Is Yes on 8 campaign resorting to extortion?

Yes, I would say it is. Has anyone looked into what the church has to lose financially if this does not pass. They will refuse to recognize gay marriages and some large chirches I would think would lose some funding. I know there is a seperation of church and state but because of some programs ran at churches, they end up getting some money from the government. Just seems like it would be in their financial best interest to make sure it's a yes on prop.8

Well, Apple announced today it would be giving $100,000 to oppose Prop 8.

You think people will stop buying iPhones and iPods? Me neither.

Well, up to now the pro-Prop 8 people have mostly been relying on fear. So it only makes sense to add a bit of intimidation to the mix.

Extortion as a traditional family value? Withholding funds, as in a boycott of known supporters of either side... it's in the passive resistance playbook and is certainly fair. Demanding money to withhold publication certainly shows an extremist bent. Too bad radicals have such bad tempers, and threaten rather than cajole, or we could all wear our decisions on our sleeves.

In addition to all of the other arguments for Proposition 8, I believe it to be a windfall for them who later might regret being listed in sets of two on such a curious registry of the state. In my narrow opinion, the circumstances about which four judges overturned the status quo so willingly have raised many questions that beg for answers.

Oh, so now the people behind Prop. 8 are interested in equality.

It is wrong. All I know is some coward stole my Yes on 8 sign the same day I put it up.

Bart - I know you won't like me agreeing with you but you have identified the only thing that really should be an issue at all. Even though I don't see the problem with same-sex couples wanting to marry; that issue is a secular one.. I too am curious as to the circumstances surrounding what the judges did and whether or not it is legal. It is curious that we haven't heard much on that. The rest of the stuff going on is just nonsense.

Jackie - I believe I heard a report that some business was offering a free slice of pizza in exchange for Yes on 8 signs. It was likely a little kid with the munchies took it. I hear there was a big turn out of little kids who really don't care who marries who, as long as they serve pizza at the reception.

It's a matter of civil rights. There has never been an amendment that takes rights away from a minority. Prop 8 is mean-spirited and hateful. Marriage equality will cause no harm to straight couples. What do they teach in schools about marriage in general? Nothing that I remember...It is right-wing fear-mongering. I haven't heard any argument in support of Prop 8 that is based on reality. Defeat this foolish legislation and spend the money on meaningful urgent needs.

Jackie,

If your sign was stolen YOU are a victim of intimidation, AND your constitutional right to freedom of speech has been violated!

You should call the ACLU and ask if they will stand up for your rights with you. This is definitely a "civil liberties" issue, and you deserve to have the American CIVIL LIBERTIES union on your side; they owe it to you!

...Oh, wait, you're not in a 7% minority forcing your lifestyle on the remaining 93% of the population; the ACLU, Gavin Newsome, Brad Pitt, and Apple think your rights are irrelevent.

BTW, "forcing a lifestyle" on you means that your hetero sons and daughters won't have the words "bride" & "groom" on their official marriage license; it'll say "partner A" & "partner B." What about the 93% who want to be referred to as bride or groom? Where are their rights?

"Forcing a lifestyle" means erroneously redefining the word "gender" in a state bill passed last year--authored by a lesbian lawmaker--to manipulate the penal code. It also directly links this section of penal code to the CA EDUCATIONAL CODE in order to force teachers to label the everyday name-calling we all dealt with as children as a "hate crime." Ol' Gavin is precisely correct; if 8 is defeated, the door will be wide open for SB 777 and the judges' decision earlier this year to affect classroom education. There is nothing oppressive, bigoted, or restrictive about voting yes on 8; the law already guarantees rights for homosexuals--“domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5).

Remember, 4 judges overturned the will of the people, but 3 other judges on the same panel agreed with the people and didn't judge Prop 22 as unconstitutional. I guess like all us other constitutionally-naive "bigots," those 3 judges don't know squat about the law, eh? And, what's up with the other 4 judges creating a law? Don't they know about checks and balances?

Matt,

Dont worry the other side of this issue is doing the same and civil rights were violated as well.

No on Prop 8 signs were dug up, and stolen.

Jeff I agree 100%, this is an equal rights issue voting yes on prop 8 is against equal rights.

It is surprising how few people in our great nation do not understand the value of the checks and balances system. Perhaps the most important job of the courts is to protect minority rights. Hence the decision to allow gay marriage. The founders in their wisdom recognized that majorities should not always be able to decide issues important to minorities. They understood that majorities can be and often are wrong. They realized, along with John Stuart Mill, that majorities are often tyrannical and must be kept in check by appointed judges who need not fear an electorate, which often is more like a mob than a collective of citizens. No, judges are not perfect--no more perfect than the so-called "will of the people."

Matt I don't believe the ACLU would represent me so I will replace my sign and they cowards cant deter my vote cause I already voted. If I catch them in my yard I will beat them with the sign.

#1 Those four judges were applying the constitution, not making policy. People tend to forget about what the founding fathers thought of "the tyranny of the majority" when constitutional decisions don't go their way.

#2 It isn't the gays trying to force their beliefs on anyone. You are free to agree or disagree with them as you see fit right now. It is the right trying to dictate to other people to live according to THEIR beliefs. After all, it is the right wing that's trying to pass a law denying rights to a certain group, not the other way around. The right has always had a position of "don't tell me how to live my life, but I will sure as heck be telling you how to live yours."

#3 Teaching gay marriage in school is a scare tactic and an outright lie. Even the superintendent of schools has said so. They don't teach any marriage in schools, they aren't going to start with gay marriage. This only matters if you're an ignorant moron, anyway. You're either gay or you're not. Homosexuality is not taught.

#4 Legislating discrimination is what is wrong with this whole picture. With the history of the United States (and the colonies beforehand), everyone right or left should be finding this wrong. I find legislating discrimination in any form to be absolutely repugnant. If you are for denying anyone equal rights, for applying discrimination, then you ARE a bigot. That's what a bigot is.

Jeff Hannan - I so agree. Its nice to hear a voice of reason.

NO church will lose funding if PROP 8 fails... NO church would have to sanctify a Gay marriage any more than they currently would have to sanctify any other marriage that doesnt fit with their beliefs (ie: a Catholic church doesnt have to sanctify the marriage of a jewish couple, a mosque need not sanctify the marriage of two catholics and even the catholic church need not sanctify the marriage of two christians if they dont meet the criteria set out by that church)

Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion -- it has to do with the state definition of marriage. Prop 8 seeks to STOP all citizens from equal rights to form the sort of long-term bond that brings stability to the community.

Sadly, a lot of people are falling for the fictions made up by the Prop 8 supporters.
Want to understand the actual implications of prop 8?
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction

For the record I am just stating my opinion on Prop 8 and for me it is a biblical issue where God took the rib of Adam to make for him a woman and a man should leave his father and mother and become one with his wife not his/her partner. Everyone should vote with their heart not as someone else tells them to.

We live twenty minutes northwest of the Golden Gate Bridge. Each morning for the past three weeks I have noticed more and more signs appearing on my neighbors lawns and fences, “ vote no on 8” and I take a deep breath and reassure myself, “all will be well!” This week, however, I felt a little differently; my eleven year old, daughter and I were engaged in our usual tussle between Radio Disney (AM 1310) and The Stephanie Miller Show (AM 96). This rare day was mine as I had won my prize, AM 96.

We settled into my daughter’s resilience when unexpectedly an ad popped on the air, and albeit a liberal talk show, we were assailed with the unconscionable and irreconcilable mendacity perpetuated by the proponents of proposition 8, seeking to amend the California Constitution to dispossess gay people from their inherent right to marry, as endorsed by the four justices of the California Court in May of this year.

I realized my child was listening to this; it hit me that this was indeed an assault, an assault on my family, on my life and most painfully on my children, who had mere months earlier delighted in the celebration of love, commitment and family as their moms’ married, in the presence of family, friends and community, and now confronted by a threat to their security.

Amidst the barrage of intolerable misrepresentations was one that seems to be propelling the proposition toward the terrifying prospect of success and that was the one that changed the expression on my daughter’s face to one of abject shock and confusion: “ It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory,” said the voice. “That changes a lot of things. People sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools.” The ad was barely over when my child exclaimed, “Mom I don’t get it; what is wrong if other kids learn about me and my family?”

I realized that the proponents of Proposition 8 seek to nullify, not only the legal existence of my family, but also its de facto veracity. In trying to come up with the perfect answer of a protective mother questions swirled: “Why should my daughter be an outcast? How does my marriage hurt yours? Do you really think that your child will become gay because he/she heard about the relevance of gay families? How would I explain this to my child; how can I account for people thinking that we were not okay?”

