The question of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry has drawn protesters and supporters to the streets near Fresno State in the past few weeks.
Supporters of Proposition 8 wave posters in the air on the corner of Herndon and Cedar and just down the road on Maple, a similarly resounding opposition is raised by demonstrators.
But on Nov. 4, the right of homosexual couples to marry in California will be in the hands of voters. Prop. 8 would add a new amendment to the California Constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,â€Â according to California General Election Official Voter Information Guide. This amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Many students would be affected by the outcome of Prop. 8 including Tom Hayhurst who married his partner, Dan Waterhouse, a Fresno State graduate, on Oct. 29. They met about five years ago, in the spring of 2003.
Waterhouse and Hayhurst are hopeful the proposition will not pass.
“We’d love to see it lose,â€Â Waterhouse said. The two had a very simple civil ceremony but they plan to follow it up celebrating with family and friends in the future.
When it comes to the proposition, Hayhurst and Waterhouse feel the heart of the matter is that their civil rights are being challenged.
“A fundamental right cannot be made unconstitutional,â€Â said Hayhurst, “and marrying someone of your own choice is a fundamental right.â€Â
Originally they had planned to marry after the first of the year, but Prop. 8 changed that. In order to allow their union to be legally recognized, regardless of the election’s outcome, the two had to move up the marriage date. According to Waterhouse, “Everyone married before midnight Nov. 4 should remain so, regardless of the vote.â€Â
“The word marriage is basically just a word, but it expresses the commitment and is a civil right I’m entitled to,â€Â Hayhurst said.
That commitment is something both are dedicated to; they have engaged in many rallies against the proposition and have put many hours into the cause.
Joining them at many of these rallies are Dakota Draconi and her wife, Corky Draconi. Dakota is the Vice President of United Student Pride, the LGBT club on the Fresno State Campus.
The two women, like Hayhurst and Waterhouse, have been exceedingly dedicated to the “No on Proposition 8â€Â cause. They were married on Aug. 30, and were thrilled to have the same legal rights as married straight couples.
Many supporters of Prop. 8 claim homosexual couples share the same rights as straight couples under domestic partnership laws, only without the legal designation of “marriage.â€Â According to the experiences of both couples, restrictions under these laws are many, and those differences are at the front lines of their argument.
Dakota shared a repetitive fear she has every time her spouse walks out the door.
“For years it wasn’t just that I was afraid she would get into an accident. It was more than that. I was afraid that she would get into an accident, and I wouldn’t be allowed to be with her in the hospital.â€Â
Under domestic partnership laws, unmarried domestic partners do not share the legal rights of visitation and medical decisions as legally married couples. They also do not share the legal standing of married couples in inheritance cases.
Katie Bishop is a married college student at Fresno State who supports Prop. 8. Bishop is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and bases her support on her religion.
“I support Prop. 8 mainly for religious reasons,â€Â Bishop said. “Marriage has been ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Any other definition would not fulfill the purpose of family life. I believe that children need a mother and a father. Gender is an essential role and characteristic that was given to us to provide for our children and our communities. Both men and women have something unique to give to children and this is taken away when the child is raised by a same-sex couple.â€Â
But Bishop was certain to point out she had no problem with homosexuals as individuals, although she supported Prop. 8.
“I am not homophobic and I have nothing but positive feelings for those who are involved in a same-sex relationship,â€Â Bishop said. “I do not agree with their lifestyle choices, but I recognize that it is their choice and every person should be allowed to live the way they so choose.â€Â
Preservation of traditional marriage was a major reason Bishop supports Prop. 8. However, Dakota saw this a different way.
“The threat to traditional marriage is divorce, and interpersonal violence,â€Â she said.
The Draconis, along with Waterhouse and Hayhurst, both felt religion was not the heart of the issue. Dakota asked if her friend, who was Buddhist, should not be allowed to get married for religious reasons.
She continued to address another issue often raised about the purpose of marriage; procreation.
“If marriage’s purpose is to create children, then should old people not be allowed to get married? What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to get married?â€Â Dakota asked.
Prop. 8 will go before California voters on Tuesday, and neither side is certain which way it will go.
“It is a dead heat, and every vote counts,â€Â Hayhurst said.
Kevin F • Nov 11, 2008 at 11:36 pm
JasonJack or whatever your name was… before you try to blame gays for marriage decline in Finland why don’t you get your facts STRAIGHT.
Same-sex marriages are NOT legal in Finland!! Let me educate you where it’s legal:
South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Norway (beinging Jan-01-2009), the U.S. states of Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Oh, and if you did your research, you would see that out of all the states in the U.S., Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate still, and they’ve had gay marriage for more than 4 years.
Kevin F • Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 am
JasonJack or whatever your name was… before you try to blame gays for marriage decline in Finland why don’t you get your facts STRAIGHT.
Same-sex marriages are NOT legal in Finland!! Let me educate you where it’s legal:
South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Norway (beinging Jan-01-2009), the U.S. states of Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Oh, and if you did your research, you would see that out of all the states in the U.S., Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate still, and they’ve had gay marriage for more than 4 years.
Logical • Nov 5, 2008 at 9:44 am
Brandon,
While i accept that the argument may be weak. It is still part of the equation.
Two of the things that I feel did the worst damage for the gay cause in the media..
1) Gavin Newsom boasts that, “whether you like it or not”
Because it’s clearer now that we, the people don’t like it, and don’t like having it shoved down our throats.
2) Gay Marriage Day For 1st Graders.
Taking a class 1st Graders (that had permission, granted) to a gay marriage hit to close to home with many parents. It may have seemed that logical thing to do from the gay perspective. But this was not like taking them to watch the first moon launch. It only shocked many parents into drawing a line and feeling it had been crossed.
Logical • Nov 5, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Brandon,
While i accept that the argument may be weak. It is still part of the equation.
Two of the things that I feel did the worst damage for the gay cause in the media..
1) Gavin Newsom boasts that, “whether you like it or not”
Because it’s clearer now that we, the people don’t like it, and don’t like having it shoved down our throats.
2) Gay Marriage Day For 1st Graders.
Taking a class 1st Graders (that had permission, granted) to a gay marriage hit to close to home with many parents. It may have seemed that logical thing to do from the gay perspective. But this was not like taking them to watch the first moon launch. It only shocked many parents into drawing a line and feeling it had been crossed.
Brandon • Nov 5, 2008 at 12:17 am
Logical,
Yes, But both of those classes are electives and are not required. A parent can very easily not allow their child to be part of them. In fact a permission slip is sent home with a full list of the curriculum of such classes, so the student doesn’t get to end up in one of those classes without the parents permission. ( I checked with two of the local schools.)
