Posted by cassandra2 on November 30, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. :Your thinking, Scapegoat is rubbish. Narcissistic? No, more like derivative, preprogrammed and braindead.

Posted by cassandra2 on November 30, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reportedly Angelina and Brad have made this pledge, so one would be in good company.

However, I think my husband and I probably won't get divorced so that we can get domestically partnered.

Posted by mikeb6804 on November 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The institution of marriage has been the norm for centuries. Behavior of gays, such as men kissing in public, is not the norm and leaves a bad impression in spite of less demonstrative gays. Did anyone see the Prop 8 protesters in a church (not theirs) last weekend or has anyone noticed many gay parades taking on the appearance of a freak show? Or look at San Francisco. These people need to "straighten up" their behavior if they want to promote their cause.

Posted by ironwoman on November 30, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"No, more like derivative, preprogrammed and braindead."

Anyone who follows anything Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt does has issues themselves.
I suppose it's okay to have extramarital affairs and senseless tattoos all over their bodies. That would be a couple me and my husband model after.

Posted by normaldude on November 30, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blah blah balh blah blah

prop 8 passed, i attended a normal wedding just yeatreday, had a great time.
One of the main coversations was about prop 8 and how great that it passed.

prop 8 passed, we dont want the homosexual agenda

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 30, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This guy compares the gay rights issues to that of slavery? I don't recall ever reading of how gays are being ripped from there families, sent overseas and into forced labor, being whipped if their performance was bad. Rosa Parks was arrested. When have any gays/lesbians had their butts put in jail for getting "married"?

The reality is that many gays/lesbian couples were waking up next to their partners this morning, getting a first cup of coffee, opening the Star and saying "Oh, look honey. Another article about how oppressed we are from the hateful, ignorant bigots. Wow, he really speaks of how my devestation is equal to that of those who were slaves." They will spend their day going about whatever they chose to do without fear of police with dogs, water hoses and tear gas preventing them from doing so. Heck, the protesters of the Vietnam War had it rougher than gays/lesbians. Remember Kent State?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry because this guy is teaching US History to students, and my tax dollars is paying him. He's like that nutjob in Colorado who compared the victims of 911 to "little Eichmmans."

Mr. Potts, your comparison of gay rights to the slavery and black civil rights movement minimizes the millions of people that were murdered, died of disease, beaten, whipped, gassed, torn forever from their families, raped, and starved.

I find it ironic that this crap you write is printed the same day of the editorial "The Hoax's on You". I'll wager that Mr. Potts is an avid follower of the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy, and assigns homework to his students that requires reading the website.

Posted by ribbypaultz on November 30, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Had Abraham Lincoln put the option of continuing slavery for African-Americans on the ballot in the South after the Civil War, it would be safe to assume that emancipation for millions would have been put on hold."

Huh? What's the basis for that theory? Pretty dismissive of those in the north and west who either actively opposed slavery or just didn't bother with it.

Posted by brucejpotts on November 30, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ribby, the basis for that theory that the people who fought to preserve the institution of slavery would have also voted for it. I believe that is a pretty safe assumption.

Remember, only 50 years ago, many of these states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Obama's parents were once considered "immoral".

Posted by brucejpotts on November 30, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For OjaiGuy:

First of all, slavery and gay marriage are totally different issues, and at no point in my editorial did I indicate otherwise. However, both struggles do share some common ground in that they involve the civil rights of a minority group being withheld at the hands of the majority. That comparison, although it is not the point of my article, is surely worth examination.

Those of us who advocate equal rights for all can borrow tactics and strategies from other struggles whether they rival in severity or not.

If you do not think that this is a critical issue then you should read about the hate filled murders of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King of Oxnard. History shows us that when people are legally excluded for being different, it legitimizes hate and prejudice in the minds of certain individuals.

This is what you said:

"Mr. Potts, your comparison of gay rights to the slavery and black civil rights movement minimizes the millions of people that were murdered, died of disease, beaten, whipped, gassed, torn forever from their families, raped, and starved."

Well Ojai, those disgusting things were able to happen because their respective governments manufactured the belief amongst their populations that excluding people based on differences was acceptable. I am not minimizing the struggles of any group, I am trying to help people like you learn from them.

You make the false assumption that I teach from some website in which I have never even visited. I offer my students a variety of perspectives, and require them to make their own decisions through Socratic discourse and reflection. For societies sake, we can only hope they do not choose your views.

