32 Comments

1. Dee:

In California the propositions are always more important than the candidates. However, you right about McCain having a snowball’s chance come election day.

Oct 21, 2008 - 9:27 am 2. Bob Wang:

Good for you, Roger.
I suspect a good number, if not the majority, of readers here would support 8.

Oct 21, 2008 - 9:31 am 3. Promoguy:

DISCLAIMER-I am not a homophobe, racist, bigot, et al.

I in fact support Prop 8. Aside from thinking that for a few years marriage has between one man and one woman, why must this standard change. And given the strident lefties in the GLBT movement in the State, I am sure there will many unintended consequences attached to a no vote, ie churches being sued when they turn down marriage requests. You don’t think that won’t happen, huh!!!!

I believe that Catholic Charities in MA has pulled out of the adoption business since they are not allow to ‘discriminate’ against same sex couple adoptions. That’s a good thing right?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out here in California. My guess and I’m sure I can bet the house on this that the majority of Latinos and Blacks will vote en masse for Obama bringing a larger percent to the polls in the past. This may bode ill for the No on Prop 8 folks. Most of those folks may vote progressive on money, but on social issues of the day, they tend to be more conservative.

Oct 21, 2008 - 9:46 am 4. mojo:

Hey, they want alimony? Have it.

Oct 21, 2008 - 10:40 am 5. Annabel:

Losing the war against terrorism, raising taxes and harming the economy, enacting the “fairness” doctrine and curtailing free speech, losing the right to secret ballots in union elections… I understand how all of these affect every American’s life. Although I am pro-choice, I certainly understand and respect the pro-life argument. But I have never heard a coherent argument as to why gay marriage is going to damage the institution for anyone else. In lieu of that, I cannot come to any conclusion but that those who oppose it, despite their disclaimers, really are deep down inside, homophobic. They just don’t know it. I know you’ll all have at me now. But honestly, how will YOUR RIGHTS be harmed, if gay couples are allowed to marry? I just don’t see it.

Oct 21, 2008 - 10:56 am 6. Promoguy:

Hmmmmm. Didn’t know I was deep down homophobic. I really, really didn’t know that. Actually, it’s about standards and a whole lot of years there was a standard. It won’t affect my marriage at all nor harm my rights. In fact, gay partners had the most of the rights of marriage by establishing with the exception of calling it marriage.

How about brothers marrying sisters. How about multiple partner marriages. Why shouldn’t they be permitted the rite of marriage. Doesn’t affect my marriage.

I live, work and play in California for most of my 64 years. If gay marriage is permitted, you just wait and see what happens when an activist couple decides to sue a church or it’s clergy for not allowing them to get married. You can bet this will happen and it will based on gender discrimination. I’ve lived here long enough to see that happen.

But, hey, what do I know. Deep down I’m just one of the homophobic guys living a repressed sexual life or something like that.

Oct 21, 2008 - 11:16 am 7. Annabel:

Standards? For a whole lot of years there were all kinds of standards that we now find unjust, discriminatory or otherwise unacceptable. Women couldn’t vote. Blacks weren’t allowed to drink from “white” water fountains. Jews were barred from membership in organizations and clubs, etc. Many people fought hard to defend those standards because that was the way things were. But that did not make them right.

The threat of lawsuits? What piece of legislation doesn’t incur lawsuits? Like it or not, we live in a culture of litigation. The church has survived pedophilia scandals. It will survive lawsuits.

The slippery slope… if gay marriage is permitted, what’s to stop polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, marriage between a person and an animal…? That is the most disingenuous argument of all. Where are all these people longing to marry their siblings and pets? I’ve yet to meet a single one and no one I know has ever met one either. Is your argument that they are legions in hiding and the legality of gay marriage will bring them out of the closet, demanding their rights too? Haven’t I seen that South Park episode?

These are your only arguments?

Oct 21, 2008 - 12:03 pm 8. Promoguy:

“These are your only arguments?”

No, but I’ve gotta earn a living.

Oct 21, 2008 - 2:17 pm 9. Victor Erimita:

I don’t live in California. But even though I favor gay marriage, I would still vote yes on 8 if I lived there. Because I don’t think the courts should be able to make up constitutional law to fit their personal agendas, overriding the majority of citizens when they do. That’s why, although I am pro-choice, I also oppose Roe versus Wade. It is abominable constitutional law.