This simply is not a good argument in any form to not allow it.
Brandon • Nov 5, 2008 at 7:17 am
Logical,
Yes, But both of those classes are electives and are not required. A parent can very easily not allow their child to be part of them. In fact a permission slip is sent home with a full list of the curriculum of such classes, so the student doesn’t get to end up in one of those classes without the parents permission. ( I checked with two of the local schools.)
This simply is not a good argument in any form to not allow it.
Logical • Nov 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Brandon,
Thanks for the feedback, you are correct for 75% of the schools. I did some quick looking and it seems that only about 25% of the schools in Calif rely on some special funding from the state that comes with strings attached. The strings being among other things are that they are mandated to teach about marriage as part of home economics and sex education.. So if the issue was to be pressed they could effected by a loss of funding if they objected to being forced to included gay marriage in the curriculum. I would assume this is in the middle school years.
“Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach “comprehensive sex educationâ€Â have to teach, “respect for marriage and committed relationshipsâ€Â. This is something no school district can get around.”
Logical • Nov 5, 2008 at 4:55 am
Brandon,
Thanks for the feedback, you are correct for 75% of the schools. I did some quick looking and it seems that only about 25% of the schools in Calif rely on some special funding from the state that comes with strings attached. The strings being among other things are that they are mandated to teach about marriage as part of home economics and sex education.. So if the issue was to be pressed they could effected by a loss of funding if they objected to being forced to included gay marriage in the curriculum. I would assume this is in the middle school years.
“Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach “comprehensive sex education” have to teach, “respect for marriage and committed relationships”. This is something no school district can get around.”
Brandon • Nov 4, 2008 at 3:11 am
Logical,
They are suddenly going to start teaching about marriage in school because gay marriage is now allowed? I have two girls in school. One is half way through high school. They never had a class that taught about marriage. Not once.
So that argument is not valid. Schools aren’t going to suddenly start teaching about marriage because gay marriage is suddenly legal.
Also in the state of California where this law is going to be passed any parent may remove their student from a class that teaches anything they don’t wish their child to learn. It’s in the law. Check it out. I know. I have used it in the past.
Brandon • Nov 4, 2008 at 10:11 am
Logical,
They are suddenly going to start teaching about marriage in school because gay marriage is now allowed? I have two girls in school. One is half way through high school. They never had a class that taught about marriage. Not once.
So that argument is not valid. Schools aren’t going to suddenly start teaching about marriage because gay marriage is suddenly legal.
Also in the state of California where this law is going to be passed any parent may remove their student from a class that teaches anything they don’t wish their child to learn. It’s in the law. Check it out. I know. I have used it in the past.
Logical • Nov 4, 2008 at 1:09 am
Kay Lynn ,
While I agree with you about the bickering here. Keep in mind that if our fore fathers had lost the war (Thats right WAR, the worst form of bickering) They would have been hung, shot or otherwise executed for being traitors, spy’s and other crimes against the government. When you push people to the point they no longer agree with the government they live under they have a big tea party and create their own set of laws. You might know it as the Deceleration of Independence. I would not be ashamed thinking that our fore fathers whom, killed, burned and destroyed to make their point and win Independence might look down or not be proud of us. They may very well be disgusted that we have not fought hard enough to preserve the intent of their original laws. This is not meant as an attack on gays or anyone for that matter, It is just a point of facts in history and my opinion. Personally my worst fear is that Prop 8 will fail and the real battles begin. Hell has no furry like the Soccer Mom that feels she is trying to protect her child by keeping them home the day they teach gay life at school.
PS, Please don’t insult my intelligence trying to say they don’t have to teach gay marriage in schools ( I have seen the ads), just look how fundamental rights are used to make the case for gay marriage. It is clear that if it remains law. The first time it’s challenged in a school the gay rights groups will be right there trying to shut down the school and have all the teachers that don’t want to teach gay marriage fired. If you say that is not going to happen then you are only fooling yourselfs… They will be there waving the law, tossing personal rights and tolerance out the window. You ask how can i say this… because gay or not it’s what the winner of any battle would do..
Logical • Nov 4, 2008 at 8:09 am
Kay Lynn ,
While I agree with you about the bickering here. Keep in mind that if our fore fathers had lost the war (Thats right WAR, the worst form of bickering) They would have been hung, shot or otherwise executed for being traitors, spy’s and other crimes against the government. When you push people to the point they no longer agree with the government they live under they have a big tea party and create their own set of laws. You might know it as the Deceleration of Independence. I would not be ashamed thinking that our fore fathers whom, killed, burned and destroyed to make their point and win Independence might look down or not be proud of us. They may very well be disgusted that we have not fought hard enough to preserve the intent of their original laws. This is not meant as an attack on gays or anyone for that matter, It is just a point of facts in history and my opinion. Personally my worst fear is that Prop 8 will fail and the real battles begin. Hell has no furry like the Soccer Mom that feels she is trying to protect her child by keeping them home the day they teach gay life at school.
PS, Please don’t insult my intelligence trying to say they don’t have to teach gay marriage in schools ( I have seen the ads), just look how fundamental rights are used to make the case for gay marriage. It is clear that if it remains law. The first time it’s challenged in a school the gay rights groups will be right there trying to shut down the school and have all the teachers that don’t want to teach gay marriage fired. If you say that is not going to happen then you are only fooling yourselfs… They will be there waving the law, tossing personal rights and tolerance out the window. You ask how can i say this… because gay or not it’s what the winner of any battle would do..
Pat Chris • Nov 4, 2008 at 6:23 am
For all those people out there prepared to vote no on this proposition, I must encourage you to broaden your views on the issue and ask yourself if this proposition is not too restrictive. I am an individual full of love. I happen to love people, lots of people. What if I want to marry, three men, and six women? Why can’t I do that? I also happen to love my family members. Can’t I marry them as well, my brothers, sister, parents and cousins? I also really love animals; dogs, cats, goats, horses. I want to marry them, all of them, I love them.
Should not the great state of California give the same equal recognition to my choice and hopes for marriage, as traditional heterosexual marriage, or same sex marriage?
So let me ask you, my fellow proponents who are prepared to vote no on prop 8. Do any of my views make you uncomfortable? Would you have a problem with public schools teaching your children that polyandry, polygyny, marriage of man and beast and marriage to family members is normal and equal in the eyes of the state? If my comments make you uncomfortable, then you are to narrow minded, insensitive, and intolerant. Why must the definition of marriage in California be numerically, sexually and specie restrictive. Let me remind you, people like me love people, animals and lots of other things; and I want, no demand the right to marry all of them. I ask you, my fellow Californians who are prepared to vote no on proposition 8, to respond and support truly unrestricted marriage in California. Will you, my fellow ‘no on 8”² voters pledge to support those of us who want to marry beast, cousin and multiple persons?
