOP PAYING YOUR STATE TAXES...
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Webster, clinically speaking, which you are implying, pedophile is one who has a sexual interest in a prepubescent child.
Men who molest peri or post pubescent girls are hetero sexual child molesters.
Men who molest peri or post pubescent boys are homosexual child molesters.
I know this make you uncomfortable because it forces you to deal with reality. I know that you want to deflect negative attention away from homosexuals by claiming that men you molest post pubescent boys under the age of 18 as pedophiles. that is intellectually dishonest and you know it.
Posted by GDOG5 on November 19, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why do you keep saying bible thumpers as if all the yes votes were religious people only? do you really believe there are that many religious people in california? I think not...LOL
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OjaiGuy,
OK here we go. You said "at what point do we draw a line in which people have in self-determination?." That line is very clear: A person's right to swing their fist ends at another person's nose. If someone's actions, lifestyle, behavior, etc. aren't affecting your ability to live your life in peace then it is really none of your business. I'd like to never see saggy pants or hear a 50Cent song again but I wouldn't think of trying to outlaw them in a free society.
Two of your examples, arranged marriages and "honor" killings are illegal in the US not just because we find them offensive: They're illegal here because they CLEARLY infringe on the rights of others. As for eating odd things, that's kind of a stretch and goes more into an animal rights arena. Personally I think people should be able to eat whatever they want, be it cow, pig or dog. The idea of eating any of the three disgusts me equally.
You said: "Do the voting citizens of a democracy have the right to determine what is right and wrong? If not, then we may as well toss the U.S. Constitution out the window." Wow. The constitution isn't there to guarantee us the right to decide what is right and wrong and then impose that view on the other 49% of the country. It's there to protect us from that exact scenario... It's there to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's why segregation was struck down by the courts on a constitutional basis even though the vast majority of the population was against it. That will happen in CA too.
Again, I pose the question because I have not heard a good answer:
How does the fact that two 60-year-old women are able to marry materially harm you so much that the State of California should be forced to amend the constitution to protect you?
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OP: You missed the operative words: child molesters. People who have a sexual interest in children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are child molesters or pedophiles.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TrueReality said: This issue with Prop 8 is a prime example of why America will never be united again. Religion is out of control. Religion is the biggest cancer in this country right now.
=======
Thank you for being honest.
What this whole discussion is truly about is the getting rid of the 1st amendment and getting rid of God and religion in our society.
Thank you again for having the courage to be honest.
Posted by littlepowers on November 19, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know this is off topic but just a little fact regarding the "gay issue" in public schools.
Regarding Gays issues in schools. Regardless of anything you might think. I've heard it from teachers
"You are going to hell because of the lifestyle you choose" advisor of Christian Coalition at a Simi Public School
"It's okay to be gay, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, just like it's okay to be straight"
"If I hear one more negative comment about gays in my classroom, I'm sending you to the office"
"I don't ever want to hear the word "gay" be used to describe something negative" Mr. Graber (former VP SSHS)
Both the pro gay and anti gay is VERY present in schools. Because the kids bring it up.
Hell, some schools SSHS for one, has a "Gay-Straight Alliance" club. Fighting for fair treatment and acknowledgment of their lifestyle and preference.
Posted by jackattack on November 19, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassen's is 10 times more expensive than Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. That's why I tend to not shop there. There is a big mark up on their grocery items. So all the Yes votes please spend your hard earned money and pay more. You deserve to pay more. AND the money you spend at Lassen's is also spent towards donations to the Mormon Church. 10% is donated, FYI.
Posted by meblondie138 on November 19, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If there were never any protests, women would not yet have the right to vote, blacks woudl still be slaves, and all sorts of other rights would be ill-afforded to many minorities. They have always been up against a the strong majority of opinionated people. True everyone has a right to their opinion, that is respectful. I disagree though that I should not be allowed to call it marriage and should have to call it something else, therefore separating us from others and therefore creating the discrimination feeling. If you have ever been excluded from the right of doing or belonging to anything you thought you should be able to be part of, I can tell you it is a really rotten feeling. I ask folks to really think about that when judging. The rallys across the state for the most part have been peaceful, for the most part. It is a mecanism to engage the conversations and to show dismay in the decision wherefore getting people involved who can assist in trying to afford those rights to them. This is the American way.
Posted by missing805 on November 19, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"a day without a gay"??? thats hilarious... Sorry people we already tried a day without a mexican... copycats.. Its like the mayor of SF said "wheather you like it or not" well Prop 8 passed "wheather you like it or not".. This prop is the same as any immigration prop. You'll have the 2 sides argue passionately. So people voted and it passed. Love it or leave it..Stop standing in the corner of Lowes with your signs. We got bigger things to worry about, plus marriage is not all that is ckacked up to be..Believe me, were doing you a service.. Im surprise there hasnt been any gay divorses already...
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
carol said: You missed the operative words: child molesters. People who have a sexual interest in children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are child molesters or pedophiles.
=============
I did not miss anything. I believe you did. You are lacking in reading comprehension. Let me help you out using your own post.
A child molester is an adult that has sexual contact or relations with a child under the age of 18 be it a heterosexual or a homosexual encounter.
A Pedophile is an adult that has sexual contact ore relations with a prepubescent child, usually a child under the age of 12. Pedophile has NO sexual interest in a child that is prepubescent or post pubescent. Once the child has reached puberty they abandon the child for a new victim.
A heterosexual child molester is an adult that has sexual contact or relations with a prepubescent or post pubescent child of the opposite gender under the age of 18.
A homosexual child molester is an adult that has sexual contact or relations with a prepubescent or post pubescent child of the same gender under the age of 18.
I know that you never understood the difference before. Google it for your self and become better educated. Hint: the dictionary is not an appropriate source for learning about a mental disorder.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A day without an illegal was such a flop and there are millions more illegals. /A day without a gay will be a a major flop.
Posted by srjsr on November 19, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it very interesting that the no on 8 crowd is telling everyone that their rights are being taken away from them. Where were these people when smokers were told that they could not smoke in there own apartments, condos, or other housing that shares a common wall because of second hand smoke? I am a non-smoker. Where were these people when motorcycle riders were told that they had to wear helmets? How about the seatbelt laws, the cell phone laws, etc. Face it, the liberal government in California is slowly taking away everyone's rights, but the same sex marriage people didn't care until they got slapped in the face with their "rights denial." Until all of the people in this state stand up to the politicians and tell them that we are no longer to tolerate government intrusion into our personal lives, the only thing that will change is eventually the government will take away a right that effects you personally.
Posted by tim_timer on November 19, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The oldest form of protest: economic boycott. Perfectly legal and ethical. Usually not effective. However, with a new Whole Foods Market opening soon, the Ventura Lassen's may shut down within 2 years.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Time for a little reality check.
The gay protest, though they have been getting a lot of media attention have been rather pitiful when you consider it.
The crowd numbers have all been overstated. Often times there is more media covering the story than the number of protesters. And even it they are not overstated, the crowds are minuscule compared to the number of voters that went to the polls. there were millions that went to the polls against prop 8 and they cant even muster 100,000 state wide to protest. What does that tell you? Even those that voted no on 8 really don't care that much about the issue. These protests are a major turn off to those that were on the fence or didn't see how the vote mattered one way or the other.
Lassen's business will not be hurt. They will continue to do fine. Many have been exposed to the Mormon church that would not have otherwise. If you want to know more about Mormons and what they teach go here http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/
There are different opinions on this matter. We should be respectful of all. We should ALL stand for what we believe in, no matter what side of the issue.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 1:29 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VewnturaBrian said: How does the fact that two 60-year-old women are able to marry materially harm you so much that the State of California should be forced to amend the constitution to protect you?
======
We need to look at other countries and see what has happened to them since gay marriage has been instituted and perhaps there we will find some ansewers.
In Denmark and Norway where gay marriage has been legal for over a decade, the number of marriages has decreased, number of out of wedlock pregnancies has increased, the nuclear family unit is disappearing. the government is paying for the upbringing of families where in the US the family is picking up that cost.
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyz.... is the poster child for the Tolerance and Equality the No on 8 side promotes.
All the name calling will just turn people away from your side, not encourage them to vote your way
I think Babyz actually is FOR prop 8 in hiding. They sure are helping the yes on 8 side lol
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks JayAllen!
"Friends" - Whodini
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CamPheonix said: Interesting point srjsr. I find it more interesting that you can't tell the difference between quasi socially unacceptable behavior and dangerous behavior that has documented health risks.
======
Apparently you are unaware of the serious health risks associated with homosexuality.
I can only post this link becasue the article uses clinical terms banned by the forum.
http://portolanispecial.blogspot.com/...
Here is another article.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 19, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoever is letting a three-year old use their computer (Tad) should really exercise some parental supervision. You've got to be kidding me. Another example of how ignorant and narrow minded the Yes on 8 side really is!!
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAmPhoenix said: No one has lost rights... unlike the gays as a result of Prop 8
===============
CamPhoenix, you say that gays lost rights when prop was passed. Would you be so kind as to list the legal rights that gays lost when prop 8 passed?
Thanks in Advance.
Posted by interested on November 19, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OP, I am curious, you say in Denmark the number of marriages declined due to Gay Marriage being allowed. Are you referring to all marriages between hetero and homo-sexuals or jsut hetero? I don't know how a law allowing gay marriages would affect hetero marriage statistics.
Ventura Brian, you are so smart, I like your way of thinking.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OP, I'm shocked by your lack of logic. Have you read that article? Besides the fact that it's from a partisan rag, it doesn't actually connect gay marriage to all those out of wedlock births, etc. It basically says: Gay marriage has been legal for 10 years. Straight people are having more kids out of wedlock than ever. Ipso facto, gay marriage is the reason straight people have kids out of wedlock! LOL... I think even a philosophy prof at Texas Tech would see the faulty logic in that one. There's no proven connection anywhere in the article. But people like you will always agree with any tripe that shares your opinion so you send it out as "proof". Nice try.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In Denmark, incidentally the Lassen's are from Denmark, the number of gay marriages was not all that great. On the other hand, marriage is no longer viewed as a matter of import and the Danes just are not marrying any more. The traditional nuclear family unit is disappearing.
Strong committed relationships (marriage) is no longer valued as it once was.
The government is becoming the provider of the family.
Read the article. I know it is long but worth the read.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, interested, you made my day! So nice to see a little bit of kindness in this dark cave.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My guess is that in Scandinavia the gay marriage debate devalued the meaning and import of marriage.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
REality hurts said: I plan on doing something nice for mr lassen sometime soon ...Maybe spit in his face !
OLD MAN!
=========
Reality I can feel the love and tolerance.
May you receive that which give.
Posted by DMW on November 19, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LASSEN's: I have written to several hundred on my e-mail list encouraging them to shop at your stores THIS WEEK. They will all circulate to their mailing lists. I hope you are prepared for the huge influx of business
TO THE BULLY'S..."RIGHTS?": the California Domestic Partnership law granted ALL the "rights" to non-heterosexual couples a few years ago. There is NO Rights issue. You have duped the public!
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well that's a stretch, OP, but it's your opinion and your entitled to it. My opinion, based on some light research, is that the decline in marriages in those Scandinavian countries has to do with a slower-growing population number and an increasing dislike of organized religion and dogma. I think I even saw that part of Europe referred to as the first to enter the "Post-Christianity" phase. You probably think I'm making my argument for you, but the acceptance of gay marriage didn't lead to them backing away from the church. It's a result of it. By the way, their longevity rate is better than ours, infant mortality rate is less and on the whole they are a much healthier society. God has picked an odd way to punish them for straying.
Posted by at8man on November 19, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks to everyone that voted yes on # 8. I also have solved my Christmas present dilema...Gift Cards to all my friends at Lassen's. Thank you, thank you.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, please, O_P_Rockwell ~
Yes, in Massachusetts the sky has fallen because gay people are allowed to marry. Funny, that story wasn't on the news or on the web.
I have houseplants smarter than you.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
at8man,
Again, if Lassen's really thought they would benefit from their donation they would've put a "Yes on 8" banner on the store. They know very well that the vast majority of their long-term clientele wouldn't appreciate their stance. You may buy a gift card or some $15/pound organic almonds today but I predict you'll be back at the Oxnard Wal-Mart by the weekend.
Posted by DMW on November 19, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
* Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for
family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick,
injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies
to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality
Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of
a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and
trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married
couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and
nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k)
commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after
registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only
available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of
the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed
upon spouses in a marriage
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is an interesting turn of events. Gays force a business to cater to them. So much for religious freedom and the right to refuse business.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4...
eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit
Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — "Compatible Partners" — for gays and lesbians, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.
Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.
eHarmony, which was founded by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service in 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.
eHarmony also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients.
"I applaud the decision of eHarmony to settle this case and extend its matching services to those seeking same-sex relationships," Vespa-Papaleo said in a statement.
