Guest Commentary: Opposing View on Same-Sex Marriage

Steven Ostrowski

This November, Proposition 8 will be decided by the voters of California. It will decide whether same-sex marriage stays or goes in the state of California. In the year 2000, Proposition 22 wrote into our family law that marriage was between a man and a woman. This passed overwhelmingly with 61% of the vote. A few months ago, this law was struck down by a divided California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. Now we are given a choice to reaffirm the Court’s ruling or change the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the state. According to most legal sources, all same-sex marriages made prior to the passing of Proposition 8 would become invalid.

The first argument made by the opposition is that same-sex marriage is a right that should not be taken away. It is thus implied that the passing of Proposition 8 would strip same-sex couples of their right to marriage. When it comes to the word “rights” there are two sources people come to as to where these rights come from. The framers of the US Constitution believed that our rights came from our Creator. Others believe that our rights come from the state.

If our rights come from our Creator, then the argument become theologically and speculative as to whether our Creator deems it a right to grant same-sex marriage. The framers of the Constitution under a liberal version of Protestantism believed that the Creator desired that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). At the time, this was quite a radical document as it was in great contrast to Divine Rule of Kings. The “No on Proposition 8” campaign has not used the Creator as a source for their right for same-sex marriage. It has never been mentioned in this campaign and it probably won’t. So I will assume that the opposition believes that their rights come from the state.

If that is the case, the opposition must concede that their rights are determined based on the people, democratic processes, and the Courts. If the state, through the people, strip same-sex couples of their so called right to marriage it must be conceded as totally legitimate. How can there be moral outrage if the people can give and take away? Unless of course, the opposition is relying completely on the Courts for their protection. In which case, even the Courts are answerable to democratic processes.

But is same-sex marriage even a right? I do not believe so. It is no different than a driver’s license, hunting license, fishing license, boat license, airplane license, etc. It requires qualifications and permission from the state. Anything the state grants as a privilege cannot be considered a right. Indeed, a county clerk could decide not to let anyone marry. This has occurred in at least two counties in California in recent months.

Under the Equal Protection of Law clause, I believe that this has already been completed in California. Civil Unions have the same exact benefits as marriage benefits. The only difference is the title in which it is called. The argument that a civil union is considered inferior to same-sex marriage cannot be determined. It can’t be determined because it is a qualitative analysis based on individual persons. Furthermore, we have not yet seen the results of the people’s acceptance to the term civil union as opposed to same-sex marriage. It could be argued that many people would consider same-sex marriage to be a less legitimate term than civil union. In any case, the Court was not given enough information to make a proper decision on the matter and thus we have a 4-3 split decision. But even if civil unions were considered inferior to same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t matter because the Court should not be making values on what is inferior or superior to what.

For those of us who wish to preserve democratic freedom, we should be appalled by the Court’s decision even if we agree with it. As stated before, the voters approved Proposition 22 by 61%. Imagine if a proposition you voted for became overruled on the whim of a court despite a state-wide consensus. For many, it is not legitimate for the Court to overrule the people on any particular proposition regardless of whether it’s trivial or mundane. A great many others are displeased that instead of going through the proper democratic processes, members of the gay community have sued to institute their view. This gives myself and many others, the impression that the gay community is simply using the Courts to get their way because they are hopelessly outnumbered by the general population. This will not create mutual understanding and reconciliation between the gay and straight community. Instead it will breed discontent, accusations, and hurt feelings.

An argument against Proposition 8 is that we should not impose our values on the state. However, it is quite the opposite. The opposition is imposing an unwanted definition on the institution of marriage. It must be conceded that both sides wish to “impose.” To not concede this, is to not understand the power of the democratic process. We all impose our values on everyone when we vote. Failure to do so is simply apathy. Even a moderate view is an imposing view point. Either same-sex marriages equal heterosexual marriages or they do not.

This brings up the point of religion. The opposition has accused the yes campaign of using religion to impose their values on the state. Although both sides wish to impose, religion is seemingly a more negative form a persuasion than secular reasoning. I find this to be most intolerant of the opposition to keep religion out of the democratic process while tolerating more secular arguments. What difference does it make why people vote a certain way? What difference does it make whether a priest declares a message versus a civil servant? Indeed, there are many pro-gay churches who preach the exact opposite and yet the opposition does not consider this to be threatening.

This leads into the more negative expressions, I have experienced from the opposition. I have been told that I must be bigoted, intolerant, extremist, and hateful to support Proposition 8. So, is 8 hate? I find it rather presumptive for the opposition to imply such a thing. There is nothing in the ballot description, which was edited by Jerry Brown, to suggest hate. Some supporters of 8 have shown hate in their emotions, but this is also true with the opposition. There are lesser beings on both sides, but Proposition 8 is not in it of itself hate. In fact, if we were to take this hate value to its logical conclusion it would require us to take a rather unfavorable view of our country.

Eighteen states have banned gay marriage in their constitution and all other same-sex unions. An additional eight has gay marriage as just banned in their state constitutions. Seventeen more states have banned gay marriage as a statute in their laws. So, a total of 43 states have banned gay marriage as compared to three states that explicitly allow gay marriage. So, there must be a lot of hate going around. And especially so in California as we can see the polls are almost even on this proposition. The opposition should not consider Proposition 8 as hate due to very plausible chance that it could pass. But perhaps opposition is just making a moral judgment on this issue, in which case I would humbly request the source of this moral outrage.

So, what is at stake here? The definition of marriage has the precedence of thousands of years as being only between one man and one woman. Homosexual relationships simply do not qualify for this term. Marriage, as supporters would say, is for the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families. This obviously excludes a lot of individuals, but that is the point.

Marriage only holds value if it procreates children and is monogamous. Marriage loses value through divorce, series of divorces, adultery, open relationships, and couples willingly refusing to have children. Instead marriage has become a mere contract with no real special or profound characteristics. It’s a social and economical contract with the state and nothing more. This change in definition from a family creating unit to a mere sexual relationship has destroyed the value of marriage.

The value of marriage or a same-sex marriage is always going to be subjective, but this is a subjective debate. But why should the supporters care if the value of marriage goes down with the emergence of gay marriage? Marriage in a lot of ways is like stock. If you devalue an institution, everyone’s stocks become worthless. Then people bail out of institution all together. We will become like Sweden where marriage is scarce and often ridiculed. The creation of gay marriage cements the philosophical view that marriage is not a family creating unit, but a mere social contract with the state. For religious individuals, who believe their marriage is sanctified by God, and more secular individuals this is rather troubling.

The collapse of marriage will affect everyone across the country. Divorces cause enormous strain on the economy when it comes to commercial spending, housing, and the raising of children. Not one politician in the nation actively supports people getting divorces. When people live by themselves and do not combine their economical assets it hurts the economy or changes it in such a way that it may hurt us personally. When children are raised with only one parent, it has a profound impact on our economy and social services. It must be conceded that marriage is a good thing for society.

That is why the value of marriage must be preserved. A clear example is the movie Chuck and Larry where two males, who have no romantic intentions, become married for the sole purpose of getting benefits from the government. That marriage is just as valid as the marriage between two heterosexual individuals who have been married for 50 years and have many children and grandchildren. For those of us, who value their own marriage or potential marriage that is an unsettling thought. Now, it can be easily argued that a scenario like this already exists with Las Vegas weddings. This is true, but pointing out other bad behavior doesn’t make other bad behavior good.

And so what about infertile couples, those who do not wish to have children, and the elderly? Should we prevent them marriage licenses? I would say no, because infertile couples through time may be cured of their illness or problem through medical science. There have been many Biblical accounts of infertile couples who were also old that gave birth. Culturally, the Christian cannot refuse to marry these individuals. Also, those who refuse to have children may change their mind in the future. In addition, the process to find out these answers would violate privacy and self incrimination principles. So, the government must side on the side of caution and give all heterosexuals marriage licenses. Same-sex marriages are obviously different and can be detected as such through physical appearance and record keeping. Same-sex couples under no biological circumstance can they produce children through both partners. Artificial impregnation does not create a natural family, because the father or the mother of the child is absent, and the other spouse involved did not donate in the creation of the child.

Furthermore, those who value free speech and religious tolerance should consider the ramifications of what this country will be like under a more secular culture. Priests and pastors are being sued, fined, and jailed for speaking out against homosexuality in their own churches. Americans are not immune to this; hate crime legislation is encroaching steadily on what one can say and cannot say. Indeed, our confidence in the 1st Amendment is based on the US Supreme Court and the government. If both side against you, for whatever reason, you lose your voice regardless of what the US Constitution says. Churches may be stripped of their non-profit status if they do not hold gay weddings or if they speak out against them. Public schools will inevitably be taught gay marriage, as it is already being taught in Massachusetts, with or without the permission of parents. Without access to vouchers or alternatives, parents may have to compete with schools on what their child learns. Gay students may become segregated in special schools as is the case in Chicago. The slippery slope is not very inviting to supporters, all movements in history start out small.

So, the solution to increasing the value of marriage is to not making it easier to obtain but harder. It would go a long way, if couples had pre-marriage counseling, divorce counseling, heavier divorce penalties, as well as government incentives to keeping people together through the use of tax credits and/or social programs. Small reforms can be made to prevent the Las Vegas weddings that are harming the image and value of marriage in this country. Gay marriage is not the answer; it detracts from the philosophical view of what marriage is supposed to be. We will never be able to fix these problems if marriage becomes a right with no responsibility or accountability.

So, I hope there is some understanding as to the concerns supporters have if Proposition 8 does not pass. I have not preached to you Biblical verses or the writings of Popes and saints. I am having a conversation here that can be easily understood by all regardless of culture or religion.

Preserve the value and philosophy of true marriage by voting Yes on Prop 8.

Steven Ostrowski

empirestv@yahoo.com

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

268 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    To reference this ballot proposition to a movie with “Chuck and Larry” is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard! It’s all about civil rights – hopefully when this proposition fails, we can get back to other things. Hopefully we will all look back at this one day the same way we look at segregation now and say how much we have all progressed.

  2. Anonymous

    To reference this ballot proposition to a movie with “Chuck and Larry” is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard! It’s all about civil rights – hopefully when this proposition fails, we can get back to other things. Hopefully we will all look back at this one day the same way we look at segregation now and say how much we have all progressed.

  3. Anonymous

    To reference this ballot proposition to a movie with “Chuck and Larry” is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard! It’s all about civil rights – hopefully when this proposition fails, we can get back to other things. Hopefully we will all look back at this one day the same way we look at segregation now and say how much we have all progressed.

  4. Anonymous

    To reference this ballot proposition to a movie with “Chuck and Larry” is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard! It’s all about civil rights – hopefully when this proposition fails, we can get back to other things. Hopefully we will all look back at this one day the same way we look at segregation now and say how much we have all progressed.

  5. Anonymous

    The argument that it is necessary for the CA Supreme Court to intervene and replace the term “civil-union” with the term “marriage” in an attempt to promote the same social value to same-sex and heterosexual unions can be countered by the argument that, based upon the generational shift touted by the supporters of NO on 8, it is more than likely that in the future, civil union, domestic partnership and marriage terminology would carry equal social “worthiness” without the necessity of legally discarding the traditional meaning of the term marriage.

  6. Anonymous

    The argument that it is necessary for the CA Supreme Court to intervene and replace the term “civil-union” with the term “marriage” in an attempt to promote the same social value to same-sex and heterosexual unions can be countered by the argument that, based upon the generational shift touted by the supporters of NO on 8, it is more than likely that in the future, civil union, domestic partnership and marriage terminology would carry equal social “worthiness” without the necessity of legally discarding the traditional meaning of the term marriage.

  7. Anonymous

    The argument that it is necessary for the CA Supreme Court to intervene and replace the term “civil-union” with the term “marriage” in an attempt to promote the same social value to same-sex and heterosexual unions can be countered by the argument that, based upon the generational shift touted by the supporters of NO on 8, it is more than likely that in the future, civil union, domestic partnership and marriage terminology would carry equal social “worthiness” without the necessity of legally discarding the traditional meaning of the term marriage.

  8. Anonymous

    The argument that it is necessary for the CA Supreme Court to intervene and replace the term “civil-union” with the term “marriage” in an attempt to promote the same social value to same-sex and heterosexual unions can be countered by the argument that, based upon the generational shift touted by the supporters of NO on 8, it is more than likely that in the future, civil union, domestic partnership and marriage terminology would carry equal social “worthiness” without the necessity of legally discarding the traditional meaning of the term marriage.

  9. dumbledore

    Slavery is condoned by the Bible and was originally condoned by the US Constitution. Obviously we fought a war that was, in part, over this dispute.

    As I read your argument, I would almost presume that you would say that slavery is a defensible civil state. Would you agree?

    If not, then how is slavery not acceptable but denying marriage status to same sex couples is?

  10. dumbledore

    Slavery is condoned by the Bible and was originally condoned by the US Constitution. Obviously we fought a war that was, in part, over this dispute.

    As I read your argument, I would almost presume that you would say that slavery is a defensible civil state. Would you agree?

    If not, then how is slavery not acceptable but denying marriage status to same sex couples is?

  11. dumbledore

    Slavery is condoned by the Bible and was originally condoned by the US Constitution. Obviously we fought a war that was, in part, over this dispute.

    As I read your argument, I would almost presume that you would say that slavery is a defensible civil state. Would you agree?

    If not, then how is slavery not acceptable but denying marriage status to same sex couples is?

  12. dumbledore

    Slavery is condoned by the Bible and was originally condoned by the US Constitution. Obviously we fought a war that was, in part, over this dispute.

    As I read your argument, I would almost presume that you would say that slavery is a defensible civil state. Would you agree?

    If not, then how is slavery not acceptable but denying marriage status to same sex couples is?

  13. James Baldwin

    When people live by themselves and do not combine their economical assets it hurts the economy or changes it in such a way that it may hurt us personally. When children are raised with only one parent, it has a profound impact on our economy and social services. It must be conceded that marriage is a good thing for society.

    I don’t see this and the procreation argument that you make as particularly strong enough to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It seems that one line of argument you make (reprinted above) suggests that kids are raised best in a two parent family. Same-sex couples qualify here.

    Another line of argument suggests that you value heterosexual marriage because of natural procreation. I take it that adoption is not an acceptable means to “consumate” a marriage? Same-sex couples can adopt, as can heterosexual couples.

    Articicial insemination are other means of procreation available these days.

    There are so many children these days who need the dignity of a loving family. Same sex couple would provide a meaningful and nurturing environments for these kids that would best happen in the context of a marriage.

    I would be interested in your comments, here.

  14. James Baldwin

    When people live by themselves and do not combine their economical assets it hurts the economy or changes it in such a way that it may hurt us personally. When children are raised with only one parent, it has a profound impact on our economy and social services. It must be conceded that marriage is a good thing for society.

    I don’t see this and the procreation argument that you make as particularly strong enough to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It seems that one line of argument you make (reprinted above) suggests that kids are raised best in a two parent family. Same-sex couples qualify here.

    Another line of argument suggests that you value heterosexual marriage because of natural procreation. I take it that adoption is not an acceptable means to “consumate” a marriage? Same-sex couples can adopt, as can heterosexual couples.

    Articicial insemination are other means of procreation available these days.

    There are so many children these days who need the dignity of a loving family. Same sex couple would provide a meaningful and nurturing environments for these kids that would best happen in the context of a marriage.

    I would be interested in your comments, here.