The ends implementing policies I favor do not justify the means of constitutional corruption and law by judicial fiat.

I wish more of my fellow citizens, in this age of “juyst win” and personal narcissism, would recognize that. Our constitution would not be eroding as fast if they did.

Oct 21, 2008 - 3:02 pm 10. Crafty:

I am in favor of giving all gay couples the same legal protections as heterosexual couples if they want them. I do not, however, believe it should be called marriage because giving it that name implies that it is the same thing and I believe the two relationships differ in one significant way. I have not and probably cannot be persuaded that a same sex couple offers as much with regard to raising a child as a traditional marriage. Once the term “marriage” is used, that important difference has to be ignored.

Men and women see the world differently and interact with children differently. A couple of examples; if a man picks up a child 10 tens, he’s likely to pick that child up in a different manner something like 8 of those 10 times, while a woman would pick the child up the same way every time. Men tend to let children wander farther away from them while women tend to keep their children much closer (my wife and I saw a program on this a few years before we were married and have noticed it while observing other parents and ourselves). Each of these interactions offer something different to the child. The way women interact gives children a sense of security while men, generally, allow children to learn risk and how to deal with the unexpected. If either of these important lessons are lost, I believe the child loses out. Here’s a link that talks about some of the differences (its a PDF)http://www.dadscan.ca/pdf/Sep13_2000.pdf

Now of course, many children are raised without both a father and a mother at home, but I don’t think there are many people who celebrate this. We worry about the demise of the “two parent family,” but I think we do a disservice by concentrating on the number 2 and not the composition of the number.

I know two gay couples who appear to be great parents. I can’t, however, shake the feeling that their kids are missing out on something very important because they don’t have a mother. I don’t think they should be prevented from raising children, I’m just uneasy when we say the composition of the family doesn’t matter and I think calling it marriage does that.

Oct 21, 2008 - 3:51 pm 11. cfbleachers:

I went through a rather long explanation in response to an article by Phyllis or Claudia on my positions on the abortion issue and on gay marriage, so they are not worth repeating here, …but suffice it to say, I’m with Roger on this one.

Hard facts make bad law.

Oct 21, 2008 - 5:51 pm 12. Anita Hope:

Again Annabelle, you take my thoughts and put them in print. The federal government needs to stay out of personal relationships between “two people”. I would like to know how many of those
against same sex partners adopting children and giving them a home with love, are adopting.Would
they be happier if a license read “SAME SEX MARRIAGE LICENSE”. OR ” SAME SEX TRUE LOVE & FAITHFUL LICENSE”. There are so many really important ills in todays marriage contracts that I am
surprised anyone feels threatened by it’s uasage. I was married for almost 45 years when my husband died and feel if two people want to commit to one another, we should be happy for them and look at the possitive, Aids would decrease and if we have children that are gay, they have found
a loving partner to share the complexities of todays life.

Oct 21, 2008 - 7:05 pm 13. jake:

im for 8 cause i dont want my father getting legal with my sister you fools

Oct 22, 2008 - 4:46 pm 14. Anita Hope:

Jake, that is “INSEST” NOT MARRIAGE” In our country a step father can divorce his wife and marry the step daughter he helped raise since they are not blood related as long as he has not legally adopted her, this gives you the right to call some of our laws really foolish, but calling people fools because they don’t agree with you is just as foolish. Have a good evening.

Oct 22, 2008 - 5:21 pm 15. bruce:

Roger, I will be voting for Prop 8. I do not think it has anything to do with “rights” The tax code is baised against the individual, certains groups have “protected” status under the law, and so called “hate crime” is the worst of the worst when it comes to signling out one group or groups (children and the elderly should have some protections over and above). This is wrong. Equal treatment is equal treatment. Many of the backers of gay marriage want protected groups, beleive in “hate crime” Many of the so called “tolerant” persons in the world attack and savage anybody who disagrees with them. I am voting against them also.

I want full equality under the law. Until that happens I feel no guilt over supporting 8. The courts are going overboard and now is the time to stop. For gay couples, create a power of attorney and/or a lvivng will.