The New Jersey settlement is not the first lawsuit filed against eHarmony for failing to accommodate sex-same users, Reuters reports.
In March, California attorneys brought a lawsuit against the company on behalf of a San Francisco resident Linda Carlson, who was denied access to the site because she is gay.
Thanks for forcing your beliefs down the throats of of America.
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OP: Please leave your petty put-downs and condecending attitude at the door. I understand the difference quite well.
It was your post:
"No one ever considered the fact that men who molest young men are homosexuals and that it might be a smart thing to have a policy to protect these young men from predators and that the safety and protection of the young men of the organization is far more important that the selfishness of the gay community"
that was confusing in seeming to imply that all homosexual men should be banned from contact with young men because they are all child molesters. The only other interpretation of your statement that I can come up with is that you think that because some homosexual men are child molesters, that all homosexual men should be banned from contact with young men. That is as wrong as saying that because some heterosexual men are child molesters that all heterosexual men should be banned from contact with young women. If I still do not understand your statement, please consider the idea that it is your writing skills, and not my reading comprehension abilities that are lacking.
Posted by rdlgallo on November 19, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't understand why anyone would not be supporting this. It's incredibly disappointing to see gays and lesbians fight the will of the people. Sore losers.
Posted by interested on November 19, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No Prob VenturaBrian, your posts make a lot of sense and are very well written. I can tell you see the big picture. We all should clean our own house before we try to clean our neighbors house, meaning, lets stop worrying about what others do that does not affect us. Look at all these celebrities that do marry and divorce, how does that preserve the "sanctity of marriage"?
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rdlgallo ~
In 1967, the "will of the people," the majority, were against inter-racial marriage. The Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia) decided against the will of the people and declared marriage a civil right.
What you are indulging in is what's called the "tyranny of the majority" and its unconstitutional as well as thoroughly un-American.
Posted by lawabider on November 19, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey OP, are you really that uptight? This is NOT about the gay community's beliefs -- it's about freedom to pursue happiness -- which, for those 200 or so above me that forgot, IS an American RIGHT... Wake up already!!!!
Posted by gdawg2112 on November 19, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To VenturaBrian - so what is the reason to have government sanction marriage at all? You ask why we should NOT allow two women or men to marry but why SHOULD we sanction only two of the opposite gender wed?
I think the Yes on 8 crowd echoes the arguments of the left in terms of abortion legislation and that is the slippery slope argument - no infringment upon a womans right to choose (such as late term abortion bans) as it would allow other encroachments upon abortion. I think the yes on 8 crowd has a similar concern with marriage (perhaps BabyDaddy will read this too) meaning to adjust marriage to INCLUDE a gay couple surely opens the slippery slope argument to INCLUDE polygamy. So, rather than walk that slippery slope, just allow civil unions.
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DMW: California's Domestic Partnership contract(which by the way is available to hetero-, as well as homo-sexual partners) is only valid and recognized in the State of California. By banning gay people from entering into a legal, civil marriage with each other, prop. 8 has effectively removed from them many federal rights.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 19, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to RdlGallo-
I'm NOT gay, I'm fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS, you could be next!! I'm a woman, am I the next to get discriminated against? Oh yah, I already was, thank god my predeccesors fought for my RIGHT!!! And KEPT fighting until they WON!!!
This article isn't about a fight between straight or gay people, it's about opponents of Prop 8 not spending their money at a place that uses those profits to support such a hateful, discriminatory proposition. Why can't anyone get that on here???
Posted by robbca on November 19, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is great news!! At least we will continue at the California Supreme Court level!! :)
California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Prop 8 Challenge
A decision has been made. The California Supreme Court has decided to hear the legal issues over Prop. 8, the same-sex marriage ban which passed by razor-thin 52% of the vote, but said it won't issue a stay against the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban. Which is to say, county clerks will not be allowed to resume issuing licenses to queer couples until the case was decided. Prop. 8 is still in effect.
Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton, according to the The Sacramento Bee, said the court asked the parties who filed the suits to write briefs on three issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Posted by jim on November 19, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(1) Many private businesses do not provide the same benefits to domestic partners that they provide to married couples. The best example is Wal-Mart (70,000 employees in California). With Prop 8, there is no legal recourse for domestic partners who work for companies like Wal-Mart who cannot get health insurance for their partners. (2) A boycott is a legitimate form of protest. Boycotts led to the abolishment of apartheid in South Africa. Boycotts are not "rabid," "intolerant," "scary as hell," "bullying," or any of those other ridiculous words you guys are using. You are all entitled to boycott everyone who donated to "No on 8" and buy everything and anything at Lassen's. (3) The boycotts will work, because those of you who supported prop 8 will grow tired and complacent. Also, demographically, you do not have the disposable income of those who were opposed to prop 8. Finally, you are older and won't be around as long. (4) You really think people who feel their rights were trampled on should buy things from the companies and people who paid for the campaign? Why?
Posted by gdawg2112 on November 19, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian - allow me to clarify as I didn't make sense. Why SHOULD the government sanction ANY marriage of any kind? Above I made it sound like I wanted you to justify hetero-only marriage and that isn't my point.
Posted by JohnDoe on November 19, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sheltonclan:
"I am not Mormon, nor am I Catholic, but I do know this: CHURCHES do not donate money to political causes. Individuals who are members of those churches may."
Really? How come then according to [http://mormonsfor8.com/] the "VENTURA BAPTIST CHURCH" is listed?
Also listed is:
CALVARY BIBLE CHURCH - Bakersfield, CA
RIVER LAKES COMMUNITY CHURCH - Bakersfield, CA
HARVEST HOUSE CHURCH - Fremont, CA
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - Fresno, CA
CENTRAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH - Lancaster, CA
among others.
Since you lied about this, what else are you lying about?
Want to retract your statement?
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
caroldammit "
California's Domestic Partnership contract(which by the way is available to hetero-, as well as homo-sexual partners) "
"Same-sex couples -- and couples in which at least one of the parties is over 62 years old and meets other criteria -- may now register officially in California as domestic partners. Although the resulting union is not called a "marriage," California registered domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties, as married people under California law. (They do not have the same rights as married people for purposes of Federal law.)"
hetro couples cannot enter into a domestic uinion unless they are 62 or older by the way.
Posted by gdawg2112 on November 19, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The No on 8 voters have a right to boycott businesses that were pro 8 just as the yes on 8 voters have a right to patronize those that supported it and boycott those against it. If the majority is in favor of 8 then there should be an increase for the businesses that supported 8. Next time, business that support issues like prop 8 will still give money, just under different names and smaller denomination so it can't be traced to them.
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gdawg: That is an excellent question and one that has been on my mind for some time. I have simply not had the time to research it. Anyone?
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
carol said: that was confusing in seeming to imply that all homosexual men should be banned from contact with young men because they are all child molesters. The only other interpretation of your statement that I can come up with is that you think that because some homosexual men are child molesters, that all homosexual men should be banned from contact with young men. That is as wrong as saying that because some heterosexual men are child molesters that all heterosexual men should be banned from contact with young women. If I still do not understand your statement, please consider the idea that it is your writing skills, and not my reading comprehension abilities that are lacking.
====================
Carol, I know that you are easily confused. I never said that all homosexuals are child molesters now did I? you are trying to put words in my mouth.
When you have an organization that caters exclusively to young men and that part of the program is to take the young men on camping trips, it would be prudent to take any and all steps necessary to protect the children.
I agree that it would not be prudent to have a man be a girl scout leader for the same reasons. Furthermore in the interest of protecting the girls from molestation it would be prudent not to have lesbian leaders too.
http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafe...
I hope this helps.
Posted by jim on November 19, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One more thought: for all of you who keep saying things like "liberal judges" and "activist judges" and "San Francisco judges." Do you really not know that 6 of the 7 judges are Republican appointees? Do you really think that the fact that the Supreme Court is located in San Francisco has anything to do with their decision? Jeepers. Maybe we should have put that in our ads: "The Republican dominated Supreme Court spoke firmly and bravely against mob rule, taking what they knew would be an unpopular stand to protect what they felt was a vulnerable minority." Because that is what happened, no matter how you want to rationalize it. Look at who appointed those judges and what their voting record is before you go and spout nonsense. The "Yes on 8 ads" that talked about "activist judges" were deceptive at best, pure unadulterated lies at worst.
Posted by mamaof2 on November 19, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so let me get this straight all the no's on 8 want us to respect their views and what they believe in but cant respect the people who voted yes? instead they would rather pro test in front of their stores and yell at people.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 19, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did anyone notice robbca's post???
"razor-thin 52% of the vote"
To all you YES ON 8 people on here acting smug, keep that in mind. It was RAZOR-THIN!!!That is great news when this opens back up on the ballot in 2 years if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn it first! That's 2 years of new voters that will hopefully see the reality and inequality and not their parent's bigotry!!
I don't think Lassen's is going to see that big of an increase, but go ahead and keep kidding yourselves.
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doc: That's right! I do remember hearing that. But no such restriction on homosexual partners? Clearly discriminitory. And pointless, as far as I can see.
Posted by BeaHappi on November 19, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey people...there's a new story about prop 8 and the high courts...I can hear everyone "running" there right now!
Posted by jill on November 19, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a vegetarian and I as well as many of my friends will never shop at Lassen's again. We are finding alternative places to get certain items. One of us will go to Rainbow Bridge or Whole Foods and pick up items for each other.
And to the last poster, it's not about respecting views, it's about equal rights - something that has always been worth fighting for.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
carol, it is descriminitory if you ask me, my father in law might agree and he didn't really want to get into another marriage after his first one... i say up civil union to federal mariage standard and let the religious be married and let the non religious have a civil union an dgive them all the same exact rights.
Posted by JohnDoe on November 19, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MyOpinion says: "Teachers salaries are paid from tax dollars and union dues are mandatory for employment. Therefore, union dues do come from tax dollars."
Actually if you look at Article 6 of the VUEA contract with VUSD you will see that a teacher can opt to NOT be a member of the union. That teacher will pay a "representation fee". That is different than "union dues".
Since you are lying about that, what else are you lying about?
Posted by jim on November 19, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnDoe: I am on your side, but with certain exceptions, we should not call each other liers. Many of us on both sides do not have all the facts (for examples, about church donations).
I believe the official "Yes on 8" campaign had the facts, that is why I call them liers. But it might be better to assume that those here who disagree with us are misinformed. Calling someone a lier just makes them angry and unlikely to listen. On the other hand, I know you are angry. I am angry, too. Hopefully, after all of get past the anger something good will come out of all of this.
Of course, the doody-heads are the exception; they will never listen to anyone.
Can I say "doody-head here?
Posted by caroldammit on November 19, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No OP, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your pont of view. I believe I understand it quite well now. Since “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult” I shall simply say Good Day.
Posted by Webster on November 19, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo, Jim!
Well and succinctly said! Of course you're trying to use *logic* on some of these people--and we can tell *that* isn't working--but still, well done!
Posted by NightLight on November 19, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Bea! See you there! :)
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is NOT about the gay community's beliefs -- it's about freedom to pursue happiness -- which, for those 200 or so above me that forgot, IS an American RIGHT... Wake up already!!!!
=====
You are free to pursue your own happiness but you are not freee to force others to provide your happiness.
Happiness is a state of mind
Posted by jill on November 19, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By "last poster," I meant "mamaof2". The postings are going wild here!
Posted by SoCalGuy on November 19, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted against Prop 8, but the tactics being used by the gay community in the wake of it's defeat are appalling (and in some cases, probably illegal).
It's one thing to protest peacefully, but disrupting traffic, picketing the businesses of those who supported Prop 8, sending white powder to the Mormon church (here in Los Angeles and elsewhere), publicly burning copies of the Book of Morman, not to mention setting up a "blacklist" website with the name of those who supported Prop 8 are beyond the pale and totally repulsive.
That sucking sound is the last of my support for this issue going down the drain, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I support any of the gay community's causes again.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gdawg2112,
I totally agree with you that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. It's a clear violation of church and state. And for them to be in the marriage business but not give marriage certificates to all tax-paying citizens is just wrong.
So that leaves us with two solutions: Either the state stays in the marriage business and agrees to allow all citizens to marry, OR it gets out of the business and only grants domestic partnerships. Then churches can decide which "kinds" of people they will allow to be married and they can perform their ritual ceremonies of spending tens of thousands of dollars at Crate and Barrel and the Hyatt Waikiki.
I genuinely prefer the latter. However, I think if CA quit issuing marriage licenses and said all couples would only be recognized as domestic partners there would be hell to pay. The "Yes on 8" people would scream like banshees about gays killing marriage. And suddenly they wouldn't think that a domestic partnership was such a viable alternative.
Isn't it ironic that the people who now hold up the domestic partnership law as proof that gays don't need marriage have forgotten the DECADES of fighting it took to get it passed? There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth by the religious community about how it would be the end of the world if domestic partner laws passed. I even seem to recall them boycotting companies that recognized domestic partnerships...
