Bigotry alive and well in CA Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:57 am
As I celebrate Obama's and all of our victory in the presidential race, my heart is heavy as I watch the numbers around Proposition 8, which confirms that over half our voting population is in favor of discrimination against homosexuals. This is a sad day for human and civil rights and a blow to the separation of church and state, one of the most important pieces of the legacy of our forefathers. As a straight, married person, I feel my own marriage is tarnished by this cruel, bigoted proposition and if I had it to do over again I would not marry until this group was included under the umbrella of human rights. I look forward to the inevitable challenge to this unlawful and unconstitutional proposition and will support the efforts to bring it down, which will one day prevail just as Obama's election demonstrates that human rights and justice will always triumph in the end.
Posted by Momo, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
Give us a break, Move on, the Mormon Church is one of the most bigoted religious organizations in the world. The have supported the denial of basic rights to a specific group of people. This is intolerance at it's worst. The Mormon church and all mormons involved in this effort should be ashamed of themselves. Being members of a cult, they have no chance to go to heaven anyway, but this will just cement the location of their final destination
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:39 am
Jean, They have earned retributions. If they practiced even the most basic teachings of Jesus, or the most basic tenets of our constitution, they would leave these people to live their own lives. By interfering with things that are none of their business, they have brought trouble on others, who will not take it passively. And why should they?
Posted by Just Don't Call Yourselves "Married", a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:44 am
As I said on the Steve thread, gays should have the same rights as married people but call themselves a union or some other name. People want the word "married" to designate heteros. Perhaps if the gays took the stance of just seeking the rights and not asking to be called "married", next time they will win.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:45 am
Jesus practiced anger against those who made a mockery of His teachings. He called the organized religious leaders a brood of vipers and he threw out those who turned the temple courtyard into a market place of traders trying to make money.
Posted by Jean, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:59 am
Did Jesus, or the U.S. Constitution ever support homosexual marriage? Please provide the references.
I am not religious, at all. However, the more you attack the Mormons and Catholics and minorities, who did not support your fantasy, the more you are going to dig a hole of bigotry that will be hard to climb out of in the future.
Posted by JCYB, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Sarah, There is a difference between tolerance, approval of behaviors, and human rights. The constitution says that all men are created equal. Because of these same bigots you support, women are not yet included in that equality, however, since homosexuals were created as they are, they are entitled to equal rights, not tolerance, not approval. I do not approve of you but I would not deprive you of your right to the free speech you enjoy here, nor of your right to practice which ever form of oppressive religion you choose. You also have the right to be a bigot. All of these I must tolerate under the laws of our country. Gay marriage is a right.
Posted by N on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Sarah--how unfortunate that you do not understand the nature of civil rights and that civil rights issues should not be determined by what percentage of a population that group consists of. Also, it is surprising that you consider the two leading religions that came out in favor of 8, mormons and catholics, as being christian--since part of their doctrine is that non-mormons and non-catholics, respectively, are not a real religion and will therefore go to hell.
We will not even discuss the bigotry displayed over the years by the Mormon and Catholic church--that has been brought up in other threads.
This issue is not about religion--there is a separation of church and state and this is a clear violation where so-called "christians" determine what rights some individuals should have.
The behavior of the mormon and catholic church has been shameful and the activists who supported 8 should be ashamed of themselves. This is a dark day for California
Posted by JCYB, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Sorry Move On, Lots of people have time for this issue. Human rights will always be important, even though it is not important to you. The arrogance is in those who would judge others and take away their rights, and in those such as you who have more important things to do than work for justice for all.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:11 pm
"Among Black women the vote in favor of Prop 8 was 75% to 25% that is massive. They know a lot about civil rights and discrimination on two counts. Prop 8 is NOT about civil rights or discrimination by any means."
I humbly beg to differ. Discrimination and bigotry are inherently egalitarian vices. Anybody can practice them. Being a victim of one form of bigotry does not mitigate the onus of bigoted attitudes toward another person.
If people wish to marry someone of their own gender, that is their business. If, as the Mormons used to (and some still) preach that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, ..., that is their business, and only their business. Catholics get their marriage guidance from their rigorously unmarried clergy. It's their choice.
The real threat to the sanctity of marriage comes from the hypocrisy of the ostentatiously Family Values types like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich and Ted Haggard and Mark Foley and Larry Craig and Jimmy Swaggart and Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston and... .
Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Although this vote did not go the way I wanted, I still see it as a victory of sorts. It only passed by a small margin. This means attitudes are changing. Allowing same sex couples to get married in California will happen and pretty soon. Sorry it did not happen with this vote, but its going to happen.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm
No problem with a difference of opinion. Take away someone's rights because you have judgements about them, big problem.
Jean, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, probably because he wasn't gay and knew it was none of his business. The constitution also does not prohibit homosexuality. When it was written, however, certain self evident matters were not specified. When all men are created equal, unfortunately there will be some who include an exception for one group or another to whom they like to feel superior. These are just the people our forefathers had in mind when they claimed equality for all. I sometimes find myself feeling superior to bigots but this doesn't give me a mandate of taking your rights away.
Posted by Deke, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Anne dear, You're all confused. The issue here is banning gay marriage, not whether to allow all that other stuff. Gay marriage is only gay marriage. I'm glad you want to be polite. That is a start. Now perhaps you'll politely mind your own business.
Posted by libertarian, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 5, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I am a live and let live libertarian but I have to tell you that everyone I know who has seen the No on 8 advertisement here Web Link is completely horrified by the bigotry it reveals in the gay community.
It was a terrible idea to release such a campaign commercial, it confirms all reasonable peoples fears about the real gay agenda.
The same sex marriage activists in Boston have put Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption services, they had done this for hundreds of years, saving countless children lives and giving joy to countless couples.
The same activist in Boston are forcing the teaching of ss marriage as equivalent to man women marriage in elementary schools, confusing children and going against the values of parents.
Parents who objected have been arrested.
2% of the population want to impose their values on the 98% " whether they like it or not" in the words of the SF mayor, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The people of California were wise to put a stop to this in supporting Prop 8.
Posted by Mom, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Yes on 8 proponents:
When you people talk about "gays" you talk as if no one in your families and no one you know is gay (you most likely DO know a lot more gay people than you believe, and they likely keep their orientation to themselves because it's not even YOUR business.) It is so easy for you then to see gay people as a "them", not a part of US and OUR community and OUR families.
Why are you so in denial that so many thousands of gay people actually live quiet decent monogamous lives just like the rest of us?? Why spread lies about "activism" and "agendas"?
My daughter has no "gay agenda". She is not part of a "gay community". She wants to marry someone she loves and raise a family of children together, perhaps adopt a special needs child too (gay parents frequently adopt special needs children that other people don't want.) She wants a quite, responsible, monogamous life and the chance to raise children in a loving family with the love of her life - and don't assume she cannot bear children of her own either.
Whether she falls in love with and wants to marry a consenting adult man or a woman should not MATTER to YOU. You are not living HER life, and it will NOT IMPACT YOU. You fall in love with and marry whom you damned well want, and then you come here and blithely give your so-called "arguments" why you think you have the "right" to decide that people you don't like should be second-class citizens, without equal rights. Domestic partnership does NOT confer equal rights and protection.
Why are you so damned concerned with "plumbing"? Why are so obsessed with what loving couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms?
Posted by think before you judge, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Judging someone's choice in "marriage" and judging someone's choice in religion are one in the same. Which of you has more right to judge with such harsh words? People do believe differently on many issues for their own personal reasons. Who are you to judge? The vote has happened. The campaign was flawed. It is time to think about how change can be made without pointing fingers and dismissing others view or change will never happen.
Posted by yeson8, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 8:06 pm
what a lot of people dont understand is that under a civil union they get the same rights as under marriage, marriage is a concept of the church it and the church says its between a man and a woman. If they had wanted civil union instead of marriage they would have got it, if the queers hadnt been greedy they would be better off than they are now
Posted by Samuel, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I agree the No on 8 video is despicable, the gay community has lost a great, great deal by making and releasing that and thereby alienating the Christian community, which is 85%+ of the population, not counting the Episcopalians and non Christians like the Unitarians.
It is a shame because the gay activists represent a small fraction of the the total gay population yet they get all the air time.
Unfortunately when the activists behave outrageously like that it colors the perception of all gay people.
Gay people taken together are about 2% of the population.
The activist are therefore a fraction of that 2% who poison the well for the rest. I understand their tolerance of this is wearing thin.
The debate over marriage, what marriage is, and who can marry has come again to the forefront of political debate as gay rights groups struggle to encompass the recognitions that come with marriage to their same sex partners.
They want the "right" to marry.
However there is one problem.
In America you don't have the right to marry.
The first knee-jerk reaction of many people reading that last statement is to say that it is just plain wrong; that anyone who would say such a thing is off one's rocker.
So, now that you have gotten past that first reflexive action I will say it again.
In America you don't have a right to marry.
Now that you have seen it twice and your heart has slowed down we can move on to show why this is true.
Marriage is a side product of a right that we do indeed enjoy which is religious freedom; marriage being a religious institution.
However it, in itself, is not a right.
Marriage is about more than just "love":
Homosexual couples argue that because they "love" their partners, they must be allowed to wed just as a heterosexual couple would to form a family unit.
The problem is that marriage is not solely about "love".
If marriage where solely about "love" then the state would be required to recognize the union of a man and his dog if such a thing was done because of "love".
If the sole argument for marriage was "love" then would a bi-sexual woman who has "love" for both her female and male partner would be allowed to marry both.
"Love" for one's partner is not an argument for marriage.
Posted by Still No on N, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 8:13 pm
What this election cycle has proven in my eyes is that, while racism has lost much ground in this country, both bigotry and sexism are alive and well... Look at how horribly both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were treated during the campaign, without much of a peep from anyone. It was disgusting. If sexism is still this blatant, no surprise bigotry as well won with prop. N.
Posted by Mom, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:22 pm
So-called "Kid": My sweet, shy, chaste and modest daughter is a decent human being. She will remain the same person no matter who she falls in love with.
If you tolerate her if she falls in love with a boy, but suddenly want to spit in her face and treat her like garbage and put hateful labels and lies on her if she simply falls in love with a girl instead, this says volumes about your knee-jerk hatred and lack of compassion and lack of REAL family values as a human being.
That's OK, we will continue to pray for you too. Jesus didn't discriminate, or preach discrimination, He taught love and compassion.
Posted by harry and sally, a member of the Hoover School community, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Well, Jesus teaches chastity,and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.
This and other Christian teaching were the turning point in creating Western Civilization out of the cultures of Greece and Rome.
In fact the Christian tradition is big on the concept of discernment, telling right from wrong, good from evil.
The Christian concept of sin involves loving the sinner, hating the sin. In that tradition homosexual behavior is a sin, homosexual orientation is not.
BTW it is not just a Christian issue, the Dalai Lama also disapproves of homosexual behavior, as do Jews and Muslims.
Leaving that aside, 2% of the population are homosexual.
Many just quietly want to get on with their lives in a tolerant environment, they have a tolerant environment now.
The activists want to impose their values on the 98%, they want approval and advocacy of their values and behavior.
They will provoke a backlash.
Face the facts--
The Dutch experiment on gay marriage is an abject failure.On average gay married couples in Holland have 8 extra marital partners per year, the rates of HIV, drug abuse and suicide are off the charts, it does not work in the way gay activists would have us believe.
The video linked by "move on" at the top of these posts, which was produced by homosexual activists, has done irreparable harm to the lives of all gays.
The bigotry in that video is obscene, it has wakened the 98% to the real agenda of the gay activists who say one thing in Sacramento but do another in SF see this Web Link
Now we see the truth we want to protect our children and our civilization from that culture of ?
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Your post that points out marriage is not a right is correct, but missing the point.
For example, there is no right to a prompt tax refund, no right to receive timely and polite help from the DMV, no right to have a library card...
However, our Constitution does explicitly state that we have a right to equal protections - equal treatment by the state. So, while there is no right to marry, the state has put itself into the marriage business. Having done so, the state can only discriminate in marriage where it has a compelling interest to override equal protection. We all agree that age is a compelling interest, and that distinction is entirely supported by anyone who knows anything about the mental capacities of children to enter into legal agreements. We do not agree that there is a compelling interest if looking at a same-sex couple. If there is a compelling interest, then that interest should be applied EQUALLY to all. If the compelling interest is about child-rearing, then there is no reason for the state to sanction marriage involving child abusers, infertile people, or those who refuse to breed. If the compelling interest is religious, then the state must apply religious reasoning equally - a plain violation of the First Ammendment. If the compelling interest is tradition, then the state is really getting into murky waters in the quest to avoid giving equal protection. If the compelling interest is about sexual behavior and sexual health, the state should apply that test to same sex couples too. If the compelling interest is about the "sanctity of marriage," then the state should develop some test that is applied equally to all couples regardless of gender.