Pat Chris • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:23 pm
For all those people out there prepared to vote no on this proposition, I must encourage you to broaden your views on the issue and ask yourself if this proposition is not too restrictive. I am an individual full of love. I happen to love people, lots of people. What if I want to marry, three men, and six women? Why can̢۪t I do that? I also happen to love my family members. Can̢۪t I marry them as well, my brothers, sister, parents and cousins? I also really love animals; dogs, cats, goats, horses. I want to marry them, all of them, I love them.
Should not the great state of California give the same equal recognition to my choice and hopes for marriage, as traditional heterosexual marriage, or same sex marriage?
So let me ask you, my fellow proponents who are prepared to vote no on prop 8. Do any of my views make you uncomfortable? Would you have a problem with public schools teaching your children that polyandry, polygyny, marriage of man and beast and marriage to family members is normal and equal in the eyes of the state? If my comments make you uncomfortable, then you are to narrow minded, insensitive, and intolerant. Why must the definition of marriage in California be numerically, sexually and specie restrictive. Let me remind you, people like me love people, animals and lots of other things; and I want, no demand the right to marry all of them. I ask you, my fellow Californians who are prepared to vote no on proposition 8, to respond and support truly unrestricted marriage in California. Will you, my fellow ‘no on 8′ voters pledge to support those of us who want to marry beast, cousin and multiple persons?
dw • Nov 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Norm–you think the Becket Fund is a reliable source for factual information? It’s put together by a bunch of hysterical “Christians” (and I use the term loosely) trying to whip their fellow Christianists (read Taliban) into a frenzy. Give me a break!! I believe in religious freedom, but I DON’T believe that “religious freedom” places one particular “religion” (in this case runamuck zealots) above the rest of the American people.
dw • Nov 4, 2008 at 3:09 am
Norm–you think the Becket Fund is a reliable source for factual information? It’s put together by a bunch of hysterical “Christians” (and I use the term loosely) trying to whip their fellow Christianists (read Taliban) into a frenzy. Give me a break!! I believe in religious freedom, but I DON’T believe that “religious freedom” places one particular “religion” (in this case runamuck zealots) above the rest of the American people.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Norm,
Please note that the Picarello piece is an OPINION piece. Do not pass off opinion as fact. He speculates on what *might* happen. What *will* happen if Prop 8 is passed is that people’s rights will be eliminated. Let’s deal with reality and not speculation.
The “one thing leads to another” argument cuts both ways. Prop 8 ELIMINATES RIGHTS. If it is this easy to eliminate rights for one group of people, how long until someone wants to amend the state constitution to eliminate *your* rights. It is your responsibility as an American citizen and as a Christian to protect the rights of other. Protect their rights before you lose your own.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Norm,
Please note that the Picarello piece is an OPINION piece. Do not pass off opinion as fact. He speculates on what *might* happen. What *will* happen if Prop 8 is passed is that people’s rights will be eliminated. Let’s deal with reality and not speculation.
The “one thing leads to another” argument cuts both ways. Prop 8 ELIMINATES RIGHTS. If it is this easy to eliminate rights for one group of people, how long until someone wants to amend the state constitution to eliminate *your* rights. It is your responsibility as an American citizen and as a Christian to protect the rights of other. Protect their rights before you lose your own.
The Lauderdale • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm
JasonJack: Finland doesn’t have gay marriage. Try again.
The Lauderdale • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:05 pm
JasonJack: Finland doesn’t have gay marriage. Try again.
Kay Lynn • Nov 3, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think it is up funny how both side’s of Prop 8 are going at each other. Here in America we have the right to vote any way we want and it is No One’s business which way we vote.
All the name calling is wrong and I think it is sad how everyone is ready to turn on each other at any time, our fore fathers would be so proud!!. We all need to come together and stop fighting against each other because one day none of this will matter.
Kay Lynn • Nov 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think it is up funny how both side’s of Prop 8 are going at each other. Here in America we have the right to vote any way we want and it is No One’s business which way we vote.
All the name calling is wrong and I think it is sad how everyone is ready to turn on each other at any time, our fore fathers would be so proud!!. We all need to come together and stop fighting against each other because one day none of this will matter.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:57 am
One thing leads to another. This really is the bigger problem. It will not stop with marriage. It will enter into our right to free speech and all other kinds of areas. Read the link below to see how. This is not paranoia, this is reality. It is happening already.
Religious Liberty Threats
“…making gay marriage a legal right will likely impose serious constraints on religious speech, assembly and worship; once gay marriage becomes the law, those who oppose it become outlaws.â€Â– A. Picarello, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
http://www.becketfund.org/other/NLJ%20Opinion%20SSM.pdf
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm
One thing leads to another. This really is the bigger problem. It will not stop with marriage. It will enter into our right to free speech and all other kinds of areas. Read the link below to see how. This is not paranoia, this is reality. It is happening already.
Religious Liberty Threats
“…making gay marriage a legal right will likely impose serious constraints on religious speech, assembly and worship; once gay marriage becomes the law, those who oppose it become outlaws.””“ A. Picarello, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
http://www.becketfund.org/other/NLJ%20Opinion%20SSM.pdf
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:03 am
Norm,
Please don’t jump to illogical conclusions. I was attempting to show why *this particular law* is bad from a Christian perspective. Government by man, of course, does need to make and enforce laws. But man’s laws must be careful not to infringe on the freedoms that God gave us. Anytime the state makes a law that takes away our freedom, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate an overwhelming interest *of the state* for limiting freedom. There is no such state interest in restricting same sex marriage. This is exactly why the CA Supreme Court made its ruling striking down prohibitions against same sex marriage.
Not only does this NOT take God out of society, it makes way for God IN society. It gives people to find God in their own way, and in their heart, not by force of law. You cannot legislate a belief in God, or any particular interpretation of God’s law. Government is best when it stays out of the way of people’s religious beliefs. Allowing people to believe as they will is the antithesis of the state outlawing religion.
Your argument about legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc., is also illogical. The state can (and has) demonstrated a compelling reason to enact secular laws restricting those activities. There are good *secular* reasons for having laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. The same cannot be said for same sex marriage.
Your comment wanting to follow His Word is also problematic. Different people hold different beliefs and interpretations of His Word. The United States was created as a pluralistic society, therefore different beliefs must be respected, even if they don’t agree with yours (or mine). The only way different beliefs can be respected is if secular government refrains from creating laws based purely on religious beliefs. This is the problem with Prop 8. The only argument for Prop 8 is a religious belief. There is no logical secular argument for Prop 8. When I am concerned about following His Word, I seek spiritual counsel from my Church, not my government.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Norm,
Please don’t jump to illogical conclusions. I was attempting to show why *this particular law* is bad from a Christian perspective. Government by man, of course, does need to make and enforce laws. But man’s laws must be careful not to infringe on the freedoms that God gave us. Anytime the state makes a law that takes away our freedom, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate an overwhelming interest *of the state* for limiting freedom. There is no such state interest in restricting same sex marriage. This is exactly why the CA Supreme Court made its ruling striking down prohibitions against same sex marriage.
Not only does this NOT take God out of society, it makes way for God IN society. It gives people to find God in their own way, and in their heart, not by force of law. You cannot legislate a belief in God, or any particular interpretation of God’s law. Government is best when it stays out of the way of people’s religious beliefs. Allowing people to believe as they will is the antithesis of the state outlawing religion.
Your argument about legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc., is also illogical. The state can (and has) demonstrated a compelling reason to enact secular laws restricting those activities. There are good *secular* reasons for having laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. The same cannot be said for same sex marriage.
Your comment wanting to follow His Word is also problematic. Different people hold different beliefs and interpretations of His Word. The United States was created as a pluralistic society, therefore different beliefs must be respected, even if they don’t agree with yours (or mine). The only way different beliefs can be respected is if secular government refrains from creating laws based purely on religious beliefs. This is the problem with Prop 8. The only argument for Prop 8 is a religious belief. There is no logical secular argument for Prop 8. When I am concerned about following His Word, I seek spiritual counsel from my Church, not my government.
Phil in Kansas • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:40 am
Alright, folks. Let’s put it this way. Bigotry is bigotry. Everyone has at least one. Me, I can’t stand Muslims. Even before 9/11 I didn’t like them and the towers falling just reinforced my bigotry. But the big difference between bigotry is fascism is that *I* don’t want to prevent Muslims from getting married or renting apartments. And, for the love of Pete (no pun intended), I’m a KANSAN!!! Apply the laws evenly for EVERYONE or not at all. The government can’t force your church to hold the ceremony but they can’t (or shouldn’t) prevent one consenting adult from entering into a contract with another consenting adult.
And don’t give me that red herring crap about “Buh.buh.buh… But then there’ll be polygamy and child molesters marrying 4 year olds!!” Listen to the following set of words REALLY SLOWLY so they sink in. Consenting. Adults. Legal. Contract. Can a 4 year old enter into a contract? No. Can I sell more than 100% of the stock in my company? No, so I can’t enter into a contract for more than 100% of joint assets either (i.e. polygamy.)
Good gravy, folks. A KANSAN is calling you on the carpet for being small minded and bigoted. And Mississippi looks at us and says, “Man, we may be 49th in the nation in everything but at least we’re not Kansas.”
Phil in Kansas • Nov 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Alright, folks. Let’s put it this way. Bigotry is bigotry. Everyone has at least one. Me, I can’t stand Muslims. Even before 9/11 I didn’t like them and the towers falling just reinforced my bigotry. But the big difference between bigotry is fascism is that *I* don’t want to prevent Muslims from getting married or renting apartments. And, for the love of Pete (no pun intended), I’m a KANSAN!!! Apply the laws evenly for EVERYONE or not at all. The government can’t force your church to hold the ceremony but they can’t (or shouldn’t) prevent one consenting adult from entering into a contract with another consenting adult.
And don’t give me that red herring crap about “Buh.buh.buh… But then there’ll be polygamy and child molesters marrying 4 year olds!!” Listen to the following set of words REALLY SLOWLY so they sink in. Consenting. Adults. Legal. Contract. Can a 4 year old enter into a contract? No. Can I sell more than 100% of the stock in my company? No, so I can’t enter into a contract for more than 100% of joint assets either (i.e. polygamy.)
Good gravy, folks. A KANSAN is calling you on the carpet for being small minded and bigoted. And Mississippi looks at us and says, “Man, we may be 49th in the nation in everything but at least we’re not Kansas.”
JasonJack • Nov 3, 2008 at 6:19 am
TO all those who oppose prop 8:
No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.
Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Look at Fiddler on the Roof, where the parents don̢۪t fall in love officially for 25 years. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.
But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.
Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.
I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won̢۪t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.
Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.
So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.
So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.
Don̢۪t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, not good.
But people still are Gay, so what do we do about them? The statistics proposed are frightening.
So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren̢۪t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.
JasonJack • Nov 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm
TO all those who oppose prop 8:
No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.
Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Look at Fiddler on the Roof, where the parents don’t fall in love officially for 25 years. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.
But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.
Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.
I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.
Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise”“again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.
So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.
So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.
Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, not good.
But people still are Gay, so what do we do about them? The statistics proposed are frightening.
So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren’t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 5:42 am
If you follow your logic through it sounds as though we should abolish all law all together. I understand a little about taking God out of a society. I live in a nation that outlawed all religion during communism. The effects were terrible. If you are serious about wanting to hold God in your heart you would also want to follow his Word. I believe that when a state sanctions what the Bible does not sanction we are heading down a path that only leads to destruction. Should we legalize drugs, prostitution, too? What is next?
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm
If you follow your logic through it sounds as though we should abolish all law all together. I understand a little about taking God out of a society. I live in a nation that outlawed all religion during communism. The effects were terrible. If you are serious about wanting to hold God in your heart you would also want to follow his Word. I believe that when a state sanctions what the Bible does not sanction we are heading down a path that only leads to destruction. Should we legalize drugs, prostitution, too? What is next?
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 am
Norm,
I believe that you’re taking from Matthew 22:36-40, in which Jesus distills the Ten Commandments into two laws: Love God and love thy neighbor.
That is God’s commandment to each of us, and it is up to each of us to follow God’s law as we believe. It is not the place of any man (or earthly government) to force any particular interpretation of how to love God or love our neighbor upon us, except when the State can demonstrate a compelling (secular) purpose. When it comes to God’s law, it is up to each of us individually to do our best to adhere to God’s law. Only God will stand in judgement of how well each of us has obeyed His law. To force a particular interpretation of God’s law upon other people by force of secular law is to deny the individual the opportunity to obey or disobey God’s law. One can not hold God in his heart when any interpretation of God’s law is forced upon him.
This is why it is so important from a Christian perspective to vote NO on Prop 8. To do otherwise puts the government in the place of removing the individual’s ability to chose or reject God’s law. I think most Christians tend to believe that the whole purpose of our time on earth is to test and prove our love for God. To force a belief on someone else is to deny them their reason on earth.
