Translate this page

Vote ‘yes’ on Proposition 8


Thursday, October 16th, 2008
Issue 42, Volume 12.


Does anyone remember Proposition 22? Prop 22 added the following section to the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It passed on March 7, 2000, with 61.4 percent of the vote.

Fast forward eight years. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court finally ruled on legal challenges to Prop 22. With a 4 to 3 vote, they struck down Prop 22. They declared all prohibitions on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. The State of California was ordered to begin processing same sex marriages on June 17, 2008.

The proponents of same sex marriage did not challenge Prop 22 at the ballot box. They Advertisement
Advertisement for Casa Tiene Vista
[ Casa Tiene Vista ]
would have lost. They did not challenge Prop 22 in the legislature. Instead, they circumvented the constitution and challenged Prop 22 through the judicial system. The proponents of same sex marriage used our courts to write law.

In this country, laws are written by our legislative bodies or by direct democracy via propositions on the ballot. The founding fathers did not want to empower the executive or judicial branches of the government with the ability to impose laws. That would be tyranny. Contrary to the manifest will of the people, the California Supreme Court has twisted the constitution to write law.

What can be done? Vote "yes" on Proposition 8 to restore traditional marriage.

Bill Blackburn


 

208 comments

Comment Profile Imagerupunzel
Comment #1
Yes on Prop 8 = Install hatred, fear, ignorance and the Christian agenda into California's Constitution. America is NOT a Theocracy. This is a basic human rights issue, plain and simple.
Comment Profile ImageRSA
Comment #2
Great article Bill! My biggest fear if Prop 8 does not pass is that radical groups will use the courts to force their same sex agenda on me and my family. It has already happened in Massachusetts. In fact, the major funding groups pushing the No on Prop 8 campaign are the same groups that forced same sex merriage into the Massachusetts education system through judicial action. YES on Prop 8
Comment Profile Image4prop8
Comment #3
Yes on Prop 8 is about supporting real marriage. Marriage is the foundation of civilizations. Families are created through the uniting of man and woman. Procreation is one of those powers. Same gender couples by themselves can not procreate. Marriage has always been man and woman. You can't just change it to fit a minority of people who want to impose their views. Its like taking an orange and saying "Hey, we are now going to call this an Apple." Come on now!
Comment Profile Imagegaydad05
Comment #4
Mr. Blackburn - the California legislature twice passed marriage equality bills ('05 and '06), called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, both of which Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that it should be left to the courts or the citizens. Traditional marriage will still exist if Prop 8 is defeated. Why is giving gay people your same civil rights and human dignity such a threat to you?
Comment Profile ImageRSA
Comment #5
Rupunzel-
Christian’s aren’t the only religious group that supports Proposition 8 and they are not the only religion that believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I am curious why you think defining marriage as between a man and a woman instills hatred, fear and ignorance? Also, how do you feel about plural marriage? Should three consenting adults be allowed to marry?
Comment Profile ImageMatt
Comment #6
It is interesting how angry the No on 8 camp is getting. This is not about discrimination this is about preserving the christain value of traditional marriage and how our children are taught about marriage in school.

Same sex relationships have all the rights that society offers al we want is to preserve the sacrament of "marriage" between a man and a woman as God intended.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #7
Um... there are actually a significant number of rights, privelages and responsibilities that are very specifically NOT allowed to same-sex couples. If you honestly think otherwise you should do some research.

Right to inherit- just to throw one out there. As a firefighter, if I am critically injured in the line of duty my partner would have no legal right to even get in to see me, let alone make decisions about my care, to name another.

If Prop * passes, may I suggest you also pass a ban on any infertile couple marrying as well as dissolving the marriage of any couple past the age of fertility, since that seems to be the basis of what makes a real marriage.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #8
To RSA and all parents supporting Prop 8: please know that the public school system pushes many other "values" other than just this issue onto your children. It is a great wake up call that public schools are not about reading, writing and arithmetic. Great reading by John Taylor Gotto "Dumbing Us Down". The public schools want our children to be one world socialists without the understanding of right and wrong (moral relativism, cultural relativism, etc.). The public school system is a system of CONFORMITY NOT EQUALITY. Vladimir Lenin quoted, "Give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world." It is time for parents to recognize the roots of public education (John Dewey thinking types) and get their kids out before they are completely brainwashed and/or the parents become brainwashed right along with them. Teaching our children what a "family" is or is not is just another one of their tools to annihilate what us parents and families hold dear.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #9
We'd like to avoid opening any minds up while we're at it. Honestly. That sort of thing just leads to children who can think for themselves.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #10
To Mike in MN: Actually, you are right- the founders of public education do NOT want children to think for themselves. John Stuart Mill quoted, "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government." The kids are to conform to learning the same thing at the same time and the same way.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #11
But you're simultaneously arguing that schools are teaching kids too many options and no options at all. Which is it?
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #12
Schools should be teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. Options/no options is parent's choice. It is the parents' job and responsibility to teach them about sex, marriage and family. Schools stay out of it!
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #13
to Matt: You say: "It is interesting how angry the No on 8 camp is getting. This is not about discrimination this is about preserving the christain value value of traditional marriage..." This is exactly what they are angry about: That Prop 8 is solely about discrimination, and lies and distortions are being spread in an effort to get this religious belief enacted into law.
Regards
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #14
to Homeschooling mom (at 9:26 am Fri, Oct 17th)
You say: "The public school system is a system of CONFORMITY NOT EQUALITY." I disagree with that premise. And from what I've seen, home schooling's main attraction is to ensure that children are not exposed to any concepts not conforming to their parent's beliefs. In other words, to ensure conformity.

You quote Vladimir Lenin: "Give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world." It just as easily could have been said by James Dobson.

Also, for info: In your last sentence you say: "...what us parents and families hold dear."
It should be "we", not "us".
Regards
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #15
Re: Homeschooling mom (at 2:19 pm Fri, Oct 17)

John Stuart Mill said a lot of things: also from "On Liberty," he said: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." There is no evidence that same-sex marriage harms anyone.
Regards
Comment Profile ImageAncient Former Teacher
Comment #16
If any of you think that most teachers relish teaching things which would be better taught at home, you're mistaken. As long ago as when I was still teaching, parents took little responsibility for any role in their children's education. If Johnny misbehaved, it was the teacher's fault, If Johnny came to school unprepared for class, ditto. Threre was no follow up to see if homework was done or if Johnny needed extra help. Few ever called to ask how they could help their child. But every parent thought his or her child deserved A's and B's regardless of the quality of that child's scholarship and/or performance. How well Johnny could reason, or read, or write, or do math, or how much he or she knew about American or world history or the workings of our government was immaterial. Only grades mattered.

In a few cases I had wonderful partnerships with parents who took an active role in their children's education. The students knew we were working together and not at cross purposes. Every one of those students learned well, and became a self-supporting, productive member of society.

Most teachers have plenty to do without taking on parental jobs.
Comment Profile ImageSLeeD
Comment #17
Vote YES on prop 8. It truly will be forced fed to all of our children from kindergarten up if it fails. It's happening in massachusetts right now. There is curriculum in every public school that parents are not allowed to opt-out of that teaches gay marriage. The "NO" on 8 folks are lying when they say that's not going to happen. It's happening in Massachusetts! Protect the most innocent of our population from brainwashing of the worst kind.
Comment Profile Imagemichael
Comment #18
If marriage is a sacrament (sacred), then the government ought to stay out of it.
Children are not as dumb as Homeschooling mom seems to think, it isn't that easy to brainwash them if they have a good, attentive family.

Homosexuality has a biological basis. It is a fact of life. The moral issue here is about discrimination. The threat is not to our families, but to justice, equality before the law, and democracy.
No to discrimination, No on Prop 8!
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling Mom
Comment #19
To John the Baptist: How can you say that the public schools aren't about conformity? All of the children learn everything the same, at the same time and all the same information in the same way. Having 20-30 students would be impossible to teach if you did not have some serious conformity going on! Homeschooling is about preserving our children and having them learn what we as parents see fit for them to learn. A subject CANNOT be taught without a worldview behind it. Explain to me how loving, involved parents would NOT want their children to learn from their own worldview? It should not be a shock. And I said "us" instead of "we" because I wrote my letter directly to RSA and parents that support Prop 8 which I
was very specific about. My letter was not directed to those that are against Prop 8.
Michael: I never referred to children as being "dumb". Children are impressionable and sweet! And Michael, you tell me how many parents are good, attentive and available! Most I see are both working full careers, and or commuting, have new partners, new marriages, etc. etc. etc.How attentive can you be when you have all that going on. Ancient teacher has it right: most parents are out to lunch and plain not available. So this makes brainwashing pretty easy now doesn't it?
John the Baptist: Yes, that quote could have been said by Dr. Dobson, but it was quoted by a controlling communist, NOT Dr. Dobson!
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #20
to SLeeD: Please stop spreading that lie!
Here's a direct quote from the current California Education Code 51240 : "(a) If any part of a school's instruction in health
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or
guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs.
(b) For purposes of this section, "religious training and beliefs"
includes personal moral convictions."

Whether Prop 8 passes or fails, California schools will continue its policy of non-discrimination. If you want to say something about California public schools, at least read these:
California Education Code 51500
California Education Code 220
California Penal Code Section 422.55

Regards
Comment Profile Imagemichael
Comment #21
@mom. I meant my comment tongue in cheek, of course. No slight at you. However, I have more faith in families, there are quite a few good ones out there still. And they have their grandfolks, pastors & priests, scout leaders, coaches, and etc. All is not lost! And a lot of teachers are pretty good people too. (Oh, but what if one of these were gay? What if that person were in a committed relationship? Oh good heavens, how could we even consider letting our children have contact with such sinners?). Lenin, by the way, had about three generations to work with; how successful was he, really? No. Lots of children will insist on thinking for themselves. Thank God. That's how opinions change. That is why Prop 8 just might not pass.
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #22
to Homeschooling Mom:
Regarding conformity in public school education, you say: “All of the children learn everything the same, at the same time and all the same information in the same way. “ That is incorrect. In general, the students are presented the same information at the same time and in the same way. But the children are far from learning everything the same or learning in the same way. Even if some rigid form of conformity were the goal, it is certainly not being attained. As far as behavioral conformity in school is concerned, the only requirement is the minimum necessary to maintain order in the classroom.

You say: “A subject CANNOT be taught without a worldview behind it.” I beg to differ: English grammar and composition, mathematics, physics, and chemistry come to mind.

Concerning English: regardless of your intent, "...what us parents and families hold dear." is grammatically incorrect. The nominative case “we”, rather than the objective case “us”, is called for here.

Regards
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #23
To Michael: I completely agree with you that all is not lost...God's grace is beautiful and many good things come from even those that are from the most compromised circumstances. While Lenin was not very successful, I encourage you to look into the founders of public education (ie. John Dewey), etc. From what I understand, they went to German universities and were mesmerized by communist ideals and brought them here. When public schools began to spring up in this country, officials were met with many armed parents very upset that compulsory schooling was not a choice. They said they left tyrrany behind in England, Germany, etc. In the late 1800's, William T. Harris (U.S. Commissioner of Education) quoted, "Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average citizen should be content with their humble role in life."
To John the Baptist: I disagree with you on the conformity bit in the public schools- the mandatory curriculum is so boring and dry it can drive any creative child to tears. Thank goodness there are some teachers that can innovate! PLEASE read "Dumbing Us Down" by John Taylor Gatto! It is a secular book written by an award winning public school teacher in New York. It might open your mind a bit. As far as the worldview thing goes, I have found in my own teaching and student experience, that worldview leaks out everywhere- it encompasses a person's very being- how they relate with others, if they see the glass as half empty or half full, how they view and treat others, how they view and treat children, etc. etc.
Thank you for the English pointer- that was my best subject in school so I appreciate the correction! You said, "As far as behavioral conformity in school is concerned, the only requirement is the minimum necessary to maintain order in the classroom." You hit the nail on the head of one of the reasons why I homeschool! I do not want my children to have minimum requirements for behavior. They must be held to the highests standards of repect for others and themselves, they must know how to behave in all sorts of situations in real life, have respect for authority, etc, etc,.
Kids not trained by their parents are obnoxious and disrespectful both to themselves and others. And I do not expect teachers to fill in the gaps- they have enough to deal with.
Now back to Prop 8....do not try to re-define a definition of marriage (speaking of English). Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Comment Profile ImageMarried Woman
Comment #24
I was married to only one man (30 years) until his death. Were he still with us, we'd be married . But among my friends, relatives, and acquaintances...deeply religious people included...I am almost an exception. Multiple marriages are the rule, not a rarity. So, serial marriage is OK. That doesn't threaten the conventional concept of marriage? That's "marriage" between a man and several women...one at a time...or a woman and several men...also one at a time. But two committed people of the same gender, monogamous for years or decades is an abomination ? Talk about confused standards. I am not and never was threatened by a committed union between others. I concentrated on my own and making it the best possible relationship for us both, and later as an example to my children of how love and respect work.
My husband and I wouldn't have counted in the views of traditional marriage of some of the writers. When we married we knew we could not produce children
We would later adopt two small children, but since we did not marry for procreation and the rearing of those children yet to be, perhaps some of you would say we shouldn't have been allowed to marry !
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #25
to Homeschooling mom. I have no objection in principle to home schooling. However for most, I believe that home schooling should augment rather than replace public schooling.

Thanks for getting back to the original subject. I see same-sex marriage as an augmentation, not detraction from heterosexual marriage. And, unless current laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation are repealed, Prop 8, if passed, will be struck down, just as Prop 22 was.
Regards
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #26
to Married Woman: Thanks for your outstanding post! You make an excellent point regarding divorce. For those seriously concerned about threats to marriage, divorce should be priority number one.
Regards
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #27
To married woman: Congratulations on your 30+ marriage! That is to be admired and you are correct in stating that this is no longer the norm. I am sorry for the loss of your husband. Just because people freely divorce in our society does not mean that it is ok- it tears children apart. It is also very admirable that you both adopted and raised children together- you made a family and your infertility as a couple in no way undermines your marriage- between a man and a woman.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #28
And yet that exact criteria is the primary reason given to invalidate my 10+ year marriage to my husband.

So my question becomes- Why does that not invalidate their marriage but does invalidate mine?
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #29
To Mike in MN: The fact that you and your partner are unable to produce offspring in no way invalidates your love and commitment to your partner, however, the subject at hand here is marriage. Question, if you and your partner were given all the civil rights delagated to the marriage between a man and a woman ie. inheritance rights, hospital visits, etc., but you did not have the word "marriage" legally attached to your partnership, would that be ok with you? I get the feeling that this "marriage" thing is that gays want validation. I come with a different worldview and we will have to agree to disagree Mike. A man and a man and a woman and a woman were not created to form a union- they cannot physically do it for starters. A man and a woman were created for union and for marriage. As a Christian woman, it is my belief that God created a man and a woman for unity and marriage. I believe that we were created to procreate to glorify Him and His creation. For couples (men and women couples) that are unable to procreate, there are many other glorious plans for them. What it comes down to Mike is that I do not believe that homosexuality is right and I do not support a proposition that gives it the status of "marriage".
As far as inheritance rights go, can't you draw up a will? I have a living trust, and I can leave whatever I want to whoever in it. As far as hospital visits are concerned, I believe partners should be able to visit. Heck, my sister visits me when I have been in the hospital.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #30
I'm fairly certain that we established that 'Seperate but equal' doesn't end up working out well several decades back.

In answer to the question - No, I wouldn't be satisfied with all the same treatment but a different word. Because the very NEED to have a different word by its very nature denotes a second class status.

And yes, we can certainly fill out living wills and get the inheritance issues sorted out legally. But if we were a heterosexual couple we wouldn't have to.

That is being treated differently, and it's blatantly unconstitutional. Particularly when the justification for it is that my relationship isn't gifted with 'glorious plans'.

As to validation, no I don't personally need to have my relationship validated by anyone. I would however like for society to stop sending out the implication that it's perfectly all right to drag me behind a pickup truck. Because when you campaign to treat me differently, you send out a signal that I'm less than you. Which makes me a very convenient channel for undirected anger that anyone might happen to have.

Short version:When you separate out your worldview into 'Us' and 'Not Us', some very unpleasant things quickly begin to happen to those that are 'not us'.

As far as Christianity goes, I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you on the subject of what anyone was 'created' to do. You're perfectly entitled to your own religious beliefs.