Thanks for the space.

Oct 23, 2008 - 5:25 am 16. Annabel:

Bruce, I understand your sentiment, but I’m unclear on your position. Are you saying that if you believed there was full equality under the law (ie. abolishing hate crime legislation, etc.), you would then support gay marriage?

Oct 23, 2008 - 9:38 am 17. Gib:

Hi,

Thanks for clarifying your position in this message.

I actually came to this blog via the Republicans against 8 because I was curious who these people were and what their posts were like.

I’m enjoying my look around.

I usually swing my chads in favor of Libertarian candidates, but this year I voted Republican for the primaries for the first time.

I’m against 8 and also against Bob Barr…

Thanks for speaking out to an audience that could use a little less homogenization in public discourse.

Oct 23, 2008 - 10:13 am 18. Friend of Promoguy:

With all due respect, Annabel, I find your arguments to be disingenuous as well. The “standards” argument could be made for either side. Your examples are certainly emotionally vivid, I will grant you that. But we could go back and forth on different standards throughout history, and our opinions on what was/is right or wrong, and we will get nowhere fast.

As for the lawsuits argument, I probably should not speak for Promoguy, but what I think he was getting at was clergy being forced to perform a marriage that is clearly against their beliefs. It’s not whether or not there will be lawsuits (oh, there will be), it’s where those lawsuits will lead. I have no answer to that, but the possibilities could be bad. That you shrug it off as no big deal, does not mean it may not cost some people dearly. It’s a valid question posed by Promoguy.

And now to the “slippery slope”. The point is not if there are legions of people wanting to marry a goat. The number of people wanting to marry a dog, or a dung beetle, or their uncle is irrelevant. Ask any lawyer, all it takes is one to sue (for whatever reason: love, financial gain, medical coverage, or just to be different), and then a court decision will make the choice for all of us. That is the point. And it bears serious consideration.

My question to you is “where is your firewall?” You talked a lot about standards (I think you can guess mine), but what are yours? Can I assume you have a standard that “marriage” should be between humans? So we don’t have to argue about marrying our pets. Ah, now there’s a standard we can all agree on! (Well, except for those pesky fellows at the Man-Dog-Love-Association). And here I was thinking “standard” was a dirty word. (yes, I am a smart aleck)

Clearly you have no problem with “gay marriage”, but is that it? At what point do you say, “Okay, you two humans just CANNOT get married!” Because if you do not have a problem with two unrelated men getting married, then how on earth can you have a problem with me (a male) marrying my Uncle? I’d love to hear if you have an argument against that. We could not have children, so the genetics of incest is not really valid for us. Can you come up with a good argument why we should not be allowed to marry?

Now if you answered the firewall question with “I don’t have one”, then I believe we have arrived at the same point as me marrying my uncle. Other than the problem of genetics and incest, it is a distinct possibility that anyone can marry anyone else under the eventual outcome of “gay marriage” becoming law. If you are okay with that, then we have no need to discuss this anymore. You vote your way and I’ll vote my way. But if you do have a problem with that, then perhaps you should rethink your stance.

You may not like our “standards” (clearly, since you liken it to being against women’s voting rights, discrimination against blacks/Jews/etc), but at least try to understand why a lot of people, including myself, do not want to redefine marriage, and want to protect what it means now.

Oct 23, 2008 - 3:51 pm 19. Roger L Simon:

Oh, please Friend of Promoguy, your comment is silly. NO ONE I know is advocating marriage between siblings or parents and children or anything remotely like it – and you know it. We are talking about the marriage of consenting adults – heterosexual and homosexual. You oppose same sex marriage. That’s fine. Many do. But Your implication that this is a slippery slope to incest and inter-species marriage is absurd. And I didn’t see one word in Annabel’s comments to indicate she favors such a thing either. That’s not a straw man, you put up, FoP. That’s a straw giant. Stop attacking someone for what they didn’t say.