Posted by jeffinventura on November 19, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.
GOD BLESS!
Posted by BeaHappi on November 19, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NightLight...I'm more of a voyeur on this topic these days. I voted against proposition 8 and never shopped at Lassens anyways. I don't have anything new to add to the discussion.
Posted by jill on November 19, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm so glad they printed this article so that everyone knows about Lassen's and others who contributed to Prop. 8. I can't wait to look up others who supported it, because I will take my business elsewhere.
Gosh, how nice for the Lassen family to be able to get married and have children and enjoy their family lives. And how disgusting of them to want to deny others the right to enjoy married life. This is where religion gets ugly. Very ugly.
Posted by jill on November 19, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SoCalGuy,
Yes, some of those tactics seem to be a bit much, but you know what is worse than those tactics? Discrimination and denial of equal rights. You can't even compare the two!
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"However, I think if CA quit issuing marriage licenses and said all couples would only be recognized as domestic partners there would be hell to pay. The "Yes on 8" people would scream like banshees about gays killing marriage."
but they could still be married, thier domestic partnership would be recognized by the state and their marrage by the church, how could they complaine abotu that, int the eyes of god they would be without sin.
Posted by NightLight on November 19, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bea, I can understand that! After the first few hundred posts on any subject, it's usually difficult to find anything new and constructive. I tried to add something a couple of hours ago but it seems to have fallen kind of flat, lol.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone else find it funny that Steve Pell, who has made a fortune from divorces, has ads that keep showing up all over this board? The winner of this debate is the Star if they're getting paid on pageviews.
Jill, I thought you might like this quote: “With or without religion, good men perform good deeds and bad men perform evil deeds. It is only with religion that good men perform evil deeds.” - unknown
Posted by jill on November 19, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian,
So true! They only pretend to be "good". I call them posers. lol
Posted by nannyfo1 on November 19, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I've been to Lassen's twice, it will be a weekly stop now.
Posted by cmpvr on November 19, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fascinating. The Yes crowd takes away a fundamental right of a part of the population and then seems surprised that this population is angry about it. They even seem to enjoy turning the tables and calling that anger "hate". All I know is that there wasn't as much hate before this proposition passed. Way to spread Christian ideals.
I think boycotting is fine, as long as it is peaceful and brings attention to the matter. Disney was boycotted by the conservative christian American Family Association for years due to their tolerance of homosexuals. Call that "hate", too. I do think that at some point the No campaign has to move on and address some of the more fundamental issues related to the mentality behind the Yes supporters. Maybe take the high road and spread an effective message about equality instead of using the lies and fear propagated by the Yes campaign.
Majority rule doesn't mean mob rule. This country, thankfully, has checks and balances that prevent laws being enacted that are based on outdated fears and discrimination. Don't keep telling us the majority has spoken. Just think what things would be like if the majority was able to freely discriminate against the minority.
Posted by JohnDoe on November 19, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jim says:
"JohnDoe: I am on your side, but with certain exceptions, we should not call each other liers. Many of us on both sides do not have all the facts (for examples, about church donations)."
You know how long it took me to find the information on the web? 2 minutes.
There is no excuse to NOT post facts when the web is full of reference material.
I'm only calling it like I see it.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Companies for the "Yes on H8" crowd to boycott:
Google & Yahoo - try using the web without encountering them.
California Teachers Association - Time to stop just talking about home schooling and "get-r-done"! Quit your job and keep 'em at home so my kid has more resources and smaller classes.
California Nurses Association - Easy one for the Jehovah's Witnesses to boycott.
Apple - This is an easy one too since they don't sell anything at Wal Mart.
That should be enough to get you started.
Posted by gdawg2112 on November 19, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian - I disagree on the church and state argument on marriage. At its founding, it was in the state's best interest to sanction marriage for it did a few things 1) it attempts to civilize male behavior for they "might" be less violent if they know that others they care for will be harmed by their incarceration 2) it promoted stable child rearing as there were now two people to raise children, 3) women, who at the time, were less able to take care of themselves on the frontier could be cared for by men, 4) with a woman to come home to, men were less likely to procreate out of wedlock leaving the children to suffer. None of these arguments are religioous and certainly were in the best interests of state governments in the US in its nascent stages. So, I don't see your "clear" violation of church and state. Now, however, many of these arguments are not overly valid but still somewhat valid. Men can still be civilized by marrying, children do better with two parents, however, women are now more than able to care for themselves and with abortion and contraception, unwanted children should be a thing of that past (another argument for another time). Still, I don't see your clear violation.
Posted by getreal on November 19, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jill I am not a poser and take offense to calling anyone who believes in religion a "poser." All I have seen from the no voters IS hate yet thats what you claim yes voters preach. Pretty funny. Look in the mirror, set a good example for people to follow. Its pretty hard to get people to accept your views when you are irgnorant and rude. Its a two way street you know. you want people to accept YOUR opinions but yet you get angry and vile when people have opinions of their own. Its called free speech, get used to it unless you want that changed in the constitution too.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" All I have seen from the no voters IS hate yet thats what you claim yes voters preach"
i take offence to that, i havn't said a thing on hate, thank you.
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have read the article and many of the posts. I think the supporters on No for 8 are continuing to do themselves a disservice. Many people who vote No have now been turned off by the behavior of protestors and the smear mongering occurring.
Everyone needs to recall that we are in a democratic society where we all go to the polls and vote on the issues. If the people on No want to direct their anger at someone it should be toward the apathetic people who do not both to vote.
Posted by getreal on November 19, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
boycotting businesses, name calling, bashing Mormans, all because you didn't get your way? Refering to those with a religius belief as "posers", all this is pretty hateful. I bet you voted for Obama too. Didn't read the part about how he plans to do away with the dont ask dont tell policy. He just plans to kick the gays out of the military. Homework pays off.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gdawg: There is no "secular" explanation for insisting that marriage be between a man and a woman. The idea in and of itself has origins (according to some) from religion. To CHANGE the constitution BECAUSE religion dictates that marriage is only between a man and a woman...is infringing on the church and state tenet. Only the infringement is between those that argue this statement without secular reasons/origins.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"boycotting businesses, name calling, bashing Mormans, all because you didn't get your way? Refering to those with a religius belief as "posers", all this is pretty hateful."
I never said that people here wernt' I said "I" didn't. you said "ALL" i'm part of that all and do not agree with the hate on either side.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have read the article and many of the posts. I think the supporters on Yes for 8 are continuing to do themselves a disservice. Many people who vote Yes have now been turned off by the discrimination and intolerance that is occurring.
Posted by getreal on November 19, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
docweas agreed, sorry, I should have said MOST
Posted by ven805 on November 19, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well here I go
The last company I worked for would not give my girlfriend insurance, because we did not qualify for the DOMESTIC PARTNER LAW. When the company I worked for called me back they said " if I was gay or over 65 years old the law would apply." I was able to get our 2 children on the ins.
So as of now Gays and people over 65 have better benifits then couple that have been toghter for a period of time, or couple that have children together.
So take the benifits and run
The PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA have voted. AND THATS THAT
If you think by marching up and down streets blocking people from getting home or trying to get to there jobs is the right thing to do. KEEP DOING IT
This is tuff time right now for everyone.
I dont blame the guy that got out of his truck and layed that guy out.
I dont see how this can be changed now. IT WAS VOTED ON
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi gdawg,
When I hear a priest say "by the power vested in me by the Catholic Church and the State of California" I get nervous.
This is from Wikipedia: "In most American states, a wedding may be officiated by a priest, minister, rabbi or other religious authority, and in such a case the religious authority also acts as an agent of the state." Yikes.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I dont see how this can be changed now. IT WAS VOTED ON"
the state supreme court can still stike it down, as can the US supreme court. There are always ways things can be changed, on either side of the argument.
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to: BabyzDaddy_01
You have to admit that the proliferation of the negative comments and websites by the supporters of No on 8 are a lot more intolerant than any comments made by people who supported Prop 8.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ven805: It CAN be changed if the support is demonstrated to the State Legislature which has the final decision in their hands. It is ONLY the State Legislature that can change the state's constitution which would alter the laws that determine the marriage contracts in this state. It's not even "activist judges" alone that can do this. Actually calling them "activist Judges" when they simply did their job which is to determine if an act is according to current state laws. All they did was say that to LIMIT a particular sexual preference from entering into the legal marriage contract is unconstitutional. Which it is because as it is worded, sexual preference has NEVER been a pre-requisite of the legal marriage contract.
Posted by igo2sara on November 19, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So sad if you donate to prop 8 you get targeted but fine to donate no on the issue ..Someone asked where to look for the people who donated to no. http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign...
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to: evesleaf
You have to admit that the proliferation of the negative comments and websites by the supporters of Yes on 8 are a lot more intolerant than any comments made by people who were opposed to Prop 8.
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
please point out one website solely created to identify all of the No 8 supporters and contributers.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"So sad if you donate to prop 8 you get targeted but fine to donate no on the issue ..Someone asked where to look for the people who donated to no"
I would say that if you feel very stongly about the subject and dont' with to support one side of the issue or what not then it's well withing your right to shop or not shop at any store you want to. Keeping it legal of course.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
igo2sara: Would you think it was ok if this proposition was to take away the right to vote for women? Would it be sad to see how PROPONENTS of such a proposition would be viewed? Wouldn't YOU like to know who is FOR discrimination? Some may surprise you.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"please point out one website solely created to identify all of the No 8 supporters and contributers."
why would that matter?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
evesleaf:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...
I'm sure you can figure out how to sort.
Posted by ven805 on November 19, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well I would say that the domestic partner law would be discrimination
Posted by normaldude on November 19, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
people who support normal marrige will not stoop to boycott
We simply vote and support elected officials who support traditional marrige
The reson the appeal of prop 8 did not go to the federal courts is the supreme court would have shot them down and the issue would be moot
Yes on 8 won
the electorate have spoken, now i have to help my wife unload a toyota sequioa full of lassens foods
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
evesleaf:
I found one very quickly with a simple Google search. Oh wait, you can't use Google because they're on the list.
Try Yahoo. Oh wait... they're on there too.
Oh well. Good luck to you!
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because I responding to a comment by someone who repeated my posting stating the Yes on 8 supporters were intolerant and I was pointing out that the web is filled with criticism of businesses and indivduals who excerised their given right under the U.S. constitution to donate to a cause they believe in. I wanted them to prove where such a web page existed.
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to VenturaBrian
Personally I feel both sides encouraging boycotting and protestings are silly. The extremists of both sides are doing their point of view a disservice.
Posted by docweas on November 19, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
understood now.
Posted by VenturaBrian on November 19, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
evesleaf - nobody is debating whether or not these business have the right to donate. They're simply saying that they, and other like minded people, no longer want to give them the money with which to do so.
Your argument seems to be that any boycotting is wrong and should't happen. Is that indeed what you're saying?
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lol @ tim
yes i could, but i dont think they will let me post those types of things on here
Posted by evesleaf on November 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not saying boycotting is wrong; but pointing out that people on both sides of the issue are going over the top and getting carried away. The election is over, Yes on Prop 8 passed; the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case; after they make a decision which ever sides loses is bound to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court who has refused to hear these types of cases.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 19, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
babydaddy said: I have read the article and many of the posts. I think the supporters on Yes for 8 are continuing to do themselves a disservice. Many people who vote Yes have now been turned off by the discrimination and intolerance that is occurring.
========
You would like to believe that and even your post doesn't sell that point very well because you know it isn't true and it is not resonating with the people.
I bet if another vote were taken today on prop 8, it would pass again 65/35.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: ...and how is THAT not showing your bigoted colors? To think it's funny to stereotype "no on 8" supporters and activities?
"WOW".
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rerun
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, with as many names as i have been called since i started posting on here, and since this whole prop 8 thing started and i voiced MY OPINION,
I really could care less at this point what you think babyz, and if my "true colors" are just now showing, wait til i get going in public.
I just dont care anymore. The no on 8 side has shown me what it means to be "tolerant and peacefull" Time i started practicing what NO ON 8 preaches as well!
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"WOW".
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Easy there jstabratt...no need to go all Brandon McInerney on us or anything.
Posted by missing805 on November 19, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yaaaaaawn, this is old news.. Enough is enough.. people voted, The prop passed...
Posted by jstabratt on November 19, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
babyz,, dont worry i wont have to kill to make my point known
unlike the no on 8 side sending out white powder to the mormon church, and all the personal threats to anyone who made a donation to the Yes on 8!!!
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 19, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jstabratt: Yes....and don't forget the Yes on 8 posters citing reason to execute all homosexuals and calling opponents of Prop 8 "terrorists". There are extremists on BOTH sides.
Posted by bexter700 on November 19, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone out there: When and where is the list going to be published? The STAR should do a complete expose' on who turned the tide in Ventura County? And the part that Schubert Flint Public Affairs and the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce played?