You're not entitled to use them to justify legislation, however. That was sort of one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #31
To Mike: First, I want to thank you for engaging me in this debate. I was talking to my husband about how neat it is to have this proposition come up and have the opportunity to debate with someone that has a different opinion on this issue. Second, I apologize to you for anything that I have communicated to you that seems that I rate you as second class. Dragging someone behind a car is awful and hateful. My heart has no hatred for homosexuals.
Mike, I believe that we are all under subjection to our Creator and His laws wether you believe in Him or not. God had defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and legislation that already is in support of that, I will support because it follows His law. Secularly speaking, I can see where you are coming from, but I do not view the world from a secular standpoint.
Fundamentally, I believe that society needs to stick to the basics of what marriage already has been defined as. As soon as marriage's defintion is changed, we will have brothers and sisters that want to "marry" and have the same rights, three women that want to be "married", a father and daughter, etc. Out of curiosity, where do you think the line should be drawn and why?
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #32
For Mike and anyone that would be interested in a secular argument against marriage, please go to "Most Talked About" in the Opinion Section of the Village News and scroll down to "Preserving Traditional Marriage" and then scroll down to the posting by "Common Sense." Mike, let me know what you think.
Comment Profile Imagea voice for many
Comment #33
"We the people" don't seem to have a voice any more. This Country is slowly or quickly slipping into socialism. "We the people", the majority, have spoken, but the courts have gone right over our heads and mandated a law that "we the people" did not want. We shot it down once and we'll do it again through the voting process, but I fear it won't be long before this option is taken away from us. Please get out and vote. As for the topic itself, homosexuality is not normal, I don't care if you were born with it, or found out at a very young age that you were gay, it's still not normal. There are plenty of sexual abnormalities out there, this one just happens to be the most accepted so far. So your gay, you've been gay from birth, you choose to go along with your abnormality and live out your gay lifestyle, fine, knock yourself out, but don't ask society to put a stamp of approval on it and treat it as though it's normal by allowing marriage between two men or two women. It's not normal, the plumbing alone, nature itself, will attest to that. Look, the majority are not gay, and yet we are now going to have to change all text books to make sure there are no references to "mom, dad, husband and wife" just incase there is the minute chance that a child might be offended because they have two mom's or two dad's. The majority, we the people, need to wake up and take this country back, and stop the downward spiral before it's to late, which it may already be.
Comment Profile ImagePlease add the word homosexual
Comment #34
before the word "marriage" (mentioned the first time) in my previous posting. Thank you!!!!!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #35
But the country's definition of marriage has been in a constant state of change since the very beginning.

150 years ago a marriage basically meant that a man owned his wife as property. 90 years ago laws were being rushed through across the country to prevent the menace of interracial marriage on the grounds that it changed the definition of what marriage was clearly intended by god to be and would destroy the family unit. And so on and so on.

Why do you imagine that same sex marriage would be any more likely to lead to incest or polygamy? Both of those things have just as much in common with same sex relationships, and yet thousands of years of opposite sex marriage hasn't brought them about.

To answer your question, 1st a brief counterquestion. What about someone who is born as a hermaphrodite, ie genetic information for both male and female attributes.

Are they never allowed to marry at all because they don't fall neatly into an either/or concept of gender? What about someone with chimaerical DNA? Should someone's marriage be dissolved if we discover that their DNA contains genetic markers inappropriate for the gender of their spouse?

Or would either of those cases be allowed to marry based on the gender identity that they choose or have chosen for them. i.e. raised as a girl, live as a girl, marry a man. Regardless of what genetic makeup might say. And if that's the case, would I be allowed to marry my husband if I started to dress and live as a woman?

The trouble lies in looking at gender as a clear cut black and white one or the other prospect. In reality it gets quite a bit muddier than that.

That said, I think that two adults, capable of making their own decisions, should be allowed to make a loving commitment to one another. At this point you will, I'm sure, immediately leap to the 'what about incest' argument. Which I admit is a thorny issue. Genetically speaking there's a profound societal interest in discouraging incestuous relationships, which is why they're such a tremendous social taboo in the 1st place. Of course that said, different cultures draw the line at what constitutes incestuous in different places, so again it's not a black and white issue. Is 2nd cousin too close? 1st cousin? It's something every society has to make a decision on.

The relevant point here is that a father/daughter relationship actually has a lot more in common with traditional marriage than it does with same sex marriage, so the fear that allowing me to file joint taxes will somehow lead to a nation of oedipi seems a little bit overstated. The only real foundation seems to be that if you allow ANY change to marriage then it will inevitably lead to EVERY possible change to marriage.

Any even that argument would only work if you were honestly poorly read enough to believe that our definition of marriage has never changed.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #36
And a note for a voice for many-

Civil rights are not, and were never intended to be, a matter for popular opinion.

The founding fathers were so intent on preventing the tyranny of the majority that they established our court system SPECIFICALLY to prevent exactly what you are trying to use it to do.

The courts are there to protect all peoples rights by giving the minority a recourse against the majority simply voting to eliminate their rights.

It's not a case of activism. It's a case of our court system doing exactly the thing they were set up to do.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #37
To Mike, I went ahead and copied and pasted the article I referred to for a secular argument against homosexual marriage:
If I might quote Mr.
Adam Kolasinksi

"THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE


Adam Kolasinksi


Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.


The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004


The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.


I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.


Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.


Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.


One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.


Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.


Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.


Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.


The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #38
Marriage isn't just for procreation. While procreation should take place only within marriage, the inverse, that marriage should not take place except for procreation is false. Even Paul said: “8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9, NIV). I can assure, men don’t “burn” to procreate.
Regards
Comment Profile ImageMarried Woman
Comment #39
John the Baptist: Neither does every woman !
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #40
To John the Baptist: Your line of argument does not make sense to me. Of course, "marriage should not take place except for procreation is false", is not a true statement. Many couples do not know if they can procreate before they marry or not. We obviously would agree that Paul is referring to sexual urges, not the feeling of wanting to procreate, but that is often the result of sex- is procreation. Most importantly, keeping in line with the debate at hand, Paul is referring to "husbands and wives" all over this book of the Bible, NEVER "husbands and husbands" or "wives and wives." And, by the way, I commented to my husband what you wrote, as we often throw ideas at each other, and he wanted to correct you and say that he does "burn" to procreate. He wants a lineage and enjoys the whole process.
Comment Profile ImageBonsall Guy
Comment #41
I and my partner have been together for over 11 years now and were finally legally married last month. Why can't you (pro 8)people just leave me and my family alone!!
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #42
to Homeschooling mom: Re "Neither does every woman !" I'm pleased to get an affirmation of what i presumed was the case. I just didn't feel qualified to speak in women's behalf.
Regards.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #43
To Homeschooling mom, re post of 10/21, 9:55 pm:
I'm afraid I confused you by using a double negative when I wrote: "that marriage should not take place except for procreation is false". To state it positively: "marriage is for more than just procreation". Hope that helps.
Regards
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #44
Mike in MN: In the interests of "fair and balanced" you can see a rebuttal to ""THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE" by Googling "marriage sean safford".
Regards
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #45
To John the Baptist: You did not confuse me- I know what a double negative is. My point was that marriage is obviously for more than just procreation- there are many couples unable to bear children! Please quit debating my semantics and debate my content.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #46
But that IS the content. If marriage is not just about procreation, than why is the argument 'but gay couples can't have children' used so often as the justification for writing discrimination into the constitution?
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #47
To Mike: I do not personally use the argument that gays cannot procreate. My reasons are about being under the authority of God, our Creator whom we are all subject to wether we believe in Him or not. His plan is always the best plan.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #48
As far as secularly speaking, the above article states it well- giving more reasons other than procreation. I will read the article that re-buts his argument and get back later.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #49
Ok, I read Sean Safford's rebuttal to Adam Kolasinksi's secular reasons against homosexual marriage and I find his arguments very weak and not compelling enough to comment.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #50
I guess my question is - Do you acknowledge that religious beliefs are NOT a justification for legislation?

Because if we disagree on that essential point, I don't think there's much point in talking further.

The essential flaw in the article you posted, by the way, is that it is premised on the assumption that a union between two people of the same sex does not lead to the formation of a family.

It does, for the record.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #51
To Mike: I agree definately that religious beliefs are NOT a justification for legislation- absolutely. Not everyone has the same religion so that would be legislating someone else's beliefs onto another. In essence, that is what I believe will be happening if gays are able to marry legally. For an extremely small part of the population to re-define marriage to be between two people of the same sex instead of between a man and a woman. I do not agree that two men make a family. Perhaps the techinical definition in the dictinary describes a family as two commited people with common interests, but most people would agree that when they think of a "family", a husband and wife with children is what comes to mind.
When it comes to legislation, I believe that marriage should be left to the states to decide and not be a federal issue. That is what Prop 8 is all about. "We the People". Prop 22 was favored 61%- we'll see how it goes this time around.
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #52
to Homeschooling mom: I'm sure you know what a double negative is, but apparently I did confuse you because you said "My point was that marriage is obviously for more than just procreation...," as if you were disagreeing with me, when in fact that was exactly the sentiment I was expressing.
Regards.
Comment Profile Imageinclined
Comment #53
I am a doctoral student. In studying I am aware of the composite luminaries in my field going back centuries. There are men and women alive today that are giants in my discipline. They are incredible, the daVincis, and Mozarts, the Thomas Moores and the Shakespeares. Most don’t read these people. Our culture, a world community has been formed and reformed, lighted and re-lighted by these very gifted and learned teachers. Many of you writing in this column commit your opinion as though what you think and say is important. Many of you may, in time, affect cultures and peoples and even nations, as part of the day, the time. It will not be because you are bright lights, but simply the horde. It strikes me that there are so many others out there who will never comment, but this and other issues have long and deep historical and empirical roots, thought upon and acted upon for centuries. Many of those people would be impacted by a record, History, the evidence throughout the world of behavior and consequences of the matter in this column. Issues like slavery involved many nations. There comes a time when there are no more words. There comes a time when a line is drawn. The people that opposed slavery came to a point of defining. Those that were “for” knew when that day came. People on both sides say and feel they are being pushed. These situations will direct laws and governments and they will push more. This is a somewhat Democratic Republic, our land. There are issues though that bring forth more than words. There is a time coming, if you are a student of History, when a society reaches (on issues) a “critical mass”-- when the “minimum amount of fissile material needed to maintain a nuclear chain reaction”-- arrives. This is cosmic, this point. But, on a more mundane level this evening, if someone should come to my door, to push it in, to hurt or destroy what is of essential value--I have a weapon. I will shoot. That is a hell, to kill someone. But, there are many that have prejudice their minds like me. I was not at his door. That victim would probably never have heard me go on and on about a point in time when talking is gone, and what would it have mattered anyway if you act that way? The fact is, the country…most people have spoken: they go with marriage. As I said, millions in our country will not write to opinion polls. And as time goes on, you will keep pushing because your nature defines that. Don’t think what you say is worth talking about anymore, or ever was. Was slavery?
Comment Profile ImageLeah
Comment #54
To John the Baptist: My point was that I was agreeing with your point that marriage is obviously for more reasons than just procreation- obviously, since all couples are not fertile. You're making my head spin!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #55
I think I speak for the room when I say... huh? I've just read your post twice and I still have no idea what you're talking about.

To Homeschool Mom- You said earlier that you don't think whether a couple is able to have children should define whether they are allowed to be married- And yet moments ago you just said the following:

"Perhaps the techinical definition in the dictinary describes a family as two commited people with common interests, but most people would agree that when they think of a "family", a husband and wife with children is what comes to mind. "

So by this are you saying that if they don't have children they are NOT a family? And if they are a family regardless of whether they have children or not, then we're back to wondering why you don't consider two men together to be a family?

And at what point did you get the impression that my husband and I don't have kids?
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #56
To Mike: you are speaking on behalf of the room when you say, "Huh?"! I read it twice too- have no idea what he/she is saying either.
Ok Mike, let's get this strait. Some couples choose not to have children and some are infertile- NOT a pre-condition to be able to get married- obviously. (You got that John the Baptist?)- you both are really hell bent on that sentence. When I commented on what a "family" was, I was saying that the vast majority of the population pictures in their mind a husband, wife and children when they hear the word "family." If a married man and woman do not have children, they are still what would be pictured as a "family", however, not as common, but yes, still a "family". However, you tell me out of 100 surveyed people when asked what they picture as a "Family", two men or two women come to mind? I would say less than 1 percent. That was my point. I do not consider two men a family or two women a family because I do not believe they should be allowed to marry. Civil partnership? Go for it. Civil "union" makes less sense because there is no unison able to take place. A male and female can unite and become one flesh. Biology spells that out for us. Do I think homosexuals should be able to have the same rights as heteros on a civil level? Sure. But please do not hijack the word "marriage". Marriage is under God's authority, not ours. He created marriage for a man and a woman- to become one flesh.
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #57
to Homeschooling mom: You said: "Ok Mike, let's get this strait." Strait? Gimme a brake!
Regards
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #58
To John the Baptist: you have no grace- so I forgot the "gh"- I do not go through and edit every little thing in my posts- do not have the time. Give me a BREAK! (I am assuming since nothing passes you, "brake" was a joke).
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #59
This is a rebuttal to Kolasinksi’s “"The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage”

1. “…propagation of society is a compelling state interest..” I agree.

2. “Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society,” I disagree. Society may be defined as a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. Same-sex couples do not exist in a vacuum. They have parents, siblings, and other family relations. They have friends, neighbors, co-workers. And they can be come parents.

3. “…there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. This generalized statement does not convey Popenoe’s thesis. Popenoe’s belief is that the biological father’s presence is required – adoptive fathers need not apply. His primary concern is the effect of divorce, but he also objects to same-sex marriage. I’m in accord with his concern about divorce. But few heterosexual parents, even if they stay together, live up to the standards of Ward and June Cleaver. I believe that a committed same-sex couple who make the considered decision to rear a child, or children, has equal, or better odds of a successful outcome compared to an average hetero couple.


4. “The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.” Kolasinksi presents no argument to support that this might actually be a danger. People have entered into marriage for a variety of reasons, and will continue to do so, regardless of sexual orientation. Kolasinksi ignores the fact that many same-sex couple want to become parents and in fact do. According to Safford, several million children have at least one gay parent.

5. “… it [the state] bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals…[including] claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse.” Actually the state has penalized marriage for most of the past 40 years. “The marriage penalty originated in 1969, when Congress tried to equalize what was then an advantage for couples, as compared to single taxpayers.” “In 1996, forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single, Several pieces of legislation have been passed since the late nineties to do away with these penalties” (Wikipedia, Marriage Penalty) This isn’t key to the main issue, but reflects negatively on Kolasinksi’s credibility.

Regards
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #60
So is your argument really based on the belief that in order to be a family you have to meet a standard of public approval? I accept YOU as a family, but not YOU, that kind of thing?
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #61
And for the record, the reason that I'm focusing in on the Marriage=able to have kids portion of the argument is because to a LARGE percentage of anti-gay marriage folk that is the sum total of their argument. You can't be married because you can't biologically produce kids together. If your ability to have kids isn't a precondition of marriage than why is my marriage less valid than yours? Your previous post seems to imply that it's more valid because more people agree with yours than with mine, is that the essence of your argument?
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #62
No, Mike. I do not mind at all if you guys have civil rights- just do not take the "marriage" word, license and documentation. Come up with your own thing. Marriage is a holy matrimony under God between a man and a woman. Gays defy this. You guys should have a "civil partnership" or something. "Union" can't work because there can be no "uniting" between gays- it defies the laws of nature and defies the laws of God. Forget about being hung up on the word "family". Just keep marriage between a man and a woman!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #63
Which sounds very much like, 'Have your own schools and drinking fountains, what's wrong with separate but equal?'

And for the record, ten years two cars a mortgage payment and a kid later - I feel like we're pretty united.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrook Mom
Comment #64
Marriage is a social convention between two consenting parties who promise to be partners in daily living. This includes the sharing of financial, familial and emotional responsibilities and mutual support. More than 50% of "normal" marriages end in divorce. 9 of 10 kids are raised by a single parent. The normal marriage and family is an aberration. If two adults care about each other and have the means and desire to enter into a caring, permanent relationship, why is it anyone elses' business? Thousands of kids need families who love them and provide for their care and well-being. The key is to choose the right partner for you. Only you can decide who that will be. God did not mean for marriage to be miserable, he meant for it to be loving and supportive. Remember it is "God" whatever you may call him who will ultimately judge our lives, not our neighbors or politicians. That's what I care about. Sitting around scrutinizing other peoples' relationships is counter-productive, nosy and unfriendly.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #65
To Mike: Being black or white colored skin is not a lifestyle, living a gay life is. Men and women can produce children because it is mothers and fathers that are supposed to raise children.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #66
To John the Baptist: re: your rebutal...a mother and a father are not only required for a child to be born, but will remain always the most optimal environment for children to be reared in. Just because Ward and June Cleaver are not always lived up to, does not mean we go to the least optimal environment and say it is better. You, Mike and others go on and on about the divorce rate. How many homos stay together for life? I would venture to say not very many- I have yet to see an elderly gay couple. Weak argument.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #67
To Fallbrook mom: We are not "scrutinizing people's relationships", (my time is a little more valuable than that) we are scrutinizing how marriage is defined. Just because our current culture is in havoc with divorce being rampant does not mean that we re-define the principals of marriage. We must be held to the same high standards of what marriage was created to be. You have reduced "marriage" into a civil union with your definition of it. Gays- go ahead and have your civil rights, but do NOT try to call your partnership a holy matrimony!
Comment Profile ImageJohn the Baptist
Comment #68
To Homeschooling mom:
You say: “…a mother and a father are not only required for a child to be born…” Actually only a mother and a donor, or a father and a surrogate, are required. The biological father and mother, on average, would provide the optimal environment for children to be reared in. Currently, that optimum condition is in the minority.

You say: “Just because Ward and June Cleaver are not always lived up to, does not mean we go to the least optimal environment and say it is better.” That is your opinion, but it is contrary to the findings of the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association that same-sex couples do just fine as parents.

You say: “You, Mike and others go on and on about the divorce rate. How many homos stay together for life? I would venture to say not very many." There’s not a great deal of data available, However, Massachusetts, which historically has had one of the lowest divorce rates in the U.S., still has, four years after same-sex marriage was legalized there. Considering the difficulties same-sex couples have had in getting married, I suspect their prospects for divorce would be lower than average. I also suspect if it were harder for hetero couples to get married, it would help reduce the divorce rate as well.