Oct 23, 2008 - 4:01 pm 20. tim maguire:

The truth about gay marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmdFBz42vng

Oct 23, 2008 - 6:40 pm 21. Annabel:

“Clergy being forced to perform a marriage that is clearly against their beliefs”? Gee, I’d really like my ultra-orthodox rabbi to perform my marriage ceremony to my Pentecostal fiance who will not convert to Judaism. What’s that? My rabbi refuses? I can’t force him?
Gee, my Catholic next door neighbor really wants to be married by her priest in church to her divorced Mormon boyfriend. What’s that? The Catholic Church refuses? They can’t be forced?
But friend of promoguy is worried that if gay marriage is permitted, clergy will be forced to perform marriages that are clearly against their beliefs. I’m genuinely confused.
As for the slippery slope argument, I cannot see how it is anything but a straw man. Seriously, friend of promoguy, one imaginary person who wants to marry their uncle or their dog does not threaten the institution of marriage. If it turns out that there are many people who wish to marry their uncles or their dogs (which has never happened in the course of recorded human history), clearly there has been a profound alteration in human development that has gone unnoticed. If that’s the case, there will be far bigger issues to deal with than the institution of marriage.

Oct 23, 2008 - 8:33 pm 22. GeoffB:

I am a Republican. I will be voting against Proposition 8.

But I think that rather than dismissing Promoguy and friend, we should answer their objections. “Marriage is between a man and a woman” may be exclusionary and wrong, but it’s got a lot of tradition behind it. But if “gay marriage today equals polygamy tomorrow” or “gay marriage today equals child marriage tomorrow” are straw men, that means that we’re talking about expanding marriage to include gays while continuing to exclude other relationship configurations. Are we prepared to do that?

I’d like to see proponents of gay marriage put up or shut up with regard to their dismissing of slippery slope arguments. They could, for example, put up a proposition of their own that limits marriage to a consenting adult couple with no blood ties. But that’s not what the ads say. The ads say, “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.” And we call Promoguy paranoid for believing them.

I oppose Prop. 8 because I think gay couples trying to fit into mainstream society should be given a framework for doing so. I think that’s the case with a lot of Prop. 8 opponents. But Promoguy is right to be nervous, because while some of us want to give homosexuals a place in mainstream society, some activists want to change the mainstream.

Virginia Postrel (linked above) wonders why they’ve used such a lousy advertising strategy. I think it’s clear, though, why the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite-trans-gendered, trans-sexual community didn’t run ads that showed gays being just like everybody else. A lot of their other members might not be so much just like everybody else. And if Prop. 8 failed and gay marriage stayed because the public decided to accept homosexuality as pretty normal, not like those other weirder alternative sexualities, it would have been the end of the GLBT. Their largest, most marketable bloc would have been gone and their fringe elements would have been further isolated. Better to go for the whole enchilada on an abstract rights campaign: If you win (unlikely), you win a major victory. And if you lose, at least you hold the coalition together for another day.

Oct 24, 2008 - 3:03 am 23. Annabel:

GeoffB, you make a compelling argument in regards to the activist community wanting to keep their coalition together. But that argument is not compelling enough to alter your own vote against Prop. 8.

The slippery slope argument is usually a secondary one with those arguing against gay marriage. If proponents of gay marriage did as you wished, and put up their own proposition limiting marriage to consenting adults with no close blood relations, would Promoguy vote for it? I won’t answer for him, and perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect not. That is why I believe it is a straw man argument.

Certainly, such a proposition would make you and many others more comfortable, but your desire to support gay couples who wish to lead mainstream conventional lives has already overridden your discomfort with the potential dangers of a broader definition of marriage. In the event these potential dangers came to be realized and threatened the institution of marriage, there would be nothing preventing society from proposing further amendments limiting marriage to consenting adults without blood ties, etc…

Oct 24, 2008 - 10:03 am 24. Ratatosk:

Good Man Roger!

You and I don’t always see eye to eye on politics, but at least we agree on basic freedoms.

In some states, first cousins can marry… I think that scares me far more than two gay people.

Oct 24, 2008 - 1:44 pm 25. Friend of Promoguy:

Sorry I’m late. You know, work and all…

First and foremost let me say that what I write is not in anger. I am not yelling, foaming at the mouth, or any of that.