Posted by normaldude on November 19, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The people who passed the prop were in Los Angeles
namley the 1st AME church, the pastors spoke about it every sunday for the past few months.
However, you will not see the intolerant no on 8 people as they wont confront black people over this.
Its much simpler and more dorothy to stomp their feet outside a store and sip there lattes.
But screaming curse words at blacks as they enter their places of worship wont happen.
Nor will any no on 8 people boycott black bussiness
Posted by bexter700 on November 19, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My concern is with Ventura County, and Oxnard, the church people obviously had lot with the elections we also have an AME church here. But who sent out those mailers with tickets on how to vote. Who was behind the ads... Who are the ad people? Who paid them? Who cause the downing of Measure V and passage of O...the cause of higher taxes?
Posted by normaldude on November 19, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
down load the results of prop 8
ha ha ha ha
Posted by nancy_4ever on November 19, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
janusjuris: I agree with you 100%
Why don't noh8rs go to Compton, & Watts where Black vote proves to have made the difference in 8 results? Protest African American Churches who voted Yes on 8! Cowards!
Shop Lassens!
Posted by acerbas on November 19, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marching in the street is pointless, the people who run things don't care. Boycott is the only effective tool; hits them in the only place they care about, their pocketbook. Worked in Birmingham, didn't it?
Just spent $600 in Lowe's yesterday; Home Depot, big contributor to Shrub and the Repugs, will never get another dollar from me.
Will make sure I shop at Trader Joes or Whole Foods, not Lassens in the future.
Going to the Auto Show next week just so I can tell the Ford and GM shills how happy I am to see their anti-environmental gas-guzzling SUV producing companies going under.
Lets hope Lassens goes under, too.
Sign me straight for justice and fairness in Ventura
Posted by mcsue1 on November 19, 2008 at 8:13 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by normaldude on November 19, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lassens has great cookies
finally finished unloading the suv
glad fuel is so cheap, were going to coyote grill tomarrow
will we see the no8ers in compton??
doughtfull, they might get their ruby red slippers dirty
Posted by 5252 on November 19, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Prop 8 won. The people have spoken (again). Spin it all you want, call it hate, discrimination, wrong, I don't care!
You don't like the outcome, so you try to bully people. I welcome the day I find an anti-Prop 8 person trying to destroy my property, stand in front of my car, or disrupt my church service. Do you honestly think I am afraid of you?
As for the courts, do you think any judge will risk the chance of a voter recall if they overturn the will of the people again? Recalls cost the judges money out of thier own pocket and I'll bet they will realize you people aren't worth it!
I will spend money at Lassens, lots of it. I think Mormons are great and when I get the chance, I will send money to the Nights of Colombus!
Grow up. You lost on Nov. 4th and you will loose again in court. Then what will you do? I know you don't want to go to the U.S. Supreme Court...do you? I hear Quincy MA is a lovely town, I'll help you pack.
Posted by horsespinner on November 19, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW. Not worth my comments. TOO MUCH.
Posted by bexter700 on November 19, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Schubert Flint Public Affairs paid by the Mormons for... Yes on 8 campaign and take credit for the win. We have the AME Church in Oxnard which Mayor Holden allowed them attack his rival Councilman Tim Flynn on behalf of Oxnard Asst. Mgr., Karen Burnham, thereby damaging Councilman Tim Flynn chance at being voted Mayor especially among the Afro-American community. Schulbert Flint Public Affairs played part in the defeat of Measure V (traffic) and passage of O (1/2 cent tax increase) thanks to Oxnard Chamber of Commerce. In Oxnard, Mayor Holden has allowed the self-serving attacks from the clergy at Oxnard City Council meetings from the pulpit for far to long... now it's come to various church groups make public policy... What happened to the wall that separates the church from state?
The STAR has to do an expose' the Mormons, AME Church, the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce, Measure O and Measure V and the paid role of Schubert Flint Public Affairs, not only in Oxnard through-out California.
Posted by normaldude on November 19, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
5252
your awesome!!!!!!!!!!!
after the no8ters have shown what bigots they are and how intolerant they can be NO measure that makes adam and steve a married couple will ever pass, nor will rosie and ellen
prop 8 passed
Posted by skatinghailey on November 19, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will no longer shop at Lassens.
Can't wait for that Whole Foods Market to open in Oxnard!!! And let's not forget our champion, Trader Joe's!
Prop 8 will be defeated someday. It's just a matter of time.
Posted by RaiderHater on November 19, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Angry gay people are funny.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 20, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sheesh people, doesn't this get old to any of you?? Give it a rest already.
BTW O_P, thanks for that link about the charitable contributions of Mormons... I can see what horrible, bigoted, and hateful people they really are... Who do they think they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to help people living in poverty?!?
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 20, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Angry gay people are funny."
Talk about your oxymorons! LOL
Posted by Statenmycase on November 20, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All this over marriage of the same sex. All these people want to be married for what reason... they can't have kids, they should be permited to adopt kids so the kids pay the price of their ignorance. I know its all about the principle, family values and tax deductions, medical benefits & inheritance. If these people were had morals and religion we wouldn't be in this mess.
If prop 8 is allowed then knowone would be able to talk in the work place when the employer doesn't permit workplace relationships. :)
Bigger problems to deal with right now. If they have all this time to protest where the hell do these people work anyway.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 20, 2008 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tim, thanks for the idea about gift cards to Lassen's for Christmas! I have only shopped there a few times the past several years, but this is a great way for people who support traditional marriage to continue supporting the cause. Now I know what to get all of my family and friends for Christmas.
I hope none of you Christian-bashers are offended that I celebrate Christmas or put up a nativity scene in my front yard this time of year. And I hope you don't steal my Christmas decorations or call me names because of it.
Posted by jill on November 20, 2008 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Prop. 8 supporters, you'd better dig deep into your wallets - Lassen's is expensive! I WAS a good customer. It was a great place for us vegans to shop. Now I will go to Rainbow Bridge, Whole Foods and the vegetarian section of Von's.
Lassens can probably stop carrying the "veggie" meats now, because I highly doubt that there are very many Prop. 8 supporters that are vegan/vegetarian; they just aren't very compassionate human beings. Being that they don't care about equal rights, it's probably safe to assume they don't care about the systematic torture of animals in factory farms.
Posted by Graesan on November 20, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I had never heard of Lassen's since I have only been in So.CA for less than a year; but I know of them now. I will do my shopping there from now on !!!!
Posted by mcsue1 on November 20, 2008 at 7:35 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by svwl on November 20, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jill is absolutely right. All of the pro-prop 8 people need to be prepared to spend a lot of extra money on everyday foods if you are going to shop at Lassen's. It isn't just a small grocery store, it is an Alternative grocery store, specializing in Vegetarian, vegan and organic foods and products.
I imagine that all of the people who are now eager to shop there will do so once or twice and then return to Wal-Mart and Sam's Club.
If you don't care about equal rights, its probably safe to assume that you don't care about fair-trade chicken and organic Acai juice.
I'm amazed that Lassen would so blatantly disenfranchise such a major portion of their clientèle by supporting that proposition.
Posted by rants805 on November 20, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of these arguments sound very familiar.. oh wait sounds like another immigration discussion. Same animosity, same type of back and forth arguments. Now imagine this: gay, brown and illegal...oh snap! you wouldn't hear the end of it.
Posted by TO_lvr on November 20, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't done any shopping at Lassen's yet but I will now!
Gays... it's really time to "go and sin no more".
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 20, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it was a marketing ploy on the part of Lassen's....it SURE has triggered many people to blindly go there..not for the products...but for an alternative reason that in and of itself sets Lassen's apart from Trader Joe's and the larger chain grocers.
Hmmmmm...maybe the owner KNEW what he/she was REALLY doing by publicly donating to Yes on 8. Which is worth more? A huge BOOST in sales of NEW shoppers shopping there or a small temporary decrease of Vegan/No on 8 supporters that will eventually go back to shopping there?
Something to think about.
Posted by svwl on November 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If it was a business decision, then I'd be surprised if it ends up being a shrewd one.
Most likely the Lassen's contribution is due to the fact that the owner is a Mormon.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 20, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SVWL: I didn't want to speculate since I can't confirm and didn't bother to look it up to see if the owner is a Mormon...just trying to think about any other reason the owner would put Lassens down as the donor vs. him/herself...and thus opening themselves up to such attention (both positive and negative depending on your perspective).
Posted by horsespinner on November 20, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
great store and quite healthy. I rode my bike
Posted by celtcwrtr on November 20, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
as a straight person who has spent thousands of dollars over the years on supplements (usually around $350 per month), as well as other healthy items i employ in my lifestyle from lassen's, i immediately sent them an email advising i would no longer patronize their store, due to the contribution to yes on 8 in the company name.
i view this as a hater law that eliminates RIGHTS THAT WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED of my fellow citizens.
eventually, of course, it will become moot... and go the way of jim crow. (that's why our system's set up with the different branches, remember? the judicial's job is to step in and protect the rights of any minority who's been stomped on.)
for now, i'll buy at lazy acres or whole foods (thank goodness one will be nearby soon), and get my supplements from life extension.
i will never set foot in lassen's again.
Posted by Veritas8808 on November 20, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Will be doing my shopping at Lassen's from now on; what happened to being part of the democratic process? Everyone is entitled to support the candidates/initiatives of their choice. I boycott stores that support Planned Parenthood, like Whole Foods, but I don't stand out in front of the store with signs...they have a choice to use their corporate dollars to do what they want...and I have a choice to avoid their store because they do. So if you don't like the Lassen's owner's choice, then don't shop there. But the intimidation and harrassment....how VERY tolerant!
Posted by WolfWalker on November 20, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by BillyBob on November 20, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, when does the Whole Foods open?
Posted by Hank on November 20, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let us know how long you keep shopping there, Veritas8808.
Posted by ribbypaultz on November 21, 2008 at 5:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Lassens can probably stop carrying the "veggie" meats now, because I highly doubt that there are very many Prop. 8 supporters that are vegan/vegetarian; they just aren't very compassionate human beings"
Exactly the kind of blanket statement that the GLBT community screams its collective head off about all the time. How do you presume to know anything about any of the people who voted for Prop 8?
I can't wait to see the protests in front of the predominately black churches. When will they do that, and when will the boycott of black businesses begin? The no on 8 people are hypocrites who pick the easy target. Gutless cowards.
Posted by live_for_purpose on November 21, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ribbypaultz--
Exactly. I'm a vegetarian and I voted YES on 8! The No on 8 people should stop stereotyping and being so close-minded.
Posted by godslove1 on November 21, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know boycotting is fine and peaceful protest goes right along with that. The sad thing comes when those protesters go inside of the establishment and cause mischief. What they have been doing is just wrong and mean spirited but it's just par for the course...sad really.
Posted by perry on November 21, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead us tolerant and accepting people looking foolish being intolerant of the majority's views,and since the majority of California voted Yes on 8, I think that we should organize a boycott of California. All those who voted no on 8 should leave California immediately. That will show them!
Posted by united_we_stink on November 21, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Lassens can probably stop carrying the "veggie" meats now, because I highly doubt that there are very many Prop. 8 supporters that are vegan/vegetarian; they just aren't very compassionate human beings"
Last I checked, Prop2 known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative passed 63% to 37%. The official title of the statute enacted by the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.
There are must be quite a few compassionate human beings amongst Yes on 8 people.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 21, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Carol said: California's Domestic Partnership contract(which by the way is available to hetero-, as well as homo-sexual partners) is only valid and recognized in the State of California. By banning gay people from entering into a legal, civil marriage with each other, prop. 8 has effectively removed from them many federal rights.
=======================
I am surprised at your ignorance Carol. I suspect that there are many others here that probably believe as you do that when the California Supreme Court struck down Prop 22 this last may that it automatically gave married gays in California access to all of the federal privileges of marriage. That is absolutely incorrect.
Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines for federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage in Massachusetts, California and now Connecticut does not grant gays ANY federal rights, entitlements or privileges.
Consequently, When Prop 8 passed gays lost absolutley zero legal rights and privileges in the State of California.
Posted by elephantpower on November 21, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on 8!
I read the link that OP posted on Nov 19 at 1:42.
I was appalled at the serious consequences of extreme homosexual anal eroticism that some gays engage in. This is because the tissues of the elimination organs are not meant to be sexual organs. The medical world is knowledgable about the lacerations and subsequent infections of this unhealthy lifestyles.
Do NOT let your children read this link. No wonder this info about the gay lifestyle is NOT common knowlege, and certainly not shared by the Rainbow Alliance when they counsel kids who are exploring a gay or bi lifestyle.
Of course not all gays are into extreme pain and eroticism, such as described here. However, I wouldn't doubt that those who have multiple tatoos on their heads and necks, and multiple facial piercings, are also looking for extreme adrenalin highs through this unnatural "fist" business.