You say: “I have yet to see an elderly gay couple.” I would be surprised if you had met any gay couples. They certainly wouldn’t attend your church. My contact has been limited, but where I lived in San Diego, we had a retired gay couple as neighbors for over ten years. As nice a pair of neighbors as one could want. Of course, one example doesn’t make a case, but it’s a start.

Regards

p.s: principals or principles?
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #69
It's my experience that homosexuals, like heterosexuals come in all flavors. The only real difference is how they conduct an intimate aspect of their lives.

The cruelty that homosexuals have endured from society in the past is shameful and it's right that they should be treated with caring and compassion when their only 'crime' is confusion (for whatever reason) about nature's plan for human sexuality.

The problem is when people, in a need to right the wrong done homosexuals in the past, ignore the needs of the greater society. The homosexual redefinition of marriage is a problematic because it rejects the superiority of the major prop for a healthy society -- the ideal family. Multiple studies show that a mom AND a dad is what children need for the best chance to grow into healthy contributing members of society. They CAN do it with something less, but studies show that the chances are diminshed with anything less than the ideal of Mom and Dad. Prop 8 is a question of WHO will get what they need/want --the kids or homosexuals.

I hope Californians will discern this simple truth and take the threat to (the institution that is) the foundation for our culture seriously and flock to the polls to support the best option for a family by voting 'Yes' on Prop 8.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #70
To John the Baptist: You are correct that parenting has been reduced to "donations" and "charity" due to current technology. Being a graduate of psychology, I have to say I am not very impressed at all by the American Psychological Association or the American Anthropological Association. The majority of it is all a farce and hijacked by communist, politically correct types. Still no data on "divorce" rate for homos. I would venture to say confidently that it will be the same or higher among them. Human beings fall short and are of the flesh. Many think they are supposed to feel "in love" or "good" all or most of the time. And then people think the grass is greener somewhere else. Sorry folks, not real life. Homos are not a notch above heteros in the commitment arena. I do know a few homos. My brother in laws brother is. He said that being gay is one of the most loneliest lives. He said men come in and out of his life every few months and that it stinks. I knew a lesbian couple- close friends with a family member of mine. John, I never said gay people are not nice. I worked with a gay man when I was younger and he got along better with the women than the straight men. He was a riot and a joy to be around to be honest. This does not take away from the fact that I do not believe gays should be able to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #71
OK - A wealth of fairly offensive stuff here and not much time to respond properly this morning-

1st thing though - the phrase 'How many homos...' is fairly offensive.

Just for the record.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #72
To Mike in MN:
I apologize for offending you. "Homos" "Heteros"- just a shortened version of a longer word.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #73
So you're sum total of knowledge of gay people is-

your brother in law's brother
a lesbian couple who are friends with a family member
Some guy you worked with.

Clearly that qualifies you to make sweeping statements about what gay people are like and throw the word 'homo' around.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #74
homeschooling mom: i know you have mentioned many things other than just your religious beliefs and that you believe that procreation is a large reason for making homosexual marriage illegal under California state law. All of which you have struck down as valid reasons to disallow homosexual marriage

What, if i may be so bold as to ask, is your final "legitimate" stance on why homosexual people should be allowed to marry? If you would so please keep your arguement secular and not mention procreation anywhere in your rebuttal. I apologize for adding the requirement but you, yourself (as i mentioned above) have taken back such statements and said they are not valid to the arguement.

I also do believe somewhere along the way you dropped your initial point that school's create complete and utter conformity, this is untrue if you look at society as a whole, we are all very different and have different views on politics. A small amount of this proof is shown in this political discussion. If proposition 8 were to pass schools would force children to believe that homosexual marriage is legitimate. My personal opinion is that they don't and throughout my entire schooling i was never taught how a marriage is defined. If i was i forgot it.
Comment Profile ImageBonsall Guy
Comment #75
To Fallbrook Mom:
It sounds like you're a wonderful mother and would be a wonderful neighbor. I wish the our little corner of the world had more people like you!!
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #76
To Mike in MN: Ok, Mike- never made "sweeping statements" about what gay people are like- John the Baptist was who I was addressing- he inferred that I probably never have known any gay people and I was letting him know the gays I have had in my life. As far as "throwing the word 'homo' around", I threw the word hetero' in there too. I was shortening up the word- makes typing easier.
Comment Profile ImageSimple truth
Comment #77
Just reading along:
You didn't have to be taught how marriage is defined as a child; you knew because it was apparent. If Prop 8 fails it will be much harder to discern, as the core definition will not be “one man, one woman” but rather “any two people who are in a sexually intimate relationship with each other”. This will not be obvious to children, but in time they will come to understand the marriage relationship is based on sexual activity rather than the formation of a family with a mom and a dad. Is this what is BEST for children? We really should be asking what is best for children since this is quite clearly the reason governments have sanctioned marriage throughout recorded history.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #78
To just reading along: admittedly, this issue has particularly been a challenge for me because I am very much for the rights of people (I am a follower of Ron Paul if that gives you a clue) and I have always viewed marriage from a covenantal worldview- so it is hard for me to separate it and make it just an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together. I cannot separate procreation from marriage because it is part of the deal. My point was that not all heterosexual couples can procreate so it is not a necessary part of marriage. Marriage is 2 people uniting and becoming one. 2 of the same cannot unite and become one. On a civil level, homosexuals should have rights. I believe marriage, however, is between a man and a woman.
As far as school goes, I meant that schools teach all of the kids the same info, at the same time and in the same way- that is where I believe the conformity is- in the curriculum. As far as prop 8 goes, if it is not passed, kids will have books as early as kindergarten depicting what a "Family" is (NOT school's job or business in my opinion)- in Massachusettes, a kindergarten came home with a book that had a picture of two males in the kitchen feeding a child- again, NOT ok in my opinion. Schools need to keep to the 3 R's.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #79
i meant my statement to say. "what is your final "legitimate" stance on why homosexuals should not marry."

i apologize for the mistake
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #80
why would anyone want to deny a homosexual couple happiness and proof of their love in the eyes of the law. wouldn't you(you being a anyone against homosexual marriage) fight your hardest if you were kept from marrying the one you love? i know that you accept and tolerate gay people but can't you just agree that our love is legitimate and that letting us become married is only right. sorry if this offends anyone but it is just terrible that there is so much ignorance in the world. All human beings are the same, none lesser or more important than another. when we are all dead and buried will it really matter to those alive whether or not we were gay or straight, black or white. all that will be remembered(for most of us that is) is our name our birth date and our death date. so please just let us show the world that we have found love and married for love.
thank you all for listening.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #81
i apologize if my comment seems like an us vs you situation. It is not.

homeschooling mom: i agree that you are more knowledged on the issue than most people. So i would like to thank you for having a legitimate point of view that actually has some rhyme or reason as a part of it.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #82
When you say : "Marriage is 2 people uniting and becoming one. 2 of the same cannot unite and become one."

You are right in your definition of marriage. You are entirely fundamentally wrong in the rest. Your belief that we can't unite is entirely based on how you perceive same sex couples based on your religious beliefs which have absolutely NO place in making laws.

And you must surely be aware that 'homo' is used as a derogatory slur in a way that
'hetero' isn't. In that you showed yourself perfectly capable of typing 'gay' earlier which is both a: not hostile and b: actually shorter to type, I can only assume it was an expression of hostility.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #83
Additionally:

You seem to be having trouble making a distinction between marriage and the sexual act.

Marriage and the sex act aren't interchangeable concepts.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #84
And you did in fact make several sweeping statements. Most of which were fairly offensive. That 'homo's didn't have long term relationships, for starters.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #85
although i vehemently disagree with you on the issue of homosexual marriage. I myself would love to find the perfect person and get married one day, and i would be upset if the wonderful state i live in chose to decide who i could and could not marry.

I would like to mention that under california school code you can separate your child from the classroom while the lesson is being taught, just by filling out a small form. during such time your child will be doing some personal study in the library or with another teacher.

The issue with public schooling vs. homeschooling is that no matter what the school/you decide to teach.your child has to decide for his/her self what a marriage should be defined as. Along with many other decisions on morality and such.

My parents taught me many things as a child that i learned were wrong and disregarded as an adult. This however is not the case with most children. The issue with homeschooling your child to shelter them and teach them your own view is that it is much easier to brainwash the child into thinking something is wrong when it is in fact right. This however is nearly impossible with schools. because the child is exposed to many different types of thought by many different teachers, along with hundreds if not thousands of children. This enables your child to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #86
i understand what you meant by three r's. but it is reading writing and arithmatic. so it is either rwr or rwa. sorry but i just thought it was funny that you were talking about schools focusing on education when you yourself were making a common mistake.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #87
just reading along:
My heart goes out to you. I am different than the majority too. I have had acne vulgaris for more than 50 years -- since I was 10 years old. I shrink from bright light and up-close encounters, never look 'clean', and flinch at even touches of endearment when my scarred and often erupted face is touched. I wish there was some way to feel as attractive as most people in this aspect --feel that my affliction is normal, rather than a problem. But no amount of societal acceptance will change the truth. I can't have peace until I find it in myself. I think this is true for homosexuals too. You are looking for society's approval, but even that won't change the pain you feel. By all means, pledge your love to the one who shares your life, have a wedding, invite your friends and refer to each other as spouses. There is nothing to stop you -- no law forbids it. All that Prop 8 does is prevent a change in the definition of marriage, a change so radical that its meaning is lost by forcing the majority to accord same sex couples all the benefits previously reserved for the unique relationship of a man and woman (that often produces the next generation).

If prop 8 is defeated, marriage will soon become whatever any minority group calls fair according to their needs. Marriage is a right extended to all who meet the definition. You can LEGALLY marry almost anyone you like as long as they are not the same gender because that is what marriage is. It's a particular civil right that anyone who meets the criteria can exercise. Change the meaning and it will not be marriage anymore.

The happiness you and your partner seek will not be found in the eyes of the law. Even in countries that have made homosexual relationships the legal equivalent of heterosexual ones, the suicide rate among homosexuals is 5 to 6 times that of heterosexuals. Accept yourself as you are and you'll find the happiness you seek.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #88
you have it wrong when you say that if the meaning of marriage changes then any minority group can change it. This is untrue the definition of marriage has changed many, many times.

i have accepted myself and so have my friends, family, and coworkers. you have it wrong when you said i want society to approve of me. i don't care what society thinks. i care what society does. If society thinks that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman then i am fine with it. But if they choose to force it down my throat and say that marriage cannot be between a woman and a woman or a man and a man then i have a problem with it.

I would not like to offend anyone but that doesn't mean that i won't stand up for myself or what is right.

In the eyes of the law right now the happiness i seek will happen.

We have changed the meaning of marriage many times and guess what. It's still marriage.

Oh and the suicide rate for a homosexual person is higher than that of a heterosexual person because of people who tell them that who they are and how they feel is wrong. That they aren't normal. That God doesn't accept them. It is how people act towards them that make suicide rates high. It is ignorance and hatred that make suicide rates high.

My heart goes out to you for your condition as well but being gay doesn't automatically mean that society doesn't accept me. I go out in public and live my life just like any heterosexual person. I just happen to be homosexual. And the anyone i want just happens to be a woman and if i want to marry that person then so be it.

There shouldn't be a "criteria" to meet in oerder to get married. There should be two unrelated consenting adults who hopefully are in love.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #89
Very well stated "Simple Truth." You are much more eloquent than I am. My heart also goes out to "just reading along". Thank you so much for your realness in your post and expressing yourself so honestly. I appreciate your sincerity. For the record, the 3 r's....are reading, writing and arithmetic. It's a well known slogan especially among teachers. As far as the public schools go, there is a lot of moral relativism and culture relativism that goes on. As a caring and loving parent, I want my children to learn from my worldview of course, but we always have fun banter at the dinner table about all sorts of points of view at the dinner table. I am raising my kids to be very well rounded under my protection while they are little. I want to protect AND prepare them. When they are older, they WILL make their own decisions (for we have been given the gift of free will)- from a solid foundation.
To Mike: I apologize for using the word "homo". I changed the word to "gay" upon realizing I had offended you. From now on I will use the term "homosexual" and "heterosexual" since those are the proper terms and will not offend anyone. I will NOT separate marriage from the sex act. Sex is the ultimate unification during a marriage when we become one flesh and have the possiblity of being a part of creating life. I also never wrote that homosexuals do not have long term relationships. I know of a couple that has been together for many years.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #90
Just reading along,
What are the many changes to marriage you refer to? Hasn't it always been between a man and a woman as far as our cultural heritage is concerned?

You have proposed that any two people can get married. So what exactly is the purpose of marriage -- to pair us off into groups of two so we can get some legal benefit that we can not have as long as we are single?

How will marriage be defined if homosexuals are able to marry?
Anyone that is excluded from the new definition of marriage can use the same argument used by homosexuals -- "marriage is a civil right".

In the end, marriage will become meaningless and families will suffer. The ultimate risk is to children when families with a mom and dad are no longer accorded special consideration by society.

If homosexuals have the same suicide rate in countries that give ALL the same benefits to a homosexual couple (as to a heterosexual one), discrimination can NOT be the cause. There is NO discrimination in these countries. That's the whole point.

Finally, as much as you want homosexuality to be normal, it can't be unless we change the definition of normal or more than 50 % of us become homosexuals. And even if that happens it still can't be natural, because nature didn't make us for it, otherwise there would not be so many physical ailments attributable to the practice. Acne vulgaris isn't normal either, but I don't believe laws that (for comparison purposes) force society to employ acne sufferers as make-up or lipstick models, in spite of their condition, will make it more normal.

I don't expect you will understand my point because it is so personal for you. It is hard to understand, however, how so many people can be bullied into agreeing to the unprecedent risk of destroying marriage when we know it is the foundation of our society.

The invectives hurled at those who dare to question the wisdom of such a change should give people pause enough to consider the motives of those who are so cavalier about such a fundamental change.

It's a kind of blindness I find very hard to understand.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #91
OK, I'm going to need to respond on a point by point basis to this last one-

"Just reading along,
What are the many changes to marriage you refer to? (A man owned many wives, A man owns his wife as property, couples of different races musn't marry or it will be the end of how 'marriage has always been' These are just a few examples of the way the concept of marriage has changed)

Hasn't it always been between a man and a woman as far as our cultural heritage is concerned? (no actually, it hasn't. See above.)

You have proposed that any two people can get married. So what exactly is the purpose of marriage -- to pair us off into groups of two so we can get some legal benefit that we can not have as long as we are single? (no, it's for two people to make a loving commitment to spend their lives together, same as it currently is.)

How will marriage be defined if homosexuals are able to marry? (same as it currently is - see above comment RE: two people, loving commitment, etc.)

Anyone that is excluded from the new definition of marriage can use the same argument used by homosexuals -- "marriage is a civil right". (actually there's a broader issue here as you freely flip between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil institution- you do know that they're two different things, right? Concerning the civil institution side - see above RE: two people, loving commitment, etc.)

In the end, marriage will become meaningless and families will suffer. (your basis for this fear-mongering prediction? By 'meaningless' do you really mean 'inclusive'? How will families suffer? In what way? There's no way in which families will suffer.)

The ultimate risk is to children when families with a mom and dad are no longer accorded special consideration by society. (again, fear-mongering with no basis. What risk? Risk of WHAT, exactly? What are you afraid of? And right there in that sentence you acknowledge that you want straight couples to have special rights that gay couples do not.)

If homosexuals have the same suicide rate in countries that give ALL the same benefits to a homosexual couple (as to a heterosexual one), discrimination can NOT be the cause. (I'd love to see anything approaching a fact on this one. But in general terms- The suicide rate among homosexuals- particularly young males - is so high precisely because of comments like yours posted in forums like this)

There is NO discrimination in these countries. That's the whole point. (that is a profoundly uninformed opinion. Do you really believe that there's no discrimination in those countries just because there's some legal protection against it? Would you seriously argue that there's no discrimination in the US against minorities thanks to the law?)

Finally, as much as you want homosexuality to be normal, it can't be unless we change the definition of normal or more than 50 % of us become homosexuals. (you're using normal to mean 'average, a statistical mean', and 'created by nature without influence by mankind' interchangeably here. Less than 50% of the population has red hair. Are you calling them abnormal? Minorities are less than 50% of the population. BY DEFINITION.)

And even if that happens it still can't be natural, because nature didn't make us for it (I know some penguins who kind of prove otherwise, but please go on),

otherwise there would not be so many physical ailments attributable to the practice. (Such as? Go on, please... name ONE physical ailment caused by being gay)

Acne vulgaris isn't normal either, but I don't believe laws that (for comparison purposes) force society to employ acne sufferers as make-up or lipstick models, in spite of their condition, will make it more normal. (How would you feel about a law that said 'Anyone with Acne Vulgaris can never get married because I don't like the way it looks'? Because that would be the ACTUAL comparison here. )

I don't expect you will understand my point because it is so personal for you. (actually I think we understand you all too well)

It is hard to understand, however, how so many people can be bullied into agreeing to the unprecedent risk of destroying marriage (again - a COMPLETELY unfounded statement given absolutely no backup of what this 'risk' you keep mentioning is or how marriage might be 'destroyed')
when we know it is the foundation of our society.(which is why all of society should have equal access to it.)

The invectives hurled at those who dare to question the wisdom of such a change should give people pause enough to consider the motives of those who are so cavalier about such a fundamental change. (The motive would be to be treated equally. It's hard to remain calm when someone is telling you more or less to your face that your marriage is less valid then theirs.)

