prop 8 - the musical

[rolandajoint]

Invalid Link Removed
background info: prop 8 was passed to ban gay marriage in california. im assuming everyone already knows that, but just in case.

 

[JudoJosh]

somewhat funny.. in all seriousness prop 8 shouldnt have been passed

 

[rolandajoint]

somewhat funny.. in all seriousness prop 8 shouldnt have been passed

trust me, i know. im ashamed to be a resident in CA.

 

[RobInKuwait]

somewhat funny.. in all seriousness prop 8 shouldnt have been passed

Why not? Isn't the point of a referendum to determine if something should pass?

 

[rolandajoint]

Why not? Isn't the point of a referendum to determine if something should pass?

it shouldnt have passed because it literally eliminates rights.

 

[JudoJosh]

theoratically yes but, people are stupid. Majority of people buy into hype and fear without any logical thought involved,and when you have a group of people like the mormon church who donated 20 million to help fund propaganda and fear to people what do you expect. I mean seriously they passed prop 8 and in the same day made a law for chickens in slaughter house to have wingspan in their slaught cages..wtf?? When the top searched words for this year were
1.Britney Spears,
2. WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment),
3. Barack Obama,
4. Miley Cyrus

can you really trust people? Prop 8 shouldnt have been passed and the only reason it was passed was becuase of grassroot movements funded by people who are polygamist and say they are defending the sanctity of marriage...seriously it is a little ridiculus

 

[RobInKuwait]

it shouldnt have passed because it literally eliminates rights.

My understanding is that those 'rights' were instituted when the California Supreme Court overturned a law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, on the basis that it was unconstitutional. California decided it didn't want gay marriage and changed their constitution. The whole issue could have been averted if California courts did not attempt legislation. If California decides it wants gay marriage, it should be through the democratic process, not through judicial activism.

 

[RobInKuwait]

can you really trust people? Prop 8 shouldnt have been passed and the only reason it was passed was becuase of grassroot movements funded by people who are polygamist and say they are defending the sanctity of marriage...seriously it is a little ridiculus

If we can't trust people, that kicks "We the People" in the azz. Seriously, this country was founded on democratic principles.

You're really going to blame Mormons for an anti gay marriage amendment passing? Others have also blamed black people for the amendment passing. There is literally no more easily understood referendum question than "should 2 people of the same sex be allowed to be married". How can you blame that on propaganda?

 

[rolandajoint]

If we can't trust people, that kicks "We the People" in the azz. Seriously, this country was founded on democratic principles.

You're really going to blame Mormons for an anti gay marriage amendment passing? Others have also blamed black people for the amendment passing. There is literally no more easily understood referendum question than "should 2 people of the same sex be allowed to be married". How can you blame that on propaganda?

i agree we shouldnt play the blame game, however, prop 8 was initiated by a 10-15 million dollar contribution from the mormon church. but there was also like a 10 million dollar contribution from knights of columbus.

 

[rolandajoint]

If we can't trust people, that kicks "We the People" in the azz. Seriously, this country was founded on democratic principles.

You're really going to blame Mormons for an anti gay marriage amendment passing? Others have also blamed black people for the amendment passing. There is literally no more easily understood referendum question than "should 2 people of the same sex be allowed to be married". How can you blame that on propaganda?

and the blaming of black people was idiotic. not from you, but from others. it simply said that of the black people who voted, 70% of them voted yes on prop 8. not 70% of the people who voted yes were black, which some have made it sound. and i think it was around 30% black for the entire vote.

 

[RobInKuwait]

i agree we shouldnt play the blame game, however, prop 8 was initiated by a 10-15 million dollar contribution from the mormon church. but there was also like a 10 million dollar contribution from knights of columbus.

What's interesting to me is that if passed, the amendment could easily justify legalizing polygamy. Once marriage loses its original meaning, it can be morphed into whatever meaning one wants.

I would be fine with the gov't getting out of the business of marriage altogether and giving everyone civil unions. Let the church or whatever else people believe in, marry people.

 

[JudoJosh]

The moromon church did alot more then just donate... including setting up call center which would mass call cali resident to spread lies, run tv ads which were 100% false, instill fear in citizens that if passed there children would learn about gay sex in school, that there souls would be lost and even blackmailing of businesses...I even included an excerpt from the IRS on tax exempt entities at the end..