Roger, permit me to disagree with your response. I never once said that you or Annabel were advocating marriage between siblings or any of the other examples you gave. So for your statement “…I didn’t see one word in Annabel’s comments to indicate she favors such a thing…”, all I can say is, neither did I. I never said she did. Your implication is unfounded.

My comment was based around the *possible outcomes* of gay marriage becoming legal, not what I think Annabel “advocates”. Apparently I did not make that clear enough. This is not a straw man fallacy, since I never actually changed my opponent’s position. But I can see how someone could make that mistake. This is a “this could happen” argument, not a “you want this to happen” argument. Just because I try to predict what could happen because of a certain law taking effect, does not mean I “imply” that the proponents of that law advocate the possible effects. If I were to say “banning guns can lead to higher crime”, does not mean I believe people who support gun bans support crime. Nor does it mean I am implying that. The same is true for my previous comment. I never once said, nor do I believe, that you or Annabel want someone to be able to marry their relatives, or a farm animal, or a bloody toaster for that matter.

You believe the possibilities for someone to bring a lawsuit under a gay marriage law is “absurd”. I do not. I see that both of us have thoroughly supported our opinions on that with irrefutable facts. Or at least an equal number of them.

As for me “attacking” Annabel, I refuted her argument as disingenuous, not her. As for “attacking someone for what they didn’t say”, I did not. I posed a question, albeit not very eloquently, and gave the only two possible answers that I could come up with. You either do have a problem with me marrying my uncle, or you do not. Straw man fallacy? Hardly. I was trying to get Annabel to qualify her standards (something GeoffB touched on – he’s a lot nicer than I am). When and why do you say “enough”? Instead of an answer I get “silly”, “absurd”, “straw man”. Thanks, but I can get that from my kids.

My apologies to Promoguy for playing with his username. I’m really not a mean guy, I’m just incredibly sarcastic and an incurable smart @ss.

Oct 24, 2008 - 3:25 pm 26. entheos:

Of all the propositions on the California ballot, Proposition 8 is the easiest to understand. It simply affirms that marriage is only recognized as a union between a man and a woman. Rights of association between homosexuals or other entities are not denied. They just are not given the constitutional status of marriage as was divined by the State Court without a vote of the people.

I am supporting Proposition 8 not because I want to deny rights of same sex couples, but because I want to affirm the importance of family. By family, I do not mean the cruel parents who abuse their children, or the dysfunctional families that care nothing of their children, but families who have provided their children with insight from both sexes and have given their children the strength to foster their own future families with that same love.

I agree that a child would be better being cared by a loving homosexual couple than a hateful heterosexual couple, but the solution is not to devalue the importance of heterosexual marriage. Without the affirmation that the best family connections are achieved through heterosexual marriage, children who hold to their immature ill feelings towards the opposite sex may never see the opportunity to extend, affirm and love their family through natural copulation.

Oct 24, 2008 - 9:54 pm 27. bruce:

To clarify a bit. I don’t see prop 8 as a civil rights issue. The court using an equal treatment clause and then treating others unequally makes no sense. I site the tax code as the bastion of inequality.

As for gay marriage, it is not the end of the world. I do beleive the will of the people must be enforced as long as the individual is not harmed and I do not believe they are under 8. The courts need to step back and perform their constitutional functionn. Seeing the first grade class in SF that went to a wedding makes me unhappy as does seeing Gavin Newsome on the ads. Also why is the Calif teachers union the largest funder of no on 8? Or so I’ve read. Its time to put the brakes on BS thats why I say yes on Prop 8. Nothing personal.

Oct 25, 2008 - 7:58 pm 28. Anita Hope:

I still cannot figure out why we are so hung up on a word on a piece of paper. When a man and women marry the marriage license declares them a
legal couple, but if same sex partners commit, they are not allowed to be declared “a couple”, this makes no sense to the the term “we are all equal in the sight of our maker”. In today’s world there are more important matters, such as protecting our freedom from those who want to take control and destroy what we have worked so hard to accomplish. We seem to feel family is only for two people of opposite sex, thus all families that may have given birth to chilren that are genetically not of this factor are not entitled to see their children grow up and find happines in a commited relationship declared as a marrige of two people. Until recently and yet in some states same sex couples have no rights in hospital decisions of their partner. We have had a problem of Aids around the world, and the majority blamed in on promiscous sex between same sex partners, yet we deny them a license of commitment
with the simple word of “Marriage” how rediculous this is. Why are we so fearful of this yet not fearful of how our freedom of information may be taken away from us. We need to adjust to changes that will make our country grow stronger, not weaker by division.