Posted by normaldude on November 30, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

potts you really need to get a job that suits your ability to be touch with reality

please gather your group of dorthys and march down to south central and try and boycott a store or better yet yell some obsenities at some crips

we the people of california voted yes on 8

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 1, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Potts. You said "If you do not think that this is a critical issue then you should read about the hate filled murders of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King of Oxnard. History shows us that when people are legally excluded for being different, it legitimizes hate and prejudice in the minds of certain individuals."

You could call it a forgotten ending to a forgotten story. On March 22, a jury in Bentonville, Ark., convicted 23-year-old Joshua Brown of first-degree murder in the death of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. On Sept. 26, 1999, Brown and his lover, Davis Don Carpenter, 39, bound, gagged and drugged the skinny, long-haired boy and raped him with objects until he died of "positional asphyxiation."

Let the record show this is a story the national press has deliberately chosen to spike. The national media's ongoing, see-noevil campaign of calculated ignorance on the Dirkhising story stands in stark contrast to both its. perpetual exploitation of crimes against children and its campaign to smear the religious right as the killers of Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard.

You said "Just like the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, equal rights for gay couples will one day be protected by social acceptance as well as the rule of law. We, as a civil society, must not sit back idly and wait while our fellow Americans continue to exist as second-class citizens."

I again challenge you. You ARE comparing the gay/lesbian issue to the black civil rights movement. Why do white people seem to be the only ones making this claim, when millions of the people who faced the police dogs, water cannons, tear gas, beatings, segregation, bombomgs of their churches and assasination of their leaders say the is no comparison and voted in favor of Prop 8?

What are the images shown of the "suffering" of the gays/lesbians? Screaming at families going to church? Yanking a cross out of a elderly ladies hands? Interupting a church service in another state? Wow, what a struggle they are having to endure.

You can make the claim of their "suffering", but that doesn't make it true.

Posted by brucejpotts on December 1, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It depends on how you define suffering I guess. Having your rights stripped away - any rights at all - is enough to be considered suffering in my opinion.

Putting people's rights on a popular ballot is simply unacceptable. This battle is not just for homosexual couples, it is for all of us.

Posted by ribbypaultz on December 2, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ribby, the basis for that theory that the people who fought to preserve the institution of slavery would have also voted for it. I believe that is a pretty safe assumption."

Yes, the south may have voted for it. Would it have passed in a national referendum? I doubt it. The south was vastly outnumbered as it was. Your assumption is still pretty far-fetched and not supported by the election of 1860. I guess that's what we need. A national vote on gay marriage.

Posted by kimikoneko on December 2, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, im sorry that gays cannot have the right to have pda. why cant they kiss in public? why cant they dress how they want to dress, i understood that they, as human beings have a right for the pursuit of happiness, just like anyone else. gay people as a whole may be seen as freakish, but the people who claim them to be freaks in the first place hardly get to know them personally. i have a christian friend, who unless she has known them for over a year, will not associate with a gay person just because of their sexual preference. gay people have been around just as long as hetero-sexual people and have been denied their rights far too long. this man compares the issue of gay marriage to slavery not because its of the same caliber, but because it is shocking. it is related, because at the time people were having their rights obviously skewed. it also shows how people who were so for slavery were wrong and is comparing the people who supported prop 8 to the people who supported slavery. it was religion based (for the most part) and it was because some people dont like change.

Posted by kimikoneko on December 2, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and bringing up criminals and killings dont exactly help either case, the mind of a criminal isnt exactly the same as a normal person in society.

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 2, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

brucejpotts You said "It depends on how you define suffering I guess. Having your rights stripped away - any rights at all - is enough to be considered suffering in my opinion." Up here in Ojai a couple of years ago, a tree was cut down because it's growth had caused structural damage to a building. It was controversial what the owner haf the right, and permits, to do. The day it was cut down, there were protests. When the sawing began, both men and women screamed in agony, wept, some even feinted. So I guess you are right, suffering is relative. However, I think that self-inflicted suffering is not comparable to suffering in circumstances that are beyond your reasonable control.

Having rights "stripped" away is not really a legitimate argument in this debate. First, and as a History specialist you should know, that their "rights" were granted by only just months ago by 4 judges opinions. That is the curious thing, it is juducial opinion, not amendments of state or US constitutions. Isn't it true that when a decision is rendered, it is "the courts opinion"? Aren't there also dissenting opinions, decisions reached 5-4, 6-3, etc? So close decisions are usually based on ideology, what those personal bias are of the judges. Chief Justice Rose Bird is a perfectly good example of how personal biases of judges take precendence over valid constitutional law.