Early in the campaign, support for California's Proposition 8 trailed by 17 points in polls. Mormons poured money into the state, raising at least $10 million (possibly closer to $20 million) dollars in support of the so-called "Protect Marriage" campaign. With just 2% of the population of California, Mormons donated 40-80% of the funds in support of Proposition 8, many from out-of-state.

In two separate letters sent out by church leaders in May, they urged LDS members to donate to the campaign. One of the letters, which gave names and addresses for checks to be sent, urged church leaders to contact wealthy Mormons first, and specified that "no undue pressure of any type should be applied" to gain donations, but church leaders should explain to members that "this is a moral issue." Despite leaders' request not to use "undue pressure," some Mormons were told that their immortal souls would be in danger if they did not donate.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct 20, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On the day that the Proposition 8 campaign released a new television ad repeating for the third time a charge that has been exposed as untrue, the NO on Prop 8 campaign challenged the Prop. 8 campaign to end its campaign of deception.
Opponents of Prop. 8 said that the new ad is clearly false -- citing an analysis by a respected Mormon scholar finding that the claims included in Prop. 8 ads are completely "untrue" and "misleading."
Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University law school, confirms what others have been saying for weeks -- that the advertising claims that the measure would affect teaching or schools are "untrue" and "misleading," and that nothing in Prop. 8 would affect California schools. The Thurston memo has been posted to http://[B]www.mormonsformarriage.com[/B], a website sponsored by Mormons who do not support their Church's active campaign against gay marriage.
The NO on Prop. 8 campaign is posting the Thurston memo in its entirety to Invalid Link Removed later this morning, and a copy is also attached with this release.
Kate Kendell, an Executive Committee member of the NO on Prop. 8 campaign, issued the following statement:
"I have reviewed this memorandum. It exposes their shameful scheme to deceive the voters. The memo clearly states the Prop. 8 ads are based entirely on claims that are not true.
"Educators and other experts have been saying this for weeks. So have newspapers.
"Now we have it from one of their own -- a prominent Mormon scholar who says claims in the Prop. 8 ads are 'untrue' and 'misleading.'
"In his memo, this Mormon scholar concludes Prop 8. has nothing to do with education or teaching.
"What is particularly disturbing is that the Mormon Church has asked its members to fund a campaign based on these lies. As this Mormon scholar says: 'Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.'
"There is a reason behind their deception: Californians don't support taking away rights or treating people differently. That's why Californians will vote NO on Prop. 8."
A copy of the memo can be found at Invalid Link Removed.
SOURCE NO on Prop. 8

The first Yes on 8 ad states “Churches could lose their tax exempt status.” This is beyond speculative distortion, it is simply not true.

video of first mormom run ad here Invalid Link Removed

LOS ANGELES Oct. 23, 2008 - The Courage Campaign, an online organizing network of over 110,000 members in California, today condemned the blackmail-like action of the Prop 8 campaign, after the Associated Press reported that the Prop 8 campaign had demanded equal donations from people who have contributed to the "No on 8" campaign, threatening to list their business names if the contributors did not comply.

The Associated Press reports that ProtectMarriage.com, a group that includes Mark Jansson, a self-described member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, "sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8. The letter reads:

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error. Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.'
Four members of the group's executive committee signed the letter, including campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.

"This is part of a pattern of intimidation by the Mormon Church to raise money to pass Proposition 8 and dictate public policy to Californians," said Rick Jacobs, Chair of Courage Campaign Issues Committee. "We call on President-Prophet Thomas Monson to condemn LDS member Mr. Mark Jansson and the Proposition 8 campaign's blackmail of businesses. If President-Prophet Monson will not condemn blackmail and the breaking of the ten commandments, for what do he and his Church stand?"

The Associated Press and San Diego's CBS affiliate reported tonight that donors who gave money to the "No on 8" campaign have "received blackmail letters demanding money" from the Prop 8 campaign. The campaign has confirmed "they sent around 30 companies the letter."

The CBS report quotes Jim Abbot, a local San Diego businessman targeted by the letter because of his $10,000 donation to Equality California. "I feel like it's blackmail, and as you can imagine, real estate business has been tough lately and to have someone come at you like this... it's very distressing," he said.
"This conduct is purely reprehensible and the Prop 8 campaign and Mormon Church President-Prophet Thomas Monson should be ashamed," added Jacobs. "Intimidation tactics like these should have no place in public discourse, particularly in connection with a major religion like the Mormon Church that professes to be beyond reproach."