  15. James Baldwin

    When people live by themselves and do not combine their economical assets it hurts the economy or changes it in such a way that it may hurt us personally. When children are raised with only one parent, it has a profound impact on our economy and social services. It must be conceded that marriage is a good thing for society.

    I don’t see this and the procreation argument that you make as particularly strong enough to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It seems that one line of argument you make (reprinted above) suggests that kids are raised best in a two parent family. Same-sex couples qualify here.

    Another line of argument suggests that you value heterosexual marriage because of natural procreation. I take it that adoption is not an acceptable means to “consumate” a marriage? Same-sex couples can adopt, as can heterosexual couples.

    Articicial insemination are other means of procreation available these days.

    There are so many children these days who need the dignity of a loving family. Same sex couple would provide a meaningful and nurturing environments for these kids that would best happen in the context of a marriage.

    I would be interested in your comments, here.

  16. James Baldwin

    When people live by themselves and do not combine their economical assets it hurts the economy or changes it in such a way that it may hurt us personally. When children are raised with only one parent, it has a profound impact on our economy and social services. It must be conceded that marriage is a good thing for society.

    I don’t see this and the procreation argument that you make as particularly strong enough to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It seems that one line of argument you make (reprinted above) suggests that kids are raised best in a two parent family. Same-sex couples qualify here.

    Another line of argument suggests that you value heterosexual marriage because of natural procreation. I take it that adoption is not an acceptable means to “consumate” a marriage? Same-sex couples can adopt, as can heterosexual couples.

    Articicial insemination are other means of procreation available these days.

    There are so many children these days who need the dignity of a loving family. Same sex couple would provide a meaningful and nurturing environments for these kids that would best happen in the context of a marriage.

    I would be interested in your comments, here.

  17. Rich Rifkin

    “Marriage, as supporters would say, is for the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families. This obviously excludes a lot of individuals, but that is the point.”

    Even the religious zealots who make this kind of statement don’t believe it. They are lying and they know it.

    Don’t believe me? Then why don’t the religious zealots oppose allowing senior citizens, man and woman, to marry each other? Are those bonds of matrimony about “the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families?” No, of course they aren’t. This is all about the religious tradition of hating gays.

  18. Rich Rifkin

    “Marriage, as supporters would say, is for the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families. This obviously excludes a lot of individuals, but that is the point.”

    Even the religious zealots who make this kind of statement don’t believe it. They are lying and they know it.

    Don’t believe me? Then why don’t the religious zealots oppose allowing senior citizens, man and woman, to marry each other? Are those bonds of matrimony about “the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families?” No, of course they aren’t. This is all about the religious tradition of hating gays.

  19. Rich Rifkin

    “Marriage, as supporters would say, is for the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families. This obviously excludes a lot of individuals, but that is the point.”

    Even the religious zealots who make this kind of statement don’t believe it. They are lying and they know it.

    Don’t believe me? Then why don’t the religious zealots oppose allowing senior citizens, man and woman, to marry each other? Are those bonds of matrimony about “the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families?” No, of course they aren’t. This is all about the religious tradition of hating gays.

  20. Rich Rifkin

    “Marriage, as supporters would say, is for the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families. This obviously excludes a lot of individuals, but that is the point.”

    Even the religious zealots who make this kind of statement don’t believe it. They are lying and they know it.

    Don’t believe me? Then why don’t the religious zealots oppose allowing senior citizens, man and woman, to marry each other? Are those bonds of matrimony about “the procreation of children and a social foundation for the creation of families?” No, of course they aren’t. This is all about the religious tradition of hating gays.

  21. Great and Small

    Marriage in a church is the realm of God, marriage by the state is the realm of Caesar. Let Caesar decide who gets married by the state and let God decide who gets married by the church.

  22. Great and Small

    Marriage in a church is the realm of God, marriage by the state is the realm of Caesar. Let Caesar decide who gets married by the state and let God decide who gets married by the church.

  23. Great and Small

    Marriage in a church is the realm of God, marriage by the state is the realm of Caesar. Let Caesar decide who gets married by the state and let God decide who gets married by the church.

  24. Great and Small

    Marriage in a church is the realm of God, marriage by the state is the realm of Caesar. Let Caesar decide who gets married by the state and let God decide who gets married by the church.

  25. truman capote

    The “No on Proposition 8” campaign has not used the Creator as a source for their right for same-sex marriage. It has never been mentioned in this campaign and it probably won’t. So I will assume that the opposition believes that their rights come from the state.

    That is because the campaign recognizes that there is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. There are, right now, churches that recognize religious marriages between same-sex couples.

    The problem is that there is (with the exception of California and Massachussetts) no civil recognition of marriage.

    Prop. 8 forces same-sex couples to align their civil status to what religious traditionalists believe in their churches.

    It is analogous to the Catholic Church backing a constitutional ammendment outlawing divorce. The Catholic Church has the right to not recognize divorce, but it really doesn’t have the right to impose that view on others.

  26. truman capote

    The “No on Proposition 8” campaign has not used the Creator as a source for their right for same-sex marriage. It has never been mentioned in this campaign and it probably won’t. So I will assume that the opposition believes that their rights come from the state.

    That is because the campaign recognizes that there is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. There are, right now, churches that recognize religious marriages between same-sex couples.

    The problem is that there is (with the exception of California and Massachussetts) no civil recognition of marriage.

    Prop. 8 forces same-sex couples to align their civil status to what religious traditionalists believe in their churches.

    It is analogous to the Catholic Church backing a constitutional ammendment outlawing divorce. The Catholic Church has the right to not recognize divorce, but it really doesn’t have the right to impose that view on others.

  27. truman capote

    The “No on Proposition 8” campaign has not used the Creator as a source for their right for same-sex marriage. It has never been mentioned in this campaign and it probably won’t. So I will assume that the opposition believes that their rights come from the state.

    That is because the campaign recognizes that there is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. There are, right now, churches that recognize religious marriages between same-sex couples.

    The problem is that there is (with the exception of California and Massachussetts) no civil recognition of marriage.

    Prop. 8 forces same-sex couples to align their civil status to what religious traditionalists believe in their churches.

    It is analogous to the Catholic Church backing a constitutional ammendment outlawing divorce. The Catholic Church has the right to not recognize divorce, but it really doesn’t have the right to impose that view on others.

  28. truman capote

    The “No on Proposition 8” campaign has not used the Creator as a source for their right for same-sex marriage. It has never been mentioned in this campaign and it probably won’t. So I will assume that the opposition believes that their rights come from the state.

    That is because the campaign recognizes that there is a distinction between civil and religious marriages. There are, right now, churches that recognize religious marriages between same-sex couples.

    The problem is that there is (with the exception of California and Massachussetts) no civil recognition of marriage.

    Prop. 8 forces same-sex couples to align their civil status to what religious traditionalists believe in their churches.

    It is analogous to the Catholic Church backing a constitutional ammendment outlawing divorce. The Catholic Church has the right to not recognize divorce, but it really doesn’t have the right to impose that view on others.

  29. Different Take

    I will be voting FOR Prop 8. Why? Because I believe our traditional institutions are being dangerously eroded. I used to think same-sex marriage was OK – better to promote commitment of any kind.

    But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not. I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?

    Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life. Californians don’t see it, bc so many of you are of the same mind. The rest of the country sees it quite differently – and doesn’t like what they see.

    Socialism is the attempt of the gov’t to decide what is best for the people, unlike democracy. Notice we are being told what cars we can drive, what we can and cannot say, religion is under severe attack from all sides – the COURTS ARE DECIDING THINGS FOR US.

    What I see from the detractors of Prop 8 is an absolute intolerance of any other view than their own. Apparently these folks have no problem with gay days at Disneyland, where sex is had in the open and on nat’l television. No outrage there!

    If I had a kid going through schools today, they wouldn’t be taking sex ed, I can tell you that. I strongly believe marriage is between a man and woman, no sex should be had prior to marriage or outside marriage – it is a lifetime commitment, period. I am fine with civil unions that give equal rights to domestic partners, which is as it should be.

    And by the way, I don’t believe for one minute that gay marriage is about equal rights. It is more about legitimizing a lifestyle – and in talking to gay couples, my suspicion has been confirmed. Trust me, it is not necessary to legitimize your lifestyle – what you do in your bedroom is your business.

    Marriage means almost nothing now – and it is showing in the way our kids are behaving. They are constantly seeking a sense of permanency, normalcy – and gravitate towards gangs, pornographic sex and the like. Dirty dancing is the norm at proms.

    I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us. Adultery is rampant, living together is now the norm, our country is frankly being “Hollywoodized”. I don’t want my children raised that way.

    I want my children to believe marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and woman. Gays can also have lifetime commitments in civil unions that give them equal rights, but I do not by any stretch of the imagination believe the two should be or even are the same.

    If you don’t see my point, you will as time goes on, especially as your teens hit their late teens and early twenties. It is very difficult to raise teens and young adults in a permissive atmosphere where anything goes, and not have them give in to temptation. I’ve gone through this with all my children, as a single mother raising kids alone. What goes on is appalling.

    An anecdote will suffice here. In the Cal Aggies, there was a story of a young female college student who came up to a young male college student sitting on the Quad, minding his own business. Suddenly she berated him for having left in the morning without saying anything (after a night of sex). Turns out the woman embarrassed herself – she had the wrong culprit. She didn’t even recognize who she had slept with.

    Have no doubt about it – MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT IS UNDER ATTACK. COMMITMENT MEANS VERY LITTLE THESE DAYS. Any way of life is stamped as “normal”. It breeds confused children, destructive peer pressure, unstable lifestyles.

    We can agree to disagree on the above points, but don’t take my right away to feel as I do. Last time I looked we do not have “thought police” in this country.

  30. Different Take

    I will be voting FOR Prop 8. Why? Because I believe our traditional institutions are being dangerously eroded. I used to think same-sex marriage was OK – better to promote commitment of any kind.

    But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not. I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?

    Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life. Californians don’t see it, bc so many of you are of the same mind. The rest of the country sees it quite differently – and doesn’t like what they see.

    Socialism is the attempt of the gov’t to decide what is best for the people, unlike democracy. Notice we are being told what cars we can drive, what we can and cannot say, religion is under severe attack from all sides – the COURTS ARE DECIDING THINGS FOR US.

    What I see from the detractors of Prop 8 is an absolute intolerance of any other view than their own. Apparently these folks have no problem with gay days at Disneyland, where sex is had in the open and on nat’l television. No outrage there!

    If I had a kid going through schools today, they wouldn’t be taking sex ed, I can tell you that. I strongly believe marriage is between a man and woman, no sex should be had prior to marriage or outside marriage – it is a lifetime commitment, period. I am fine with civil unions that give equal rights to domestic partners, which is as it should be.

    And by the way, I don’t believe for one minute that gay marriage is about equal rights. It is more about legitimizing a lifestyle – and in talking to gay couples, my suspicion has been confirmed. Trust me, it is not necessary to legitimize your lifestyle – what you do in your bedroom is your business.

    Marriage means almost nothing now – and it is showing in the way our kids are behaving. They are constantly seeking a sense of permanency, normalcy – and gravitate towards gangs, pornographic sex and the like. Dirty dancing is the norm at proms.

    I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us. Adultery is rampant, living together is now the norm, our country is frankly being “Hollywoodized”. I don’t want my children raised that way.

    I want my children to believe marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and woman. Gays can also have lifetime commitments in civil unions that give them equal rights, but I do not by any stretch of the imagination believe the two should be or even are the same.

    If you don’t see my point, you will as time goes on, especially as your teens hit their late teens and early twenties. It is very difficult to raise teens and young adults in a permissive atmosphere where anything goes, and not have them give in to temptation. I’ve gone through this with all my children, as a single mother raising kids alone. What goes on is appalling.

    An anecdote will suffice here. In the Cal Aggies, there was a story of a young female college student who came up to a young male college student sitting on the Quad, minding his own business. Suddenly she berated him for having left in the morning without saying anything (after a night of sex). Turns out the woman embarrassed herself – she had the wrong culprit. She didn’t even recognize who she had slept with.

    Have no doubt about it – MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT IS UNDER ATTACK. COMMITMENT MEANS VERY LITTLE THESE DAYS. Any way of life is stamped as “normal”. It breeds confused children, destructive peer pressure, unstable lifestyles.

    We can agree to disagree on the above points, but don’t take my right away to feel as I do. Last time I looked we do not have “thought police” in this country.

  31. Different Take

    I will be voting FOR Prop 8. Why? Because I believe our traditional institutions are being dangerously eroded. I used to think same-sex marriage was OK – better to promote commitment of any kind.

    But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not. I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?

    Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life. Californians don’t see it, bc so many of you are of the same mind. The rest of the country sees it quite differently – and doesn’t like what they see.

    Socialism is the attempt of the gov’t to decide what is best for the people, unlike democracy. Notice we are being told what cars we can drive, what we can and cannot say, religion is under severe attack from all sides – the COURTS ARE DECIDING THINGS FOR US.

    What I see from the detractors of Prop 8 is an absolute intolerance of any other view than their own. Apparently these folks have no problem with gay days at Disneyland, where sex is had in the open and on nat’l television. No outrage there!

    If I had a kid going through schools today, they wouldn’t be taking sex ed, I can tell you that. I strongly believe marriage is between a man and woman, no sex should be had prior to marriage or outside marriage – it is a lifetime commitment, period. I am fine with civil unions that give equal rights to domestic partners, which is as it should be.

    And by the way, I don’t believe for one minute that gay marriage is about equal rights. It is more about legitimizing a lifestyle – and in talking to gay couples, my suspicion has been confirmed. Trust me, it is not necessary to legitimize your lifestyle – what you do in your bedroom is your business.

    Marriage means almost nothing now – and it is showing in the way our kids are behaving. They are constantly seeking a sense of permanency, normalcy – and gravitate towards gangs, pornographic sex and the like. Dirty dancing is the norm at proms.

    I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us. Adultery is rampant, living together is now the norm, our country is frankly being “Hollywoodized”. I don’t want my children raised that way.

    I want my children to believe marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and woman. Gays can also have lifetime commitments in civil unions that give them equal rights, but I do not by any stretch of the imagination believe the two should be or even are the same.

    If you don’t see my point, you will as time goes on, especially as your teens hit their late teens and early twenties. It is very difficult to raise teens and young adults in a permissive atmosphere where anything goes, and not have them give in to temptation. I’ve gone through this with all my children, as a single mother raising kids alone. What goes on is appalling.

    An anecdote will suffice here. In the Cal Aggies, there was a story of a young female college student who came up to a young male college student sitting on the Quad, minding his own business. Suddenly she berated him for having left in the morning without saying anything (after a night of sex). Turns out the woman embarrassed herself – she had the wrong culprit. She didn’t even recognize who she had slept with.

    Have no doubt about it – MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT IS UNDER ATTACK. COMMITMENT MEANS VERY LITTLE THESE DAYS. Any way of life is stamped as “normal”. It breeds confused children, destructive peer pressure, unstable lifestyles.

    We can agree to disagree on the above points, but don’t take my right away to feel as I do. Last time I looked we do not have “thought police” in this country.

  32. Different Take

    I will be voting FOR Prop 8. Why? Because I believe our traditional institutions are being dangerously eroded. I used to think same-sex marriage was OK – better to promote commitment of any kind.

    But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not. I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?

    Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life. Californians don’t see it, bc so many of you are of the same mind. The rest of the country sees it quite differently – and doesn’t like what they see.

    Socialism is the attempt of the gov’t to decide what is best for the people, unlike democracy. Notice we are being told what cars we can drive, what we can and cannot say, religion is under severe attack from all sides – the COURTS ARE DECIDING THINGS FOR US.