In the immediacy of the moment my unrehearsed soliloquy required amendment, yet I was able to convey that this was the voice of fear, of people whose fear is subpoenaed by ignorance, of people who fear difference and the unfamiliar, and of people who have nowhere to hide from their own differences, perceived as shameful, save to inflict abuse upon others who have embraced their respective truths.

My daughter, belying her mere eleven years, seemed relieved and has now taken it upon herself to write a letter, copies of which she will deliver door to door on Halloween evening. She plans on thanking our neighbors for their signs on the lawns and fences, the signs that endorse our existence and more importantly inform others.

As I cannot meet those in the other parts of California, those unlikely to vote no on 8, and to invite them to tea and have them privy to our citizenry and constructive lives – all I can do is remind them of those who had a vision for America, those who fully understood the intent of the Constitution, such as George Washington who in 1790 declared, "As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

You do not have to believe in gay marriage, its not a belief system it’s not a religious consideration unless your minister wants it to be, it’s a right. If your children turn out to be gay, they will be gay regardless of whether they have a right to marry or not, regardless of whether they heard about others being gay. If you vote no on 8 your life will go on as normal. You can continue to marry traditionally, your ministers will continue to have a choice whether they want to marry gays in the religious context or not. Your taxes will be the same, your children will have the same questions that they have now regarding the facts of life. Nothing will change for you. But if you vote yes, my life will change, my daughter’s life will change; she will be an outcast as her family will be pronounced without rights, as victims of a changed constitution.

As a society we will be forever tarnished as the precedent will be set that the will of the people through votes and propositions could override the inherent power of the Court to uphold the constitution. This could set the way for many other amendments when people, albeit a majority, simply do not like or tolerate other people.

If your vote takes my civil right away from me in the name of your religion or personal moral belief, me and my family will continue to exist in fact, but will be a family that you have supported in distinguishing, as you once did black from white, with inequality under the civil laws, and contrary to the assignment of America. Please have the courage to vote NO ON 8.

Melanie Nathan

The Judges in this case, are over stepping their authority, the votes and hence the RIGHTS of the people in California. Another reason to vote for McCain
Seems to be writting laws was and is out of their perview!
Our moon beam Attorney General wrote the heading of this prop. 8, to read in favor of a NO vote.
Jamming this Weird law down our throats is disgusting. A YES vote on this prop. is the only correct thing to do.

Melanie, good thing you weren't driving in the countryside east of Clovis, as I was this afternoon. In some areas it seems like every other house has a "Yes on 8" sign.

I realize that local churches have probably been giving them out like candy, and most of the people displaying them are probably just following, sheeplike, whatver their pastors are telling them. But I was thinking that if I were gay, I sure wouldn't feel welcome in this county. In fact, I would probably want to move out and never look back. Having been too young for the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, I've never seen such a widespread display of hostility by the majority towards a minority.

I wonder about those people whose only yard signs are in favor of Prop. 8. With all the major issues at stake in this election, the only thing that motivates them to display their political preferences it their fear or hatred of homosexuals? Is this the best that modern American fundamentalism has to offer?

Melanie, I am truly moved by that story. And very well told. It shames me to say that there are those here who would love nothing more than to delete your right to be a family. Those who have fought tooth and nail for months to bring down your family and others like it. Thank you for putting a face on the issue...or in this case, a family.

Here's some good news for you, not all churches are in favor of prop 8. Rev. Rick Mixon, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, said the state should protect civil rights and civil contracts like marriage, while the church should be blessing and supporting all manner of loving relationships and families.

The article is here.

Today I saw lots of people (70-80) on Blackstone and Shaw "Vote NO on Prop 8"

Power to Equality!

Personally, I would like to know what companies and corporations are financially supporting the No on Prop.8 crowd.Boycotting(no Apple products for me)is effective and would give me a way to respond to their position..I believe whacko Mayor Newsome when he says the door is wide open and I believethat if this is defeated that activists will take it to the extreme and all these promises by the No on Prop.8 crowd that it won't affect this and that are wrong and are engaging in their own misleading campaign.We don't even have a definition for what marriage will be should Prop.8 not pass so they can say anything they want to try to kick this door all the way open.I say best we lock it.

See there? When people find out the preferences of a business or what it supports, it affects business. That's the day and age we live in. That's what our country has come to.

Brian, you never did revisit Vin Scully, did you? Just curious.

In these hard times it is so very wrong that so much cash is being wasted on an issue best left alone. Regardless where backers stand on either side, to use fear as a tool to generate cash is right daft.

At the end of the day, folks who matter in life will judge one on the merits of who you are, and long ago MOI came to believe that until the big sleep comes, no one alive can truly speak for GOD and where he stands on the issue. Best to let HIM tell us in person.

Said before, there is far too much bible throwing on here at times and am gobsmacked at number of folks who see to have 'the burning bush' in back garden.

Brilliant idea, take some cash and give it to a 'food bank', there is a cause that is desperate for cash.

Please tell me: what "rights," guaranteed in Family Code §297.5, will be taken away by Prop 8? Having or adopting children? Tax advantages? Buying a home together? Doing any family activity? What rights are being taken away?

As per the arguments of Prop 8 opponents from previous threads on this topic beginning in March, if the core of the entire issue is what's printed on a document that is just a ceremonial formality, what's the big deal anyway? If you want a religious gay ceremony, there are already churches that will perform the ceremony. There are non-denominational or atheist Justices of the Peace who will officiate gay ceremonies, so why the outcry? Those won't be outlawed.

Is it semantics or syntax of the actual definition that's in question? I don't see anyone from the left crying about the wrongful, revised definitions of the words "sex" and "gender" from SB 777. It removes Webster's physical/medical definition of "sex," and replaces it with a specific, revised definition of "gender" that allows a boy to say he's a girl and vice-versa, directly contradicting the physiological facts about their bodies! It is a well-planned confusion of terms to allow future lawsuits to quote SB 777 ("it's the law!") in support of teaching about homosexual marriages in the schools. I've never heard of any teachers designing entire lessons around persuading kids that male/female marriage is the only way, but there are videos of teachers in another state who have planned hours of lessons around persuading their students that gay marriages are the norm. Every teacher who believes for religious reasons that gay marriages are not right, yet is forced to incorporate a lesson about such, has just lost his/her Constitutional right to practice his/her religion as desired. So, who is truly losing their "rights?"

Finally, religion can't be left out of the debate. A not-so-old Rand or Neilson or [?] survey states that 86% of the population believes in the "traditional" God. Prop 22 demonstrated that 61% of CA's population believes a marriage should be defined as between woman and man. It's estimated that about 7-8% of the population is homosexual. It's clearly evident that many proponents of Prop 8 base their argument on Biblical foundations. My atheist brother supports Prop 8. Is he a Bible-thumping bigot, as Prop 8's proponents are portrayed? (Wait--he must be the "moron" that someone referred to, even though he taught me more about momentum, mass, and inertia than I ever learned in a semester of Physics, by using the handling characteristics of a motorcycle! Geeesh, what a moron!)

Historical fact proves the existence of characters from the Bible. That includes Jesus. The question is, after he was executed and brought down from the cross, what happened to his body? Christians believe He was put into a tomb, and 3 days later was resurrected. He appeared to many after his death. Some parts of The New Testament document and chronicle these events. The rest of it is God's directions on living as righteously as possible, despite Adam & Eve's big blunder. There are no definitive arguments in existence to disprove what Christians believe, yet to believe takes a certain degree of faith, depending on how much one has studied the Bible.

The Bible addresses this issue of Prop 8 in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The "good news" is in 1 Corinthians 6:11. That is, if we've offended God, we have to confess it and repent (just like telling a parent that you did something really wrong, and you promise not to do it again). There's more to it than that, but the point I made is applicable here. To tie documentable history and Biblical faith together, Jesus died on the cross so we have the chance to enter Heaven. Jesus did not advocate bigotry, and Christians know that. He did, however, say through his disciple, Paul, that homosexual behavior is not right. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it's a sin to be black, or to speak a different language, or to have a physical disability, but many forms of unrepentent behavior, including sexual immorality, are classified as sinful. Sorry, I didn't make the rules; I just try to follow 'em. The cool thing is that just like everyone else, all the really idotic things I did when I was younger are washed away because of my belief in Jesus (and trust me, I've got some lu-lu's back there).