It is also necessary to recognize that the United States is a pluralistic society, and it falls to each of us, if we are to “love thy neighbor”, to respect that different people have different beliefs, and that we must protect everyone’s freedoms lest our own freedoms be curtailed.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:18 am
Norm,
I believe that you’re taking from Matthew 22:36-40, in which Jesus distills the Ten Commandments into two laws: Love God and love thy neighbor.
That is God’s commandment to each of us, and it is up to each of us to follow God’s law as we believe. It is not the place of any man (or earthly government) to force any particular interpretation of how to love God or love our neighbor upon us, except when the State can demonstrate a compelling (secular) purpose. When it comes to God’s law, it is up to each of us individually to do our best to adhere to God’s law. Only God will stand in judgement of how well each of us has obeyed His law. To force a particular interpretation of God’s law upon other people by force of secular law is to deny the individual the opportunity to obey or disobey God’s law. One can not hold God in his heart when any interpretation of God’s law is forced upon him.
This is why it is so important from a Christian perspective to vote NO on Prop 8. To do otherwise puts the government in the place of removing the individual’s ability to chose or reject God’s law. I think most Christians tend to believe that the whole purpose of our time on earth is to test and prove our love for God. To force a belief on someone else is to deny them their reason on earth.
It is also necessary to recognize that the United States is a pluralistic society, and it falls to each of us, if we are to “love thy neighbor”, to respect that different people have different beliefs, and that we must protect everyone’s freedoms lest our own freedoms be curtailed.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 4:03 am
Good nite Jay,
I see that you can not have a conversation without trying to make it personal by calling people “close minded” or ” bigot” and instead of trying to answer any of my original questions you simply attacked and side stepped them.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:03 am
Good nite Jay,
I see that you can not have a conversation without trying to make it personal by calling people “close minded” or ” bigot” and instead of trying to answer any of my original questions you simply attacked and side stepped them.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 4:00 am
Logical,
Ugh. Do I really need to go into this level of detail? Your so-called ‘controlled experiment’ is a scientific fallacy. The first island does not in any way reflect any reality. It is completely contrived.
For your experiment to be valid, at most there would be 10 same sex couples out of the 100. The ten percent figure has been given as a *high* estimate of the homosexual population within any general population. Note that the ten percent figure is at the high end, and recent studies estimate the homosexual population to be significantly less than ten percent.
Reality: Same sex orientation has existed throughout history
Reality: Same sex orientation has throughout history been a small minority of any general population.
For any experiment to be valid, it would have to reflect those realities. Anything else is contrived to demonstrate a pre-conceived result. It is a reflection of your prejudice.
Science does not work well when you ‘game’ the experiment with preconditions that do not model reality.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 11:00 am
Logical,
Ugh. Do I really need to go into this level of detail? Your so-called ‘controlled experiment’ is a scientific fallacy. The first island does not in any way reflect any reality. It is completely contrived.
For your experiment to be valid, at most there would be 10 same sex couples out of the 100. The ten percent figure has been given as a *high* estimate of the homosexual population within any general population. Note that the ten percent figure is at the high end, and recent studies estimate the homosexual population to be significantly less than ten percent.
Reality: Same sex orientation has existed throughout history
Reality: Same sex orientation has throughout history been a small minority of any general population.
For any experiment to be valid, it would have to reflect those realities. Anything else is contrived to demonstrate a pre-conceived result. It is a reflection of your prejudice.
Science does not work well when you ‘game’ the experiment with preconditions that do not model reality.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:56 am
I doubt we will Norm.
Jesus did indeed say if you love me, keep my commandment. What was Jesus’s only commandment though?
The truth is I believe whole heartedly that God wants us to love and accept one another for what we are. There is nothing you can quote me from the Bible that will make me think differently. More than anything God wanted us to find our own way to him through love. Only that. Nothing else.
I say again. If it harms none, do as you will.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:56 am
I doubt we will Norm.
Jesus did indeed say if you love me, keep my commandment. What was Jesus’s only commandment though?
The truth is I believe whole heartedly that God wants us to love and accept one another for what we are. There is nothing you can quote me from the Bible that will make me think differently. More than anything God wanted us to find our own way to him through love. Only that. Nothing else.
I say again. If it harms none, do as you will.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 am
Let’s look at love once again. Loving God first was the greatest commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. When we love anything or anybody more than God, we have a displaced love.
As far as our will goes, God can enable believers to have the power to choose to do right rather than sin having the power over us. That is the right kind of free will. When sin controls our will we are slaves to sin. When God controls our will we are slaves to righteousness. Romans 6. I am not trying to have preconceived ideas, I am just trying to point out what the Bible teaches. We will probably never see eye to eye on this one.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:49 am
Let’s look at love once again. Loving God first was the greatest commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. When we love anything or anybody more than God, we have a displaced love.
As far as our will goes, God can enable believers to have the power to choose to do right rather than sin having the power over us. That is the right kind of free will. When sin controls our will we are slaves to sin. When God controls our will we are slaves to righteousness. Romans 6. I am not trying to have preconceived ideas, I am just trying to point out what the Bible teaches. We will probably never see eye to eye on this one.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:45 am
Jay,
You not I made the incorrect assumptions. I clearly stated that the first island would contain only men or only woman. No offspring is possible.
checkmat…
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:45 am
Jay,
You not I made the incorrect assumptions. I clearly stated that the first island would contain only men or only woman. No offspring is possible.
checkmat…
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:41 am
Logical,
But if you had an open mind, you would recognize that what you refer to as a controlled experiment does not in any way match reality. Any controlled experiment would have to use a population that mirrored the population at large.
Please do not try to call your bigotry ‘science’. It is too easy to disprove. It does a disservice both to you and to science.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:41 am
Logical,
But if you had an open mind, you would recognize that what you refer to as a controlled experiment does not in any way match reality. Any controlled experiment would have to use a population that mirrored the population at large.
Please do not try to call your bigotry ‘science’. It is too easy to disprove. It does a disservice both to you and to science.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:41 am
ahhh.. I see the OR.. for a controlled experiment the two groups should be made up of the same amount of each sex. only one variable allowed in a controlled experiment right? So sexual choice is your only allowed variable. Sorry. That is how a controlled experiment works. 🙂
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:41 am
ahhh.. I see the OR.. for a controlled experiment the two groups should be made up of the same amount of each sex. only one variable allowed in a controlled experiment right? So sexual choice is your only allowed variable. Sorry. That is how a controlled experiment works. 🙂
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:37 am
Oh and Logical,
You experiment, though totally useless, is very very unlikely to produce the results you quoted.
You make the assumption, which you should never do in a controlled experiment, that all of the children of the original gay couples will also be gay. Which is very likely not correct. That assumption alone causes all your “Logical results” to be of zero real value.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:37 am
Oh and Logical,
You experiment, though totally useless, is very very unlikely to produce the results you quoted.
You make the assumption, which you should never do in a controlled experiment, that all of the children of the original gay couples will also be gay. Which is very likely not correct. That assumption alone causes all your “Logical results” to be of zero real value.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:34 am
Jay,
It has little to do with an open mind and much to do with a controlled experiment….
I sincerely hope that you are not seriously advocating Gay marriage as some form of population or birth contol…. Two can take things out of context.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:34 am
Jay,
It has little to do with an open mind and much to do with a controlled experiment….
I sincerely hope that you are not seriously advocating Gay marriage as some form of population or birth contol…. Two can take things out of context.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:26 am
But you are totally wrong. The Bible doesn’t say otherwise. You chose to read it that way. Because you know better than others.
And God’s Will was to give man Free Will.
Guess you need to read a little more and stop trying to make it say what you want it to say and just let it say what it says.
And the great thing about the Bible is, once you let go of your on pre-conceived notions of what it has to say because that is what others have told you it says, is that you will find that all it really says is, Love one another.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:26 am
But you are totally wrong. The Bible doesn’t say otherwise. You chose to read it that way. Because you know better than others.
And God’s Will was to give man Free Will.
Guess you need to read a little more and stop trying to make it say what you want it to say and just let it say what it says.
And the great thing about the Bible is, once you let go of your on pre-conceived notions of what it has to say because that is what others have told you it says, is that you will find that all it really says is, Love one another.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:22 am
Logical,
Your ‘logic’ fails on the face of it. Take a look: We’re not stranded on an island. Same sex couples make up a small minority of the population. There is no danger of humanity dying out. One could (logically) argue that there is more danger to humanity from over-population.
I sincerely hope that you do not hold a job in any kind of scientific or engineering field. Science can only be conducted properly when you have an open mind.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:22 am
Logical,
Your ‘logic’ fails on the face of it. Take a look: We’re not stranded on an island. Same sex couples make up a small minority of the population. There is no danger of humanity dying out. One could (logically) argue that there is more danger to humanity from over-population.
I sincerely hope that you do not hold a job in any kind of scientific or engineering field. Science can only be conducted properly when you have an open mind.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:17 am
I never said the word hate. Why is it that when I give a verse from the Bible I am on the side of “hate” You give a verse from the Bible about Love and God is Love. He told us to love our enemies and pray for them. This is about what is right. God’s will is right. It is a higher standard than the “will of man” or the “free will” of man. If you want to exult the free will of man over the will of God, that is your choice. You have to answer to God for that decision, not me. I just don’t like it when you try to say that God is on your side…when the Bible says otherwise.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:17 am
I never said the word hate. Why is it that when I give a verse from the Bible I am on the side of “hate” You give a verse from the Bible about Love and God is Love. He told us to love our enemies and pray for them. This is about what is right. God’s will is right. It is a higher standard than the “will of man” or the “free will” of man. If you want to exult the free will of man over the will of God, that is your choice. You have to answer to God for that decision, not me. I just don’t like it when you try to say that God is on your side…when the Bible says otherwise.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:03 am
Norm
The quotes don’t help your case at all. No where in there are the questions I put to you answered. No where in your quotes does it say force your will onto others.
The question is.. Do you believe that God wants you to take away the free will he gave to others?
Learn love and stop trying to force hate into what you read from the bible.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:03 am
Norm,
Prop 8 is not voting on religious canon. It is voting on people’s civil rights. This is a *civil* matter, not a religious one.
Holding your beliefs is fine for how you live your life, but do not dictate to others how they live theirs when how they live their life has no impact on your freedoms.
Recognize other peoples rights to hold different beliefs. Do your American duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:03 am
Norm
The quotes don’t help your case at all. No where in there are the questions I put to you answered. No where in your quotes does it say force your will onto others.
The question is.. Do you believe that God wants you to take away the free will he gave to others?
Learn love and stop trying to force hate into what you read from the bible.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 10:03 am
Norm,
Prop 8 is not voting on religious canon. It is voting on people’s civil rights. This is a *civil* matter, not a religious one.
Holding your beliefs is fine for how you live your life, but do not dictate to others how they live theirs when how they live their life has no impact on your freedoms.
Recognize other peoples rights to hold different beliefs. Do your American duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Aditya Adiredja • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:58 am
Loving gay couples who have committed themselves to each other should not be treated any less than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the couples who have gotten married since June are those who spent years being fully committed to each other. The gay community is a part of YOUR community. We are teachers who educate your children. We are nurses who care for your health. We are artists who provide beauty and entertainment. Some of us are members of your church congregation. Some of us are your family members. Funny, if all we do is change partners and have sexcapades all the time, I guess either those things aren’t true or we must be great multi-taskers.
To reiterate the points of the author, this is NOT about religion. It is about civil rights and according to our constitution, each person is to be treated equally regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference. It was not long ago when people of different races were not allowed to marry. Let’s not undo our growth as a nation. The purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation as there are many who are not blessed in a heterosexual marriage to have children so we should be considerate of their feelings.
So for those out there who are still trying to decide, Consider the point of view from both sides, and listen to your heart. Promote peace and tolerance, and not hate and ignorance.
Aditya Adiredja • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:58 am
Loving gay couples who have committed themselves to each other should not be treated any less than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the couples who have gotten married since June are those who spent years being fully committed to each other. The gay community is a part of YOUR community. We are teachers who educate your children. We are nurses who care for your health. We are artists who provide beauty and entertainment. Some of us are members of your church congregation. Some of us are your family members. Funny, if all we do is change partners and have sexcapades all the time, I guess either those things aren’t true or we must be great multi-taskers.
To reiterate the points of the author, this is NOT about religion. It is about civil rights and according to our constitution, each person is to be treated equally regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference. It was not long ago when people of different races were not allowed to marry. Let’s not undo our growth as a nation. The purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation as there are many who are not blessed in a heterosexual marriage to have children so we should be considerate of their feelings.
So for those out there who are still trying to decide, Consider the point of view from both sides, and listen to your heart. Promote peace and tolerance, and not hate and ignorance.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 am
Let’s not make up questions that God will ask us when His word tells us the truth on the matter. God expects us to uphold His word and follow it. Anyone who honestly looks at the Bible cannot conclude that it supports homosexuality.