Oct 26, 2008 - 12:05 pm 29. Gaffe Prices:

Its the slippery slope to polygamy. Polyanima will follow. This kind of issue will really gets the turnout. (How will Moslems likely vote? I can see both for, and against.)

Also, slightly OT, but I voted for Hillary in TX primary. That day she won Tx, Penn, after winning New York, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Calif previously. Big States. She went on to win Primary nomination with 500,000 votes (by voters at polls) to spare. Democrat party won’t answer my question as to why ‘other’ delegates, “super” and otherwise, count more than half a million, not to mention 18 mil total. Neither will Media. DNC awarded ubamas delegates in Michigan and Florida in May, based on “exit polls”.

I will never, ever vote for Democrat party or agenda. Again. Ever. I can vote for a woman, and a black candidate to boot, by voting for Cynthia McKinney- Green Party (in protest). But I won’t. Repeat, won’t. I’m not a fool. Ditto Libertarian, ditto Constitution, etc. That would count for about 1 millionth of what my vote did against ubamas in March. Don’t have to be repub to vote against the un-rehabilitatable Democrat Brand. And that goes double for their agenda.

We’re talking about the civil rights of children. Or the end of them. Roe vs. Wade said children, born or not, are private property, and no one’s business. (There is your slippery slope). So did Dred Scott Case, slaves- private property, NO’sB. Plessy vs Fergusson. (Marbury vs Madison- Jefferson furious, (I don’t hear leftists quote Jeffersons letters on that decision), C’est la vie, indeed. (Read Lincoln’s quotation in newspapers on Dred Scott case; falls in line w/ Jefferson). Prop 8 fights the government making children the private property of the state. The concept, or act of homosexuality is NOT at issue, (it is already tolerated, has been for years), and is only used as a canard by opposition to distract from intrusion of government(courts) into what is people’s will. Bad law? Lobby your legislature for or against. When court intrudes, Amendment is only option left.

Democrat Brand is in deep, deep, reeling trouble. Party must clean house to remain viable. Don’t hold your breath.

ubamas can’t afford to wear that shaved head hairstyle (in public). Every rule, tradition, and law regarding public service has been broken and smashed by the phenOmenOm.

I don’t mean to be a fatalist, cause I think he”ll still lose cause of voter turnout in your state. Didn’t plant enough acorns there.

The good news is that ‘Bugs’ Moran, alCapone, Frank Nitty and Stroger will all be vota in Illinois election.

ubamas- organized crime with massive P.R.
Parasitic Socialism, so where are the coattails?

Anita, name one “civil liberty” that vanished recently? Except for smoking in public? “When they came for the smokers, I was silent… …and still I wanted (more) “wealth re-distribution”, er, uh, “Reform”.

Oct 28, 2008 - 12:17 am 30. Gaffe Prices:

No takers?

Excuse me if we, the people are a little touchy down here too. In Texas we got our own storm of malfeasance. At the ’schools’ level.

First, We got this, 375 teachers “laid off” following the loss of, as $84 million “vanishes” from the budget. No one knows where, although not un-noticed by the Post.

Now ads are appearing in newspapers advertising “vacancies” in personnel at DISD. Cronies more like.

In the above story, Sandy Keaton has the temerity to proclaim “My kids are going to lose out because I’m a very good teacher, and so they’re going to lose out because they won’t have me,” Sandy Keaton, a second-grade teacher at San Jacinto Elementary, told a CNN affiliate.

In her book “Do-gooders”, Mona Charen points out that, in school systems round the country, there are an average of 12 “administrators” for every child in school. Why don’t they fire some of those people? Oh, I see, those “administrators” are “in” the Union. Those administrators are the Union.

I notice Teachers Union is against Prop 8. Lock, Stock and Pork Barrel. Teachers, were not invited to vote their position on the issue, Teachers Union Policy was decided at the top. I thought a Teachers Union was to be the guardian of the childrens interest?