Before the blackmail story broke this evening, the Courage Campaign Issues Committee launched an online petition at 2 p.m. this afternoon urging Church of Latter-Day-Saints President-Prophet Thomas Monson to cease funding the campaign for the misguided "Yes on 8" campaign, which has released misleading TV and radio ads claiming that children would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage in school -- a claim rejected by California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association.
The Courage Campaign online petition urges the Mormon Church not to impose their religious doctrine on other churches, on the rest of society, or to dictate public policy to Californians.

"We are troubled the church is funding television and radio ads that are lying to Californians about the effects of a 'No' vote on Proposition 8," said Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign Issues Committee. "We are especially disappointed the Mormon Church has chosen to break the Ninth Commandment - 'thou shalt not bear false witness.' The ads funded as a result of an edict from Prophet-President Monson to his followers lie, breaking the ninth commandment, by telling Californians parents that they do not have the right to remove their children from sex education classes, unlike in Massachusetts."

According to an AP article dated October 8, Mormons, under pressure from the church, have been the chief financial contributors to the "Yes on 8" campaign, giving an estimated 43 percent -- approximately $8.4 million -- of the total funds contributed as of that date. Earlier this year, LDS President Thomas S. Monson wrote a widely circulated letter to California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Since that time, millions of dollars have flowed from Mormons in Utah and other states funding a deceptive campaign.

IRS law states:

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The Mormon Church has faced religious persecution for much of its existence. Many of its members know what it feels like to be hated and discriminated against. Yet it still chose to spread hate, intolerance, and discrimination, to literally write them into the California Constitution, even to the extent of using intimidation, threats, and outright lies in a campaign that very likely violated US tax law, as well as US values of freedom, tolerance, and civil rights.

Sounds like alot of created propaganda, lies and fear initiated by the mormom church

 

[JudoJosh]

now I am all for democracy amd power to the people and what not but things like this shouldnt be allowed especially by a church organization andmy point here is that people are stupid. They will believe whaatever they hear without giving any rationale thought or research on their own. The tradition of America is the foward movement of individual rights and freedoms.. the next step for america would be and should legalizing gay marriage,

I would be fine with the gov't getting out of the business of marriage altogether and giving everyone civil unions. Let the church or whatever else people believe in, marry people.

and I agree 100%

and the blaming of black people was idiotic. not from you, but from others. it simply said that of the black people who voted, 70% of them voted yes on prop 8. not 70% of the people who voted yes were black, which some have made it sound. and i think it was around 30% black for the entire vote.

and yes the gay lobbyist made clear the group of people who killed there bill were the elder people not the blacks. That is just the media twisting info to start controversey, but I guess when you have like 5 24hr news stations on tv you gotta fill time with something

 

[RobInKuwait]

Sounds like alot of created propaganda, lies and fear initiated by the mormom church

The other side did such things as stomping a nun and looking up donors addresses and harassing them at their houses. Neither side is clean.

However, there is no clearer issue than, "Should two people of the same sex be allowed to be married?" Everybody has an opinion on it, and 'propaganda' will only do so much. Its not an issue that citizens need to be educated on to make an informed decision.

 

[RobInKuwait]

nThe tradition of America is the foward movement of individual rights and freedoms.. the next step for america would be and should legalizing gay marriage,

The other way of looking at this is that gay marriage is destroying a traditional American institution and that its not a step forward but a step back.

I have a problem with using the term 'marriage', beyond that, I could care less.

Also, how do you feel about polygamy....should they be allowed to be married to one another? How is that different than gay marriage?

 

[JudoJosh]

The other way of looking at this is that gay marriage is destroying a traditional American institution and that its not a step forward but a step back.

I have a problem with using the term 'marriage', beyond that, I could care less.

Also, how do you feel about polygamy....should they be allowed to be married to one another? How is that different than gay marriage?

slavery was a traditional american institution should we bring that back? how about how we acquired our land? should we start invading mexico and canada and expand the US?

I am not trying to badmouth us but I see the tradition excuse as a poor excuse, America was founded on the belief that no matter your race, creed, background, orgin, etc.. you have all equal rights, by denying them marriage is equal to denying woman the right to vote and black people the right to land. They are all people and derserve what everyone has, remember "Land of the free"..