Romans 1:24
1:24 Therefore God gave them over 1 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 2 their bodies among themselves. 3 1:25 They 4 exchanged the truth of God for a lie 5 and worshiped and served the creation 6 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 7 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 8 and were inflamed in their passions 9 for one another. Men 10 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Norm • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:51 am
Let’s not make up questions that God will ask us when His word tells us the truth on the matter. God expects us to uphold His word and follow it. Anyone who honestly looks at the Bible cannot conclude that it supports homosexuality.
Romans 1:24
1:24 Therefore God gave them over 1 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 2 their bodies among themselves. 3 1:25 They 4 exchanged the truth of God for a lie 5 and worshiped and served the creation 6 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 7 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 8 and were inflamed in their passions 9 for one another. Men 10 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:45 am
Enough already, Why not put gay marriage to the scientific litmus test?.
1) Place 100 married gay men OR 100 gay woman on an island.
2) Place 100 married heterosexuals 1/2 men and 1/2 women on a second island.
3) Wait 100 years……
When you return to the fist island you will find nothing but grave stones.
When you return to the second island you will find a new generation of people, growing learning, loving and creating the next generation.
Lets face it. If not for heterosexuals the gay lifestyle is a dead end….. with no future … no future generation.
How can anything that is an open loop with no future be natural or a good thing? In nature a species without a next generation is a species destined for extension.
Signed: Logical.
Logical • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:45 am
Enough already, Why not put gay marriage to the scientific litmus test?.
1) Place 100 married gay men OR 100 gay woman on an island.
2) Place 100 married heterosexuals 1/2 men and 1/2 women on a second island.
3) Wait 100 years……
When you return to the fist island you will find nothing but grave stones.
When you return to the second island you will find a new generation of people, growing learning, loving and creating the next generation.
Lets face it. If not for heterosexuals the gay lifestyle is a dead end….. with no future … no future generation.
How can anything that is an open loop with no future be natural or a good thing? In nature a species without a next generation is a species destined for extension.
Signed: Logical.
Imma Okochua • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:42 am
Gay relationship used to be a shameful thing.
Then it ceased to be.
Then they wanted to ‘marry’ gay mates.
Now they want the law to recognise such affairs.
And we call all this ‘advancement’.
Do we ever believe that society is regressing while technology is advancing?
Imma Okochua • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:42 am
Gay relationship used to be a shameful thing.
Then it ceased to be.
Then they wanted to ‘marry’ gay mates.
Now they want the law to recognise such affairs.
And we call all this ‘advancement’.
Do we ever believe that society is regressing while technology is advancing?
joshua starkey • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:39 am
The Gay and Lesbian community isn̢۪t trying to force ANYTHING down the throats of voters as the last entry said. What they are asking for is to be TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW. While the point of Civil Unions was brought up, it is still not marriage and does NOT grant the same BENEFITS as marriage, such as with health care.
With the last entry it is very clear that the writer doesn̢۪t know anything about the Gay and Lesbian community, most of the marriages that have been performed already have been to couples that have been together for the very LEAST five years, yes, they are so short, aren̢۪t they?
VOTE NO ON 8! LETS MAKE THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICANS GROW UP IN A WORLD WITHOUT INTOLORENCE!
joshua starkey • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:39 am
The Gay and Lesbian community isn’t trying to force ANYTHING down the throats of voters as the last entry said. What they are asking for is to be TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW. While the point of Civil Unions was brought up, it is still not marriage and does NOT grant the same BENEFITS as marriage, such as with health care.
With the last entry it is very clear that the writer doesn’t know anything about the Gay and Lesbian community, most of the marriages that have been performed already have been to couples that have been together for the very LEAST five years, yes, they are so short, aren’t they?
VOTE NO ON 8! LETS MAKE THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICANS GROW UP IN A WORLD WITHOUT INTOLORENCE!
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:38 am
There is no ‘agenda’ beyond equal rights.
Marrying the person that you love is not a ‘lifestyle’.
The judges (majority conservative Republican) judges did their job and found prop 22 to be equivalent to mob rule and in violation of people’s rights and therefore correctly held it to be against the California Constitution.
Passing Prop 8 WILL eliminate rights, just as Plessy v. Ferguson (the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine) was found to be inherently discriminatory.
Encouraging more committed couples to marry does NOT diminish the sanctity of marriage, it only strengthens it. Divorce and interpersonal violence diminish the sanctity of marriage. Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Henry VIII’s six wives diminish the sanctity of marriage. What strengthens or diminishes the sanctity of marriage has to do with the depth of their commitment, not their sexuality.
We don’t require a fertility test for people to marry, so the argument about producing children is specious.
A pet is not capable of knowingly entering into a contract, which is what a marriage is, so the argument about marrying a pet is specious.
Marrying a sibling has legitimate *social* problems with the potential for birth defects, so it is in the state’s interest to prohibit such unions. No such potential problem exists for same sex marriages, so there is no state interest in prohibiting same sex marriages.
Sexual promiscuity (or ‘sexcapade’ as referred to by 4 reel) is not limited to same sex relationships. Having the societal structure and support for same sex relationships (a.k.a. marriage) would only serve to strengthen such relationships and reduce sexual promiscuity. With marriage, focus is shifted from a sexual relationship to an intimate interpersonal relationship. This should be encouraged by anyone believing in the sanctity of marriage.
In the United States, we have Separation of Church and State, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is UNAMERICAN to support Prop 8.
Do your civil duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
God gave us Free Will. It is not the place of the State to take away our God given Free Will.
Do your Christian duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Jay • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:38 am
There is no ‘agenda’ beyond equal rights.
Marrying the person that you love is not a ‘lifestyle’.
The judges (majority conservative Republican) judges did their job and found prop 22 to be equivalent to mob rule and in violation of people’s rights and therefore correctly held it to be against the California Constitution.
Passing Prop 8 WILL eliminate rights, just as Plessy v. Ferguson (the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine) was found to be inherently discriminatory.
Encouraging more committed couples to marry does NOT diminish the sanctity of marriage, it only strengthens it. Divorce and interpersonal violence diminish the sanctity of marriage. Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Henry VIII’s six wives diminish the sanctity of marriage. What strengthens or diminishes the sanctity of marriage has to do with the depth of their commitment, not their sexuality.
We don’t require a fertility test for people to marry, so the argument about producing children is specious.
A pet is not capable of knowingly entering into a contract, which is what a marriage is, so the argument about marrying a pet is specious.
Marrying a sibling has legitimate *social* problems with the potential for birth defects, so it is in the state’s interest to prohibit such unions. No such potential problem exists for same sex marriages, so there is no state interest in prohibiting same sex marriages.
