Think Different: California Proposition 8
It's just common sense
October 13th, 2008
A new set of PSAs about California Proposition 8 are about to be released (one of them features Margaret Cho, another Molly Ringwald) and I’ve been able to preview one of them right here on Pink is the new Blog. As you may already know, Prop 8 seeks to outlaw same-sex marriage in the State of California, which I am vehemently opposed to. Here is the PSA:
For me, it’s a simple matter of allowing rights for all versus stripping rights from “certain people”. Before 1920 women were not allowed to vote in this country … now all male and female citizens of the US are allowed the right to vote. Before 1957 African Americans were not allowed to attend public schools with Caucasian children … now barring any minority group from attending any public school is strictly outlawed. Very soon all citizens of the US will be able to marry … and it all begins with opposing any propositions that seek to strip rights away from anyone. For me, it’s a very simple matter — I’m hoping that all Californians vote NO on Proposition 8.
[Source]
Tags: Proposition 8
Advertisement
RSS
Feedburner
October 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I’m hoping people vote No on Prop 8 as well. It still boggles my mind why this is such an issue for people. Thank you, Trent for getting the word out.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
It’s sad that society is not willing to accept change. I believe in equal rights, not to mention happiness no matter what a person is or does (besides murder and rape).
You’ve got a NO coming from me on November 4th. ;-)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I WAS SO HAPPY TO READ YOUR POST. I LIVE IN A CITY WHERE THE RELIGIOUS DOMINANCE LOOKS DOWN ON ANYONE AND EVERYONE THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THEIR BOOK.
I LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE SO OUTSPOKEN. I AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT EQUAL IS EQUAL AND WHO IS ANYONE TO AY ANYTHING DIFFERENT. I KNOW A CRAP LOAD OF MARRIED MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE CRAPPY PARENTS AND I HAVE TWO AWESOME GIRLFRIENDS THAT ROCK THE PARENT THING WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER.
AMAZING… I JUST WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE AGAINST THIS WHEN THEIR KIDS GROW UP AND POSSIBLY REALIZE THEY WANT A SAME SEX MARRIAGE….. THANKS FOR THIS POST
October 13th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Can you please post about proposition 2 as well? It’s a ballot initiative in CA that will be on the ballot on Nov. 8. It will allow farm animals (specifically pregnant sows, baby calves raised for veal, and laying hens) enough room in their cages to lie down, turn around, or stretch their wings in their short life before slaughter. It is a little bit oa humaneness we could allow these animals that we eat for food. Large agribusinesses in CA are fighting this measure hard, and they have a ton of money. please spread the word!
October 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
No, indeed. This is one of those issues that is completely one-sided. The pro-prop 8 people can only fall back on lies and misinformation, because at its heart, essentially, like the anti-interracial marriage laws of past times, prop 8 is about bigotry and discrimination. The choice of a spouse is a personal one, not something to be dictated by the government. There’s no health issue here, no danger to society. It’s no one’s business to legislate this issue. A big, resounding NO on prop 8 would do a lot toward my belief in the health of our society.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
THANK YOU for posting about Prop 8!! I am most definitely voting NO on 8, but have grown frustrated and disheartened at the amount of propaganda out there for approving it! With the religious backing, I suppose the budgets are bigger for the yes campaign, but I’m really hoping the NO campaign can begin to build momentum. Equal rights for everyone…GET THE WORD OUT!
October 13th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
[...] Original post by It’s Trent, Bitch! [...]
October 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I’m voting YES on prop 8, because I believe that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman. I believe that it is something different than a homosexual civil union and therefore, it deserves to be called something different…a marriage. I believe that all domestic partnerships and civil unions should continue to share the same exact benefits as heterosexual couples, but I do believe that the definition of marriage does not need to change because of it. That is why I am voting yes on prop 8. We are so lucky to live in a country where we all have to the to voice our opinions and vote…so get out there on Nov. 4 and voice your opinion!
October 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Here’s my opinion, Penny: You can keep your beliefs and still vote NO on Prop 8. In fact, voting NO on Prop 8 just means that you’re grown-up enough to allow others THEIR beliefs and to live THEIR lives and to receive EQUAL treatment under the law (not from your church, by the LAW) … a YES vote simply means you can’t handle that. If you’re voting YES on Prop 8, that makes you someone who feels the need to police others who feel, believe and act differently than yourself. SAD.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Penny, I urge you reconsider your position. The notion that terms like “marriage” and “civil unions” should be allowed the same benefits but with different names for them reminds me an awful lot of the notion of “separate but equal” — that was how they tried to justify the legalities of “White Only” places and “Colored Only” places before the Civil Rights Movement fought hard to break down those classifications. I really wish those clinging to the religious aspects of the argument against same-sex marriage would remember that churches also used to preach that “race-mixing” was an abomination and a sin against God. Only when all people treated equal can our country really proclaim to be the home of the Free.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
wow, chino, that sounds very tolerant.
it’s interesting reading supporters of prop no respond to the opposition. usually it’s kind of ugly.
i don’t believe in ugliness and i agree with penny, there is no need to change the definition of a word.
for more discussion:
http://emiliadelmar.blogspot.com/
peace out
October 13th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
and to trent, thank you for a very reasonable response, except this isn’t a racial issue.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
i will be voting yes on prop 8.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Of course it’s not a racial issue, it’s a human being issue. Lee, you’ll be very fortunate if you’re never discriminated against, I wish the same for your children. As for those of us who continue to be discriminated against, we will continue to work towards equality.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I used to be against gay marriage… but then i was thinking why am i? come to think of it…. whats wrong with the issue? I don’t see an issue anymore… before i used to believe that it should be only between a man and a women because thats the way it has always been. But if 2 people love each other and are truely devoted to each other, then why should they be denied something that could mean as little, or as much as getting married.
Also – you should post that about prop 2 as mentioned above – if i was an american i would vote no on prop 8, and vote yes on 2. I believe that slaughter house animals shouldn’t be abused and should be able to live atleast a good enough life for as long as they can before they end up on our dinner plates.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I reposted this on MySpace and I challenge EVERYONE who reads your post to do the same. With everything else we have to focus on, this should not even be on the ballot.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
trent, i admire your responses to all the posts of those less tolerant than the rest of us. truly, to keep your composure while fighting against an issue that many of us feel so strongly about is a very hard thing to do. frankly, I have trouble doing it myself because really all i want to do is scream at people voting yes. so thank you for representing a NO vote in such a great way. now lets keep fightin the fight!
NO ON 8 BABY!
October 13th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I live in San Francisco, so I almost never encounter any of the “Yes on 8″ people. I was horrified to actually see a “Yes on 8″‘ TV ad when I was on a business trip up in Sacramento – so easy to forget that outside the liberal bubble of SF (and maybe LA, too?) there are plenty of very conservative voters in California.
I would urge anyone considering voting Yes on this proposition to really do some soul-searching on this. How does specifically taking rights away from certain people in our society really line up with your morals and values? As others have said – feel free to oppose the idea of same-sex marriage on your own time or in your own church, but don’t impose that (often religiously-based) belief on the rest of your fellow citizens!
October 14th, 2008 at 12:07 am
if you don’t believe in gay marriage then don’t get one!
NO ON 8!!!!!!!!
October 14th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Trent… thank you for responding with such a straightforward and understanding response. Lee and Penny, of course it’s not a racial issue, but it is a straight forward discrimination issue. Gay men and women go to work, pay taxes, and are productive citizens of this country. They are your teachers, your community leaders, your government officials, but more importantly, they are your friends and neighbors. Would you feel right in walking up to a friend, a neighbor, or possibly a mentor from down the line, and telling them they are a second class citizen? Would you tell them straight to their face that they are not worthy of equal treatment? A yes vote is a slap in the face to not only the GLBT community, but also to those who have fought tirelessly to create a world of understanding and equal rights. Understand now that a yes vote DOES NOT MAINTAIN EQUAL RIGHTS, rather a yes vote states that there is a group of people that are lesser than you that are unworthy of what is freely handed to heterosexual couples. I implore you to rethink your stance and truly question the footstep you hope to leave in this world. I pray that it will be one of love, acceptance, and rejoicing in the brilliance that is our diversity.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:37 am
No for Prop 8 – for those who can vote on it!! For those who are Yes Prop 8′ers, something to think about is: when people get married, they get the glory of paying married taxes. I am not certain if the Civil Unions would qualify to be taxed the same a married couple. The reason I bring up the tax issue: being in NYC we get taxed out the yin-yang for every single thing (federal taxes, state taxes, country taxes, and city taxes – possibly a boro tax, depending on your boro). Suppose my DH and I pay $1000 total each year to the various taxes for being married, it’d be better for the various gov’t institutions to approve marriage for everyone so they can reap that income. — I used to be pro-CUs, but now I completely understand how the different labels (wife/husband vs. life partner) more properly define a relationship. Life Partner to me seems almost like an arranged agreement. Could 2 hetro-women decide to get a CU to become Life Partners and raise kids together and share corporate marriage benefits? Could a best friend man/woman couple get a CU? Could someone in a CU also get married? These are just points to ponder for the Yes Prop 8′ers…
October 14th, 2008 at 3:39 am
To better explain my 2 CU examples: think the 80’s tv show Kate and Allie for the 2 hetro-women and Will and Grace for the best friend combo.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:17 am
not american, but i have reasonsn to support same sex unions. and i wish in france they could further to what we have have and in ireland, that gay just could have more for anything. catholic states are screwed up :(
SO NO PROPOSITION8!
October 14th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Well spoken, Trent. It’s a human rights issue. Discrimination of any sort is just that, discrimination. Please California, vote NO on Prop 8.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Don’t be scared of gay people… We’re not going to molest your children or hit on you in bars or burn your Bibles (amazingly, some of us even have and use Bibles!). Not letting us get married is not going to make us go away.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:21 am
… and, love the PSA. I wonder if Mac is okay with them using that concept?
October 14th, 2008 at 6:25 am
[...] Supposedly there are more in the series. Browse the links and collect them all. [via] [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I don’t even live in California and I’d like to vote NO to Prop. 8! Seriously, I applaud California and the other few states willing to put this issue out there for the people to vote on. Down here in conservative-to-the-max Texas I think it might be a long time before we see any initiatives like these come up. Hopefully not as I think ALL couples deserve the right to be married and receive the benefits associated with it. The definition marriage simply needs a rewrite – not just between a man and woman but between two people who love each other enough to commit their lives to one another. Keep up the good work Trent! =)
October 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am
People are so dumb. Why does marriage have to be between a man and woman? What is the difference if it is between and man and a man (for the record, marriage isn’t to holy anymore when the divorce rate among heteros is above 50%). The problem is the religious right trying to control people who don’t follow their practices. They are trying to pass the same thing in AZ and I will be against it here!! Everyone has the right to be equal and if people don’t understand that it is because they have never lived through not being able to be equal! This is the 21st century!! Time to make every legal citizen of this country on the same playing field!!
October 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Would certainly vote NO on Prop 8 if I lived in CA. Thanks for this post Trent and to everyone who has the courage to stand up for the rights of every human being. I’d also be voting YES on Prop 2 – everyone watch Oprah today, Wayne Pacelle with the Humane Society of the US is going to be on talking about Prop 2 and going head-to-head with the front men of the agribusiness industry. If the great state of California can make these strides for equality and animal rights, any of our other great states can do the same!
October 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I think it’s courageous of the folks who would vote YES to prop 8 to voice their opinions here where they are in the minority (…allowing the rest of us the opportunity to try to persuade them!). I think there are two fundamental reasons to oppose prop 8. The first is that it is writing discrimination into law. I suspect that argument is not compelling to those would vote yes, but I hope the second reason is: Prop 8 is fundamentally about legislating religion. How would we feel if there were a law about communions, baptisms, or funerals? Granted, marriage is both a legal contract and a spiritual union. So the questions are, 1) Why should any American citizen be denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another? And 2) Why should the government be allowed to break the first ammendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and impose government-approved guidelines onto religions? This law is as unconstitutional as a law requiring that ALL religions perform marriage ceremonies for gays/lesbians.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I wish I lived in CA just so I could vote NO on Prop 8!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I am a fairly conservative person and used to believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However, the bigger problem here is how people (heterosexual ones) are treating marriage: just look at the divorce rate. The concept of marriage has changed, no matter if the government or whoever recognizes it or not. There are so many heterosexual couples just jumping into marriage without any thought, or getting drunk and married in Vegas. So who is the government or any of us to tell two people of the same sex, who have likely thought it through and made a commitment, that they can’t get married? How would that really hurt the rest of us? 2 people willing to honestly make that commitment should be praised, no matter their gender. In these times in this country, I think we could all use a little more love and happiness!!!!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Exactly, it’s simply a matter of tolerance and acceptance. There have been a lot of social advances that many people in this country were (and sadly, in some instances still are) resistant to … but we are moving forward. Discrimination against anyone is antithetical to what our country stands for. It is the most Patriotically American thing to do to fight for the rights of others.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Who’s the hot guy from the ad? Does anyone know his name?
October 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I just don’t understand where the government gets the power to decide who can and cannot get married.
I can’t think of one instance in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States that gives the government the authority to approve or deny who you choose to marry.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I really dont understand all this talk of equal rights and discrimination. Being gay is a sexual orientation. Who you have sex with should not have any bearing on your rights as an American citizen. There should not be any special allowances made for you because you are in a homosexual relationship. It disgusts me when people scream equality for gays and compare it to the struggle of women and African Americans. As a heterosexual I can question why most companies offer health insurance to homosexual couples under the heading domestic partnership yet if I were unmarried and living with my boyfriend I am not eligible for the same benefit.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
What special allowances, Summer? Marriage should be a right for all Americans, regardless of what color, race or sexual orientation.
As for the domestic partnership, marriage is an option for you, it is not for gay Americans. You have a choice.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Summer, nobody is asking for any special allowances; they are only asking not to be specially discriminated against. As to the domestic partnership question, if gays were allowed the right to marry your concern would be taken care of. Married? Shared insurance. Living together? Individual. That’s the whole issue. The striking thing about your statement is that you express exactly what people who oppose Prop 8 are fighting for: “Who you have sex with should not have any bearing on your rights as an American citizen.” Well said.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am
[...] Original post by It’s Trent, Bitch! [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
This is the only time I wish I was a citizen was now, so I could vote no.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Summer shows us why this is even an issue… people are confused.
Some think they should feel a certain way, because of their religion or political party or whatever, but they cannot justify it in their minds. In THAT way, this is just like women’s rights or discrimination issues.
People can feel that it’s wrong, but they continue with their view because it is what someone is telling them to think.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
IF YOU LIVE IN ARIZONA, VOTE NO ON 102 its the same horrible prop as 8 in california.
Humans are created equal. It should stay that way.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
They have a proposition 8 in Florida too. Are they doing this everywhere?
October 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Summer… as to your statement of “Who you have sex with should not have any bearing on your rights as an American citizen”, I am in full agreement. All people SHOULD be treated equal, no matter the person you sleep with. But this goes deeper than sleeping with someone, this is a matter of who we love… The Gay and Lesbian community is NOT asking for “special allowances”, we are asking for EQUAL allowances. We are asking for the same rights and protections as any other committed couple who has made an adult decision to share their life, property, and love with.
To your other statement… “It disgusts me when people scream equality for gays and compare it to the struggle of women and African Americans.” I want to ask you specifically, how is the struggle different in theme? For years, women were prevented from entering certain buildings and kept from voting. For years black americans weren’t allowed to marry and then were discriminated again when law was written preventing them from marrying a different race. Gay men and women are one of the final groups that are discriminated against and prevented from equal rights in our society. They are thought of as a second class of people in the eyes of the law. Would you prevent a black american from marrying just because they’re born different from you? Are they less of a person because of that? Gay men and women are born gay, just like black american men and women are born black american and women are born women.
As to your last point… “As a heterosexual I can question why most companies offer health insurance to homosexual couples under the heading domestic partnership yet if I were unmarried and living with my boyfriend I am not eligible for the same benefit.” I guarantee you that if you check with your boyfriend’s insurance company you will find that if you have shared a residence for a certain amount of time and have joint accounts, you would be eligible, married or not. Again, gay and lesbian couples DO NOT HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS! Proposition 8 is about preventing us from attaining rights that you are freely open to having because you were born you. All we are looking for is to be seen the same way in the eyes of the law. No special rights.
I honestly hope you will view this with open eyes and think deeply about how you choose to affect discrimination in our world.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Race and sex are protected classes under the Constitution; sexuality is not. Sorry, but that’s just how it is. I have no problem with gay civil unions, but I think people need to check out the dictionary, and also how the Constitution applies to situations like these. Trent’s separate but equal comparison doesn’t work, because of protected class status, and also because being black or a woman doesn’t challenge the definition of marriage, while being gay does.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
But Julie, race and sex were not always protected classes under the Constitution. The 19th Amendment had to be ratified for women to get the right to vote. The Supreme Court had to interpret the text of the Constitution to extend protection to minorities. Some day the time will come when GLBT citizens will be treated exactly like heterosexuals, Massachusetts, California and Connecticut are the pioneering states that have begun the charge for equality in this country. It will happen because Freedom demands that it will happen.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
i am voting yes on prop 8 simply because i think the United States Constitution says a little something about Separation of church and state and if this passes Churches all over CA would be required to marry but not just that why should i pay taxes so my kids can go on a field trip to see there gay teacher get married Double standard when they couldn’t come to any Conventional Marriage it al sounds like a bunch of double standards we give give give and have never gotten anything back
October 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I respect the right of others to vote as they will, but I cannot for the life of me understand why people care what others do in their private lives. I find it hard to believe that people actually think letting gays get married will have any impact on them, whatsoever. I’m typically pretty conservative, but when it comes to social issues like this, I can’t agree with the Republicans I usually vote for. Unfortunately in this election, NEITHER candidate is for gay marriage. Although I don’t vote in that state, I sincerely hope there is a resounding “no” to Prop 8 in California.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Jon it has already been established that No on Prop 8 does not require anything. The vote is against the constitution changing. It will not require any church to do anything, and certainly not perform gay marriages unless they want to. This is a fake talking point from the Yes on 8 campaign. Yes on Prop 8 just writes discrimination into our constitution. It would be the only such law in the constitution that discriminates against a particular group in such a profound way. So everyone please vote No!
October 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Why isn’t there a constitutional amendment to ban divorce? Wanda Sykes said that is the biggest threat to marriage.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’m sorry if this comes across bigoted but I get so damn mad everytime someone compares what African-Americans have gone through in this country to the gay rights fight. As an African American and a mother, I doubt my parents and I know I wasn’t asked what race I wanted to be or what race my daughter wanted to be. Some things and urges can be controlled. Being black isn’t. In just my own family’s history, there are some horrendous things that have happened only because they saw black skin so please quit acting like it’s the same thing because it is not and it so offensive to act otherwise.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Nat, thanks for your “apology” but you are coming across bigoted. It is flat out wrong to claim that sexuality is an “urge” that can be controlled. The assumption is that gays can be changed. You may not want to see discrimination against one group of people as the same as discrimination of another but it seems clear to me.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Nat, bigotry is bigotry. Many people have been beaten or killed just based on the perception of their sexuality even though some of them have been straight. Most people can tell I am gay. People have known I was gay since I grew up in the Appalachian mountains and I was treated ruthlessly because of it. I didn’t tell anyone. I didn’t try to flaunt it and I certainly didn’t want anyone in my high school to know it and at the time I certainly had never acted on it. No one ever asked me if I wanted to be effeminate or perceived as gay. So don’t try to act like the bigotry I have faced is just because of an urge I could have ignored, its based on a perception that people have and their bigotry regardless of if I actually was gay. This argument of course ignores the fact that I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being black, gay, jewish etc.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
it is sad that people cannot just accept people for who and how they are. if at the very least people could tolerate (i am not even asking for acceptance because i know sadly, that wont ever happen) other people, we could all peacefully co-exist. here, in wisconsin, same sex marriage was voted no by a pretty large margin. most people here are conservative, ass backward, bible beaters, and/or prejudice. it is pathetic. i would encourage anyone that lives in CA to vote NO to prop 8. everyone deserves the same rights no matter what their gender, race, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. who am i (or who is anyone) to judge anyone based on my personal belief system?! i feel everyone should be free to live a life that makes them happy and not be judged or stripped of basic fundamental rights because of it. PERIOD. i also urge you to join HRC (Human Rights Campaign) to help fight for equal rights. http://www.hrc.org/
October 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Jon –
You wrote:
“why should i pay taxes so my kids can go on a field trip to see there gay teacher get married Double standard when they couldn’t come to any Conventional Marriage”
I’m having trouble following your reasoning. Do children in any class attend any weddings during any field trips? where did you obtain this information?