The state could avoid this whole mess that makes some folks so uncomfortable by simply removing itself from the marriage business, and leave that to religious institutions. However, since the courts are gradually waking up and reversing the will of the biased majority (as is entirely consistent with the concept of judicial review, and as was necessary in past instances where the "feelings" of a majority had little foundation in legally defensible principles), then more and more states will be allowing gay marriage, and we'll have to decide how long we want to hold out against the inevitable chaos of trying to dodge yet another Constitutional principle - full faith and credit. A marriage in Connecticut or Massachusets is a marriage in any other state.
Little by little, this discrimination will end. The yes vote on prop 8 was a tighter margin than last time, the younger generations don't stress out about this, and the passage of Prop 8 just means more court cases, more money for lawyers, and a slight delay in the march of progress. I'm disappointed, but not the slightest bit less optimistic about the progress we'll see in the long run.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 1:40 am
Actually, the right to marry falls under the precepts in the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees our citizens Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.That this includes marriage has been upheld by the Supreme Court. You can see below in an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on the subject, that gays are not the first to be tarred by bigots who wished to control others by denying them the right to marry.
Pursuit of happiness
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The phrase is used in the depression-era case Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.
Posted by move on, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 6:01 am
So Marion can cut and paste selectively from Wikipedia,
very profound legal scholarship.
If you stopped listening to your own bigoted activist propaganda, and even read the other posts you would understand this.
There is no right to marry in the United States,
it is not in the Constitution or anywhere else.
It is ironic that the Black community, who know a lot about civil rights, determined by their overwhelming support of Prop 8 that homosexual marriage is NOT a civil rights issue in any way shape or form.
The Black vote was 75% in favor of Prop 8.
The message could not be clearer.
After the anti religious bigotry demonstrated by gay activists on these posts the resistance to their attempts to force their values on our children and the 98% of the population who are heterosexual has grown enormously.
It is time for the gay community to reject the bigoted activists in their midst who claim to speak for them.
Posted by sara, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:54 am
I guess the African American population did not agree that being gay is the same as being black.
It's ironic how much the gay marriage movement has compared itself to the civil rights movement, yet I think the election results were a resounding rejection of that fallacy by African Americans.
To quote a San Francisco puppet politician, "Whether you like it or not", the people have spoken.....again!
It seems the gay activists have a real problem in the way they treat non whites. from todays SJMN---
"Oscar Dace, senior pastor of the Bible Way Christian Center in San Jose, said it may have rankled some African-Americans to hear civil rights for gay and lesbian people compared to the civil rights struggles of blacks in the 20th century.
"Many African-Americans are very conservative when it comes to moral social issues. When it comes to the policy issues they are somewhat liberal. They could see Barack Obama on one hand and see the conservative, evangelical understanding on the other hand," he said.
Nieto, who is Latina, faulted the No on 8 campaign for not working hard enough to build ties to minority voters.
"The LGBT community has not done a good job of having relations with people outside of a white middle-class group," said Nieto. Among the leadership of the No on 8 campaign, "I could not find any evidence of any African-Americans or Latinos that were on the steering group. Even if it was one or two, that's not good representation."
It particularly rankled Nieto that the No on 8 television ads showed very few gay or lesbian people — an omission also noted by other critics."
"We had no identity; we had no names," Nieto said. "We were just this group of people that the Mormons were painting as asking for special rights and trying to make their children be taught about gay marriage in the first grade."Web Link.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:57 am
SF mayor Gavin Newsom's obvious self serving pandering to the SF gay community during this campaign season was just appalling. The notion of paying any attention to the thoughts and advice of Newsom, a total hypocrite, on the subject of marriage at all is just laughable. I am willing to listen to all sides and to facts, including considering the repercussions of new laws/initiatives/amendments, but not to ridiculous politicians like Newsom.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 9:27 am
To get back to basics, the institution of marriage was formed because of the perceived idea that a woman needed the protection of a man. A woman was considered a delicate, lesser informed individual, who was not able to live without the protection of first her father and subsequently her husband. Society was treating women as the weaker sex who were unable to fend or make decisions for themselves. Charitable institutions or legal rules were formed to help with looking after widows, because it was assumed that if a woman should unfortunately lose her husband before her sons were old enough to look after her, then she would be homeless and destitute unless she could find another man to marry (deemed unlikely unless she was still young enough to bear children). Rules were put into place about having to marry a brother's widow and being responsible for their children, not for polygomous reasons, but for care and concern and the widow. These types of rules came about in all societies regardless of religions.
Then at the beginning of the 20th century, women started demanding to be treated equally. Not only did they start getting better educated, but they started demanding the vote and other legal equalities as well as actually wanting to marry the person they loved rather than just someone suitable.
Also at this time, women started being very necessary in the workforce due to WW1 and the great loss of male workers going to fight and not coming back being able to hold up physical and demanding jobs, if at all. There was also a disproportionate number of young women compared to young men and many of these women were unable to find a husband, so had to learn to be self-sufficient. More laws were then put in place to enable women to be treated equally so that those women who were not in a stable marriage where the husband could be the head of the household, would still be able to live their own lives. At the same time, tax laws and education laws were formed which made advantages for families. Once again, these things happened all over the civilized world, regardless of religion.
Then came the sexual revolution of the 60s. Women started to be able to control their own sexuality and reproduction. They started to demand equality in the workplace with maternity leave and job security as well as equal pay for equal work. They also shunned what was at that time the traditional view of marriage where the wife was the pretty woman at home doing the cleaning and cooking and ready for sex when the husband came home. Laws to enable this started happening. Divorce laws and attitudes similarly changed.
So this leads to what we have today. Women are able to lead their own lives. Most of the outdated ideas of marriage are dissolved. Marriage today is all about self-satisfaction and doing what is best for the people involved and their feelings. Divorce and child custody arrangements are keeping the courts busy and marriage is almost a joke.
So, for those of us who are married and consider this state to be the ideal, then I ask you to look at the history of what marriage was formed to be. It is not just a religious ceremony. It is not just something to do with the person you love. It is a hangover from days gone by which we choose to commit ourselves to rather than having it forced on us.
For this reason, the idea of gay marriage makes no sense. There is no history that makes the protection of a wife by her husband in this gay marriage. For gay people to want to enter that calling is nothing more than giving them a feel good respectability.
To me this is just a political vendetta by those who are often, like Gavin Newsome, just trying to give an impression of being avant garde. Many gay people do not care at all about the marriage license and just want to be able to get on with their lives and get their legal rights through domestic partnerships.
One day, true equality may mean that there are no recognised marriages or unions. We as people, regardless of sex or sexual orientation will be responsible for our own lives and anyone will be able to make their own decisions without the help of another. All tax and legal advantages to being married may go away, partly due to the probabilities of divorce in most marriages. I hope that this will not happen, but this is the way we appear to be heading. I see no real reason for gay marriage and logically thinking I see no reason for marriage at all in the future except for those traditionalists (like me) who want it for feel good reasons.
Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on Nov 6, 2008 at 9:31 am
Perhaps the fault lies with a minority group that is bent on possessing something that has never been theirs to possess. The definition of marriage has been constant for over a thousand years of recorded history. Perhaps the majority isn't so much bigoted, but resistant to those who would redefine historical constants. Sometimes when you push, others push back.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
History shows it's futile to try to convince dinosaurs. It's much more effective to outlive them. Gay marriage will be accepted, as interracial marriage has been.
The interracial couples and groups we now see everywhere would have driven the once-majority racial bigots up the wall only 50 years ago. Their arguments were much the same as the anti-gay bigots, and they have largely died out. Today the young and the enlightened are ever more accepting of their gay neighbors. Prop 8 was the last gasp of the bigotosaurs. Freedom's progress cannot be stopped.
Posted by State could avoid whole mess, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:57 am
I agree with Skep that "The state could avoid this whole mess that makes some folks so uncomfortable by simply removing itself from the marriage business."
This is the obvious path. Allow any two people (for now, two people) the right to form a civil union. Base all tax advantages and governmental residential advantages on civil union status. Gradually require private institutions to provide their benefits based on civil union status. Allow all married couples automatic civil union status until some phase out date.
This way, when you live with and support your parent, or sibling, or lover, or friend, you get the benefits of being in a legitimate household.
There's simply no reason that sexual activity, preference or orientation should come into this. The ability of a pair of adults to function as a unit does not depend as much on sexual activity as it does on many other things.
After automatic civil union status for the married expires, marriage will evolve how it will, but there will not be any hint of "civil rights" involved.
Posted by Joel, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:12 am
Re the legal challenges to the will of the people on Prop 8.
If the people pass a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage, a Court cannot then decide that the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Re the problem we solved by prop 8.
A few have asked: “how does homosexual ‘marriage’ affect them”?
I too wondered as much.
But it does affect all of us and here’s how:
(1) in Massachusetts, where homosexual ‘marriage’ is legal, public school kindergarten children are being taught about it.
Parents who object are told that they have no right to object - and not even a right to pull their children from the classroom for those lessons.
Similarly, a Knights of Columbus Hall was successfully sued for refusing to rent its space to a lesbian couple wishing to celebrate their ‘marriage.’
Despite the fact that homosexual ‘marriage’ ran counter to their religious beliefs, the Knights were told that the rights of lesbians to ‘marry’ trumped the Knights’ argument of religious freedom.
2/ The Catholic adoption agencies were put out of business because of their faith based policy of not offering adoptions to gay couples, the court ruled they had to, so they had to stop all adoptions, what a tragedy for babies and would be parents.
In short, then, homosexual ‘marriage’ works to restrict the rights of those who do not recognize such unions, and who do not want their children indoctrinated to accept such unions.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:19 am
The definition of marriage has *not* been constant over thousands of years. Polygamy has been and is still allowed many places and forbidden here. Polyandry is unacceptable most places, but legal in some. And, yes, there is gay marriage in some places and, historically, was accepted among some groups of people. Children are married off in some cases and never, ever in others. Divorce is saying the same sentence three times in some cases and is allowed under no circumstances in others. Some groups allow remarriage and expect others--others expect permanent widowhood if not suicide.
Marriage is a social construct that reflects and molds the culture in which it's found. It is, ironically, a pretty secular one.
As for anti-Mormon bias. Well, what do you expect? They funneled in a lot of money to take away a right from a group of people. Gee, why wouldn't there be a bit of anger? The pro-8 campaign used a lot of lies to push their agenda. If nothing else, they are hypocrites in the extreme. If you can sell your agenda on its merits, that's one thing, but if you lie about it (in this case it was a lie about the schools), you are breaking a commandment.
Posted by Tom, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:25 am
State could avoid whole mess--I voted yes on Prop 8, but because for me it had to do with marriage not with discriminaton. BUT, I want to tell you, your proposed approach in your previous post makes so much good sense. If that were on the ballot next time, it would have my vote. talk about a common sense solution to a myriad of issues that affect most everyone at some point in their life. Thank you!
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:38 am
Prop 8 was about equality of rights and discrimination. As a gay person, I want my relationship to be as valuable and recognized as any other. A heterosexual person can run to Vegas and get married in a second without even knowing the person (yes the sanctity of marriage!). A gay person needs to be living at least 1 year (and prove it) to even get domestic partnership rights. I have to pay legal fees to "adopt" my partner's children! I have to pay legal fees to have a family, just because I'm gay and NOT allowed to get married. NO, civil union doesn't do it! I still have to go through hoops that heteresexual married people don't go through. And why? because I'm gay. Is that fair? Is that equality of rights? NOOOOOO! Is that discrimination??? YESSS!
Those that voted yes on 8, are not defending their morals or their church values. They just hate homosexuality; they discriminate people based on sexuality, but they hide behind religious and moral excuses. The FIRST MOST IMPORTANT value of any church is to LOVE and RESPECT others. So please stop blaming the bible whilst you intentionally hurt others!
Here's how sacred the "heterosexual" marriage is: 55% divorce rate, 40% suffers from cheating, apalling statistics of domestic abuse (man to woman), and disturbing rates of children in foster care or that are homeless.
Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:57 am
"I have to pay legal fees to "adopt" my partner's children! "
Dont Hetro couples have to do this as well?
If I marry a person with children, they dont become my children.
Its not automatic in all situations.