    What I see from the detractors of Prop 8 is an absolute intolerance of any other view than their own. Apparently these folks have no problem with gay days at Disneyland, where sex is had in the open and on nat’l television. No outrage there!

    If I had a kid going through schools today, they wouldn’t be taking sex ed, I can tell you that. I strongly believe marriage is between a man and woman, no sex should be had prior to marriage or outside marriage – it is a lifetime commitment, period. I am fine with civil unions that give equal rights to domestic partners, which is as it should be.

    And by the way, I don’t believe for one minute that gay marriage is about equal rights. It is more about legitimizing a lifestyle – and in talking to gay couples, my suspicion has been confirmed. Trust me, it is not necessary to legitimize your lifestyle – what you do in your bedroom is your business.

    Marriage means almost nothing now – and it is showing in the way our kids are behaving. They are constantly seeking a sense of permanency, normalcy – and gravitate towards gangs, pornographic sex and the like. Dirty dancing is the norm at proms.

    I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us. Adultery is rampant, living together is now the norm, our country is frankly being “Hollywoodized”. I don’t want my children raised that way.

    I want my children to believe marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and woman. Gays can also have lifetime commitments in civil unions that give them equal rights, but I do not by any stretch of the imagination believe the two should be or even are the same.

    If you don’t see my point, you will as time goes on, especially as your teens hit their late teens and early twenties. It is very difficult to raise teens and young adults in a permissive atmosphere where anything goes, and not have them give in to temptation. I’ve gone through this with all my children, as a single mother raising kids alone. What goes on is appalling.

    An anecdote will suffice here. In the Cal Aggies, there was a story of a young female college student who came up to a young male college student sitting on the Quad, minding his own business. Suddenly she berated him for having left in the morning without saying anything (after a night of sex). Turns out the woman embarrassed herself – she had the wrong culprit. She didn’t even recognize who she had slept with.

    Have no doubt about it – MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT IS UNDER ATTACK. COMMITMENT MEANS VERY LITTLE THESE DAYS. Any way of life is stamped as “normal”. It breeds confused children, destructive peer pressure, unstable lifestyles.

    We can agree to disagree on the above points, but don’t take my right away to feel as I do. Last time I looked we do not have “thought police” in this country.

  33. Anonymous

    “I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us.”

    The view of what is traditional depends on how far back you want to look. We certainly had a more “traditional” society when-

    we had slaves and indentured servants
    when the woman’s place was in the home
    when women were not allowed to vote
    when inter racial marriage was denied
    we burned witches

    I can go on, but my point is that some traditional values were bad – at least the are now considered bad.

    The importance of my marriage (about 33 years so far) will not be diminished by having Gay people get married. Marriage is a clebration of commitment and everyone should enjoy that – regardless of whether or not children are involved.

    Nothing negative has happened since Gay marriages were permited – except perhaps in the minds of people against them. They need to look in a mirror and deal with it.

    Vote not on 8!!!

  34. Anonymous

    “I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us.”

    The view of what is traditional depends on how far back you want to look. We certainly had a more “traditional” society when-

    we had slaves and indentured servants
    when the woman’s place was in the home
    when women were not allowed to vote
    when inter racial marriage was denied
    we burned witches

    I can go on, but my point is that some traditional values were bad – at least the are now considered bad.

    The importance of my marriage (about 33 years so far) will not be diminished by having Gay people get married. Marriage is a clebration of commitment and everyone should enjoy that – regardless of whether or not children are involved.

    Nothing negative has happened since Gay marriages were permited – except perhaps in the minds of people against them. They need to look in a mirror and deal with it.

    Vote not on 8!!!

  35. Anonymous

    “I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us.”

    The view of what is traditional depends on how far back you want to look. We certainly had a more “traditional” society when-

    we had slaves and indentured servants
    when the woman’s place was in the home
    when women were not allowed to vote
    when inter racial marriage was denied
    we burned witches

    I can go on, but my point is that some traditional values were bad – at least the are now considered bad.

    The importance of my marriage (about 33 years so far) will not be diminished by having Gay people get married. Marriage is a clebration of commitment and everyone should enjoy that – regardless of whether or not children are involved.

    Nothing negative has happened since Gay marriages were permited – except perhaps in the minds of people against them. They need to look in a mirror and deal with it.

    Vote not on 8!!!

  36. Anonymous

    “I’m straying a bit off the subject, but not quite. What I am trying to explain is how far we are straying from traditional instititions, which is coming back to haunt us.”

    The view of what is traditional depends on how far back you want to look. We certainly had a more “traditional” society when-

    we had slaves and indentured servants
    when the woman’s place was in the home
    when women were not allowed to vote
    when inter racial marriage was denied
    we burned witches

    I can go on, but my point is that some traditional values were bad – at least the are now considered bad.

    The importance of my marriage (about 33 years so far) will not be diminished by having Gay people get married. Marriage is a clebration of commitment and everyone should enjoy that – regardless of whether or not children are involved.

    Nothing negative has happened since Gay marriages were permited – except perhaps in the minds of people against them. They need to look in a mirror and deal with it.

    Vote not on 8!!!

  37. Anonymous

    On the one hand, I hear an awful lot of crap in this discussion. But that is to be expected.
    On the other hand, I am glad that there is discussion about words, and definitions. I think it is good for us to have discussions about words. I think of Frank Zappa on Hardball, who, try as he might, could not get the people on that show to have a discussion about words.
    So is Civil Union equal to marriage? Is Prop 8 a “seperate but equal” argument? Can anyone help me with this?

  38. Anonymous

    On the one hand, I hear an awful lot of crap in this discussion. But that is to be expected.
    On the other hand, I am glad that there is discussion about words, and definitions. I think it is good for us to have discussions about words. I think of Frank Zappa on Hardball, who, try as he might, could not get the people on that show to have a discussion about words.
    So is Civil Union equal to marriage? Is Prop 8 a “seperate but equal” argument? Can anyone help me with this?

  39. Anonymous

    On the one hand, I hear an awful lot of crap in this discussion. But that is to be expected.
    On the other hand, I am glad that there is discussion about words, and definitions. I think it is good for us to have discussions about words. I think of Frank Zappa on Hardball, who, try as he might, could not get the people on that show to have a discussion about words.
    So is Civil Union equal to marriage? Is Prop 8 a “seperate but equal” argument? Can anyone help me with this?

  40. Anonymous

    On the one hand, I hear an awful lot of crap in this discussion. But that is to be expected.
    On the other hand, I am glad that there is discussion about words, and definitions. I think it is good for us to have discussions about words. I think of Frank Zappa on Hardball, who, try as he might, could not get the people on that show to have a discussion about words.
    So is Civil Union equal to marriage? Is Prop 8 a “seperate but equal” argument? Can anyone help me with this?

  41. Anonymous

    Anon. 1:37

    Civil unions are(or can be made) equal in law to marriage status rights.
    The separate but equal shibboleth is not on-point as it has no relevance to this situation where the separation is a semantic one as opposed to unequal substantive rights. This is not to say that words are not extremely important. It is the meaning of words that is that stuff out of which we create our reality. As such, courts should be extremely wary of taking on the power to alter society’s cultural definitions.

  42. Anonymous

    Anon. 1:37

    Civil unions are(or can be made) equal in law to marriage status rights.
    The separate but equal shibboleth is not on-point as it has no relevance to this situation where the separation is a semantic one as opposed to unequal substantive rights. This is not to say that words are not extremely important. It is the meaning of words that is that stuff out of which we create our reality. As such, courts should be extremely wary of taking on the power to alter society’s cultural definitions.

  43. Anonymous

    Anon. 1:37

    Civil unions are(or can be made) equal in law to marriage status rights.
    The separate but equal shibboleth is not on-point as it has no relevance to this situation where the separation is a semantic one as opposed to unequal substantive rights. This is not to say that words are not extremely important. It is the meaning of words that is that stuff out of which we create our reality. As such, courts should be extremely wary of taking on the power to alter society’s cultural definitions.

  44. Anonymous

    Anon. 1:37

    Civil unions are(or can be made) equal in law to marriage status rights.
    The separate but equal shibboleth is not on-point as it has no relevance to this situation where the separation is a semantic one as opposed to unequal substantive rights. This is not to say that words are not extremely important. It is the meaning of words that is that stuff out of which we create our reality. As such, courts should be extremely wary of taking on the power to alter society’s cultural definitions.

  45. Harvey Milk

    Interesting that this blog would choose to print an argument in favor of prop 8. There is no requirement that you present all sides so if you are truly against prop 8 why would you print this?

  46. Harvey Milk

    Interesting that this blog would choose to print an argument in favor of prop 8. There is no requirement that you present all sides so if you are truly against prop 8 why would you print this?

  47. Harvey Milk

    Interesting that this blog would choose to print an argument in favor of prop 8. There is no requirement that you present all sides so if you are truly against prop 8 why would you print this?

  48. Harvey Milk

    Interesting that this blog would choose to print an argument in favor of prop 8. There is no requirement that you present all sides so if you are truly against prop 8 why would you print this?

  49. David M. Greenwald

    I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.

  50. David M. Greenwald

    I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.

  51. David M. Greenwald

    I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.

  52. David M. Greenwald

    I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.

  53. Anonymous

    “I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.”

    If there is an effort on this blog to moderate some civil discussion, please consider having your guest bloggers take on some responsibility for answering some of the questions, objections in the comments section.

    Obviously it can take a lot of time to respond to every single criticism if it is a heavily-trafficked topic, but even some moderate response would give some indication where the guest is coming from.

  54. Anonymous

    “I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.”

    If there is an effort on this blog to moderate some civil discussion, please consider having your guest bloggers take on some responsibility for answering some of the questions, objections in the comments section.

    Obviously it can take a lot of time to respond to every single criticism if it is a heavily-trafficked topic, but even some moderate response would give some indication where the guest is coming from.

  55. Anonymous

    “I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.”

    If there is an effort on this blog to moderate some civil discussion, please consider having your guest bloggers take on some responsibility for answering some of the questions, objections in the comments section.

    Obviously it can take a lot of time to respond to every single criticism if it is a heavily-trafficked topic, but even some moderate response would give some indication where the guest is coming from.

  56. Anonymous

    “I offer guest commentaries to those who ask for them as long they do not cross into personal attacks, profanity, etc. Yesterday I posted a commentary on Measure N from Souza and Heystek that I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to have a good conversation even with those we disagree with.”

    If there is an effort on this blog to moderate some civil discussion, please consider having your guest bloggers take on some responsibility for answering some of the questions, objections in the comments section.

    Obviously it can take a lot of time to respond to every single criticism if it is a heavily-trafficked topic, but even some moderate response would give some indication where the guest is coming from.

  57. David M. Greenwald

    You know, different people react differently to the comments section. Some people only read the comments, some people never read the comments. I’m not going to tell people that in order to post a guest commentary they have to participate in the comment section. That’s up to them. I have enough work to do, without giving myself more still.

  58. David M. Greenwald

    You know, different people react differently to the comments section. Some people only read the comments, some people never read the comments. I’m not going to tell people that in order to post a guest commentary they have to participate in the comment section. That’s up to them. I have enough work to do, without giving myself more still.

  59. David M. Greenwald

    You know, different people react differently to the comments section. Some people only read the comments, some people never read the comments. I’m not going to tell people that in order to post a guest commentary they have to participate in the comment section. That’s up to them. I have enough work to do, without giving myself more still.

  60. David M. Greenwald

    You know, different people react differently to the comments section. Some people only read the comments, some people never read the comments. I’m not going to tell people that in order to post a guest commentary they have to participate in the comment section. That’s up to them. I have enough work to do, without giving myself more still.

  61. Anonymous

    1. Your difference in opinion is of great interest to me.

    2. I do believe that the Chuck and Larry scenario and the Brittney Spear wedding is exactly what is destroying the reputation and meaning of marriage in the US. I do not consider this issue to be similar to that of segregation in anyway. I am not preventing gays from using every day services, schools, public institutions, etc. This is not a debate over benefits, but about the definition of a word. One person’s progression is another person’s tyranny. I do not consider government by rule of the Courts to be a progressive approach. I do not consider rule by an extreme minority to be progressive.

    3. I hope you recover, and probably so, just give me some time to get it on the Prop 8 page.

    4. I am not sure if this an argument for or against my post. I would hope that marriage would stand out as having greater social value than domestic partnerships and civil unions. Idealy, I would like to have long lasting successful marriages. There is a cultural incentive to repair the reputation of marriage; there is none for the term “civil union” or “domestic paternships.”

    Steven Ostrowski

  62. Anonymous

    1. Your difference in opinion is of great interest to me.

    2. I do believe that the Chuck and Larry scenario and the Brittney Spear wedding is exactly what is destroying the reputation and meaning of marriage in the US. I do not consider this issue to be similar to that of segregation in anyway. I am not preventing gays from using every day services, schools, public institutions, etc. This is not a debate over benefits, but about the definition of a word. One person’s progression is another person’s tyranny. I do not consider government by rule of the Courts to be a progressive approach. I do not consider rule by an extreme minority to be progressive.

    3. I hope you recover, and probably so, just give me some time to get it on the Prop 8 page.

    4. I am not sure if this an argument for or against my post. I would hope that marriage would stand out as having greater social value than domestic partnerships and civil unions. Idealy, I would like to have long lasting successful marriages. There is a cultural incentive to repair the reputation of marriage; there is none for the term “civil union” or “domestic paternships.”

    Steven Ostrowski

  63. Anonymous

    1. Your difference in opinion is of great interest to me.

    2. I do believe that the Chuck and Larry scenario and the Brittney Spear wedding is exactly what is destroying the reputation and meaning of marriage in the US. I do not consider this issue to be similar to that of segregation in anyway. I am not preventing gays from using every day services, schools, public institutions, etc. This is not a debate over benefits, but about the definition of a word. One person’s progression is another person’s tyranny. I do not consider government by rule of the Courts to be a progressive approach. I do not consider rule by an extreme minority to be progressive.

    3. I hope you recover, and probably so, just give me some time to get it on the Prop 8 page.

    4. I am not sure if this an argument for or against my post. I would hope that marriage would stand out as having greater social value than domestic partnerships and civil unions. Idealy, I would like to have long lasting successful marriages. There is a cultural incentive to repair the reputation of marriage; there is none for the term “civil union” or “domestic paternships.”

    Steven Ostrowski

  64. Anonymous

    1. Your difference in opinion is of great interest to me.

    2. I do believe that the Chuck and Larry scenario and the Brittney Spear wedding is exactly what is destroying the reputation and meaning of marriage in the US. I do not consider this issue to be similar to that of segregation in anyway. I am not preventing gays from using every day services, schools, public institutions, etc. This is not a debate over benefits, but about the definition of a word. One person’s progression is another person’s tyranny. I do not consider government by rule of the Courts to be a progressive approach. I do not consider rule by an extreme minority to be progressive.

    3. I hope you recover, and probably so, just give me some time to get it on the Prop 8 page.

    4. I am not sure if this an argument for or against my post. I would hope that marriage would stand out as having greater social value than domestic partnerships and civil unions. Idealy, I would like to have long lasting successful marriages. There is a cultural incentive to repair the reputation of marriage; there is none for the term “civil union” or “domestic paternships.”