Sexual promiscuity (or ‘sexcapade’ as referred to by 4 reel) is not limited to same sex relationships. Having the societal structure and support for same sex relationships (a.k.a. marriage) would only serve to strengthen such relationships and reduce sexual promiscuity. With marriage, focus is shifted from a sexual relationship to an intimate interpersonal relationship. This should be encouraged by anyone believing in the sanctity of marriage.
In the United States, we have Separation of Church and State, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is UNAMERICAN to support Prop 8.
Do your civil duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
God gave us Free Will. It is not the place of the State to take away our God given Free Will.
Do your Christian duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:30 am
That is the major problem in America today. Intolerance. Freedom was the defining reason this country was formed. Not freedom but only if it fits what some of the people think it the right type of freedom.
I have a question for all you people out there that claim the bible as an excuse to stop this.
When you stand before God, and he ask you, “Who gave you the right to take away the free will I granted every man and woman? Who told you that you knew better than any other person I created?”. What are you going to answer? Who gave you the right to take away what God has given? Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” Not love them only when they are doing what you think is right.
The real truth though is that this is not about religion. It’s about tolerance and freedom. It’s about the basic rights of every single man and woman in the country and the world.
I choose to love and accept everyone the way they are.
If it harms none, do as you will.
Ignorance is not an excuse • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:30 am
That is the major problem in America today. Intolerance. Freedom was the defining reason this country was formed. Not freedom but only if it fits what some of the people think it the right type of freedom.
I have a question for all you people out there that claim the bible as an excuse to stop this.
When you stand before God, and he ask you, “Who gave you the right to take away the free will I granted every man and woman? Who told you that you knew better than any other person I created?”. What are you going to answer? Who gave you the right to take away what God has given? Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” Not love them only when they are doing what you think is right.
The real truth though is that this is not about religion. It’s about tolerance and freedom. It’s about the basic rights of every single man and woman in the country and the world.
I choose to love and accept everyone the way they are.
If it harms none, do as you will.
Liz in CA • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:26 am
First of all, learn to use grammar, dear, it’s THEIR agenda, THEIR lifestyle, THEIR rights. We should be allowed to keep our rights just because we are grammatically correct.
There is nothing “sanctified” about a marriage that has domestic violence, child molesting, etc within the “traditional” family, and there are plenty of those.
Wow 4 Reel, and just how do you know so much about how long our partnerships last and our sexual practices? Takes one to know one perhaps? Love to see those “statistics” you spout — care to give a citation on where you got that data? I figure I have sex with my monogamous partner about as many times a month as you do, hm? I suppose you idolize celebrities who steal each other’s spouses, or have marriages that last about a week? I have known my partner for 30 years, and we have been a couple for 12. She had cervical cancer and had to have a hysterectomy — does that mean that if she can’t marry me, she’s out of luck because she can’t produce children?
The “four judges” did not overrule the will of the people, they correctly determined that something was discriminatory and set it aside. And that “fourth judge” was a Republican, I’m happy to say.
I have never shoved an “agenda” in anyone’s face. I have never tried to “turn” a child. We do NOT have the same rights (read the article above, perhaps?). Unlike the lies of the ad that shows the couple in Mass., California parents HAVE the right to pull their children out of any class with which they do not agree with the teaching. And marriage is usually NOT taught, in any form, to anyone.
Maybe if it were, we wouldn’t have one of the highest divorce rates in the land. THAT is the true threat to ‘traditional marriage.’
4 Shame, 4 Reel.
Liz in CA • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:26 am
First of all, learn to use grammar, dear, it’s THEIR agenda, THEIR lifestyle, THEIR rights. We should be allowed to keep our rights just because we are grammatically correct.
There is nothing “sanctified” about a marriage that has domestic violence, child molesting, etc within the “traditional” family, and there are plenty of those.
Wow 4 Reel, and just how do you know so much about how long our partnerships last and our sexual practices? Takes one to know one perhaps? Love to see those “statistics” you spout — care to give a citation on where you got that data? I figure I have sex with my monogamous partner about as many times a month as you do, hm? I suppose you idolize celebrities who steal each other’s spouses, or have marriages that last about a week? I have known my partner for 30 years, and we have been a couple for 12. She had cervical cancer and had to have a hysterectomy — does that mean that if she can’t marry me, she’s out of luck because she can’t produce children?
The “four judges” did not overrule the will of the people, they correctly determined that something was discriminatory and set it aside. And that “fourth judge” was a Republican, I’m happy to say.
I have never shoved an “agenda” in anyone’s face. I have never tried to “turn” a child. We do NOT have the same rights (read the article above, perhaps?). Unlike the lies of the ad that shows the couple in Mass., California parents HAVE the right to pull their children out of any class with which they do not agree with the teaching. And marriage is usually NOT taught, in any form, to anyone.
Maybe if it were, we wouldn’t have one of the highest divorce rates in the land. THAT is the true threat to ‘traditional marriage.’
4 Shame, 4 Reel.
4 reel • Nov 3, 2008 at 2:01 am
The gay community is using this as a ploy to shove there agenda in our faces and force everyone to have to agree with there lifestyle. This is not about civil rights or equality for all this is about redefining marriage. 4 judges had no right to overrule the will of the people with prop 22. Gays already have rights under california law and if Prop 8 passes with a Yes there rights WILL NOT be eliminated. Don’t be fooled people!!! Same sex marriage just diminishes the sanctity of marriage. The gay lifestyle is a sexcapade that we should not be forced to agree with on any level. Gay relationships statiscally last no longer than a year and half because they change partners so many times. Next they’ll pass a law that you can marry your pet or your sibling. If this was suppose to be normal than why can’t two men or two women PRODUCE children?? That’s one of the major sanctifications of marriage along with protection and nurturing.
4 reel • Nov 3, 2008 at 9:01 am
The gay community is using this as a ploy to shove there agenda in our faces and force everyone to have to agree with there lifestyle. This is not about civil rights or equality for all this is about redefining marriage. 4 judges had no right to overrule the will of the people with prop 22. Gays already have rights under california law and if Prop 8 passes with a Yes there rights WILL NOT be eliminated. Don’t be fooled people!!! Same sex marriage just diminishes the sanctity of marriage. The gay lifestyle is a sexcapade that we should not be forced to agree with on any level. Gay relationships statiscally last no longer than a year and half because they change partners so many times. Next they’ll pass a law that you can marry your pet or your sibling. If this was suppose to be normal than why can’t two men or two women PRODUCE children?? That’s one of the major sanctifications of marriage along with protection and nurturing.