It's a kind of blindness I find very hard to understand.

..............................

And finally a word on the earlier comment RE: You can't wake up and not be black, but you (supposedly) can wake up and choose to not be gay.

Suppose that I put forward a law that said 'no Presbyterian shall ever be allowed to marry because we believe them to be fundamentally wrong'

Is you heard that, your first response wouldn't be 'Well... they can choose to stop being a presbyterian, so I suppose that law is OK.'

You're first response would be 'What a ridiculous thing for someone to believe. I can't believe anyone would want to waste time putting such a stupid bigoted law onto the books"

This is why the whole issue of whether or not you 'choose' to be gay is such a waste of time in my opinion. It's not a benchmark test for denying any other minority equal access to law, why is it being used here?
Comment Profile Imagel.williams
Comment #92
If you are not homosexual and have no desire to marry someone of your same sex then what do you care? Vote no on h8te
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #93
mike in mn: you basically got my statement on the changes in marriage correct. Inter racial marriage had been outlawed before, multiple wives etc. my point was that the definition of the "traditional" marriage has been changed many times.

to simple truth: no one is completely normal. and being the majority doesn't mean that you are right or that you in fact are normal.
If marriage is about procreation then you in fact should not ever get married because you would pass down the genetic defect for acne vulgaris along to your children and since society frowns upon that and would prefer not to see it around we don't want your kids to exist. Doesn't this sound mean and unconstitutional. i bet you are saying to yourself oh this will never happen. It is too full of bigiotry. No one would ever pass a law like that. the problem is that if proposition 8 comes into existence as a constitutional ammendment any state can do just that. They can say that since you having a child would cause a genetic defect you should not in fact you cannot be allowed to have children. hell they might even be allowed to turn you into a uenic. Now admittedly i am going to the far end of the spectrum here, but it could happen. I'm sorry if hearing that hurt but it is the truth. having such a thing happen could become a possibility if this law were to be enacted. please don't take it personally it is just an example.

If your view is based on religion then this conversation is lost and completely unconstitutional. Religion can have nothing to do with law. although some of our laws are based on the morals of christianity most do not so you cannot say that law and religion have anything to do with each other.

and if you are talking about the minority not being able to get married. then no one can ever get married, because we are all part of some minority.

the definition of marriage changing won't happen. mainly because the definition of marriage says nothing about a man and a woman respectively. if you are talking about the general view of marriage changing and then all hell breaking loose you are wrong again. when you picture a family in your man they are two middle class white parents, a male and a female, and most likely, two small white children, a boy and a girl.

too bad that most families in the world are not white, do not have two kids(some more, some less), usually only have one parent in the household, and their kids are probably all grown up.

the view of marriage is basically wrong, just adding one more exception to the general idea of a family is not going to ruin our society or hurt our children.

also i'm pleased to anounce connecticuit has just legalized gay marriage
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #94
'just reading along' and 'Mike in MN' I appreciate your efforts to explain your position.

You have clarified for me how you arrived at your opinions.

The problem here is truth. I believe there is such a thing.

The truth is: some things are better than others and if we want things to get better here on earth we need to figure out which are the better things and do them.

For instance, the truth is: There is a difference between men and women. Amazingly, they compliment each other perfectly. Together they complete the human ideal. And miraculously when physically joined they have the ability to produce a new life! That is something worthy of celebration. It's quite unique and wonderful, don't you think?

'A man and woman together' is the better thing and when we used our superior intelligence to reason (during the last two thousand years of the history of Western civilization) we gave it the status of something special as a way to encourage and support it. As our advanced civilization testifies, it's worked quite well.

If we abandon it (man and woman together) as the ideal and give it no special consideration, we will be making a change that in effect says, "There is no better, only equal."

Experience shows, however, that it's never a good idea to ignore truth. Bad things happen. When we don't appreciate what we have and how we got it, we risk losing it and all the benefits it produced.

Think of marriage (as it has been defined over the last 2,000 years) as a Broadway Show -- the best kind of theater. It's a a festival of sight and sound that raises your spirits and gives birth to emotions that lift you out of the hum drum of daily life. What if, one night you go to a Broadway Show and find they've substituted amateurs who really don't have the goods (talent) that you've come to expect on Broadway. Are you annoyed that you didn't get the better performers? You shouldn't be, 'Mike' and 'Just'. The actors are all equal. They're all human beings, they are wearing the same costumes, saying the same lines. Okay, they are missing something. But it's ONLY one thing. The problem is, it's the ONE thing that makes it a Broadway Show -- talent!

You better be willing to pay the same ticket price to see the amateur show as the professional one, because that's what gay marriage means. Government support (the ticket price) for marriage is a recognition of it's unique and wonderful attributes (talent). Gay relationships just don't have the goods. State sanctioned marriage for gays redefines marriage as something quite mediocre and hardly worthy of the price. In a few years it will become meaningless and 'a man and woman together' will get no special consideration or support from the culture, nor will any other 'couple'.

The incubator of each new generation (the family) is already cracked by no fault divorce and sexual 'freedom'. If Prop 8 fails it will most likely break. The cracks began to form barely 30 years ago. It shouldn't take that much longer to make marriage utterly meaningless. Homosexuals do not concern themselves with this possibility. They just know that the special status of 'a man and woman together' makes them feel second-rate. If they have to destroy marriage to feel better, they're fine with taking the risk.

The amazing thing is how the gay activists organizations have been able to intimidate people into believing it's all about "fairness". They have appealed to the 'goodness' in people by using words that instill guilt for even thinking there is a better thing. You know what? There's always a better thing! Deal with it -- move on. Instead, the homosexual community and its supporters resort to name-calling, bullying and the law to intimidate those who think we should raise up and honor the better things.

What an upside down place the world has become in 50 years!
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #95
To "Simple Truth": I could not have said it better- thank you, thank you, thank you. During this whole debate, I started to consider that homosexuals should have "equal rights" as far as a civil "union" goes, but not be called a marriage (even though I personally did not like that idea). I did this because I do not believe you can legislate morality or religion, but I have come to realize that marriage between and man and a woman is MUCH more than just moral. I have relievingly and confidently changed my mind. Giving homosexuals civil unions undermines marriage and all its amazing miracles. Thank you so much "Simple Truth" for your eloquence, time and heart! Marriage is a miracle! Yes on 8.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #96
First off - thank you for just admitting that you believe you deserve more rights than me because you think you're better than me.

It's refreshing to hear somebody actually admit that.

Of course, it's a reprehensible viewpoint and completely opposed to everything our country stands for...

But still, refreshing to hear you actually admit it.

That said - 3 things:

1: Your Broadway argument (which is a charmingly ironic basis for an argument to deny gays basic human rights, btw) is premised on the belief that civil rights are something you have to earn rather than something 'inalienable' and 'self-evident' (If I might quote from someone who disagrees with you on the subject)

2: You keep claiming marriage has been unchanged for 2000 years, openly ignoring the several times that it's been pointed out to you hear that that isn't the case. Just because you ignore the facts doesn't mean they'll go away.

3: You continue to use terms like 'break', 'destroy', and 'risk' in regard to marriage without ever bothering to define what this threat you're so worried about is. What risk? Break How? 'destroy' marriage how?

Actually- that's the real question I have for you. What do you mean by 'destroy' marriage? Destroy HOW? are you worried that men and women won't be allowed to marry one another is gays are allowed to do so? Because if that's what you're worried about, put your mind at ease, kitten. No one's suggesting that.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #97
Clarification..."but I have come to realize that marriage between a man and a woman is MUCH more than just moral" (I have realized that you can argue for marriage to remain between a man and a woman on more than just "moral" or "religious" grounds. As a married woman, I have enjoyed much more than just the "moral" aspects of it!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #98
As a married man, so have I.

With my husband
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #99
Mike,
Interesting you found irony in my analogy. The example of theater and the fact that homosexuals are over-represented in this field never occurred to me. It's because I have a daughter who has a passion for theater that it has assumed a prominent place in my thinking.

If you could take off your glasses of prejudice towards those who simply want to preserve what's best, and accept yourself for who you are instead of trying to force the majority to adopt your view so you can feel more acceptable, you would be a happier person. These are harsh words and I apologize if they are hurtful to you, but if we each had the power to make our own self-serving view the dominant one, rather than accepting what is best for the majority, we'd live in utter chaos. Can't you see the need for standards of excellence?

If you've lived very long you have seen our society degrade to one where people fear to even speak of facts or share information on certain topics for fear of being subjected to some invective or labeled hateful. There are forces at work in our culture that encourage people to impose a minority view on the majority with these tactics and it's become rampant. For example, put a ‘yes on 8’ bumper sticker on your car and expect to see glares and rude hand gestures as you drive down the freeway. It seems Michelle Obama is right. We have become "a downright mean country".

Marriage in this country has always been a union between one man and one woman. Yes, some states did outlaw inter-racial marriage. It's a specious argument to say race and sexual preference are equivalent factors. People of different races are still male and female and a marriage between people of the same race is not superior to an interracial one. Most importantly, we do not choose physical attribute, or even in some sense, an attraction to one sex or another, but we do choose behaviors. In case you're going to jump on "choice" --- you do believe behavior is a choice for human beings, unlike animals, don't you? Those who choose to engage in less healthy behaviors are free to make that choice, but it is UNREASONABLE to expect the rest of the society to, not just tolerate, but condone and celebrate the behavior

I'll send you some info on the health risks later. No time now.

Homeschooling mom,
Thanks for your kind words. I spend way to much time on this, so I appreciate the encouragement.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #100
Before a point by point response:

I actually am a fairly happy person, for the record. And I don't feel any particular need for you to share my point of view. What I do require is that you not try to turn YOUR point of view into law based on nothing more than your assumption that your beliefs are more important than anyone else's.

That out of the way, let's look at this point by point again:

Mike,
Interesting you found irony in my analogy. The example of theater and the fact that homosexuals are over-represented in this field never occurred to me. It's because I have a daughter who has a passion for theater that it has assumed a prominent place in my thinking. (More amusingly ironic than 'ironic' ironic, if you understand what I mean by that.)

If you could take off your glasses of prejudice towards those who simply want to preserve what's best, (I'm not actually the one who's prejudiced here, for the record. And note your underlying assumption that your beliefs are 'what's best'...)

and accept yourself for who you are instead of trying to force the majority to adopt your view so you can feel more acceptable, (It has nothing to do with 'feeling acceptable' I feel perfectly acceptable as it is, thanks. Additionally It really has nothing to do with forcing the majority to believe anything either. As I said earlier and at great length- Civil rights are not a matter of public opinion. That's why we have a court system, to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority. Kind of a founding principal of the nation.)

you would be a happier person. (Again, pretty happy as things are, thanks)

These are harsh words and I apologize if they are hurtful to you, but if we each had the power to make our own self-serving view the dominant one, (um... You do realize that this is exactly what you're trying to do, right?)

rather than accepting what is best for the majority, (again, the assumption in your sentence is that only your opinion is valid as far as what's best for the majority)

we'd live in utter chaos. Can't you see the need for standards of excellence? (like equal access for all to basic civil rights? Yes, I DO actually see the need for that standard, thanks)

If you've lived very long (and I actually have) you have seen our society degrade to one where people fear to even speak of facts or share information on certain topics for fear of being subjected to some invective or labeled hateful. (perhaps you might consider that these 'facts' your talking about are in fact merely opinions which are - for the record fairly hateful.)

There are forces at work in our culture that encourage people to impose a minority view on the majority with these tactics and it's become rampant. (not forcing you to take my view. Merely telling you that just because you believe your marriage is better than mine doesn't give you the right to write discrimination into the lawbooks. )

For example, put a ‘yes on 8’ bumper sticker on your car and expect to see glares and rude hand gestures as you drive down the freeway. It seems Michelle Obama is right. (Yes. Open displays of bigotry frequently cause that sort of thing. Nobody has the right to not be glared at for believing what they believe.)

We have become "a downright mean country". (As in, a country where people go out of their way to tell others how they can live based on nothing but their own religious beliefs? Yes we have indeed)

Marriage in this country has always been a union between one man and one woman. Yes, some states did outlaw inter-racial marriage. (And one more time: At one time marriage was about a man owning many wives as property. Then owning one wife as property... etc, etc. If you keep ignoring it I'll keep repeating it for you.)

It's a specious argument to say race and sexual preference are equivalent factors. (who said they were equivalent? I merely point out that the exact same arguments - word for word - were used by people just like you 90 years ago to get laws onto the books in most states preventing interracial marriage.)

People of different races are still male and female and a marriage between people of the same race is not superior to an interracial one. (And yet again you imply that a heterosexual marriage is superior to a homosexual one. I'd love for you to say why you believe that at some stage.)

Most importantly, we do not choose physical attribute, or even in some sense, an attraction to one sex or another, but we do choose behaviors. (True, but completely irrelevant. See the presbyterian discussion above)

In case you're going to jump on "choice" --- you do believe behavior is a choice for human beings, unlike animals, don't you? (sure)

Those who choose to engage in less healthy behaviors are free to make that choice, but it is UNREASONABLE to expect the rest of the society to, not just tolerate, but condone and celebrate the behavior. (and if homosexuality was a less healthy behavior that might be a relevant argument. Still waiting for you to mention one single disease caused by being gay, as you claimed earlier that being gay caused disease, by the way)

I'll send you some info on the health risks later. No time now. (Please do. I wait with bated breath. In that none exist.)
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #101
For Mike per your request:
The following is a brief review of what is currently known to medical science about the health risks associated with homosexual activity.

HIV/AIDS

Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus.

A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50 percent chance of getting HIV by middle age. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (Late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, p.1)

As of 1998, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) nearly 90 percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, June, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10 (1)).

Even more alarming, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported in 1998 that an estimated half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under 25. Among 13-to 24-year-olds, 52 percent of all AIDS cases reported among males in 1997 were among young men who have sex with men. (CDC Fact Sheet: "Young People at Risk," Center for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, July 24, 1998

Researchers at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men. Lead by R.S. Hogg, et al and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (vol. 27, no. 3, 1997, pp 657-661) they reached an alarming conclusion.

"In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

Physical Health Risks

In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Other maladies include chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.

Emotional/Mental Health Risks

Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."

He concluded by saying, "Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

Physical Abuse

A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39 percent of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other homosexual men.

A study by Susan Turrell entitled "A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.

Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.
Comment Profile Imagesire
Comment #102
The Bible does not condemn gay marriage. In fact, it doesn't even mention it.

Being gay does not make someone immoral. Being gay is not immoral, except in the views of people who base their life choices on a book of ten morals which, only in passing and not made official as a commandment from God, condemns homosexuality as a sin punishable by death... Christians that are not tolerant of others.

When those same people are presented with incontrovertible evidence from that very same book, evidence which shows that the book also condones things like slavery, the oppression of women and children, rape, murder, and how important it is to have a willing spirit when God asks you to put your only son an an altar and kill him with a knife... well, those same people back-peddle from that book faster than you can blink. They jump forward and say, "Oh, no...that is in the OLD Testament, and I believe in the message of Christ, from the NEW Testament, so those things aren't things I believe in."

That is all well and good, but Christ never mentioned homosexuality, not once in all of his ministry.

No, friends, that was Paul who mentioned that, the same Paul who barely tolerates any love or sexuality between people - even heterosexual people - because he felt it was in direct conflict with being a true servant of God. The same Paul who believes that women are inherently inferior to men, so much so that they should not even be allowed to speak in church, or on church matters, because they are naturally sinful, and must be held in firm check lest they run away with the power that men should rightly hold. The same Paul who insists that a young women should be forced to marry her rapist, because otherwise she will be a sinner. So, let's call a spade a spade, shall we? If you believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, you are simply picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe, and discarding the things which make you uncomfortable.

Religion cannot, and should not, be used as a weapon against anyone. Religion was designed to make us all into GOOD people. If homosexuals are sinners, let them sin!

It is God's place to judge, not yours.

Romans 14:4 - Who are you to pass judgement on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #103
I pray for God's loving grace everyday. I am a sinner- in my thoughts, actions, heart and deeds. I do not have a hateful, judgemental heart towards homosexuals. I only have compassion, of which I hope you all have for me. We are here to love one another and help each other along the way. It is God's place to judge, not ours. That I agree with. It is our place to have discernment and make the best decisions we know to make. Romans 1:27 states "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Notice how it states that the men abandoned "natural" relations...does this mean that homosexuality is "unnatural"? These acts are also defined as "indecent". There are many Bible verses that I can use to confront some of my own actions, however, homosexuality is the topic here. I am a seeker of truth and commend those that stand for it.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #104
Bible-believing Christians do not believe that the Old Testament God is different that the New Testament God. God is the Great I AM -yesterday today and tomorrow. HE doesn't change.

The world that existed before the coming of Christ was much more brutal than the world since Christ's ministry. The Old Testament is historical and reflects the reality of the time. At the same time it is prophetic -- giving us evidence of God's reality. If we know the Bible we can investigate whether the prophecy in the Bible has come to pass. The evidence of these investigations dispells the doubts of those who study the Bible.

God's commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his only son was a test of Abraham's faithfulness AND a foretelling of the death of God's only son (prophecy). Abraham had faith that God would not allow his son to die since God had already promised Issac was the person through whom he would make Abraham the Father of the Jewish faith.

Christ never directly addressed homosexuality, but he did refer to the truth of the Old Testament. If you believe Jesus is God, you KNOW the Old Testament is true -- because Jesus/God said it was. In addition, both the Old and New Testaments teach that sex outside of marriage (premarital, extra marital and homosexual sex) is a rejection of God's authority and God Himself -- the same as all sin.

If you read the Bible, there is no way you can honestly overlook these facts and say God is okay with homosexual sex. Without the political pressure of homosexual activists, common sense alone tells you we were not designed to have sex with our own gender. For a mind unburdened by the intimidating inference by the homosexual agenda that those who think that sex should be reserved for heterosexual married couples are motivated by hate. As they know, no one wants to be thought of as hateful. It's a powerful weapon that they've used very effectively.

Those who claim to know Christ but have succumbed to the pressure of our secular culture, should refer to scriptures like Galatians 1:10 "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Comment Profile ImageFrankie the Butcher
Comment #105
Hey Sire,
The Bible says it is really hot down there.....those who choose homosexuality are destined for eternal damnation. If they choose this road, I really don't think they realize how grim their fate is. I will say a little prayer for them...
Comment Profile Imagea voice for many
Comment #106
It seems that we are beating a dead horse, because this debate is going nowhere. There is nothing that can be said on either side that will change where someone stands on this issue. The only thing we can do, is take our side and fight for what we believe in. I believe that most people stand on the side of basic morals, family and decency, This Tuesday will prove that when a yes vote on 8 wins at the polls.

This battle is far from over and ground will be gained and lost from both sides at different times, but I for one will not give up. There is so much more to this than meets the eye. It's not just about homosexuals wanting "equal rights to a marriage certificate" ....please!!.... they right now have all the rights and benefits without the certificate, but they just can't let it go. This is about crumbling the foundation of the family and morality. Putting churches out of business if they refuse to marry a homosexual couple based on their belief in the bible and what God would have them do or not do. There will be discrimination law suits all over the place. There is a bigger picture here.

There has to be a separation between the definition of marriage between a man and a woman and the immoral union between two men or two women, they cannot be equated. You can call a dog a cat, but it's still a dog. I'm going to fight to preserve the morals of this great Nation in whatever way I can, I will sign petitions, call the elected officials, vote, talk to people and place signs in my yard. I will battle for what's right. This is not a civil issue, this is a right and wrong issue, it's a behavioral issue. not a race or gender issue. I am thankful we still live in a free society and that God also gives us free will to chose how we will live our life, but call it what it is.
Comment Profile Imagesire
Comment #107
In response to "Simple Truth". It seems you are trying to defend your right to judge other people. Let god do that. You cannot legislate morality. Also, if you believe so much in the old testaments; Where is your slave? Why are you wearing different materials of fabric?

Your logic is flawed. Why can't you just allow people to love each other. How has two people loving each other ever hurt you? All prop 8 is about is letting two human beings get married. How is that a crime?
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #108
sire,
Can you give me an example of a law that is not based on morality?

How does Prop 8 prevent people from loving each other?

Legal marriage of homosexuals imposes homosexual morality (that says homosexuality is a good thing) on me and our entire culture -- a culture that has always valued monogamous heterosexual relationships as the superior moral position.

I am hurt by a culture that has a morality that is contrary to my own -- a morality, that when it is enshrined in law, will be impose on others including my own progeny.
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #109
Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego, supports gay marriage.

He turned his back on campaign promises to oppose gay marriage in an emotional press conference:

"I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.

"I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones—for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s experiences.

"And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana."

He wept at the press conference as he read his statement.

Like other conservatives, when the issue hits home (Sanders’ daughter is gay), they have a change of heart and see gay marriage as a matter of equal rights.
Comment Profile Imageyeson8
Comment #110
SIMPLE TRUTH,ALL YOU HAVE SAID IS TRUE,WE MUST ALL HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION,AND WE MUST PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON.IF WE GIVE IN TO EVERY
WHIM THAT COMES ALONG IT WILL BE LIKE "YOU CAN"T TELL THE HIPOCRITS FROM THE CHRISTIONS"IT IS LIKE THE SONG,IF YOU DON"T STAND FOR SOMTHING YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING.CHRISTIANS ARE WATERED DOWN,SIT ON THE FENCE,SAY"OH THE LORDS WILL BE DONE"GET UP OFF YOU TAIL AND VOTE,FAITH WITH OUT WORKS IS DEAD,I DON"T THINK RIGHT NOW WE WILL BE STONED LIKE STEVPHEN,,BUT IT IS COMING,WE ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH,STAND UP FOR CHRIST HE DIED FOR YOU,LOVE ALL SINNERS ,HATE THE SIN
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #111
I just found California Family Code 297.5 gives equal rights to gays and lesbians termed "domestic partners". They have all the rights and responsibilities of spouses. So, really this Prop 8 is not about fighting gays on having equal rights (they can have them). This is about "marriage" and the fact that homosexuals want validation for their lifestyle.
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #112
In the late stages of the racial civil rights movement, the last gasp of the segregationist was the doctrine of “separate but equal”, which was finally stuck down by the Supreme Court as being illegal discrimination.

That California has allowed certain legal rights to homosexuals, is OK, but does not really, fully, address the issue. This probably needs to be settled in the US Supreme Court, as it’s a national issue.

Please understand that my solution would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Issue civil union licenses, and let people get married or not as their faith and belief guides them. But, it seems too late for that.

One reason it will probably have to be settled by the US Supreme Court is that most states are not as gracious as California, in granting certain legal rights. I predict that we will see that happen over the next 8 or so years.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #113
Simple truth -

you're just profoundly wrong in every imaginable way -

AIDS isn't caused by being gay- It's caused by transmition of bodily fluids-

There are plenty of heterosexual couples engaging in anal sex.

Depression and suicide, as I mentioned before, is mostly driven by people like you posting comments like that on boards like this.

And your 'statistics' about homosexuality being intrinsically linked with alcoholism, abuse, depression, etc have been so roundly shown to be fraudulent propaganda mostly put out by former doctors who've had their licenses revoked for falsifying data that I'm impressed you were brave enough to post them here. It's nothing more than equating a marginlized group with 'dirtyness' and 'disease' as a way of justifying bigotry. Nothing new, historically speaking.

Homeschooling mom - it continues to have nothing to do with validation and everything to do with being treated equally. And no matter how many times you quote the bible it will continue to not be relevant to a discussion of civil law. And if you really believe that that item of family code means that gay relationships are treated equally by law, you are profoundly naive.

And simple truth - I'm not trying to impose any kind of morality on you. Feel free to believe whatever you want. You are trying to impose your morality on everyone else.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #114
Cornell Law School (check it out online) defines civil rights and marriage below.

CIVIL RIGHTS - AN OVERVIEW
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in

MARRIAGE: AN OVERVIEW
In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.
Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

BACK TO MY COMMENTS:
According to Cornell Law School, marriage is regulated by the states. It is not a civil right. Gays may marry anyone who fits the state's definition of what constitutes a marriage. The one restriction gays object to is the absolute core reason marriage exists as a matter of state law. If gays MUST be allowed to marry, none of the restrictions that define marriage can be enforced.

With no restrictions on who can marry, the state will no longer have a reason to support it as a unique contract that benefits society. Marriage will revert to a personal contract between two people without government support (for the formation of natural families -- which has been the purpose for state sponsored marriage).
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #115
Jon,
I'm sorry for the pain Jerry Saunder's feels for his daughter's choice. His emotion is the result of the loss he knows his daughter will experience in not having a normal life -- a home with a husband and children.

He lost my respect when he threw his convictions about right and wrong out the window when it became personal -- i.e. let the culture suffer if it will make my child feel better.

This IS the gay activist position: "We don't care what the effect is on the majority. We want what makes US feel better and we intend to get it by branding anyone who disagrees with us as a bad person."

The tragedy is: there is NO end to what they have and will continue to demand from society -- homosexual activists can NOT be satisfied because the simple truth is homosexuality is in conflict with nature and no benefit we accord homosexuals will change that. You just can't will TRUTH away; it always prevails in the end.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #116
Sire,
Why didn't you answer my questions in #108?
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #117
Mike in MN
"There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see."
i.e. denial of the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

Don't bother to ask for facts if you plan to disregard them out of hand.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #118
Nice work Simple Truth. I was thinking the same thing when I read about Jerry Saunders- I believe the tears are his grief over his daughter's choices and his grief over the loss him, his wife and his daughter will have over her choice. As far as civil rights go....Jon and Mike in MN, they are taken care of already. Marriage came before the state laws- it is a religious uniting covenant between husband and wife and it is seen as being superior to anything the "state" can grant us- I believe that is why homosexuals so badly want it. The civil rights movement when it came to being black or white was a completely different ball game- not even in the same zone. The color of your skin is not a choice.
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #119
In this case, it's the actual facts that you might want to look at.

AIDS is not caused, nor was it created by homosexuality. It appeared there first, but could just as easily have appeared in any sexually active population.
The act of being gay does not spontaneously bring AIDS into the world.

Sorry if that throws a wrench into your 'AIDS is gods judgement on bad people' line of thought.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #120
And again another point by point (containing many of the same points, as you keep ignoring them)

Jon,
I'm sorry for the pain Jerry Saunder's feels for his daughter's choice. His emotion is the result of the loss he knows his daughter will experience in not having a normal life -- a home with a husband and children. (I have a normal like at home with a husband and children... does that mean you approve of my marriage now? For the record- You continue to have a shaky grasp of several of the definitions of normal and use them interchangeably as you see fit. You might want to work on that.)

He lost my respect when he threw his convictions about right and wrong out the window when it became personal -- i.e. let the culture suffer if it will make my child feel better. (ONE MORE TIME I ask- Please give me ONE... ANY example of how culture will suffer? You're very fond of throwing out doomsday warnings with no backup as to what you're worried about happening and how recognizing everyone's marriages equally would lead to it)

This IS the gay activist position: "We don't care what the effect is on the majority. We want what makes US feel better and we intend to get it by branding anyone who disagrees with us as a bad person." (actually no, that's almost completely wrong. The position would be - The country is set up specifically to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority. I'm assuming that you also would argue that blacks only wanted to use the same drinking fountains to make themselves feel better?)

The tragedy is: there is NO end to what they have and will continue to demand from society (Yes... equality)

-- homosexual activists can NOT be satisfied because the simple truth is homosexuality is in conflict with nature (Because that it merely your religious belief based on absolutely no facts and actually in direct opposition to all available evidence)

and no benefit we accord homosexuals will change that.
You just can't will TRUTH away; it always prevails in the end. (and one more time - merely your religious belief, very far from TRUTH no matter how many times you write it all in capital letters. And one last time - civil rights aren't a matter of a popularity contest- I don't know where you got the belief that everyone had to be vetted by you for your approval before they were allowed access to them.)
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #121
And a final thought-

"With no restrictions on who can marry, the state will no longer have a reason to support it as a unique contract that benefits society. Marriage will revert to a personal contract between two people without government support (for the formation of natural families -- which has been the purpose for state sponsored marriage).

-Interesting that you acknowledge that the definition of marriage has changed before.

And my family is every bit as natural as yours, and I'd hazard to guess quite a bit more loving and happy.
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #122
To Simple Truth:

When Obama was born, there were still a number of states that did not allow interracial marriages. Many at the time argued that it was against God’s will to allow blacks and whites to marry.

It is a matter of civil rights, and separation of church and state.

You still can't explain why you cling to this particular passage of Leviticus (which calls homosexuality an abomination), while ignoring all the other passages. What about marrying a divorced woman, eating shellfish, cutting your hair and beard, planting fields with two types of seeds, killing a woman if she’s raped in a city, etc.

This week I celebrate by 40th anniversary with my one and only wife. I just can’t see how allowing committed gay couples the joy of marriage lessens the meaningful depth of my relationship. I welcome them to the community of married people.

Do you know the divorce rate of those who oppose gay marriage? I’d be interested to know.
Comment Profile Imagegretchy
Comment #123
I've only got a day to throw my 2 cents in so..

No on 8.
Your kids will be fine; no outside influence can mess them up (or enrich them) more then the influence at home.
People really underestimate children. Honestly my kid is more bunged up about routine visits to the aquarium then about anyone else's relationship other than mom and dads.

My friends recently got married. They are gay. They were at my wedding five years ago. They have been a part of my oldest son's life since he was a toddler and have been a part of my younges' son's life since he was a gleam in my husband's eye:) My son attended the reception at their home. Three days prior we were there for the annual family pumpkin carving get together. At LEAST a dozen kids in attendance. How ya like them apples for family values. The point is my five year, who is pretty sharp, has never questioned me about his Uncles' (these guys ARE famila) relationship. It's not because he's not curious, he simply does not care. Just like he doesn't care about ANY of our close friends relationships.
I am curious about the whole "save marriage", is "straight" marriage going somewhere? Will my straight marriage somehow not be valid if we uphold Prop 3 (um you had your chance people)? And if so will I get some kind of monetary compensation, like in a divorce? Just kidding. If that sounds absurd imagine waking up Wednesday and facing the possibility that you may have some kind of governmental imposed "divorce" in you future. Orwellian much? That is a reality for currently married same sex couples if Prop 8 passes. Give kids more credit, give EVERYONE an equal chance at love.
Comment Profile ImageSam
Comment #124
We don’t let brothers and sisters get married. We don’t let uncles and nieces get married. Marriage is our social institution for promoting only certain relationships, those that our society believes are morally acceptable and socially beneficial. Voting YES on Prop 8 will NOT deny equality of rights; the Domestic Partnership laws and the anti-discriminatory laws already exist. A YES vote on Prop 8 WILL tell the gay and lesbian community we will not let them (or 4 Activist Supreme Court Judges) define what the rest of us believe is morally acceptable or socially beneficial.

The gay and lesbian population represent less than 3 percent of our state’s population and few of them have or would choose to marry; the opposition of the gay and lesbian community and their supporters to Prop 8 is about their determination to change the moral beliefs of our society and gain social acceptance for a lifestyle that has for ages been regarded as immoral, just like adultery and prostitution.

Through the centuries, marriage has always been about promoting relationships that will be the most beneficial for our children. Children in stable homes with both a father and a mother married to each other will have fewer psychological, emotional and physical health problems, fewer drug and alcohol problems, and be able to take their places in and contribute to our society. Please Vote YES for Proposition 8.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #125
To Gretchy: I am wondering if your 5 year old has any solutions for the economy. Or is it that he just doesn't care about it?
To Mike in MN: I have been avoiding this part of the discussion, but you have been referring to your relationship as being just as "natural" as heterosexual relationships. I did not want to be vulgar, but how can 2 male parts fit just as "naturally" as 1 male part and 1 female part? And you say that your family is just as well, if not better than any other. I have a personal question for you. Have you ever felt bad that your child does not have a mommy? And do you think that your child would benefit from having a mom?
Comment Profile Imagegretchy
Comment #126
"A YES vote on Prop 8 WILL tell the gay and lesbian community we will not let them (or 4 Activist Supreme Court Judges) define what the rest of us believe is morally acceptable or socially beneficial"

But will it change your beliefs?

"determination to change the moral beliefs of our society"

Again with the change of beliefs.
I can't remember a ballot issue that actuality change my heartfelt convictions on a subject just because it passed or didn't.

"The gay and lesbian population represent less than 3 percent of our state’s population"

I see a massive impact on the straight community coming...

"a lifestyle that has for ages been regarded as immoral"

I just don't see how two people loving each other is immoral?

"Children in stable homes with both a father and a mother married to each other will have fewer psychological, emotional and physical health problems, fewer drug and alcohol problems"

Well you got the first part right - stability, but PLENTY of homes with a mother and father churn out their fair share of kids with the aforementioned problems.

Not picking on you Sam - just responding to the most recent "Yes" post. Saved me some typing.
Comment Profile ImageRyan in Bermuda Dunes
Comment #127
This is absolutely horrible. Shame on all of you that are voting yes on Prop 8. The economy is crashing right now and all you are worried about is the possibility that your children are made aware of the fact that there are infact gay couples out there that are in committed relationships. I see so many people on here preaching this and that about the bible and religion yada yada yada. This country’s laws cannot be based upon religion. There are far too many religions out there that are in full support of gay marriage and against so many other things that are currently going on out there.

Obviously gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate on their own, but that is why we have “sperm banks” and “surrogate mothers”. It sounds like all of you Prop 8 supporters are really saying that you are afraid that if your children are made aware of gay couples, they might start questioning their own sexuality. Which if you haven’t noticed has been and will continue to happen regardless. And you’re afraid of same sex couples having or adopting children. They are going to find out anyway unless you have them locked in your basement/house.

I see those commercials on tv about how a kindergarten class was taken to a gay marriage or some crap like that. I mean honestly, do you really think that happened? That was used as a scare tactic, and regardless, if some of the parents out there reading this are that stupid, open your eyes, if you really don’t’ want your kids being taken on those type of field trips, don’t sign the consent form! And I honestly can’t remember my schools ever once mentioning any actual details of marriage in school. And in sex-ed all that was talked about was the creation of babies. Nothing more. Now if a church decides to not talk about it, that’s their own business.

Even if you decide to vote no on prop 8, there can be stipulations that are created and voted on, like not teaching about marriage period in schools, it’s not their place to teach it, it’s the place of the parents. By voting yes on this proposition all you are teaching your kids is that it is okay to mix religion with politics. And you are also teaching them that rights that you are born with or you think you may have been born with might not be available to you one day.