Think of it this way: if you get thrown in jail for driving while drunk at age 16, would your parents throw you out, disown you, or stop loving you? A rational parent would not! Would there be punishment? Certainly! Each of us has about 80 years or so on this planet to do it right, just as we had about 18 years to get it right at home. Once we leave home we have to live with the consequences of our habits, which leads to our general level of happiness. Once we leave Earth, the same will hold true for eternity. Supporting Prop 8 is sort of like saying to God, "Look, Daddy, we tried to do the right thing! Our brothers and sisters just didn't want to listen! They're not really bad, they just didn't understand what you said..."

(Jesus said that people would pick on us for standing up for our belief. Guess he was right.)

I am not fearful nor do I hate homosexuals. I just live a christian life and believe it to be wrong and that is my opinion just as you are welcome to yours. I feel it will never be enough if 8 doesn't pass. You are free to have your family with same sex parents if thats what your desire is. Domestic partnership is now recognized as a sign of equal rights and now that is not enough. It will always be something. It is not the end of my world or yours if it passes or fails. Our lives are what we make them. I choose the traditional family because it is right for me not because my pastor tells me anything. My maker did say it was to be this way. I am done on this so we just have to wait and see which way the chips fall.

"I am not fearful nor do I hate homosexuals."

Sure you do, if hate is defined by actions, rather than words. Conservative Christians give lip service to "love," claiming they "love" homosexuals. But at the same time their actions are deliberately hurtful, depriving them of tangible rights and benefits at every opportunity. Their empathy for people who can only love others of the same sex is non-existent. If actions speak louder than words, you do indeed hate homosexuals if you vote "yes" on Prop. 8. Either that or you have been scared by the hateful propaganda of the religious right.

It is about the fact that we as a society are claiming to offer equal rights while labeling people as separate or other. This is the same thing as the "separate but equal" garbage that was going on prior to and during the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s.

And please do tell me, if all you Prop. 8 supporters are fine and dandy with the idea of civil unions that impart the same rights, do you think kids won't have to have families with two dads or moms explained to them? Suddenly, if we don't apply the word marriage to these unions, no one will know about them?

And your statistics don't mean much in the argument for rights Matt. Just because a large percentage of the population believes something, that doesn't automatically make it correct or just. It's called the tyranny of the majority and our system of government was designed around the idea of stemming that.

Jesus also went to the religious institutions and lashed out at all the hypocrates.

Mke D. and Adam,

I'll ask again: which specific rights will be taken away?

Scot... No I did not revisit Vin Scully and was surprised/pleased at how easily the Phillies dispatched the Dodgers.As far as boycotting...how would you choose I express my displeasure with companies/corporations that take a political position I disagree with? "Just Rich"...do you mean hypocrites? "a" is a long way from "i" on the keyboard. As far as homosexuality I follow the direction to hate the sin but love the sinner.

I am go strictly by what I believe and am not fearful or swayed by any religious groups because I have a mind of my own and can make decidions for myself. It is up to parents to teach their children about moms and dads whether there is more than one of each or not. Many children with heterosexual parents have more than one mom and dad because of divorceand other things and they deal with it as can same sex couples. I dont want to be pronounced A and B.

Fresno Bee 10.27 "Same-sex marriage fight draws big money"

The item reports that 20 countries have given money to support or defeat prop 8. How can foreign money be applied to matters that should , strictly, be an American election. I should hate to think that (for instance) that the wealthy Vatican could channel money into the passage of prop 8. I am a Roman Catholic, but to me prop 8 is a strictly secular matter which has nothing to do with religion. I know that my religion or marriage is not being threatened by same-sex union. I have never given much thought to homosexuality, but I have not given much thought to heterosexuality either. But I do believe that no American domestic affair should be influenced by a foreign entity. Just as I would not like it if Americans would have the right to tell the citizens of my native country what they can do and what not. We may live in ex-president Bush's Global World; and there may be the EU; but there is still national sovereignty that must be respected. If that paints me being insular; then so be it.

If you go "strictly by what you read," please tell us where, in the text of Proposition 8 (not the propoganda supporting it), it says anything about what is taught to our children, or what words are printed on your marriage license.

I would like to make a few comments on Prop 8.
First of all, I believe some that some are not fully understanding the ramifications that will transpire if the same-sex ruling is not overturned. They tell us that voting NO on prop8 will not affect our religeous freedoms. I beg to differ with you. In the next few lines I will share with you the truth of the matter.
First of all, how will this affect our churches and nonsecular institutions? This will affect the Ministers and institutions who continue to teach Gods Word in its entirity. The ones who refuse to marry same-sex couples, or allow them to teach in their churches.The ones who are receiving a Tax-exempt status. They will in time, through a process of Government sanctions, loose that status.
An area I haven't heard spoken about is this. ANY CONTRIBITOR of monetary contributions or tangible property donations will loose their tax write off each filing year if they continue to donate to these churches who have lost their tax exempt status. Does that make sense to you? Of course! Any public school who teaches sex-education will be required, by law, to include the same-sex liturature in their curriculum. Teachers will be required to teach it. If they refuse? Firstly, they will be warned. Secondly, they will be fines. Thirdly, they will no doubt be suspended! Think about it!

When will all of this take place? Oh! It won't be the Wednesday after! It will take place over a period of time. During this period of time in which lawsuits have taken place in all of these areas,our GovernmentAgencies will be forced to enact laws to see that this particular law is protected. Every public institution will have to be changed to be consistant with the new Legislation.

Whether you are a Christian, as I am, or a nonbeliever, as you can see, it DOES affect everyone. Including you!
Sincerely,
Elaine harris
Porterville

The american left has made headway in co-opting every aspect of political, social and religious content to force their own brand of entropy on us.
In a simillar strategy, they who look for moral failure to justify terrorist acts will certainly stoke would-be martyrs with just enough righteuosness to act. Four judges have empowered a very simple majority to uproot a universal social norm as old as civilization. If none of this has potential for connection in your mind, I would recommend you reconsider the consequences of such a social leap before voting, especially on Proposition 8.

It's not the first time a handful of judges has thwarted the will of the majority. In Brown v. Board of Education, a few judges overturned a century of segregation, allowing black children to sit next to white children in public schools, much to the dismay of the conservatives of the time.

Somewhat later, and even closer to the topic at hand, in Loving v. Virginia, another handful of judges overturned the will of the majority in several states, allowing blacks and whites to marry each other, which religious conservatives of those days taught was against the will of God. (Churches were still able to refuse to perform such "unholy" marriages if they wished, though, without losing their tax-exempt status. So much for that bugaboo.)

I am glad there is no mechanism for a popular vote to overturn rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. If there were, Jim Crow might still be alive and well to this day. As it is, conservatives have had to move on to other issues, like denying equal rights to gays.

Elaine, that's bull.

Look at all these restrictions that the Catholic church puts on allowing people to get married. Guess what? They still have their tax exempt status.

You're making things up and it looks bad.

Some marriage licenses have already been made to read: Husband/wife or Husband/husband or wife/wife. You get your choice. They eliminated the idea of partner A and partner B.

Jackie, it's your right to vote however you want. Please do so. It's ok by the way to vote no and still be opposed to same sex marriage. Anyone doing so would be saying: "I don't think it's right, and it's not for me, but others should have the right to be happy the same as me, and I don't think we should change the constitution to discriminate." Many churches feel that way, and my dad, a religious republican, feels that way.

Matt, same goes for you and everyone else. No one is telling you how to vote, so please vote how you will. As for the argument. You have some valid points but there is a difference between civil unions and marriages. Here is a link with an explanation.

I think I said before, if society says civil unions are ok, but no right to marry, it's like saying separate but equal. We tried that with schools and it was not only wrong, it was unconstitutional. Below is an excerpt from the link answering the question- Is marriage a religious institution?:

Civil marriage is a license by the state. There is no religious requirement to get a
marriage license, and no religious blessing by the state conveyed with this license. While
a member of the clergy may act as an agent of the state and sign a civil marriage license
following a religious ceremony, in fact, 40% of marriages in Maryland are performed by
Clerks of the Court of Judges with no accompanying religious ceremony. In any case,
clergy have and will always have the choice to marry whomever they want. Just as some
clergy don’t marry interfaith couples, so too may they reject marrying same-sex couples.

Brian, I guess you still haven't revisited Vin. And feel free to boycott any business that you don't agree with. I was merely pointing out that that's what people do. It's a reference to the badgering I've taken for choosing anonymity. There are several other reasons one might have to remain anonymous as well. Suppose I was a news anchor on a local station, or a news producer/writer, or a teacher at a local school. I don't need to explain the ramifications.