    Steven Ostrowski

  65. Anonymous

    5. A Biblical analysis of slavery would take up the same amount of space as my original post. So, basically, it needs to be understood that slavery existed in every culture in the world at the time of the Bible. Christians, at the time, were not in a position to stop slavery in the Roman Empire. And if you read Romans 13, it details obediance to the state as opposed to anarchy. It was one of those teachings where Christians were to accept what could not be changed and reform what could. Now, I believe that the Christian faith evolves over time as we received revelation from God through individuals. During the American Civil War, many Christians came to realize through reason, revelation, and social charity that slavery needed to be abolished. As a Catholic, I am immune to fundamentalist attacks. The Bible is important to me, but the Church is the foundation for the faith. The Church evolved over time to see the evils of slavery, and it was only by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers that slavery is abolished. None of this however is relevant to the debate, a total non-sequitor, but I felt the need to comment. I did not use the Bible as my argument in my post at all.

    Marriage and slavery are totally different things. Slavery is enforced servitude which is active, but denying marriage to someone is passive. The Constitution has abolished slavery but I do not believe the Constitution requires the state to allow or permit gay marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  66. Anonymous

    5. A Biblical analysis of slavery would take up the same amount of space as my original post. So, basically, it needs to be understood that slavery existed in every culture in the world at the time of the Bible. Christians, at the time, were not in a position to stop slavery in the Roman Empire. And if you read Romans 13, it details obediance to the state as opposed to anarchy. It was one of those teachings where Christians were to accept what could not be changed and reform what could. Now, I believe that the Christian faith evolves over time as we received revelation from God through individuals. During the American Civil War, many Christians came to realize through reason, revelation, and social charity that slavery needed to be abolished. As a Catholic, I am immune to fundamentalist attacks. The Bible is important to me, but the Church is the foundation for the faith. The Church evolved over time to see the evils of slavery, and it was only by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers that slavery is abolished. None of this however is relevant to the debate, a total non-sequitor, but I felt the need to comment. I did not use the Bible as my argument in my post at all.

    Marriage and slavery are totally different things. Slavery is enforced servitude which is active, but denying marriage to someone is passive. The Constitution has abolished slavery but I do not believe the Constitution requires the state to allow or permit gay marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  67. Anonymous

    5. A Biblical analysis of slavery would take up the same amount of space as my original post. So, basically, it needs to be understood that slavery existed in every culture in the world at the time of the Bible. Christians, at the time, were not in a position to stop slavery in the Roman Empire. And if you read Romans 13, it details obediance to the state as opposed to anarchy. It was one of those teachings where Christians were to accept what could not be changed and reform what could. Now, I believe that the Christian faith evolves over time as we received revelation from God through individuals. During the American Civil War, many Christians came to realize through reason, revelation, and social charity that slavery needed to be abolished. As a Catholic, I am immune to fundamentalist attacks. The Bible is important to me, but the Church is the foundation for the faith. The Church evolved over time to see the evils of slavery, and it was only by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers that slavery is abolished. None of this however is relevant to the debate, a total non-sequitor, but I felt the need to comment. I did not use the Bible as my argument in my post at all.

    Marriage and slavery are totally different things. Slavery is enforced servitude which is active, but denying marriage to someone is passive. The Constitution has abolished slavery but I do not believe the Constitution requires the state to allow or permit gay marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  68. Anonymous

    5. A Biblical analysis of slavery would take up the same amount of space as my original post. So, basically, it needs to be understood that slavery existed in every culture in the world at the time of the Bible. Christians, at the time, were not in a position to stop slavery in the Roman Empire. And if you read Romans 13, it details obediance to the state as opposed to anarchy. It was one of those teachings where Christians were to accept what could not be changed and reform what could. Now, I believe that the Christian faith evolves over time as we received revelation from God through individuals. During the American Civil War, many Christians came to realize through reason, revelation, and social charity that slavery needed to be abolished. As a Catholic, I am immune to fundamentalist attacks. The Bible is important to me, but the Church is the foundation for the faith. The Church evolved over time to see the evils of slavery, and it was only by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers that slavery is abolished. None of this however is relevant to the debate, a total non-sequitor, but I felt the need to comment. I did not use the Bible as my argument in my post at all.

    Marriage and slavery are totally different things. Slavery is enforced servitude which is active, but denying marriage to someone is passive. The Constitution has abolished slavery but I do not believe the Constitution requires the state to allow or permit gay marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  69. Anonymous

    6. What if it does? It makes no difference to the argument I am making. I would say that no Christian Church should ever bless a same-sex union, but that’s my theological opinion. My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution. I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  70. Anonymous

    6. What if it does? It makes no difference to the argument I am making. I would say that no Christian Church should ever bless a same-sex union, but that’s my theological opinion. My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution. I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  71. Anonymous

    6. What if it does? It makes no difference to the argument I am making. I would say that no Christian Church should ever bless a same-sex union, but that’s my theological opinion. My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution. I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  72. Anonymous

    6. What if it does? It makes no difference to the argument I am making. I would say that no Christian Church should ever bless a same-sex union, but that’s my theological opinion. My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution. I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.

    Steven Ostrowski

  73. Anonymous

    8. As I have stated in great detail, I do not propose that we ban all heterosexal couples that are unable to have children from marrying. Some elderly individuals are able to have children in their old age. Some use drugs and other medical procedures to have children late in life. A lot of Biblical stories have elderly parents like Sarah and Elizabeth. Some couples who marry and have no intention of having children end up changing their minds.

    And even if I were to believe that non-conceiving heterosexuals be banned from marriage, I would be against the rather evasive procedure that would have to occur in order to enforce the ban. Consider what the government would have to do to enforce such a ban. They would have to enforce medical exams, violate doctor-patience confidentiality, and violate all sorts of privacy rights. Gays, on the other hand are unmistakeable in their inability to have children.

    Steven Ostrowski

  74. Anonymous

    8. As I have stated in great detail, I do not propose that we ban all heterosexal couples that are unable to have children from marrying. Some elderly individuals are able to have children in their old age. Some use drugs and other medical procedures to have children late in life. A lot of Biblical stories have elderly parents like Sarah and Elizabeth. Some couples who marry and have no intention of having children end up changing their minds.

    And even if I were to believe that non-conceiving heterosexuals be banned from marriage, I would be against the rather evasive procedure that would have to occur in order to enforce the ban. Consider what the government would have to do to enforce such a ban. They would have to enforce medical exams, violate doctor-patience confidentiality, and violate all sorts of privacy rights. Gays, on the other hand are unmistakeable in their inability to have children.

    Steven Ostrowski

  75. Anonymous

    8. As I have stated in great detail, I do not propose that we ban all heterosexal couples that are unable to have children from marrying. Some elderly individuals are able to have children in their old age. Some use drugs and other medical procedures to have children late in life. A lot of Biblical stories have elderly parents like Sarah and Elizabeth. Some couples who marry and have no intention of having children end up changing their minds.

    And even if I were to believe that non-conceiving heterosexuals be banned from marriage, I would be against the rather evasive procedure that would have to occur in order to enforce the ban. Consider what the government would have to do to enforce such a ban. They would have to enforce medical exams, violate doctor-patience confidentiality, and violate all sorts of privacy rights. Gays, on the other hand are unmistakeable in their inability to have children.

    Steven Ostrowski

  76. Anonymous

    8. As I have stated in great detail, I do not propose that we ban all heterosexal couples that are unable to have children from marrying. Some elderly individuals are able to have children in their old age. Some use drugs and other medical procedures to have children late in life. A lot of Biblical stories have elderly parents like Sarah and Elizabeth. Some couples who marry and have no intention of having children end up changing their minds.

    And even if I were to believe that non-conceiving heterosexuals be banned from marriage, I would be against the rather evasive procedure that would have to occur in order to enforce the ban. Consider what the government would have to do to enforce such a ban. They would have to enforce medical exams, violate doctor-patience confidentiality, and violate all sorts of privacy rights. Gays, on the other hand are unmistakeable in their inability to have children.

    Steven Ostrowski

  77. Rich Rifkin

    “My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution.”

    You are still not being honest with that comment. If you were, then you would call for the state to ban all marriages which are not procreative by design. Of course, you don’t do that. You only call for the ban of one type of non-procreative marriage, because you are prejudiced against homosexuals, which clearly is what your religion teaches you to be.

    “I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.”

    That is fine. No church or temple or mosque of any stripe ever has to validate a same-sex marriage. This is about what marriages the state recognizes. You falsely proclaim that the state should ban gay marriages because they are not procreative. But you know that is a lie, as you have never nor would ever call for the ban of state recognition of the marriage of a man and a woman who are over 60 years old and hence not capable (by normal means) of procreating. The same holds true for the man-woman marriage of a couple in which the partners are infertile. According to your original claim about procreation being the operative norm for marriage, infertile straight couples, especially those who don’t ever want children, should be forbidden to marry under your doctrine.

    There is another aspect to this question which you have ignored: beyond procreation is parenthood. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not understand that homosexual couples in many cases do have children. In some instances, those offspring were brought about by a heterosexual union, which collapsed once one of the partners came out of the closet as gay but maintained custody. In cases like that, there is a child which would be better served if his parents were married (which increases stability), but your cockamamie religious prejudice would deny this child that benefit, all because you hate homosexuality.

    Further, many gays have adopted children or had them biologically with a surrogate. Your hatred of gays is such that you would deny the children in these families a stable home, despite all evidence which shows the kids would be better off if their parents were married and stable.

    It is not my view that having gay parents is ideal for kids. The evidence is strong showing that all else held equal, a child is best served to be reared by his mother and father. Males and females are different, and that combination (often of discipline and nurture) serves the best interests of kids. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. The majority of American children, today, alas, are raised by their biological mothers without their fathers at home. In many cases with intact straight parents, the situation is less than idea because of drug abuse, alcoholism or other failings of the parents. In cases like those, any objective observer could see that a child would be far better off being raised by a stable and loving gay couple than he would by living in a messed up straight family.

  78. Rich Rifkin

    “My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution.”

    You are still not being honest with that comment. If you were, then you would call for the state to ban all marriages which are not procreative by design. Of course, you don’t do that. You only call for the ban of one type of non-procreative marriage, because you are prejudiced against homosexuals, which clearly is what your religion teaches you to be.

    “I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.”

    That is fine. No church or temple or mosque of any stripe ever has to validate a same-sex marriage. This is about what marriages the state recognizes. You falsely proclaim that the state should ban gay marriages because they are not procreative. But you know that is a lie, as you have never nor would ever call for the ban of state recognition of the marriage of a man and a woman who are over 60 years old and hence not capable (by normal means) of procreating. The same holds true for the man-woman marriage of a couple in which the partners are infertile. According to your original claim about procreation being the operative norm for marriage, infertile straight couples, especially those who don’t ever want children, should be forbidden to marry under your doctrine.

    There is another aspect to this question which you have ignored: beyond procreation is parenthood. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not understand that homosexual couples in many cases do have children. In some instances, those offspring were brought about by a heterosexual union, which collapsed once one of the partners came out of the closet as gay but maintained custody. In cases like that, there is a child which would be better served if his parents were married (which increases stability), but your cockamamie religious prejudice would deny this child that benefit, all because you hate homosexuality.

    Further, many gays have adopted children or had them biologically with a surrogate. Your hatred of gays is such that you would deny the children in these families a stable home, despite all evidence which shows the kids would be better off if their parents were married and stable.

    It is not my view that having gay parents is ideal for kids. The evidence is strong showing that all else held equal, a child is best served to be reared by his mother and father. Males and females are different, and that combination (often of discipline and nurture) serves the best interests of kids. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. The majority of American children, today, alas, are raised by their biological mothers without their fathers at home. In many cases with intact straight parents, the situation is less than idea because of drug abuse, alcoholism or other failings of the parents. In cases like those, any objective observer could see that a child would be far better off being raised by a stable and loving gay couple than he would by living in a messed up straight family.

  79. Rich Rifkin

    “My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution.”

    You are still not being honest with that comment. If you were, then you would call for the state to ban all marriages which are not procreative by design. Of course, you don’t do that. You only call for the ban of one type of non-procreative marriage, because you are prejudiced against homosexuals, which clearly is what your religion teaches you to be.

    “I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.”

    That is fine. No church or temple or mosque of any stripe ever has to validate a same-sex marriage. This is about what marriages the state recognizes. You falsely proclaim that the state should ban gay marriages because they are not procreative. But you know that is a lie, as you have never nor would ever call for the ban of state recognition of the marriage of a man and a woman who are over 60 years old and hence not capable (by normal means) of procreating. The same holds true for the man-woman marriage of a couple in which the partners are infertile. According to your original claim about procreation being the operative norm for marriage, infertile straight couples, especially those who don’t ever want children, should be forbidden to marry under your doctrine.

    There is another aspect to this question which you have ignored: beyond procreation is parenthood. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not understand that homosexual couples in many cases do have children. In some instances, those offspring were brought about by a heterosexual union, which collapsed once one of the partners came out of the closet as gay but maintained custody. In cases like that, there is a child which would be better served if his parents were married (which increases stability), but your cockamamie religious prejudice would deny this child that benefit, all because you hate homosexuality.

    Further, many gays have adopted children or had them biologically with a surrogate. Your hatred of gays is such that you would deny the children in these families a stable home, despite all evidence which shows the kids would be better off if their parents were married and stable.

    It is not my view that having gay parents is ideal for kids. The evidence is strong showing that all else held equal, a child is best served to be reared by his mother and father. Males and females are different, and that combination (often of discipline and nurture) serves the best interests of kids. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. The majority of American children, today, alas, are raised by their biological mothers without their fathers at home. In many cases with intact straight parents, the situation is less than idea because of drug abuse, alcoholism or other failings of the parents. In cases like those, any objective observer could see that a child would be far better off being raised by a stable and loving gay couple than he would by living in a messed up straight family.

  80. Rich Rifkin

    “My argument is that marriage is a procreative function and that gay marriage will destroy the cultural reputation and significance of that institution.”

    You are still not being honest with that comment. If you were, then you would call for the state to ban all marriages which are not procreative by design. Of course, you don’t do that. You only call for the ban of one type of non-procreative marriage, because you are prejudiced against homosexuals, which clearly is what your religion teaches you to be.

    “I personally see no justification what so ever for a Christian Church to validate a same-sex marriage.”

    That is fine. No church or temple or mosque of any stripe ever has to validate a same-sex marriage. This is about what marriages the state recognizes. You falsely proclaim that the state should ban gay marriages because they are not procreative. But you know that is a lie, as you have never nor would ever call for the ban of state recognition of the marriage of a man and a woman who are over 60 years old and hence not capable (by normal means) of procreating. The same holds true for the man-woman marriage of a couple in which the partners are infertile. According to your original claim about procreation being the operative norm for marriage, infertile straight couples, especially those who don’t ever want children, should be forbidden to marry under your doctrine.

    There is another aspect to this question which you have ignored: beyond procreation is parenthood. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not understand that homosexual couples in many cases do have children. In some instances, those offspring were brought about by a heterosexual union, which collapsed once one of the partners came out of the closet as gay but maintained custody. In cases like that, there is a child which would be better served if his parents were married (which increases stability), but your cockamamie religious prejudice would deny this child that benefit, all because you hate homosexuality.

    Further, many gays have adopted children or had them biologically with a surrogate. Your hatred of gays is such that you would deny the children in these families a stable home, despite all evidence which shows the kids would be better off if their parents were married and stable.

    It is not my view that having gay parents is ideal for kids. The evidence is strong showing that all else held equal, a child is best served to be reared by his mother and father. Males and females are different, and that combination (often of discipline and nurture) serves the best interests of kids. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. The majority of American children, today, alas, are raised by their biological mothers without their fathers at home. In many cases with intact straight parents, the situation is less than idea because of drug abuse, alcoholism or other failings of the parents. In cases like those, any objective observer could see that a child would be far better off being raised by a stable and loving gay couple than he would by living in a messed up straight family.