The bible talks about how sacred marriage is and how it is a sin to cheat, lie, AND DIVORCE yet so many “religious” people out there still do it. Can you imagine what would happened if religion became the basis for politics? Divorce would be made illegal, the murder rate would go WAY UP, and etc. But that only if you base the politics of this country on Catholicism, or Christianity, or one of those, but there are so many different religions in this country it would never work.

People do not choose to be gay or lesbian, it is just what is, it is how we were born. I tried for years to tell myself that is was a phase until I came to the conclusion that it was just who I was. And the only reason I told myself it was a phase around the age of 10, was because I had seen something on television about “God’s plan does not include homosexuality” yada yada yada. But, then I started thinking, why would god make us all different if he wanted us to be same? He wouldn’t, Gods words cannot be confined by a book, that was derived from several others and by the words of people who claimed to have visions and dreams etc. Which if you don’t’ remember by the same religions were later deemed “witches” and burned alive and drowned.

This country was originally used to send the “pagans” here to get them out of England/Europe so you cannot start in on “this country was founded on this and that” etc. This country was founded on being used for sending people here, because people didn’t want them in their own country.

This is all so pathetic. You all think that gay marriage will effect your own, how is that? Why teach your kids that it’s okay to take a right that you have away from someone else just because they are different?

I lived in Fallbrook for 18 years, I am currently 22, and can honestly say for the first time I am ashamed of the town I once called home. From all the Vote Yes On 8 signs, parents standing out there with their kids holding up the signs, it’s just wrong. If you honestly don’t support it, so be it, keep that to yourself, don’t make it difficult for the rest of us to gain the rights we have fought so hard to get. Which we shouldn’t have even had to fight to get that, we should have already had that. SHAME ON YOUR RESIDENTS OF FALLBROOK! All of you voting yes on 8 are juts teaching your kids it’s okay to take rights away from people!
Comment Profile Imagea voice for many
Comment #128
Jerry Sanders also made San Diego a sanctuary city, he's a putz.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #129
all of your argueements for denying a marriage have been said before. Although the laws against interracial marriage were passed in some states they were then overturned. The supreme court will end up deciding for gay marriage whether you all like it or not. The proposition is unconstitutional and i'm over all of these arguements. We are all equal and no one is better than another person just because of their beliefs. NO opinion can be more or less important. Opinion is just that an opinion it is not fact and never will be, even if that opinion is shared by the majority of people. Simple truth. shut you acne covered trap. I'm over it. you only spout your opinion and pretend it is fact. It is not and never will be so Wake up! your opinion doesn't matter. The law matters. That is it. Religion and government can have nothing to do with each other. THAT is what our country was founded on. We came here to ensure that religion could not control our lives. we came here to belive what we want and to have our own rights even if we disagreed with the church.
The supreme court will vote and will decide that the majority, if the proposition even comes to pass, is wrong and the proposition will be struck down and never come into pass. Our constitution protectss these rights. I don't care what your opinion is or what the majority's opinion is. The majority isn't always right, it is only what many people think. Just because we are a minority doesn't mean that we are wrong and you are right. It doesn't mean that we don't have certain unalienable rights that are not mentioned in the constitution.
we will be able to marry.
gays will always exist
and someday we will be accepted by the majority
believe what you wish
believe that you re right and that you are better than us
too bad you are wrong and will never be right
so get out and throw your pointless vote into the ballot box. It won't matter. The law will prevail.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile Imagehmm
Comment #130
looks like views of marriage change from culture to culture. interesting that we view the united states widely "accepted" view of "traditional" marriage as the right form of marriage. interesting concept. no?
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #131
Ryan in Bermuda Jones,
I urge you to do some research. There is scientific evidence that SSA (same-sex attraction) in young people is usually resolved in favor of heterosexuality by age 30 (at the outside), IF the SSA is NOT acted on.

Sadly, promoters of the homosexual agenda urge young people to act on SSA. They also repress data that shows SSA can be overcome with a commitment on the part of the sufferer. The earlier intervention is sought the better the chance for a cure.

You are young -- with so much of life ahead. I hope you will at least explore the veracity of these claims.

There is a wealth of scientific data about the risks of homosexual behavior that you should know about too. I pray you'll take advantage of the facts that are available on the web and act to increase your chances of a long and healthy life.

Check out Exodus International for the FACTS that you will never hear from those who promote homosexuality. Your life is too precious to risk -- at least give yourself a chance to discover that not everything you believe about homosexuality is true.
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #132
again. simple truth you spot opinions not fact. yur studies are biased and being gay cannot be overcome. it can be suppressed but it slowly eats away at the person and they end up killing themselves in the long run. Being gay is not wrong, it is merely a fact of life. just because someone uses all caps in the word fact doesn't mean it is true. simple truth stop spreading your lies. being gay doesn't put you at any risks more so than being straight. as long as we are safe and use condoms and/or get to know your partner we will stay safe. being gay does not put you you at any health risks. your actions do. stay safe and stay proud.

also the "surveys" are biased and are not legitimate. do not believe this mans lies. being gay is not a disease. it is not wrong. and it is not unnatural. please don't listen to these bigots
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #133
Sorry, Ryan. I mistakenly addressed you an Ryan in Bermuda 'Jones'!
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #134
i checked out your website and i noticed two words that completely fill the pages. these aren't facts at all not even slightly. every paragraph, just about. starts with the words we believe. the sight is full of lies. so it seems to me that simple truth. is simply false. misguided at best. i can only hope that he truly believe these things ad is not spouting these "facts" just to be malicious. if he is well then i guess he and god can have a little chat. love thy neighbor. doesn't seem to apply to him. he prefers to pick and choose which parts he wishes to believe in and which parts he wishes to ignore. don't listen to him.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #135
To Ryan in Bermuda Dunes: first of all, that field trip did occur- it was not a scare tactic, but a reality. If Prop 8 passes and/or is overturned, kids WILL be taught about homosexuality in schools- it is already being done. I appreciate that you agree that children should be taught about sex and marriage at home. In Massachusettes, a child came home with a book that talked about different types of families and one of the pages displayed two men feeding "their" child breakfast and doing the dishes. They really hopped on it over there as soon as marriage between homosexuals was legalized, they took it straight to the kiindergarten classroom- so please do not say it won't happen here because it will- faster than you think. I disagree with you that you were born a homosexual and even if you do have some tendency towards it, you can get help if you'd like to one day have a heterosexual marriage that produces children. I firmly believe that you have been influenced very strongly by things you do not even realize. And the reason that there are "more" homosexuals is due to the infiltration of the media influence and acceptance. There are tv shows that now show teenagers of the same sex making out-----this never was before. And you are a little confused about history....this country was here with a lot of Indians to begin with and then white man came in and dominated the land and were abusive to them. There were some whites and Indians that got along, but not many. People came here from England to get away from King George III and his tyrrannical rule. And by the way, "surrogate" mothers and sperm banks are very sad. They reduce parenthood to "charity" and "donations". A baby needs the love of his daddy and mommy- that is why it takes a mommy and daddy to create a baby. We are the only "creatures" that have free will and a conscience...when you were 10, I believe your conscience was nagging at you- for a reason. We are not animals that are just born with instincts we cannot do anything about. We are given the gift of free will. You have free will to choose the kind of life you want. You were given that gift and everytime you make a choice, you are exercising your free will.
To Just Reading Along: "unalienable rights" if you can remember right, were given to us by God, NOT man. The founders were very aware that they were created by God and could live freely because of it. Just like I said above there are decisions when we were given this freedom that we were granted to make and we are held accountable for. And in response to your "hmmmm": the culture "differences" you are referring to do NOT change the fact that it is women and men marrying!!!!
Comment Profile ImageMike in MN
Comment #136
Homeschooling Mom-

First off, the word is 'Inalienable', just for the record.

second- The book you describe essentially describes my family at breakfast, so talking about it as if it were the appearance of the anti-christ isn't really making a lot of headway with me.

and thirdly- I disagree that you were born heterosexual, but with counseling I'm sure you can get over feeling that way and find a nice woman to settle down with.

Kind of ridiculous and insulting to be told that, isn't it.

Oh - and if images of gays in the media caused homosexuality, I'd be interested to hear where you think it came from in the first place... Gay cave paintings perhaps?
Comment Profile Imagejust reading along
Comment #137
they may have believed in your so-called creator but they gave us these rights and told us that we didn't have to believe in any god and they mentioned that these rights were given to everyone not just you bible pushing christians. we have these rights and stop bringing god into this
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #138
Those of you who believe that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality and that there is no God are certainly free to believe what you believe, just as those who believe in God and the superiority of heterosexuality are free to have their beliefs.

The thing is, between two opposing views, only one can be true. I hope you will take the time to seek the facts supporting each side of the argument to determine which is the truth, rather than go with what feels right to you. The stakes are rather high for being wrong.
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #139
To Mike in MN: Thank you for the correction on the word "inalienable"- "just reading along" take note also.
To Mike in MN and "just reading along": You make some good points. When it comes down to it, maybe there are people that are born completely homosexual. Who am I to say that there aren't? I know for me personally, I had to make some decisions and choices to get where I am at now. The truth is, I wish ALL mankind well- this includes homosexuals. I truly value and believe that we should live our lives how we want to live them without others pointing and saying how others should live. I value freedom and I value rights. Unfortunately, many of our freedoms have already eroded since the beginning of America and they continue to do so. I feel that if Prop8 does not pass or is overturned that marriage is being re-defined. Then I feel like your values got put on me and my family. Marriage came before state and all the rights entailed to it. You have rights and they should not be taken away- that is not my vote. My vote is to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I have a friend who is an athiest- he voted yes on Prop 8 because he believes the state should value marriage between a man and a woman because they propogate society and begin the next generation of society. Little you believe that I would treat you the same loving way as would treat anyone else. I do not expect everyone to have the same religious values or beliefs- that is not realistic. I have spoken from a religious viewpoint so much because it is difficult for me to separate the way I see the world from the love of my Creator Who loves us ALL the same no matter our choices. I stand by the fact that we will be held responsible for the choices we make. I stand for marriage between a man and a woman because I stand for Truth and the way we were created, however, I can argue from a secular standpoint also. Argue or not, please know my heart has no judgement, only discernment. Obviously from the time I spent on this, I care. And obviously you do too.
Mike in MN, I am curious about a question I asked earlier that you did not answer...do you ever feel bad that your child does not have a mother? and...do you think your child would benefit from having a mom?
Comment Profile ImageM W, 4 what it's worth
Comment #140
I grew up in a large catholic family in Phoenix during the cold war 50's where homophobia and guilt about all aspects of sex was the norm. Be it right or wrong, sex was nasty and tons of fun and nobody's business what went on behind closed doors. Parents and the churches fears of untimely pregnancy innocently caused some misconceptions that sex is wrong (a sin, punishable by eternal damnation) and bad unless you are married.
Of course none of that detoured me or any of my friends and may have even contributed to that attitude of, if authority says it's wrong, it must be good.
I explored a lot at a very young age playing doctor etc.
All said and done, girls turn me on, always have and always will but that in no way means all other forms of sexual attraction are illegitimate.
Prop 8 has been a dilemma for me, I want to be fair and just for everyone but lack practical experience in the gay world and I am so delighted to read all these fine posts some very intelligent folks. We need much more open discussion on the subject since the yes on prop 8 has passed.
For what it's worth, I can't help but feel there is a bit of pretending going on on both sides of the fence. I don't think god should be brought into this and anyone who feels they know what god wants, thinks, does or that god invented marriage or that they are privy to gods will are pretending a wee bit.
On the other hand I can't help but feel that a guy referring to his husband or that he is someone's wife is also pretending a wee bit.

Deep down inside, every human being dearly loves every other human being ....
There are many paths we can take in life between birth to death and it matters to no one but he who takes it...
Comment Profile ImageDJO
Comment #141
For the bible thumpers, what are you thoughts on an atheist marrying? Shouldn’t they be revolked?

How about the people getting married at the county clerk office, by “The San Diego County Deputy Marriage Commissioner for a Day”?

It may be a religious ceremony to some, but not all. Religion has no place in human rights, or the law. Yes on 8 won because the religious agenda was pushed into the vote, nothing else.

P.S. straight, with eyes open.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #142
MW, 4 what it's worth
Appreciate your candor, but feel compelled to make a few corrections.

MAny of those who think they know what God desires are people who believe He is the author of the Bible (through divine inspiration of course). In the Bible (His instruction manual for how to have a good life), He has made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is not good. He has also made it clear that our sexuality is a precious gift that he expects us to enjoy. However, in his 'instructions' he tells us that the best sex is when it is exclusive rather than pomiscuous. No one would argue that there is no benefit to sexual variation.

In the Bible, God simply makes the point that you will have to give up something MORE wonderful -- which is the deep and incomparable intimacy of an exclusive relationship and that your health (mental and physical) will suffer if you let (metaphorically speaking), "the water from your cistern run into the street" Proverbs 5:16.

The great thing is -- He has let us choose --after providing us with the facts and a request for obedience.

There is no pretending for a person who has surrendered his heart to Jesus. He commanded us to be wise as serpents and to love God with all our minds. For me, it was -- first the mind, then the heart. I spent 87% of my life believing my understanding of God and the Bible was the right one, but when I actually investigated it, I felt I had been given a kind of x-ray vision into a bigger reality than I had ever before imagined.

I must be about your age as I also grew up in the 50s and I know the attitudes you are talking about from that time, but I now know, the people who had them were trying to live by "the rules" without any understanding of the One who made them or why they were important. It's no wonder, we, as children, thought they were a joke!

If only your next to the last comment were true -- it's what God wants for us -- to love one another enough to sacrifice our own selfish needs -- sacrifice is afterall the real test of love. I disagree with your last sentence though. The path each of us takes affects everyone we meet, though I suppose in the sense that we will only be held accountable for our own choices it is true. For myself, it matters a great deal to me whether my brother and sister will spend eternity in the same place that I expect to.
Comment Profile ImageChris
Comment #143
Re-open Proposition 8 for California

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

Don’t be tricked by scare tactics.

PROP. 8 DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCHOOLS
There’s NOT ONE WORD IN 8 ABOUT EDUCATION. In fact, local school districts and parents—not the state—develop health education programs for their schools.

NO CHILD CAN BE FORCED, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR PARENTS, TO BE TAUGHT ANYTHING about health and family issues. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS IT.

And NOTHING IN STATE LAW REQUIRES THE MENTION OF MARRIAGE IN KINDERGARTEN!

It’s a smokescreen.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS and MARRIAGE AREN’T THE SAME.
CALIFORNIA STATUTES CLEARLY IDENTIFY NINE REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Only marriage provides the security that spouses provide one another—it’s why people get married in the first place!

Think about it. Married couples depend on spouses when they’re sick, hurt, or aging. They accompany them into ambulances or hospital rooms, and help make life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. ONLY MARRIAGE ENDS THE CONFUSION AND GUARANTEES THE CERTAINTY COUPLES CAN COUNT ON IN TIMES OF GREATEST NEED.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should guarantee the same fundamental freedoms to every Californian.

PROP. 8 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND TREATS THEM DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW.
Equality under the law is one of the basic foundations of our society.

Prop. 8 means one class of citizens can enjoy the dignity and responsibility of marriage, and another cannot. That’s unfair.

PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
Comment Profile Image4 what it's worth
Comment #144
Simple Truth..
My second to last statement is true, you just have to dig a bit deeper and find it for yourself. In some the reality of universal unconditional love is closer to the surface and in some it is so deep that they have no knowledge of it’s existence (Bush Chaney, Rove, your neighbor and other elitist who feel they are somehow different, more enlightened, more deserving) but that in no way means it does not exist within everyone. One day we will realize we are all family, science is getting close to proving this. One day we will realize it was love that caused the first heartbeat, at that point we will have a fuller, more realistic grasp of what god is. We can deny the existence of god all day long because there is no proof, what we can not deny is the existence of love

To get back to the point, Every human being deserves to feel safe and free to express their selves and live their lives according to their own inner voice.. This a truth we all know , the rub here is that gays want to occupy space that has been traditionally heterosexual, just how this will play out will be interesting. I am encouraged by the intelligent writings and expressed feelings I read here from both sides and can’t help but think in the end, both gays and traditionalist will have to give in a bit of territory to find a way to settle this. There are so many more urgent matters to give thought to like what’s going on in the middle east and Africa, innocent civilians and children are suffering because of this administration and its corporate entities activities here and there.
So many good folks reading this are unwittingly supporting these activities because they believe some of these corporate entities (Fox News and the like) Unfortunatly, stirring up such hatred is the forte of the current US government, as witnessed by its Israeli-driven PR campaign against Arabs and Moslems.

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC),

MW
Comment Profile Imagefreedom fighter
Comment #145
Prop 8 is protecting fundalmental freedoms. In order to make it legal for gays and lesbians to marry we would have to redefine what marriage is. As it stands, marriage is between one man and one women. If two men or two women can legally marry, then what about three men, or five women, or one man and four women, or one woman and ten men, you get my point. Where do we as a society draw the line? Where do employers draw the line for married employees and their may spouses to receive benefits?

An argument has been raised about women's right to vote and interracial marriage. Neither one of these issues required redefining. When women started to vote, the electoral college wasn't redefined so as to include women. They became part of the voting system. Interracial marriage did not have to be redefined to make it legal. It was still between one man and one women.