For those worried about lawsuits if prop 8 fails...that's a valid concern. Would it make a difference if clergy and religious institutions were exempt from lawsuits if they don't perform a ceremony? I happen to think that if a minister does not to perform a same sex marriage, he or she shouldn't have to. If a Justice of the Peace at the courthouse cites their religion and chooses not to perform a same sex marriage then another one who will should step in. In other words, as long as there is someone who will, those who don't should not be subjected to recourse.

Bart,

Your statement has no legs. The "simple majority" does not, should not rule over the minority. If this was the case Blacks would yet to be able to vote, go to our schools, drink water from the same fountain, ride in front of the bus.

Maybe you and the nay sayers of civil rights would also like to repeal the rights to African-Americans as well?

Every human being should have equal civil rights above "social norms".

At the time, was it a "social norm" to keep civil rights from African-Americans? Did the "Majority" except this? Yes on both questions.

---

I'm not sure where you brought in the issue of terrorism. I never heard of any gays killing any American citizens with a purse bomb, or the like.

The Courts interpret the laws, they are not empowering anybody. Are you against empowering African-Americans? The courts have helped interpt the constiution over the years giving them the rights they rightfully should have today.

May God bless (everybody) America!

Brian, it's not just Apple. Bill Gates and the Google founders also contribute to liberal causes. At this rate, you may have to go back to writing your posts on clay tablets.

"Rich"

God bless everybody America is not always on the books. When I got to California in 1952, "White" Californians could not marry Japanese Americans.

I was shocked because the end of World War II put a stop to an Arian German being forbidden to marry any person who had a Jewish parent or grand parent. By the way, American soldiers died to end that Nazi discrimination. I don't know when California took the anti-Asian marriage ban off the books.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1219/p02s01-ussc.html

Rich

Enjoy the article.

I have an african American neighbor who is male and married to a woman. They have a support sign for Proposition 8 in their front yard.

My argument has legs, and I have legs. Now please excuse us, we are going for a walk.

California's ban on interracial marriage was overturned by some "activist judges" in 1948. The law remained on the books until 1957, though.

Good point Isabell thats why I say "May" God bless America.

God Bless America is more of a statement, a command, where-as "May" gives the descretion to God.

Bart,

Yea so? You think your neighbor speaks for all African-Americans? Ask him he will tell you no.

My neighbor across the street is a retired Pastor and has a support equality vote no on prop 8 lawn sign. No he is not gay and he was not a member of a "progressive" church.

and so the debate rages on...

Mike, Rich and the rest of you new age marriage counselors:

All of the sudden real Africans (who grow cotton better than we can) get the cold shoulder from you because they still believe in a God that was introduced to them during the earliest years of Christendom, and then again by Protestant and Catholic missionaries from a different America, all whom preached the same proscription of marriage that real Africans wish to cling to today.

If you must turn from God, stay out of his light for our sake.

Why would anyone bring up race? My mother and father are of two different nationalities. Last I checked, that has nothing to do with prop 8.
My concern is the definition of marriage. When will it end? Will a man be allowed to take two wives? Could a brother and sister marry? Will we soon allow an adult to marry a child? What about people marrying animals? If both parties consent and no one gets hurt who cares? It’s all about love right? This is the path we are heading down.

I'm sorry, Bart, but once again I have to ask: what the heck are you talking about? Who are these "real" Africans? Is that something like the "real" Americans McPalin like to talk about? Who has given them the "cold shoulder"? And how? And what does their cotton production have to do with anything? (Funny, it seemed like you didn't know anything about African cotton production when we were discussing U.S. farm subsidies.)

And why would a God capable of creating light be so concerned over whether Adam prefers Steve over Eve? That makes no sense.

how come nobody respects God's word anymore?

Nobody? I think there are several commenters here that would take offense to that generalization, mdub.

"Will a man be allowed to take two wives? Could a brother and sister marry? Will we soon allow an adult to marry a child? What about people marrying animals?"

We read it before in another blogger's post. It was a revolting premise then and it is revolting now.

God and our constitution does not want us to discriminate against others.

Bart you may want others to be inferior to you as well as the others who support Prop 8.

I am not hate filled to force others to be unequal in our society.

mdub - a lot of people respect God's word. That's why we're arguing this. But I have to say, sorry, God doesn't make the laws and not everyone believes he exists.

Ali, I'm confused by your post. My wife and I are different nationalities, but the same race. We oppose changing the constitution to take rights away from a certain sector of the population. We don't believe this will lead to adults marrying kids (there are laws for age of consent), or marrying animals (don't be silly) or brothers marrying sisters, again there are laws already in place prohibiting such a thing and everybody is ok with it, and not just those of faith. Race was brought up because there was a time when blacks didn't have equal rights, much the same as gays today. Now many will say that gays DO have equal rights. In a lot of ways they do, but in some ways they don't...which brings up another argument. Why are they given some equal rights like jobs and medical care and schooling, housing, civil unions, etc, but not the right to marry? What is it about the word marriage that sets this whole argument off?

There is an insinuation that judges in this case have rightfully corrected the marriage market. An attempt to justify that action by comparing it to the expansion of civil rights for african Americans has been made also. I do not subscribe to those notions and offered the example of how African congregations are fast becoming the center of conservative church revival for members of American churches who find themselves at odds with changes that violate traditionally held beliefs, marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman being one of them. That said I recognize that Africans who certainly share the same expectation of human rights as african Americans to be among the global Proposition 8 supporters today. Ali, you may very well be describing one pathway of consequence.

Adam Yes I said people should vote from their heart and I did the Bible is my heart. It is my book of life.

Those of you claiming churches will lose their tax-exempt status if Prop 8 doesn’t pass have fallen for mere propaganda. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If a church doesn’t want to provide for homosexual marriage they don’t have to. The law can’t make them. The IRS does not even require churches to apply for tax exempt status as they are already exempt: Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). Section 501(c)(3) was put in place to keep the separation of church and state and merely prohibits churches from organizing and speaking out on issues the government declares legal; even if they don’t agree with it. So in FACT, churches organizing against the law by promoting Prop 8 are themselves putting their tax exempt status is jeopardy. As for claiming a deduction of a donation to a church… According to IRS Publication 526: Organizations That Qualify To Receive Deductible Contributions you can deduct your contributions only if you make them to a qualified organization. To become a qualified organization, most organizations other than churches and governments, as described below, must apply to the IRS. In the IRS’ own words a donation to a church “is automatically tax-deductible.” This is what the actual law says people. The “sky is falling” defenses promoted here are flat false. NO ON PROP 8. This is a secular issue. If two men or two women get married, it will not hurt your marriage, it will not hurt your religion. You can not segregate your children from things in this world you consider bad; from war, violence,atheism,etc. They are going to hear about these things eventually. Raise them the way you want, teach them and they will adapt. Tell them about all the horrors in the world like two people who love each other and want to share a committed relationship.

If the supporters of prop 8 were as passionate about Liberty; Justice; the Pursuit of Happiness, as they are passionate in condemning same-sex marriage; this country could become a utopian Paradise regained.

I am asking the same question (that has been asked by others) what is there to be afraid of? What is the perceived threat? That man and man or woman and woman say "I do" does not frighten me. A nation in which the torture of prisoners has become legal, that frightens me. That habeas corpus has as much as vanished from the land, that frightens me. That there are people who want in their own land for which American blood was spilled in war, that frightens me because those are a threat to my liberty as well. But homosexual marriage is no threat to me. I am simple enough to find it somehow odd, but people do a lot of things that are odd. According to my hubby and daughter, I am odd about some of the things I eat...all Euro.

I know several of you believe Christians are hateful. That breaks my heart. We are merely standing up for the protection of marriage as it is meant to be. We hate the sin, not the sinner. If this is only about gay rights then why not create a bill about that and leave marriage out of it? Marriage was instituted by God to be between a man and a woman. Our Creator designed us and marriage. He made the rules not to spoil our fun, but to protect us from the natural consequences of bad choices. There are many studies which state the average lifespan of a gay man is 20yrs shorter than that of a straight man. How is this not a damaging and unhealthy lifestyle alternative? http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html
The Bible is our hand book to life and love. God has never supported homosexual acts or lifestyles. It’s clear as day in the Good Book. If you don’t like that, feel free to duke it out with the Almighty. In the meantime, I shall also vote according to the Bible.

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoeller

Go out and vote! Let your sense of fairness be your guide.