  81. Rich Rifkin

    Steven,

    Are you saying you would prohibit the state from recognizing this marriage, because it cannot be procreative?

    “Marcia Koller, who is 79 and a widow, picked out a white suit to wear to her Oct. 18 wedding to 84-year-old widower James Bowman. They were married at Warwick Forest, a continuing care retirement community in Newport News where they met and lived in separate residences. Now, they will move into a cottage together.”

    There is a huge hole in your argument. Because you approach politics from a nonsensical religious perspective, that likely does not bother you. Yours is a matter of faith, not of logic. But logically, your procreative argument falls apart completely, and you know that it does.

  82. Rich Rifkin

    Steven,

    Are you saying you would prohibit the state from recognizing this marriage, because it cannot be procreative?

    “Marcia Koller, who is 79 and a widow, picked out a white suit to wear to her Oct. 18 wedding to 84-year-old widower James Bowman. They were married at Warwick Forest, a continuing care retirement community in Newport News where they met and lived in separate residences. Now, they will move into a cottage together.”

    There is a huge hole in your argument. Because you approach politics from a nonsensical religious perspective, that likely does not bother you. Yours is a matter of faith, not of logic. But logically, your procreative argument falls apart completely, and you know that it does.

  83. Rich Rifkin

    Steven,

    Are you saying you would prohibit the state from recognizing this marriage, because it cannot be procreative?

    “Marcia Koller, who is 79 and a widow, picked out a white suit to wear to her Oct. 18 wedding to 84-year-old widower James Bowman. They were married at Warwick Forest, a continuing care retirement community in Newport News where they met and lived in separate residences. Now, they will move into a cottage together.”

    There is a huge hole in your argument. Because you approach politics from a nonsensical religious perspective, that likely does not bother you. Yours is a matter of faith, not of logic. But logically, your procreative argument falls apart completely, and you know that it does.

  84. Rich Rifkin

    Steven,

    Are you saying you would prohibit the state from recognizing this marriage, because it cannot be procreative?

    “Marcia Koller, who is 79 and a widow, picked out a white suit to wear to her Oct. 18 wedding to 84-year-old widower James Bowman. They were married at Warwick Forest, a continuing care retirement community in Newport News where they met and lived in separate residences. Now, they will move into a cottage together.”

    There is a huge hole in your argument. Because you approach politics from a nonsensical religious perspective, that likely does not bother you. Yours is a matter of faith, not of logic. But logically, your procreative argument falls apart completely, and you know that it does.

  85. Anonymous

    FYI

    Spain, probably the number 2 Catholic country in the world allows same sex marriages. At one time Spain was probably the least tolerant country in Europe.

    Artículo único. Modificación del Código Civil en materia
    de derecho a contraer matrimonio.
    El Código Civil se modifica en los siguientes términos:
    Uno. Se añade un segundo párrafo al artículo 44,
    con la siguiente redacción:
    «El matrimonio tendrá los mismos requisitos y
    efectos cuando ambos contrayentes sean del mismo
    o de diferente sexo.»

  86. Anonymous

    FYI

    Spain, probably the number 2 Catholic country in the world allows same sex marriages. At one time Spain was probably the least tolerant country in Europe.

    Artículo único. Modificación del Código Civil en materia
    de derecho a contraer matrimonio.
    El Código Civil se modifica en los siguientes términos:
    Uno. Se añade un segundo párrafo al artículo 44,
    con la siguiente redacción:
    «El matrimonio tendrá los mismos requisitos y
    efectos cuando ambos contrayentes sean del mismo
    o de diferente sexo.»

  87. Anonymous

    FYI

    Spain, probably the number 2 Catholic country in the world allows same sex marriages. At one time Spain was probably the least tolerant country in Europe.

    Artículo único. Modificación del Código Civil en materia
    de derecho a contraer matrimonio.
    El Código Civil se modifica en los siguientes términos:
    Uno. Se añade un segundo párrafo al artículo 44,
    con la siguiente redacción:
    «El matrimonio tendrá los mismos requisitos y
    efectos cuando ambos contrayentes sean del mismo
    o de diferente sexo.»

  88. Anonymous

    FYI

    Spain, probably the number 2 Catholic country in the world allows same sex marriages. At one time Spain was probably the least tolerant country in Europe.

    Artículo único. Modificación del Código Civil en materia
    de derecho a contraer matrimonio.
    El Código Civil se modifica en los siguientes términos:
    Uno. Se añade un segundo párrafo al artículo 44,
    con la siguiente redacción:
    «El matrimonio tendrá los mismos requisitos y
    efectos cuando ambos contrayentes sean del mismo
    o de diferente sexo.»

  89. Anonymous

    “if his parents were married (which increases stability….”

    Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples. There is no reason to believe that giving same-sex couples the designation of marriage status would increase their stability over their current civil-union status.

  90. Anonymous

    “if his parents were married (which increases stability….”

    Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples. There is no reason to believe that giving same-sex couples the designation of marriage status would increase their stability over their current civil-union status.

  91. Anonymous

    “if his parents were married (which increases stability….”

    Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples. There is no reason to believe that giving same-sex couples the designation of marriage status would increase their stability over their current civil-union status.

  92. Anonymous

    “if his parents were married (which increases stability….”

    Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples. There is no reason to believe that giving same-sex couples the designation of marriage status would increase their stability over their current civil-union status.

  93. Rich Rifkin

    “Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples.”

    That’s the wrong comparison. The comparison you want to look at is the stability of a married couple with children — how long the couple stays together — compared with an unmarried couple with children.

    I don’t know what gays think about this — I happen to be straight — but I would guess most of them would be satisfied to have the right to have a civil union, as long as that legal arrangement carried with it all of the benefits that a legal straight marriage entails. That, of course, is not the case today in any state. Perhaps all the religious zealots who hate gay marriage should be pushing for “civil unions” which would have every legal right a straight marriage has.

  94. Rich Rifkin

    “Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples.”

    That’s the wrong comparison. The comparison you want to look at is the stability of a married couple with children — how long the couple stays together — compared with an unmarried couple with children.

    I don’t know what gays think about this — I happen to be straight — but I would guess most of them would be satisfied to have the right to have a civil union, as long as that legal arrangement carried with it all of the benefits that a legal straight marriage entails. That, of course, is not the case today in any state. Perhaps all the religious zealots who hate gay marriage should be pushing for “civil unions” which would have every legal right a straight marriage has.

  95. Rich Rifkin

    “Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples.”

    That’s the wrong comparison. The comparison you want to look at is the stability of a married couple with children — how long the couple stays together — compared with an unmarried couple with children.

    I don’t know what gays think about this — I happen to be straight — but I would guess most of them would be satisfied to have the right to have a civil union, as long as that legal arrangement carried with it all of the benefits that a legal straight marriage entails. That, of course, is not the case today in any state. Perhaps all the religious zealots who hate gay marriage should be pushing for “civil unions” which would have every legal right a straight marriage has.

  96. Rich Rifkin

    “Civil-union couples have a very similar incidence of break-up as married couples.”

    That’s the wrong comparison. The comparison you want to look at is the stability of a married couple with children — how long the couple stays together — compared with an unmarried couple with children.

    I don’t know what gays think about this — I happen to be straight — but I would guess most of them would be satisfied to have the right to have a civil union, as long as that legal arrangement carried with it all of the benefits that a legal straight marriage entails. That, of course, is not the case today in any state. Perhaps all the religious zealots who hate gay marriage should be pushing for “civil unions” which would have every legal right a straight marriage has.

  97. Anonymous

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    I haven’t seen that and I’ve had three first graders go through the Davis schools. This looks like hyperbole to me.

    “I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?”

    Divorce used to have more of a social stigma. So couples stayed together in abusive/destructive relationships when they shouldn’t have.

    “Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life.”

    I don’t understand quite where you’re coming from with this argument, but I agree with this statement with respect to the issue at hand.

    It has long been a trait of conservative politics to legislate social behavior while wanting a hands-off policy toward the economy. Denying marriage to same-sex couples the right to marry is just the latest attempt to socialize behavior on everyone.

  98. Anonymous

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    I haven’t seen that and I’ve had three first graders go through the Davis schools. This looks like hyperbole to me.

    “I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?”

    Divorce used to have more of a social stigma. So couples stayed together in abusive/destructive relationships when they shouldn’t have.

    “Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life.”

    I don’t understand quite where you’re coming from with this argument, but I agree with this statement with respect to the issue at hand.

    It has long been a trait of conservative politics to legislate social behavior while wanting a hands-off policy toward the economy. Denying marriage to same-sex couples the right to marry is just the latest attempt to socialize behavior on everyone.

  99. Anonymous

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    I haven’t seen that and I’ve had three first graders go through the Davis schools. This looks like hyperbole to me.

    “I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?”

    Divorce used to have more of a social stigma. So couples stayed together in abusive/destructive relationships when they shouldn’t have.

    “Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life.”

    I don’t understand quite where you’re coming from with this argument, but I agree with this statement with respect to the issue at hand.

    It has long been a trait of conservative politics to legislate social behavior while wanting a hands-off policy toward the economy. Denying marriage to same-sex couples the right to marry is just the latest attempt to socialize behavior on everyone.

  100. Anonymous

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    I haven’t seen that and I’ve had three first graders go through the Davis schools. This looks like hyperbole to me.

    “I watch as the divorce rate goes sky high, couples are living together rather than getting married. Traditional marriage is being eroded at every turn. Why is that?”

    Divorce used to have more of a social stigma. So couples stayed together in abusive/destructive relationships when they shouldn’t have.

    “Because Socialism is creeping into every aspect of the American way of life.”

    I don’t understand quite where you’re coming from with this argument, but I agree with this statement with respect to the issue at hand.

    It has long been a trait of conservative politics to legislate social behavior while wanting a hands-off policy toward the economy. Denying marriage to same-sex couples the right to marry is just the latest attempt to socialize behavior on everyone.

  101. Anne

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

  102. Anne

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

  103. Anne

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

  104. Anne

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

  105. Matthew Shepherd

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

    So if a minority group is limited in its civil rights, we shouldn’t get worked up over it? Especially if we don’t fall into that minority category? Thanks for your enabling rationale! [expressed sarcastically].

    The basic situation I see is that life won’t change for heterosexual couples if prop. 8 passes. Rights for same-sex couples will be severly limited, however.

    But you argue that we should ignore feelings of outrage that such a situation is unfair and unjust.

  106. Matthew Shepherd

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

    So if a minority group is limited in its civil rights, we shouldn’t get worked up over it? Especially if we don’t fall into that minority category? Thanks for your enabling rationale! [expressed sarcastically].

    The basic situation I see is that life won’t change for heterosexual couples if prop. 8 passes. Rights for same-sex couples will be severly limited, however.

    But you argue that we should ignore feelings of outrage that such a situation is unfair and unjust.

  107. Matthew Shepherd

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

    So if a minority group is limited in its civil rights, we shouldn’t get worked up over it? Especially if we don’t fall into that minority category? Thanks for your enabling rationale! [expressed sarcastically].

    The basic situation I see is that life won’t change for heterosexual couples if prop. 8 passes. Rights for same-sex couples will be severly limited, however.

    But you argue that we should ignore feelings of outrage that such a situation is unfair and unjust.

  108. Matthew Shepherd

    “Please ignore Rich Rifkin’s comments, because he is what he calls others, a zealot.”

    It’s funny that you cannot adequately argue against his ideas, so you tell people to ignore him.

    It’s also the case that to be called a zealot is not insulting. A zealot is someone with zeal or passion for his cause.

    So if a minority group is limited in its civil rights, we shouldn’t get worked up over it? Especially if we don’t fall into that minority category? Thanks for your enabling rationale! [expressed sarcastically].

    The basic situation I see is that life won’t change for heterosexual couples if prop. 8 passes. Rights for same-sex couples will be severly limited, however.

    But you argue that we should ignore feelings of outrage that such a situation is unfair and unjust.

  109. johnny mathis

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.

    My own experience, and the experience of my kids has shown that *other kids* are more than happy to teach you about homosexuality.

    An acquaintance of mine expressed it best on a different website:

    “I didnt learn a thing at all about marraige when I was in school. I did however, learn what the word “faggot” meant in the third grade when a classmate called me that to my face on the playground. If students learn anything, it’s that most of the teachers in their school are gay and that they don’t host reality t.v. shows that tell you how to dress.”

    Conservatives have an obsession with prurient imagery, and are using it to full effect in this campaign.

  110. johnny mathis

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.

    My own experience, and the experience of my kids has shown that *other kids* are more than happy to teach you about homosexuality.

    An acquaintance of mine expressed it best on a different website:

    “I didnt learn a thing at all about marraige when I was in school. I did however, learn what the word “faggot” meant in the third grade when a classmate called me that to my face on the playground. If students learn anything, it’s that most of the teachers in their school are gay and that they don’t host reality t.v. shows that tell you how to dress.”

    Conservatives have an obsession with prurient imagery, and are using it to full effect in this campaign.

  111. johnny mathis

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.

    My own experience, and the experience of my kids has shown that *other kids* are more than happy to teach you about homosexuality.

    An acquaintance of mine expressed it best on a different website:

    “I didnt learn a thing at all about marraige when I was in school. I did however, learn what the word “faggot” meant in the third grade when a classmate called me that to my face on the playground. If students learn anything, it’s that most of the teachers in their school are gay and that they don’t host reality t.v. shows that tell you how to dress.”

    Conservatives have an obsession with prurient imagery, and are using it to full effect in this campaign.

  112. johnny mathis

    “But now I watch as homosexuality is taught to first graders, whether parents want it or not.”

    This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.

    My own experience, and the experience of my kids has shown that *other kids* are more than happy to teach you about homosexuality.

    An acquaintance of mine expressed it best on a different website:

    “I didnt learn a thing at all about marraige when I was in school. I did however, learn what the word “faggot” meant in the third grade when a classmate called me that to my face on the playground. If students learn anything, it’s that most of the teachers in their school are gay and that they don’t host reality t.v. shows that tell you how to dress.”

    Conservatives have an obsession with prurient imagery, and are using it to full effect in this campaign.

  113. Different View

    “This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.”

    Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher? First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age. I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it. Gays are not helping their cause with these antics. And frankly, a lot of gays don’t like it either!

  114. Different View

    “This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.”

    Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher? First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age. I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it. Gays are not helping their cause with these antics. And frankly, a lot of gays don’t like it either!

  115. Different View

    “This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.”

    Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher? First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age. I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it. Gays are not helping their cause with these antics. And frankly, a lot of gays don’t like it either!

  116. Different View

    “This is a load of crap. I have had three first graders go through the Davis schools, one as recently as last year, and at no point has the subject of homosexuality come up from a teacher.”

    Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher? First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age. I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it. Gays are not helping their cause with these antics. And frankly, a lot of gays don’t like it either!

  117. Anon

    A good number of Americans are all for equal rights for gays – but do not want the definition of marriage changed to suit different lifestyles. That does not make these Americans homophobic, prejudiced, and all the other things they are accused of. It is simply a difference of opinion, which is allowed in this country the last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution.

    If courts are allowed to legislate from the bench, be careful what you wish for. The next time the court does it, it may be something you don’t like – and judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters. That is why laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature, and not the judiciary.