As for polygamy I dont have a problem with it, I don't see any harm it can do to anyoe outside of the marriage, it is a personal choice made by an individual based on religous beliefs..

Now I can understand people problem with the word marriage, but also it is a religous word and I dont believe the govt should be using it, everyone should be given civil unions and every religon can respectively define a term for it themselves

 

[RobInKuwait]

Now I can understand people problem with the word marriage, but also it is a religous word and I dont believe the govt should be using it, everyone should be given civil unions and every religon can respectively define a term for it themselves

Word.

 

[rolandajoint]

marriage was actually not apart of the church for the first like 1000 years. it was simply a means of property arrangement to set up the basic social unit, a household. and the roman empire had same sex marriages. nero, for example, was in a same sex marriage.

i also find it interesting that in early europe, the church actually recognized same sex unions, and made them sacred. but they didnt call it marriage. "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell. check it out.

i also believe that jesus had a lot more to say about divorce and wealth than he did gay people. and the fact that non-catholic people can be married when it is a "religious" institution, is pure bullshit. if people not in the religion can be married and have it recognized by the church and state, why can two people who love each other also have that same right?

to me, the sanctity of marriage was lost a lonnnngggg time ago. do couples still have it? sure. my parents, and many of my family friends have meaningful marriages. but with a 50% divorce rate, and britney spears having a "just for fun" 55 hour marriage, how can someone sit there and tell me, "marriage is sacred and allowing gay marriage would ruin it".

 

[RobInKuwait]

That's interesting. I didn't realize alot of that info.

how can someone sit there and tell me, "marriage is sacred and allowing gay marriage would ruin it".

I'm not saying it would ruin it. I'm saying it would cause the term to lose its traditional meaning. In my opinion, marriage should not be a state run function, however, the fact that it is means they should respect the term marriage.

Earlier someone mentioned that it would change all the text books if they changed the term marriage to mean with two same sex people as well, then they would have to change the textbooks and teach it in public schools. I believe this. I don't want my daughter learning in Elementary school that it is normal for two men or two women to marry. It doesn't fall in line with my values. If she learns that when she's older, that's fine, but that is not a societal norm to me or my family and I don't think public schools should teach it as though it is.

 

[JudoJosh]

Earlier someone mentioned that it would change all the text books if they changed the term marriage to mean with two same sex people as well, then they would have to change the textbooks and teach it in public schools. I believe this. I don't want my daughter learning in Elementary school that it is normal for two men or two women to marry. It doesn't fall in line with my values. If she learns that when she's older, that's fine, but that is not a societal norm to me or my family and I don't think public schools should teach it as though it is.

see thats the "propaganda" I was tryin to say, that was lies spread by the mormon chuch.. read the below paragraphs in bold and take a look at the end with references to actual school code

Prop. 8 backers fear teaching of gay marriage


By Michael Gardner
U-T SACRAMENTO BUREAU

October 24, 2008

SACRAMENTO – Supporters of Proposition 8 have broadened their television campaign, moving beyond the fundamental question of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.



Advertisement They are focusing on what they contend are potential consequences if voters reject the measure, raising the possibility that schools ultimately would be compelled to incorporate same-sex marriage into lesson plans.
That claim is dismissed by many educators, who say the state education code yields to local school districts when it comes to choosing how to approach the touchy subjects of marriage and sex education – if at all. And, they stress, state law allows parents to keep their children out of class if they are uncomfortable with course materials.
Educators in the San Diego region are sharply divided, and local school board policies take different approaches toward same-sex marriage. Escalating the divide: a $1 million contribution by the California Teachers Association to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

Jim Groth, a member of the teachers union's executive board in San Diego, explained the donation. “Proposition 8 will not affect teaching in our schools. Those are lies being crafted to scare people,” he said. “No child can be taught anything about health and family education against the will of their parents.”

Instead, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ordered Proposition 8 supporters to couch the wording by using terms such as “may” or “could” in describing the measure's effect on same-sex weddings' becoming part of the curriculum.

“Current law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level,” the judge noted. “Moreover, for those school districts that choose to include instructions about marriage . . . (the) education code requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents' religious or moral grounds.”