Yours,
Fellow Californian
October 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
forehead slammer, sadly Gavin Newsom officiated at a lesbian first grade teachers wedding. As a surprise many of her students were outside city hall at the end of the wedding to celebrate her wedding. They did not attend the ceremony and apparently the teacher and Newsom did not know it was going to happen. The Yes on 8 people are totally exploiting the situation to look like children are being forced to accept gay marriage when they didn’t even attend the ceremony.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Please get the facts straight! It makes me so mad that the Morman church is making a Yes on 8 somehow into a vote FOR religious freedom! It’s the biggest hoax of this election.
“the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
And also … about that whole “choosing your sexuality” … I certainly didn’t “choose” to be straight, it’s just who I am. And no amount of brainwashing or praying would change that.
DON’T LET THEM SCARE YOU. NO ON 8.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
(I’m sorry to repeat this from a previous comment page, but it’s quite relevant…)
Obama has strong ties to the HRC and other equal-rights organizations. His plan is to allow gay marriage, but it is not an official part of his campaign at this time (so as not to alienate voters, etc). If you are voting no, or would vote no, to Prop 8, then vote Obama in November.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
To the person discussing the Constitutionality of granting gays the right to marry. You are correct that sexual orientation is not considered a protected class based on the current precedent of Supreme Court opinions. However, over time opinions can and have changed on MANY issues including the expansion of rights to various groups. Justices recognized the Lawrence v. Texas a fundamental right to privacy such that states can no longer criminalize sodomy or at the minimum enter the private bedrooms of citizens to punish them for natural acts. The prevailing opinion among justices at the time of that opinion and several others was that sexual orientation was unlike other protected classes (race, gender, national origin) because sexual orientation is chosen and not inherited. This is factually incorrect and when society comes to (finally) accept that being gay is not a “lifestyle choice” but a part of our genetic makeup, gays will receive the same kinds of protection as other protected classes until everyone is finally treated equally. Recall our founding fathers espoused that “all men are created equal” but even they did not consider African-Americans or women to be a part of this equality. Some day this principle will become a reality and it will take the strength of those with the courage to stand up for their convictions to make this reality happen. Those “Yes on 8″ ads are correct. Gay marriage will be taught in schools. In the future students will learn about those who fought against the tyranny of government and fought for what they believed in, the same way we learn about those same patriots of the women’s and civil rights movements. Our children will be taught acceptance and understanding. This includes respecting the beliefs of those who believe in gay marriage and those who do not. In the meantime, those of us concerned citizens have a duty to ourselves and our children to spread the message of tolerance wherever we can. YOU CAN STILL REGISTER IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH MONDAY OCTOBER 20. REGISTER TO VOTE AND LET YOUR CONSCIENCE GUIDE YOU.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
thank god, because the actual campaign ads for no on 8 SUCK! you’d think a bunch of gays would be able to create a better ad. these will hopefully save the day.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Lin, that is sad that Obama would not have it as part of his platform if that is what he believes. I think that is just as awful as McCain being against gay marriage, if not more awful because Obama is using the issue for political gain. In my eyes, that makes him just another typical politician. I know each candidate is guilty of that, but if you are a “new” kind of politician, why can’t you simply state what you believe, instead of pandering to those who might not agree?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
As I mentioned previously, I am voting YES on prop 8 because I believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my belief. It may be different than yours, and I am fine with that and I respect your decision. I do not understand why people assume others are intolerant or close-minded just because they think differently than you. To me, tolerance is LOVE. Just because I think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, does not mean that I am a bigot or that I hate my gay uncles and friends. People who do not love someone for who they are are the intolerant ones. That being said, I don’t think a heterosexual relationship is the same as a homosexual relationship. That is why I think it should be called something different. This is a pro-marriage issue for me…not an anti-gay issue. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion :) Vote YES on 8
October 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Legalizing the Constitution? What a concept! We need to start honoring our constitution. The Federal Government has no business in States business. Period! The same way the FED raids Medical Marijuana Clinics and STEAL doctor/ patient information!!!!! **WHAT IS THIS MESS??*** Messing/ Tampering with The United States Constitution is T-R-O-U-B-L-E. We NEED TO FIGHT THIS!!!!