  118. Anon

    A good number of Americans are all for equal rights for gays – but do not want the definition of marriage changed to suit different lifestyles. That does not make these Americans homophobic, prejudiced, and all the other things they are accused of. It is simply a difference of opinion, which is allowed in this country the last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution.

    If courts are allowed to legislate from the bench, be careful what you wish for. The next time the court does it, it may be something you don’t like – and judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters. That is why laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature, and not the judiciary.

  119. Anon

    A good number of Americans are all for equal rights for gays – but do not want the definition of marriage changed to suit different lifestyles. That does not make these Americans homophobic, prejudiced, and all the other things they are accused of. It is simply a difference of opinion, which is allowed in this country the last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution.

    If courts are allowed to legislate from the bench, be careful what you wish for. The next time the court does it, it may be something you don’t like – and judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters. That is why laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature, and not the judiciary.

  120. Anon

    A good number of Americans are all for equal rights for gays – but do not want the definition of marriage changed to suit different lifestyles. That does not make these Americans homophobic, prejudiced, and all the other things they are accused of. It is simply a difference of opinion, which is allowed in this country the last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution.

    If courts are allowed to legislate from the bench, be careful what you wish for. The next time the court does it, it may be something you don’t like – and judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters. That is why laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature, and not the judiciary.

  121. Stephen Sondheim

    “Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher?”

    Very good. You take one anomalous case and broaden it so as to suggest it is going on everywhere.

    If I take the time, I’m sure I can find numerous cases of heterosexual teachers making poor classroom choices in expressing their relationship choices.

    This is not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of poor individual judgement.

    “First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age.”

    I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.

    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way. If it did, then homosexuality wouldn’t exist at all, because all of the homosexuals would have been indoctrinated into becoming heterosexuals early on.

    When the Briggs initiative (banning homosexual teachers from the schools) was all the rage in California politics, the going argument was that homosexual teachers would lure their students into becoming homosexual. Harvey Milk had one of the best answers to that:

    “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”

    “I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it.”

    And the sum total of your position is to force others adults to conform to your personal fantasy vision of the world so that you can have optimal control over what you’d like to see your progeny learn.

    Orwellian indeed.

    Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.

    Maybe the bigger question is, what would you tell a young person about homosexuality? That it is bad? That it is sinful? That they are to be avoided? That homosexuals are in some way less deserving of rights and respect in society than heterosexuals? That is the true test of who you are as an adult with respect to your biases.

    That is the whole issue behind Prop. 8. This garbage about Prop. 8 “preserving the sanctity of marriage” is just a bunch of pretty language that voters can use as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.

  122. Stephen Sondheim

    “Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher?”

    Very good. You take one anomalous case and broaden it so as to suggest it is going on everywhere.

    If I take the time, I’m sure I can find numerous cases of heterosexual teachers making poor classroom choices in expressing their relationship choices.

    This is not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of poor individual judgement.

    “First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age.”

    I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.

    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way. If it did, then homosexuality wouldn’t exist at all, because all of the homosexuals would have been indoctrinated into becoming heterosexuals early on.

    When the Briggs initiative (banning homosexual teachers from the schools) was all the rage in California politics, the going argument was that homosexual teachers would lure their students into becoming homosexual. Harvey Milk had one of the best answers to that:

    “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”

    “I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it.”

    And the sum total of your position is to force others adults to conform to your personal fantasy vision of the world so that you can have optimal control over what you’d like to see your progeny learn.

    Orwellian indeed.

    Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.

    Maybe the bigger question is, what would you tell a young person about homosexuality? That it is bad? That it is sinful? That they are to be avoided? That homosexuals are in some way less deserving of rights and respect in society than heterosexuals? That is the true test of who you are as an adult with respect to your biases.

    That is the whole issue behind Prop. 8. This garbage about Prop. 8 “preserving the sanctity of marriage” is just a bunch of pretty language that voters can use as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.

  123. Stephen Sondheim

    “Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher?”

    Very good. You take one anomalous case and broaden it so as to suggest it is going on everywhere.

    If I take the time, I’m sure I can find numerous cases of heterosexual teachers making poor classroom choices in expressing their relationship choices.

    This is not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of poor individual judgement.

    “First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age.”

    I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.

    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way. If it did, then homosexuality wouldn’t exist at all, because all of the homosexuals would have been indoctrinated into becoming heterosexuals early on.

    When the Briggs initiative (banning homosexual teachers from the schools) was all the rage in California politics, the going argument was that homosexual teachers would lure their students into becoming homosexual. Harvey Milk had one of the best answers to that:

    “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”

    “I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it.”

    And the sum total of your position is to force others adults to conform to your personal fantasy vision of the world so that you can have optimal control over what you’d like to see your progeny learn.

    Orwellian indeed.

    Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.

    Maybe the bigger question is, what would you tell a young person about homosexuality? That it is bad? That it is sinful? That they are to be avoided? That homosexuals are in some way less deserving of rights and respect in society than heterosexuals? That is the true test of who you are as an adult with respect to your biases.

    That is the whole issue behind Prop. 8. This garbage about Prop. 8 “preserving the sanctity of marriage” is just a bunch of pretty language that voters can use as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.

  124. Stephen Sondheim

    “Did no one see the news coverage of the first grade class taken to the wedding of their lesbian teacher?”

    Very good. You take one anomalous case and broaden it so as to suggest it is going on everywhere.

    If I take the time, I’m sure I can find numerous cases of heterosexual teachers making poor classroom choices in expressing their relationship choices.

    This is not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of poor individual judgement.

    “First grade books about Mr. and Mr. Penquin are available in the classroom. Don’t tell me this stuff isn’t taught in the classroom, and at a way too early and inappropriate age.”

    I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.

    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way. If it did, then homosexuality wouldn’t exist at all, because all of the homosexuals would have been indoctrinated into becoming heterosexuals early on.

    When the Briggs initiative (banning homosexual teachers from the schools) was all the rage in California politics, the going argument was that homosexual teachers would lure their students into becoming homosexual. Harvey Milk had one of the best answers to that:

    “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”

    “I have a right to teach my children about sex in my own way, and not have it shoved down the throat of my children as others see it.”

    And the sum total of your position is to force others adults to conform to your personal fantasy vision of the world so that you can have optimal control over what you’d like to see your progeny learn.

    Orwellian indeed.

    Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.

    Maybe the bigger question is, what would you tell a young person about homosexuality? That it is bad? That it is sinful? That they are to be avoided? That homosexuals are in some way less deserving of rights and respect in society than heterosexuals? That is the true test of who you are as an adult with respect to your biases.

    That is the whole issue behind Prop. 8. This garbage about Prop. 8 “preserving the sanctity of marriage” is just a bunch of pretty language that voters can use as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.

  125. Anonymous

    “”judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters.”

    Every judge in California is subject to a recall vote.”

    What happened to Rose Bird in 1987?

  126. Anonymous

    “”judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters.”

    Every judge in California is subject to a recall vote.”

    What happened to Rose Bird in 1987?

  127. Anonymous

    “”judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters.”

    Every judge in California is subject to a recall vote.”

    What happened to Rose Bird in 1987?

  128. Anonymous

    “”judges generally cannot be recalled, nor are they answerable to the voters.”

    Every judge in California is subject to a recall vote.”

    What happened to Rose Bird in 1987?

  129. Anon

    Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and UC Davis Law School professor Cruz Reynoso were voted out of office by the voters of California in the 1986 general election, because they were opposed to the death penalty. It wasn’t a special election, such as we had with Gray Davis. It was a regularly scheduled vote to confirm or not confirm them in office, which is what all judges in California face.

  130. Anon

    Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and UC Davis Law School professor Cruz Reynoso were voted out of office by the voters of California in the 1986 general election, because they were opposed to the death penalty. It wasn’t a special election, such as we had with Gray Davis. It was a regularly scheduled vote to confirm or not confirm them in office, which is what all judges in California face.

  131. Anon

    Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and UC Davis Law School professor Cruz Reynoso were voted out of office by the voters of California in the 1986 general election, because they were opposed to the death penalty. It wasn’t a special election, such as we had with Gray Davis. It was a regularly scheduled vote to confirm or not confirm them in office, which is what all judges in California face.

  132. Anon

    Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and UC Davis Law School professor Cruz Reynoso were voted out of office by the voters of California in the 1986 general election, because they were opposed to the death penalty. It wasn’t a special election, such as we had with Gray Davis. It was a regularly scheduled vote to confirm or not confirm them in office, which is what all judges in California face.

  133. Anonymous

    To Rich Rifkin,

    What is a religious person? One that does something religiously everyday? Maybe like brushing and flossing your teeth, religiously.
    You unfairly state that there is a, “Religious Tradition of Gay Hating”. You could not be more wrong even if people were actually lending credibility to your statements. Please think before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

  134. Anonymous

    To Rich Rifkin,

    What is a religious person? One that does something religiously everyday? Maybe like brushing and flossing your teeth, religiously.
    You unfairly state that there is a, “Religious Tradition of Gay Hating”. You could not be more wrong even if people were actually lending credibility to your statements. Please think before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

  135. Anonymous

    To Rich Rifkin,

    What is a religious person? One that does something religiously everyday? Maybe like brushing and flossing your teeth, religiously.
    You unfairly state that there is a, “Religious Tradition of Gay Hating”. You could not be more wrong even if people were actually lending credibility to your statements. Please think before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

  136. Anonymous

    To Rich Rifkin,

    What is a religious person? One that does something religiously everyday? Maybe like brushing and flossing your teeth, religiously.
    You unfairly state that there is a, “Religious Tradition of Gay Hating”. You could not be more wrong even if people were actually lending credibility to your statements. Please think before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

  137. Hairslave 24/7

    The tale of the school children taken on the field trip to their teachers same-sex wedding is interesting, and totally misleading. The trip was organized by their parents (forced on no student), and done to surprise the teacher (not as an educational event). If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, at least check your facts.

  138. Hairslave 24/7

    The tale of the school children taken on the field trip to their teachers same-sex wedding is interesting, and totally misleading. The trip was organized by their parents (forced on no student), and done to surprise the teacher (not as an educational event). If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, at least check your facts.

  139. Hairslave 24/7

    The tale of the school children taken on the field trip to their teachers same-sex wedding is interesting, and totally misleading. The trip was organized by their parents (forced on no student), and done to surprise the teacher (not as an educational event). If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, at least check your facts.

  140. Hairslave 24/7

    The tale of the school children taken on the field trip to their teachers same-sex wedding is interesting, and totally misleading. The trip was organized by their parents (forced on no student), and done to surprise the teacher (not as an educational event). If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, at least check your facts.

  141. Kelly M

    As much as I am against Prop 8, I can understand the sentiment that marriage is not what it used to be. Additionally, I also personally place a high value consistency in the law.

    So, I offer my modest proposal to the author of the editorial and other like-minded individuals…

    While I won’t vote for Prop 8, I will vote for a proposition that truly protects marriage. Let’s ban divorce, prohibit unwed men and women from living together, send adulterers to prison, and remove tax-exempt status from any church who marries someone who has been divorced (would have to be out of state divorce after we pass this) or engaged in pre-marital sex.

    All these affronts to traditional, religious marriage occur in much greater numbers than gay marriages ever will.

    If you and your the other Prop 8 supporters will go along with a REAL defense of marriage, then I will support ending gay marriage.

    Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.

    Are you with me?

  142. Kelly M

    As much as I am against Prop 8, I can understand the sentiment that marriage is not what it used to be. Additionally, I also personally place a high value consistency in the law.

    So, I offer my modest proposal to the author of the editorial and other like-minded individuals…

    While I won’t vote for Prop 8, I will vote for a proposition that truly protects marriage. Let’s ban divorce, prohibit unwed men and women from living together, send adulterers to prison, and remove tax-exempt status from any church who marries someone who has been divorced (would have to be out of state divorce after we pass this) or engaged in pre-marital sex.

    All these affronts to traditional, religious marriage occur in much greater numbers than gay marriages ever will.

    If you and your the other Prop 8 supporters will go along with a REAL defense of marriage, then I will support ending gay marriage.

    Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.

    Are you with me?

  143. Kelly M

    As much as I am against Prop 8, I can understand the sentiment that marriage is not what it used to be. Additionally, I also personally place a high value consistency in the law.

    So, I offer my modest proposal to the author of the editorial and other like-minded individuals…

    While I won’t vote for Prop 8, I will vote for a proposition that truly protects marriage. Let’s ban divorce, prohibit unwed men and women from living together, send adulterers to prison, and remove tax-exempt status from any church who marries someone who has been divorced (would have to be out of state divorce after we pass this) or engaged in pre-marital sex.

    All these affronts to traditional, religious marriage occur in much greater numbers than gay marriages ever will.

    If you and your the other Prop 8 supporters will go along with a REAL defense of marriage, then I will support ending gay marriage.

    Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.

    Are you with me?

  144. Kelly M

    As much as I am against Prop 8, I can understand the sentiment that marriage is not what it used to be. Additionally, I also personally place a high value consistency in the law.

    So, I offer my modest proposal to the author of the editorial and other like-minded individuals…

    While I won’t vote for Prop 8, I will vote for a proposition that truly protects marriage. Let’s ban divorce, prohibit unwed men and women from living together, send adulterers to prison, and remove tax-exempt status from any church who marries someone who has been divorced (would have to be out of state divorce after we pass this) or engaged in pre-marital sex.

    All these affronts to traditional, religious marriage occur in much greater numbers than gay marriages ever will.

    If you and your the other Prop 8 supporters will go along with a REAL defense of marriage, then I will support ending gay marriage.

    Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.

    Are you with me?

  145. Anonymous

    To Hairslave 24/7:

    I guess that we are to just accept your version of this incident. I have seen no official NO on 8 ads publicly refuting its validity. The No on 8 ads that claim that there is no State- mandated rule that marriage issues MUST be taught in elementary schools is somewhat off-point and disingenuous. While this may be technically true, the vote on Prop 8 is now a citizen referendum on the validity of the the idea that same-sex unions be now defined as a marriage. If NO on 8 prevails, it will be very difficult to keep this concept out of the public school curriculum.

  146. Anonymous

    To Hairslave 24/7:

    I guess that we are to just accept your version of this incident. I have seen no official NO on 8 ads publicly refuting its validity. The No on 8 ads that claim that there is no State- mandated rule that marriage issues MUST be taught in elementary schools is somewhat off-point and disingenuous. While this may be technically true, the vote on Prop 8 is now a citizen referendum on the validity of the the idea that same-sex unions be now defined as a marriage. If NO on 8 prevails, it will be very difficult to keep this concept out of the public school curriculum.

  147. Anonymous

    To Hairslave 24/7:

    I guess that we are to just accept your version of this incident. I have seen no official NO on 8 ads publicly refuting its validity. The No on 8 ads that claim that there is no State- mandated rule that marriage issues MUST be taught in elementary schools is somewhat off-point and disingenuous. While this may be technically true, the vote on Prop 8 is now a citizen referendum on the validity of the the idea that same-sex unions be now defined as a marriage. If NO on 8 prevails, it will be very difficult to keep this concept out of the public school curriculum.

  148. Anonymous

    To Hairslave 24/7:

    I guess that we are to just accept your version of this incident. I have seen no official NO on 8 ads publicly refuting its validity. The No on 8 ads that claim that there is no State- mandated rule that marriage issues MUST be taught in elementary schools is somewhat off-point and disingenuous. While this may be technically true, the vote on Prop 8 is now a citizen referendum on the validity of the the idea that same-sex unions be now defined as a marriage. If NO on 8 prevails, it will be very difficult to keep this concept out of the public school curriculum.