This extreme and unnatural "fist" behavior IS harmful to humans. I do want want school children in California to be "normalized" to homosexual marriage, and be led to such experimentation, which involves drugging to overcome the pain.
That being said, I'm not homophobic. Ask the 3 gay bosses I've worked with. Ask the flaming queen grad student that worked next to me. I drove him/her to work for the whole summer, and learned something new about science everyday from him/her. He came to my house a few times, but it made my son uncomfortable, when I told him that our friend thought he was "cute". My son IS cute. But now that he is a married man, he doesn't take that as a compliment. So, that's reality. It is hard to see past the "in your face" part of some gay's agenda, and listen to them. This queen insisted on wearing pancake makeup, red eye shadow, and heavy blush to work. At a company function, he wore torn short, short jeans, and a crop top showing off his abs, which were oiled up with suntan lotion. For another event which was a beach party at a private home, he asked me what he should wear. I told him, well it is casual, and there will be kids there, so you could wear jeans, but I don't think you should wear a sarong.
This mega company is openly welcoming to gays and has an entire month of LGBT pride in June. It got tiresome for straights to see the signs everywhere, even on lunch tables for weeks on end. I don't want to think about backdoor sex while I am trying to swallow my food. I stopped going to the lunch rooms so I could have peace. I don't want to think about straight sex constantly every hour of the day, when there are other things that need attention. This is what is so offensive, I think, about the constant barrage of the LGBT lifestyle into the personal space of straight people.
Posted by elephantpower on November 21, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoops. Forgot to post the link. This is scientific medical stuff, adult stuff. Hide the kiddies.
Posted by timbri27 on November 21, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"A day without a Gay" are you serious? This people are getting out of control. Why are they trying to force us to accept their life style and they get mad when whe fight for what we believe? We are not forcing our beliefs or life style on them, we just voted for what we believe and we won. The people spoke loud and clear, not once but twice.
Posted by caroldammit on November 21, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Surprised, OP? Really? And just the other day you were calling me confused and uneducated. I must be moving up in the world! :o)
I did take this passage: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." to mean that relationships "treated as marriage", such as civil unions, did not have to be recognized, but actual, legal "marriage" did. Thanks for prompting me to look at it again and really see just how much discrimination and homophobia is being written in to our country's most consecrated documents. What a sad, sad shame.
Posted by caroldammit on November 21, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S.- I think you meant to type FEDERAL rights and priveleges in your last line because they lost ALL the legal rights and priveleges that are associated with marriage in the State of California (which they had for all too brief a moment in history) when prop. 8 was voted in.
Posted by vickicassidy2 on November 21, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a straight married women that will NEVER shop at Lassens again!!!
Posted by mamaof2 on November 21, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where is Lassens? I need to do some shopping.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 21, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will never shop at Lassen's again. My money will not support hateful discrimination.
Posted by iam_caine on November 21, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beverly Kelley, an author and communications professor at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, said "protesting won't likely change Lassen's mind"
The protesters aren't attempting to change Mr. Lassen's mind. They're just trying to reduce his gross income. I've never shopped there, and since I am not all that crazy about that type of market to begin with (regular food at outrageous prices because it's labeled organic), I most likely never will, regardless of what he did or did not donate money to.
Speaking of which, if Mr. Lassen, or any of his relatives, friends, or customers, want to donate to a truly worthy cause, try Saint Anthony Foundation, 150 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. In addition to their free medical clinic, residental treatment program, clothing & houswares program, and employment and training services, they provide over 2,600 meals per day, 365 days a year, and there are no requirements or documentation necessary to eat there. Although basically run by Franciscan monks, unlike other organizations such as Starvation Army or Rescue Mission, there are no religious requirements to obtain any of their services. You don't have to pray, you don't have to make a religious conversion, and you don't have to beg. Everyone is treated with respect and dignity. http://www.stanthonysf.org/home.html
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
Posted by jill on November 21, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rainbow Bridge in Ojai, Whole Foods in, I think, T.O., and now Von's, Albertson's and Ralph's carry quite a bit of the veggie/soy "meats," organic veggies and the "O" (organic) brand. Plus, they are a lot cheaper than Lassen's! Anything that they don't carry I can do without. I look forward to saving money.
Posted by classifiedgal on November 21, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VenturaBrian - The name of the store is Lassen's and is owned by the Lassen Family - thus, the contribution came from the business and the family. It's a nice "right-off" that way. BTW, the Lassen family is Mormon. They are very nice people. I'm not saying I do or don't agree with their politics, however they do have the right to support (financially) anything they want to. This is America....we will never all get along; we will never all agree on any single issue; Otherwise, we'd all be following eachother like a heard of sheep.
Posted by normaldude on November 21, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh but lets all try to be tollerant
you know the word, it is only allowed to be used by homosexuals, because any one else who disagrees with their lifestyle is intolerant.
btw
lassens has great trail mix
Posted by williamdaw on November 21, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IF you voted for Prop 8 you’re a bigot, just deal with the fact. If you have been married more than once and you voted for Prop 8, then that makes you a hypocrite in addition to a bigot. The gays have had enough, you people haven’t seen anything yet.
Posted by williamdaw on November 21, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 21, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Carol you are still confused as ever.
When the California Supreme court struck down Prop 22, the gay community gained no additional State or Federal Legal rights except to the right to legally call their union marriage. Prior to the court's ruling back in May gay civil unions already had all of the state legal rights that married couples had in the State of California. Gay civil unions STILL have all those same legal rights.
When prop 8 passed none, I repeat, none of those legals rights were taken away from gays.
You erroneously assumed that if gays got the legal label of marriage that they would automatically get the federal entitlements of marriage. That has never happepened.
Had prop 8 failed gays would not get any federal entitlements afforded to married couples because the federal law and government only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman and nothing else. Furthermore, if a couple married in California moves to Iowa to Nevada or any other state besides Massachusetts or Connecticut your gay marriage will NOT be recognized.
The Only States that will recognize your gay marriage is Massachusetts and Connecticut, period.
So, I say again for the umpteenth time when prop 8 passed gays neither gained nor lost any legal rights except to have their unions legally defined as a marriage.
Posted by Killashandra on November 21, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems to me that I see a lot of people here saying that it is wrong to boycott and picket Lassen's for their involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign. While I do not condone trashing the Mormon church gates, I certainly condone the right of gay and lesbian citizens to boycott and even picket (peacefully) Lassen's supermarket.
How is this different than black people boycotting bus transporation when Rosa Parks was relegated to the back of the bus? Isn't that what we have done here? Haven't we relegated our gay and lesbian friends to the back of the bus? Haven't we told them that they are not entitled to a family?
Anyone who says a domestic partnership is the same as marriage is sorely misinformed. It is not even close. Please inform yourself before posting opinions as facts.
Don't get me wrong - I have many Mormon friends, and even used to be Mormon. I have a great respect for their lifestyle, and for their religion, which emphasizes the importance of family. (As do most of my gay and lesbian friends as well!) I do not approve of violence towards Mormons, or Christians in the slightest, but I do condone a public boycott of someone's business who would contribute to such a huge backwards step in our humanity.
November 4th was a sad day for humanity in California (and the world), but I feel confident that we will plow forward. I feel confident that ignorance and fear of our fellow humans, however different they are, will soon be "relegated to the back of the bus".
Peace and Love to you ALL, XOXO K.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 21, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Lassens wanted to take a stand on this issue, and with 49% of Californians opposed to Prop 8, they took a big chance. Whatever consequences follow their public stand against equal rights are fully deserved. I hope they go out of business!
Posted by ValerinaS on November 21, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If none of their rights were taken away, why can't it be called 'marriage??'
Easy for you to say, no one's telling you legally you have to have a domestic partnership instead of a marriage....
If no rights were taken away, why can't we call it what it is???
Posted by normaldude on November 21, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
important thing to remember, its very easy to get a homosexual yellow pages"yes they do exsist"
it seems that they discrimante quite often.
So pick one up and boycott them.
You see they are the real biggots
I dont agree with their LIFESTYLE its my opinion
prop 8 passed
Posted by kelly13 on November 21, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't get it. Gays will boycott Lassens or other places and say they have every right to do so. Yet, if people boycott a business because it is gay, that would be wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by ribbypaultz on November 21, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by williamdaw on November 21, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IF you voted for Prop 8 you’re a bigot, just deal with the fact. If you have been married more than once and you voted for Prop 8, then that makes you a hypocrite in addition to a bigot. The gays have had enough, you people haven’t seen anything yet.
More intolerance from the GLBT folks. I'm a bigot? Whatever, Billy. Run outside and play and let the grownups handle the discussion.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 22, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it strange how these gays want all the rights of the government etc etc. But yet a business owner doesn't have that right.NOW who is discriminating?????????????? The gays are !!!!!!
Posted by robbca on November 22, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know this is off topic, but I have decided that instead of buying any holiday gifts for anyone this year to take that money and donate to the local food bank. With the food banks being so low on food and the economy the way it is I think this is the best option to really celebrate what the holidays are all about.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 22, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It has always been the gays that are discriminating. Just see for yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/5gkrm3
http://tinyurl.com/55sxym
http://tinyurl.com/635nqu
http://tinyurl.com/6gq85w
http://tinyurl.com/5usp9s
http://tinyurl.com/5qv8o2
http://tinyurl.com/5j2s8d
This is the reason prop 8 passed. Not because of money, or Mormons, or Catholics, etc... They GLBT community lost because they are adamant that EVERYONE accept their lifestyle. And if you don't, well, you can count going to court over it.
Posted by jill on November 22, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassen's is free to donate to whatever cause they wish, and people are free to boycott and picket against them for it. I hope that the activists do not back down until there are equal rights for all.
I would have never shopped at Lassen's had I known that they were so prejudice!
Posted by nickscaligirl on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's pretty simple,.. if the Domestic Partnership is such a great thing, and so good for the "others", then why don't all of us Hetero's just surrender our "Marriage Licenses" for a Domestic Partnership? I mean, if it has all the same rights.. then what's the problem? Let the concept of "Marriage" stay in the churches where it belongs. Don't paraphrase the Domestic Partnership Law.. read it in it's true legal form and really understand the holes in it.. then tell us, it's the same. Seriously, this is such a waste of time and money. This is all about a group of well funded liars that think it's their place to tell other people how to live and what they can have. And, as for the protestors, back even the most peaceful being into a corner, and it will lash out.
Posted by normaldude on November 22, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
important thing to remember, its very easy to get a homosexual yellow pages"yes they do exsist"
it seems that they discrimante quite often.
So pick one up and boycott them.
You see they are the real biggots
I dont agree with their LIFESTYLE its my opinion
prop 8 passed
Posted by robbca on November 22, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The people who are discriminating are all these people who "say" that they are g_d fearing people. If they were really g_d fearing then Prop 8 would have never come about. Prop 8 was created to have people force religious beliefs onto everyone else. Prop 8 was created out of fear. If you want to save marriage then keep your "straight" church going husbands out of the gay chat rooms looking for quick sex. I am a married gay male to my husband but I have single friends who go online looking for people to meet and they keep running into these straight married guys who are looking to cheat on their wives.
Posted by robbca on November 22, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Normaldude,people like you are so ignorant. Being gay is not a lifestyle it is how we are born. I am sure there are gay people who became that way because of horrible experiences with the opposite sex. Those are the minority most of us were born that way.
Posted by jill on November 22, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Robbca,
That is so funny (and sad) about the straight married guys going into gay chat rooms. It reminds me of these "Christian" politicians who passionately speak out against gay rights but then get caught with their pants down with other men in public bathrooms. Such hypocrits!
I really feel sorry for Mormon kids who are gay but have to live a lie and pretend like they're straight so they won't be disgraced by their own families and churches.
Posted by normaldude on November 22, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I totally disagree, the flamboyant in your face lifestyle is what discusts me.
I am not a religious person, but the homosexual lifestyle and constant in your face , and how they expect everyone to buy into thie lifestyle makes me sick.
prop 8 passed because people like myself are tired of homosexuals saying we have to accept their lifestyle/
we dont and wont
Posted by katndog on November 22, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the anti 8's didn't want it put to a vote they should have fought it before the MAJORITY voiced their choice. I felt VERY uncomfortable going to Lassens when the protesters were there. I felt unnecessary pressure which is called intimidation in my book.
Posted by lostangel6959 on November 22, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you all are wannabes. God made adam and eve. Gave them female parts and male parts. Even in a same sex marriage one of you protrays a man and the other protrays a woman. Even when you do the nasty one is the woman and one is the man. Are you getting the picture
Posted by jill on November 22, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lostangel, Adam and Eve, oh please! Do you really believe that fairy tale?
"Normal"dude, And heteros aren't in your face?
Posted by robbca on November 22, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i am looking forward to the day when the US Supreme court will someday recognize same sex marriage as legal from a federal level just like they did some years ago with interracial marriage. It is just a matter of time.
