Oh the irony: Black Voters Save Proposition 8

"...where black voters supported Amendment 2 71-29."

Verb fail. Sorry

I would say there is some irony in a population that has benefited from increased civil liberties voting against granting those same liberties to another community--not to mention the gay community at large is very pro-civil liberties for minorities and so forth.  So yes, ironic.  And in my opinion, very sad.

I'm in California, and saw the ads. They ran it by using fear saying that gay marriage can be taught in schools. If it had been presented another way, I don't think it would have passed. But, bring the kids into it, oh then people get scared. But, this is by no means the last word on it.

Mush, E.D.

The bizarre thing about the "black" community is that in most areas they are quite conservative.  Abortion, gay marriage, other social issues, they are pubs to the core.

But they vote dem, time and time again, at least 99% do. 

Any idea why?

The same is true with the Latino community.  Karl Rove understood this and tried to expand the Republican base since Latinos are the fastest growing minority demographic in the United States and the Republican base of white males is shrinking.  Because of the strong anti-immigration stance of many GOP politicians, the GOP lost a golden opportunity to expand their base.  Blacks will simply vote Democrat because the Democrats use group identity and race based politics to appeal to them and then basically ignore the issues once they're elected.

This is just another lesson that Judeo-Christian religions do MORE harm than good.

Mr. Cerebellum:

and Islam is so accepting of homosexuality?

And I am not so sure this is all religion based either.  That would seem to be an assumption on your part, though I am sure quite a  bit of it is.

wmolaw, then one could argue that all religion is more detrimental than helpful. Besides, with all the religious divide between Christianity and Islam, don't you think it have been more in your interest to have left that example out of the equation?

wmolaw

this country wasn't founded around Islam.  That's why I left it out.  I have little consideration or respect for ALL theistic religions, but guess who's top of my sh*t list right now?

Mr:

Well, considering the despicable actions that are being taken in the name of Islam across the globe, I would hope it was Islam.

But I bet I'm wrong, right?

The bizarre thing about the "black" community is that in most areas they are quite conservative.  Abortion, gay marriage, other social issues, they are pubs to the core.

But they vote dem, time and time again, at least 99% do. 

Any idea why?

I'd have to think that it's because the GOP hasn't been altogether welcoming of blacks.  Let's face it, they have effectively become the party of the white rural South.  A lot of white rural Southerners gathered in one place is pretty darn intimidating for a black person.  My uncle was a black Republican in Arkansas and ran for office several times in the 80s and 90s.  They were not exactly pleased to have him on the ticket even though he had a Ph.D. in economics.  I remember riding with him to do some canvassing for one race and he had a .45 in his truck and a .22 in an ankle holster.  He told me that he was not about to go knocking on white folks' doors without having some backup.  Until the GOP can open its arms and present and support candidates of color, most blacks will remain distrustful and distant.

I'm in California, and saw the ads. They ran it by using fear saying that gay marriage can be taught in schools. If it had been presented another way, I don't think it would have passed. But, bring the kids into it, oh then people get scared. But, this is by no means the last word on it.

And they rad those lie-based ads over and over and over. The State Superintendent of Schools, Jack O'Connel, ran an ad countering the claims. He stated matter-of-factly that marriage of any kind is not part of the California public school curriculum and they have no plans to start teaching marriage...any kind of marriage. The other ads were full of lies and scare tactics. The proble is, O'Connel's ad only ran a couple of times due to luch of funding. The Yes on 8 compaign spent more many than ANY OTHER RACE IN THE COUNTRY except the Presidential race. More than any Senate seat.

wmolaw

No, its not Islam.  It's not Islam because its happening to my own country.  It's happening in my home.  Yes, dispicable acts are being done in the name of Islam, but so are Judeo-Christian - right in my backyard. 

Growing up I was told that we have the "American dream".  We are free and equal.  But no one ever said stipulations to that dream.  No one ever said "The American dream can be yours, but if and only if you are ____— and ____— "  That's not inspiring.  That's not relieving to hear.  That doesn't make me want to campaign around the world yellin USA #1 and PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

We're still living the the 1950s.  It's still a civil rights issue.  It's been 50 f***ing years and this same demographic has some how turned it from a black issue to a gay issue.

NOBODY IS FREE WHEN OTHERS ARE OPPRESSED!

Well, this is not the 'last word'. If a California Constitutional Amendment is still in violation of the UNITED STATES Constitution.....

Or if the amendment is judged to be in violation of rights, as was the previous amendment voted on by the public in CA that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court overturned the amendment...which is why we ended up with Prop 8. Those who voted for the prior amendment are up in arms that the court overruled the "will of the people." These people refuse, however, to acknowlege that the will of the people isn't always right and cannot violate basic rights. Just as the "will of the people" once said that blacks couldn't marry whites, Armenians couldn't own land, and other laws that were once passed by popular vote. The courts are very much within their rights to protect human rights from the mob mentality.

Lerianis:

Good luck with that line of argument.  Can't see SCOTUS ruling that the US Constitution give gay folks the right to marry.

gecko:

The prior law was NOT an amendment to the Constitution of California.  It was a statute, a law which the Court held was AGAINST the Constitution of California.

if the Judges now believe they can just, willy nilly, ignore the Constitution of their State then they will be impeached and should be.

What goes one way, can go the other, always remember that.

Mr Cerebellum,  where you come from or how you live your life is a reflection of you the man, You can start out in the most modest of lifestyles and rise to the top depending on the choices you make for yourself. If you want to live in the 50's that is the choice you made. Everyone in America has the same chances of becoming successful but it takes the man who stands tall and says I can achieve, to actually achieve what he wants in life. People go through their whole lives wishing for change but it is they who need  to change. One step at a time with determination and courage, no one can change the world around you, but you

Most people don't know that last little bit of trivia, but the Supreme Court DOES have the right to overturn a Constitutional Amendment if it is in violation of an EARLIER constitutional amendment.

A) The SC has no rights; it has powers.
B) The SC has no legitimate power to rule on the Constitutionality of anything, amendment or otherwise. It simply claimed that power on it's own. See Marbury v Madison.

Beverly

I can't enforce gay marriage in an entire state by myself - just because I want to.

People go through their whole lives wishing for change but it is they who need  to change

So people go through their whole lives wishing to marry their partner, but it is they who shouldn't be gay?

Am I talking to Shirley Phelps-Roper here?

I fail to see the irony here? Although, I think I might see the slight racism in this story.

 Black people are collectively expected to support gay marriage because...?

The story is based on some backwards assumption that since Black people have been forced to endure slavery and segregation and all that lies in between, they should support any and every "minority" cause or else they're hypocrites or something to that effect? WTH?

Anyone who knows just a little bit about America's various social/cultural issues would know that it's a huge "duh" that homosexuality in Black communities is largely considered something that shouldn't be discussed, taken lightly, or considered acceptable. On many cultural issues, Black people tend to find themselves aligned with many conservative views. Maybe not far right, but moderate/conservative. The gay issue is definitely one that ranks the highest, in my view. It's not ironic by any means though.

Black people don't owe any more to gay people than the rest of America's citizens, for someone to infer anything otherwise, as though we owe something to the country or to all "sub-groups" of the American electorate for voting "one of us" in, that's racist and frankly, stupid logic...

I fail to see the irony here?

I think that's because you fail to see the discrimination here as well.

Everyone in America has the same chances of becoming successful but it takes the man who stands tall and says I can achieve, to actually achieve what he wants in life.

You've got to be kidding...that is truly ignorant.

wmolaw, you're right about the prior statute, but there may be an argument against Prop 8.  It will likely have to be litigated.  It's a long shot, but hey; why not?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1.  The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal.  Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

SEC. 3.  The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

If the CA Supreme Court were to argue that Prop 8 was properly a revision and not an amendment to the constitution, it would likely invalidate Prop 8 and throw it back to the legislature. 

Like I said: longshot.  I'm no expert on CA law, though, so I'm not clear on the distinction between the two.

No, I see clearly thanks Griff69. Charges of discrimination can be applied to ALL who voted for the amendment, not just Black people, who by the way did not ALL vote for the amendment anyway.

Perhaps you fail to see your own discrimination against Black people for expecting all of them to vote for gay marriage. Why don't white voters hold the same responsibility to the gay community?

Spiffie:

The more we have discussed this issue here at the office, the more inclined I am to think that it may have a shot at being invalidated under the Supremacy clause.

There is a line of cases where SCOTUS ruled statutes outlawing marriages between whites and blacks as unconstitutional under, I believe, the 14 amendment.  One was a case out of Virginia.

Now, granted, the 14th amendment was clearly passed with blacks in mind but it has been, to say the least, expanded greatly in those it covers.

There may be a shot at having SCOTUS say that a state constitutional amendment is violative of the US Constitution and, thus, under the Supremacy clause it must be invalidated.

OF course, this would, in essence, make gay marriages legal across the Country.  It boggles my mind the financial impact that could have on states and the Federal government.

Why don't white voters hold the same responsibility to the gay community?

I don't see blacks or whites as having any responsibility to the gay community, other than to stop stepping on them. Strangely enough, I see all Americans, regardless of race, orientation, party, etc, as having that same responsibility to everyone.

OF course, this would, in essence, make gay marriages legal across the Country.

Oh, I have little doubt it will be law across the country within my lifetime--probably sooner rather than later.  The movement of history is very clear on this issue.  Whether it eventually comes as a result of full faith and credit or equal protection or legislative action or citizen initiative matters little to me (although I much prefer the latter two).  

It boggles my mind the financial impact that could have on states and the Federal government.

Almost nil.  Homosexuals make up probably 3-5% of the population, and they're unlikely to marry at the same rates as heterosexuals for at least a generation after nationwide acceptance of fair access to marriage.  Several states and many localities (not to mention the vast majority of the Fortune 500) already provide benefits to domestic partners.  Any impact is likely baked in, for the most part.

Plus, if you let gays marry, they have to pay the "marriage penalty tax" just like everyone else.  Revenues might increase slightly.  ;-)

Well if that's true Griff69, then I doubt you would have accused me of failing to see anything. And I think you would've called the article out as bogus as I have, for inferring that Black voters caused gay marriage to be banned. Isn't that singling out one group of people based on their race, rather than just being American?

This person calls it ironic that a Black person would dare vote against gay marriage. We can agree that an individual who does so may be ignorant or whatever, but to say imply a Black person has more reason to vote for the bill vs anyone else is offensive.

but to say imply a Black person has more reason to vote for the bill vs anyone else is offensive.

I said nothing about anyone's reasons to vote for or against it. I agreed that it's ironic. I would also call it ironic for a gay person to support racial discrimination. If those thoughts offend you, have you pondered why?

Quoted from thread 1.5 "Because of the strong anti-immigration stance of many GOP politicians, the GOP lost a golden opportunity to expand their base."

But, but, but....I thought it was the Republicans that wanted illegals for big business?

i didn't say you said that, i was summarizing the article and commentary. I personally support gay rights but I personally don't find that comparable. Sexual orientation and Race are completely separate issues.   I don't think a Black person who doesn't support gay rights is the same as a gay person who doesn't support Black rights. Not comparable.

Plus, I have a feeling you wouldn't find it ironic for a White woman to vote against gay marriage. Right? I'm assuming I'm right, and therefore you should ask yourself why?

It looks like the legal challenge I mentioned is already underway.  The ACLU, Lamba Legal and the NCLR are filing a challenge (PDF):

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

TWO RELIGIOUS PSYCHOSIS:

What did you expect?    Its not the rational, educated, reasoned black, but rather the idiotic cool-aide drinking, fried chicken loving, church going hypocrit that voted against gay people.  I am black so let say don't go there before you jump on me as a bigot.  I have seen this type of BLIND idotic relgion-based hate espoused from pulpits before.  The dumber you are, the more likely you are to be religious and to vote against other peoples rights.  Oh how quick the blacks forget they were discriminated against in centuries past.  Sad Religious morons.

Just because you are black doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot when you stereotype and demean another group of blacks.