  149. David M. Greenwald

    I disagree that it’s off point because the Yes on’s were asserting that if this passed, schools would be forced to teach about same sex marriage and they said there was nothing they could do to stop it. However, that would not be the case in California.

  150. David M. Greenwald

    I disagree that it’s off point because the Yes on’s were asserting that if this passed, schools would be forced to teach about same sex marriage and they said there was nothing they could do to stop it. However, that would not be the case in California.

  151. David M. Greenwald

    I disagree that it’s off point because the Yes on’s were asserting that if this passed, schools would be forced to teach about same sex marriage and they said there was nothing they could do to stop it. However, that would not be the case in California.

  152. David M. Greenwald

    I disagree that it’s off point because the Yes on’s were asserting that if this passed, schools would be forced to teach about same sex marriage and they said there was nothing they could do to stop it. However, that would not be the case in California.

  153. Anonymous

    DPD:…that’s why I said it was only SOMEWHAT off-point. My second point is that it is disingenuous to suggest that prop 8 ,which is a state-wide citizen referendum on whether to validate of reject the concept that same-sex unions be defined as marriages, would not have an significant impact on what we will find in future local public school sex education/health curricula.

  154. Anonymous

    DPD:…that’s why I said it was only SOMEWHAT off-point. My second point is that it is disingenuous to suggest that prop 8 ,which is a state-wide citizen referendum on whether to validate of reject the concept that same-sex unions be defined as marriages, would not have an significant impact on what we will find in future local public school sex education/health curricula.

  155. Anonymous

    DPD:…that’s why I said it was only SOMEWHAT off-point. My second point is that it is disingenuous to suggest that prop 8 ,which is a state-wide citizen referendum on whether to validate of reject the concept that same-sex unions be defined as marriages, would not have an significant impact on what we will find in future local public school sex education/health curricula.

  156. Anonymous

    DPD:…that’s why I said it was only SOMEWHAT off-point. My second point is that it is disingenuous to suggest that prop 8 ,which is a state-wide citizen referendum on whether to validate of reject the concept that same-sex unions be defined as marriages, would not have an significant impact on what we will find in future local public school sex education/health curricula.

  157. Anonymous

    “I would argue a more significant impact is the general trajectory of society-regardless of the outcome of this proposition.”

    Society’s “trajectory” should have been left to play itself out(while vigorously protecting substantive rights) without 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges ruling to take upon themselves the power to control this trajectory. Their ruling has derailed your projected societal “trajectory” by moving the resolution of this question to the US Supreme Court to answer the question(if Yes on 8 prevails)..Is this Prop 8 CA constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

  158. Anonymous

    “I would argue a more significant impact is the general trajectory of society-regardless of the outcome of this proposition.”

    Society’s “trajectory” should have been left to play itself out(while vigorously protecting substantive rights) without 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges ruling to take upon themselves the power to control this trajectory. Their ruling has derailed your projected societal “trajectory” by moving the resolution of this question to the US Supreme Court to answer the question(if Yes on 8 prevails)..Is this Prop 8 CA constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

  159. Anonymous

    “I would argue a more significant impact is the general trajectory of society-regardless of the outcome of this proposition.”

    Society’s “trajectory” should have been left to play itself out(while vigorously protecting substantive rights) without 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges ruling to take upon themselves the power to control this trajectory. Their ruling has derailed your projected societal “trajectory” by moving the resolution of this question to the US Supreme Court to answer the question(if Yes on 8 prevails)..Is this Prop 8 CA constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

  160. Anonymous

    “I would argue a more significant impact is the general trajectory of society-regardless of the outcome of this proposition.”

    Society’s “trajectory” should have been left to play itself out(while vigorously protecting substantive rights) without 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges ruling to take upon themselves the power to control this trajectory. Their ruling has derailed your projected societal “trajectory” by moving the resolution of this question to the US Supreme Court to answer the question(if Yes on 8 prevails)..Is this Prop 8 CA constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

  161. David M. Greenwald

    All I was suggesting is that whether or not we have gay marriage, discussions of sexual orientation will increasingly be a part of everyday life for children–whether it is gay siblings, parents, friends’ parents, etc., you are simply not going to be able to insulate kids from this issue. So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.

    My comment again had nothing to do with a court decision or the proposition, it was an observation about where things are going as a society.

  162. David M. Greenwald

    All I was suggesting is that whether or not we have gay marriage, discussions of sexual orientation will increasingly be a part of everyday life for children–whether it is gay siblings, parents, friends’ parents, etc., you are simply not going to be able to insulate kids from this issue. So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.

    My comment again had nothing to do with a court decision or the proposition, it was an observation about where things are going as a society.

  163. David M. Greenwald

    All I was suggesting is that whether or not we have gay marriage, discussions of sexual orientation will increasingly be a part of everyday life for children–whether it is gay siblings, parents, friends’ parents, etc., you are simply not going to be able to insulate kids from this issue. So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.

    My comment again had nothing to do with a court decision or the proposition, it was an observation about where things are going as a society.

  164. David M. Greenwald

    All I was suggesting is that whether or not we have gay marriage, discussions of sexual orientation will increasingly be a part of everyday life for children–whether it is gay siblings, parents, friends’ parents, etc., you are simply not going to be able to insulate kids from this issue. So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.

    My comment again had nothing to do with a court decision or the proposition, it was an observation about where things are going as a society.

  165. Anonymous

    “So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.”

    I respectfully counter with the reply that “I think that you are probably wrong”. The public’s expression on this issue as reflected in the Prop 8 vote will go a long way in determining what “instructions” local school boards give to their teacher’s curriculum, much as is happening on school boards today with regard to having Intelligent Design discussed with equal weight(if at all)in science class curricula.

  166. Anonymous

    “So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.”

    I respectfully counter with the reply that “I think that you are probably wrong”. The public’s expression on this issue as reflected in the Prop 8 vote will go a long way in determining what “instructions” local school boards give to their teacher’s curriculum, much as is happening on school boards today with regard to having Intelligent Design discussed with equal weight(if at all)in science class curricula.

  167. Anonymous

    “So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.”

    I respectfully counter with the reply that “I think that you are probably wrong”. The public’s expression on this issue as reflected in the Prop 8 vote will go a long way in determining what “instructions” local school boards give to their teacher’s curriculum, much as is happening on school boards today with regard to having Intelligent Design discussed with equal weight(if at all)in science class curricula.

  168. Anonymous

    “So if you think voting yes on this will stop schools from talking about sexual orientation and non-traditional relationships, I suggest you are probably wrong.”

    I respectfully counter with the reply that “I think that you are probably wrong”. The public’s expression on this issue as reflected in the Prop 8 vote will go a long way in determining what “instructions” local school boards give to their teacher’s curriculum, much as is happening on school boards today with regard to having Intelligent Design discussed with equal weight(if at all)in science class curricula.

  169. Another View

    “I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.
    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way.”

    Listen, schools can’t even teach the three R’s, and you want them to teach sex ed? Not me. I want to teach my children about sex. If I had children going through the school system today, I’d have them opt out of sex ed. If kids are curious at an early age, let them ask their parents about whatever it is they are curious about. Maybe if the schools and the rest of you socialists would stop trying to tell everyone else how to live, we could get on with raising our kids the way we see fit. It is very much about indoctrinating kids into believing that gay marriage is a “normal” lifestyle. Gay marriage is not about equal rights – if it were, civil unions that give equal rights would be satisfactory.

    Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?

    “Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.”

    No, they learn about homosexuality from the television coverage of Gay Days at Disneyland, gay teachers inviting the class to their wedding, and Hollywood. Most first graders would have no idea what the word “faggot” meant, and shouldn’t. The more gays shove their lifestyles down the throat of the rest of us, the more animous they create. They picked the wrong fight IMHO, but only time will tell to see if I am correct.

    “Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.”

    No, it is you who are dictating how marriage must be defined according to your vision of how the world should be, even tho most voters already weighed in on this issue and are against “gay marriage”. Not against equal rights, just against gay marriage. Even if we cannot achieve the sanctity of marriage as it should be, we would at least like to keep the model intact.

  170. Another View

    “I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.
    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way.”

    Listen, schools can’t even teach the three R’s, and you want them to teach sex ed? Not me. I want to teach my children about sex. If I had children going through the school system today, I’d have them opt out of sex ed. If kids are curious at an early age, let them ask their parents about whatever it is they are curious about. Maybe if the schools and the rest of you socialists would stop trying to tell everyone else how to live, we could get on with raising our kids the way we see fit. It is very much about indoctrinating kids into believing that gay marriage is a “normal” lifestyle. Gay marriage is not about equal rights – if it were, civil unions that give equal rights would be satisfactory.

    Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?

    “Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.”

    No, they learn about homosexuality from the television coverage of Gay Days at Disneyland, gay teachers inviting the class to their wedding, and Hollywood. Most first graders would have no idea what the word “faggot” meant, and shouldn’t. The more gays shove their lifestyles down the throat of the rest of us, the more animous they create. They picked the wrong fight IMHO, but only time will tell to see if I am correct.

    “Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.”

    No, it is you who are dictating how marriage must be defined according to your vision of how the world should be, even tho most voters already weighed in on this issue and are against “gay marriage”. Not against equal rights, just against gay marriage. Even if we cannot achieve the sanctity of marriage as it should be, we would at least like to keep the model intact.

  171. Another View

    “I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.
    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way.”

    Listen, schools can’t even teach the three R’s, and you want them to teach sex ed? Not me. I want to teach my children about sex. If I had children going through the school system today, I’d have them opt out of sex ed. If kids are curious at an early age, let them ask their parents about whatever it is they are curious about. Maybe if the schools and the rest of you socialists would stop trying to tell everyone else how to live, we could get on with raising our kids the way we see fit. It is very much about indoctrinating kids into believing that gay marriage is a “normal” lifestyle. Gay marriage is not about equal rights – if it were, civil unions that give equal rights would be satisfactory.

    Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?

    “Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.”

    No, they learn about homosexuality from the television coverage of Gay Days at Disneyland, gay teachers inviting the class to their wedding, and Hollywood. Most first graders would have no idea what the word “faggot” meant, and shouldn’t. The more gays shove their lifestyles down the throat of the rest of us, the more animous they create. They picked the wrong fight IMHO, but only time will tell to see if I am correct.

    “Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.”

    No, it is you who are dictating how marriage must be defined according to your vision of how the world should be, even tho most voters already weighed in on this issue and are against “gay marriage”. Not against equal rights, just against gay marriage. Even if we cannot achieve the sanctity of marriage as it should be, we would at least like to keep the model intact.

  172. Another View

    “I have heard of the book, but it isn’t in my kids’ elementary library. My answer to you is that gay parents do also have the right to explain to their children what their family arrangement is. This is not an issue of discussing sexual mechanics and plumbing, but how it is that their parents came together. Children are curious and they want to know.
    And, no, this isn’t about indoctrinating kids into taking up their lifestyle. It certainly doesn’t work that way.”

    Listen, schools can’t even teach the three R’s, and you want them to teach sex ed? Not me. I want to teach my children about sex. If I had children going through the school system today, I’d have them opt out of sex ed. If kids are curious at an early age, let them ask their parents about whatever it is they are curious about. Maybe if the schools and the rest of you socialists would stop trying to tell everyone else how to live, we could get on with raising our kids the way we see fit. It is very much about indoctrinating kids into believing that gay marriage is a “normal” lifestyle. Gay marriage is not about equal rights – if it were, civil unions that give equal rights would be satisfactory.

    Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?

    “Your kids will learn about what homosexuality is from their classmates (see “faggot” qote in post above) if adults choose to abdicate their responsibility to discuss these things.”

    No, they learn about homosexuality from the television coverage of Gay Days at Disneyland, gay teachers inviting the class to their wedding, and Hollywood. Most first graders would have no idea what the word “faggot” meant, and shouldn’t. The more gays shove their lifestyles down the throat of the rest of us, the more animous they create. They picked the wrong fight IMHO, but only time will tell to see if I am correct.

    “Sure we’ll be dictating how a heck of a lot of people should live their lives, but at least we wouldn’t be the total hypocrites we will be if we ban gay marriage but allow all these other, more extremely abhorrent insults to traditional marriage to continue.”

    No, it is you who are dictating how marriage must be defined according to your vision of how the world should be, even tho most voters already weighed in on this issue and are against “gay marriage”. Not against equal rights, just against gay marriage. Even if we cannot achieve the sanctity of marriage as it should be, we would at least like to keep the model intact.

  173. Watching the Church Lady

    Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.

  174. Watching the Church Lady

    Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.

  175. Watching the Church Lady

    Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.

  176. Watching the Church Lady

    Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.

  177. Anonymous

    “Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?”

    Kids are experimenting with EXTRAMARITAL SEX as they never have before??

    Oh, dear. I had no idea!

    I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.

  178. Anonymous

    “Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?”

    Kids are experimenting with EXTRAMARITAL SEX as they never have before??

    Oh, dear. I had no idea!

    I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.

  179. Anonymous

    “Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?”

    Kids are experimenting with EXTRAMARITAL SEX as they never have before??

    Oh, dear. I had no idea!

    I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.

  180. Anonymous

    “Funny how kids are now experimenting with oral sex, homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex as they never have before. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that anything goes is the pervasive thinking in more liberal (count them – 3) states these days? Maybe the liberal states have got it wrong and the rest of the country has it right?”

    Kids are experimenting with EXTRAMARITAL SEX as they never have before??

    Oh, dear. I had no idea!

    I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.

  181. Anon

    “I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.”

    At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.

    “Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.”

    You clearly have your head in the sand.

  182. Anon

    “I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.”

    At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.

    “Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.”

    You clearly have your head in the sand.

  183. Anon

    “I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.”

    At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.

    “Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.”

    You clearly have your head in the sand.

  184. Anon

    “I work with teenagers, and I am raising teenagers. I recognize that at least some teenagers are sexually active, and personally don’t approve. But frankly, I think you are excessively alarmist.”

    At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.

    “Another example above of the puritan conservative obsession with prurience. Keeping scrupulous tabs on all slight deviances so that they readily report it to us with dutiful piety.”

    You clearly have your head in the sand.

  185. Anonymous

    “At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.”

    And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.

    Sounds like your thing is more a discussion of personal and parental responsibility.

    Prop. 8 is about preventing consenting adults from marrying.

  186. Anonymous

    “At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.”

    And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.

    Sounds like your thing is more a discussion of personal and parental responsibility.

    Prop. 8 is about preventing consenting adults from marrying.

  187. Anonymous

    “At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.”

    And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.

    Sounds like your thing is more a discussion of personal and parental responsibility.

    Prop. 8 is about preventing consenting adults from marrying.

  188. Anonymous

    “At my daughter’s prom at DHS, there was dirty dancing (simulated copulation). It was disgusting and completely inappropriate. Yet no teacher or chaperone stepped in to stop it. My daughter’s friend was taken to the prom by a guy she thought she knew. He summarily dumped his date when she refused to go to a hotel with him after the prom and “put out” for the price of the ticket. You may work with teens, but you clearly don’t know what is going on in your own back yard.”

    And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.

    Sounds like your thing is more a discussion of personal and parental responsibility.

    Prop. 8 is about preventing consenting adults from marrying.

  189. Anonymous

    “And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.”

    Actually, a plurality of Californians have weighed in on this just a few years ago rejected same-sex marriage. This has not fundamentally changes as Yes on 8 is currently leading in the polls.

  190. Anonymous

    “And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.”

    Actually, a plurality of Californians have weighed in on this just a few years ago rejected same-sex marriage. This has not fundamentally changes as Yes on 8 is currently leading in the polls.

  191. Anonymous

    “And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.”

    Actually, a plurality of Californians have weighed in on this just a few years ago rejected same-sex marriage. This has not fundamentally changes as Yes on 8 is currently leading in the polls.

  192. Anonymous

    “And so all of this is happening because a plurality of Californians support same-sex marriage? You’re losing me.”

    Actually, a plurality of Californians have weighed in on this just a few years ago rejected same-sex marriage. This has not fundamentally changes as Yes on 8 is currently leading in the polls.

  193. David M. Greenwald

    That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error. Who turns out likely will decide whether it passes or not.

    But you know, I find the argument a bit disingenuous frankly, because we’ve seen multiple iterations of parental notification put on the ballot and it has failed twice prior to this year. I don’t hear you complaining about that.

  194. David M. Greenwald

    That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error. Who turns out likely will decide whether it passes or not.

    But you know, I find the argument a bit disingenuous frankly, because we’ve seen multiple iterations of parental notification put on the ballot and it has failed twice prior to this year. I don’t hear you complaining about that.

  195. David M. Greenwald

    That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error. Who turns out likely will decide whether it passes or not.

    But you know, I find the argument a bit disingenuous frankly, because we’ve seen multiple iterations of parental notification put on the ballot and it has failed twice prior to this year. I don’t hear you complaining about that.

  196. David M. Greenwald

    That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error. Who turns out likely will decide whether it passes or not.

    But you know, I find the argument a bit disingenuous frankly, because we’ve seen multiple iterations of parental notification put on the ballot and it has failed twice prior to this year. I don’t hear you complaining about that.

  197. Anonymous

    “That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error.

    When you add a modified “Bradley effect”, i.e.,that voters are reluctant to publicly say they are voting Yes on 8 because they will be called homophobes plus the fact that this question was asked just 4?years ago and the CA voters made it clear(60-40) that they did not want to add same-sex unions to the definition of the institution of marriage, the probability of Yes on 8 prevailing is quite a bit more than 50-50. The increased youth vote will be important but I think that the increase in the socially conservative Latino and Black vote(which includes their youth vote)will favor a Yes on 8.

  198. Anonymous

    “That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error.

    When you add a modified “Bradley effect”, i.e.,that voters are reluctant to publicly say they are voting Yes on 8 because they will be called homophobes plus the fact that this question was asked just 4?years ago and the CA voters made it clear(60-40) that they did not want to add same-sex unions to the definition of the institution of marriage, the probability of Yes on 8 prevailing is quite a bit more than 50-50. The increased youth vote will be important but I think that the increase in the socially conservative Latino and Black vote(which includes their youth vote)will favor a Yes on 8.

  199. Anonymous

    “That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error.

    When you add a modified “Bradley effect”, i.e.,that voters are reluctant to publicly say they are voting Yes on 8 because they will be called homophobes plus the fact that this question was asked just 4?years ago and the CA voters made it clear(60-40) that they did not want to add same-sex unions to the definition of the institution of marriage, the probability of Yes on 8 prevailing is quite a bit more than 50-50. The increased youth vote will be important but I think that the increase in the socially conservative Latino and Black vote(which includes their youth vote)will favor a Yes on 8.

  200. Anonymous

    “That’s not clear whether it has changed or not. The Field Poll has Measure 8 trailing within the margin of error.

    When you add a modified “Bradley effect”, i.e.,that voters are reluctant to publicly say they are voting Yes on 8 because they will be called homophobes plus the fact that this question was asked just 4?years ago and the CA voters made it clear(60-40) that they did not want to add same-sex unions to the definition of the institution of marriage, the probability of Yes on 8 prevailing is quite a bit more than 50-50. The increased youth vote will be important but I think that the increase in the socially conservative Latino and Black vote(which includes their youth vote)will favor a Yes on 8.

  201. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t see evidence that there will be any sort of a Bradley effect. I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage. I also am not one who believes there ever was a Bradley effect. I think it was simply a misinterpretation of the results in comparison to the polling. The exit polls did not take into account the absentee ballots.

    Again, I think Prop 8 will be determined completely based on the make up of the electorate–who votes on Tuesday.

  202. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t see evidence that there will be any sort of a Bradley effect. I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage. I also am not one who believes there ever was a Bradley effect. I think it was simply a misinterpretation of the results in comparison to the polling. The exit polls did not take into account the absentee ballots.

    Again, I think Prop 8 will be determined completely based on the make up of the electorate–who votes on Tuesday.

  203. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t see evidence that there will be any sort of a Bradley effect. I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage. I also am not one who believes there ever was a Bradley effect. I think it was simply a misinterpretation of the results in comparison to the polling. The exit polls did not take into account the absentee ballots.

    Again, I think Prop 8 will be determined completely based on the make up of the electorate–who votes on Tuesday.

  204. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t see evidence that there will be any sort of a Bradley effect. I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage. I also am not one who believes there ever was a Bradley effect. I think it was simply a misinterpretation of the results in comparison to the polling. The exit polls did not take into account the absentee ballots.

    Again, I think Prop 8 will be determined completely based on the make up of the electorate–who votes on Tuesday.

  205. Anonymous

    “I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage.”

    I was using “Bradley effect” as a general descriptive term. I also am not convinced that it was what defeated Bradley for governor. However, all you have to do is review the posts on the Vanguard, ridiculing and attacking those who voiced support for Yes on 8 as “hateful bigots”(Harrington’s term,as I remember), to understand the possible reluctance of voters to acknowledge their Yes on 8 intentions.

  206. Anonymous

    “I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage.”

    I was using “Bradley effect” as a general descriptive term. I also am not convinced that it was what defeated Bradley for governor. However, all you have to do is review the posts on the Vanguard, ridiculing and attacking those who voiced support for Yes on 8 as “hateful bigots”(Harrington’s term,as I remember), to understand the possible reluctance of voters to acknowledge their Yes on 8 intentions.

  207. Anonymous

    “I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage.”

    I was using “Bradley effect” as a general descriptive term. I also am not convinced that it was what defeated Bradley for governor. However, all you have to do is review the posts on the Vanguard, ridiculing and attacking those who voiced support for Yes on 8 as “hateful bigots”(Harrington’s term,as I remember), to understand the possible reluctance of voters to acknowledge their Yes on 8 intentions.

  208. Anonymous

    “I don’t see the kind of social stigma attached to opposing gay marriage.”

    I was using “Bradley effect” as a general descriptive term. I also am not convinced that it was what defeated Bradley for governor. However, all you have to do is review the posts on the Vanguard, ridiculing and attacking those who voiced support for Yes on 8 as “hateful bigots”(Harrington’s term,as I remember), to understand the possible reluctance of voters to acknowledge their Yes on 8 intentions.

  209. David M. Greenwald

    Maybe in a place like Davis. I tend to doubt statewide and in some communities, it might be the reverse. I don’t see a systematic effect.

    Also I don’t think there is enough early voting in California to take exit polls.

  210. David M. Greenwald

    Maybe in a place like Davis. I tend to doubt statewide and in some communities, it might be the reverse. I don’t see a systematic effect.

    Also I don’t think there is enough early voting in California to take exit polls.

  211. David M. Greenwald

    Maybe in a place like Davis. I tend to doubt statewide and in some communities, it might be the reverse. I don’t see a systematic effect.

    Also I don’t think there is enough early voting in California to take exit polls.

  212. David M. Greenwald

    Maybe in a place like Davis. I tend to doubt statewide and in some communities, it might be the reverse. I don’t see a systematic effect.

    Also I don’t think there is enough early voting in California to take exit polls.

  213. Anonymous

    This evening on the local TV news, they did a piece on the supporters and opponents of Prop 8. The visuals of the opponents of 8 were hyperkinetic evangelicals praying and fasting reportedly for 40 days and calling on G-d to intervene. The other visual was an quiet unthreatening lesbian now- married couple calmly chatting. My impression is that the mainstream media supports No on 8 and shapes its coverage to create the illusion that Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority, rather bizarre and hold a politically incorrect position from the rest of CA voters.

  214. Anonymous

    This evening on the local TV news, they did a piece on the supporters and opponents of Prop 8. The visuals of the opponents of 8 were hyperkinetic evangelicals praying and fasting reportedly for 40 days and calling on G-d to intervene. The other visual was an quiet unthreatening lesbian now- married couple calmly chatting. My impression is that the mainstream media supports No on 8 and shapes its coverage to create the illusion that Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority, rather bizarre and hold a politically incorrect position from the rest of CA voters.

  215. Anonymous

    This evening on the local TV news, they did a piece on the supporters and opponents of Prop 8. The visuals of the opponents of 8 were hyperkinetic evangelicals praying and fasting reportedly for 40 days and calling on G-d to intervene. The other visual was an quiet unthreatening lesbian now- married couple calmly chatting. My impression is that the mainstream media supports No on 8 and shapes its coverage to create the illusion that Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority, rather bizarre and hold a politically incorrect position from the rest of CA voters.

  216. Anonymous

    This evening on the local TV news, they did a piece on the supporters and opponents of Prop 8. The visuals of the opponents of 8 were hyperkinetic evangelicals praying and fasting reportedly for 40 days and calling on G-d to intervene. The other visual was an quiet unthreatening lesbian now- married couple calmly chatting. My impression is that the mainstream media supports No on 8 and shapes its coverage to create the illusion that Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority, rather bizarre and hold a politically incorrect position from the rest of CA voters.

  217. The Sophist

    I don’t think Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority in the sense that I think there will be a roughly equal split.

    I do think that they hold bizarre and politically incorrect positions.

    People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment. I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions. During the fight for equal rights, the southern bigots deserved the same treatment as civil rights activists. I hear all the time that the media is biased to the left, if that’s true it’s because reality is biased to the left.

  218. The Sophist

    I don’t think Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority in the sense that I think there will be a roughly equal split.

    I do think that they hold bizarre and politically incorrect positions.

    People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment. I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions. During the fight for equal rights, the southern bigots deserved the same treatment as civil rights activists. I hear all the time that the media is biased to the left, if that’s true it’s because reality is biased to the left.

  219. The Sophist

    I don’t think Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority in the sense that I think there will be a roughly equal split.

    I do think that they hold bizarre and politically incorrect positions.

    People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment. I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions. During the fight for equal rights, the southern bigots deserved the same treatment as civil rights activists. I hear all the time that the media is biased to the left, if that’s true it’s because reality is biased to the left.

  220. The Sophist

    I don’t think Yes on 8 supporters are in the minority in the sense that I think there will be a roughly equal split.

    I do think that they hold bizarre and politically incorrect positions.

    People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment. I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions. During the fight for equal rights, the southern bigots deserved the same treatment as civil rights activists. I hear all the time that the media is biased to the left, if that’s true it’s because reality is biased to the left.

  221. Anonymous

    “People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment.”

    The success or failure of Prop 8 rests in the hands of those who do not fall into either the Yes or No zealot camps. The Vanguard, much to its credit, has taken a principled journalistic position and offered a respectful open forum for both sides. I thought that we learned our lesson with Bush’s Iraq war about the dangers of corporate media’s editorial decisions as to what is politically correct and relying on eye-catching visuals rather than equal time for serious in-depth discussion.

  222. Anonymous

    “People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment.”

    The success or failure of Prop 8 rests in the hands of those who do not fall into either the Yes or No zealot camps. The Vanguard, much to its credit, has taken a principled journalistic position and offered a respectful open forum for both sides. I thought that we learned our lesson with Bush’s Iraq war about the dangers of corporate media’s editorial decisions as to what is politically correct and relying on eye-catching visuals rather than equal time for serious in-depth discussion.

  223. Anonymous

    “People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment.”

    The success or failure of Prop 8 rests in the hands of those who do not fall into either the Yes or No zealot camps. The Vanguard, much to its credit, has taken a principled journalistic position and offered a respectful open forum for both sides. I thought that we learned our lesson with Bush’s Iraq war about the dangers of corporate media’s editorial decisions as to what is politically correct and relying on eye-catching visuals rather than equal time for serious in-depth discussion.

  224. Anonymous

    “People often complain about the bias of the media as though every position should hold someone equal merit and treatment.”

    The success or failure of Prop 8 rests in the hands of those who do not fall into either the Yes or No zealot camps. The Vanguard, much to its credit, has taken a principled journalistic position and offered a respectful open forum for both sides. I thought that we learned our lesson with Bush’s Iraq war about the dangers of corporate media’s editorial decisions as to what is politically correct and relying on eye-catching visuals rather than equal time for serious in-depth discussion.

  225. Anonymous

    “I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions.”

    Your analogy with the civil WAR is telling. The Supreme Court decision HAS unnecessarily raised this issue to the level of a full-blown (cultural) WAR. The majority of CA voters support tolerance of different lifestyles and full equal rights for same-sex civil unions. They recognize that an outright cultural war is not in California’s best interests.

  226. Anonymous

    “I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions.”

    Your analogy with the civil WAR is telling. The Supreme Court decision HAS unnecessarily raised this issue to the level of a full-blown (cultural) WAR. The majority of CA voters support tolerance of different lifestyles and full equal rights for same-sex civil unions. They recognize that an outright cultural war is not in California’s best interests.

  227. Anonymous

    “I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions.”

    Your analogy with the civil WAR is telling. The Supreme Court decision HAS unnecessarily raised this issue to the level of a full-blown (cultural) WAR. The majority of CA voters support tolerance of different lifestyles and full equal rights for same-sex civil unions. They recognize that an outright cultural war is not in California’s best interests.

  228. Anonymous

    “I suppose you would have us believe that during the civil war we should have had an equal vetting of pro and con union positions.”

    Your analogy with the civil WAR is telling. The Supreme Court decision HAS unnecessarily raised this issue to the level of a full-blown (cultural) WAR. The majority of CA voters support tolerance of different lifestyles and full equal rights for same-sex civil unions. They recognize that an outright cultural war is not in California’s best interests.

  229. Anonymous

    Well you missed the point of my analogy.

    When I read about for instance the civil rights movement, I wonder how people could have thought the way they did–that blacks were inferior to whites, that it was okay to keep people separated on the basis of skin color. Of course now we know those viewpoints are ignorant.

    It will be the same with gays in the future and people will look back on this the same way they look back over the civil rights struggle or the war against slavery. That was my point.

  230. Anonymous

    Well you missed the point of my analogy.

    When I read about for instance the civil rights movement, I wonder how people could have thought the way they did–that blacks were inferior to whites, that it was okay to keep people separated on the basis of skin color. Of course now we know those viewpoints are ignorant.

    It will be the same with gays in the future and people will look back on this the same way they look back over the civil rights struggle or the war against slavery. That was my point.

  231. Anonymous

    Well you missed the point of my analogy.

    When I read about for instance the civil rights movement, I wonder how people could have thought the way they did–that blacks were inferior to whites, that it was okay to keep people separated on the basis of skin color. Of course now we know those viewpoints are ignorant.

    It will be the same with gays in the future and people will look back on this the same way they look back over the civil rights struggle or the war against slavery. That was my point.

  232. Anonymous

    Well you missed the point of my analogy.

    When I read about for instance the civil rights movement, I wonder how people could have thought the way they did–that blacks were inferior to whites, that it was okay to keep people separated on the basis of skin color. Of course now we know those viewpoints are ignorant.

    It will be the same with gays in the future and people will look back on this the same way they look back over the civil rights struggle or the war against slavery. That was my point.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for