Google Ron Paul, very interesting stance as a Republican on Gay Marriage and States’ rights! Anti-War…. you decide! He made me realize that it is NOT up to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RULE OVER THE STATES!!!
October 15th, 2008 at 5:43 am
What a lively debate. If only the actual TV produced one were as such.
Penny, a homosexual relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual one. Afterall, Love is involved. Are you telling me that it’s a different kind of love simply because the 2 involved may or may not have the same equipment?
October 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Penny I think what people don’t realize is that if Prop 8 passes it will be used to attack domestic partner rights in California. There is the possibility that all same-sex couple rights will be eliminated due to this passing. Marriage in a legal since is not a religious concept anyway that is why it is called civil union. To be so caught up on a word that you would deny people’s rights is ridiculous and morally incomprehensible.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Excuse me I meant to say a civil marriage.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
What about Obama NOT supporting gay marriage? Is he a bigot too? What do you have to say about him not supporting this? Put down the obama-cool aid for a second and let’s here what you all have to say.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I would have to say, John, that not all people can believe the same things. We can’t have an African American candidate without people trying to link him to terrorists or without questioning his citizenship. One thing at a time … Massachusetts, California and Connecticut have legalized same-sex marriage. New York has decided to honor same-sex marriages that occur legally in other States within the boundaries of their State. If same-sex marriage is ever going to break nationwide it is NOT going to come from the Republican party — never. A one-day President Obama (should he be elected) may not campaign or say he “believes” in same-sex marriage but I believe he will not stand in its way as time goes by. Anyone who ever wants to see same-sex marriage occur should know that that right will never come from the Republican party. No Kool-Aid, just facts.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am
But Obama does not believe marriage should be defined as between the same sex. Does that make him a bigot or not? Or is he just avoiding the issue? I can see him not saying he supports it to not piss off anyone who believes in traditional marriage; but if he really would let any legislature pass that does allow same-sex marriage, when he says now that he is not for it, does that make him a liar?
October 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I wish I could help others to see that wanting to preserve marriage does not have to be a prejudiced or bigoted view. I don’t know if I can explain it, but I would like to try.
I don’t think anyone should be legally discriminated against because of their sexual preference. But are homosexuals being prevented from marrying as it is legally defined? No. They are choosing partners who do not fit the definition.
I find the claim that sexual urges cannot be controlled very interesting. Perhaps the urge itself cannot be controlled, but does that mean it should not be controlled by behavior? Do you think people should act out on every sexual urge?
Is it really bigoted to think that some sexual urges should not be acted on? I do not think that this is an issue of legislating religion, but it is an issue of legislating morality. The definition of marriage should not be changed just because a certain group of people do not want to be intimate with the opposite-sex. You could make the same claim that other current legal limits on marriage are discriminatory and should be thrown out. Why are some limits okay, and others aren’t?
Perhaps some people would prefer to see all the limits on marriage thrown out–should it not be limited to 2 people? Should there be no age restrictions? Should close relatives be forbidden to marry?
If you oppose changing the above limits are you bigoted?
October 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting “yes” on prop 8. It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence. But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting “yes” on 8 and are not doing so out of hate. I am not motivated by hate. The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes” and have a “yes” sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments. As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it! No addendums, no “but maybe later”s, a union between a man and a woman. I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less. http://www.whatisprop8.com