ED Kain who cares if its sad, its the majority that wins. Do you really think everyone agrees with gay marriage. Maybe it would be sad for some if gay marriage was approved in America. If gay marriage is approved, than what other types of unions could be approved. I think the approval opens up a Pandoras' box of possibilities. It would be civil rights without limits. The majority rules, we only have to look at this last election, for some of us it is very sad that the Democrats and Obama won the election and the popular vote was not that much different in terms of winning percentage as is the loss of approval for gay marriage. Its America 50 percent plus should ALWAYS win.

Tony,

Maybe the "black mindset" now is that they can finally jump on to the discrimination band wagon and oppress some other group of people.

Yet, that doesn't make sense because people of all color can be homosexual.

It's not a black issue people.  It's a sacred and secular issue.  Sacred and secular includes people of all color as does homosexuality.

I agree with you deli.  Black people are not going to support gay marriage.  I am also curious how gay people feel that black people feel some sort of kinship with their issues.  Many blacks are religious and feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman.   Blacks are more alligned with evangelical christians on this issue.  It is not a civil rights issue to black people.  Gay activists need to figure out a way to get thier message out to all people and get them to understand the issue as a civil rights issue. 

After a long, arduous, and successful fight in support of equal marriage rights here in Massachusetts the collective feeling was that, while we were first, other progressive states would soon follow suit. The judicial decision in California affirming that the state constitution  prohibited unequal treatment of same-sex couples with respect to civil marriage seemed to confirm that assumption. It comes as a shock, then, to us here in Massachusetts, that Californians would vote to deny their neighbors equal rights--and with many of the same arguments that were posed here in Massachusetts. (E.g. "If gay marriage is approved, then what other types of unions could be approved?"). I can tell you that here in Massachusetts gay marriage is a non-issue now. Those who were opposed now know that gay marriage did not threaten their own straight marriages. Those members of theologically-opposed congregations now know that equal civil marriage rights do not require them to marry same-sex couples in violation of their own religious beliefs. And those who were opposed on the grounds that children would be harmed because they believed that children needed to be raised by a mother and father are now seeing that, in fact, children thrive in a home where there are two loving and devoted parents, whether or not those parent happen to be of the same sex.

There was jubilation here in Massachusetts when Barack Obama became the President-elect. But that triumph was tempered and made bittersweet by the knowledge that many of the same individuals who hailed the historic breakthrough of Barack's accomplishment, themselves only hours before  engaged in acts of discrimination against their neighbors. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future they will have time to reflect on the significance of what they did, the harm they caused, and the pain they inflicted, because it is a certainty that they will have another opportunity to make the same choice and, next time, do the right thing. In the meantime, I'm proud to be living here in Massachusetts. We were right in the 18th century, we were right in the 19th century, and we were right again in this century. Don't wait too long California!

freedom,

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "republic" and then see how many times the phrase "majority rules" appears in the constitution and our laws.

I'm also curious as to what "other types of unions" you envision. 

Its America 50 percent plus should ALWAYS win.

Tell that to Al Gore.

I hear you forty.  I think gay people need to rethink their stategy on this issue.  People are not educated at all on gay issues.  How do gay people change the world view of "regular" people. "Regular" people think gay = wierd? Sad but true. Is the gay marriage issue to much of a lofty issue at this point in time? The state of Mass may have a more informed electorate. There is a lot of work that gay people will have to do (education of general population) before this issue is supported by any group.  Black people will only distance themselves further from the gay community if they are blamed for this props failure.

The prop being voted down isn't primarily because of the black population.  That's ridiculous.  There is a very high concentration of latino, hispanic population in Calif with very strong Catholic beliefs.  There are also alot of asians, white, islamic and other ethnic populations.  All of them, collectively, contributed to voting down the proposition.  I don't like to see  just one or two groups getting credit for something when in truth it was a team effort by many people of many colors who hold specific opnions on the definition of marriage.

Andy - it's all perception.  FDR didn't do crap as far as dealling with poverty - in fact, he prolonged it.  LBJ signed onto civil rights measures, but it was largely Republicans who championed it, just as they had since before the Civil War.

What has worked for Democrats has been feeding into victimization and entitlements - essentially purchasing the revision of history.  Democrats have destroyed what was once strong black communities and it is unfortunate if Obama doesn't at least recognize this on some level.  Black support for traditional marriage is an example of this.  If public schools and the media were honest about Democratic involvement in regards to black suffering throughout history, things would be different today.

to All - you are missing the point (Mushinronsha) got it; Kori, and others did not: the group with the highest percentage of votes to change the State Constitution and create a second class status for same sex couples was African Americans (Blacks) - who, having fought for so many years for their own civil rights would be expected to support other people's civil rights; hence the irony (in all fairness the civil rights movement of the 1960's owes a lot to the Jewish organizations who had experienced Nazi Germany and saw those opposed to Black civil rights as having the same character / motivations; But then the jewish community voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 according to exit polls)

wmolaw - re 1.4 - no; generally less than 90% vote democratic and mech less depending on the candidate / election. One could note that there is a very high correlation to identity politics - that blacks, as a group, will vote more for a black candidate than a white candidate who has the same bacjground, position on the issues. In fact, some of the exit polls this year, blacks would say they took certain positions on issues and then vote for Obama despite him having a different position; when they were asked if race was a factor, many blacks would say no but then way over 90% would be for Obama

wmolaw re 1.7 - homosexuality is a neutral. The idea that it is a negative, wrong, evil, etc.; comes from religions (and it is easy enough to find other religions in which it is not an evil, native americana, pacific island / pacific native peoples - in other words those last touched by "western civilization" - had, and in some cases still have same sex marriages). It is in the religions of "western civilization (Judaism-Christianity-Islam-Samaritan-Druze-Bahai - the Abrahamic religions) which are of one family and have this notion that God's creation of Homosexuality is somehow wrong / evil (only in Man - in the over 3,000 animal species that it is found it is not wrong / evil; only man). This is another one of those "God was wrong" contradictions in these religions that defines their illogic.

The funny thing that people do not get is that Matrimony is the religious ceremony performed by a Minister / Priest / Rabbi / Imam; Marriage is a civil ceremony performed by a Justice of the Peace, Judge, Mayor, Ship's Captain (if you need a ceremony as it ois NOT required, only a civil license is required). We allow matrimony ceremonies to also act as a marriage ceremony (as long as you already have your ciivil license) when performed by your religion of choice even though some religions do not accept ceremonies performed by other religions - i.e. your religion may not accept your marriage.

Division by Zero re 1.11 - it wasn't always that way; the democrats had the south after reconstruction until after world war II when the party kind of split in 1948 and despite attempts to put it back together in 1960 with Kennedy-Johnson; in 1976 with Carter, in 1992 with Clinton it never recovered. However it was Nixon in 1968 who made the south more "Republican" (while many southerners voted for Wallace in 1968, others voted for Nixon as few cared for the spectacle of Chicago in 1968 and the candidates coming out of the party. The South was strongly fopr the Vietnam war while the present democratic party of the Coasts was strongly against it. Stevenson was the first true candidate of the democratic party of the Coasts in 1952, and 1956; Kennedy was considered a moderate.)

Andy re 1.12 - most people do not understand what the Great Society was. Lyndon was trying to say xxxxx is what an average or mediocre society does; xxxxx plus yyyyy was what a better than average society does and xxxxx plus yyyyy plus zzzzz is what a Great Society does; he was defining greatness in a society and challenging us to that standard.

Lerianis (1.15), gecko85 (1.16), wmolaw (1.17, 1.18, 1.27), spiffie (1.25, 1.34) - The deal here is the previous California Supreme Court decision was that Marriage was a right for all under the existing constitution and Prop 8 was an attempt to amend that - it is in violation of the rest of the Constitution (especially the "equal protection" clause. The Court can not take up the issue of whether an amendment (or ballot proposition for a statute) is constitutional until AFTER it takes effect - which I personally think is silly as it leads to this idea of passing laws and thinking "it is the will of the people" and then being spanked by daddy court and being told not to make up your own rules and play fair instead. For the Court to accept this when a case is finally brought before it, would be to contradict their previous ruling - not to say this hasn't been done before; California's Supreme Court is elected, and when decisions are unpopular (whether the decision was correct or not) the Justices have been turned out before.

Tanyars5 re 1.42 - this is precisely the point. For many years, especially since World War II the right has had the money, owned the media and been able to define the issue to fit their ends. Marriage is not Matrimony but the right has so very successfully entwined the two that nobody is talking the truth here. The talk about the ads where children are "being taught" about "gay marriage" shows how blatantly false some of this is yet it keeps going on over and over.

At some point, some court is going to get it right and explain that Matrimony and marriage are not the same thing, and that marriage has nothing to do with religion. They may go so far as to end the ability of religious organizations to perform matrimony-marriage ceremonies (or require licenses to perform them in states that do not require them). Objectively, anyone can become a Universal Life Church minister and marry anyone (but only so long as certain other religions approve of that marriage - which is the definition of religious discrimination).

And religious discrimination IS the name of this game.

But back to the original point (as some people seem to have misunderstood what was being discussed and somehow thought - mistakenly - this was about racism) the statistic was that while Blacks were voting in high numbers FOR Obama, they were voting against even his equivocal stand on equal rights and voting to take away the civil rights of a group that had supported their fight for equal rights.

And that is irony

Eriq - You've made a great layout there for your case, including describing the differences between religious ceremonies and civil wedding licenses, which many on the SSM side fail to distinguish. But then it seems that you yourself don't follow through with that.

This issue has nothing to do with religion, hence it's not about religious discrimination. There is a purpose to government/society having an interest in issuing marriage licenses and any variation on traditional marriage undermines that purpose. Preserving the meaning of marriage is not about coming down on gay people or anyone else. This issue isn't about accepting, rejecting or discriminating against anyone. Marriage has a function in society which has nothing to do with homosexuality or religion.

The ironic part is that most voters interested in equal rights for the LGBT community probably voted for Obama.  However, with Obama running for office some estimated a higher than average black turnout.  This could, in effect, tip the scales towards passing these ballot initiatives since black voters strongly vote for marriage amendments.  If a non-black liberal democrat had been running, it could be argued that these initiative may not have passed. 

Opinions about gay marriage don't have much to do with race that I know of.

Or party affiliation. In Florida, I passed a yard full of both McCain/Palin and No On 2 signs. They had even placed No On 2 stickers on the corners of their McCain/Palin signs. I found that heartening. I don't understand why we need to ammend the constitution to ratify prejudice.

I concur.  The African-American community, particularly those that go to the polls, also tend to be conservative church-goers.  If the republican party hadn't spent the last 40 years demonizing black people whenever it got the chance, they might have been able to construct a reasonably durable coalition.

AKG,

As a CA voter, we passed a proposition 2 years ago, that defined marriage "between 1 man and 1 woman".  A liberal fanatic judge overturned the prop saying it was unconstitutional.  The voters are now speaking again.  A constitutional amendment is much more difficult for a court to over-turn.

Consider the source. The National Review is not to be trusted. Also, the "article" is short, making an assertion but not really backing it up with cold, hard facts.

Like, that the Afro-American population in California has been in decline since at least the 1990s. Just how large a voting bloc is this community?

It is premature to make this judgment that they failed to support a civil rights protection. The media were saturated with "vote No on Proposition 8" advertisements. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native --all of California saw the campaign, there was no avoiding it.

That said, did the LGBT progressives reach out and run their spots on Black-marketed radio programs, or was this community simply taken for granted again? We saw Ellen and George Takei, but was an outreach done to reach black and brown residents? I'm on the east coast, so I don't know.

I suspect that the National Review is hoping to sow seeds of bitterness against Black Americans. Typical.

Here is support for a similar conclusion on Florida's amendment 2:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#FLI01p1

I am not sure what the NRO's reason for posting the article is.  At any rate, it is clear that the black community, on average, has more homophobic attitudes than the nation at large.

A liberal fanatic judge

If two gay men or two lesbian women want to get married and do, it has absolutely ZERO effect on your marriage, just like your marriage has ZERO effect on thiers.

And the judge is the fanatic?

What are the chances that the majority of african americans didn't worry about what else was on the balllot.  Perhaps all they looked for was a 'D' under the President column and just pushed 'yes' for everything else.  Just a thought...

My reasoning is that about 90% of AAs vote Democrat in the hope that the Dems will help them out and be a voice for them.  But in the past 100+ years since Amendment 15, have the Dems really done anything for them?  Is welfare really an aid or more of another form of keeping them in the corner and making them continue to vote for them?

Actually I think the biggest thing that hurt the prop in the end, is the fact that those 1st graders went to that gay wedding in San Francisco.  The opposition to prop 8 kept saying that gay marriage wouldn't be taught in schools, and then the "wedding" happened and the district superintendent said it was a "teaching experience" or something to that effect. 

Most parents don't want this type of thing taught to 1st graders.  Heck, my 2nd grader has already come home saying "boys can marry boys", and I had to sit him down and talk to him about the issue and why our family believes this is wrong.  He's 7, and it is ridiculous. The "teach them while they're young" theory of "tolerance" is ridiculous, too.

Teaching children of 2 or 3, or even 7 or 8 years old that they will burn in hell at the hands of an invisible, angry sky fairy is ridiculous, too.

invisible, angry sky fairy

LOL!

A liberal fanatic judge

Judges are only fanatics when you don't agree with their rulings.

The "teach them while they're young" theory of "tolerance" is ridiculous, too.

Yes, it's so much more difficult to pass down disdain for a group of people when children, who have not yet been taught this bigotry, are told about other types of people.

Yes, it's so much more difficult to pass down disdain for a group of people when children, who have not yet been taught this bigotry, are told about other types of people.

Thank god!

A liberal fanatic judge

A Republican majority court, was it not?

The "teach them while they're young" theory of "tolerance" is ridiculous, too.

Maybe it's my gay gene, but I can't help thinking about the line from a song in South Pacific:  "You've got to be taught, before it's too late,/Before you are 6 or 7 or 8,/To hate all the people your relatives hate./ You've got to be carefully taught."

Honestly, I'm one of the few conservatives that supports gay rights.  I feel that if two people are honestly in love and want the same rights as heterosexuals, then they should have it.  I do see the hypocrisy, though:  We want change!  we want equal rights!  But not for homosexuals....

I dunno, I'm black and I've heard some pretty strong anti-gay rhetoric spoken in a few of the black churches I've attended over the years.  In my sister-in-law's church a young black man was removed from the choir and shunned to the extent that he was no longer welcome in the church when he came out as gay.  While whites seem to be pretty accepting of the gay community, I don't think many blacks feel the same way.  Yes, Cousin Leroy might be gay but we don't talk about it and we aren't at all likely to say his lifestyle is ok.

Let's make a deal:  I won't push to teach your kid about any "sky fairy" and you stop pushing tenets of secularism on mine. 

Actually this is not a surprise (re: proposition 8), sad but not that surprising.

If you remember Kerry was said to have lost a lot of the African American vote, because he was for Civil Unions or no restrictions on Gay marriage. I think that is one of the reasons that he had a problem with the Catholic Church.

 Many Latinos are Catholic and this goes against the church.

Let's make a deal:  I won't push to teach your kid about any "sky fairy" and you stop pushing tenets of secularism on mine. 

I'm not sure how allowing gay couples to marry equates to pushing tenets of secularism on your kids. Perhaps I'm missing something from the deal you're offering, though.

I honestly don't remember being taught about marriage in school at all.  I'm fine with letting marriage of all sorts be left out of the curriculum.  But I believe very strongly that gays should be allowed to marry.  I think social conservatives should be behind this, as any effort to bring people into family units is an effort to strengthen this nation.

Oh, and any effort to deny basic human dignity goes against this country's core values of freedom.  This is not a matter of secularism vs religion in my opinion.  There need not be a war on this issue.  There needs to be an evolution of the way we think...

My reasoning is that about 90% of AAs vote Democrat in the hope that the Dems will help them out and be a voice for them.  But in the past 100+ years since Amendment 15, have the Dems really done anything for them?  Is welfare really an aid or more of another form of keeping them in the corner and making them continue to vote for them?

Avogadro, as I understand it, Republicans were largely responsible for the 15th amendment. It was an effort to gain a larger presence in the south, which was mostly controlled by Democrats at the time.

Sadly, Obama did garner much of his support by using culture war, group identity, and race based politics.  It's not going away any time soon.  In fact, my guess is that the Obama win will increase it.

A Republican majority court, was it not?

The 9th District is the most liberal in the country, so no, it wasn't a Republican majority.

Teaching children of 2 or 3, or even 7 or 8 years old that they will burn in hell at the hands of an invisible, angry sky fairy is ridiculous, too.

What you ridicule, I call morals.  It is up to me and millions of other parents what we teach our children.  Not some liberal agenda promoted by a small minority.  Tolerance goes both ways, unfortunatley nobody seems to think that Christians and conservatives have any right to instill their values into their children.  I can teach my children to be tolerant, but I can also teach them what the Bible says.  I have just as much right to my beliefs as you have to yours.  But you don't have any rights to instill your version of values into my children.  That's my job and my right.

Judges are only fanatics when you don't agree with their rulings.

No, they are fanatical when they legislate from the bench and try to over-rule the "will of the people".  Government is supposed to ensure the will of the people, not the personal ideologies of appointed officials.

Reply 2.1:

So are you saying the meaning of the story is that high Black voter turnout is bad for the liberal cause? LOL. Or is that Black Democratic candidates are harming the liberal cause b/c they inspire Black people to be involved in the political process & take part in an event that previous generations died to bring them?

The point of the article is moot. It's not ironic at all in my view. In fact the idea that someone took the time to ponder about "what if there were no black voters..." is kinda disturbing to me.

"If the bill doesn't pass"... it will not be because of Black voters nor Latino's nor Whites nor men nor women!! It will be b/c  the number of individuals who voted for the amendment outnumbered the number of individuals who voted against it!

Stop trying to divide us w/ this crap!

No, they are fanatical when they legislate from the bench and try to over-rule the "will of the people".  Government is supposed to ensure the will of the people, not the personal ideologies of appointed officials.

The purpose of the courts is to protect the rights of individuals from the "will of the people". And that is exactly what the court did.

See, this country is a republic, not a pure "majority rule" democracy.

The purpose of the courts is to protect the rights of individuals from the "will of the people". And that is exactly what the court did.

No, the purpose of courts is to determine if a political decision violates the Constitution, not redefine the Constiution so it supports a political decision.   That's the difference between a conservative court and a leftist court.

"Let's make a deal:  I won't push to teach your kid about any "sky fairy" and you stop pushing tenets of secularism on mine. "

It's a deal, especially since my children tend to be brought to places like libraries, museums and book stores, rather than churches or other places of indoctrination.

CV (re 2.5, 2.10, 2.24) - you seem to be greatly confused about the facts - In California there was an initiative to define Marriage by statute as exclusively those unions of a man and a woman which passed. The California Supreme Court (NOT the ninth District US Court of Appeals) in which a majority are Republicans, ruled it unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution did it define same sex couples as less than human and not deserving of the same equal rights as all other couples and you can't contradict the constitution by a statute.

The question now will come up is can you define some people as less than human by amending the constitution or is this too big a contradiction and you have to rewrite the constitution from the ground up to make some people less than human.

I am amazed that you think Republican Judges are fanatical when they disagree with you. They are charged with interpreting the laws passed as being within or in contradiction (violation) to the Constitution - their decision is that no matter how popular or unpopular a sentiment is, it has to be within the framework of the constitution.

You want a discriminatory law that supports your own limited view of what morals are, and others find your so called morals objectionable. The Courts have to find what you can do in law and what you can't. NO religion has the rights to instill their values into somebody else's children, you have no right to force schools to teach that your morals are "right". You can do so at home; and if reality is otherwise, your chuildren may learn what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

I am sorry that you have such an Anti-Christ view of Christianity, Christ said that if your praying offends others you should pray in your closet.

Yes, society does have a right to instill our common values, that killing is wrong, stealing from others is wrong, hurting others is wrong, discriminating against others is wrong, that prejudgments / prejudice is foolish and will embarass you time and again and show everyone how foolish you really are. These are some of our common societal values.

You have the right to teach them any crazy thing you want - but they will eventually find out the truth.

deliziosa - you still didn't read the story - there is a statistic that shows that Blacks favored the amendment to remove other people's civil rights by the largest majority of all groups and were large enough by themselves to have been the deciding voice. This has nothing to do with racism.

Your remark is not about what actually happened but about what you want tgo believe happened and does you no favors.

Otto - no, you have no idea of what you are talking about. A leftist court will favor leftist positions where the law is unclear or ciontradictory; a conservative court will favor conservative positions.

An "activist" Court will make decisions where there is no basis (or little basis) in the Constitution (often because the reasons for the question did not exist before - for example the right to privacy did not exist because technologies to see inside a house by infrared; to listen to - or make - telephone conversations or mobile / radio did not exist when the constitution was written.

A "Strict Constructionist" court will simply refuse to make decisions in those events. (this is where we start hearing stuff like "the constitution does not say separation of church and state" - while strictly true, the other things in the constitution clearly state that their is to be no interference in either direction of church in state or state in church - this ends up being a rather silly argument at best

Note that you can have conservative - activist judges and liberal - strict constructionist judges; and this is only two factors. There are many many more.

You have oversimplified this to the point that your comment is so much jibberish, and if you are attempting to apply this crazy illogic to the California Supreme Court decision; what they really said was that nowhere in the California Constitution did it ever say that it was alright to have second class citizens and passing a ballot measure can not make it so.

Has the white gay community been that inclusive of black gay people????????

Within the gay community you have racism. Believe me I know. 

Understand black people before demonizing.

eriq samson: actually i was responding to a specific poster. and i realize that a majority of Black voters, did vote for the bill to be passed. The point I continue to make is that while trying to shine the light on prejudiced Black people, you're actually showing prejudice yourself to expect Black people to vote as 1, as though we are all the same and think the same way.

Sure the majority of us vote Democratic, and have done so since JFK, but that doesn't mean that those within that majority are gonna subscribe to all & the same tenets of the left. Just as we've been hearing over and over in the media about the various classifications of white democrats (rural, blue collar, starbucks, moderate, reagan-conservative, blah blah); likewise Black people have a variety of views and issues (moral/political) w/in the party.

The fact that there is a need to explain that Black people aren't all the same, therefore, won't all vote the same, or view issues the same, shows we've still got a ways to go.

Eriq - you're doing a classic bait and switch on this and I'd like some clarification: does the CA Constitution define Rights in regards to individuals (like the US Constitution) or does it define Rights in terms of couples? I ask because that simple distinction changes everything about the Constitutional interpretation. To say that a same sex couple is equal to a straight couple is one thing (and I believe that most Constitutional language doesn't word it this way). To frame it as individual Rights is something completely different and changes the debate. A Constitution shouldn't deal with 'human' definitions but rather access and denial. Does California's define access to Rights by couples?

Which is it?

Also, you can define a leftist court and a conservative court how you want, but when I support conservative judges it's because they indicate that they will rule on laws based on the guidelines of the Constitution, not on what people want. A person with liberal views can be a conservative justice. Perhaps 'leftist' isn't the right word in this example but rather 'activist'. And yes, there can be activists on both sides but it's activist judges who see Constitutions as 'living, breathing documents' or as reflective of societal changes or international norms - and those are leftist views. This 'second class citizen' argument (whether it's an accurate interpretation or not) is ludicrous as any thing that makes anyone feel bad about a court decision can lean on the 'second class citizen' argument - it makes a Constitution pointless.

I'm responding on the fly as I have to leave but time permitting I will look up more details on this issue tonight and hopefully continue this discussion over the weekend.

I did some reading up on Prop 8 and the CA Constitution.  No where does the CA Con address same sex marriage.  There is plenty of legislative and judicial history however, going back decades, that identifies marriage as vital to societal survival and ties marriage with procreation.  The only thing going against that is that initially, addresses to marriage didn't specify genders - not an unreasonable notion since back then it would be incomprehensible to even consider that such a stupid challenge would be an issue.

Just doing word searches of the CA Con provides only a couple of mentions of marriage, no mention of sexual orientation or couples Rights and Rights are prescribed based on many traits, none of which are sexual orientation.

This notion that Prop 8 revises the CA Con is completely bogus.  If anything revises it, it's the CA Supreme Court decisions that led to this proposition in the first place.  The proposition was a direct response to that and was framed in a way that was set forth in the latest Supreme Court decision.

Give it time. This too will work out to mean equality for ALL. Keep the fight alive. We can vote on this another time. It will come up again. Unfortunately, there are many other couples now affected because of the fear of homosexuality.

So when grandma can't care for her sick boyfriend in the hospital, a man who has been like grandpa for years, remember you voted no on 8 & 2. And reconsider your vote next time around.

I agree Biz:

Gay marriage will become a reality. Prejudice and ignorant religious baggage is a hardened jagged mass. Though, it eventually will give way to steady erosion by reason and equality.

Honestly, if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us, I say go for it. WTF?

So California (and Florida) conservatives can thank and curse Obama at the same time.

Ultimately, I think it's a net win for Gay and Lesbian couples, though.

I'd say they have much better prospects under an Obama administration than under a McCain administration.

I realize Obama *says* he's against gay marriage, but I think it's an issue wherein he said exactly what he had to say, and I don't think he probably cares what other people think about it, at all -- and I'm certain he'd push for civil unions.

Now, I just wish he'd push for civil unions for *everyone* and get the business of "religious marriage" back where it belongs: In a personal ceremony between a couple and their church, and if the church wants to allow gay marriage, they can. 

Biz, not to belabor the point, but grandma can visit her boyfriend in the hospital.  I visited my neighbor's daughter in intensive care and no one questioned who I was or why I was there.  The only limit is on the number of people who can visit at a time.  You can also make decisions about your loved ones care if you have power of attorney.  So, this idea that you can't visit your loved one in the hospital is a myth. 

Visit is not the concern. Making decisions regarding the significant others life, not to mention any number of other legalities is the issue.

Please check yours....

It all depends which hospital and also has to do with family relations. If you think everything just happens the right way you are very naive. Parents, siblings or children of gay people can undermine the rights of their partners if the proper legal protections are not in place.

Its really not about violating their rights, I personally don't care who someone may chose to live their life with, but I do care about taking parental rights away and teaching gay marriage in school. I believe if parents want to teach their kids about it, it should be up to them. I know that if it is taught in school they said as parents we could not remove our children from the classroom during the class...sorry thats just wrong.

Beverly H

There is going to be a Gay Marriage course in public schools?

I had not heard of this before.

The threat of teaching gay marriage in school is just an excuse to deny people their rights. The Pro Prop 8 said this then they showed gay wedding ceremonies on their Pro Prop8 commercials. How worried are they really about kids learning about gay marriage when they are the ones putting it on TV?

Its really not about violating their rights, I personally don't care who someone may chose to live their life with, but I do care about taking parental rights away and teaching gay marriage in school. I believe if parents want to teach their kids about it, it should be up to them.

I think that as it becomes the norm kids will just know about it, like any other fact of society.  It is a bit odd to have had it in a class, but hiding facts from your kids will also harm them.

Brian, Yes, Children will be taught about gay marriage in school, as young as first grade. I think kids first need to be children...I know when my oldest daughter was in kindergarten, she had a very good friend who's mom was a lesbien, my daughter didn't look at her friends mom's any different then she looked at mr. and mrs. Smith...because it was a natural thing to her, so why should children be taught about something that they will learn naturally.. and children are more apt to except differences if it is visualized, they don't need classrooms to tell them its ok, they need responsible parents.

Biz, you can't dispute power of attorney.  If the gay person wants the significant other to have a say in their care then they can declare that person their Power of Attorney.  Sign a piece of paper, have it notarized and walla there you go.  There are even specific Health Care Agent and Health Care Power of Attorney forms. 

losta,I live in one of the most conservative states in the Union and worked in health care for over 10 years.  I have never seen anyone denied access to their loved one.  No hospital has those policies anymore.  Produce your proof.  If children of gay partners do not want the other person to have a say in their care, then that is a family issue not a health care issue. 

No classes in school, that was a fear tactic. You all should have read right through that. You are smarter than that.

Then why did the school grant a feild trip to a gay wedding? Don't tell me they don't teach about gay marriage in school...

Beverly

Permission slips were sent to each child's parent.  Parents had the choice and oppurtunity to explain to THEIR children what it means and if they wanted them to go.  Everything was voluntary.

But the school paid for the feild trip as they always do, It is true that permission slips were sent home and alot of parents did keep their children from going, My question is if it were not being taught in school why did they have the feild trip? don't you think if the class were going to have a feild trip and it was paid for by school funds, that it should have been something that all children would enjoy and parents could agree to let them go to learn something, like a zoo or a museum or a musical?

Check-

I had a friend who was hospitalized and later died. While she was in the hospital her parents (who also wanted to declare her property upon death) denied access to her partner by telling the hospital she wasn't family and did not belong there. This was over a decade ago but it can still happen as long as there are legal stumbling blocks to gay families.

Perhaps they didn't have the proper papers I don't really know but just the idea that gay couples are treated as second class citizens just is not right in the 21st century.

Whatever, believe what you want. BTW - who's wedding was it? Was it faculty, was it the first ever gay marriage and they wanted the kids to be a part of history in the making? As if being a fag is a total disease. Maybe you're right. We should burn them all! And while we are at it, let's kill everyone else who doesn't fall in line with exactly what we believe. Oh, killing is too harsh, ok, let's hold them captive and take away all their rights...

Such as the right to get married.

Beverly-

Do you really think that the consequence of children seeing a gay wedding is worth the happiness of the people that are wed? What is the problem?

Are the people in the rural portions of California really worried that their kids are going to be bused to San Francisco to attend gay weddings? Come on. It was just a single incident.

I'm sure half the people that voted against Prop 8 have never even met a gay person.

Look, *if* it happened, it was an idiotic idea to send kids to a gay marriage. With that said, isolated idiotic decisions don't = "teaching about gay marriage" on a large scale, and we shouldn't let people utilize that sort of bull@!$%# as a way to overshadow the bigger picture, which has *absolutely nothing to do with* gay couples getting married, and being given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Beverly

You make it sound as if the mechanics of gay marriage was in the lesson plans.  They weren't.  I was invited by my 5th grade teacher's wedding.  Permission slips went out.  Wouldn't this mean straight marriage was taught in school?  I thought supporters of Prop 8 said straight marriage wasn't taught?  Could you explain the hypocricy?

And these alternative field trips?  Probably wouldn't appease the Bible belching, conservative parents anyway.  The zoo?  Kids might see the animals have homosexual activities.  The musuem?  That teaches evolution.  Musicals?  Come on....do I need to explain this one...?

McCerebellum, If this is what you want to teach your children, have fun. I believe that children will learn the lessons of life by growing up. They do not need to be pushed or prodded into learning. Responsible parents teach moral values and ideology, and the rights of teaching your own offspring your moral values is up to the parents, maybe my view of parenting is different from yours but it does not make it wrong.

So therefore, the children don't need school?

Beverly,

I certainly feel sorry for your children being home schooled by a short sighted prejudice individual such as yourself.

Oh Beverly I knew I should've called shenanigins on your Gay Marriage class claim.

C'mon, don't mask your feelings in phony assertions.

Beverly H:

My question is if it were not being taught in school why did they have the feild trip?

Simple: Because it was their teacher's wedding.  Even the "Yes on 8" reports of this story include that fact.

Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.[Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » News]

losta, while I'm sorry about what happened to your friend, it still illustrates that it is a family issue and not a health care issue.  I have never seen a hospital deny someone the right to visit a loved one in the hospital.  If family requests that an individual not be allowed into a hospital room, then the fight is with the family not the hospital.  The hospital has to respect the wishes of the patient, family or power of attorney.  If the gay partner has power of attorney in place, then it wouldn't be an issue regardless of how the family feels.   

Losta, no need to feel sorry for my children they are both wonderful, loving individuals that are going to do just great in life. I'm proud of them and the way I choose to raise them...I hope your children turn out as well. 

I personally don't care who someone may chose to live their life with

My children are taught to be compassionate and care about all people and to respect everyone regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation. And to expect and fight for equality for all.

They and I are not scared of learning about something they might not believe in. They can reason for themselves. They are intelligent.

Check your facts:

In an analougous situation, husbands and wives are automatically considered to be family and one's blood relations would have no standing to kick them out.  Gay couples on the other hand are required to go through the process for power of attorney if they want to guarantee such rights.  And this is one of thousands of benefits considered incidental to marriage that would have to be enacted point-by-point for gay couples through a lawyer; generally an expensive prospect.  And many incidentals of marriage, such as the right to sponsor one's partner for immigration purposes, cannot be duplicated through other means in the way that power of attorney can.

For everone in denial about the fact of the "1st grade field trip to the wedding of their lesbian teacher", here you go.

And if you don't like that link, here is one from the San Franciso Chronicle.

conservativevoice5000:

Thank you for verifying that it was indeed the wedding of the students' own teacher that they were taken to.  And while your first source tells us to "forget whether a publicly funded school would sponsor taking children to a heterosexual wedding of their teacher", I must point out that in just this thread we have already been shown that yes, some public schools do.  The students had a personal connection to the person being married, and the trip was done with the consent of the parents.  What exactly is objectionable about this in any way?

I'm curious why those who sought to find a reason the amendment didn't pass landed on Black people!! LOL. The all powerful Black people, once again the myth is revived. Recently I've heard we caused the financial crisis b/c the banks were afraid to deny us loans we couldn't afford. Two scary Black guys in Philadelphia could very well have tipped Pennsylvania toward Obama. Now we stopped gay people from being able to marry in one fellow swoop!

Are you kidding me?

I'm curious why this wasn't considered and reported by gender, or perhaps by age range, or even economic status...

deli:

Hmmm, are you starting to get an understanding of how Jews feel?

By the way, Beverly H, conservativevoice5000's second link refutes something you said earlier.  You said:

It is true that permission slips were sent home and alot of parents did keep their children from going

According to his link:

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

[Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day]

How the Jews feel? I'm not sure I follow the comparison, unless you're pointing out how historically Jewish people were scapegoated in Europe as the cause for events beyond their control? In that case... I long ago have found that to be tragic, and strangely predictable in the sense that human beings always look to find less rational reasons for their plights rather than searching for the actual and probably less convenient reason. But I mean c'mon, at least during those times the Jewish population on average were  successful and affluent, thus them being the cause of joblessness or something might be more credible. But Black people in America... running things? Like commentators who have said that Obama's race helps him in this election?!?!  People are so intensely and willingly stupid & ignorant sometimes.

Losta, just because my believes are different than yours does not make me prejuduce, prehaps it is you showing your bigotry towards me... It seems to me that if all people don't see life your way you think they are wrong, got news for ya darlin, Lots of people believe the way I do and most of those people are very loving parents with well-mannered children...So you can go on spouting your words of hate towards people like me if thats what suits you but remember you are the hateful one not me

If it had been my child, I would have sent a congratulatory card to the teacher, but I would have kept my child home.  I wouldn't have let them feel left out, because we believe a different moral code.  There a better educational experiences.  We would have visited a museum or aquarium or zoo, etc.

See, the teacher has every right to do what makes her happy, but I have every right as a parent to instill what I hold to be upright morals before God.  I wouldn't have denigrated the teacher, but I wouldn't have put my child in a situation in direct conflict to the values I teach at home.

No Beverly 

Prop 8 has no affect on your life. Nobody is going to come take your home schooled kids and drag them to a gay wedding.  I don't hate people like you I dislike how you use your prejudices to negatively affect people like me.

Beverly,

Then why did the school grant a feild trip to a gay wedding? Don't tell me they don't teach about gay marriage in school...

My question is if it were not being taught in school why did they have the feild trip?

As was already pointed out, It was a surprise trip to their teachers wedding! If their teacher was heterosexual, would you be complaining about the school teaching hetero marriage?

Regardless, it was one 90 minute event for one class - hardly the case of schools teaching gay marriage.

Conservative,

If it had been my child, I would have sent a congratulatory card to the teacher, but I would have kept my child home.  I wouldn't have let them feel left out, because we believe a different moral code.  There a better educational experiences.  We would have visited a museum or aquarium or zoo, etc.

And you would have every right to do that.

I wouldn't have let them feel left out, because we believe a different moral code

I hope you and others consider this opinion when you hear of atheists complaining about their children be "allowed" to sit out (left out) of religious celebrations at school.

Losta, I said it before and I'll repeat it again, I could care less about who you choose to sleep with, I don't care, But my children are my responsibility and I well gladly teach what I feel to be right...sorry

Beverly, you're right.  It's the parents responsibility to teach their children and instill values.  

In the case of the kids attending their teacher's wedding: the event occurred during school hours and it was classified as a field trip.  Another question that was never answered when the story first aired was, did the school obtain permission slips from the parents to attend this "field trip"?  Usually if teachers want their kids to attend their wedding, the wedding is held during off-school hours.  Is this appropriate use of taxpayer's money for child education? 

Great point Kori - why couldn't the teacher do what most people do and have their wedding on a Saturday or Sunday and send out invitations.  How did it become necessary to make this a classroom event held during school hours?

And yes Kevin, this applies to a real wedding too.  If I received any kind of permission slip asking to send my kids to a field trip for a teachers wedding I would be contacting the school asking them how in the hell they justified taking kids out of the classroom to attend a personal event for an employee of the state.

In this current culture it may seem that people doing weird things with their bodies (sorry, someone had to say it) justifies sweeping societal changes but there are still people who reject that notion and expect to be able to raise their kids without seeing them brainwashed by government schools from a young age into accepting it.

Parents need not be bullied by the most narrow-minded, self-absorbed people into accepting that the most bizarre forms of human interaction are put in the same logical concept as relationships that are actually vital and required for a continuing and healthy society.

I believe in 'to each their own' and wish happiness to my gay friends.  Marriage is about public recognition that goes far beyond that and even a majority of Californian voters recognizes that.

Kori and Otto, you are both right, I personally don't care how someone lives their life, but for me and my family I will decide what is appropriate or not, I believe in order for them to have the right to gay marriage, they need to go about in the right way and not force it down the throats of our children...I don't know to many hetrosexuals that would hold a wedding in the middle of a school day for children to go on a field trip.

They see it as gaining a right, but I see it as taking my rights as a parent away.

Quite possibly.  People have an amazing capacity for inconsistency.

I don't look at it as inconsistent, I see at as being open minded, just because someone votes for the ban on gay marriage does not mean that they can not be for equality, Gay marriage is a lifestyle, being black is hereditary, you can change a lifestyle if you choose but you cannot change how you are born.

just because someone votes for the ban on gay marriage does not mean that they can not be for equality

No, that is exactly what it means. When you vote for an amendment like that you relegate gay people to second class status.

Both groups are historically discriminated against. Even more specifically the fight for marriage equality was one part of the civil rights struggle for black people. There is a clear parallel between anti-miscegenation laws and marriage "protection" laws.

I don't think of single people as second-class citizens, never have. 

Mush, There is a big difference in being born to a specific group and choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender. No one has taken any rights away from gays, why should they have special rights? are we going to allow polygamy too?

Again Beverly you are wrong. Being gay it is not a choice. It is something that comes from within and it takes alot of courage to realize it, though some deny it and live their life as a lie.

Cut it with the polygamy argument, it just shows your ignorance.

losta:

It is not known exactly why a person is homosexual.  Sorry, but it hasn't been proved one way or the other.

Juno,

I don't think of single people as second-class citizens, never have. 

Single people can get married, single gay people cannot. 

Beverly, what special rights?  The right to get married is only special if you reserve it for select groups.

dung:

I would love to take the religious component out of marriage.  Make it an actual contract, with termination provisions, renewal provisions, etc.  And anyone can enter into such a contract.

I have never understood the "religious" overtones in marriage.

Losta,

 Being gay it is not a choice

It is a choice, I've heard about all the studies they've done and I've also known of gay people that realize later that they can be and actual like being in a straight relationship...Just because a man shows a feminine side or a woman shows a masculine side does not necessarly mean they are destined to homosexuality, It is a choice they make that feels natural to them.

Beverly-

NO IT IS NOT A CHOICE! How would you know? It is a choice to recognize it or suppress it.

Bev,

You must take into account that there is an innate proclivity in gay people that makes them attracted to the same sex.  Sexual attraction has a biological basis.  Sexual orientation is like handedness: there is a neurological basis for a type of behavior. 

I am left-handed.  I never asked to be left handed.  I didn't choose it.  If someone gave me the choice, it would make sense to select being right-handed since the world is largely made by and for right-handed people and lefties allegedly die earlier.  So why do I impose this inconvenient and possibly unhealthy behavior on myself?  I can't help it.  I tried using my right hand and it just doesn't work right.

It appears to be a choice ever time I pick up a pencil with my "evil" hand and use it.  Certainly I could at any point choose to pick something up with my "right" hand.  But there is a deeply embedded neurobiological basis for this behavior that is not apparent on the surface but nonetheless the root cause. 

Being gay is no different.

No one is trying to give gays "special" rights.  The struggle is to give gay people the same rights that everyone else has: the ability to marry the person whom they love with all the rights and responsibilities associated with that.  This will not give gay people any rights that straight people do not currently have.  It merely evens the playing field.  Name one right that gay people will have that non-queers won't.

Polygamy is a different matter.  For one, our laws are already designed with marriage contracts of two people.  Legalizing polygamy would be a legal nightmare.  However, I would say that if we can draw up appropriate laws regarding multiple partner marriages and that adults consent to these relationships, why not legalize polygamy? There are families in this country could use the additional legal protections.  Honestly, I don't know why people throw around polygamy like it is such a horrendous thing and is somehow an argument against same-sex marriage.

The convenient thing about same-sex marriage in contrast to polygamy is that it would be simple to institute since the laws are already in place to handle such an arangement.  They just need to remove the gender exclusion.

Again Beverly,

You have not heard all the studies! You hear what you want.

Do you think it is easy to pick a lifestyle that you are looked upon as a second class citizen?

Or to be treated differently, for young people to be teased or attacked?

No it is not. It is something that is a part of you and to deny it is to deny one's self.

Losta, if we could all be free thinkers like you there wouldn't be much to discuss. The world is made up of all different people with all different opinions, So you want to stay in  your gay realationship, I don't Care, you do what you want. just don't tell me my way of thinking is wrong...my opinion and I'm entitled to it.. 1 man+ 1 woman= children

so basically a traditional marriage is productive, a gay marriage is not.

1 Man + 1 Man = 0, 1 woman+1woman=0

1 Man + 1 Man = 0, 1 woman+1woman=0

Algebra fail.

1 Man + 1 Man = 2 Man

1 Woman + 1 Woman = 2 Woman

mush, yes you can look at it that way but I'd like to see them create a child.....

'Twas but a joke.

At any rate, with advances in technology is probably won't be too long before two women can make a new human.

But they'll still need the seed from a man

It is all possible now. You live pre 20th century. I live in the 21st century. Anyone can have children any number of ways.

You are prejudice Beverly. Go on teaching your children your prejudice. It's their loss.

But they'll still need the seed from a man

Nope and nope.

Beverly, do you actually know any gay people or openly observe an opinion other than yours? I ask because your reasoning is very one sided, and it leads me to believe you haven't been exposed to much in your life.

Beverly

You're the kind of person that thinks orphans should stay in the system instead of being taken in and raised by couples of the same sex, right?

"well Timmy, you're going in to a great suburban area.  Lots of kids your age.  Top notch school system.  Low crime.  Your parents are financially sound and prepared to raise you and maybe another sibling - but....its a total sausage fest and it would be better for you to stay here in this overpopulated, underfunded system.  Hang in there, buddy!"

You make my bile boil...

Bizebea, I've known tons of gay people, I was a hairstlist for years, I have a gay cousin, I have gay neighbors and I work with several gay people, I really don't care how people live their lives, I do care when people call me wrong because my opinion differs from theirs, so in a since I can say it is all of you expressing bigotry to me, because I'm straight and proud to be straight.

MRCerebellum, No I never thought that, I think if there is a couple that is in a committed relationship and they wish to adopt children and can provide for and love them, sexual orientation should not disqualify them from adoption.  I think anyone willing to adopt should be able to adopt. So, see you don't know me as you think you do. I do disagree with you as far as gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have civil ceremony that would allow them to be life partners, I have never been against that, and I'm sorry that you do see it my way that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman.  Thats what makes the world go round, different views, different opinions and different people and different traditions.

Beverly

Seperate but equal never worked for anyone.

The fact is, since gay people cannot marry the law cannot provide the SAME benefits to them as straight couples with adopted kids.

Yes.  Different people make the world go 'round.  That shouldn't include lawful bigotry and enforced discrimination.

Good for you being straight.  You've probably accomplished so much JUST for that fact.  But careful - last I checked - pride is a sin.  And one of the worst.

It's not inconsistent for a Black person to be against gay marriage, nor more than it is "ironic"!!

Only a racist person would feel that a race of people who have been discrimnated against since the countries foundation, somehow owe themselves to every other group and every cause these groups stand for!!

I voted against the amendment in Florida, as did other people I know, but for someone to imply that I should vote that way b/c I'm Black, while women who have suffered discrimination as well in this country don't owe their vote, handicapped people don't owe their support, people of Irish or Italian heritage who have suffered some discrimintation upon early immigration don't owe their vote to gay people?

No, just the group of people who have suffered in this country the longest, whose people have bled and died to have the freedom to vote as anyone else. Keyword: Freedom! Don't hold Black people to higher standards than you would anyone else! Doing that is in itself discrimination.

A hairstylist? OMG! Yeah, that's as stereotypical as "I am not a racist because some of my best friends are black." I will be the first to admit that I am a bigot towards people who have a closed mind and refuse push passed their ignorance. If it isn't a viable excuse in a court of law, it is not a viable moral excuse.

"I've known tons of gay people, I was a hairstlist for years, I have a gay cousin, I have gay neighbors and I work with several gay people, I really don't care how people live their lives"

Then how can you say gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?  It's OBVIOUS you do care about how they live their lives - otherwise you would've voted NO on prop 8 (though not sure you're in CA).

If gay people choose their lifestyle, then so do straight people.  By your logic, people are born with a grey area on sexuality.  Then one day *poof* they choose straight or gay.  Do they weigh both options first?  What's the basis of their decision.

If gays can't marry, are constantly ridiculed, harassed and ostricized and treated as second-class citizens WHY would anyone WANT to choose that?

Beverly,

The world is made up of all different people with all different opinions, So you want to stay in  your gay realationship, I don't Care, you do what you want. just don't tell me my way of thinking is wrong...my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

You are absolutely right. What's not right is to deny rights to people who disagree with your opinion - such as prop 8 does.

1 man+ 1 woman= children

so basically a traditional marriage is productive, a gay marriage is not.

So an infertile couple should not be allowed to marry? How long should we give a couple to reproduce? If you don't have children within 5 years, your marriage is null and void?

that doesn't mean that they cannot have civil ceremony that would allow them to be life partners

What is the difference between a wedding (marriage) and civil ceremony (civil union)?

that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman

And that's your opinion and religious belief. That can not be forced on others.

being gay is not a CHOICE.  This is more ignorant mythology passed as fact by bible-leaning brainwashed morons.  Sexuality IS NOT A choice.   Nor are gay people inherently evil.  The APA, American Psychological Association has determined that gay people can ONLY fall in love with members of the same sex.  This is refuted by mythological/fantasy based ideology.  But id trust the opinion of those who ARE bound by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of discovery.  fundamentalist Bible Belivers are silly.  They base there aversion to same sex marriage on FAIRY TAILES in the bible.  Now THAT IS PSYCHOTIC.

Kevin, I'm not forcing anything on anyone, I voted the way I felt was right, just because you see gay marriage as here and now, doesn't mean I have to so don't try to force your beliefs on me..Its America and my vote is my vote...

Tony,

Sexuality IS NOT A choice

If sexuality is not a choice why do we have pediphiles?  Do they have a right too?

or polygamists?  Apparently those groups feel they need to love who they are attracted to, should they have the right to do that, and marry their lovers? 

Beverly,

I'm not forcing anything on anyone, I voted the way I felt was right

The question wasn't "do you feel gay marriage is right or wrong". The question was "should gays be allowed to marry". So you forced your opinion on others by saying that gays (other people) should not be allowed to marry.

If sexuality is not a choice why do we have pediphiles?  Do they have a right too?

I really don't know the psychology of pedophilia but I would wager that it isn't a decision. I don't think people want to be or choose to be pedophiles.

The difference - consenting adult. Pedophiles don't have the same rights because their "affections" are directed towards children.

As for polygamists, it would cause havoc in our legal system and could easily be used to take advantage of our laws and tax codes (hey, if we all get married we'd have a whole bunch of tax deductions) if polygamy were legalized. However, for the most part, government has been very tolerant of polygamy. Government just sees it as only the first marriage/couple counts - everyone else just lives there.

If sexuality is not a choice why do we have pediphiles?  Do they have a right too?

Why does paedophilia always crop up in discussions about homosexuality.  Yes, paedophiles have rights, but not the right to follow their urges to have sex with children.  This is because doing so is bad for children, while homosexuality is not bad for either partner.  It is not right to use paedophilia as an analogy here.

Beverly H,

You are a real piece of work. I do not know where you went to school but look, here is REASON: Homosexuality is natural, biological sexual inclination or afinity towards the same sex. Homosexuals act on this 'natural' inclination. For you to compare homosexuals to child molestors shows your lack of intelligence or minimally shows you spout off at the mouth with no ability to be intellectually rational. Pedophilia differs drastically from consentual homosexuality. A child is not mature enough to deal with a full grown adult sexually. The difference is CONSENT. Pedophile implies PREDATORY behavior inflicted on a child. Two consenting homosexual adults are just that CONSENTING. Please consider going back to school. You are thoroughly ignorant. I am embarassed for you.

Tony you could say any act of sex is a natural inclination, but that does not make all

acts of sex right.

Beverly,

This individual was on another thread on newsvine mocking blacks as fried chicken eaters. So much for the shoddy charade of intellectualism and reason.

Beverly

Tony you could say any act of sex is a natural inclination, but that does not make all

acts of sex right.

The issue remains one of consent, not what you believe others should be doing.

It's possible that with the election of Obama that this will be a net gain for LGBT rights despite the four anti-gay ballot initiatives.

Obama is very very inteligent and though he is religious, I think he doesn't believe alot of the fantasy elements of religion.  "He gets It'.  Sure he had to pander to the brainless idiots in the religious right.  But I agree he will appoint judges who use REASON not MYTHOLOGY or EMOTION to guide their rulings.  Thank God for Obama.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!      Death to Fundamentalist Ideologies.

ironic ain't it. anti-gay legislation are the only neo-con issues that were codified. Abortion, marijuanna, stem cell research, even right to die ......those are ok, but the gays having the right to marry or adopt.....that's a bit too radical.

If the irony were simply that anyone who voted for Obama voted for the ban, then why is race injected into the article?

I just don't get it.  White Male Democrats, more than any other group outside of the Black community, are the ones who made it possible for a Black man to be President Elect.  It is a well known fact that the Black community in America is the most bigoted, racial group in the country.  That was demonstrated once again last night.  I am proud that Obama was elected.  I am proud that I have, both personally and professionally, worked toward acceptance of minority groups.  I am so enthused by the No votes by the youth of California.  They are the future leaders and show that the negative attitude about Gay people is an issue with the older generation.  They will die off, and with them, their repulse discriminatory attitude.

1fitspirit, I hope you are correct.  I was very disappointed to see alot of young people on the streets with 'Yes on 8' signs (They vastly outnumbered older sign holders).  I do believe that you are correct, but I was really shocked at the young people under the banner of discrimination.  I had more hope for California.  Maybe tomorrow?

Losta, what about parental rights? why should we have to give up the right to teach our children in the way we see fit? As I said before I don't care who someone chooses to live their life with but I do believe they are old enough to make that choice, children on the other hand should be children and these diverse life styles should be up to the parents to teach. As far as GAY rights they HAVE every right anyone else has...

Beverly,

Do they have to check if parents believe in evolution to teach that in school? Children should be taught to respect all people regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation. What is wrong with that?

Losta, what about parental rights? why should we have to give up the right to teach our children in the way we see fit?

Beverly H, if you want that sort of control over how your children are taught, then you need to home-school them.  You have to compromise with society when you submit your children to public or private schools.

Dung, I do homeschool my daughter, but it is still taking the rights of parents away And no one has denied rights to gay couples, there are still alot of us that believe the sanctity of marriage is between one man and one woman, and we have the right to believe in that if we so choose to.

there are still alot of us that believe the sanctity of marriage is between one man and one woman, and we have the right to believe in that if we so choose to.

I agree 100%. 

But you can't tell the teacher what to teach based on your beliefs any more than the anyone else.  If everyone got to restrict the kid's access to information that they did not like, then the kids would learn very little.

The school told the children what is going on in the world, it is up to the parents to tell the children how they interpret that and fit it into their world-view.

Beverly- You are denying rights to gay couples- the right to marry, only because you don't agree/believe in it.  The idea that this is being taught in schools is a complete BS fear tactic.  I was never taught about marriage in school and neither were any of my kids.  But, for the sake of argument, let's say it was.  Here's an idea- legislate that it shouldn't be taught, don't just take away someone else's rights.  School isn't the place for marriage to be taught in the first place, that needs to take place at home.  In school we should learn about reading, writing & 'rithmatic- and historical struggles against prejudice, hatred and the fight for civil rights for all.

If I started a group that came into power in the country- one that disciminated against those who were prejudiced and wanted to steal other's civil rights (Ok, you need to look past the hypocracy this group would be founded under)- and we said that you 1) Couldn't get married 2) Couldn't adopt children and whatever other right you wish to take away from others, simply because we didn't believe in the same thing you believed (And we could even make an argument that 'Our God doesn't believe in discrimination, therefore we are doing his work'), how would you feel about that?  Probably not that good.  The fact is that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone else, have been subjected to horrible discrimination and abuse and yet still, by and large, take the high road in fighting these injustices, and they deserve every right as anyone else.  The fact that we could even have this argument about any faction of the human population nauseates me to no end.  Let's appreciate each other for what we are, not hate each other for what we are not.  The Earth and the human race are bigger than you or I, the history of the same can be of such a greater magnitude if we could just learn to look past our color or gender or orientation.  The world is ours, and neither I nor you or anyone else should ever- ever- feel that they are in a position to say this world is less yours than mine.  I'll get off my soapbox now.

dungbeetle, children can be taught basic values like respect, responsibility, courage, etc. as abstract principles without having to go into sexuality.  You can teach children to show kindness to everyone without having to define explicitly who everyone is.  You can teach children general principles without having to teach them about gay marriage.  How is teaching them about gay marriage appropriate especially when they don't even teach about marriage in general in school?  It is a family's choice on how they teach their children about sexuality.  1st grade or 2nd grade is not the place to introduce children to these subjects. 

Our teachers should be focusing on teaching math, science and English.  The reason that we are slipping in our world standings in education is because teachers are being asked to teach children things that their parents should be teaching them.  If more teachers focused on the basics rather than political activism, we would have more engineers, doctors, and scientists in this country. 

Beverly, regarding the "sanctity of marriage"...Do you know what the national divorce rate is in the USA?  Try this -

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage - 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. (from divorcerate.org)

Keep the sanctity part out of the equation.  Americans fail miserably when it comes to marriage.  There is a 50% chance that you, Beverly, have been divorced at least once.

If you keep your children so sheltered that they are not culturally acclimated when they leave the nest, you will have another litter of failures out there.  What would you do if your child is gay?  Do you want to disown your child over their sexuality?  Do you realize how ridiculous that would be?  Your Messiah preached love and tolerance.  Where is that demonstrated in the approval of Prop 8?  I am sick and tired of Christians deciding what is best for me.  I hope that you all reap the seeds of hate that you sow, and you wind up in your own Hell, that Christian destination for anyone who doesn't conform.

I said elsewhere here that I think it's a bit odd this was taught at school.  Without knowing specifics (was it perhaps the first one ever or some other historical wedding?) I can't really comment much more on it.

I agree that school is for maths and English etc, I agree less that it is about respect, responsibility, courage etc.  Those should mostly come from home, although I wouldn't object to there being some at school.

Sanctity of marriage? HA! That's a crock.

1fitspirit, The divorce rate in this country is up, what does that have to do with gay marriage? Do you think just because someone is in a gay marriage that their chances of failure are any less then a straight marriage?

If I so choose to shelter my children its my business not yours, at least I know my girls are growing up in a loving traditional environment. My oldest daughter is long out of the nest and she is a responsilbe caring individual with a good education and I am very proud of her. My youngest daughter is still at home and she also is a good girl, and I'm proud of the job My husband (of 26 years)and I have done raising our children.

If that makes me a freak in your mind to bad...Lets wait and see how your children are when they grow up.

And yes I was married before , my first husband died serving his country, I suppose thats bad in your mind too.

1fitspirit, just FYI a 2004 study in Sweden examining divorce rates among gay couples found that they were higher among gay couples than heterosexual couples. 

Here's the summary:

"A recent study offers the first systematic review of same-sex unions and divorce rates based on accurate national register data in Sweden from the 1990’s.1

The study found that gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples over a similar period of time. 2

Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce, male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples."

Similar statistics have been recorded in Denmark and Norway where gay marriage has been allowed for a decade.

Here's what I don't get, everyone says they want their rights, but yet they want to change the rights of parents to teach their values to their own children. What children learn in school should be basic education, reading, writing, mathematics, science and history..Anything above and beyond that should be taught by parents, Its time parents take responsiblity for the children they bring in the world.

Here's what I don't get, everyone says they want their rights, but yet they want to change the rights of parents to teach their values to their own children. What children learn in school should be basic education, reading, writing, mathematics, science and history..Anything above and beyond that should be taught by parents, Its time parents take responsiblity for the children they bring in the world.

Here's what I don't get: marriage of any kind, gay or straight, isn't taught in California public schools. This isn't an issue. You bought into the lies and scare tactics of the TV commercials. The State Superintendent of Schools, Jack O'Connel, went on TV himself to set the record straight. Marriage is not taught in school, and there are no plans to teach it in school. So, stop using made-up arguments...they don't count.

This is not about the values of parents, this is about the values of homosexuals in this nation.

gecko,

If "gay marriage" isn't taught in public schools, tell me, why did my 7-year-old 2nd grader come home from a CA public school saying boys can marry boys?

They don't teach you to use profanity in public school, but I certainly learned a lot of new words when I was in kindergarden.

If "gay marriage" isn't taught in public schools, tell me, why did my 7-year-old 2nd grader come home from a CA public school saying boys can marry boys?

Marriage, gay or straight, is not part of the California public school curriculum. Period. If your 2nd grader came home saying boys can marry boys, then he/she either got it from somewhere outside the curriculum (playground, maybe?) or the teacher is in violation of State curriculum standards.

They don't teach you to use profanity in public school, but I certainly learned a lot of new words when I was in kindergarden.

Bingo.

As far as I know there aren't any "Fairy Tale" books taught in public schools that teach profanity.  I would guess a lot of profanity is learned at home, like when dad hit his finger with a hammer, or mom accidentally drops a plate while doing the dishes.

Like it or not, when the judge ruled that "inability for gay couples to wed" was unconstitutional, "gay marriage" became a "teachable" topic.  Look at the article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time believing a judges ruling of an unconstitutional law was being taught to 2nd graders.  I couldn't say unconstitutional in the 2nd grade.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time believing a judges ruling of an unconstitutional law was being taught to 2nd graders.  I couldn't say unconstitutional in the 2nd grade.

Exactly. This is yet another straw dog argument that holds no water whatsoever.

bejeebies and gecko,

You obviously didn't read my comment, or misunderstood what I said.  So, here it is again:

Like it or not, when the judge ruled that "inability for gay couples to wed" was unconstitutional, "gay marriage" became a "teachable" topic. 

Nobody said they were being taught constitutionality.  They are teaching "gay marriage". 

They are teaching "gay marriage"

Did you even read the article that you linked to? They took a group of kids (with their parents permission) to their teachers wedding.

Beverly H

" As far as GAY rights they HAVE every right anyone else has..."

Do they have the right of any sort of legal union? No. Do they have the right to insure their partner? Only if the company allows it....but not a right.

I notice that when you get in to conversations on threads and it doesn't agree with you that you flit off to another thread until they don't agree with you....obviously you are not interested to learn, you just want to spew your distroted views and then move on....

Refusing to pay taxes will only result in fines added to those taxes. My partner and I pay over $4500 a year in taxes on healthcare benefits we are taxed on that married couples are not taxed on.

The best way is to fight this in the courts, on the street, in the media.

This is an article from the National Review

PNB

So what?  Andrew Sullivan is saying the same thing.  So is CNN.  The numbers prove it.  Why deny something that basically every source agrees with?

holy union of marriage is just that, holy. It's sacred.

holy, how so? If your are married in your church....I guess so, its your belief that it's a scared bond validated by your church then so be it. But what about people of other faiths? Their religions are not sacred to you, so is their marriage sacred? In line of logic, is their marriage valid to you? What about atheists or agnostics? They don't believe in the sacred at all? Is their marriage valid? Should they be allowed to marry? In our country marriage is a legal term. To use a religion.....any religion......to define a legal term is reprehensible (and illegal). If a particular church disagrees with gay people getting married then they shouldn't allow gays to get married in their church or with their religious rites.

Because there is no actual legitimate legal or social issues with gays or lesbians getting married and the oppostion only exsists because of religous or social biases that is why some judges rule to allow them to marry when they evaluate the legal cases.

The holy union of marriage is just that, holy.

The part that the church controls, yes.  But the part that the state controls has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with law.  Legal marriages and religious marriages are already separate things.

It takes an egg and a sperm to create life. Not a sperm and a sperm. Not an egg and an egg. We don't teach straight marriage in school, why should we teach gay marrage in school.

If prop 8 was turned down, gay marriage STILL would not have been taught in school.  I don't understand people's persistence in this belief.  They have no other valid reason, so in desperation they cling to an illogical one.  You saw one commercial on 'Yes on 8' and you were sold.  @!$%#ing dispicable.  What's taught in school is decided between the school and the parents.  Prop 8 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Really?  An egg and a sperm create babies?  Ah dangit.  I guess all this time that I've been smashing eggs together hoping to create a rotissarie (sp) dinner was a waste of time.  Probably should quit while I'm ahead huh?

Gay marriage doesnt NOT....I REPEAT....DOES NOT...mean procreation of our species will cease.  Lesbian mothers find sperm donors and some gay couples find surrogate mothers.  Look up what this means.  You're probably very confused right now.

There's TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE for hetero couples and GAY MARRIAGE for homo couples.  But what's very crucial to this point - is that there would be MARRIAGE FOR ALL.  Straight churches can marry opposite sex and gay churches can marry same sex.  But what's very crucial to this point - is that there would be MARRIAGE FOR ALL.  Why would any Christ loving, God fearing person want to deprieve that union between two people who feel they are worthy of that union?

Because homosexuality, according to God's law, is wrong. I know that gay marriage does not mean the end of procreation. I also don't believe that gay people should be parents. I'm not confused. But, thank you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and thier beliefs. That's the American way.

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves.

Homosexuality according to Man's law is wrong. Did the heavens open up and god's voice rang down upon you or even anyone you know directly and tell you that homosexuality is wrong?

Because homosexuality, according to God's law, is wrong.

Which is why this rule should be taught in church, not in school.

Cynnergie

Remember, the bible is NOT a legal US document.

You are right.  People are entitled to their beliefs.  Their religious freedom.  But if people who don't subscribe to it must suffer LEGALLY and SECULARLY because it's "wrong" by "God", that is discriminatory, illegal, and the MOST un-American outcome I've ever witnessed.  Our founding fathers are going absolute bat sh*t insane, rolling in their graves in ferocious protest and disgust.

MrCerebellum

I agree with you.

I still disagree with same sex marriage. But, the reason I diaagree with it has nothing to do with anything other than my Christian beliefs. I believe in no religion.

well, THAT belief is what is holding everyone back.

It was a bad day for gay rights yesterday.  In every state with ballot questions to grant gays the same rights heterosexuals have in different areas, the voters shot them down.

Less than 50% in SF with this Presidential election and Prop 8? Sounds very strange to me.

Seems to me that if there has not been allegations of active fraud, then one must accept that the voters of that State have spoken.

That is what democracy is all about, right?

That is what democracy is all about, right?

Wow, not at all what I had expected from you. Yes, that is what democracy is about. It's not what our republic is, or should be, about. Or do you disagree that, regardless of the desires of the majority, there are some areas that are simply not open to legislation?

wmolaw, I'm not suggesting voter fraud.  If you read the first link, you'll see that the No campaign believes there are 3-4 million absentee ballots outstanding.  Together with the inexplicably low turnout in SF, which should have seen supercharged, not depressed, turnout, I think it's suggestive that something is going on in CA.

I wouldn't be surprised if media organizations start walking back their calls for Prop 8 later today.  Also of note, the margin in Prop 8 is narrower than that in other propositions that have yet to be called.

Griff:

Tell me, if the Constitution was amended to delete the second amendment, what could be done about it?

Would you assert that such an act is "not open to legislation?"

This is an issue with which I have had numerous arguments over the years, are their "God given rights," or are all rights man made, man given, and protected by force and government?

It is an argument which will go on for years and decades, and centuries to come.

As this is a Constitutional Amendment to the constitution of California, the californian courts cannot find it unconstitutional except under the US Constitution as applicable through the Supremacy clause.  An unlikely event, at least an unlikely event in that it would not be upheld at the Federal level.

Democracy is not about majority rule.  It's about ensuring that the majority includes the minority.  This is why the filibuster in the U.S. Senate is such an important tool to ensure democracy and why a supermajority in the Senate is bad for democracy. 

I don't think I'm following you yet, but I'll come along.

Tell me, if the Constitution was amended to delete the second amendment, what could be done about it?

What could be done about it legally, or what would the outcome be? Not sure which you're asking. The eventual outcome will be bloodshed, because eventually some poor schmuck is gonna be sent to my house to collect my guns.

are their "God given rights," or are all rights man made, man given, and protected by force and government?

Semantics, and I don't believe there is a definitive answer to that question yet. My belief is neither; rights are inherent in all sentient beings by virtue of their sentience.

It is an argument which will go on for years and decades, and centuries to come.

As this is a Constitutional Amendment to the constitution of California, the californian courts cannot find it unconstitutional except under the US Constitution as applicable through the Supremacy clause. An unlikely event, at least an unlikely event in that it would not be upheld at the Federal level.

True. Unfortunate, but true. However, the question still stands. Do you believe that certain things are not open to public debate or legislation in a constitutional republic?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and thier beliefs.

Of course you are. But not everyone is entitled to force their opinions and beliefs on others.

Which bring us right back to square one.

First Gods law? People seem to pick and choose which part of the bible to keep and which to toss. God didn't write the bible, man did.

There is something called separation of church and state in the United States of America.

It is not the United States of Christians.

losta:

Well, actually, "separation" of Church and State is a made up doctrine, the Constitution does not speak of that.

It is not the United States of Christians.

True. You believe what you want, I still believe what I want. It is what it is.

And please don't lump me in with the rest of the hypocritical "Christians" in the world you don't know me or what my core beliefs are.

Thank you.

Well, actually, "separation" of Church and State is a made up doctrine, the Constitution does not speak of that.

No, the phrase is not in there. The doctrine is.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause of the first amendment simply states that individuals have the right to worship and to freely express themselves and that Congress cannot prevent it through legislation.

Its inclusion in the constitution had more to do with keeping the church out of state affairs than it did with keeping the state out of the church's affairs and to ensure that no organized religion would be favored or sponsored by the state.

Well no, not really.  Gay people aren't forcing you to attend their weddings (Although, maybe they should- maybe some people would learn some tolerance).  They certainly aren't forcing anyone to teach marriage in school.  But, by voting against a gay couple's right to marry, you are forcing your beliefs on someone else.  I don't believe in what you believe in, but I'm not willing to vote to take away any of your rights because we disagree.  Gay people deserve that same respect.  As does everyone.  I'll never understand the hatred & discrimination- especially when it's espoused under the umbrella of a religious belief.  I don't know about everyone else, but my God doesn't discriminate like that.  If yours does, I want nothing to do with Him/Her, and I shouldn't have to subject to having mine or anyone else's rights taken away because I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

and to ensure that no organized religion would be favored or sponsored by the state.

Sorry, that was worth repeating

This is why churches lose their tax exempt status if they openly endorse a candidate although lately some churches are flaunting the IRS rules to force a court decision on it.

Another area of contention is the Office of Faith Based Initiatives established by Bush and which Obama pledged to expand during his campaign.

Griff:

Which is why it's called the "establishment" clause.  The doctrine/term of separation of church and state comes from certain SCOTUS decisions and, many times, is taken totally out of context.

wtfca:

Which is why you call names and denigrate people, right?

If that's your idea of a "new day," you can keep it, sheeples and all.

Jesus Christ died for his beliefs and the sins of the whole world. Are you calling Him a coward? Just wondering.

Oh yes, and Albert Einstein could have very well been addressing modern day Christians when he penned those words.

venturakeys- Thank you so much for that quote.  Don't know how, but I don't think I've ever read it before.  Funny thing is, everyone that reads it probably see themself as the "great spirit" much like everyone believes they are a great driver (I am, BTW).

And, congrats to you for not letting bigotry and hatred keeping you from the one you love and what you want to do.

My hope is that someday the only discrimination left in the world will be based on what baseball team you root for.  Yankee fans, back of the line!

And there is no unrightousness in have beliefs and living by them.

Jesus Christ died for his beliefs and the sins of the whole world. Are you calling Him a coward? Just wondering.

I think you said it right there- he died for everyone, regardless of who or what they are.  I'll admit, I'm far from being well-educated on my Bible teachings, but I don't think Jesus was a bigot.

Didn't Jesus Christ die upon the cross to bear the sins of the world? And if that is in fact the case, and we live by that ver batum, then we are all free to do as we wish with no recourse. Do you see how some of the book may need to be viewed as metaphorical, just a bit?

Biz, no we are not free to do as we wish. The word of God is a not a metaphorical literary tome. It is literal and in places complex, and in other places clear. That does not destory the truth of any of it.

 That being said, it needs to be studied in truth to be fully apprciated and and understood. God provided the sacrifice, Jesus. Jesus died to satisfy the justice of a holy and righteous God. In Jesus' sacrifice, men and women can repent and be reconciled to God. Jesus did not die for our sins to give us a Disneyland Day Pass to sin. As we walk with Him in our lives, hopefully we learn to be repulsed by sin as much as He is.

The word of God is a not a metaphorical literary tome. It is literal and in places complex, and in other places clear.

Actually, the Bible is largely allegorical. Every Bible scholar woth his salt will tell you that...

Men wrote the bible. It is not the word of god. If it were, he'd have left it in "Eden" for "Adam" and "Eve".

It's because marriage conveys certain privileges such as automatic transfer of property without the need for a will. 

Yes, but those priveliges could be conferred by other private contracts that have no bearing on any religious constructs. In general, I would say that the existence of marriage in a legal sense causes more problems than it solves.

Jamie:

Well, you also have the issue of child support and other socio economic issues which must be dealt with.

What "issue of child support"? There are plenty of people paying/recieving child support that have never been married.

Obama has stated many times that he's opposed to gay marriage.

Unless Scalia drops dead, the balance of the court is unlikely to change in Obama's first term.  The conservatives are, on average, significantly younger than the liberals.  Those most likely to die or retire are all in the "liberal" wing of the court: Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter.

The minority you refer to are for the most part are people of faith who have had to endure a lot of hardship and pain and injustice and their faith comforted them. Blacks have never been a privileged class. And it's kind of hard to be in the closet about being black.  And now you want them to turn their back this faith, the foundation for their lives so that they will be "liked and approved of."