Ali, if you don't believe in gay marriage, fine. Don't go to one if you're invited, and keep on attending a church that doesn't perform them. But why do you think it's not hateful to take away someone else's right to marry because of your own personal religious beliefs? You mentioned that your parents are of different "nationalities." I don't know if they are of different races, but there was a time (in my lifetime) when blacks and whites couldn't marry each other. And a lot of churches taught that such marriages were against the will of God. How do you think your parents would have felt if they were told they couldn't get married (but they could have some sort of "domestic partnership" which wouldn't be recognized in other states)?

The Bible actually has very, very little to say about homosexuality. The OT proscriptions are there along with proscriptions on eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. The NT only has a few ambiguous passages from Paul (ambiguous in the Greek, some modern translations try to make it clearer than the original to support their doctrines). You can interpret those passages however your want - that's your right. But why do you think it's okay to use that belief to deprive someone else of the legal right to marry his/her loved one? Do you think homsexuals are incapable of love? Do you think they don't care about their spouses/partners? Are you unable to put yourself in thier place, and imagine a life where you were incapable of romantic love someone of another gender, through no fault of your own?

Go ahead and vote however you want. But don't be surprised that people think of conservative Christianity as hateful. When so many people are so determined to take away something from a few, it doesn't look like anything other than hate.

Bart,

African-Americans i.e. interacial marriage was in the opinion used to justify equality and civil rights. Although segments of African-American society do practice religion and as you put it the "center of conservative church revival" that does not in-itself give justifications for all African-Americans. What do you say of African-Americans who do not hold conservative religious beliefs? Ones who do not believe in proposition 8 who are religious?

It seems you (and the advocates of prop 8) do not give the rest of society who hold "conservative religious beliefs" as having a legitimate civil right.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno concurred.

Ali- Marriage has a secular definition as well. If it did not, then atheists wouldn't be allowed to be married either. With this secular meaning comes secular rights. One of the main tenants of this country is the separation of church and government. The religious aspect is the only reason people don't want to allow this. You can't use the constitution to promote a religious way of thinking. It is the reason left Europe and came here. You tell people to duke it out with the Almighty. Then let them. Let them be married and face the music. It's God job to judge, not ours.

People need to get something through their heads. Marriage, from the dawn of history is and has been a contract concerning property and rights and nothing else. Even in the bible it's about property and rights. There are proscriptions against having sexual relations outside of marriage in the bible. This is supposed to provide for certainty in succession issues and inheritance issues. No other reasons.

Only recently has marriage become concerned with romantic love. Even there marriage doesn't make romantic love possible or the lack of the marriage contract make romantic love impossible. People are free to love whomever they wish, no matter what the general public says. You just can't control emotions.

Communities and governments have also tried to use marriage as social engineering, such as we have with Prop 8. You may marry this person, you many not marry that one. And for no other reasons than this group of people or that one is somehow unacceptable in some way to the general population. It's been a long fight, but over and over this idea of social engineering through marriage has been overturned by the government, and rightly so. Usually over the protestations of the general public at that time. History has taught us that this social engineering is wrong, both morally and legally. This fight against social engineering through marriage evidently is not over yet.

The only reasons to vote for Prop 8 are based on fear of things that just don't hold water when held up to the light of day. The fear that, somehow, allowing homosexuals the same rights to marriage will infringe on heterosexual marriage. It will not. The fear that, somehow, if a child hears about homosexual marriage that will somehow turn them gay. It can not. Homosexuality is not learned. It just is. Just like heterosexuality. Does one LEARN to be heterosexual? Does the bible somehow proscribe against homosexuality? Probably, but the bible has been used to justify slavery, segregation, "racial purity", burning jews, "witches", and "heretics" and others who disagree with the prevailing religious views of the time at the stake, religious wars against people with different beliefs, etc. Do we still justify these things in the name of religion. No we do not. Religious views and interpretations of the bible evolve. We should allow these views and interpretaions to continue to evolve.

Rich

Just as you don't understand the term marriage anymore, you have also lost the different meanings of the term conservative.

Anyway you are absent the moral standing to cite another who possesses a complete name, so quit pretending to be someone who does.

Be your own man, make your full mark here, and most importantly stop hiding from the real world from behind the black robes of impoverished thought mongers.

Jeff,

I agree with much of what you say, except for the idea that romantic love had nothing to do with marriage until recently. It is true that in the past people got married for other reasons, due to arranged marriages, etc. But the biblical story of Jacob and his wives shows that romantic love has been around for a long time, and has probably always been a factor in choosing a partner (if not always the controlling factor).

As the story goes, Jacob fell in love with Rachel, but after working for her brother for 7 years, he was tricked into marrying Rachel’s older sister Leah. So he worked another 7 years to get Rachel. The marriage to Leah was based on contract only, while the marriage to Rachel was based on contract and romantic love. But the end result was not very satisfactory for any of the parties (except the brother, who got his sisters married off and 14 years of free labor).

Whether you believe it’s a literally true story or not, it does show that romantic love has been around for a long time, but that the restrictions put on one’s choice of a partner by society, family or religion often thwart that love, and produce much unhappiness. Prop. 8 is just another continuation of that old theme, trying to keep people who love each other from marrying because of tradition. If more people adopted a “live and let live” attitude when it comes to love, we’d all be in a happier place.

"The Bible actually has very, very little to say about homosexuality." (Mike D.)

Jesus Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality. I am a follower of Jesus Christ; ergo I am a Christian. To use the Bible as some sort of elastic moral code to intimidate, is morally untenable because it proselytizes intolerance.

Mike D, I am so happy to see you’ve pulled out your Bible for this. Please turn to 1Cor.6:9, 10 and Rom. 1: 24-27, 32. You are correct in saying the Leviticus law was pretty harsh on this subject Lev. 20:13. Okay, perhaps “harsh” is an understatement. Praise God, Jesus came so we no longer have to act upon that law. This doesn’t change God’s feelings toward this issue.
Since you are all so hung up on my ethnicity, I am white and pacific islander which according to the U.S. Census Bureau would be considered two different races. As far as blacks marrying whites, there is no comparison to this and prop 8. During that time there may very well have been a few churches who promoted segregation. This is by no means biblical. Just as there are churches today who support gay marriage, which is also not biblical. I can’t help but wonder about (not judge) these pastors and their relationship with Jesus.
You all think that if prop 8 doesn’t pass it will have no effect on me or my family or my church. It takes time for society to fall. My words will soon be considered hate speech and I may be imprisoned for such words within our lifetime. This includes parents speaking out against the teachings in schools and pastors from pulpits. Crucify me if you will. For the day will come when Christians will no longer have freedom of speech.

Hello Bart,

When all your arguements fail resort to personal attacks.

Don't loose your footing again, stand up and debate!

Your backing down too easy.

Ali, just for clarification, I am not "hung up" on your ethnicity. You are the one who brought it up, but I will not mention it again.

You are mistaken if you think this issue has no comparison to interracial marriage. The same legal arguments apply (as Rich pointed out above), and the opposition is led by religious conservatives, just as it was in the interracial case. And what is "biblical" to one believer is "unbiblical" to another. Scripture has been used to justify all sorts of wrongs against others in this world. (In fact, you could make a stronger biblical case in favor of slavery, for example, than you can against it.)

I won't spend any more time debating this with you, though, as I see your mind is shut tight, and your capacity for empathy is subverted by your adherence to doctrine. It's almost amusing in a sad way how you can be so concerned about a hypothetical impact on your rights in the indeterminate future, while you apparently have no qualms at all about actual deprivation of the rights of those whose lives don't comply with your religious beliefs here and now. The words of Pastor Niemoeller (as Isabel reported above) are very apropos.

(And if that's what you consider "crucifixion," then I only feel sorry for you.)

A couple of points.

1. The job of judges is to interpret the law, not rubber stamp anything that gets voted on. If the people of the state of California want to change the law in a way that is later determined to be illegal by the panel of judges then the law does not get changed. All changes to the law must be legal under the Constitution as interpreted by the judges. We cannot reinstate slavery, for instance.

2. If laws only had one interpretation we would not need a legal system as we have: no courts, no juries. They would be superfluous as the law would be obvious, which it is not in many cases. At one time slavery was legal, now it is not.

3. We are not a theocracy, the laws are not intended to be Christian or any other religion. The is no mention of following the Bible as a legal reference in our Constitution.

4. Many things are forbidden in the Bible that we allow, like divorce. Many things are allowed that we make against the law, like slavery.

5. Homosexuality is an Old Testament sin. Jesus makes no reference to it whatsoever. He was very much against divorce, which many Christians seem to ignore. A man could divorce his wife for adultery, but could not remarry.

6. Just to keep a perspective, if a Christian followed every warning of forbidden things in the Old Testament it would be understandable that they would be against homosexuality on religious grounds. But most evangelical Christians don't avoid seafood and pork, they loan money to other Christians at interest, etc. Many pick one forbidden subject, homosexuality, and start talking about God's law while ignoring other forbidden things. That's when they cross over from having a cohesive religious viewpoint to obsession.

The state Constitution deals with the affairs of this world, the Bible with your future in the next. There is no place in the Bible that demands Christians change all government to reflect Christian law. The Bible refers to the behavior of Christians and Hebrews, it does not say to force everyone to do the same. God will save whom he choses, not who we chose. And he will send to hell whom he choses. A large number of Christians are going to vote against Prop. 8. This has the effect of creating a pointless argument over whose viewpoint God loves more rather than focusing people to consider their own souls.

If I was going to make any part of the Bible part of our Constitution, it would be all the warnings against excessive wealth and interest. Money is like a drug for many Americans with ill effects to their lives.

Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:24

Ali
When Mike and Rich talk about hate and rage respectively, they know of what they speak. Sensing an obvious truth, that change has hit the proverbial wall and is stalling, the emotion is beginning weep into the content of their talking points. I can only rejoice that opposers of Proposition 8, will be celebrating a successful completion of a democratic process even if it passes.

Like it or not, our country was built on a biblical foundation. Here’s proof. You could say we no longer live this way; however, if that’s the case, you could kiss good-bye all the freedoms you have.
George Washington- “Don’t let anyone claim to be a true American. Don’t let them claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.”
George Washington- “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
William Penn- “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”
John Adams- “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Teddy Roosevelt- “In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on a rapid down-grade.”

And which religion is that Ali?

Thank you David. That about sums it up. Well, you would think anyway.

Ali - you say:
"My words will soon be considered hate speech and I may be imprisoned for such words within our lifetime. This includes parents speaking out against the teachings in schools and pastors from pulpits."

Nawww...I wouldn't worry about it. You don't seem like the kind of person who would stand on the street corner and spout expletives and racial slurs so I'm sure you will always have your freedom of speech. Why on earth would you lose that? And Pastors can teach anti-gay sentiments all they want inside their church. I've never heard a pastor do it, but I suppose he could if he wanted to. It would likely be a good way to thin the gays out of the congregation.

And for everyone who is so bent on the schools teaching the kids thing, our 11 year old already understands that some people are gay. She knows her uncle is.

And why on earth is there this impression that if a parent didn't want their elementary son or daughter hearing a teacher go on and on about same sex relationships (which maybe one or two teachers in the whole country has ever done), why wouldn't they be able to ask that their child be removed from the class? Parents have that right and that will never go away, especially because same sex relationships have nothing to do with the elementary school curriculum. I would think the teacher would be in trouble, not the parents.

Finally it’s coming out! (How the libs really feel about Christians and "their" rights).

"And Pastors can teach anti-gay sentiments all they want INSIDE THEIR CHURCH." (Scott)

So, are you saying that once a pastor steps outside the church building that they (or any other Christian) gives up their right to speak out on the subject of homosexuality?

Do Christians / pastors give up their rights to share their faith in a non-church setting? What about talking about evangelical Christian theology in an outdoor restaurant? Lib Scott seems to think Christians loose their rights at this point!

I don’t know about y’all, but I call that bigotry! Evidently, libs don’t!

I'll just add this - if you think the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, instead of "quote-mining" various historical figures (some of whom had nothing to do with the establishment of our form of republic), start by reading the Constitution from beginning to end. (That would be a good thing for any American to do.) What you will find is a completely secular document which has no relationship to the Bible.

Yes Ali,

Look at someone who talks through both sides of the mouth. First attacking me who he disagrees, then saying I am weeping into the content of talking points.

Ali at least you didnt fall into attack dog mode once you lost all your arguements as well.

For that you have my respect even if we disagree, as for the others, the uncivil, comments speak for themselves.

You are somewhat correct but there were very strong reasons that the Founding Fathers specifically kept out any reference to the Bible or Christianity when it came to our legal basis. They hated theocracies for the most part as much as monarchies. Plus most of them were Deists, you'll notice NO mention of the Bible or Christianity in your quotes and you won't find them often in their writings. Most of their feelings about God encompass a larger view than just Christianity. All the world's governments only function well if the citizens are decent, moral people to begin with, which for most people means religious in nature while not being the Christian religion.

The most common quotes that Prop.8 supporters use are from the Torah, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. They are quoting the Torah which is contained within the Bible. I really wish more Christians would speak with respect about the Hebrew basis for Christianity. The collection that became the Bible came much later. Our moral values pre-date the Bible. The Judeo-Christian background that for the most part underlies our moral views has precedents throughout the world, many from non- Judaic or non-Christian cultures.

The history of the world has had free peoples in it throughout it's history. Our nation's expansion from the colonies to what it is today wiped out a good many free nations.

We are a nation of laws that supposedly guarantee a good deal of freedom. Our system of checks and balances is what keeps a free nation from the tyranny of a group and sometimes even the tyranny of the majority from oppressing others. None are free if all are not. That is what the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish with this often frustrating, slow, methodical system of law.

We have a long way to go.

Have any of you heard of Robb and Robin Wirthlin’s story on YOU TUBE? Check it out. This wasn’t a simple little incident. The homosexual lifestyle was introduced to their second graders class and as parents they couldn’t do anything about it. They even took it to court and lost.

Yes, it is extortion. They are threatening these people for money. They should be charged with extortion. This is over the top.

And the people on both sides that are taking signs are not only thieves by simple definition but also are violating a citizen's right to show support for his side. That of course only applies to people who are displaying signs on their own property. Out in Clovis I saw a bunch of pro-8 signs all over a public park. That is plain wrong.

The degree of uncivil behavior is rising in this country and will get worse before it gets better. It's bad when we go from wanting to change our government, and legally working toward change, to demanding that it must change.

I clicked around for a Halloween greeting card, but my technically disabled (by age) computer popped up with horoscopes. From it, I surmised that I should shut up. I agree. The pro-prop 8 side has gone from the (proverbial) sublime to the ridiculous. Do they really believe what they are posting, or is it an attempt to find validation for their logic-challenged thinking? An earlier post went as far as implying that it matters none what Jesus said, only God's word counts.

I am a Roman Catholic. I am not in the loop of the Christian Right. But don't they believe in the Trinity...God Father, God Son and Holy Spirit... being inseparably ONE?

Scot

You are eroding quickly, an idea so unlike you. Gay thinning, you mean like pruning? Man there will be no words left in the hat to pull out after this one. Sounds to me like you have been playing the devil's advocate on this alot. As usual you have passed the turn off and gone a bit further than any American here has gone before. By the way I'm just as curious as to where the legions of gay and lesbian community have been during this Bee extravaganza. As a group they have considerable experience with extortion, both ways unfortuately. I expected this to be something more in depth than a conversation between Prop 8 supporters and friends or relatives making the argument for them in proxy.

I’m surprised how many of you choose to take on the Bible and what it says. When you look at the Bible you must look at it as a whole and not in part. Jesus is referred to as the Word in John1:1. It also says he was there during creation. Jesus is part of the entire Bible. We could talk about old testament law in relation to the new covenant if you are willing to actually read the Bible in entirety. Besides Leviticus speaking of it as being detestable, the new testament speaks of homosexuality as unnatural and indecent in Rom 1:26, 27 For those of you who doubt the English translation, feel free to look at it alongside the Greek. You can even find the Greek and English interlinear Bible online.

"The most common quotes that Prop.8 supporters use are from the Torah, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13."

Maybe, but most, including yours truly, frequently quote Romans 1:18-32 & I Corinthians 6: 9-11. For the benefit of non-Bible-reading libs out there - that’s from the New Testament!

I thought you were done debating me. :)

When I lived in San Francisco my church was violently protested against when we had a special speaker come and preach against homosexuality. The police had to come so we wouldn’t be hurt as we left the building. Of course the media never really covered that event. Praise God the government did support us that day.

Luckily, I know how to use my bible TC, but it doesn't dictate my ideas about how our society should work so I really don't care what Jesus did or did not have to say on the issue.

I still don't see any explanation as to why people think their religious beliefs should be codified in the state Constitution.

Should the Constitution also require tithing or weekly church attendance? Should it forbid taking the Lord's name in vain? Should it outlaw coveting? Do you realize only 3 of the 10 commandments are part of our laws? Shouldn't you be working on getting the other 7 in there?

Or is it just so much more convenient to focus on the "sins" of other people?

Wait Ali, did you just give an example of the government stepping in to protect your right to have a church service where the pastor could say what he wanted?

Are you arguing against yourself now?

We have all sinned. I’m not picking and choosing sins. In case you forgot, the topic of the day is homosexuality. We could discuss other sins on another day.
If prop 8 doesn’t pass, there will be an affect on schools. Already a school teacher in SF took her elementary students (using school funds) to witness her marriage to her partner. She said it was a teachable moment. Look again to the story in Massachusetts as well. I can’t see how anyone could say there will be no affect on our schools when it already has.

Back I am! It took me more than an hour to get to the second part of my earlier post because the concordance in my King James version Bible was of no help at all. I called a dear friend, pastor and educator. He gave me three options, I choose the Gospel According to Luke.

"RENDER THEREFORE UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH BE CAESAR'S, AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS WHICH BE GOD"S"

In a democratic form of government the ultimate authority is demos (the people). Prop 8 is most definitely an undertaking in a secular government, and "We the People" have the responsibility to choose. But the pro and/or con debate should be based on secular basis.

Therefore the Bible should be kept out of it. It is only in private, we should take counsels from our religious tenets. OOOOPS! I did not shut up after all.

Your religious Catholic, saying NO on this secular social issue.

You didn't address the question. If Prop. 8 passes, what's next? Are there any other religious beliefs you want in the state Constitution, or just that one?

By the way, that field trip that has the conservative blogosphere so up in arms was from a charter school, not a regular public school. Charter schools have a lot more leeway. And Prop. 8 wouldn't prohibit field trips to same-sex events. It says nothing about public schools - that's just propaganda.

Adam, this is about preserving marriage as it is meant to be and the repercussions if prop 8 fails. Our freedom of speech is not gone… yet. Nor is our right to speak against sin during church services gone…yet. But the writing is on the wall and I choose not to ignore it.

You let us know when you start collecting signatures to make coveting illegal Ali. All sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord are they not?

Couldn't even get the big ten in the constitution before you started on homosexuality.

When laws are made and interpreted do they refer to a black book? NO

Whats next "eye for an eye" street justice, or the Salem witch hunts?

The slippery slope is when religious zealots get out of the closet run in the streets going after those who do not hold their beliefs.

Interesting point Rich.

Inversely I am concerned that if same sex marriage does become permanent, with all its potential for legal sequelae,
that: people who could not vote or didn't vote, who voted and were opposed to the whole matter, and folks who went along without any real personal interest one way or the other, are subsequently affected so negatively that they become disallusioned with the newest judicial experiment.

There is no use talking in circles. Everything has been covered by me or someone else. Some of you either choose to ignore it or are blind to the truth. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. I don’t expect to change anyone’s heart either. That’s between you and God. It is however, my responsibility to speak the truth boldly and I hope I’ve done so with love. Just remember, God loves us too much to leave us in our sin. We each get one life to live and one ultimate choice to make. Repent and live for Jesus, or continue to live for yourself.
That being said, I bid you adieu!
YES ON PROP 8!

Goodbye.

No on Prop. 8.

"There is no use talking in circles. Everything has been covered by me or someone else."

Not really. You left a lot of questions unanswered. Questions you probably have no good answer for.

If you wanted to change someone's heart (which you apparently don't - you'd rather just shake the dust off your shoes and go your way), try showing love instead of hatred.

In re-reading my comment, it may appear that I was too hard on Ali. And perhaps I was, as she is probably just repeating what she has been taught. Like most fundamentalists, the thought that she could possibly be wrong is simply unthinkable.

But I didn't use the word "hatred" lightly. The belief system that she and the other Prop 8 proponents espouse is supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus. But one common thread of Jesus' teachings is that love is based on how you treat others, not on lip service or personal "virtue." People were more important to him than strict rule-keeping (e.g. his allowances for breaking the sabbath rule, his open disagreement with Moses on divorce and eye-for-an-eye, etc.) Unfortunately, the fundamentalism so prevalent in America these days is more in the spirit of the Pharisees than the spirit of Jesus. (At least the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, rather than the mystical Jesus of John, which was written much later.)

Not that our religious beliefs should dictate what we vote into law (a point Ali refused to address), but since religion is the sole motivating factor in favor of Prop. 8, it's only fair to address it from that perspective.

Aw TC, before you go getting all excited with your "Gotcha," Ali was talking about pastors speaking from the pulpit, hence the "inside the church" thing. Plus, you're not going to get the police coming in and interrupting a sermon because you're preaching Bible interpretation. Duh.

I told her she can stand on the street and spew anything she wants and will still have freedom of speech backing her up. That would go the same for a pastor standing on the street speaking out against homosexuality. I'm sure you've seen it happen, I think we all have. Freedom of speech. I'll say it again, it will not be taken away.

We've talked about it before too. With freedom of speech comes a little responsibility. It's not a good idea to yell FIRE in a crowded theater and speaking hateful things about gays to a group of gays is usually grounds for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if that's what it comes to. Same as anyone walking into a church picnic at the park and spewing a bunch of anti-religious sentiments and starting a fight.

Come on you guys, your freedom of speech will always be there. Don't tell me it won't be. I have shown plenty of compassion for the church's rights and the rights of those people of faith. Scroll up and read my earlier comments. My problem has always been with the concept of the Bible making the laws in this country. That is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Bart

Ha! Thinning...yes, sort of like pruning. Would it surprise you if I told you I've seen it? If you're a long time Fresnan, it shouldn't. I know many gays who consider themselves Christians. Low and behold many churches don't really make them feel feel comfortable in the congregation, so they find churches where they feel welcome. That's not hard to do in West Hollywood but it is hard to do around here. How welcome do you think they feel driving around in Clovis right now?

As for the gays coming in here and giving us their thoughts. I know of two that have and they just get ignored. Melanie up above gave a heartfelt story and got nothing from the right.

By the way Ali,
I don't find ANYWHERE that says George Washington said:
“Don’t let anyone claim to be a true American. Don’t let them claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.” ...except on a couple of religion sites.

He is credited with saying:

and for your side of the argument he also said:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

But that has nothing to do with making our laws. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That is really plain and simple.

And my last quote should be from Thomas Jefferson:
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

RE: Mike D

"...but since religion is the sole motivating factor in favor of Prop. 8, it's only fair to address it from that perspective."

I may be mis-reading those words, but by my perception of the constitution, would it not be unconstitutional to allow it to be a state proposition to be voted on in the first place. If religion was the sole motive, how did it get by the Secretary of State? It would be equal to put to a vote that Christianity must be the only recognized religion in California.

There must be some legal parameters as to what can be put to a vote and what cannot.

"...you'll notice NO mention of the Bible or Christianity in your quotes and you won't find them often in their writings. Most of their feelings about God encompass a larger view than just Christianity."

THAT IS REVISIONIST HOGWASH.

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the constitution which was framed in our convention where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would have never place my signature on it." -- George Washington, May 10, 1789

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians--not religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." -- Patrick Henry

"The moral principles and concepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws..." -- Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832

"Had the people during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one denomination... In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." -- U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee report, 1854

"If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall always live in the fear of God and shall respect His commandments,... we may have the hishest hopes of the future fortunes of our country;..." -- Daniel Webster, statesman and politician, December 22, 1820

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legisation, state or national, because this is a religious people... This is a Christian nation. -- U.S. Supreme Court, Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S., 1892 (They cited at least 87 historical precedents to support this conclusion)

"Let the children... be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion... This is the most essential part of education..." -- Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony..." -- Mayflower Compact, 1620 (framework model for the U.S. Constitution)

...and Mike D./Scot; Family Code 297.5 guarantees rights for domestic partners; you can look it up for yourself. The foundation of the proponents' argument is that Prop 8 will "take away rights." I'll ask again, what rights will be taken away by passage of Prop 8? Before you demand that others answer your question (Mike), please address this question.

So, Scott, speaking out on homosexuality from a theological viewpoint is, in your mind, the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

I have yet to hear of any EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN spokesperson or pastor use abusive speech when expressing their opinions on the homosexual / marriage question. In your mind, is speech - non-offensive speech based on a heart-felt Christian theology and a personal experience with the Lord - the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Is that the speech you libs want to ban? It sure seems to be!

BTW, I have yet to hear a pro-Prop 8 spokesperson advocating "the concept of the Bible making the laws in this country." (There is a big difference between replacing the constitution with Biblical laws - as libs assume that all Christians want to do - and advocating a personal relationship with Christ that would change a person’s life so radically that it would influence the decisions of their moral life).

The news this morning is reporting death threats against a local pastor and mayor Autry. Perhaps this is what libs consider acceptable, normal "free speech" when talking about the homosexual / marriage issue.

Let’s make no mistake about the issues at hand. It is certainly a theological issue. But it is also a First Amendment issue.

Are libs willing to allow evangelical Christians to speak out on so-called controversial issues; will they be allowed to continue to worship according to the dictates of their faith - according to what they believe the Bible says? Or will their deeply held theological beliefs be declared "intolerant and hate speech." We all know on what side the libs stand on! Can you say, "totalitarianism"?

More quote-mining, Matt. Show me where the biblical principles are in the Constitution.

And as for rights, to me the right to marry is a pretty substantial right in and of itself. Could you imagine being told you can't marry your loved one, but you can have some sort of "domestic partnership" instead?

No, of course not. You don't have that sort of capacity for empathy, do you?

Matt: "I'll ask again, what rights will be taken away by passage of Prop 8? Before you demand that others answer your question (Mike), please address this question."

I answered this question days ago. The very act of naming what you are trying to claim is the same thing two different names for two different kinds of people is the inequality. How do you not see that?

Mike

You didn't treat Ali as well as your coffee shop "friends" mentioned elsewhere. They where afforded the opportunity to have the knives you impaled once each in their backs with insults to be surgically removed. In Alis case you pulled it out with an apology before you punched it right back in. She gets two wounds for making her point with you, I hope you got what you came for.

What's with all the violent imagery? "Crucify me...", knifings. Sheesh. Hyperbole much?

The right of gays to marry will be taken away if Prop 8 passes. Does that answer your question, Adam? I have listened to the propaganda put out by the Prop 8 proponents. They argue that the schools will have to teach about gay marraige. They argue that the family will be destroyed. They argue that Churches will be sued if they don't accept gay marriage. They argue that private adoption agencies will be adversly affected. All of these claims are either gross distortions or outrigh lies. Here's my question. Why do so called Christians have to resort to this kind of deceptive advertising to get people to vote in favor of the proposition?

Bart look whos talking need I remind the readers and yourself to look back at you comments?

Clearly your the knife thrower in the bunch.
The good thing is your bad at it, and miss every time.

quotes; quotes ad nauseam. I too say adieu to the prop 8 thread because it is getting tangled up in irrelevancies.

Bart, I was operating on the assumption that Ali came here to debate her views, not just to preach. So I debated her. What's wrong with that? I don't think she got treated any worse than anyone else here. And you are hardly in any position to be demanding an apology on behalf of anyone. Clean your own house first.

Mr. Ruston

Gay and Lesbian groups no longer have the political capital to make promises with the staight population, and four judges are hoping that they don't have to revisit this on your behalf. If Proposition 8 passes, I doubt that they will exercise that sort of legislative energy twice. So let's just put it to bed and give the lawyers some rest.

Sorry for the confusion James. That was Matt's question that I was answering, not my own.

what's up with the death threats on Alan Autry's and Pastor Franklin's lives? I saw on the news that they received death threats after their Yes on Prop 8 event. I bet this is just another ploy by the Yes supporters to put fear into our hearts. Those sick people!!

Whatever the motives mdub, it's effed up.

Where did you hear about any death threats? I did a quick search in the Bee archives, and nothing came up.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479861

i saw it on the 11pm news last night. Here's the link to it on ABC 30's website.

Mike,

Do me a favor, mine me up some quotes showing that the founding fathers DENIED their Christianity. In that Supreme Court case of 1892, the panel cited 87 cases and stopped at that point, stating that 87 "should be enough" to support their opinion; they could have cited many more (reference: Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.; 143 U.S. 457 (1892))

Secondly Mike, you state above that I have no empathy for others. Wow, I'm impressed that you know me so well that you are able to say not only that, but back in March/April that you "feel sorry for my [kids]" because of my conservative leanings. You, sir have no freakin' clue who I am, what I've been through, or what I stand for (do you know how many gay acquaintences I have? lemme answer-MANY). I blasted you before for these red-herring, implied statements that are worded so you can go back and say, "that's not what I said." So, since you seem to know me so well, why don't you go ahead and profile me, out here for everyone to see, and I'll honestly tell the readers how accurate your assessment is. Otherwise, keep the subtle personal attacks out of it.

BTW, if you want an example of my level of "empathy," when I was visiting a friend for a weekend in North Carolina, and was shown a KKK flier left on her doorstep for a Tuesday meeting, I almost stayed in town for a few extra days so I could show up at the meeting in a Tuskegee University t-shirt, just to piss 'em off. Believe me, had Monday's work not been so important, I would've done it. I've experienced true bigotry and hatred; I don't need that lecture.

Adam,

Your link sent me to a website that differentiated between marriage and civil unions. ...Semantics, syntax, or whatever, the term in CA law is "domestic partnerships." The argument that your weblink presented seemed to focus on how "marriage" is recognized in all 50 states, but "domestic partner(ship)" is not. Well, even if gay marriage is legalized in CA, it still won't be recognized in about 45 other states, just because it's labeled as "marriage."

My question is to specifically identify which rights that are ALREADY guaranteed by CA law will be taken away, as the anti-Prop 8 people continually state. To further clarify, if you read the text of the law, it appears that even down to relatives not being allowed to inter-marry, domestic partners are entitled to every right that a traditional married couple has. In fact, wouldn't that clause of the law be discriminitory to gays, due to the fact that a same sex couple cannot possibly exchange genes (although the convoluted defintion of "gender" in SB 777 might indicate they can somehow try)? What about the "happiness" or "rights" of that person who wants to have a relationship with his/her same sex second cousin? If there's "no harm," why do they have to follow that specific rule?

My original question still remains unanswered...

To all others who say that Prop 8 supporters are lying when they say that schools will teach about this; that's wrong. There are verifiable events that happened in Mass., where PARENTAL RIGHTS have been blatantly and willfully viloated by activist educators, after the legalization of gay marriages. One father was arrested and jailed for insisting his child not be taught about gay relationships in 2nd grade. Another documentary shows a full 2-day lesson on gay relationships, based on a short book. And for those who argue that teaching the Bible in schools is completely out of place, then how can anyone justify a field trip in a San Francisco school to a wedding (gay or hetero)? That's a non-curricular issue with no educational value. What's more important, gay rights or parental rights? I say that MY ability to make decisions about moral issues for my children is more important that forwarding the issue of gay acceptance.

For the record, I teach my children to NEVER judge anyone by their appearance or normal behaviors, but to give EVERYONE a chance before deciding whether or not to associate with that person. This includes not judging two males who might be holding hands or showing affection. By the way, both of my children thought that didn't look right when I asked them about it...and it's not a normal discussion topic around the house, so they didn't pick up on any pre-concieved notions. When my boy asked how they could have babies, I stated that they could adopt! (I'm not sure, but I think that's the way Jesus would approach it. So much for strict, biblical bigotry, eh?)

In the '50s or '60s, if someone would have said, "This interracial liberalization will lead to homosexuals someday getting married!" then the unanimous response would've been, "That's not true. Never gonna happen." But look at the rationalization for gay marriage; it's a direct comparison to the civil rights movement (which was for good cause, by the way). I say now, that in another 50 years, if Prop 8 fails, it will be used as precedent for rationalizing polygamy and other unions we now consider taboo or off-limits. I have not read one response to that argument saying, "Yeah, that's what want!" Yet, I feel that's what will happen. If I'm wrong, then I hereby give you permission to spit on my grave...

I'm with Isabel. Except for waiting to see my personal profile or a legitimate answer, I'm done. 2-1/2 days to voting day; further debate is a waste of time & nrg.

Matt, I'll say it as simply as I can.

Yes on 8 takes away the rights of gay people to be treated equally under the law.

Heterosexual couples have a right to choose to get married, have a civil union, or a domestic partnership, or whatever else you want to call it.

If this amendment passes, homosexual couples will not have that right. They will have a choice legally off limits to them.

I don't care if the offerings are the same under marriage and domestic partnerships. It's a form of ostracism. It's othering a whole section of society. For what?

Too bad democrats dont swap votes like carbon units. Minick could give up clean air for high speed rail, Lawson could give up gay/lesbian marriage for a chicken with a Geneva Convention...so on and so forth until complete order is restored to the universe. Sounds like self government almost.

If you are against marriage between black and white , you are RACIST
If you are against marriage between gays , you are HOMOPHOBIC
Vote NO to prop8
Vote NO to homophobia
Vote NO to religious talibans in Afghanistan or in California !