Instead, Lawyers for Teachers Union go on the Radio and demogogue the issue, saying, And I quote, “I know that people of religious background consider Homosexuality a sin. I [this is the lawyer speaking] do not think G-d considers homosexuality a sin”. Well, I guess she would know, she is a lawyer.

As if the issue of homosexual practice, or co-habitation, yea or nay, is on the ballot. Its not. I repeat. Its not. The courts took care of that one too.

Hey, gays and lesbians of California, its not all about you. It isn’t. Think about little Sandy Keaton, who wants to work on the front lines as a “facilitator” of students’ learning. She’s obviously just a little too right wing and Anglo for “Administrators” to keep anywhere close to “at risk” children. (Keaton is probably an Irish name, but Whoa, there! thats close enough).

“In the beginning was me, and the only evil came from the ones that tried to take me, and my feelings, out of the issue”.

National rainbow socialism is already underway, and the Barack community can’t be bothered with waiting til election day to begin its great work. Farney Brank is already boasting of defence programs to be eliminated.

Oct 28, 2008 - 9:37 am 31. Outlander:

Roger,

I have no problem with Prop. 8 in the sense that it is putting the issue of gay marriage to a popular vote — which is how things ought to be done in our country. But I am curious to get your opinion on these issues:

1. Do you think the California Supreme Court decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage in the U.S. or California Constitution was rightly or wrongly decided? (I recognize you are not a lawyer, but that almost makes your response more interesting. . .)

2. Do you think that other states — say, Utah — should be required to recognize a gay marriage made in California, e.g., for divorce purposes or child custody or benefits, if those states forbid gay marriage as a matter of their own law?

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:07 am 32. Vivian:

Anita,
you say: I still cannot figure out why we are so hung up on a word on a piece of paper. When a man and women marry the marriage license declares them a legal couple, but if same sex partners commit, they are not allowed to be declared “a couple”, this makes no sense to the the term “we are all equal in the sight of our maker”.

If it’s just a word on a piece of paper, then why the huge push to get it for homosexuals? Obviously, it’s not just a word on a piece of paper. Your question cuts both ways.

Considering how many heterosexual couples do not think marriage worth attempting, I find it somewhat disingenuous when people whine that the marriage law is preventing them from doing something. I don’t see how attempting to change an existing legal and moral status makes any difference to a couple of committed gays. If you want to commit and consider yourself married, throw a marriage party, etc., there is nothing stopping you now! The fact is, what you really want is to alter the meaning of marriage itself, which alters it for everyone in society. Here’s my big objection.

First and foremost, I don’t see the necessity to change the meaning of the word or the concept, unless the actual goal is to say that a homosexual union is the same as a heterosexual one. Is that what you want? Obviously, it isn’t the same, whether you call it the same or not. It won’t be the same dynamic regardless of what status society gives it.

My second suspicion, which is another real issue not dealt with honestly in public discussion, is that equating the two different types of union seems to be a backhanded way of attempting to get society to approve of homosexuality. So, my question is, why does this matter? Will it make the homosexual happy and satisfied? I frankly don’t believe that it will any more than I believe in “geographical cures”. Human beings make their own happiness–it comes from within, and can’t be accorded by society. Or…is the real point to promote homosexuality? This is where the rubber hits the road, I’d guess—again, I’m not hearing much honesty on this aspect either. Most Americans do NOT want homosexuality promoted. They are happy to accept homosexuals in their lives and in society, and as fellow Americans, they have the same rights anyone else has. There is a huge difference between accepting and promoting–and I trust you have the intelligence and the honesty to see that difference.

Getting back to the cohabiting heterosexuals—if many heterosexual couples are cool with not being married when they could, why on earth does it seem to be such a be-all and end-all to much of the gay community?

In short, this issue never makes any sense to me, unless the bottom line is to spoil the institution of marriage for everyone else. And that’s how it comes across to mainstream Americans. Please try to understand.

In the meantime, if you are gay and are in a monogamous and committed relationship–terrific. Those who know you will be happy to reinforce and encourage you in that.

Nov 3, 2008 - 9:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: