Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[the rover]

this thread reminds me why I don't like people.

 

[the rover]

wouldn't this be simpler if we just did away with government recognition of marriage? if you want a civil union for the purposes of taxes or insurance or whatever, great.

then people that want to get married in a church, or a park, or in a drive-thru in vegas can do it, but it won't mean anything to anyone but them and/or their church, if they care about that sort of thing.

 

[Saints-Man]

wouldn't this be simpler if we just did away with government recognition of marriage? if you want a civil union for the purposes of taxes or insurance or whatever, great.then people that want to get married in a church, or a park, or in a drive-thru in vegas can do it, but it won't mean anything to anyone but them and/or their church, if they care about that sort of thing.

Yes, this is the true answer.

 

[snitwitch]

wouldn't this be simpler if we just did away with government recognition of marriage? if you want a civil union for the purposes of taxes or insurance or whatever, great.then people that want to get married in a church, or a park, or in a drive-thru in vegas can do it, but it won't mean anything to anyone but them and/or their church, if they care about that sort of thing.

Yes, this is the true answer.

Yes, but you're both forgetting the Sanctity of Marriage argument.

 

[WisWolvrns]

and the fact that marriage is for pro-creation. not just some physical lust fest that once you are done with you divorce and find another... albeit that is the direction things have been going since the divorce laws, so it makes sense why a lot of people don't see it. the govt should just stick with civil unions, no religious group is caring about that. the problem is these people are pushing for 'marriage title' to spit in the face of religions and force them to do "their" religion...

it is amazing how people don't see the alternate "religion" that is cropping up. relativism with alternate lifestyles and global warming... it's all a secular religion, which is pushing it's secular values down the throats of religious organizations to convert.

 

[The Z Machine]

However, you don't find it wrong that, if true, 21% of the population (likely all supporting gay marriage) think priests/ministers should be forced to wed gay couples (or any couple really)???

Priests are not "forced" to marry any heterosexual couple as it is right now. If two Buddhists walked into the church and wanted to get married, the priest would tell them to get lost. I'm not sure why people think this is an issue. I am vehemently against Prop 8, and would never vote for churches to be 'forced' to marry people.What I fail to understand is the crowd that justifies banning gay marriage because being gay is a sin, yet they don't think twice about two convicted felons getting married. A sin is a sin, and everyone I know sins on a daily basis.

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

Here's the deal: You keep religion out of government, and I'll keep government out of religion. OK?

 

[Dickies]

However, you don't find it wrong that, if true, 21% of the population (likely all supporting gay marriage) think priests/ministers should be forced to wed gay couples (or any couple really)???

Priests are not "forced" to marry any heterosexual couple as it is right now. If two Buddhists walked into the church and wanted to get married, the priest would tell them to get lost. I'm not sure why people think this is an issue. I am vehemently against Prop 8, and would never vote for churches to be 'forced' to marry people.What I fail to understand is the crowd that justifies banning gay marriage because being gay is a sin, yet they don't think twice about two convicted felons getting married. A sin is a sin, and everyone I know sins on a daily basis.

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

Here's the deal: You keep religion out of government, and I'll keep government out of religion. OK?

 

[the rover]

wouldn't this be simpler if we just did away with government recognition of marriage? if you want a civil union for the purposes of taxes or insurance or whatever, great.then people that want to get married in a church, or a park, or in a drive-thru in vegas can do it, but it won't mean anything to anyone but them and/or their church, if they care about that sort of thing.

Yes, this is the true answer.

Yes, but you're both forgetting the Sanctity of Marriage argument.

that part of my constitution seems to be missing.

 

[scoobygang]

and the fact that marriage is for pro-creation.

My marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I'm still kind of fond of it.