Prop 8 supporters want to keep their fundalmental rights to marriage. We will always have a voice in this matter. Keep in mind, many prop 8 supporters have worked with, been friends with, and have family members that are gay or lesbian. We are not out to seek and destroy, we are out to protect our value system the best way we can.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #146
4 what it's worth
Okay, let me get this straight -- the men who were responsible for the horrific deaths of approximately 3,000 Americans on 9/11 loved their victims -- DEEP DOWN inside?

And the same would be true of child molesters and murderers?

Even if they have this deep down love, what difference does it make if they acted on the other feeling -- you know, HATE?

Your philosophy/belief/worldview apparently denies that in addition to love/God there is a lesser, opposing force that rejoices in the type of irrational thought you seem to be engaged in.

I'm sorry if I seem mean, but really, a truck could be driven through the hole in your logic. It's the kind of thinking that would STILL deny God even if he appeared on earth and proved his deity by healing the sick and raising the dead!
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #147
Thank you Freedom Fighter for your good words. One man and one woman are complimentary to each other- made for each other. Take out religion if you want, and nature calls for one man and one woman- we can take it down to biology and the same logic persists. That is how God works- His principles and Truth persist through and through.
4 what it's worth: God caused the first heartbeat and as we take each breathe, we take it because He wills it. God is love, so your logic that love created the first hearbeat is correct. I disagree with you that we can all live however we want to- whatever the "inner voice" says. I believe we are all under God's authority and laws wether we believe in Him or not. And remember, each breath you and I take is His will, His love and His enduring and undeserving grace.
Comment Profile Image4 what it's worth
Comment #148
I am convinced now more than ever, most people should not read the bible because they invariably end up with the wrong interpretation. You get people like Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority who said, “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
Ever notice that people who think they know what god wants, thinks etc. also think they know about the devil as evidenced by this next quote from the good Pastor Falwell “The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”
And my all time favorite by the same man of god,
“If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being”
Come on folks, Religion is the source of much of man's inhumanity to man. Religious laws have been the foundation of most of the problems that have plagued humankind, and ironically, it has happened under the auspices of humans trying to convert other humans into becoming socially and morally better people.


Simple truth missed the point, I do not deny the existence of god nor do I say I know what god is, says, thinks etc. and I believe that those who do are living in fantasy, I at least am honest and admit I do not know and that is a good thing because my mind is still open and I am still searching. From what I am seeing today, most so called Christians like the late Jerry are very closed minded and do not live the teachings of the Christ they so fervently say they follow. So called gods laws are in fact religious laws, if you want to know god or god’s laws then study nature. Try adhering to the teachings of Jesus, love thy enemy and try listening to the prophets of out time for a change…

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
(Martin Luther King, Jr. )

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." (Jimmy Hendrix) "

And John Lennon who asked us to "Imagen" a world of love without religion.

If we were put here on this earth for a reason, it was to live, love, laugh and be happy and you do not need a belief system or religion to do that (me)

Yes dear heart, God is love, beyond that we know nothing. If we really want to do the work of our father (God) we must become as little children and first learn from and work along side our mother (nature) the mother of all living creatures. So many people today want to start at the top with their preconceived ideas. I see all kinds of christian churches in strip malls and shoe salesmen are instantly pastors and preaching the "word of god"

Not too long ago the word Christian was a person who choses to live his life according to the teachings of Christ...
Now the word Christian leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it is none of the above.. Truly the blind leading the blind.
Comment Profile Imagefreedom fighter
Comment #149
4 what it's worth:

John 12: 44-50

Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in only me, but the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness."

"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him that last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

We know a great deal about God through his son Jesus! He came into this world to be a light and to direct people to eternal salvation. He came for the lost, the poor, the sexually immoral, the sinners of the world. Jesus also made it very clear that there is a judgement to come to those who have rejected Him and His commands.

When people like Falwell speak out, they speak from a sinners heart. He needs Jesus' forgiveness. And when asked for, it is received.

I do not believe Martin Luther King Jr. was championing homosexuals' rights. Dr. King was a man of God. He loved God and knew God's commands. He, however, was a sinner and needed forgiveness.

As for John Lennon, he received much of his inspiration through Eastern religion.

I am truly sorry that the word "Christian" leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You have chosen to let it be a bad taste in your mouth. You have chosen to reject the teachings of Christ.

When a man and a woman have sexual relations outside of marriage, they open themselves to sexually transmitted diseases, to bitter rejections, to unwanted pregnacies, to raising children in harsh environments (financial, emotional, etc.). God's hands are not in this scenario. However, when a man and a woman commit themselves to God's will and each other, there are no sexually transmitted diseases, there are no baggage from previous relationships, babies are welcomed into a stable environment. God's hands are all over this scenario. But people are sinners and people are going to try and do it there own special way. You end up with a lot of consquences for your own actions. Does God still love us? You betcha!

The issue of Prop 8 is huge. It is a direct slap in the face to our Creator. It is blatantly going against God's commands. It is saying, "We don't need to do it your way God, we are going to do it our way."

We have compromised a lot in this area. Homosexual behavior is all over the TV and in movies. Civil right laws have been passed to accommendate a persons sexual orientation. The public schools already have a day of silence to acknowledge homosexual orientation. A law is on the CA governers desk to have a day to recognize a person, who is a homosexual, acheivements. I for one am tired of compromising. I am and will always fight for the traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Finally, we were put on this earth for God's glory. How are you truly glorifying God?
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #150
4 what it's worth

Here's a passage from Romans1:24-32
It might explain Jerry Falwell's statement about AIDS.

"24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

You are wrong about Christianity's effect in the world. Check out the history of education for the masses, the abolition of slavery, democratic government, free societies, charitable acts, civilility and gracious manners and the inspiration for the greatest works of art -- in literature, music, painting and sculpture, for starters.

You write with conviction, as though you have knowledge, but it's obvious to those who are more well-read that you are simply repeating the lies that others (no more informed than you) have repeated and even written ad infinitum. If you want to have real knowledge, you must seek truth. It takes some work but otherwise your lack of knowledge allows others to use your ignorance to serve their purposes -- which you might not otherwise support.

You might begin by reading books that were published no more recently than 50 years ago as a start. That way you will have a better grasp of the facts.
Comment Profile Image4 what'it's worth
Comment #151
freedom fighter you may be one of those who reads too much bible, you definitely read too much in what I wrote. I'm not gay, don't particularly understand it but I am for equal rights for everyone.

Where did I ever say that I reject the teachings of J.C. ? What irks me is these new so called christians of the strip malls who think they know gods thoughts, who constantly praise the lord, quote from the bible, want to bless and pray over me as if they have a better inroad to God himself. The ones who believe god has a nose and looks like us. The so called christians who (like you) believe that all eastern religions including Muslim are demonic. What a bunch of crap, all religions are the same with very few differences when you take a close look. The Muslim religion tells their followers to study the bible and to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. In my book all established religions tend to separate people rather than unite and as such are of no use to me but you are free to do as you please.

One of the biggest donors behind prop 8 is Elsa Broekhuizen, the mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince. Now there is a good christian fellow for you, the founder of Black water, that wonderful bunch of christian mercenaries and thugs who kill for profit. If Jesus was a man, he is surely rolling in his grave at what has and is being done in his name

What am I doing to glorify God you ask? I love my fellow man, will never tell him how to live unless he asks and doing my best to enjoy and take care of gods greatest gift to man, life itself and this planet we inhabit.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself. (Sophy Burnham)
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #152
I do not mean to gang up on you "4 what its worth" as I see you already have a couple of comments, however, I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to your response. You wrote, "God is love" and "beyond that we know nothing." I beg to differ- the Bible is full of God's Truth." You have mentioned more than once that some Christians read the Bible too much...I was wondering what other book you may recommend? You say that "nature" is the mother of all living creatures. This is not true. God is the Creator of all creatures, the Alpha, the Omega, the Beginning and the End. You have also been turned off by all the "strip mall" overnight preachers, which is understandable, but remember you say to not judge and that only a person can know what is going on inside of them. Well, extend the same grace to them. I can understand why the word "Christian" leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It does to even some Christians!
The current culture trend is full of Christians and many can be filled with pridefulness and judgement. A Christian still is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, and also someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their Savior and died on the cross for our sins. A Christian is set apart and does not follow the ways of the world. Since we are human, we all fall short. Thank God for His loving grace to all humanity.
On a personal note, it sounds like you have fallen for a lot of New Age type thinking "mother earth" and all that. Matthew 7:15 says "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
One verse that I have found to play out in my life is Matthew 7:7-8 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." The will of God is revealed to those who seek it.
Comment Profile Imagefreedom fighter
Comment #153
4 what it's worth

I never said you were gay. (and I reread what I wrote)?

You reject the teachings of Christ when you don't follow the teachings of Christ.

I never said that eastern religion is demonic. I never even mentioned muslims. I was just merely pointing out, that John Lennon was in fact inspired by religion. There is nothing derogatory about that statement.

One of the biggest civil right laws that passed in our time was Roe vs. Wade. That allowed women the right to chose the killing of their unborn child. It is a hard argument to say that that was the best thing for our society. However, the people spoke and we all have to live with the dire consequences of that law passing. Prop 4 was not passed. Now the right of a minor who gets pregnant can go and have an abortion with her parents not knowing about it. Not only that, but if her pregnancy came about through a sexual predator, he can take her to kill off the evidence he has implanted in her. Again, this is a hard argument to say that this is the best thing for our society. But, the people spoke and we all have to live with the dire consequences of this civil right. Some rights do not make sense. Just because we mere mortals give ourselves rights, doesn't mean that God is backing us up.

Yes, I love the bible. God's words edify my soul. Man's words and actions are ever changing. God's words and actions are true through and through. In this hyper-sensitive polictical environment that we live in, I will follow God's laws as best as I can. So therefore, I will end in scripture.

2 Timothy 3: 16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Comment Profile ImageSimple Truth
Comment #154
4 what it's worth
Regarding your statement, "If Jesus was a man, he is surely rolling in his grave at what has and is being done in his name"

There is plenty of evidence for an historical Jesus -- from secular authors as well as the Bible. Your statement ignores the fact that despite 2,000 years of investigation and injuiry not a shred of evidence has been uncovered that sheds doubt on the fact that Jesus has not been in his grave since 3 days after his death --according to the testimony of hundreds who saw the risen Jesus. You might want to put a little effort into checking that out, since you are so keen on using your intelligence.
Comment Profile ImageWebmaster
Comment #155 | Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Some of you may have noticed the ordering of the comments was a little bit off due to a problem with the time and date when each comment was made. This has been corrected, however many of the dates for the comments prior will be missing.
Comment Profile ImageJACKSON
Comment #156 | Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:36 am
to: Mike from MN
I've read every one of your posts. And there are LOTS of them. You are a valiant defender of civil rights and equality. You have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of our constitution and the fundamentals of justice. Thank you.
Comment Profile ImageGet over it!
Comment #157 | Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:14 am
Proposition 8 was passed, by the majority, so get over it. But understand, the 4 liberal state supreme court justices, will find some way, to overrule it, once again, in March of 2009.

Too bad they were appointed instead of elected positions. CHECKS AND BALANCES, how convenient!
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #158 | Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:23 am
One thing to keep in mind is that we are NOT supposed to be a "democracy" in this country. We are supposed to be a "republic". A "democracy" means rule by the majority, whereas, "republic" means rule by the law (the Constitution). So just because the majority ruled it, doesn't mean that it should be. The danger of a "democracy" is the further dismanteling of our Constitution and "mob rule". I personally voted in favor of Prop 8 because I am not in favor of gay marriage, however, what is the constitionality aspect of gay marriage? This was a hard one for me and still is.
Comment Profile ImageLA
Comment #159 | Wednesday, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hey Homeschooling mom~
Looks like people are still pondering "the republic". Yes, it is a lot to take in, especially when our very own military agenda is "spreading democracy globally." Democracy- 2 wolves and a lamb asking what's for dinner. Again- I started out caring less about the homosexual people "marrying" eachother... when the public schools used it to further attack the innocence of our children, that's when I decided that you can't bargain with what's right and wrong. Hey- if it's too confusing for children, there might be a slight problem. Kids are smarter than some think.
Comment Profile ImageRidiculous
Comment #160 | Thursday, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:37 am
When did our nation become so based on religion?!

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law".

USA should not have laws based on what religious people feel is right. I was so disappointed in CA for passing prop 8.
Comment Profile ImageDumb
Comment #161 | Thursday, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:05 am
listen, if same-sex couples want to live as miserable as traditional couples...let them... divorce lawyers then have more money to drive around in their BMWs and own beach front property...
Comment Profile ImageTo comment #162
Comment #162 | Monday, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:27 am
Holocaust well and alive here in the U.S. last time I checked- we just don't need a Hitler here. We are willing subjects- ever heard of abortion? Funny those for Prop 8 are also for children and families- since that is the way they are procreated- you know, moms and dads. Recognize our own holocaust here, recognize the obliteration of the family and how you are a useful tool to further annihilate it.
Comment Profile ImageHuman Mother
Comment #163 | Friday, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm
It just seems to me that religion has played way too big of a part in the whole prop8 issue. When you take it out of the equasion there is not much holding up the support for it. Why do we as a society have to be this way. Religion can make people fly a plane into a building or use children as human shields in ther deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. Religion seems to be fostering hate everywhere you look. Don't try to tell me that you are a "good Christian" or whatever faith you follow blindly when you condemn those who think differently from you. I cannot tell you how many "good Christians" have told me that I am going to hell for not believing in their Jesus. I prefer not to fall into the delusional world of blind faith. I try to just be a good human and instill that in my kids. That means accepting everyone as equal human beings regardless of their race, sexual orientation or what have you. I happen to be hetero and married to a man but no one had to vote in order for me to get married. How fair is that? We all as humans have the right to love and be loved by any other human that we wish. I will continue to fight for the equality of all humans in regards to prop 8. Let's not contunie to spread hate as a family value.
Comment Profile ImageStarbuck
Comment #164 | Tuesday, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
Mike in MN: Is it okay then in your opinion for polygamy to be legal, for incest to be legal, for the man/boy society to exist legally? According to your group, these above are considered gross. Cannot the human race have opinions of your lifestyle then? Your entire argument is trying to convince the populace that your lifestyle is okay. The majority of the people disagree Mike. They do not want to be told they have to agree with the way you live, that IS there right.
Comment Profile ImageTehWarGod
Comment #165 | Friday, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:59 am
its left to your own opinion. get over it. you lost. more people wanted this than not. accept it. move on. look to your new president for "change"...... like the 3.5 trillion dollar cap and trade bill he wants to pass. the bill wil be passed to corporations. guess who the corporations will likely make take some of the load. US. wow. thats change i want for sure.
Comment Profile ImageGod
Comment #166 | Saturday, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm
MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY EACHOTHER!
if you don't agree then you're just a pathetic and stupid loser!
Comment Profile ImageTim
Comment #167 | Saturday, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Prop 8 passed because Marriage is for a man and women. Civil partnerships for others. No hate, no discrimination. Last I check being gay was not a protected class in the constitution. Lobby you legislature for those "missing rights" under the civil partnership. I could not find a one in my search. The discrimination claim is a "red herring".
Comment Profile ImageRepublicansaredumb.
Comment #168 | Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 am
Just Religious people being uncomfortable about the
Bible not telling them what to do...
Comment Profile Imagep.S
Comment #169 | Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:21 am
Last time I checked the bible wasn't in the constitution therefore one shouldnt use this as a means to back up one's argument for voting yes on prop 8- it just makes one look kind of stupid when sitting here quoting verse after verse. The supreme court and the state will not care. In fact, I dare you show up to court with a bible as your argument and only this. They may just laugh.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageWowFallbrook
Comment #170 | Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:23 am
We need to grow up. well, not "we" but for sure YOU.
you see, unlike you- I know uneducated when I see it, and thats what this town is. (I can hardly call it a town.)
This village is naive. Disgusting. You should be ashamed. Voting yes on prop 8 is like saying only STRAIGHT white, mid-upper class, republican christians live here and everything else is "not normal" and "not natural" and "not right" and therefore "aganist God". You need to step outside of church once in a while and open your eyes outside of Fallbrook and you'll see there is so much more to this world then worrying about what other peoples should and should not be allowed to do. are you worried that gay people are going to take the sacredness out of marriage? OH, like "who wants to marry a billionare", "The Bachelor" and "Rock Of Love" dont?? Like dating sites and Mail-Order Brides and our divorce rates dont??? Most of you treat marriage like dating anyways, with you almost going on your 3rd marriage anyway, - and you worry what somone else is doing with their love life?!?!? GET OVER IT. A GAY PERSON IS NOT GOING TO MARRY YOU. DO NOT WORRY AND PLEASE MIND YOUR BUSINESS. THANK YOU.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageUnderaRock
Comment #171 | Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:04 am
Wow. You people must live under a rock. Conservatives may feel comfortable in your tight-lipped ways but Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, sorry.

Why dont you spend your time reading a book other than the bible, like maybe a science book? Learn about evolution- its not just about monkeys. I swear. No on prop 8. we may as well go back to WHITE ONLY drinking fountains..huh? Its very UN-Christian of you. God loves the Gays.
Comment Profile ImageSpread Love Not Hate
Comment #172 | Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:43 pm
The bible teaches to love and respect your neighbor.
Not to judge.
Not to discriminate.