Normaldude - What you are saying today about us gay people is what other people used to say about interracial marriages. Nobody is asking anyone to accept anybodys lifestyle are we are asking is for the same rights as everyone else. It is sad that you are among the people that believe it is ok to take rights away from people.
We will see what our state supreme court decides next year.
Posted by aball6 on November 23, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is obvious that the vast majority of you that have commented on this article are Mormon and probably know the Lassen family personally (I'll give this to you - you sure know how to organize your "brethren").
But let me remind you of something if you will. For several years, many of you have been up in arms over the illegality of polygamy and marrying girls under the age of 18. You see nothing wrong with either of these two issues, while the rest of the nation calls it deviant and immoral.
If I am correct, those are some of the same terms you use concerning same-sex marriage. Do you at all see the irony in what you perceive as persecution against Mormons and your own persecution of same-sex couples? That's what many of us would call hypocrisy. Is that a new Christian value that I am unaware of?
Posted by SBgirl22 on November 23, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
prop 8 is purely ridiculous and discriminatory. sorry to inform you, but the fight for equality has not ended, and soon your bigotry and religion will not have a place in my constitution or my life. & before you go telling me that each of you are not bigots -- make sure you read the definition.
i'm not gay, but i find it completely and utterly disturbing that so many people would be willing to strip the rights of a minority this way. i am engaged, and my fiance and i have agreed to not marry until every consenting adult, no matter their sexual orientation can! i'm willing to bet it won't be more than a couple of years before i'm on my honeymoon in fiju. live and let live.
i'm ashamed to be a californian at this point in history, but hopeful and proud to be on the side of fairness and equality. & i will definitely be discontinuing my business at lassens.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 23, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aball6,
It is obvious that you are completely ignorant about the history of polygamy and the LDS church. You say, "For several years, many of you have been up in arms over the illegality of polygamy and marrying girls under the age of 18." The LDS church discontinued polygamy in the 1800's. Do some research before posting your libelous smears.
I will admit that I am Mormon and know the Lassens, but I was not "organized" by the church, nor was anyone else. I have been commenting about articles on the VC star website for years.
Posted by jill on November 23, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't Mormons get their own planets when they die? If that's true, why don't they wait until then to take equal rights away from gays?
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 23, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jill, quit reading the anti-Mormon propaganda.
Posted by jill on November 23, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rallying to take away the equal rights of other human beings does far more damage than all the propaganda in the world.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 23, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is odd that some of the original leaders of the Mormon Church were gay! Several early church leaders and prominent members, including Louise B. Felt, May Anderson, Evan Stephens, and Joseph Fielding Smith had homosexual tendencies and were involved in homosexual relationships. Maybe the current members are trying to hide the true history of their church members by taking a public stand in favor of Prop 8? What the Mormons need to know is that they will be accepted by almost half of the voters of California if they do choose gay marriage.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 23, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you think that by posting lies and smears about the LDS faith that you are becoming the bigots that you so despise? I could sit here and try to refute the dozens of lies and smears in these comments about my faith, but it is honestly a waste of my time. If you want to know the truth, it is there for you to find.
Unfortunately, it is obvious that you don't care about the truth. You just want to make slanderous statements against the LDS faith. It doesn't matter whether all the Mormons supported prop 8 or not (and there were many LDS members who did not agree with the church's statement on the issue) but to distort the LDS beliefs so as to appall and ahock those who are uninformed of our religion is its own form of bigotry. We may disagree, and you may think that I am a hateful and bigoted homophobe, but you do not know my heart or my faith. I do not wish ill to anyone, gay or straight.
Intentionally spreading lies about my faith makes you the hater, not me.
Posted by 5252 on November 23, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey ICUblog2,
You must love America, you can say anything you want, without facts, even if it is untrue and you pay no price.
Tell us where we can learn about your accusations of homosexuality, involving the Mormons you mentioned? You can't, because it is not true.
But you as a Gay, are so frustrated that Prop 8 won, you do what you and other frustrated Gays do and make things up to further your agenda.
You lost, get it? As in you did not win.
So you think making up stories about Mormons will change peoples minds? I am not Mormon, but I like them more and more each day and I have you to thank for that.
Keep it up, make up more lies, you are helping your enemys gain support.
So I'm waiting......prove me wrong and tell me where I can get the informaiton about Gay Mormons. If you can't, then I suggest you move to MA or shut your trap!
You are a coward, hidding behind a blog. I hope Prop 8 goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then, once and for all, we can put you back in the sandbox with the other whining, little babies where you belong.
P.S. Did you know that all Gay people wet their pants? Wow! Telling a lie is easy.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 24, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ridiculous posts on here.
EVERYONE against Prop 8 is boycotting shopping at Lassen's, not just gays. So let's get that straight.
It is NOT because they are discriminating against gays. It is because they are donating profits from Lassen's to support it. And we're not contributing to it. Get it straight people!! JEEZ!!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 24, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CRAZY!!!!!!!! People (gays) want everyone to agree with them. But yet they want the constitution to vote (or the right) taken away from those that do not agree with them.
I wish all this Prop.8 stuff would stop being printed in the paper!!!! Its just nonsense to be arguing back and forth. And God forbid if you do not agree with the gays people ,they want retaliation........... It passed. Its over , move on already !!!!!!!!! YOU LOST !!!!!!
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
5252-what is your problem????
"all gay people wet their pants"
you sound like a real intellect and someone we might find playing in a sandbox!
Leah- if you do not know about the history of your own church with its roots in polygamy and homosexuality, then you have only yourself to blame. I actually gave you the names of the gay Mormons. Check it out yourself.
I am Catholic and if I were to say there has never been a priest who molested a child in our church then I would be ignorant or lying. It doesn't mean that I approve of what other Catholics have done, but to say it never happened is ridiculous. Each of our churches has its unique history.
So, if you're in denial about the history of your own faith, you might want to learn more about it.
I accept people of all faiths including members of our churches who have lifestyles that differ from my own.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat-I agree that the Prop 8 thing is over, but there have been issues in America that are too big to drop and this is one of those issues. If Rosa Parks had just moved to the back of the bus or Cesar Chavez just said hey I'm not going to fuss if the farmworkers get taken advantage of then our country wouldn't be what it is today. Gays are a minority group in this country that deserves the rights every other American enjoys. They just can't say "we lost, oh well"
Posted by 5252 on November 24, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To ICUblog2
Did you not read what I wrote? I AM NOT MORMON, so I am not in denial. You listed names, but you still can't provide the source of your information! Anyone can name names, the hard part is proving it. The "wet their pants" line, was to demonstrate to you, how easy it is to say something, but not back it up as you have done. But if you would have read what I wrote you would have seen that.
Now, time for you to do some reaserch.
Gays have more rights in this County than I do. They are a protected class, based on Sexual Orientation. The first group to get that protection based on life style.
Unlike Blacks who can't change thier color, or people who can not change the country they were born in, or those who can not change thier gender, Gays have a choice with repsect to thier life style and could change it. Yet they still get the same protection as those who can not!
I'm sure you think it is O.K. to block traffic, destroy property and assult people who do not agree with your side. If it had gone the other way would you allow me to do the same?
Quit comparing Prop 8 to Rosa Parks. She could not change the fact that she was black.
So once again, I am waiting to hear where you got your information about Gay Mormans. You prove it and I'll admit you were right. Until then, try as hard as you can to stick to the facts...Like Prop 8 passed or the majority has spoken, or no judge in his/her right mind will overturn the voice of the people again, for fear of looisng thier job via a re-call!
I'm waiting..........
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
5252- I did read that you are not a Mormon and I never said that you were in denial. You sound angry about gay people having advantages that you don't have. That may be how you feel, but I don't think most folks would say that gay people are treated better than the rest of us. In fact they are not good enough to get married in this state so that should be some proof that they aren't treated better than others.
It's speculation as to whether gay people can change their homosexuality. Those of us who are open minded and haven't been afraid to discuss this topic with gay people realize that they feel that gayness is as much a part of them as the color of their skin. Why on Earth would anyone choose a gay lifestyle if they had a choice?
As for Mormons, since you are not Mormon, you probably have limited knowledge of their religion. I believe Mormons are as worthy and respectable as anyone else and have nothing against them. Their founders have roots in both polygamy and homosexuality, the names were provided for Leah to research as I'm sure she will.
I pointed out the link to Mormons & homosexuality because it struck me as odd that one religious group would lash out so strongly against a group of people. Usually, there is an underlying reason, and I believe it may be to cover up the homosexual roots of their faith. I am accepting of their religion and their homosexual founders, but I doubt if you are!
Posted by ValerinaS on November 24, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, being gay is NOT a choice. I don't think you wake up one day and say, you know what, today I feel like being gay.
As an opponent of Prop 8, I don't care what you're opinion of gay people is. I'm not demanding you accept it. I'm demanding EQUAL RIGHTS, because in America, that's how it works. Fair and Equal rights for ALL.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ABSOLUTELY an EQUAL RIGHTS issue.
It doesn't matter if you like gays, blacks, latinos, native americans, asians, jews, hindus, middle easterners, women, disabled, etc.
Each member of these groups is AMERICAN and deserves EQUAL RIGHTS.
Hate them if you must. Don't accept what they are or do--that's fine.
But they are AMERICAN and they deserve EQUAL RIGHTS!
Posted by aball6 on November 24, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
5252
You don't vote for state or federal Supreme Court judges smart-guy. They are appointed. Therefore, you can't recall them.
Besides that, the state Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. They overturned Prop 22, which was essentially the same proposition as 8. Not only have a lot of people wasted a lot of time and money, but the Mormon Church has put themselves in a position in which their nonprofit status is at risk.
If you had taken a basic American government course you would know that neither the state nor the federal constitutions can be altered by a majority vote. If that were the case, the constitution would have been altered several times depending on the whims of the majority. The only way to alter the state constitution is by a two-thirds majority vote from the state legislature.... whom, by the way, has already passed two bills legalizing same-sex marriage. The only reason it isn’t law already is because the governor vetoed them.
This is an excellent example of what the Founding Fathers were worried about: Tyranny of the majority over the minority. Luckily they were worried about it enough that they set up a system of governance that eventually squashes the tyranny.
So before you hurt yourself with too much patting of your own back and congratulating yourselves for the “win” (as if people’s lives and happiness are the equivalent of a football game), you may want to consider how ridiculous you look come March when the state Supreme Court rules Prop 8, just as they did with Prop 22, unconstitutional.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 24, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ICUblog, I take exception to the implication that the LDS church ever condoned or endorsed homosexual behavior. A few people in our faith turned out to be gay (hey, it will happen in any church) but they lost their positions of authority in the church because of it. In the case of Joseph Fielding Smith (the patriarch, not the prophet BTW), after he was released from his position he quit his homosexual behavior and concentrated on taking care of his family.
I also take exception to the fact that many here imply that the LDS church STILL is practicipating in polygamy and underage marriages. This was stopped over 100 years ago, and while it did play a role in the LDS church for a short time, it is in no way accepted today. Any person in the LDS church who is found to be practicing polygamy is excommunicated. You can’t get any clearer about the issue than that. The LDS church will have NOTHING to do with that behavior.
The LDS church is consistent in its views about sexuality. The ONLY acceptable form of sexual interaction is between a man and a woman who are married. That is not such a radical concept.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 24, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aball6, how many times does it have to be repeated?? The LDS church did NOTHING to compromise its tax-exempt status. The individual members gave of their own private income to prop 8. Just because you repeat the same lies over and over, it does not make it true.
Posted by 5252 on November 24, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aball6
Wow! How was Chief Justice Rose Byrd booted off the bench? Oh wait.... a recall vote. She continued to overturn death penalty conviction cases even though the "majority" wanted the death penalty.
So, via a recall, she was out. There were others as well, so don't tell me that a judge can not be removed via a recall. Look up the procedure for recalling Judges it's pretty straight forward.
As for how government works, the term you need to use is revision, not "altered" smart guy. If an amendment is considered to cause "revision" to the States constitution, then that would be a reson to review the amendment. That is what the CA Supereme court will attempt to decide.
I would not get your hopes up. The majority legal opinion (I'm not making this up, although I like it,)is that the backers of Prop 8, wrote the amendment, based on language used to overturn Prop 22, given to them via the Judges legal ruling.
In other words if you write it this way, it will hold up in court. A revision must dismantle, the basic framework of the constitution, and given that the language was choosen specificly to avoid this, it is highly unlikely that it will be overturned a second time. Because, the rest of the basic framework of the State Constitution still remains. See I do know something about how Government works.
Now, as to the Mormon Church loosing thier tax exempt status. You are like that ICUblog2 knuckle head. Do you honestly think that the Mormons did not think it through?
They just said hey California, here is X ammount of money from the Mormon Church for Prop 8. What, you are an IRS expert now?
Again, do some research. Oh wait, that is not the Gay Way.
The Gay Way, is to rant, rave, push shove, destroy, accuse, pout, make up things, block traffic, insist people change thier way of thinking to meet your own and refuse to accept the will of the people in the state that you live...twice!