 

[Gr00vus]

and the fact that marriage is for pro-creation. not just some physical lust fest that once you are done with you divorce and find another... albeit that is the direction things have been going since the divorce laws, so it makes sense why a lot of people don't see it. the govt should just stick with civil unions, no religious group is caring about that. the problem is these people are pushing for 'marriage title' to spit in the face of religions and force them to do "their" religion... it is amazing how people don't see the alternate "religion" that is cropping up. relativism with alternate lifestyles and global warming... it's all a secular religion, which is pushing it's secular values down the throats of religious organizations to convert.

This is one of the most disjointed and bat #### crazy posts I've ever read in the FFA.

 

[The Z Machine]

and the fact that marriage is for pro-creation.

My marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I'm still kind of fond of it.

You obviously shouldn't be married if you're not serving God's will by making little Jesus-freaks.

 

[quickhands]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

 

[B-Deep]

I am pretty sure jesus would be anti porn, yet i never hear these same Christians rallying to ban all private viewing of pictures of naked women???

forget proposition 8, how can all you holy people be using the internet when i can type in a url and see two unmarried heathens defiling their bodies in multiple ways with multiple device in orifices that I am quite sure jesus would never want us, shall we say, exploring

Isn't this as great of threat to the moral health of our country as gay marriage? assuming this is not all just a front for homophobia and hatred of that which is unlike you, of course, which it cannot be.

Of all the sins that have been made legal, and are being made legal daily, i wonder why so many Christians are so up in arms about gay marriage.

God explicitly forbids worshiping other gods, many times, it is a core tenant of the Christian faith, yet you all live in a country where religous freedom is a core principle GUARANTEEING the worshiping of other gods. Why not the fight for that? If you truley believe any laws tha legalize sin must be fought, you MUST fight for Christianity as the state religion, anything else is hypocrisy.

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

*Thou shalt have no other gods before me

those two laws are in direct opposition. We should have no other gods and the united states constitution specifically guarantees the right to other gods

So fight THAT and then i will give you some credence as actually believing this garbage you are spouting, till then the whole lot of you are giving Christians a bad name spouting your homophobic hatred and trying desperately to blame it on jesus. Those same tactics were used to defend slavery, it was wrong then it is wrong now. You should be ashamed

 

[Balance]

and the fact that marriage is for pro-creation. not just some physical lust fest that once you are done with you divorce and find another... albeit that is the direction things have been going since the divorce laws, so it makes sense why a lot of people don't see it. the govt should just stick with civil unions, no religious group is caring about that. the problem is these people are pushing for 'marriage title' to spit in the face of religions and force them to do "their" religion... it is amazing how people don't see the alternate "religion" that is cropping up. relativism with alternate lifestyles and global warming... it's all a secular religion, which is pushing it's secular values down the throats of religious organizations to convert.

what the hell?

 

[scoobygang]

I am pretty sure jesus would be anti porn, yet i never hear these same Christians rallying to ban all private viewing of pictures of naked women???

I don't think we need to be too charitable to assume that guys like Crosseyed are anti-porn.

 

[B-Deep]

I am pretty sure jesus would be anti porn, yet i never hear these same Christians rallying to ban all private viewing of pictures of naked women???

I don't think we need to be too charitable to assume that guys like Crosseyed are anti-porn.

yet they don't campaign on it?where's the anti porn candidate?and i want them to be anti first amendment as well.Freedom to worship other gods is freedom to sin, much like gay marriage. The first amendment therefore must be sinful, and i assume they are trying to get it overturned.

 

[GDogg]

However, you don't find it wrong that, if true, 21% of the population (likely all supporting gay marriage) think priests/ministers should be forced to wed gay couples (or any couple really)???

Priests are not "forced" to marry any heterosexual couple as it is right now. If two Buddhists walked into the church and wanted to get married, the priest would tell them to get lost. I'm not sure why people think this is an issue. I am vehemently against Prop 8, and would never vote for churches to be 'forced' to marry people.What I fail to understand is the crowd that justifies banning gay marriage because being gay is a sin, yet they don't think twice about two convicted felons getting married. A sin is a sin, and everyone I know sins on a daily basis.

I know that isn't how it currently works... What bothers me is that that many want it to work that way...

Who in their right mind would want to pick a priest whom they know does not really want to marry them? The couple getting married is going to pick someone who is happy to marry them.

Catholic priests actually turn away Catholics all the time. "Sorry, but you're not in our parish district."

 

[scoobygang]

I am pretty sure jesus would be anti porn, yet i never hear these same Christians rallying to ban all private viewing of pictures of naked women???

I don't think we need to be too charitable to assume that guys like Crosseyed are anti-porn.

yet they don't campaign on it?where's the anti porn candidate?and i want them to be anti first amendment as well.Freedom to worship other gods is freedom to sin, much like gay marriage. The first amendment therefore must be sinful, and i assume they are trying to get it overturned.

Yes, yes, yes. And nobody can be favor of enforcing the law unless they're pulling over every speeder on the highway.I'm on your side, but you're not doing us any favors with these ridiculous slippery slope arguments. There are certain injustices I donate my time and energy to stopping. I realize there are plenty of other equally unfortunate injustices. I'm not a hypocrite just because I'm not also trying to stop them.

 

[B-Deep]

I am pretty sure jesus would be anti porn, yet i never hear these same Christians rallying to ban all private viewing of pictures of naked women???

I don't think we need to be too charitable to assume that guys like Crosseyed are anti-porn.

yet they don't campaign on it?where's the anti porn candidate?and i want them to be anti first amendment as well.Freedom to worship other gods is freedom to sin, much like gay marriage. The first amendment therefore must be sinful, and i assume they are trying to get it overturned.

Yes, yes, yes. And nobody can be favor of enforcing the law unless they're pulling over every speeder on the highway.I'm on your side, but you're not doing us any favors with these ridiculous slippery slope arguments. There are certain injustices I donate my time and energy to stopping. I realize there are plenty of other equally unfortunate injustices. I'm not a hypocrite just because I'm not also trying to stop them.

BSthere's no way any reasonable person can read the bible and think that homosexuality is on par with worshiping other godsno wayand our kids are, EVERY DAY, being taught that worshiping any god you want is the american wayi have NEVER heard a christian decry the first amendment as a sinful law, never

 

[GDogg]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

 

[the rover]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

ridiculous that that's a question...

Larry, from the questions I have seen in this thread, this was a Push Poll where the questions were designed to force you to respond in favor of bigotry. It was a ridiculous question to ask only if you ignore the obvious motivation.

or ridiculous that 21% feel that clergy should be forced to perform marriages for couples when it violates thier beliefs? (remember only ~ twice that feel the issue should fail, which means it is a pretty good assumption that half of those against this bill (and thus for gay marriage) want to force clergy to marry them)

I'm saddened that only 50% of those in favor equality figured out what was going on at this point. After hearing the loaded question of the poll I would have agreed that clergy under penalty of death could marry only gay couples. Absurd Push Poll questions deserve absurd answers!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

We celebrate the second marriages of divorced couples every day.

 

[the rover]

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

We celebrate the second marriages of divorced couples every day.

Adulterous heathens!

 

[CrossEyed]

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

We celebrate the second marriages of divorced couples every day.

So you are suggesting that all second marriages are sinful?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

We celebrate the second marriages of divorced couples every day.

So you are suggesting that all second marriages are sinful?

I'm not going to argue about Matthew's additions to Jesus' condemnation of divorce in Mark. All I need is a tiny percentage of second marriages to fall outside of Matthew's looser "rules" for my point to be true. We accept and celebrate and endorse as a society (maybe without you) adulterous second marriages every day.

 

[the rover]

Yes, we all sin. But if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then accepting gay marriages is celebrating and endorsing sin. That's much different than offering grace and mercy toward people who sin.

We celebrate the second marriages of divorced couples every day.

So you are suggesting that all second marriages are sinful?

But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[Gr00vus]

Independant poll indicates more against than for prop 8, but gap is narrowing:

October 23, 2008

While California voters remain closely divided on the question of gay marriage, a majority oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

But the poll also found that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has gained somewhat since a similar survey was taken in late August. The latest results show 44% in favor and 52% opposed, with a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.

 

[beavers]

Independant poll indicates more against than for prop 8, but gap is narrowing:

October 23, 2008

While California voters remain closely divided on the question of gay marriage, a majority oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

But the poll also found that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has gained somewhat since a similar survey was taken in late August. The latest results show 44% in favor and 52% opposed, with a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.

:golfclap:Thanks to the bigotry in this thread, I just donated $$$ to the NO on 8 cause. And I live 2500 miles away.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Fivethirtyeight analyzes polling data on the issue.

I went to Tahoe for a wedding two months back. My girlfriend and I stayed at a B&B, where one morning we ate breakfast with two women in their 40s that were there to get married. They had been together for over ten years, delayed getting married back when the law first allowed it to avoid media coverage or anything like that, and were now getting married just in case the law changed.

I've always been a supporter of gay marriage, but it was never so clear to me as to how discriminatory it is to disallow it then by meeting those two women. We would live in a better country if everyone in America got to sit down with that couple and hear about their decade long romance, and the ridiculousness of a country that widely won't recognize it as acceptable.

 

[Sand]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

When I think about this proposition, I still get steamed about the horrific actions of the judicial officials in Cali that refused to delay implementation of their legislative mandate (i.e. court ruling). Instead of waiting to implement until the people could vote they legislated from the bench. Whether you agree with the content of what they did or not it was a terrible, terrible decision. The judges involved should be ejected from the bench.BTW, hasn't California has enacted laws to give gay couples the same legal rights that they did not have vs. straight married couples? If so how is this bill discriminatory? If I remember right all this does is block gay couples from getting officially "married". There are no legal deficits, though, so no legal discrimination, correct?

 

[beavers]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

When I think about this proposition, I still get steamed about the horrific actions of the judicial officials in Cali that refused to delay implementation of their legislative mandate (i.e. court ruling). Instead of waiting to implement until the people could vote they legislated from the bench. Whether you agree with the content of what they did or not it was a terrible, terrible decision. The judges involved should be ejected from the bench.I also don't see how this prop is discriminatory. California has enacted laws to give gay couples the same legal rights that they did not have vs. straight married couples. This prop just adds the ability to get officially married. In a legal rights sense this bill has zero discriminatory content in the state of California (from my recollection). Other states are different.

I can't stand hearing about "activist" judges. The role of judges is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law. [taken directly from the ABA website]Where does it mention that they should wait for the vote of the people??

And Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. Do not believe the propaganda stating that they are. Separate is not equal.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Prop 8 a Toss-Up

A 'yes' vote on California Proposition 8 would amend the state's constitution to prohibit gay marriage. A 'no' vote would maintain the constitution, which the California Supreme Court ruled in May provides equal protection for gay marriage.

SurveyUSA and PPIC have new numbers out on the issue, with SurveyUSA having the gay marriage ban leading by 3 points, and PPIC having it trailing by 8 points. Field should have a poll out on the issue sometime next week.

Both the PPIC and SurveyUSA polls have Barack Obama leading by large (20+ point) margins, so I'm not sure that opponents of the measure can count on some sort of turnout surge above and beyond what is already reflected in the polls. There are evidently fair numbers of Obama/'Yes on 8' tickets, especially among the state's black and Latino populations.

Ballot measures are notoriously hard to poll, so we really have no idea where this thing is at, although it seems fair to say that it's chances of passing -- after a heavy advertising campaign by the Yes on 8 people -- are better than they were a couple of months ago.

There are also a couple of X-factors to keep in mind:

On the one hand, there have been suggestions that there is something of 'Bradley Effect' on polling on gay marriage bans, and that such measures tend to overperform their polls, although a more recent analysis refutes this suggestion.