Under the California Education Code, public schools are under “local control” when it comes to many curriculum choices. One of the locally-decided curriculum choices is whether to teach sex education (Cal. Ed. Code 51933). If the local school district decides to teach sex education, then and only then, the “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)).

Also, if a local district does decide to teach sex ed, a “parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education” (Cal Ed. code 51938).

Bottom line: Schools are only required to talk about marriage if they decide to teach sex ed. Could same-sex marriage come up in the context of sexual education? Yes, but schools are required to tell parents that they’re teaching sex ed and need to disclose exactly what they’re teaching. (Cal Ed. code 51938). If same-sex marriage is part of that curriculum, parents have the right to exclude their child from those classes.
There is one other section of the Education Code that mentions marriage. It’s an obscure part of the code called the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977 (”CHEA”) (Cal Ed. Code 51800 et seq), It’s initial purpose was to teach kids about drug abuse (Cal. Ed. Code 15801) This code gives a long list of topics that are supposed to be covered in the CHEA, one of the topics is “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”

By all accounts, the reason the marriage line is in the CHEA is so kids would learn that if they spent all their money on angel dust or ludes or whatever other awful 1970s drugs they could find, they would be too wasted and broke to support their family. It is not exactly an in-depth discussion of marriage. The Yes-On-8 people are really misleading the public on this one.

Also, the curriculum for the CHEA has been locked in for years, so obviously same-sex marriage is not a part of it. Same-sex marriage will not become part of the CHEA unless the local community wants it to: “No plan [for the CHEA curriculum] shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.” (Cal Ed. Code 51914).

so yes theoractically if prop 8 wasnt passed and gay marriage was legal then yes MAYBE same sex marriage could have been taought in school BUT by law the school has to inform you of the cirrculium change and you have the right to opt out ur child for those lessons, just like regular sex class. If you dont want your kid learning about sex and birth control and how to put on a condom then you can pull him out of that class, so ultimately NO it wont force kids to learn about gays BUT gays do exist and EVENTUALly same sex will be taught in school, but its your job as a parent to teach ur kid morals and family values that you hold.

Similar arguments were made when schools were teaching about condoms and teen sex, saying that hearing about this will make kids want to have sex, well fact of the matter is that sex is all around kids from mtv to movies to other kids in school having sex, same thing with gay people they are around us and just simply hearing about gay marriage in school will not corupt ur child or make them gay and if you do fear this then you can pull him out the class just like if you fear that learning about sex will make them a whore you can pull them from that class too, bottom line is that gays exist and they are around us by voting prop 8 they will not go away so eventually ur kid will come in contact with one, and like I said it is ur job as the parent to teach your kid about it, it is the parents responsibilty to make an effort to raise their kids and instill their values morals and beliefs

 

[RobInKuwait]

Similar arguments were made when schools were teaching about condoms and teen sex, saying that hearing about this will make kids want to have sex, well fact of the matter is that sex is all around kids from mtv to movies to other kids in school having sex, same thing with gay people they are around us and just simply hearing about gay marriage in school will not corupt ur child or make them gay and if you do fear this then you can pull him out the class just like if you fear that learning about sex will make them a whore you can pull them from that class too, bottom line is that gays exist and they are around us by voting prop 8 they will not go away so eventually ur kid will come in contact with one, and like I said it is ur job as the parent to teach your kid about it, it is the parents responsibilty to make an effort to raise their kids and instill their values morals and beliefs

If I understand what you're saying, its that my kids are not forced to attend sex ed class so I shouldn't worry about what's taught there? I'd like my kids to learn about sex in school, but not that marriage between two men or two women is normal or should be encouraged.

Just to be clear, I don't think legalizing same sex marriage is about equal rights, its about ransacking the institution of 'marriage' in order to legitimize homosexual lifestyles to the rest of society.

I believe the majority of Californians weren't stupid or duped, the just don't want to be a part of that. I definitely don't feel like 'propaganda' had anything to do with the referendum's results. I think the Mormons pointed to the heart of the issue when they brought up what kids would be taught in sex ed.

 

[Lacradocious]

As a single, straight, agnostic man, I think it is completely within the realm of a gay person's spirituality to marry a person of the same sex. For the government to define marriage the way prop 8 does denies them of a basic right to freedom of religion to please the religious beliefs of those who don't agree.