The good news for you is that the state of MA has cheaper housing and gay marriage! See ya.
Posted by getreal on November 24, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually Valerina, there is no, none, zilch, zero evidence that being gay is something yuo are born with. Until this is PROVEN then I firmly believe that being gay is yes, a CHOICE.
Posted by caroldammit on November 24, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get: Then you must also firmly believe that being "straight" is a choice, correct?
Posted by timbri27 on November 24, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"National organizers are planning a Dec. 10 "Day Without a Gay" I say we all go Shopping at Lassen's this day. LOL, this people are pathetic. Don't try to force your lifestyle on to us, why don't you accept the straight lifestyle and practice it. Interrracial marriage is still a MARRIAGE between a MAN an a WOMEN!!! Don't try to chane tradition.
Posted by ValerinaS on November 24, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually getreal, there is no evidence to say they aren't. It's okay, when it's one of YOUR kids, you may feel differently.
Posted by caroldammit on November 24, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Timbri: Nobody is trying to force their lifestyle on you. Nobody wants you to be gay. They just want you to stop treating them as second-class citizens and stop denying them the same rights and responsibilities that are afforded to "straight" relationships. And before you go off about gay pride parades, etc... did you ever stop to think that if they were actually, finally, treated equally, that they would not need to march and rally and bring attention to the inequality and discrimination?
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
caroldammit-GREAT point... if they were treated equally they would not need to do anything else!
timbri-you asking a gay person to practice a straight lifestyle is as repulsive to them as them asking you to practice a gay lifestyle
getreal-and WHY do you think anyone would choose a lifestyle that is not tolerated, hated, and inspires horrification???? It just sounds fun???? Again, talk to a gay person about how they feel as completely attracted to the same sex as you do to the opposite sex. EVEN IF they "chose" that, they have a right to love whomever they chose
Leah- I honestly don't want to offend you. I just think that there is a compelling reason for a church to be so financially motivated to back a proposition that doesn't affect the status of their members. What IS that about? I just thought it might be due to the early LDS members who were gay and the church not wanting that to taint their image. I'm not Mormon so I don't know what motivated those decisions. Just my guess. I get that you are a reasonable person and realize that not all members of your church backed 8. As a Catholic, I was advised to back 8, but I voiced my disagreement to my priest and realized that not everyone at my church was in agreement.
Posted by jill on November 24, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat: "move on already !!!!!!!!! YOU LOST !!!!!!"
If women and blacks had "moved on," women still wouldn't be allowed to vote and blacks would be second-class citizens. I applaud people for fighting for their rights. I am behind them on this one.
Your multiple exclamation points are juvenile and annoying.
Posted by coffee67 on November 24, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow...well speaking from the point of a hetrosexucal parent who opposses prop 8 I will tell you all this...I will not shop at Lassens...not only becasue of their donation, but it's basically a whole in the wall dirty store....Yuck
Posted by 5252 on November 24, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey ICUblog2!!
I see you are still ranting about Gay Mormons, but you have refused to provide the proof. Tell us all where you got your info.
That's right you can't. You are a sad little person.
Your job is to spew anti Mormon hatered without facts. Did a Mormon girl refuse to date you and then you became Gay and now you blame the Mormons for it?
If you want to play in the adult world, don't act like a child. Don't make statements that you know are not true and then run an hide behind your mommy's skirt.
Gays are funny. They want us to except them even if they are diferent, but at the same time, they want us to treat them the same as everyone else. What a silly, confusing lifestyle.
Posted by wolf9walker on November 24, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat
"I wish all this Prop.8 stuff would stop being printed in the paper!!!! Its just nonsense to be arguing back and forth"
If you don’t like it, do click on the link. Why is it that some people don’t like what they read, yet they keep reading. That’s like eating rotten food, complaining about it, while still eating it.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
5252- you are a RIOT!
as I mentioned, the "anti-Mormon" blog you spoke of was not at all "anti Mormon" and as I said, I have nothing at all against Mormons but thought that the homosexuals in the early LDS church leadership might have caused the modern day Mormons to strongly reject homosexuality--to not taint their faith with that history. If you look at Leah's blog above (she IS a Mormon) she knows exactly which Mormons in her church's history were gay.
Since you are not Mormon, you don't know much about the LDS history, so why do you care about gay Mormons?
Your anti-gay views are based on what? Homophobia? Are you afraid that homosexuality is contagious?
There are some people that are just plain insecure and need to put someone down to feel okay about themselves. Maybe that's your problem?
FYI you got me all wrong. . . not male, not gay, not-anti-Mormon. Catholic, married heterosexual with children, and a believer in equality for everyone in America whether they are like me or not.
You should open your mind and your heart a little and don't feel so threatened by others who are different.
Posted by gramagracie on November 24, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, here goes, don't want to upset anybody...I believe in a one man one woman marriage, voted such in our state. I will not judge anyone for their lifestyle or their choices...only God will judge us all, thank God 'cause He waits until we die. Love thy neighbor is a command not a suggestion. Bottom line the vote is in, majority voted, no court in the USA is going to change that..you want to know why? Game of tag you are it...if the state supreme court says that the majority vote is unconstitutional...the PEOPLE who voted the majority will continue their quest. Some one better cry uncle or it will never end.
One thing needs to change "Fault Divorce". No more, can't get along with you babe, I am outta here! Back to the good old days when winner takes all. Private detectives made alot of money back then. Economy being so bad maybe we should look at that angle.
Posted by moorparkman2000 on November 24, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone, calm down and listen
Posted by 5252 on November 24, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ICUblog2
Well you proved my point. You can not prduce any evidence to support your claim about Gay Mormons. Nice try on the deflection to Leah's blog. Why can't you just say it? You made a false statement about Mormons and you are not big enough to admit it.
Now as for "Gay Mormons", you can be Gay, but you can not be Mormon. You can say you are Mormon, but if you are Gay, then you are not following the Mormon Doctorine and Principle.
No openly Gay person would be allowed to be Baptized as a Mormon and that is a right to which the Mormons are entitled, or did you want to take that away from them as well?
I, unlike you did my research.
Homophobic you say? No, but nice try. I used to accept Gays, until I saw how foolishly they acted when they lost on Prop 8. Like little children who did not get a cookie.
I guess all the Actors and thier money didn't help did it.
Am I afraid of all of the sudden waking up and wanting to be Gay. No, I like being straight. Again, your scare tactics don't work on free thinking people.
I am not putting you down to feel better about myself, I am putting you down because you babble anti Mormon information that is untrue and when I asked 3 times to provide your source you have failed. I'm putting you down because you hate anyone who agrees with the way our voting system works. I am putting you down because you don't play by the rules.
You really are a poor representation of what Catholics stand for.
I have an open mind and it voted for Prop 8. Now open your mind and accept your defeat.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
5252- I don't think that you should become a Mormon since you are trying so hard to stay away from those silly gay folks. Here are a few gay Mormons for you to read about:
"Queer Mormons of the 19th Century"
The 19th century did not know the homophobia we witness today. Men or women could embrace, kiss in public, and develop intense friendships without being dubbed homosexuals. In the LDS Church there were cases of men and women who, instead of marrying, preferred to live with a same-sex companion. There have also been cases of homosexuality, not only in the grassroots, but among the general authorities of the Church as well.
Evan Stephens (1854-1930) was the director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir for many years and the author of many of the Church hymns. Evan never married, but he did develop intense friendships with several young men who lived with him at different times and were also his travel companions. As one of these friends would leave on a mission or get married, Evan would always find another young man to take the place of the one moving out.
The case of Louie B. Felt (1850-1928) and May Anderson (1864-1946) is even more peculiar. Louie was the General President of the Primary. When she was 33 she met May, who had just immigrated from England and was 19. It was a "love at first sight." Louie and May became intimate friends and lived together for some 30 years, even sharing the same bedroom. In 1890 Louie called May as the general secretary for the Primary and in 1905 as her first counselor. Louie and May loved each other profoundly and were not afraid to admit their love.
In 1942 Heber J. Grant called Joseph Fielding Smith (1899-1964) as the Church Patriarch. A grandson of President Joseph F. Smith and the nephew of President Joseph Fielding Smith, Patriarch Smith was homosexual. In the 1920s, when Joseph was an instructor at the University of Utah, he had a homosexual relationship with Norval Service, a student. Later he became sexually involved with another Mormon young man. In 1946 the young man made a confession, and President George Albert Smith released Patriarch Smith at once. Even though he was sent to Hawaii "in exile" and banned from holding positions in the LDS Church, he was never excommunicated. In 1957 he was rehabilitated into the Church, being allowed to hold callings and use the priesthood.
So, yes there are and have been gays in the Mormon Church--so what! The point is that some Churches including this have come out strongly against gay people and people with curious minds have to ask what on Earth are they so concerned about?????
I am actually relieved to know that both the Mormon and Catholic churches have had to admit that despite their best teachings, parishioners are apparently born gay and there's nothing that the churches can do to change that!
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 24, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For the record, the LDS church does not "admit that despite their best teachings, parishioners are apparently born gay".
You injecting your own personal beliefs into the LDS doctrine. Whatever... I am tired of arguing with you.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 24, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Leah & 5252-
There has been a shift in this issue in the Mormon Church which only indicates their confusion about homosexuality. Whatever the reasons for their current anti-gay views, it is clear that they have plenty of past Mormon transgressors to deal with.
Sounds like Smith the Founder was fine with gays, so maybe all the hoopla has gotten completely away from the founder's vision for LDS?
a few interesting notes on the subject...
"With the meticulous record keeping of of the Mormon Church and its members, a lot of evidence is presented suggesting remarkable tolerance of homoeroticism until the mid-1950s both within the Mormon Church and Utah. Citing evidence from Mildred J. Berryman's earliest community study of Lesbians and Gay Men in America, that took place in Salt Lake City between 1916—1938, personal diaries, articles from official Mormon Church publications and other sources, one gets the idea that Salt Lake City was never as straight nor as straitlaced as some would have the world believe."
Mormons and Homosexuality
Homosexuality is not mentioned in the uniquely Mormon holy books, and there is some evidence that Joseph Smith himself was accepting of same-sex sexual relationships. Moreover, Church President Joseph F. Smith (1899-1964) allegedly engaged in homosexual relationships, and so may have Evan Stephens (1854-1930), director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and author of many Church hymns.
In the 1950s, however, the LDS Church embarked on an anti-homosexual crusade that reflected the McCarthy-era hysteria regarding homosexuality. Not only did the Church vigorously reiterate its prohibition against same-sex sexual activity and depict homosexuals as moral lepers, but it also adopted the view that homosexuality was the result of faulty parenting and, in effect, blamed parents for the homosexuality of their children.
Pamphlets published by the Church from the 1950s through the 1970s routinely described homosexuality as abnormal, as a perversion, and as a sin worse than incest or murder. Some in effect justified gay bashing. A President of the Church is reported to have said of homosexuals that "it were better that such a man were never born."
More recently, however, Church policy toward homosexuality has shifted slightly. Now statements about homosexuality and homosexuals are more likely to be cloaked in a veneer of compassion; bald statements of condemnation are rare. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has, in effect, adopted a policy similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church in which orientation is ostensibly regarded as neutral, but homosexual acts are considered evil. Hence, the Church now does not excommunicate individuals with a homosexual orientation if they do not act on their homosexual desires.
Posted by aroseoce on November 25, 2008 at 2:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I happen to be friends with the Lassen family, and this whole thing has been very upsetting to them. But I will be sure to support them as a friend as well as a happy customer... and for you meat and potato eaters, have no fear! Lassen's has it all!
Posted by venturapagan on November 25, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I won't be shopping at Lassen's, mostly because of their blatant support of this religiously influenced decision to lend financial support to restrict other's freedoms, and also because, in this economy, they are way over-priced compared to the rest of the markets. I also think ppl who decide to shop there will see their grocery bill skyrocket. Owner should have done in his name. My choice not to support his decision/opinion.
Posted by venturapagan on November 25, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The other humourous thought I had was; Harbour Freight is Mormon owned. People may rush to shop there now I've pointed that out, but they'll be returning the stuff tomorrow cuz it stopped working or fell apart, and soon will change their minds! Just my humble opinion....
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 25, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ICU, must you really post "alleged" indiscretions of dead LDS leaders? There is no proof to back your assertions up, so they must be disregarded. Spreading lies is really no way to garner support for your cause.
Posted by jill on November 25, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aroseoce,
Aw, so the Lassens family is upset. How incredibly sad. Uh, the gays who are in love and want to marry are a little "upset", too. So the Lassens can cry me a river. They're probably upset because they're lost their disgusted customers.
Posted by patronald on November 25, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JUST PEEKING IN TO SEE THE BLA, BLA BACK AND FORTH.
STILL YES ON 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Oxnard_Lady on November 25, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading most of the comments it's now BORING to me...... Oh I forgot I need to go to Lassens today.....