So in all the history of California, with the exception of May thru November, gays and lesbians never had the "right" to marry, so they really didn't have any constitutional right to marry "stripped" from them. If anybody is to blame for any suffering, blame the 4 judges for their trying to force their appointed, ideological opinions on and against the majority of voters who state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think that you may also want to go back and read how thousands of gays and lesbians flocked to California to get hitched, than returning to their home states where their marriage is not legally recognized. They put themselves in that quandry, not Prop 8 supporters. What right does California have in determining another sovereign republic of what constitutes marriage?

kimikoneko I posted the Jesse Dirkhising murder case only as counter to Mr. Potts argument involving Matthew Shephard and Lawrence King. I hope that Mr. Potts and I can both agree that in both instances, these are annomalies, that all sides of the same sex marriage issue find these specific cases appalling and sickening.

Posted by brucejpotts on December 2, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am no specialist at all, but I do have the ability to think. And if we continue to boast about our "freedom" and how much better we are than Middle Eastern countries where women are treated as second class citizens, then we better practice what we preach. That means you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to define love, joy, or what constitutes a family for someone.

I agree with Kimi- I am simply shocked at the level of intolerance that we tolerate here in "the land of the free".

Really? You think that all people on all sides find hate crimes against gays appalling? I disagree. When you have religious leaders calling gays "sinners" and the government legally condoning different treatment for homosexuals in not only marriage but also the military, this sends a message that hate is o.k. Only a few may actually turn the hate into violence, but isn't that too many already?

There are killers out there that do have mental issues that we will never understand, I agree. But there are also killers out there who have been created by relentless, hate-filled indoctrination.

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 3, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Potts You said "That means you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to define love, joy, or what constitutes a family for someone." With this argument, you are endorsing polygamy. You are saying that a bi-sexual can marry a man and a woman cuncurrently. Your credentials stated that you are a US History instructor. With that, you should be aware that the government has already banned polygamy. According to your statement, that should be overturned.

You said "And if we continue to boast about our "freedom" and how much better we are than Middle Eastern countries where women are treated as second class citizens, then we better practice what we preach." C'mon, there is no comparison between those cultures and ours. Homosexuality is practiced quite openly here, and they have no fear of doing so. There is no Taliban who will begin whipping them, or conduct hangings. Since you brought up the Middle East, isn't it true that there are teachers that are murdered in front of the students? As a teacher, are you in fear of that happening to you because of your position on same sex marriage? It does happen here, but not because of same sex marriage issues, but because our society has made a victim out of everyone, and people lash out.

Not all who supported Prop 8 did so based on religious influences. Isn't your position that not agreeing with same sex marriages being equal to hate in itself a position of intolerance and hate?

You said "I am no specialist at all, but I do have the ability to think." and "Really? You think that all people on all sides find hate crimes against gays appalling? I disagree." Go back and reread what I said. I did not state ALL people. I said all sides of the issue. That includes those that are opposed to same sex marriage, those that are for it, and those that are undecided. Of course there are a few people, on all sides, who take pleasure in what happened. For crying out loud, there are still practicing racists out there, but that does not mean that it is a condoned behavior.

Posted by H8War on December 3, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Bruce for standing up for liberty and equality in the face of the ignorant. In my opinion, it is the Christians, who put down everyone who doesn't think like they do, who talk to an invisible man, who have rituals that simulate cannibalism, and who have been disrespecting female spirituality for centuries who are the real freaks. I really don't think THEY should be allowed to marry and propagate their freaky agenda of controlling those who want nothing to do with their terrifying fantasies.

Ever since marriage was made a civil institution (at the insistence of US religions), it has been subject to the civil rights as enshrined in the US Constitution and those of the states. Since discrimination against homosexuals is illegal in California, it logically follows the they cannot be denied any right conferred by the state, including marriage. Your anti-gay marriage delirium is doomed to fail. What you have given to Caesar is now Caesar's (you should have checked his reputation before you did this). This is entirely because religious institutions wanted to give marriage a legal standing so they could gain more power and influence. It now has such a standing and so you get to deal with the consequences. It couldn't have happened to a more loathesome bunch of idiots.