I do have an example a friend is facing though. He owns a home and would like his partner on the deed. As a married couple, it could be done without causing a taxable event, so his partner can inherit it without a taxable event occuring, but a non-married couple can not do this. Its about him trying to increase the odds that on this death, his partner can remain in the property.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Guess I should have known, the minute I left the room the rowdies took over.
In "1984", the language was being restructured to make it impossible to find words to criticize "Big Brother". Remember, "War is Peace" and "Love is Hate"? When I read that, I scoffed at the concept. There are about 7 billion people in the world I am not allowed to marry, so I empathize with those others so lorn, but hell, life's tough.
Posted by stop PC, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm
The word queer is not derogatory, there are queer studies in some academies, you cannot just start banning words in the English language whenever you want.
Gay was a common word for happy until it was co-opted.
This is stupid PC nonsense like something out of 1984, just look at the vile and hateful language homosexual activist have used on these posts to insult Christians, Jews and Muslims who tolerate but do not approve of or advocate homosexual behavior.
Now fagot may be impolite, though it refers to an English pastry an they smoke fags there.
The term fudge packer was used often in the movie "As Good As It Gets"
Posted by Samuel, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Check out this gem from Wikipedia on the word queer
"Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture.
In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender."
It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer" identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels.
In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals.
For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term 'queer' is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity.
For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity.
For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to simultaneously make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics."
What???--- I need a stiff drink-- it is not even 2PM
Can someone translate that ? some PhD in queer studies perhaps
Posted by Bea, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 2:12 pm
To quote Senator Feinstein: "No matter how you feel about gay marriage, discrimination is wrong". How can you say this is not discrimination? Not allowing a certain group of people (a minority group, at that) to have a right that all other adults have. That sounds like discrimination to me. Didn't we learn not to discriminate in elementary school? I may be only 23, but I have seen enough of this world to know that there are far greater threats to traditional marriage than gay people getting married.
I guess everyone seems to forget that because something is traditional doesn't make it better. What about the tradition of slavery? How about not allowing different races to marry?
I honestly feel like we as Californians took a huge step back. So far not one single person has been able to answer me when I ask specifically how a gay person getting married threatens a straight person's marriage. The only person that should affect your marriage is you. If you're that insecure about your own marriage that you think allowing a gay person to marry will somehow take away from the sanctity of your marriage, you should probably rethink being married. All I can assume is that people have a problem with other people being gay and that is why they do not want to give them equal rights.
As a former Mormon, I don't think it's necessarily fair to pick on the Mormons. Then again, I didn't think it was necessarily fair for the Mormons to pick on the gays.
How are we supposed to teach our future generations acceptance, tolerance and equality?
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm
My very English grandmother used the word gay all the time to mean colorful or bright as well as happy, even in "The Flintstones" signature song, they sing about having a "gay old time".
This same grandmother when feeling unwell, particularly going through menopause, would say she feels "queer" meaning unwell in a very uncertain or indescribable way and you knew not to ask exactly what unwell way - it was women's problems.
In England, a faggot is not a pastry, but a type of meatball, made from liver and sausage, eaten with gravy and onions and something called "mushy peas".
English Public Schools (the type called public because you pay to them because they are run by the public and not the church) traditionally in the past, if not now, had a system whereby the older boys had younger boys who would do their chores for them e.g. shoe polishing and sometimes latin homework sentences. These younger boys were called fags and often got abused in more ways than one and this may be where the derogatory term came from. They may also have got payment from the older boys in cigarettes, which is possibly where the term for cigarettes came from, but fags for cigarettes is definitely more working class than upper class where the fagging in public schools took place.
Lastly, the word "sinister" which we now use in everyday language to mean scary or evil, was the original correct name for someone who was left handed. The original thoughts were that a left handed person actually had something wrong with them which made them use their left hand rather than their right, and consequently it became used more for anything that didn't seem quite right or normal. As time went by the left handed meaning was forgotten. But, it is interesting that another description for someone who is gay is to say that they kick with the left leg rather than the right. Sinister isn't it?
So words change subtly even within a generation. Many popular songs of the 30s and 40s have lyrics which we would consider to be quite unsuitable today.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Kathy - exactly. Marriage is not a right. For anyone. The word "marriage" should be completely stricken from the laws period. "Marriage" is a a religios rite only. Civil union contracts (contract law), is the ONLY thing the state should be engaged in at all, for everyone.
The prop 8 proponents think that 'traditional values' are somehow rights protected by the constitution. That's false. And I believe the next legal wave on this argument will be to remove the concept of 'marriage' all together from the constitution.
Separation of church and state protects EVERYONE - the crackpot religious extremists, and the crackpot gay extremists get to have their own belief systems, and they get to make decisions about their own personal private relationships. And THAT IS protected by the constitution. Lets keep it that way. (Because if we don't, your views my be the next under assault by bigoted wackos.)
Posted by Bea, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm
but but but, Kathy, I did read all those. They are all made with an underlying notion that homosexuality is wrong. Now what?
Adoption charities- maybe if they were not prejudiced against gay people, there wouldn't be a problem. They spend so much time denouncing and discriminating against homosexuals that the true homosexual illegal activities happen right under their noses.
Jesus/religion saying it is wrong- I am not religious and isn't there supposed to be something called separation of church and state? I know Jesus says a lot of things in the bible, but we somehow have come to the point where we selectively ignore those that aren't convenient anymore.
Subversive potential- this is the slippery slope argument. 48% of California voted against the ban, but that does not mean 48% would support polygamy or open marriages. There are extremists on both sides here.
Homosexual agenda- no one is trying to impose their homosexual agenda on anyone else. HOW DOES A GAY MARRIAGE AFFECT A STRAIGHT MARRIAGE? How does a polygamous marriage affect a straight marriage? Is a straight marriage of lesser value once it's not part of an exclusive "club"?
Gay relationships being taught in schools- The state education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But school districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. The vast majority of California districts do not teach sex ed. It's not like children are going to be taught the specificities of homosexual sex. California is not Massachusetts, FYI.
Thank the Lord we protected the sanctity of marriage for people like Britney Spears!
Is accusing someone of being a bigot an act of bigotry?
Posted by brit, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm
When I was in England people often used the word POOF for homosexuals,
as well as COTTAGER.
Poof was commonly, used on Monty Python, one of the original members was in fact a poof, unfortunately he drank himself to death, he had studied medicine at Oxbridge.
Cottager comes from the cruising habits of English male homosexuals.
The cottage refer to public toilets in parks etc that look like cottages, thus the term cottaging for cruising such places.
It is still quite common and very irritating to the general population,particularly when children need to go.
The American equivalent is shown by Sen. Larry Craig, who decided not to run for re-election after he was caught last year in a men's room sting. Washrooming lacks the quaintness of the term cottageing
Any way the history of language is colorful and we should firmly resist efforts to censor language by activists whoes sensitivities vary like the weather.
Posted by I am a Bea too!, a resident of another community, on Nov 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm
My Uncle just got married to a man. My uncle is a defense lawyer who does a lot of pro bono work. His husband (perhaps soon to be just his partner) is a pediatrician. They live together in a nice house in San Francisco where they throw parties, do the crossword puzzle together over breakfast, and hope to build a family. Both men are from devoutly Catholic backgrounds, and despite some initial protests from their families, they managed to convince everyone that their love was what was important, not their sexual preference. They are financially and emotionally stable. Now they have had their rights stripped from them. They told me that they feel like second class citizens. I would just like to know how this is fair.
Remember when you made a choice to be straight? Oh, you don't? I guess that's because you were just born that way. Kinda like how people don't choose to be gay either...
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 4:58 pm
If you hold all homosexuals to a high standard of behavior in order to merit equal rights, then how about we hold all heterosexuals to the same standard? Oops, a tiptoe through internet porn would likely turn up all permutations of behavior most wouldn't want their kids to see or learn of. Why do all homosexuals have to conform to such a standard when heterosexuals don't? In fact, people who wish to marry are a self selecting group which tends in general more toward the less extreme than otherwise. You are punishing the many for the extremes of a few. Better see what your mate is up to when he or she gets out of your sight before you cast these stones.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Kathy, Again, people doing inappropriate things in public is a separate issue from gay marriage, actually has no connection at all. Gay marriage is not a license to perform sexual acts in public. Perhaps if you wish to prevent such acts in public your work might start there rather than in preventing something completely unrelated like weddings.
Posted by WOW, a member of the Addison School community, on Nov 6, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Sounds like everyone just wants to ban Gays.The marriage issue is just the begining.What about gay illegal immigrants? Are they next? Let's just go all Salem on their a** and eliminate the problem.
But, what if the problem is you?
Be careful people, be very careful. ANYONE could be next, now that discrimination is rampant again. I want to ban organized religion, because it encroaches on my Gay lifestyle. Waddyou think about that peeps?
Apparently, "protected class" means nothing anymore. A majority can vote on the lives of a minority? What??? Remember Germany in the 1930's and 40's? You want that? You're gonna get it with these attitudes.
Live and let live--it's not like we want to marry your straight wife or husband. How insecure you all are. Oh, and shallow too.
Posted by Anonymous-08, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The CA supreme court justices invented the civil right of same gender individuals to marry. This is legislation, an abuse of their power. The documents they claim to interpret were written by poeple who considered same-gender relations to be illegal. There is no possibility of "finding" what they ruled. Impeachment is appropriate. Failure of our society to understand this and respond with a huge majority for Prop 8 indicates that the rule of law is unimportant to us.
Second, unions opposed prop 8 as a "bread and butter issue" (SEIU, Mercury News Nov. 2). The explicit goal is to extend spousal entitlements to same-gender unions. This includes social security and citizenship entitlements. Defeat of prop 8 would have provided an interest group for momentum in this direction. Just as the courts created an interest group by refusing to stay their decision until our Nov 4 vote: all the folks who "married" in the interim. Perhaps we should deny spousal entitlements to members of couples who never had financial responsibility for children, but in the meantime, denying them to same-gender couples creates less inequity than extending them would. The SS entitlement can apply to several ex- and one current spouse. It should be a legislature (not the courts), responsible for obtaining the money, that deals with handing out the entitlements.
Posted by Joan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm
You are not much good as a gay activist,
SF initiated gay marriage, see what they got sex and depravity in the streets of SF.
The gay activists like you do not seem to care.
Parents like me do care, we understand gay marriage is just the nose under the tent, next we will have homosexuality promoted in school( as in Boston and SF) and then the gay sex in the streets just like the linked report shows in SF, "whether we like it or not" says the mayor of SF and he means it.
Enough is Enough put a stop to this degeneracy NOW.
Posted by someone, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 6:12 pm
the fact that some people are so ignorant horrifies me. Gay people deserve just as many rights as straight people. It's just so wrong to denounce people because of their sexual orientation. What is the world coming too?
Posted by G, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Prop 8's approval rating went through the roof after the fieldtrip to the lesbian wedding in S.F. This was seen as evidence that gay marriage would be a core part of the curriculum in California elementary schools if it was allowed to continue, whether or not the parents objected. The disingenuous part of using this as an example is that this fieldtrip was organized by the *parents,* and any parents who objected did not have to send their kids. What separates California from Massachusetts is that here parents have the right to opt their children out of sexual, health, or religious lessons they disagree with. No one is talking about taking away that important right.
On the 'depraved' gay parades - has anybody ever seen video of Mardis Gras? Sexually charged public displays are hardly limited to, or the invention of, homosexuals - and are a completely separate topics. If its promiscuous sexual behavior you want to cut down on, then attacking the social reinforcement for committed, monogamous long-term relationships seems an incredibly backwards way to go about it.
True, there are videos produced by some gay activist groups that overstep the bounds of good taste (to put it mildly). But by same token, do the mainstream Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Evangelcal Christians, and Mormons want to be on the hook for every video, book, public statement put out by their own fringe groups?
Posted by susannah, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Given the violent riots and attacks this evening on the LAPD by gay activists in LA at a site sacred to Mormon Christians, we must seriously act upon classifying these violent activists as domestic terrorists and call in the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
The people of California have spoken, we live in a democracy, 2% of the population will not be permitted to terrorize the 98%.
We need to monitor these terrorists and apply the RICO act to shut them down and take them off the street.
Like the ecoterrorist who maimed and killed loggers we need to treat these violent criminals for what they are.
Posted by G, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Susannah, apparently you're reading a different set of news reports. The AP articles I saw described the protests as "mostly peaceful," indicated a total of 3 arrests - out of thousands of protesters. To then go on and describe the gay population as terrorizing the straight population, and calling for all gay activists to be classified as domestic terrorists based on these "violent riots and attacks on the LAPD" seems rather hysterical.
Posted by Anon, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 6, 2008 at 9:17 pm
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights" -- especially "equal rights."
... The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined -- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists?
Why not for pedophiles? ...
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation. ...
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business.
Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.
Posted by Jon, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 9:36 pm
This isn't an issue of separation of church and state, and any fool can tell you there is no separation of religion and politics, and will you stop scapegoating everyone who is religious? Talk about reverse-bigotry...
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:00 pm
It boggles my mind that people have so many busybodies in this state. If you don't like gay marriage, then marry someone of the opposite sex!
I think that younger people are much more accepting of gay marriage and I would like to beleive that if a measure comes up in a year or two which undos Prop 8 that it will pass. But then we will end up having Propositions every year attempting to make it unconstitutional.
How is this ever going to end? If the state only recognized 'civil unions' for any kind of couple, would that make a difference. Take the word 'marriage' out of the picture. The 'marriage' part would be handled by churches, and I am sure there would be clergy who would be happy to 'marry' gay couples.
Posted by George, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Kathy et. al -
Quite a few of the posters here support their pro-Prop 8 stance by saying gay marriage will result in public sex acts, approval of pedophilia, polygamy, and marrying one's dogs. Allowing same-sex marriage isn't the same thing as approving of it on a religious, philosophical, moral, or ethical basis. If gays are allowed to get married everyone is still free to disapprove of it, say that gays are going to hell for thier sins (just like a lot of other people) and raise their kids to beleive that what the gays are doing is wrong.
It's just that unless someone can come up with a clear, (preferably peer-reviewed) evidence that gay marriage - not public sex parades, not pedophilia, not polygamy - but the marriage of two people of the same sex will cause major harm to others then I have trouble seeing the justification for outlawing it.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Many people are not comfortable with the concept of homosexual relationships. I can see how otherwise good people might have been swayed to vote for this Prop given the commercials. I can also see that many reponses to this thread are coming from bigotted people.
Posted by George, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm
For outlawing gay marriage, I see a lot of appeals to tradition here, rather than any attempt to justify why those traditions are right. It took over a hundred years to grant women the right to vote and for slaves to be freed. During the formation of our great nation the idea that women, the poor, or non-whites were deserving of the same privileges that were granted to white, landowning males at the country's inception were ridiculed. This was the opinion of the majority of the electorate, but it did not make it right - despite many justifications both religious and secular. Today we see those justifications as petty, misguided and hollow at best. Until the latter half of the 20th century, interracial marriage was in the same boat and was supported by rationales not that dissimilar to those used here. It offended the sensibilities of many to see whites marrying non-whites, offended their understanding of nature, biology and god's plan. Am I calling pro-prop 8 supporters racist or sexist - of course not. Am I saying they hate gays? The majority almost certainly do not. No more than the majority of the electorate in our nations past hated women, non-whites, or the poor.
What I am suggesting is that they, like voters of past generations, feel threatened. Threatened because they have been told that the ability of two people of the same sex to call their legally recognized union marriage in California will lead to all sorts of calamities and the total breakdown of society. Told that the state allowing same-sex marriage will threaten their own marriages, that allowing same-sex marriages to be legally recognized will threaten their 1st amendment rights to disapprove of it. Well the American people were also told that allowing women, poor and nonwhites to vote would destroy the fabric of society as well. Lots of Americans feel threatened by gay marriage, but as time goes on I contend that the justifications for those threats will fail to materialize and history will lump in anti-gay marriage laws with anti-miscegnation laws.
Some people here indicate that a violent minority of gay activists are going to ruin it for all the others (who live quietly and unobstrusively so as not to offend the sensibilites of the majority) - and thus are going to bring retribution down upon the heads of the rest of the homosexual population. Do these posters mean to say that the violence of certain African-American groups during the civil rights movement justified the continued disenfranchisement and discrimination directed at all other black Americans?
Those who have described these violent homosexual activists attacking police please post links to news articles listing injuries sustained by LAPD. I have searched and cannot find documented instances of these 'terrorists' injuring our men and women in blue - just several protesters out of thousands being arrested for disorderly behavior and public drunkenness. There have been plenty of cases of self-identified 'Christians' attacking, injuring, and killing people because they were gay - yet I don't see gays on here warning of justified retribution or lumping all Christians in with those guys. Or saying that Christians should stop seeking recognition or their legal rights because 'a violent minority of activists have changed that deal.'
Prop 22 passed with a significantly larger margin than Prop 8 did. If and when Prop 8 is overturned, and the majority of the electorate approves it, will those of you supporting the morality of majority rule here switch sides?
Posted by Straight, long-time wife, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I hope by the time my kids are parents, this debate will seem archaic and unfathomable to their children, much the same way my kids feel when we describe slavery, the fight for women's suffrage, the civil rights struggles of the 60's today.
The government has no business in "marriage". Its business is legal entities/relationships, not sacraments. Leave the sacraments to the churches, temples, synagogues, mosques. . . The waters are so muddied because we've applied the term "marriage" to both matters.
Posted by George, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 12:15 am
Susannah & Amy - Since the previous postings, the protest/counter-protest at the LA Mormon Temple has now generated 7 arrests, with altercations between Pro-8 and Anti-8 supporters - still no reports of gay 'terrorists' attacking the LAPD.
Posted by seriously?, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 1:30 am
Oh grow up people. This isn't about bigotry. Most of us don't give a damn who you wind up with.
We just want to keep the Institution what it has always been, a union between a man and a woman. Call it a Civil Union, maintain your rights and stop the squawking.
God do you people EVER stop whining? And I don't mean gays, I mean liberals. You make a small problem into something big and ugly.
Part of the reason this Prop passed besides the Mormons is because of a robophone call to minority voters in Calif. with Baracks recorded voice on saying he didn't believe in gay marriage. It did stop short of where he also said he didn't approve of Prop 8 too, but the Sheeple went out and voted based on what the illustrious one said.
Wanna talk bigotry? How about 70% of blacks turned out to vote for Obama but they didn't do that for white candidates. They don't care about America. They only care about their own race. The reverse can't be said for other racial groups. Obama got in, didn't he? racism IS alive and well, but it's not in the colors you think.
Posted by WOW, a member of the Addison School community, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:31 am
"YOU PEOPLE" That phrase has started more instant conflict than, "Beloved Children's Theatre".
These 2 issues have made me re-think what PA is really made up of. It's a facade for hateful people to hide behind, while pretending to embrace diversity, local and global responsibility, and the advancement of the less privileged. I'm just disappointed. This place is full of fake liberals, with their various bumper stickers for peace, global harmony, and Amnesty International. Take a wiff peeps, you stink.
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:35 am
Sussanah---civil rights should not be decided by a popular vote. And Mormons are not "christians"--they are a cult, that believe that everyone else will go to hell. When they need to change doctrine, their leader has "revelations" from their lord.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:16 am
Dear Joan, There has always been depravity and there always will be. I protect my children from it. Gay marriage has nothing to do with depravity. Depravity does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. However, you do.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:41 am
By the way, the Catholic church has no right to claim a superior moral stance on this issue since they for so long harbored pedophiles and promoted their depraved acts under the guise of religion. Mormons, likewise having sacrificed the well being of women and children for the benefit of depraved men has no right to be taken seriously on matters moral or otherwise. Because there are depraved homosexuals as well doesn't mean all homosexuals should be penalized. I have only known well meaning upstanding homosexuals and see no reason to deprive them of full membership in society because of the behavior of some.
Posted by George, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:42 am
No On 8 - While I certainly agree civil rights should not be decided by popular vote, many other Christian faiths regard Christ as the *sole* path to salvation, and were labeled as 'cults' at the time of their inception.
What's at issue isn't the validity of the Mormon Church, or any other faith, but the lack of validity and justification for using those beliefs to segregate governmental recognition of same-sex unions.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 9:11 am
1) If 'civil unions' are considered equal by Prop 8 supporters, then the government should abolish 'marriage licenses' and just issue 'civil union licenses' to everyone. Somehow, I think there would be a big stink if that were done.
2) I am not a lawyer, but I think the issue with 'civil unions' is that while it may be possible to make is equivalent, rights-wise, in California, what about federal law and other states? If you have a civil union and are traveling in another state, is the civil union recognized by the local jurisdiction? I am thinking the answer is probably no.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 9:16 am
Don't you have any empathy? If we passed a proposition that said that people named michelle could no longer marry, wouldn't you be a little angry? If you knew that some groups were behind it, you would just shrug it off? Maybe your anger would not personally rise to the level of violence, but I am sure that there are other michelle's in California who might not agree with you.
If the NAACP was running commercials and pumping lots of money into the campaign then your question might be a valid one.
Posted by N on 8, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Anne--you need to relax--"unhinged losers"???? "Prop. 8 opponents today threaten not only Mormons and Catholics"???
where do you come up with this crap--the mormon guide to answering critics???
Civil rights should not be decided by a vote at the ballot box--imagine a vote 30-40 years ago in the south about equal rights for blacks--think that would have failed overwhelmingly?? would it have been right??
The mormon church will get their comeuppance. Anyway, shame on the general public for following the mormon church, which considers everyone non-mormon as unworthy dirt.
Posted by Noeight, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm
would supporters of prop 8 get out of other people's bedrooms please? Do you have to be a peeping tom and confirm the genders? what is is SO satisfying about being able to dictate that if 2 people want it to be the bond of marriage you are to deny it?
Does it bother you is that there aren't more people involved. maybe more women sharing a man? what's that but a marriage between many woman and one man?
Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Me too. I was only married by a judge. after 39 years are you going to tell me I am not married but have only a civil union? OhlonePar is right. Marriage has always been a contract. That's why civil laws apply to it. If many of the supporters of prop 8 make a claim for religious basis what follows is that divorce (which is a civil proceeding) should not exist for those christians married in a church ( "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder"). In fact in many catholic countries that was the base for denying divorce to those married religiously.
Religion a la carte as some prop 8 clearly espouse is not worthy of respect.
Posted by tj, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The gay activists now want to eradicate marriage for everyone, 2% forcing their values on the 98%, whether you like it or not.
The backlash will be long deep and wide
Potential of riots tonight by gay activists in SF, the tolerance for ACT UP etc is over, if they riot they go to jail according to the SFPD spokeswoman--- good for them-- get some backbone to confront these anti democratic thugs
Posted by Robert U., a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Hey tj, considering that prop 8 passed 52% vs 48%, I think your statement that it's 2% of people forcing their values on 98% of people is inaccurate and wrong (2% is not equal to 48%, at least not in the schools where I studied).
Like Narnia and OhlonePar, I married my wife at the city hall, not in a church. And my wedding ceremony is as valid as any religious marriage. Therefore, marriage is not a religious institution only.
It has become a social contract, period.
As for the religious sanctity of marriage, it went down the drain when they authorized drunk people to marry at little wedding chapels in Las Vegas, and when the divorce rate reached 50% (divorce is prohibited by the Church).
Posted by Sick in the Head, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Why not have the definition of marriage include not only same sex couples but also arrangements like same sex groups, mixed gender groups, a man and his beloved dog, a woman and her favorite cat, mixed gender and animal groups and so forth.
After all who are we to deny people whatever kind of marriage makes them happy ? Who are we to discriminate against those who are different from us ? It's none of our business what others want to do. We all believe in equal rights and equal protection don't we ?
And while we're at it, we should accommodate not only transgender people but transspecies people as well. I was born in the wrong body because I have always known that I am a pink bunny rabbit and I will never really feel comfortable or happy until my body is adjusted to fit my true identity.
Posted by oohright, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 6:57 pm
i agree with mary and ted but i also would like to point out that a lot of people dont/didnt understand prop 8, under civil union (which queers have now) they get the same rights as they would if prop 8 passed. Therefore all prop 8 does is change the definition of marriage to include homos, the state should not have this right because marriage is not a right implied or otherwise in the constitution because it is religious, controlling marriage to this degree is like controlling prayer. In a way changing the definition of marriage by law and allowing gays to marry eliminates the separation of church and state.
an unfair law would being taking away the queers' driver licenses, prop 8
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Thank you oohright - I did not realize that it was simply the use of "marriage" that was at stake. I was "married" at City Hall, as was my sister, my brother, and my parents. I've alway's looked at as a way to legalize my "marriage" (now 20 yrs). I am a bit surprised as to why, either way anyone cares about the use of the word " marriage" - I know plenty of people who are not "legal" but have a great "marriage" - and then there are all of those that have been "married" multiple times. Maybe "marriage" belongs in the churches - it would not impact my life in any way - just as allowing gays to use the word "marriage" does not impact me.
There has to more to it??? In any event, there is a separation of Church and State and there should be an equality of rights for all!
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Mary and Ted--your bigotry knows no bounds--you should be ashamed of yourself. Civil rights should not be left to a vote of the people.
You make it sound like all gays are evil and all heterosexuals are above reproach and have not engaged in any actions that they should be ashamed of (or does the murder of Matthew Shepherd, for example, constitute something that is okay with members of faith???)
Posted by SUMD, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The Shepherd issue was a meth deal gone wrong, this matter has been proven.
Violence is unfortunately epidemic in the meth culture, unfortunately meth use is very common among male queers.
The lesson of that horrible murder is do use meth.
Probably best to stick to the topic, the 98% is in fact rapidly loosing patience with the radical gay activists.
Homo marriage has been a disaster in Holland, disease rates and domestic violence rates are epidemic, studies show that married male homos have an average of 8 extramarital sex encounters per year.
The gays in the USA have lost an enormous amount of moral property in the last few days, if the radical activists keep up their bigoted attacks on Christians the property and bank account of good will will be gone.
Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm
The state which confers benefits upon married people (that are not the same and more than those in civil unions) has an interest in limiting those benefits to what's pragmatical and doable. That is why marriage is between two people though we do know from the past and the present that there were and there are marriage like family structures of more than two people and not only amongst LDSs. The government doesn't exist to regulate relationships between any number of people. The function of the state in these cases is only one of protecting the rights of its citizens. In that respect the person who asks "why not three and the dog?" seems to have no idea of what are the underpinnings and origin of what created the state administration and why the state has a vested interest in legal recognition of marriage between two people only.
In other words, I haven't seen yet any coherent defense of prop 8. It's difficult to dialog with morally deaf people.
They seem to be in such state . What a dreadful state they are in, frightened out of their wits; and have such tremblings, such flutterings all over them such spasms on their side, and pains in their head, and such beatings at heart, that they can get no rest by night nor by day until they are sure that others can't have what they have ( apologies to Jane Austen and Mrs. Bennet).
Posted by Henry J, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm
This topic is tedious, and irrelavent to 98 percent of Americans
The gay activists should focus on the 50% HIV/AIDS rate among black homos/bisexuals, the epidemic of domestic violence and drug abuse, the new epidemic of gay MSRA Web Link could be much worse than AIDS
Frankly, the American tax payer are fed up with paying for the consequences of the homosexuals sexual " freedom"
Posted by Eli, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I can't believe I live in a city with this many theorasts.
To SkepticAl: Thank you for writing the only post that actually made any sense at all.
Regardless of how you feel about marriage (gay, straight, polyamorous, whatever), the issue is about equal protection under the law, an issue that I can't believe is being discussed in the end of 2008 when we just elected a 2nd generation half-Kenyan without old-money connections.
This will be looked at in 50 years as yet another hurdle in the struggle for civil rights, and by then the vast majority will be ashamed that their parents and grand parents took away such an essential right -- equal protection under the law -- just like our parents and grandparents maybe have voted in support of segregation or ethnic-marriage restrictions 50 years ago.
Posted by Henry J, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 9:12 pm
here are the facts on MRSA
LONDON: A potentially deadly and highly drug-resistant strain of MRSA has developed that can lead to a flesh-eating form of pneumonia, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday.
The bug, which is spreading rapidly among homosexual men in several major US cities, can cause boils as large as tennis balls, blood poisoning or a necrotising condition that eats away at the lungs.
The newspaper said the type of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was identified in gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.
The new strain is a far more vicious form of MRSA, commonly found in hospitals, and is believed to be resistant to most antibiotics. It is thought to be spread by sexual contact, researchers have reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Experts, who found that sexually active gay men in San Francisco were 13 times more likely to be infected than heterosexuals, fear that promiscuous gay or bisexual men could spread the bug to the general community, mirroring the infection route of the early HIV epidemic of the 1980s.
The strain is also prevalent among injecting drug-users and players of contact sports.
"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study, told the Telegraph. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."
In San Francisco's Castro district, home to the highest concentration of homosexuals in the US, about one in 588 people is carrying the multi-drug-resistant bug.
"We probably had it here first, and now it is spreading elsewhere," Dr Diep said.
According to the report in the Telegraph, the new strain was first detected in a San Francisco patient in 2003 and is a version of a recently identified community form of MRSA known as USA300, but even harder to treat.
The USA300 strain was first identified in 1999 after it killed four young children in North Dakota and has since become a serious problem, responsible for the majority of admissions for infectious diseases in US hospitals.
Although only two cases of the lethal strain have been recorded in Britain, experts who spoke to the Telegraph said it might only be a matter of time before it became established there.
Dr Diep said: "These multi-drug-resistant infections often affect gay men at body sites in which skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activities.
"But because the bacteria can be spread by more casual contact, we are also very concerned about a potential spread of this strain into the general population."
Posted by Bea, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 10:06 pm
This will refute all the points more eloquently than I could have: Web Link
Now what is your excuse for voting yes on 8?
Did it occur to you that the reason gay people might (and I'm not saying that they do) have more sexual partners is because they are not offered the option of marriage? Sure, they can have a "civil union" in some states, but in most cases, gay people are not encouraged to form longlasting bonds with another member of the same sex. Perhaps if our society supported their long term relationships, they would not have underground sex scenes. Eh?
Posted by oohright, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 11:17 pm
like when one queer rails another queer in the butt
it not offensive because its what they do, thats like calling straight people "normal sex" and saying thats offensive
the radicals in everything are what screw up everything radical republicans, democrats, muslims, and queers, if they just accepted life and didnt go to extremes to impose their views on others we wouldnt have so many problems.
Queers should just take civil unions and keep the gayness in the privacy of their homes.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 8:13 am
This 2% thing is ridiculous.
48% voted to allow Gay marriage just as the COURT ruled.
This stands to show that 46% of the "straight people" support a basic right.
A right that would allow inheritance without conflict or denial, hospital visiting rights, combined credit scores and many, many other advantages that married people enjoy, regardless of whether they are aware of these rights, they have them.
Was the Black Panther movement a valid reason to deny African Americans their Civil Rights? NO. You cannot punish the entire "protected class" because a small fraction of people included within that group are "activists" or "criminals".
It is the same thing, just a short few years between the movements.
Here are some random stats:
only 2% of convicted murderers are Women.
less than 2% of convicted child molesters are Women
less than 2% of registered sex offenders are Women
less than 2% of convicted felons are Women
Do you see it? 98% of these despicable criminals are MEN.
How many Women are in charge of or the Spokesperson for a Church?
I could go on, but you see, based on these stats, it is clear that the majority of what we call "bad people" are MEN.
Yet, Women have suffered endlessly under MEN, and still are.
However, married Men and Women enjoy these basic rights to pursuing happiness and equality under the law.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:05 am
TOLERANCE IS NOT ACCEPTANCE
Anne,you are misguided. I do not have an agenda against Men. I was merely making a point that people just can't see the forest through the trees.
By the way, that Man hating thing is so knee jerk and outdated.
If I represent the "real homosexual agenda", then God help us all. I have not put forth my "agenda" here, because I don't have one besides non-discrimination for all, and I mean ALL.
And, I'm not an "unhinged loser". I just believe that this issue has been heated and distorted beyond belief.
These things will be solved over time, and not everyone will be happy, just as some people today are not happy with interracial marriage, Affirmative Action, or their 15 year old daughter dating someone of a different background.
No one is right or wrong here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am just so shocked and disappointed with the hateful writings here. This issue is way too divisive to be constructive.
Yes, I'm one of "them", not a radical, activist, or pervert. I'm just a gay person. A human, with emotions, dreams and ambitions. And a prayer for Peace in this troubled world.
Strategy does not matter when the world is so full of hate. People are, after all, just people. I just hope that one day Love will mean more than Hate.
Posted by tj, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:13 am
N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 ProtestWeb Link
"Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse... Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU N*GGER, one man shouted at me. If your people want to call me a F*GGOT, I will call you a n*gger... A young WeHo clone said after last night the n*ggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them."
The media were warning that if the election went the wrong way there'd be riots, but I didn't realize they meant Klansmen in Abercrombie polos roaming West Hollywood itching for a rumble.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:39 am
This is quite disturbing.
Please don't blame this hatefulness on the entire Gay population, because of the actions of a few. This random, disgusting behavior is not condoned by the "mainstream" Gay population.
Look at the behavior of certain White people in the South, where the 'N Word' is alive and well and being taught to children as acceptable. That is not to say the entire White population is accepting of this and as a White person, I find this unacceptable.
Let's all take a few steps back and get back to trying to move on. Just ignore ignorant behavior, as most reasonable people do and know that the good of the people will sustain society, whatever ones definition of 'good' is...
Seriously, get off the radical bandwagons (BOTH SIDES) and pay attention to the real problems plaguing our State.
Posted by oohright, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:06 am
my point is that gays dont have the right to encroach on the churches territory (marriage) when most christian religions (where marriage started) are against queers. I have nothing against queers as long as they keep the gay in their homes. I said it before radicals f up everything. The gay radicals ruin it for the homos i would normally tolerate. but the flamers are being to gay for us to ignore them.
Posted by oohright, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:36 am
this in no way takes away religious freedom, its saying that religions have the right to determine who they allow to marry. the churches choose to deny this right to homos, so by choosing to be gay the queers are eliminating their opportunity to marry
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:47 am
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity.
Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process.
Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected.
The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
Posted by TruthBeTold, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:06 am
Proposition 8 is not about rights, but is about protecting marriage and families against the destruction of traditional marriage. Allowing gays to marry will not give them any more rights than they already receive. Section 297.5 of the California Family Code provides that persons who register as "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses." Proposition 8 will not change that; gays will still be able to live their lifestyle. The desire of gays to marry is to legitimize their relationship and destroy what marriage has traditionally stood for. If the institution of marriage is declared a right for all individuals then any laws that restrict that right will be declared unconstitutional, requiring that polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriage be made legal.
Marriage, from the beginning, has always been between a Man and a Woman. No one has a right to change this except for God. This is what Prop 8 is all about.
Posted by sara brown, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:15 am
If anyone is wondering why Blacks are homophobic, it’s not because they’re knuckle-draggers.
This isn’t hard to understand, if you can just put yourself in their skin for a minute.
Back in the 1950s, before civil rights was a household term, a motivated and disciplined group of people, suffering indignities daily, rolled up their sleeves so to speak, and crafted a strategy to bring the issues of racism and discrimination to a head.
People like King and Parks chose their battles carefully, and carried out a very methodical and difficult plan to bring this issue to resolution in the political, judicial, and public opinion arenas.
King paid with his life.
No sooner were they having success with this that a number of “me too” grievance groups;
Hispanics, Feminists, and eventually Gays wanted to ride their coattails.
It’s not hard to understand why Blacks would resent this, because
1) they did the hard work, and
2) I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but Hispanics, women, and Gays were never kidnapped from their continent, made to work for centuries as slaves, and then let loose without any education into a world where if some white guy felt like hanging you, he could for no reason.
On top of this, you can’t hide your skin. You’re marked, and that’s that.
And then when all of the “me too” grievance groups pile on, your problems get lost in the shuffle.
It’s not hard to understand why so many Blacks jumped ship from Hillary to 0bama, when you consider how they’d been taken for granted for decades by the Democrat party.
And this being taken for granted, rightly or wrongly, is blamed on all of the “me too” groups.
If you simply can imagine how they have been used throughout their history, this is not at all hard to understand.
What to do about it at this point? I don’t have a clue.
But running around West Hollywood shouting the “N” word isn’t going to help in fact it is profoundly alienating most members of the 98% who were previously supportive to gays.
The vile bigoted hatred gays are now throwing at Christians will put the final nail in their coffin.
I saw one gay protester in SF yesterday with a sign that said
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:19 am
The people who came to this country and "settled" ie:colonial terrorists, based on their subsequent actions, arrived on this land to escape religious persecution from, guess who? The Catholic Church.
What happened after that, was horrific, at best and has taken hundreds of years to try and heal from the atrocities that Native Americans, African-Americans, Japanese and Armenians among others have suffered horrible injustices in this country and it just
is par for the course it seems. I have faith that eventually we (as in Americans) will have enough security in their own lives and feelings to just live and let live. I will continue to pray for peace and justice.
Oppression sparks activism.
The list of "activists" include people with names such as
Martin Luther King
Winonna La Duke
The list could go on practically forever.
All these names and countless others are people associated with working for change and justice. And freedom. And they all are/were great people who will go down in history as people who changed the face of this great country."Whether you like it or not."
If you want to force people back into the closet, that may very well happen. Just remember that an organized "underground movement" can be devastating when it emerges.
ALOT of the Gay population have a great deal of wealth, power, political affiliation and brains, even though the actions of a few may tend to show otherwise.
Spread love, not hate. It is very damaging to our (American's) values and pride.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:37 am
You are correct, my fact was wrong,but only in the sense that I used the "wrong" religion. You really could insert any group, entity, or race into the statement and it would still hold true.
The fact is that people settled here to escape persecution.
AND, it does not in any way invalidate my entire post.
Making a mistake does not constitute ignorance in any instance.
I'm not whining, and I'm not unhinged either.
I'm certainly not looking for sympathy, I don't need any. Sympathy in these issues come from like minded people. People who value diversity and live by it, don't need validation because they are true to THEMSELVES, not anyone else
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The Pilgrim Fathers indeed came from England because they were being prevented from following their faith the way they wanted it. The English throne was changing from catholic to protestant and back again and each time those of the "other" denomination were persecuted. The group the Pilgrim Fathers came from was from a group called the Puritans, because guess what, they wanted pure religion as they it to worship their God in the way they saw fit. In other words, they were what today may be called religious zealots. The word "pilgrim" is actually a religious word meaning religious journey to a holy place, and they felt that they were going on a pilgrimage which would be a new chance to preserve their faith in a new land without being told which religion they should follow.
This had nothing to do with giving up religion, but much more about going back to the fundamentals of the Christian church before politics became involved. The catholic church had become too powerful and the protestants had used Martin Luther as the means to denounce the power of catholicism and its dogma. It had nothing to do with Henry VIII wanting to become a protestant in order to divorce his wife, because he just wanted to continue being catholic but he didn't want the Pope telling him what to do. He decided that if he became head of the Church in England, he could make whatever decisions he wanted. He did not want to become a protestant because that meant he would have had to follow Luther and that was once again taking away his supremacy. Luther was the first to realise that the catholic church was moving further away from the teachings of the early Christian church and his movement protested against that.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 8, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I agree with you to some extent. Actually alot of what you have to say. The fact of the matter is, that due to the success (although not total success) of the Civil Rights Movement, an oppressed group often compares its self and it's cause to that movement and era.
Perhaps a better comparison would be to the Women's Suffrage Movement less than 100 years ago that lead to the right of ALL WOMEN to be able to cast a vote in an election. What a novel idea...we seem to forget how long ago this was. My Grandmother could not vote until she was 45 years old.
Some people may not be aware that even after Emancipation, Male Blacks in this country did not have full voting rights. Because of White oppression, and the ultimate FEAR that Black people would actually have any power, each Black Man's vote counted as 3/5 of a vote. It is unbelievable, yet so believable. Nothing much surprises me any more.
Sara, I know what you mean about the escalating rates of disease and the apparent non-response to the community that it is effecting most these days. I would hope that these trends change and help to bring about help, resources and outreach.
Don't think for a minute that there isn't discrimination within a certain minority. It's rampant. It exists within all cultures and groups. Within groups of people, there will always be elitists, racists, ageists and misogyny. That is just how it is.
I really hate to see these issues start to divide people, but sadly, it is happening.
Posted by Anne, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The hatred this week is coming from gay activist bigots who are attacking God fairing Christians.
The 98% are rallying around Christians, more every day.
As for the gay activists taking on the Blacks, they should be careful, the Bloods and the Cripps have quite a reputation for total violence.
A bridge has been crossed and burned by the homosexual activists, it did not have to be this way, but now "it is what it is" whether we like it or not, Gavin Newsons words could not be more true, but not in the way he intended-- unfortunately
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Anne and Sara Bron--you are both clueless-you blame the actions of a few on everyone in that group. I guess all white, christians hate gays because of the Matthew Shepard affair (and no it was not about drugs, it was a hate crime).
What about the intolerance shown by the mormons and catholics who say only their religion is the t rue one and everyone else will burn in hell???
Give me a break--mormons and catholics are responsible for so much hatred and intolerance (and abuse against children) it is unbelievable.
Posted by peter s, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm
No on 8,
I am sure you realize that bigoted anti Christian slander like yours is just fanning the flames and alienating the 98% in droves.
Some Facts in the face of your venom.
95% of the abuse in the Catholic Church was by gay priests against boys, that is why they now prohibit gays from being priests.
The Laramie Project was pure propaganda and hagiography, even Andrew Sullivan, the gay advocate and blogger at Atlantic Monthly, acknowledges that it was not a hate crime but a methamphetamine deal gone horribly wrong.
You would have to go back to the Inquisition for examples of atrocities by Christians and that was trivial compared to the 200 million slaughtered by Godless regimes since 1930s under Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot.
By the way, it was the Christians who abolished slavery.
We put up with all these lies and slanders in the past, but never again.
You and people like you have burned the bridges, so be it, let the chips fall as the will.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Uh, Charles? Resident? Anglos were not the only people to come to this country to escape religious persecution. In fact, Ribaut and his Huguenots came from France to escape oppression by the *Catholic* church. The6y founded one of the three oldest settlements in North America (St. Augustine), two others being Quebec and Santa Fe. And anyway that isn't even th point.
Why is it that every group that goes through oppression in this country and gains tolerance becomes completely intolerant? Very disturbing sociological fact. And in answer to those who say that persons who are registered as domestic partners have qual rights, I will just say (again . . . sigh . . . ) that even if they have all the same rights in California, they do not have the same rights under federal law. So no, the tow are not equal. More like "separate but equal" -- Brown v. Board of Education style.
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Peter S--your bigoted comments do not deserve an answer from me--your outright lies and distortion of the facts are disgusting.
Ironic that you claim that I am spreading ant-christian slander, given the lies and distortions used by the Yes on 8 campaign.The hatred and intolernace spread by so-called christians in an abomination--whether it is the murder and/or assault on gays and their rights, the attacks on abortion clinics and their workers and the continued sexaul abuse of children by catholic clergy.
Also do not forget that Hitkler's silent partner in the holocaust was the catholic church.
Shame on you and shame on the mormon and catholic church.
Posted by oohright, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 4:20 pm
no on 8, while the church does not tolerate a lot of things, you said
"What about the intolerance shown by the mormons and catholics who say only their religion is the t rue one and everyone else will burn in hell???"
1- if you dont believe in the religion the threat of hell means nothing so stfu
2- also the church encompasses such a large majority of the people that when it acts it acts in the interest of a much larger group of people so if the church doesnt want homos ruining marriage they are acting on behalf of the majority of people, the fact that prop 8 passed is proof of that.
so stop being a d-bag and whining about rights for queers the people that ruin everything are radicals, whether its fags, religious idiots, or republics, the minority of radicals screws everyone else
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Peter S--your bigotry is showing--you make the claim, which has been proven to be false, that gay men are pedophiles and assault young boys--bogus period.
Really how many priests died in the camps? Look at Poland--the most Catholic country in the world and the most anti-semitic. Hitler's pope, Pius XII is up for sainthood and jewish organizations have come out against him. The Vatican was Hitler's silent partner.
As for attacks on abortion clinics and murder of doctors that perform abortions, you need to check your history book. It still happens.
I am not looking to win friends from the ranks of the bigoted like you.
Civil rights should not be legislated at the ballot box and we want more than just tolerance.
Save your bigoted remarks for your next mormon get together
Posted by peter s, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
1/ 98% of the population are heterosexual, they are the sleeping giant the gay bigots have now woken up, they are not supportive of gay anti religious bigots.
2/ In fact I am an Orthodox Jew, we too supported Prop 8, as they say , some of my best friends are LDS.
3/Not all gays are pedophiles probably very few, but all the Priest in the scandal were Pederasts
Wiki "Pederasty or paederasty refers to an erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. Pederasty has existed from earliest times through a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. Pederasty has been criminalized at various times in history, and today its legal status in most countries is determined by whether or not the boy has reached the local age of consent".Web Link
4/The allegations about the Vatican and Hitler are nonsense.
5/Abortion is wrong but it is legal and will remain so, Murder is wrong and it is illegal and will remain so.
6/Marriage is not a Civil Right in the United States, read the Constitution
As you are not going to win the arguments on the Facts or the Law you are trying denigration and bigotry---- It will not work -- buddy
Posted by readyourbibleson, a resident of the Palo Alto Orchards neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 5:51 pm
bible condones slavery
bible mandates men not to shave their beards
bible condemns homosexuals
bible condemns adultery
bible condemns theft
bible condemns murder
bible condemns ostentation
bible condemns excesses
bible preaches compassion
a guy walks into a bar. the bartender asks him why he looks so clean-shaven. he tells him that his wife caught him raping one of his slaves, so he picked up a razor, killed them both, and found the nearest street corner at which to pray. the bartender asks him why he's so calm. "it's a no-brainer," he says, "i got jesus, so the slave i raped didn't ask me to marry him."
come on, all you yes-on-8 bigots, christianity is a mess of outdated, hypocritical superstitions.
and don't tell me racism in our country is extinct just because we elected an intelligent man to the presidency.
Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm
please keep me out of those 98% you say are straight and oppose prop 8. Decency has nothing to do with sexual orientation. but even the number 98% is clearly wrong in California.
How do you made this up I wonder? You keep at it even in the face of the numbers that were obtained from the ballot. Close to half of the California voters said no to prop 8. Almost 5 million of them.
It is one thing to have a point of view and express it. Another is lying which is what you are doing with your 98% as demonstrated by the ballot. I will no longer comment on your posts. I am not open to those minds whose distortion and hatred are so powerful that even the simplest reality is not sufficient. It was 48% to 52% and if you don't understand these numbers I suggest professional care.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Nov 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The 2% thing is not a fact. It's more like 10%, but there's no way to prove it. Who really cares. By the time everyone is pushed back into the closet, 2% is about right for people who will "admit" that they are Gay.
That's what is ironic about the moniker I use here. I wouldn't dare use my real name, because I may be tracked down and well, who knows what given the hatred I've seen here.
This thread is VERY PROPERLY named. "Bigotry is alive and well in CA" (and beyond)
I feel like we just took things back about 30 years....
Posted by Beth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I think we have exhausted the debate on this thread, the overwhelming verdict is in favor of Pro 8 and a caution to the gays to curb their attack on Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, Blacks and Orthodox Jews.
The gays have ignored this caution, so be it, there is nothing left to say IMHO
Posted by God Says, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Humans, please don't persecute gays. I made them.
Human's don't force gays into hiding.
Don't force them into heterosexual relationships and then them into homophobic Republican politicians. Not to mention gay-looking Morman men who just have to show that they are not gay by having multiple wives.
Oh Humans,you guys have such a God complex. Remember I made you.
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm
1) you've got your numbers all wrong--but even if they are correct, are civil rights determined by number? According to you all gays are bigots, while the rest of the 98% of the population (according to your fuzzy math) are not.
2) really, you are an orthodox jew? then how do you explain that you have been using the internet during the sabbath??
So, I guess you also support the LDS going into jewish cemeteries and converting jews to mormonisn???
Yeah, you are an orthodox jew!!!
3) previously you stated that all the catholic priests who molested young boys (with the knowledge of the pope and the cardinals) were gay. Now you claim that they are pederasts. What about non-catholic priests that molest young boys--what are they? Bottom line these child molesters are pedophiles. What do you call LDS men who molest young girls?
4) Nonsense to you--facts are there--the Vatican has kept it';s archives closed for fear of the truth coming out. The Holocaust survivors know what the church did, there have been books written on it. Pius was complicit with the nazis--he was an anti-semite. the current pope is a former nazi as well. nothing changes with the Vatican--anti-semtism, child molestation, their policies regarding birth control especially in the 3rd world (life begins at conception and ends at birth as far as the Vatican is concerned), while accumulating wealth and living like kings at the expense of the local parishioner.
5) not the point--you stated there have not been attacks on abortion clinics for decades--go check your numbers again
6 so if marriage is not a civil right, then a man and woman have no right to be married either.
your closing comments show how empty your arguments are.
Posted by peter s, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I have to confess. That you all are right. I am wrong and I will leave my wife and lead a homosexual lifestyle. I will denounce my orthodox lifestyle. My wife does not shave her legs and her hair under her wig is really nappy.
I will take college courses to learn the truth instead of talking to closed minded people.
Posted by I voted, a resident of another community, on Nov 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I don't have a sheet, I do know what a fudgepacker is, and though this may seem queer, I did vote for Prop. 8, even in spite of the climate of fear and persecution that the No on 8 proponents used to forward their agenda. Need I explain myself to a gay man or lesbian why? I think not. I respect their right to vote and he or she should respect mine. Please don't beat me up or spray paint my car with all of your tolerance.
Posted by mary nugent, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Well the lines have been drawn, the hatred expressed by homosexuals towards Jews and Christians is now crystal clear, no one has come forward from the Gay community to denounce it.
2% vs 98%, as another poster said, it did not used to be this way, but now it is.
From my point of view it reached a tipping point with the LDS home invasion ad by the No on 8 camp, it has gone down hill since then very fast.
We now need to talk about the public heath threats which the homosexual life style creates, stop the denial. Let us face the facts and enact the public heath laws re quarantine for HIV+ people who continue to be vectors for disease, such actions are coming, whether you like it or not. There is now a limit, enough is enough.
Posted by sillyqueers, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:15 pm
the gays are going to burn in hell in the afterlife which is the only one that really matters so us straight people will have the last laugh when the queers are BURNING IN HELL
god hates gays because they circumvented gods punishment for men: women
gay dudes dont have to deal with women because they just rail each other instead, god is not a nice guy so for beating him in this life fags will be punished by having to swim in a lake of eternal hellfire
Posted by gay actifist ur asshole, a member of the Egan Middle School (Los Altos) community, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm
i think i can speak for us homos as a whole
1) gayness is not a choice just like what colors look good in certain seasons
2) anyone who voted yes on prop 8 is a bigot who hates gays because denying us the right to marry is like cutting our cocks off, without them there is no reason to live, just like life where you cant marry the gay dude you 10\/3
Posted by Joshua G., a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I am not a mormon. I don't even like the mormon church. But I agree with them in this matter.
Why is it that some people believe in "tolerance" only if you agree with them and their particular social and economic views?
Marriage has NEVER included a union between anyone other than one man and one woman in the United States. Activists have tried to change this fact, but the majority of Americans agree with the traditional definition of marriage. Of course, it isn't in the US Constitution -- but probably because the founders never thought that it would ever become an issue to begin with!
It seems that tolerance is limited to the views of the Left in this near-backward society.
Posted by Joshua G., a resident of Stanford, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:25 pm
It looks like some of these posters are just "trolls" who are trying to play "devil's advocate."
I don't know anyone who preaches HATE toward homosexuals. Yet it seems that those on the farthest ends of the Left feel the audacity to HATE anyone who disagrees with them -- even upon moral, religious or traditional grounds.
Hate is wrong (unless it is a hatred for what is truly wrong). I don't hate homosexuals (in fact, I think that they have every right to be a homosexual). But I draw the line when a small segment of society attempts to redefine marriage to suit their own particular lifestyle.
Marriage has been considered "holy matrimony" in Western societies for over a thousand years. Since when did it become open for debate?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 12:42 am
Marriage has never been restricted to "holy matrimony"--people of all faiths and non-faiths get married. It's a legally binding contract. It's not and should not be restricted to people who are religious.
As long as marriage confers particular legal rights and privileges (as well as responsibilities) it's disingenuous to pretend it's simply a religious matter.
Sara Brown, of course women were enslaved and denied rights--or don't black women count as women? Women, in general, were denied basic rights and protections that allowed for any sort of self-determination. Married women were deemed to hold a legal status similar to that of children.
It took a very long time to change. Perhaps you think women had no right to the vote because it took them an additional 50 years to get it after the 14th Amendment. I remember when married women were finally allowed to establish their own credit and get their own credit cards--it was only around 1970. Just because one group of people faced severe discrimination does not mean that discrimination against other groups was nonexistent or somehow shouldn't be redressed.
And, oh yeah, you also can't hide being a woman any better than you can hide skin color.
Yes, homosexuality can be concealed in a way skin color and sex cannot--but why are we making that demand of gays and lesbians? Why is that kind of self-expression so terrible?
As for the whole idiotic discussion of who's the bigot--one set of people worked very hard and spent a lot of money to strip another group of people of a right that they already had.
I think it's pretty clear who's doing the discriminating.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 9, 2008 at 4:16 am
OK, it's official:
A Gay has officially condemned the actions of the Gay Activists.
I thought I had put forth in earlier posts that this is disgusting, non-productive behavior on both sides of the issue. I guess saying something to the effect of don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole cause just didn't cut it.
I and everyone else I know that happens to be Gay (it's not a choice) does NOT support the detrimental and unspeakable acts of verbal abuse, violence and downright hatred towards a group of people based solely on their beliefs.
Just like all the people I know that support Animal and Environmental issues don't go around breaking and entering facilities to free Lab Animals, nor do they set Hummer's on fire to prove the point that they are big polluters. You see?
Everyone, just stop it. I don't even know who to look in the eye anymore, I'm just so disappointed, with all of us. Hate breeds hate.
And, to whip out a somewhat old phrase..."HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE"
I am sure I'm not the only Gay out here that feels that way, but I do condemn these acts by a few radicals. It is hurting any possible progress and hurting the cause.
I, as a gay can marry another Gay. There are loopholes. I know a really nice Gay couple who just love me and my partner. We can each marry the other's partner, and then just have an affair with our friends spouses. See, GAY marriage! Yeah. That's not traditional either, now is it? BUT it's a form of GAY MARRIAGE. Try stopping that.
The point is, ive and let live, folks. Things will get settled out they always do over time.
Posted by No on 8, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 9, 2008 at 7:05 am
Figure it out--there is one or two posters, under different identities stirring th epot on this thread with their pro-8 comments. read what they write--notice the identical comments in the supposed different posts. One phony identity is that of an Orthodox Jew (peter s)--even though he was posting during the sabbath--something a orthodox jew would not do. Mary Nugent is another phony. All the posts have the same claims--the bogus 2% number and the claim that all gays are displaying hatred towards christians and jews!!
Posted by Joshua G., a resident of Stanford, on Nov 9, 2008 at 9:12 am
I don't know what it is about the "tolerance" of certain activists that makes them so entirely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. My personal beliefs do not equate to "bigotry" or "hate." I simply stand opposed to homosexual marriage on traditional moral, cultural, religious and personal grounds. Why is this "bigotry?" If it is, then you have pointed the finger to tradition, culture, the Bible and even me.
I recently moved here to attend this great school. Yet I am shocked beyond reason by the hypocrisy of this area. This place was supposed to be tolerant, yet I have seen more HATE than I thought could ever come from a "free" society. If I vote for McCain, I must be an idiot. If I vote for Proposition 8, then I must be a "bigot."
Please understand: A small group of activists and their friends in Court or the government should not define morality for the rest of us. Look up the history and etymology of the word "marriage." For 230+ years, marriage has been considered a binding religious and civil contract between a man and a woman. Any attempt to "change" that definition has led to strife (remember the early Mormons and their ideas about polygamy?).
Suddenly, the 21st Century gave rise to homosexual individuals who boldly proclaim their "right" (which didn't exist...ever...in this nation) to enter into a marriage. Ironically, the "marriage" that they seek is already provided legal protection through "civil unions." Yet that is not enough. These men and women feel discriminated upon to the point where they want to force the government to change the common law definition and extend marriage to them also. Why? It would equate, at least to some, that the government sees homosexuals couples as being no different from traditional married couples.
Is this the role of the law? Is it supposed to be "changed" along with the changing times? Or is there a law that is so profound that it withstands the changes of the times?
Yes, we are all guaranteed equal protection under the law -- that the law protects all Americans equally. Slavery was a gross injustice in our nation's history -- but it was seen as such even by most of the earliest Americans. Some northeastern states had laws against the slave trade from the beginning of this nation! Those who attempt to equate opposition to gay marriage as the same as "slavery" are doing themselves a disservice.
However, this does not mean that we are all equal in our goals. I still cannot walk down the street and do the same things that women do. I cannot walk into a bathroom stall that is already occupied by a woman. Why? First, I am not a woman. Secondly, it is already occupied by a person. There is a separation of genders that does not equate to bigotry but to protection. Again, my dad cannot enroll in a high school. Why? He is 53 years old. Yet high schools are limited to students under the age of 21. Equal protection allows a man or woman of my dad's age to enroll in HSE classes.
I know that this sounds silly -- especially to those of you who are unwilling to consider the position of those of us who supported Proposition 8. Let me make this clear: I am not a bigot. I don't hate homosexuals. I just don't think that marriage exists for them. That is what "civil unions" are for. A man and a set of women (or vice versa) might truly believe in the concept of polygamy, but it doesn't mean that the government should redefine marriage for his views either.
It is a disservice to most Americans (who support a traditional and religious definition of marriage) when activists parade the streets and point their fingers at the rest of us and call us "bigots."
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm
If all yes-on-8 people were of the agree-to-disagree school, I'd have less of a problem with it. But the fact is the pro-8 campaigns were extremely dishonest. Claims were made that gay marriage would be taught in schools--there was no such requirement. There were long rants about "gay MRSA"--a nonentity. And there are still ooh-yuck rants about homosexual sexual practices (don't like 'em, don't do 'em.)
Religion is a choice. Taking away a previously held right from another group of people was a choice. And it wasn't an expression of tolerance.
When you voted for 8 you voted for intolerance. You have reasons for this intolerance, but intolerance is exactly what it is.
I said before the election gay marriage is not a big issue for me--but the intolerance I've seen and the distortions I saw by the pro-8 campaign bother me quite a bit. Why couldn't the pro-8 supporters sell the proposition on its own "merits"?
When I look at gay marriage I just don't see how it harms me or my family. It doesn't invalidate my marriage. It doesn't make my own marriage less acceptable or traditional. Honestly, I think the bigger threat to the institution of marriage is the casualness into which some people enter and leave it.
And if I don't see harm to my family or society then I'm for people living their lives. I know a gay couple that married after 35 years together. Their happiness was incredibly moving to me.
Posted by peter s, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm
It is nonsense to say that a vote for Prop 8 is a vote for intolerance, in fact a vote against 8 is a vote for intolerance.
Gays have tolerance under domestic partnership provisions.
The court should have stayed its decision until the voice of the people was heard, activist judges caused this problem for homosexuals.
98% of the population is heterosexual. The 2% want to impose their values on the rest, as they are doing in Boston.
The people of California said NO.
The No on 8 campaign was bigoted, the last straw was the LDS home invasion ad, it backfired big time.
The continued bigotry towards Christians and Orthodox Jews, the riots in the streets are dramatically eroding good will towards gays in the 98%. They would be well advised to stop digging the hole even deeper.
Rather than wasting $40M on a futile effort they could have spend that money and effort to deal wit the epidemics of domestic violence, STDs and drug abuse in the gay community.
The gays have tolerance, what they want is approval and advocacy.
No one has the right to approval. It is time to move on to the important issues.
Posted by Gene, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Joshua G -
I don't think most of the posters are *equating* anti-gay marriage with slavery, what they are doing is pointing out how religion, tradition, and thousands of years of culture can be wrong. *Most* early Americans did not view slavery as a grave injustice - it enjoyed tremendous popular support, just as keeping the vote from women did. There was no right to vote for women, because there never had been. There were also many who were opposed to these policies, and saw them as disenfranchisement. Similar opposing political forces are at work here.
The 47.7 percent of California voters who opposed prop 8 either regard those traditions and religious values as either wrong, or not universal enough to impose them on all Californians. Anti-Prop 8 voters are not "sore-losers," any more than the 52.3 percent of voters who supported Prop 8 were "sore losers" for crafting Prop 8 when Prop 22 was judged unconstitutional.
I am a happily married man and I voted against Prop 8 in no small part because allowing gays to get married, and call their unions "marriage," doesn't redefine *my* marriage; it doesn't do anything to it whatsoever.
Posted by Kathie, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm
My brother is gay. He lives the gay lifestyle, including a longtime live-in lover, and many, many outside lovers. He is HIV positive. I will not allow him around my children, becasue he is always trying to recruit 18 year old boys into his web. If he lived next door to me, as a married man, I would move, becasue he a definite danger to my kids, especially the example that he provides.
If gay marriage is allowed, then all those organizations that oppose it will be driven to ground by lawsuits. Just look at the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army. Gay marriage will, absolutely, be taught as normative in our schools, and any objection, by students or parents, will be harshly dealt with...just can't tolerate those homophobes.
The more people learn about the gay lifestyle, the more they will oppose it. Marriage, or any version of it, will not stop this lifetsyle, that is another myth put forward by the homosexual agenda.
I am very happy that Prop 8 passed. I am also very happy that Obama won, and I will make my voice heard, if he steps away from his opposition to gay marriage.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Who are you to decide what should be the priorities of the gay and lesbian community? You voted to take away a right that they had.
Again, how is that tolerance to take away a right?
When the colonies took away the right of women to vote was that tolerance of women? Since when did disenfranchisement become a form of *tolerance*?
What right have any of us voted to take away from Mormons because they are Mormon? There's your point of comparison.
I mean it's not hard to make a similar claim about Mormons that you're making about gays and lesbians. Mormons should quit worrying about gay marriage and worry about their own high rate of divorce and some of their fringe extremist groups that force teenage girls into unwanted marriage and condone certain kinds of rape.
Scrutiny cuts both ways. I think it's perhaps not coincidental that some of the groups that oppose gay marriage the most strongly are the groups with high divorce rates, high teenage and unwed pregnancy rates.
Posted by 2%, a resident of Los Altos, on Nov 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm
It is tragic that these numbers are fact. I hope there is some way to drive the point home to this section of the community and the spread of HIV can stop.
I'm sorry,if I offend anyone, but this is the fact about HIV.
It has been around since AT LEAST 1982.
There has been massive, accessible information on how the disease is spread available in multiple languages, community centers, colleges and clinics of all sorts, and really everywhere in the USA.
If there are a certain group of people who are contracting this disease at an alarming rate, then I just don't know how you can stop it. It stops with the people making RISKY CHOICES in their personal lives. PERIOD.
Please do not blame ANYONE EXCEPT THE PERSON WHO CONTRACTS THIS HORRIBLE VIRUS. It is 100% preventable (to consenting adults and teens) in this country.
If this reality shocks you, and it must, because people have brought it up several times, then please get out and do outreach, donate to a program in the African American community and do what you can to help people instead of blaming people.
I am looking for a local resource to do just that with my 4th quarter charitable contributions.
Posted by Chill, folks., a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 5:59 am
My heart is heavy. So easy for Gays to have all the responsiblities and privileges of straights in unions...just don't call it Marriage.
Call it anything else, and gays would right now have everything...including bringing in partners from other countries and making them citizens, and social security benefits.
Advice to all...go after all the legal underpinnnings first with a different name. Let a generation go by under the different name..let everyone relax, THEN go for the name change.
IN the meantime, stop shooting yourselves in the feet, cutting off your noses, and all the other cliches. You now have endangered hope of equality under law because of a name in 30 States. IN some, you have even had civil unions thrown out in backlash.
When are you going to learn?? This is NOT like slavery and voting rights. This is about a word definition. Take the folks at their words, they just want their RIGHT ( in their words) to keep a word defined the same. They don't want the word changed so that there are children being taught about Prince and Prince, and being taught that marriage means many things. Believe them!!
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thank you to all who have added to the discussion here. I so appreciate our right to express our opinions without being tossed in jail or otherwise punished by our government. As I read through the posts I appreciate the diversity of thought and opinion and the way people come to their decisions based on what they know and how they see the world and others. Also, having dialog about difficult things helps to expose what is underneath what at first might appear to be a simple matter. As with the Bush/McCain versus Obama issue, people who are more educated and capable of seeing things from a more humanistic perspective tend to see the gay marriage issue as a matter of human rights, while those dominated by fear and ignorance have been easily convinced that evil lies in gayness just as other such people have been convinced it lay in jewishness, in witches, in dark skin, in that other religion, which ever was the suspect flavor at hand.
Posted by All natural, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 10:21 am
MD, how callous! You’re implying that homosexuals should not be allowed to live full lives which include their sexual beings and the possibility of loving, monogamous relationships. As an MD you probably understand that homosexual orientation is determined by nature -- not choice -- and therefore is rightfully termed “natural”. It is man-made religion – not nature - that decided that homosexual behavior should hand-plucked from naturally occurring events as socially unacceptable.
If you use the laws of evolution to back up your argument, then please explain what sort of rights and equalities we should extend to the impotent or the severely learning disabled? Surely neither of these groups help evolution, but do we think of them as “unnatural” or consider limiting their access to legal marriage or public education?
Posted by NoMoreBreadAndCircuses, a resident of another community, on Nov 10, 2008 at 12:47 pm
One of the big lies about homosexuality is that one is born that way. All of the scientific evidence to date shows that it is nurture NOT nature that leads to a homosexual orientation.
For many years a great deal of time and money has been spent on studies to find biological and/or genetic causes for homosexuality and nothing credible has been found. You can be sure that IF such evidence existed you would hear about it ad nauseam, especially from the No on Prop. 8 crowd.
Furthermore it was well known that the etiology of homosexuality was psychological, before activists sued to have that data and diagnosis removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders back in the 1970's. Removing scientific data does not nullify it. This was just a political move to erase the inconvenient facts from public awareness. (It is true that people don't "choose" to be gay any more than they choose to have a fear of heights or some other psychological issue, but that is not the point.)
Like the M.D. who posted above stated, homosexuality is counter to natural law and to evolution. It is not "normal" and it should not be promoted by society. For a society to survive (in Darwinian terms) it must promote and protect those institutions that are its essential building blocks, like marriage between a man and a woman. If a society fails to do so it ceases to be viable and goes the way of old Rome.
Posted by Sandra, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Nov 10, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Marion, for demonstrating that those who support gay marriage do not understand sociology, psychology, medicine or indeed any science at all. And you assume that you represent the educated. You have been emotionally manipulated by false arguments about "equality" and "cvil rights" and so forth. You are so full of yourself and your feelings of moral superiority that rational discourse is virtually impossible with you.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm
nomore - In Darwinian terms, you should have no problem with gay marriage, because in fact it makes gay marriages way more likely that they're not in the 'gene pool' procreating new children, instead taking their 'genes' to the grave with them when they die. Otherwise, as you would have them do, they pretend to be straight, they get married to the opposite sex, have kids, and the beat goes on. And this holds true whether you believe its nature or nuture. (Because if it were nurture, their family history/upbringing also lives on in their mental framework and is likely passed on to future generations.)
To correct your flawed understanding of evolution, darwinian principle says that for a society to survive, nature ensures that only the strong survive, NOT that society forces the 'weak links' back into the mix. Therefore, if you believe gayness is a weakness (which you obviously do), a strong society would allow gays to find each other and go forth together, live their lives out happily ever after together, not bothering anyone.
Its actually an exceptionally weak society that is so marred in man-made constructs of 'tradition' 'religion' and 'bible' that they can't see nature's Truth.
Posted by Dave, a resident of Woodside, on Nov 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I do know personally two people who went to therapists, worked on their issues and happily and sucessfully changed their orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. Both of them have remained straight for over twenty years now.
I have also spoken to friends of mine who are professional therapists (and not religious) who have seen extensive evidence in their clinical practices that homosexuality is psychological in origin. There are multiple factors involved but there are some interesting and consistent patterns. There are also distinct differences between male and female homosexuals.
It is not politically correct for therapists to publicly say these things if they see them, so they just don't. They don't want trouble.
The studies on homosexuality are biased and pretty meaningless overall. Unfortunately, the funding for such studies is frequently politically driven.
If anyone thinks that they have found a good study on homosexuality, (and not just the diatribe posted above which does not include any raw data) please post it. I really would like to see it.
Posted by NoMoreBreadAndCircuses, a resident of another community, on Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Parent, in your post above you wrote; "...if [homosexuality] were nurture, their family history/upbringing also lives on in their mental framework and is likely passed on to future generations." Yes! This is precisely why it is not in the best interest of children to be adopted by gays.
By the way, no one said gays are genetically weak (except maybe those looking for genetic defects that supposedly create homosexuality). Their behaviors just don't promote the best interests of society.
Strong societies ensure both the propagation and protection of future generations. Humans are like no other animal and they cannot survive outside of societal structures, no matter how strong they are genetically. A child cannot raise itself or survive outside of a basic family structure. A family needs the support of societal institutions to survive and thrive.
A society is strong when its institutions are strong. If those institutions crumble humans revert to selfish behaviors that generally do not insure the survival of the species. Unless a stronger society conquers it.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm
NoMOre - you did above, by reiterating a prior made statement "homosexuality is counter to natural law and to evolution. It is not "normal" and it should not be promoted by society.", and then wrongly linking prevention of gay marriage to darwinism. Sorry, mince words if you want, but that's what you said. By the way, many societies have crumbled in the time of mankind, but mankind goes on. Your argument that its somehow in the best interest of mankind to prevent gay marriage is in inself absurdly selfish. You equate the very existence of mankind with a religious belief system which YOU hold (as if YOUR religious belief system is the only hope for survival of mankind.) In fact the term marriage is a religous construct, there are many societies of humankind that survive without marriage ceremonies in your church.
The bottom line is that marriage of all kind is a religious rite, and should be stricken from law all together. The government needs only to be in the business of civil unions for everyone (contract law). Marriages should be defined and carried out by churches. I wouldn't be surprised if the next supreme court battle ends up in this very place.
Posted by tyrone jones, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm
i personally hate gays and hope queers burn in hell but as much as i am sickened by fags and their gay activities i tolerate them, i dont really care whether they have civil unions or marriages as long as they keep the gay in the privacy of their homes and dont flaunt the gayness in public
Posted by no on 8, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm
tyrone you are a horrible person there is nothing wrong with being gay, there is nothing they can do about it, its not as if gays choose to be the way they are, how would you like it if someone said liking girls is wrong
Posted by J. M., a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 9:45 pm
O.P. please, tyrone is using typical liberal tactics. That's how we know who he is.
Another liberal tactic is to scream that you are the victim when in fact you are the victimizer. Just turn on the TV to see who is doing the rioting and name calling. Just read the No on Prop. 8 posts in this forum to see who the religion bashing bigots are.
The Republicans are not crying, screaming and threatening violence because the voters screwed up and elected Obama now are they. But the police had to be ready for major riots if the spoiled Democrats had lost. The tantrums of the sore losers on Prop. 8 have shown that the concerns of the police were completely justified.
Of course you can't see yourselves, so here we are holding up the mirror for you. Try to take an honest look.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Right, you're not a liberal, but you're an expert on liberal tactis. Sure.
The real reason we're not getting fits from the GOP over the election is that Bush's failure as a president is too blatant to ignore and McCain's campaign was too chaotic.
And, again, one group spent a lot of money to take away a pre-existing right from another group of people. How is the former group the victimized?
I've asked about this before and none of the Yes on 8 crowd can give me an answer. Instead there's an attempt to ferret out any non PC reaction from gays and use that to justify their being stripped of the right to marry.
You, as a pro-8er have made it very clear that you will not *tolerate* gays marrying one another. But now you squeal because gays are upset about this and, gee, some of them have been intemperate in the expression of that anger.
Posted by fed up, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 12:31 am
Gays never had the right to marry, so no rights have been stripped from them. They do not have the right to redefine marriage to suit themselves period. This certainly does not make them victims. They don't have the right to attack people because they didn't get their way either.
I've been around liberals my whole life; friends, family, teachers, co-workers and neighbors. I believed I should just live and let live. I was wrong.
I've now seen 40+ years of their faulty thinking, superficial solutions, self indulgence, self delusion, irresponsibility and arrogant nastiness. I've seen the damage they have done with their so called "good intentions".
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Yes, they did and they were marrying.
The courts defined it, not gays.
Nate Silver makes a point that the Obama surge did not result in Prop 8's passing--the majority of new younger voters of all ethnic persuasions voted against it. Silver (at fivethirtyeight.com) further notes that if no one over 65 had voted, Prop. 8 would have failed.
In other words, it's a generational thing. So, we can expect opposition to gay marriage to literally die off. Really, just a matter of time.
Posted by TheLastLaugh, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm
It is clear that when all the grown-ups are gone, the clueless, narcissistic baby boomers and their equally clueless youngsters, will finally be "free" to do whatever they want. Society will go the way of the dinosaurs.
You can have your "Lord of the Flies" world. Probably some totalitarian regime or another, like radical Islam, will come in and take over what's left of this country after you've finished trashing it.
Posted by yell it like it is, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I don't really like straight people either, but I tolerate them.
It kinda makes me sick when I see them making out and groping each other in public.
I guess I'm ok with it as long as they don't shove their lifestyle down my throat, ya know?
Because what they do in their own bedrooms is none of my business. I just don't want to think of my girlfriend actually performing fellatio on some pig that's gonna roll her over and give it to her you know where anyways...