Bye....
Posted by jill on November 25, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reach deep into your pocketbook. Usually two to three grocery bags would run at least $80 at Lassen's. So have at it!
Posted by venturadude on November 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on prop 8 :} and I love Lassen's!!
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 25, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Leah- of course as a Mormon you know much more about your religion than I do, but you inspired me to keep an open mind and research your faith a little more closely. After all I was very curious to figure out why a Church would be so aggressive in getting a Proposition passed.
Well, I do get it now. I see that the marriage concept ties into some of your fundamental beliefs (which I now realize are quite different from those in the Catholic church).
Numerous publications indicate the vast wealth and entreprenurial character of your church members which explains why the $20million in support of Prop 8 wasn't much to y'all.
Some of your beliefs do concern me, but I feel much more informed and now understand why the Mormons were so supportive of 8. Some commonly cited beliefs include:
MORMONS BELIEVE that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by influencing others.
MORMONS BELIEVE that Jesus was really Lucifer's brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a "heavenly council" vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!
MORMONS BELIEVE that for years they considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their temple.
MORMONS BELIEVE that your non-Mormon Church is wrong, your Christian creeds are an abomination to God, and your pastor or Priest is a hireling of Satan.
MORMONS while in their temples wear secret underwear to protect themselves from "evil."
Well I don't want you to get your underwear all bunched up if you have those on right now, but if you think that everything that has been researched about your faith is a "lie" then you might want to search the history of your Church and perhaps your soul a bit deeper!
Posted by 5252 on November 25, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ICUblog2,
Well I can see you did some reaserch. Good. As in the case of any faith, you can find information that is in line with your own thinking.
Just type in "Gay Mormons" on Google and you will get what you want. Type in "Never any Gay Mormons" and you will get a different story.
Can we agree to disagree on this?
My point about Mormons is this. They have every right to back Prop 8 just as you have every right to be against it. But to be angry with them because they took a side against you does not do well for your cause.
Straight people and even Gay people who backed Prop 8. will not change thier feelings when they see the protests and destruction. All they (we)see, are people who did not get thier way and blame us because the system did what it was set up to do.
Each side waged a campaign. Each side presented thier views and the people voted in a fair election. My side won and your side lost. The election was legal and the majority spoke.
The response from your side was to block traffic and scare innocent people in thier cars, destroy property, assult innocent people and worst of all, you showed hatered towards those who did nothing more than vote for what they believed in.
Take your case to court, that's your right, but at lest have the courage to admit that the system worked and those who disagree with you, did nothing more than take a stand in what they belive in.
I am sorry my blogs to you were less than civil. I am frustrated, because I am accused of wrong doing, when all I did was vote my belief.
I used to be tolerant of Gays, but after what I have seen, I no longer am.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 25, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice try to distort the Mormon doctrine again, ICU. Where did you get your information, from another anti-Mormon website? Your bigotry is showing again.
Don't worry about my soul. I have spent quite a bit of time searching it and continue to do so on a regular basis. My conscience is clear. Thanks for your "concern" though.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 26, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
5252- thank you for your very civil post and yes, I agree with you. The system we have is the greatest in the world and it certainly worked as it always does to make this such a wonderful democracy. This Prop is over and the Yes on 8 side won.
Leah- I'm sure you are aware of the teachings and practices in your Church and again, if you are comfortable with those, then you have every right to be at peace with your faith.
I think that the Mormon Church put itself in the forefront in this campaign. It's only natural that citizens would become curious about the reasons for that. As I said, I have a lot more information about the Mormon faith than I did before this election. I honestly see some very admirable things about your group and can see why some Mormons felt so strongly about this issue as it is central to your religion. Don't see why you call this "bigotry" which is just name calling.
What is sad is that I haven't heard much understanding for the postiion or feelings of gays. Having known 2 gay couples over the years who have had a very committed, loving, long-term relationships and seeing how unfair it is that they have to feel that what they have is unacceptable in the eyes of society is hurtful and sad. It's for those people who are living great lives and deserving of the recognition and rights the rest of us enjoy in Amreica that I am committed to my views.
Posted by 5252 on November 26, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ICUblog2
It was a spirted debate!
Just for the record, I am not a member of the Mormon Church, never have been. It bothered me that the Mormon Church seemed to get singled out (or was given more attention) when so many Churches contributed to Prop 8.
Mormons have been an easy target for anyone who is disgruntled with them. It's too bad because they seem to be Faithful Americans who love thier families.
Happy Thanksgiving
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 26, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
5252- you are right that many Churches were behind 8. You couldn't have had any stronger support for 8 than what we were told at my Catholic Church. I think it's because Mormons are so rich, they had a lot more to give (but hey. . . good for them for being smart with investments!). I think your defending Mormons is good. They do seem like they have strong convictions and do love their families and I really think that is admirable.
Happy Thanksgiving to You 2
:)
Posted by timbri27 on November 26, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Leah- "....After all I was very curious to figure out why a Church would be so aggressive in getting a Proposition passed."
The same reason why the gays are so aggressive in getting a proposition not to pass. Duh.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 26, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To ICUBlog2 and any others that would like to know why the LDS Church took the stand that they did on prop 8, I offer the following:
Posted by robbca on November 26, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is exactly why these types of rights have to be decided by the courts. Had it not been for the US Supreme Court Interracial marriage would probably still be illegal in some states. Everyone has very differing views on what they belive to be right or wrong. Eventually this issue will go before the US Supreme Court and someday same sex marriage will be legal in all states. Everybody gets so hung up on the religious aspect of this isssue. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion it has to simply do with everyone having the same rights and protections that legal marriage offers. We are hardworking people just like anyone else and it's time we have the same rights as anyone else. People have the right to support, fund whatever cause they want. Bottom line here is my same sex marriage has not had any impact on anyone except for my husband and I.
What I don't understand is why this issue is so important to churches and supposed "religious" people. If this proposition had never appeared on the ballot neither side would have had to financially support this cause. Because it was started then the No On 8 side had to support it financially also. Had this never been started don't you think that we could have spent the over 70 million dollars on more important things like hunger, homeless people, etc?? We have made a decision in our family not to buy any christmas presents this year and instead to take whatever money we would have spent on presents and buy food for the food bank. I don't need anything so I would rather have my efforts go towards people who really need it. We are also asking people in our community to support the food banks as well. I challenge all of you if you are able to support your local food banks. Our community really need our help this year more then ever.
We have a lot to be thankful for this year. We both have great jobs and a roof over our heads and we have our basic needs being taken care of which is more then some people especially with all the people that lost their homes recently to the fire.
Have a great holiday everyone!!
Rob
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 26, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To 5252 or ICBlog or both of you
one of you said: Now as for "Gay Mormons", you can be Gay, but you can not be Mormon. You can say you are Mormon, but if you are Gay, then you are not following the Mormon Doctorine and Principle.
No openly Gay person would be allowed to be Baptized as a Mormon and that is a right to which the Mormons are entitled, or did you want to take that away from them as well?
==================
Whoever made this this statement is in error.
Gays can join the LDS church, hold the priesthood, serve missions, hold positions, enter the temple, etc.
There is no sin in being gay.
On the other hand it is a sin to have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage and to have homosexual sex. So, just as single people are expected to live chaste lives, so would gays who choose to be members of the LDS church. Likewise, married couples are held to the standards of fidelity within the bonds of marriage.
I accept the fact that most gays would not choose to be chaste and therefore at odds with the teachings of the church.
But the fact remains, if a person cherishes their relationship to God and their their salvation more than themselves, then it is not a problem for a gay to be baptized into full fellowship of the church.
I hope this helps.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rob, this is why the LDS church got involved.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
The Family: A Proclamation to the World,
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 26, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Posted by O_P_Rockwell on November 26, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Other documents and statements by the LDS church on same gender attraction.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 26, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I fully respect both the Mormons and the Gays for their reverance and respect for the institution of marriage. It's sad that with the majority of Americans not willing or able to make marriage work, and having so little respect for the committment that they cheat, beat, and divorce faster than most of us can say "I do" these two groups can't agree that everyone who really loves someone and wants to get married should be allowed to give it a try!
I am thankful to both groups for inspiring the rest of us to appreciate what a special blessing a loving marriage really is. I'm sure my husband will be touched by my toasting to Marriage at our Thanksgiving Feast this year!
Blessings to both the Mormons and the Gays on this Thanksgiving Holiday!
Posted by opns on November 26, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I very wise woman said to me, "give thanks for what you have, and give thanks to what you can't have, what you don't have, could be a blessing as well".
I say during this time. Happy Thanksgiving to All. May all your dreams come true one day.
Maybe not today, but surely one day soon.
To all, hang in there. We at one time or another, had to wait for our turn.
Posted by elephantpower on November 26, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on 8! I'm off to shop at Lassens! And I'm not Mormon. I'm a mainstream protestant.
My Lutheran church will dismiss any gay pastor who is not celibate. The ELCA will not allow known hetero promiscuity, adultery, or gay sex in the clergy. The pro- gay lutheran pastor in Ventura County does not have a n ELCA congregation, and he does NOT speak for the policy of the largest Lutheran synod in America. Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, a theology professor, and a law professor.
FYI, Lutherans are practically Catholics, minus the Pope, the Saints, and the Rosary, and most miracles. There is also confession, but it is public and generic, not private and personal.
It wasn't just the Mormon church that opposed Prop 8. I don't see gays bashing Orthodox Jewish temples, or Lutheran churches, or black Baptist churches. Why is that? Worried about offending some democrats in those churches??? Hmmmm....
Posted by ValerinaS on November 26, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to elephant power-
Actually, as a FOE of 8, I bash all the churches that think they have the right to mix religion with State, and try to cram their religious beliefs down my throat. So let's get that straight first off. Secondly, you're church, or whatever church has a right to believe whatever they want, I'm not knocking it. But this isn't about religion. It's about equal rights. And you may want to get your facts staight, there are a lot of Republicans who didn't support Prop. 8, includng a young group of republicans called Practical Republicans, so that's not the greatest argument there. I'm not worried about offending ANYBODY by being AGAINST Prop. 8. I AM curious however, when God gave all of you FOR 8 the right to fight dirty, lie (Prop. 8 had NOTHING to do with schools), discriminate, and judge. Last time I checked (I was raised Christian) God said to love they neighbor. It didn't say only if your neighbor isn't gay. Call me crazy.
Posted by OjaiGuy on November 26, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ValerinaS You're crazy. :-)
You are twisting the meaning. I love my daughter, I don't always condone her behavior, sometimes I'm steadfast against some of the things she's done. What you are wanting is to put you first before God, and true Christians can't do that. Now, as far is it within our ability to get along with our neighbors, Christians are commanded to, as long as it doesn't we have to violate God's commandments. It certainly doesn't mean our neighbors will necessarily get along with us either, as demonstrated by, many postings.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 26, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well the neighboring groups of Mormons or Christians probably aren't going to love their gay neighbors, and the gays probably aren't going to love their religious neighbors (especially after Prop 8).
BUT why can't each group enjoy their own lives and activities and live peacefully next to others who are different? Parents have to put their noses into their children's lives, but we don't have to put our noses into our neighbors' business.
I think it wouldn't be that hard to say, "hey, I really don't like the way my neighbors over there live, but I will treat them with the courtesy, respect, and kindness that I hope they will show me"
WHY CAN'T THAT HAPPEN????
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 26, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I absolutely agree ICU... I fully expect the lawsuits against Christians and Christian-owned businesses to cease once the GLBT community learn this lesson as well.
Until then, Christians will have to continue opposing gay marriage in order to protect their freedom of religion.
Posted by ICUblog2 on November 26, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Leah- yes, if the Christians are free to practice their religion as they choose and their "neighbors" back off and the gays are allowed to enjoy their lives in the way that they choose and their "neighbors" allow that to happen, then everyone can live among their own in peace and respect their neighbors even if they don't like how they are living!
Now that's a positive thought to take into the upcoming New Year!
Posted by robbca on November 26, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by leahb78_1999 on November 26, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I absolutely agree ICU... I fully expect the lawsuits against Christians and Christian-owned businesses to cease once the GLBT community learn this lesson as well.
Until then, Christians will have to continue opposing gay marriage in order to protect their freedom of religion.
leah - What are you talking about? What does gay marriage have to do with with freedom of religion?
Posted by NightLight on November 27, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. No matter your sexual orientation, religion, or anything else, may you have a happy, peaceful Thanksgiving with your loved ones because everyone deserves that. I'm sure the battle over Prop 8 will continue on, but in the meantime, cherish your time with your loved ones because, gay or straight, the love we have for each other is the most important thing we have.
Posted by elkhair on November 27, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Christ....tell your peeps that's not what your pops meant when he said 'two men should not lay together'......that in fact it was an attack on the Romans of your day who treated women worse than dogs and often cheated on their wives with young boys...yes it was a claim against pedophilia...
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 451 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.