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 4, 2008 at 3:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

H8War Interesting name. I would like to bring up an old saying. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Your posting, as well as many other same sex marriage proponents who have posted on other articles, is very similar to the Nazi propaganda machine that Hitler employed back in the 30's. All you need to do is substitute "Christian" with "Juden", and the message is the same. You should know how all that played out.

On a more gentle comparison, I remember the movie "American President", starring Michael Douglas. In the end, he makes a speech about the character Richard Dreyfuss portrays. In his speech, Douglas states that people states that there are people like the senator Dreyfuss is playing that tell you what's wrong with your life and who's to blame for it. All they do is exploit in order to maintain power.

You need to take a step back and realize that your posting is parallel to the Nazi propaganda tactic used to instill hate and fear in the masses.

I noticed that you left out Muslims. Islam forbids same sex marriage as well, and I'm sure that many of them also voted in favor of Prop 8. Why are you targeting just Christians? Your posting is the one that truly reflects intolerance, hate and bigotry.

I can understand your passion regarding the issue, however, it alarms me that you are so willing to employ a strategy of have hate propaganda that resulted in the extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies and, ironically, homosexuals, and the eventual war that killed so many people that estimates are 25-52 million people.

Posted by jeffinventura on December 4, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

Well, so much for those who say that no person of color is comparing the struggle for CIVIL RIGHTS.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by jeffinventura on December 4, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Congressman John Lewis, D-Georgia, who was one of the speakers at the 1963 March on Washington, has written about the strong connection between the two movements.

"Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than civil rights," Lewis wrote in an op-ed piece in The Boston Globe in October 2003. "We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal."

UCLA law Professor Brad Sears, administrative director of the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation and the Law, strongly agrees that the "separate but equal" argument is analogous to the issue of gay marriage.

"Brown v. Board should be legal support that civil unions are not constitutional," Sears said, referring to the 1954 Supreme Court case that called for the racial integration of public schools and prohibited a "separate but equal" policy that had been implemented by many states.

Other leaders from Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton and former Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun to members of Martin Luther King Jr.'s family have given their support for gay marriage.

GOD BLESS!

Posted by jeffinventura on December 4, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will take great exception to the statement that gay people are able to live openly "without fear".

Hate crimes and attacks on gay people happen all the time....and gay people are keenly aware that they need to be on guard from unprovoked attacks.

Hate filled comments ring out of open car windows along Main Street and in the Pacific View Mall.....maybe you have not heard them because they were not directed toward you.

Once YOU have been called vile hateful names, beaten and spit upon, fired from your job, evicted from your home, told you are NOT equal to other people.....then maybe you too can feel the fear that is socially indoctrinated into the gay community.

But until that time comes, please do not assume that you know what it like to live as a gay person in society.

GOD BLESS US ALL WITH EQUAL RIGHTS!

Posted by swidzb2 on December 6, 2008 at 3:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mob rules. One of my all time favorites.

Why is it when the activists get the majority, the people have spoken? When they don't, it's mob rules?

But he's right: someday gays will get the right to marriage. Then society will be a much better place - the sun will shine brighter and everyone will be happier. Either that or the feelings of the majority will just be pushed underground and these people will not be subjected to calls from cars, etc... it will then just happen under people's breath.

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

Bruce - You talk about the "fruits of marriage". Are YOU married? I can tell, by your article that marriage means nothing to you. You dislike the institution all together. Be honest! I know your type. Destruction of marriage to you is fine, because you would probably prefer to shack up with someone and cus marriage. I can bet that on one hand you mock marriage and on the other hand demand gays be allowed to marry. No body needs your type to "fight" for marriage.

Posted by AaRL on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to dispute the claim by Ojaiguy that slavery and the plight upon the homosexuals are not similar. The statement by Mr. Potts simply states that both groups of people were denied some of their rights by a government designed to protect rights.

I will quote the very Declaration of Independance.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are instituted among men. What the government does is protect our rights, and in both situations the government failed to do so. We are not comparing the abuse received from the people, we are comparing the treatment received from the government.

The government is there to protect our rights. That is exactly what the judges in San Francisco were doing when they declared homo-sexual marriage legal. They were doing what they were supposed to.

What then occurred is a large body of people decided what was fair and what was not fair. What I find ironic about this is that the main part of the donations were made by the Mormon church, a group of people who had just emerged from mass discrimination.