So what's the problem here?
Lets teach our kids to love eachother, respect eachother, and to hey. MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

NO ON PROP 8.
NO TO HATE.
YES TO TOLERANCE.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageSpread Love Not Hate
Comment #173 | Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:44 pm
To: Homeschooling Mom,
You're teaching your kids to judge.


I thought the bible says to love and respect your neighbor.
Even if their different.
So what's the problem?

NO ON PROP 8
NO ON HATE
YES ON TOLERANCE
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageSpread Love Not Hate
Comment #174 | Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:44 pm
To: Homeschooling Mom,
I feel sorry for your kids.
Gay's have been around for YEARS. Wake up and smell the roses.
NO ON PROP 8.
NO ON HATE.

YES ON TOLERANCE.

If you yourself believe it's wrong, and teach that it's wrong. Your kids act the exact same way.
Lets stop teaching your kids what YOU THINK is wrong.
Lets start teaching our kids about understanding, tolerance, education, and open-minds and hey, to think and make decisions for themselves. Thats a thought.

ONE LOVE

I thought the bible teaches to love and respect your neighbor.
Even if their different.
Comment Profile Imagehomeschooling mom
Comment #175 | Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm
To "Spread Love Not Hate"- I am not teaching my children to judge, they do not even know what homosexuality is. Haven't had the need to inform as of yet.
I love and respect ALL of my neighbors and so do my children. We are one of those families waving to people as they drive by, talking to people as we walk around town and our neighborhood, we just have a ball and enjoy life!
As far as my children making decisions and thinking for themselves, don't we all eventually?
Comment Profile ImageSpread Love Not Hate
Comment #176 | Thursday, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm
To Homeschooling mom:

Well congrats on being a nice gal. Too bad it's really a front.
God says LOVE your neighbor. Not make it illigal for them to get married.
And yes, we all do eventually make our own decisions..driven by the core of our bringing-up. Tell me..all the kids ages 10-16 that were protesting on my streets holding signs saying YES ON PROP EIGHT, and yelling at people who opposed..where do they get their opinions? Oh, that's right..from their parents to preach it.

NO ON PROP 8
Comment Profile ImageHomeschooling mom
Comment #177 | Tuesday, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:43 pm
To Spread Love Not Hate: interestingly enough, you are the one that sounds hateful and angry. You sound like if you are nice, that it would be a front for you. EVERYONE learns from their parents and the environment that they grow up in. Don't be so angry when others raise their children contrary to the way they you believe they should be. We are not all carbon copies of each other and have the freedom to raise our children as we deem fit.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #178 | Thursday, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
Yippee!!Argentina's Senate just a few hours ago approved a bill approving same sex marriage by a vote of 33 to 27. The lower house approved it by a much wider margin in May. It now goes to the President who has stated she will support it!!!
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #179 | Friday, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:16 pm
What a wonderful day Wednesday the 4th was !! Hopefully as this matter continues to work its way through the judicial process Proposition 8 will finally join the dustbin of history where it so rightfully belongs!!
Comment Profile Imagestraight
Comment #180 | Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 pm
YES on Prop 8 all the way!
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #181 | Friday, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm
New York State has just legalized same sex marriage! Congragulations to all in the Empire State!
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #182 | Monday, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm
And the march for progress continues in Washington State. Enough state legislators have announced support for marriage equality to now allow that bill to pass both the houses of the legislature. Governor Gregoire has said she will sign it.

Congragulations to all in the Evergreen State!
Comment Profile ImageLeaveReligionOut!
Comment #183 | Sunday, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Some of you do not want schools to teach about sex. Did you know YOUR children are more likely to get molested and sexually abused? School are teaching these subjects because parents aren't doing their jobs.

As for this prop. We established a separation of church and state right. Then why do we still say that marriage is between a man and a woman? That is religion. The bill should be passed because your arguments are purely religious.

Marriage is a legal matter. For religious people you have your religious ceremonies right? But before that you need to get your marriage licence.... and please tell me where do you get that marriage licence?

Yea, that's right! Its a legal matter!

Everyone always brings their children into these matters and all I can say is that you can't shield them forever. Seriously we all need to start thinking more critically. You people argue and argue these simple matters when you should be looking at the big picture. This is the reason our country has fallen so low.

If you want your children to be sheltered and not have anything to do with gay rights, gay marriage or what ever else move to Europe.

Because marriage is a legal issue leave religion out of it!!!
Comment Profile ImageClosets are for clothes
Comment #184 | Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm
The KKK and other white supermicist organizations, after the civil rights movement generated new laws proctecting the rights of Blacks in the US continued to fignt the inevitable But the days of white supremacy were over. We all know that marriage equality is coming, there is no reason to deny marriage to loving same sex couples, but they will continue on fighting a losing battle to prevent the advancement of the LGBT community.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile Imageand.....
Comment #185 | Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Bonsalgayguy- you forgot Maryland just legalized SSM
Comment Profile ImageSTeLLa
Comment #186 | Friday, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Wow— marry who you want to marry, whats all the drama about..geeesusssss..so ridicuous !
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #187 | Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:34 pm
While civil rights should never be the subject of public plebiscite, it's great news indeed that attempted anti-gay marriage roll backs at the ballot box have apparently failed in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State! And now after numerous judicial rulings that DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is in part or wholly unconstitutional and a ruling that Prop 8 is also unconstitutional, it's now only a matter of time before marriage rights are legally restored to same sex couples here in California. YES!
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #188 | Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm
From today's Sacramento Bee, State Senate President Darrell Steinberg said:

"Depending upon what the Supreme Court might or might not do with Proposition 8, in coalition with stakeholders and the gay and lesbian leadership, if it were appropriate and necessary to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot with our two-thirds supermajority, I would be open to that."

This is great news! One of the most expensive aspects of passing a referendum in this state is the shear cost of qualifying (signature gathering) a ballot initiative which in this case would have to be borne by the pro-equality side.

So either through the courts, or if necessary via the ballot box, I'm now more confident than ever that marriage rights will eventually be returned to same sex couples here in California.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #189 | Wednesday, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Wonderful news today out of Mexico. That nation's highest court, La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion (SCJN), has just struck down the State of Oaxaca's ban on same sex marriage and all other such state bans as unconstitutional. Several years ago the Mexican Supreme Court also struck down rules barring the recognition of same sex marriages performed by Mexican States that had legalized marriage equality (at that time only 2 Mexican States/jurisdictions had legalized the practice, The State of Cohuila and the Federal District of Mexico City). While that ruling virtually nationalized marriage licenses between same sex couples by making these licenses portable and legally valid and enforceable throughout the country, today's ruling goes much, much further.


While the Mexican Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to order individual Mexican States to end their discriminatory marriage practices (unlike the US Supreme Court), it does leave all remaining Mexican States without ANY legal ability to constitutionally defend excluding same sex couples from being granted licenses. The country's largest gay and lesbian civil rights organization stated after today's decision that they will within the next 30 days systematically launch lawsuits against every Mexican State that does not voluntarily comply with the SCJN 's decision and remove discriminatory language from individual state marriage laws. Consequently, within a matter of a month or so, same sex marriage will be legal throughout Mexico!!


ˇViva México!
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #190 | Friday, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm
It looks like the big announcement leading up to what may be the final decision on Prop 8. The US Supreme Court announced today that it will take up argument over its constitutionality as well as that of DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act) and issue an opinion as early as sometime this Spring.
Comment Profile ImageknonOvanginee
Comment #191 | Monday, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Peter DeGeorge has versatility as a player that is truly a rare find. He is quick on his feet and thinks even quicker under pressure. Nothing seems to rattle this young player. Warm-ups were run by the captains and everyone appeared to be As soon as the whistle blew it was clear that it would be a tough competition. The first half was an even battle where the Dublin team was pushed to their limits. At half time Eagle Hill was up 1-0.

Is this a "Fantasy Island" that can never be reached? No it is not. In fact, no magical machine is needed. We all have the power to create any kind of life we want. A well-designed program can improve performance by increasing players' speed and acceleration abilities. Power combines components of speed and strength, and in most cases the player with the most soccer-specific power will outperform the opponent. Further, training can prevent injuries.

Provide Exceptional Service - The relationships we have with our clients are paramount. A lot of companies have great technical expertise - just look at how many people are coming out of university with computer science degrees. It's the packaging and delivering customer satisfaction that drives our business.

There are a number of materials that can be used for sunglass frames, from plastic and basic metal to specialty lightweight metals such as titanium and stainless steel. You'll want to select a frame that fits comfortable on your face, or one that can be adjusted by tightening the screws or reforming the side arms. A close fitting pair of wrap around glasses provides the best protection,

As you start to learn all of the soccer positions, you will also start to learn about the way the game is played and some of the rules. For instance you will learn that only the goaltender can use his hands while everyone else has to stick to fancy footwork to get the ball down the field. You will also learn that unlike the games of baseball and American football where each player has a definitive role, soccer players fulfill dual roles no matter where they are lining up on the field.

On the map it's not far, merely a few short centimetres towards the Arctic Circle. In reality it's almost 650km from Helsinki, forcing an inspired last-minute tactical adjustment. Dropping the road-trip idea to the subs bench, I drafted in the extra pace of a budget flight to the west coast city of Oulu and put my faith in an unyielding Russian defence.

Football (Soccer) is a subject that builds great emotion in the heart of the average british male (and some females too). People will happily spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds per year going to watch their favourite team, they buy the latest 'strip', they travel hundreds of miles to watch away games, they pay for Sky TV to watch the best matches live and even travel abroad to watch a match. Football (or Soccer if you are in the US) is a revered sport of gods
Comment Profile Imagejan 4 justice
Comment #192 | Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm
no on hate!

civil rights are not a popularity contest!!!!!!!
Comment Profile ImageBrittany
Comment #193 | Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Yes on Prop 8.
Comment Profile ImageKC
Comment #194 | Thursday, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:59 am
No on 8.
Comment Profile ImagePublic Educator
Comment #195 | Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Thank you to Mike in MN, Homeschooling Mom and other critical thinkers along the way. I feel very lucky to have stumbled upon the substantive parts of this conversation. The conversation itself is a hallmark of the rapid social evolution we are priviledged to be a part of in our short time on this earth. While I have strong opinions about the gay marriage debate, I am not writing to share these since most has been said. Instead I am writing to share my thoughts on comments made about public schools, homeschooling and teaching and learning in general. It strikes me as odd that anyone can separate "The Three Rs" of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic from social issues, religious beliefs and politics since at least Reading and Writing, what I will refer to as Literacy are mostly acts of thinking. The acts of decoding and encoding words through letters are meaningless without thought. Thus, when anyone is reading or writing something they understand, they are thinking. In our reading and writing throughout this conversation we are constantly searching for understanding and ways to be understood. This is Literacy. Unfortunately, many people are trapped by meager literacy skills without knowing it. Very few have learned that every time we read, writ or interact with any media, we are constructing understanding which is neither static nor finite. As a mother and an elementary school teacher it is my job to teach students the mechanics of reading and writing and provide the conditions for thinking about everything we read, write, say, hear and do. I teach students that they are thinking and constructing meaning and understanding all the time. It is never my job, in fact it is against the law, for me to teach students WHAT to think. Students in public schools know something about what is happening in the world around them. It is my job to present only facts and multiple perspectives in an age-appropriate and unemotional, unbiased way. Students are always encouraged to go home and find out what their families believe and why. Students are not encouraged to debate controversial issues that could make anyone feel that their beliefs or values are invalid or under attack. Leave that work for adults to manage outside of schools. We cannot "teach" gay marriage. We cannot teach "evolution". We cannot "teach" sex or abstinence. We cannot "teach" abortion. We can only present facts, multiple theories and beliefs and encourage students to explore the facts, theories and beliefs further if they are interested. We cannot share our own beliefs. We can only work to make sure everyone feels safe and valued in our school regardless of their beliefs. True education provides each of us with the capacity for respectful dialogue, thoughtful research and searches for understanding and ultimately acceptance and respect for human life and life in general. Educate yourself. Provide the conditions for education in all circles of your life. Support true education and question when teaching and learning look more like indoctrination than thinking.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #196 | Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 11:12 pm
In the past month France, New Zealand and Uruguay have now legalized full marriage equality for all of their citizens. They now join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Sweden, Portugal, Norway, Argentina, Iceland, Denmark and several Mexican states that have already done so.


In Brazil another 2 states in that country in the past month have also legalized same sex marriage now making 15 states out of 26 and covering fully 72% of the Brazilian population that allow their gay and lesbian citizens full marriage rights under the law.


Great Britain is currently debating the matter and it would appear to be on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage as well since legislation was debated and approved in the House of Commons recently on 175-400 vote. The Scottish Parliament has now finished a public consultative process and has also voted in favor.


Surprisingly in of all places, Vietnam's parliament will be debating whether to legalize same sex marriage either later this year or next. Vietnamese Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuaong has stated his support. Although actual passage there remains highly unlikely at this time, the fact that it is being debated at all is a crucial first step in the right direction.


In Australia a now record breaking number of MPs favor legalization despite Prime Minister Julia Gillard's opposition. All public opinion polls conducted over the past several years show a solid majority of Australians in favor of marriage equality and an even larger majority of Ms. Gillard's own Labor Party voters in favor.


Here in the United States within the last few weeks, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota have legalized same sex marriage. This brings to 12 states plus the District of Columbia that now embrace equality for all citizens, gay or straight. Marriage equality bills have been introduced in several other states with the one in Illinois to be up next for consideration in the next few weeks.


How much longer will California continue to lag behind?
Comment Profile ImagePublic Educator
Comment #197 | Saturday, May 25, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Policies will not lag behind for long, but unfortunately there are individuals everywhere who refuse to examine their beliefs and actions deeply and critically. Over time what is just and good prevails....but we may not live to see this time. Still, we help to bring the change.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #198 | Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:32 am
Yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court (NJSC) ordered by a 7-0 vote that same sex marriages can now proceed in that state. This is not the final decision (that will come sometime early next year). However with the NJSC's strong language in its order declaring that the New Jersey State Constitution's equal protection clause was being violated by the continued withholding of civil marriage licenses from same sex couples and that Governor Christie's appeal to stop same sex marriage has little chance of succeeding on the legal merits, it appears that New Jersey is now the 14th state to do away with its discriminatory anti-gay marriage laws.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/samesex/Supreme%20Court%20Opinion%20on%20Stay%20Motion.pdf
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #199 | Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Former President George W Bush is now the only living US President who has not expressed public support for same sex marriage. His father, former President Herbert Walker Bush recently served as an official witness to the marriage of a lesbian couple who own a store near the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine. For photos and further details please see the linked article from US News and World Report and The Washington Post.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/27/george-w-bush-silent-on-same-sex-marriage-after-dad-helps-legalize-one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/25/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-marriage-in-maine/

Former First Ladies Barbara Bush and Laura Bush along with former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne have each made statements of support as well over the past few years.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #200 | Tuesday, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Marriage equality has now come to the "Land of Lincoln". Several minutes ago the Illinois State Legislature has approved that state's marriage equality bill. Illinois now makes the 15th state to have adopted marriage equality.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #201 | Saturday, Nov 9, 2013 at 1:29 am
Hawaii just moments ago passed its marriage equality bill making it the 16th state to have done away with its discriminatory marriage laws. With the addition of Hawaii, a full 38 plus percent of the American people now live in states that grant their gay and lesbian residents the right to receive a state issued civil marriage license. Aloha!
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #202 | Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm
New Mexico yesterday became the 17th state (along with the District of Columbia) to fully recognize civil marriage rights for its gay and lesbian residents.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #203 | Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:35 am
Today a US District Court judge struck down Utah's ban on same sex marriage. State officials have vowed to appeal. But for the moment at least, Utah now becomes the 18th state to end its discriminatory civil marriage licensing practices against its gay and lesbian residents.
Comment Profile Imagered camaro
Comment #204 | Wednesday, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:16 am
Gay marriage is here to stay in Utah no matter what some might think in a certain local church:

"And all the church priesthood and all the church men couldn't exclude gays from marriage again!"
Comment Profile ImageLee
Comment #205 | Sunday, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:01 pm
"Love" between two men or two women is not love; it is insanity.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #206 | Tuesday, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:51 am
Regarding comment #205. The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The California Medical Association, etc., would all respectfully disagree. In their combined amicus brief submitted on behalf of Edith Windsor in the case United States vs. Windsor, they state that "homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality" and that sexual orientation (both homosexual and heterosexual) is an innate characteristic without intrinsic deleterious consequence for the individual or society at large.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #207 | Tuesday, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:54 am
In January Oklahoma's ban on same sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court as violating the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Similarly this month Virginia's ban on same sex marriage was likewise ruled unconstitutional on both equal protection and due process grounds. Both of these decisions (like Utah's previously) are the subjects of continued litigation before being finalized. Several legal scholars predict that the Virginia case may be what possibly again brings this matter before the United States Supreme Court. Currently there are lawsuits in 24 other states challenging legal prohibitions on same sex marriage.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #208 | Saturday, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Yesterday Michigan's ban on same sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional as having violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. This comes on the heels of last month's federal court decision striking down a similar law in Texas. Today Michigan's Attorney General received a temporary stay to allow that state the opportunity to appeal the decision before giving out additional marriage licenses to same sex couples. There are also currently stays in place of similar pro-gay marriage rulings in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia and Texas.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.




Disclaimer

The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its' policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.

RSS FeedFacebookTwitter



Advertisement for Fallbrook Healthcare Partners


Subscribe





Most Commented


Reach Local Customers



The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 1588 S. Mission Rd. Suite 200, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2014
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login