On the other hand, because ballot measures are confusing, it is usually better to be on the 'No' side of them ... people tend to vote 'no' on things that they don't understand. In this case, that gives an advantage to the marriage equality folks. (It may even be the case that some voters vote 'no', thinking that they're voting no to gay marriage, when in fact the wording of the resolution is such that a 'no' vote protects gay marriage).

I'd peg the 'no' side as about a 55/45 favorite, but not more than that.

-- Nate Silver at 9:40 AM

Labels: ballot initiatives, california

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/pro...p.html#comments

 

[scoobygang]

And Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. Do not believe the propaganda stating that they are. Separate is not equal.

In California, Civil Unions have the exact same legal effect as marriage. For all it's rhetorical power, Brown's statement that separate is inherently unequal is kind of baloney. Courts have never taken that passage all that literally. I think Brown could have been argued more strongly on the ground that segregated social services blocked minority access to political mechanisms by separating them from mainstream society. I hope the proposition fails. I am sympathetic to those who believe that having the word marriage bestows a degree of state respect and dignity upon their unions. I would hope that the democratic process would reach a result that recognized that. I'm not sure that I agree with the California court that the failure to do this represents a Constitutional injury. And we should, at the very least, give Californians the credit for NOT floating up an Amendment like Virginia did. This doesn't bar anything trying to "approximate marriage".

 

[The Man from Laramie]

I can't stand hearing about "activist" judges. The role of judges is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law. [taken directly from the ABA website]

"Activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" are exactly like cries against "special interests."Essentially the terms are defined, respectively, as "Judges whose actions run contrary to what you would like" and "those interests whose goals you don't support."

They are left ambiguous so that the ridiculousness of the statements aren't so brazenly apparent. Then you get people like Palin, who "know" they disagree with Supreme Court decisions, even though they can't name any.

 

[CrossEyed]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

 

[the rover]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

why do they feel they need to lie from the outset? he claims if you don't vote for the proposition, same-sex marriage will become legal. you'd think if it was valid, you wouldn't have to misrepresent what people are voting on.

 

[CrossEyed]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

 

[Gr00vus]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

If your ideas are sound, and you can express them clearly and completely, you have nothing to worry about when they compete with other ideas in another person's rational considerations.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

 

[beavers]

And Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. Do not believe the propaganda stating that they are. Separate is not equal.

In California, Civil Unions have the exact same legal effect as marriage.

This statement is false.

 

[CrossEyed]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

I just watched the video. I'm familiar with this guy's story because I lived in Massachusetts when this was going on. The school apparently asked him to leave for like two hours and he refused. So the police took him away.It seems to me that the message of the video is "if you don't want to have to talk to your kids about stuff, vote for this referendum."

 

[Gr00vus]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

Marriage is not part of school curriculum in California.

 

[scoobygang]

And Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. Do not believe the propaganda stating that they are. Separate is not equal.

In California, Civil Unions have the exact same legal effect as marriage.

This statement is false.

There were six identified "differences" in the CA code identified in a footnote the California court decision. None of those differences entailed any substantive legal rights. They were largely clerical and would likely be cleared up.Listen, I've read the case that spawned this amendment. Even the petitioners didn't seriously contend that civil unions are treated substantively differently in California than marriages are. They just aren't. And as long as the Defense of Marriage Act is federal law, the treatment of gay marriages and civil unions outside of California won't differ either.

I'm on your side. But we should make our arguments honest.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

Is it really an issue of morality to acknowledge that gay families exist? Do you really expect parents to be notified every time the kid with two daddies speaks up at show & tell?

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

If I spend 6 minutes watching it and it's a waste of my time, will you compensate me accordingly?

 

[the rover]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

Marriage is not part of school curriculum in California.

well, there's that class that some kids take in high school where they carry an egg around and try not to kill it. does that count?

 

[the rover]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

he lies in the first 30 seconds.