But, as our teacher always tells us, "Truth is not measured in mass appeal." Generally, it may be true, but not always. In this case I believe that the majority, the mob, was mis-informed.

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 9, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AaRL Good points. I think we can agree that the Constitution is a beautiful document. I continue to disagree with Mr. Potts and you regarding the comparison of the slaves/black civil rights and the same sex marriage issue.

First of all, slaves were considered property. They ere brutally ripped from their native land, put into chains and tranported in bulk. If they survived the trip, they were thenm sorted and processed, put on the auction block and sold to the highest bidder. After that, they were forced into labor, beaten, whipped, raped, bred like livestock and murdered.

When was Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O'Donnell ever subjected to that type sort of sanctioned treatment? Boy George was just convicted of false imprisonment of an escort in London, but this is a extremely rare case involving a very sick, drug addicted man.

As an example of what constitutes rights versus opinions, lets look at Healthcare. Obama says he thinks that it should be a right. McCain said it should be a responsibility. Either way, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government, or employers, are required to supply Healthcare to employees. That is whay it is called a benefit.

Healthcare, as well as other benefits for employees, came about due to the labor union movement, and it was bloody. When have the gay rights movement ever suffered anything like what these union members went through? Now, it is considered to be good business to offer great benefits to employees in order to attract great candidates. It is still only a contract between the employees/bargain unit and the company, not a Constitutional right.

Take another look at what also has transpired with the unions, though. Usually to be employed by a company that is unionized, labor is required to join the union. What if you don't want to join the union? You don't have a choice. If a company wants to hire me because of some unique skills, but is prevented from doing so because union membership is required, doesn't that discriminate and violate my right to work, my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a company must hire me and give me benefits. Nowhere does it say that same sex marriage is a Constitutional right.

Posted by AaRL on December 9, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I have previously said, we are not comparison the conditions under which they lived. We are comparing the fact that in both cases, the government denied them the "in-alienable" rights. The conditions under which they lived and the way they are treated by the masses is not so much our point as that of their treatment by the government.

After listing supposed in-alienable rights, the government proceeded to alienate these people.

I will say it again, we are not discussing how they were treated by the masses, but how they were treated by the GOVERNMENT.

Posted by OjaiGuy on December 10, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AaRL You said "I will say it again, we are not discussing how they were treated by the masses, but how they were treated by the GOVERNMENT."

You must be taking US History lessons from Mr. Potts. What are POLICE and their dogs? What is a GOVERNOR in Alabama standing in the way of black students trying to go to school? Why was Rosa Parks ARRESTED and FINED? Bathrooms, drinking fountains use segregation or else? It WAS GOVERNMENTAL POLICY, be it Federal, State or Local. It was GOVERNMENTAL POLICY to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII. It was governamental policy to restrict Native Americans to reservations. It was governmental policy to break treaties with the Native Americans.

Are really really buying the comparison of same sex marriage so called "rights" to what Blacks, Indians and Japanese-Americans went through? You really have no clue as to what true oppression is. Just becuase you don't get your way in a fair election does not mean it's oppression.

I'll say it again, there is no comparison whatsoever of the same sex marriage issue to the civil right violations against other groups.

Now, if the government tries anything like the above against gays/lesbians/transexuals/transgenders/bi-sexuals, I'll march and scream and yell and carry signs and face the tear gas about that kind of injustice.

In the meantime, I still support Prop 8.

Posted by AaRL on December 15, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I am not mistaken most of the positions you listed are that of the state governments. I will admit that the federal offenses against the Japanese during WWII were horrendous, but that is not the case we are comparing here. In the case of the slaves, the federal government was standing back while leaving the state governments to their own. The southern state governments did the most wrong, while the northern states were doing their best to subdue it. The biggest proof of the federal government not doing anything about it were the statements by the candidates in the election of 1860. Almost all of them agreed that the federal government must stay out of the issue of slavery. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln realised that to get the slaves their rights, he must fight for them. The government today is still ignoring the fact that gays too deserve the right for the pursuit of happiness. We must wait for a brave representative of the federal government, whether it be a House Representative, a Senator, or even the President of the United States.

OjaiGuy, I must commemorate your ability to stay in this argument. Most people for Yes on 8 will say that the Bible frowns on it therefore it is wrong, yet you have kept up a formidable argument, however flawed.

Posted by WolfWalker on December 27, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy

I’m just curious, why did you vote yes on 8? What is your belief about gay people and their life style?