Do you think that we should pass legislation requiring the entire country to comply with what you think the Bible says?

No eating bats.  No cotten-polyester blend shirts.  Kill children for talking back.  Kick women outside of the city when they're bleeding.

Yep, lots of good lessons from the "good" book.

Jamie,

It's not what I think the Bible says, and you are not showing a whole lot of respect for my view about now, so all this talk about tolerance and throwing Jesus in Christians' faces is just hypocrisy.

And Mushin,

Try to learn some facts about the Bible before you start mocking it and oversimplifying what it says. How about a little mutual respect here? This is just a discussion.

Jamie:

You seem to be missing the point made by Staunch, he/she like you has the absolute right to vote her conscience and her beliefs.

Or would you mandate that a person/citizen can't do that?

Democracy is not all roses and wine.  Sometimes things happen with which you vehemently disagree.  The appropriate response is not to try to muzzle those that acted according to their belief in voting, but to try to change the laws by energizing those who did not vote.

True, democracy is not all roses and wine. My grandfather served America oversees at a time when freedom and equality was just stuff black folks saw on posters and and in the movies. In that America, freedom was for others. Not for him. But he stayed the course and was faithful, and now as the venerable Mr. Dylan has stated, the times they are a changin.

Staunch:

And those were true heros, men and women who had never really experienced freedom, but understood it enough to fight to protect it.

My post was more of a response to Jamie's suggestion of instituting biblical laws, to which I selected some of the sillier Levitical selections.

But here's my thought on religious beliefs- If you believe your God or religion is against homosexuality, great- don't be a homosexual (Though, I do not believe it's a choice, per se, but you could always suppress yourself).  It doesn't mean that you have the right to judge others for doing some and you certainly don't have the right to take away their rights.  Your God says it's wrong, mine doesn't- why does your God have more authority on our everyday lives?  If homosexuality was in some way hurting someone- And I mean actually causing physical or emotional harm- then, fine- ban it just as we do murder, rape, etc., but two people in love does no one- NO ONE- harm, regardless of their gender, race or religious beliefs. 

As mentioned above, questioning if I may be a Christian- I'm Hitler's wet dream- a white Christian (Baptised anyway), heterosexual, blonde haair, blue-eyed male.  But unlike Hitler's hateful ways, I appreciate the difference in everyone and think we should exalt in those differences, not suppress them.  I don't care if you're African American, Asian, Hispanic, gay, straight, man or woman- you're a human being and you deserve every right and respect that everyone else enjoys.  I even like Canadians.  Mostly.  Imagine- all the people, living life in peace.

beejee:

Look, I generally agree with you, but you make one fundamental mistake.

Christians and others who vote their beliefs are no more "forcing" their beliefs on you or anyone than those who seek to change the status quo are "forcing" their beliefs on the population at large.

WHERE beliefs come from really do not matter in my mind.  The issue here is democracy, representative democracy.  Do you wish to live in it, or not?

Sometimes democracies result in things we don't like, I can attest to that.  But are we to say that those who are exercising their franchise for WHATEVER reason do not have that right, unless they agree with you, or anyone else?

Look, if a racist skinhead wants to vote against Obama because he is black, that is his RIGHT.  You may not like it, I don't like it, but it is his right.

And if we don't protect his right, then, guess what?  Soon yours will be taken away.

wmolaw, I agree with you, other than this one line:
Christians and others who vote their beliefs are no more "forcing" their beliefs on you or anyone than those who seek to change the status quo are "forcing" their beliefs on the population at large.

Those "Christians" deciding whom someone else may or may not marry are absolutely forcing their beliefs on others. Here's the distinction:

OK: A Christian person sees a gay couple and thinks to himself, that's morally wrong and those two will burn for it.

Not OK: A Christian person sees a gay couple and thinks to himself, that's morally wrong and those two will burn for it, therefore we must pass a law to prohibit it.

Bee, for a Bible-believing Christian, it's just not that simple. It's not "my God or your God" He is the holy, righteous Creator of the Universe, that makes him, God. For everybody. For me for you. For those who oppose him and even rebel against Him. They reject Him. He loves them. But no judge or exit poll on this earth will provide a means of escape from rebelling against His law. Christians call God "Father" He protects, He loves, He instructs. He disciplines. Even Christians who love Him must try to accept His chastening when they sin, because it is based in love.

And this is what God wants for humankind, living in peace. Not at war with other nations or at war with each other as neighbors or at war within our own souls.

Jamie,

It's not what I think the Bible says, and you are not showing a whole lot of respect for my view about now, so all this talk about tolerance and throwing Jesus in Christians' faces is just hypocrisy.

I don't understand how my question was disrespecful, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way. I support your right to use your vote any way that you want. If I may, I'd like to rephrase my question in hopes that you may find less insulting:

Do you think that the government should be making laws that require all Americans to comply with the moral rules of your religion?

Look, I generally agree with you, but you make one fundamental mistake.

Christians and others who vote their beliefs are no more "forcing" their beliefs on you or anyone than those who seek to change the status quo are "forcing" their beliefs on the population at large.

Except you/they ARE forcing beliefs. By banning somthing you/they don't believe in for religious reasons. Nobody has ever forced you to marry someone of the same sex. But stopping others from having that right is very much forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

gecko:

Look, by FORCING me to pay higher taxes you are FORCING your beliefs on me.

Get used to it, it's a representative democracy we live in.  The government and voters FORCE us to do all kinds of crap we don't want to do, don't believe in.

wmolaw-

Look, if a racist skinhead wants to vote against Obama because he is black, that is his RIGHT.  You may not like it, I don't like it, but it is his right.

We're trying to meet in the middle here, but we're just missing.....I'm not at all trying to devalue anyone's right to vote.  If Ellen DeGeneres were to run for President, I fully support your right to not vote for her because she's gay.  I don't agree with your reasoning, but I fully support your right to execute your vote as you see fit.  But, voting to take away the rights of a certain group of people, that is absolutely wrong.  Personally, I can't even understand how it's even up for vote in the first place.  Griff had it absolutely right- if you don't like homosexuals, you are absolutely free to think that, to say that, even to demonstrate that.  You (Or I) don't the right to stifle their right to have the same rights as all of the rest of us.  Where does it end?  Today we say that homosexuals can't marry, tomorrow do we restrict their right to vote or make them wear GPS devices so we know there whereabouts?  Then after we've completely taken away their rights and freedoms, who's next?  Canadians?  Obviously, I overstate (Hopefully, anyway), but my point is valid- where is the line?  My belief is that there shouldn't be.  All of us should have the same rights and freedoms regardless of what we believe or what color we are, etc.   I guess some people are Ok with taking away others rights & freedoms, but how are you going to feel when the stormtroopers show up at your door?

Woooah! Wait a minute! I'm fully in favor of making Canadians where GPS locator beacons.

(/sarcasm)

And, wmolaw:
Look, by FORCING me to pay higher taxes you are FORCING your beliefs on me.

I COMPLETELY agree with you there. That is absolutely just as wrong and for the same reasons.

Look, by FORCING me to pay higher taxes you are FORCING your beliefs on me.

Who's forcing you to pay higher taxes? Talk about a straw man argument. Wow. If that's what stands for an argument against denying rights then this society is in for a world of hurt.

Staunch-

Bee, for a Bible-believing Christian, it's just not that simple. It's not "my God or your God" He is the holy, righteous Creator of the Universe

I understand what you mean, but if you and I read a passage from the Bible, it's quite possible that we will come away with two differents interpretations.  So, to follow- your interpretation of the Bible as a whole could be markedly different than mine, and so, though we worship the same God- in our interpretations they are actually quite different. 

I was raised as a Christian, but I absolutely refuse to believe that my God discriminates upon any of His children- especially when it comes to people that have done no harm to anyone else.  Now, if God were to say to me that indeed, He does not condone homosexuality and therefore would discriminate against them, then I would politely disassociate myself from Him.  My belief in a higher power holds firm that the higher power is above the inequities, jealousies and prejudices of man (And woman.  And Canadians).  That's all I'm saying.  And, that may be blasphemous to a devout Christian, but so be it.  I will not partake in any hatred of singling out of otherwise good, caring people because of whom they decide to love.  But, that's just me.

God doesn't discriminate. He has laws that are universal. I understand if one does not like some of them, but they are still law, and breaking those laws have consequences, but the "program running in the background of the madness" of all of this is that God loves us, He cherishes our humanity. He gives us a choice, but he also holds us to a moral standard. His Son, Jesus is the moral compass. Many people see that Jesus was tolerant. He was, but not to point of winking at sin and pretending not to see it. He confronted it.  You mentioned that my interpretation of the Bible may be different than yours. That's fair enough. But consider this. God's interpretation of what is and is not sin supercedes yours or mine, also.

Staunch- You are absolutely right on with everything that you said in your post. Jesus was able to separate the act of sinning, which was detestable, from the sinner, which is a person to be loved. Even harsh rebuke can be done in love.

Staunch,

These are nice statements about your beliefs but they are YOUR beliefs. Not everyone shares those beliefs and, certainly, civil law can not be based on those beliefs.

wmolaw,

You are right in regards to a persons right to vote their conscious and their beliefs. It, in essence, is no different than asking a person if, in their opinion, gays should marry.

The problem is that government should not be asking the question in the first place. And, the only reason the government is asking is because of the religious zealots that pushed the subject on the government and the people and thus are forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

The CA court was right the first time around in that it is unconstitutional to deny rights to a certain group of people - regardless of what the rest/majority of people think, believe, or opine. In essence the court said that the vote doesn't matter because the question never should have been asked.

So gecko85 is right that they are forcing their beliefs - but it's not by their vote, it is by the question to which they are voting.

I don't buy your tax analogy. Taxes are a question which the government does have a right to ask.

The thinking that a gay couple would want to get married by a church that does not respect their rights is a ridiculous extreme example. Sure it could happen, but 99.9% of gay people have more respect for themselves than to waste their energy trying to marry in a place they are not understood.

All the arguments against gay marriage are self serving. It doesn't effect 99% of the people that voted for Prop 8 in any way.

Thanks Staunch,

I missed the entire issue. I thought what you mentioned they can already do was a matter of some counties, not the entire state and the new law would make it statewide. (I did wonder how they were handling it in just some counties but hey Ca is out there on a lot of issues.)

I think requiring a religious person of any faith to act outside of their religious bliefs is crossing that line between church and state. If kids can't say a prayer in school because that line is crossed, how can the law require the clergy to perform a marriage? I don't think even a 100% liberal Supreme Court would put that one through.

I should have read it more closely but I actually thought I had a handle on this one. I would never have dreamed Ca, so eager to keep church out of civil life is really twisting things around here.

Staunch and dixiedi:

Prop 8 was the proposal to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal.  If it passed, then a gay couple couldn't be married in California, period.  The people lobbying for its passage claimed that if it did not pass, then clergy would be forced to marry gays.  This was was, quite simply, a lie.  Churches are free to marry or not marry anyone for any reason.  They can choose not to marry people for being members of the wrong religion if they want.  Their requirements for who they will perform the religious ceremony of marriage are completely up to them under the law, and always have been, even during the period in which gay marriage has been legal in California.  Civil marriage... the state recognition of marriage... was briefly expanded to include same sex marriage.  This would include the marriages of those religions which allow gay marriage such as Quakerism, Buddhism, and many branches of paganism, and also justice-of-the-peace type marriages.  The only group that was ever legally required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or perform same-sex marriages was government employees... the clerks and judges responsible for the state-administered aspects of marriage, independent of religion.  The whole idea that churches would be forced to do so was a bold-faced lie.

The people lobbying for its passage claimed that if it did not pass, then clergy would be forced to marry gays.  This was was, quite simply, a lie.

Absolutely correct. The church being forced to marry gays issue was one of many bold-faced lies. That schools would begin teaching gay marriage in school was another. Nothing but lies. And the non-thinking sheep bought it all hook-line-and-sinker.

I'm glad I'm not a sheep. I knew how I would vote before I saw one pro or con television commercial. I'm thankful I have something better to guide me than a television.