You can think it is wrong like polygamy or whatever, but the gay marriage isn't a question of morality. I don't even have a problem with people being polygamists as long as they are consenting adults. However, it's a problem when they marry underage girls to older men, which is child abuse.

Gay people simply don't need to legitimize the fact that they are gay to anybody just because it doesn't fit into other peoples world view or religion.

Anyway, the marriage vow says until death do you part. So I guess after we die, no one is married anyway. And I think the "Sanctity" of marriage has been ransacked not by gays, but by the high rate of which that vow is broken via divorce - which I am sure confuses and screws kids up a lot more than seeing two queers hold hands. It's absurd to say straight marriages are falling apart because they were weakened by queer people.

In my opinion the only marriage people should be concerned about is their own. I am glad I was born straight so I won't ever have to put up with this nonsense but one day, I might have a kid or a grand kid who will.

 

[RobInKuwait]

As a single, straight, agnostic man, I think it is completely within the realm of a gay person's spirituality to marry a person of the same sex. For the government to define marriage the way prop 8 does denies them of a basic right to freedom of religion to please the religious beliefs of those who don't agree.

You can think it is wrong like polygamy or whatever, but the gay marriage isn't a question of morality. I don't even have a problem with people being polygamists as long as they are consenting adults. However, it's a problem when they marry underage girls to older men, which is child abuse.

Gay people simply don't need to legitimize the fact that they are gay to anybody just because it doesn't fit into other peoples world view or religion.

Anyway, the marriage vow says until death do you part. So I guess after we die, no one is married anyway. And I think the "Sanctity" of marriage has been ransacked not by gays, but by the high rate of which that vow is broken via divorce - which I am sure confuses and screws kids up a lot more than seeing two queers hold hands. It's absurd to say straight marriages are falling apart because they were weakened by queer people.

In my opinion the only marriage people should be concerned about is their own. I am glad I was born straight so I won't ever have to put up with this nonsense but one day, I might have a kid or a grand kid who will.

When the United States got in the business of marriage, they took all the religious and emotional baggage that term brings with it. Like it or not, the majority of Californians define marriage as between a man and a woman. If the US wanted to get out of the marriage business and get into the civil union business, I'd be willing to bet that there would be no issues passing that legislation.

 

[rolandajoint]

When the United States got in the business of marriage, they took all the religious and emotional baggage that term brings with it. Like it or not, the majority of Californians define marriage as between a man and a woman. If the US wanted to get out of the marriage business and get into the civil union business, I'd be willing to bet that there would be no issues passing that legislation.

marriage needs to be redefined as between TWO PEOPLE. civil unions do not have the same rights across the nation as marriages do. that is a HUGE part of the movement.

and there doesnt need to be a loss of marriage in the state or federal realm, that is where it belongs, because marriage is not, was not, and will never be a religious institution.

If I understand what you're saying, its that my kids are not forced to attend sex ed class so I shouldn't worry about what's taught there? I'd like my kids to learn about sex in school, but not that marriage between two men or two women is normal or should be encouraged.

Just to be clear, I don't think legalizing same sex marriage is about equal rights, its about ransacking the institution of 'marriage' in order to legitimize homosexual lifestyles to the rest of society.

I believe the majority of Californians weren't stupid or duped, the just don't want to be a part of that. I definitely don't feel like 'propaganda' had anything to do with the referendum's results. I think the Mormons pointed to the heart of the issue when they brought up what kids would be taught in sex ed.

this is part of the propaganda. schools are NOT required to teach about marriage in school. my girlfriends mom, a teacher of many years can confirm this, and one of my relatives, the deputy or vice superintendent of a district in socal, can confirm this. there is no part of state schooling that requires the teacher to teach about marriage. if a teacher discusses marriage, that is upon the individual.

and what is so wrong with a same sex marriage? is that unnatural to you? is it immoral to you? they are not different people from the rest of us. they are human beings, trying to take advantage of the rights guaranteed to them under the constitution. it is very much an issue of equal rights. and why is it that other developed nations can allow same sex marriages, but america, the best country in the world, touting its freedom, and spreading democracy to countries who do not ask for it, cannot grasp such an idea?

and again, the sanctity of marriage argument, to me, is completely useless. i think it is absurd to try to salvage what MIGHT be left of what is sacred in marriage by denying gays the right to marry.

same sex marriage is the civil rights movement of our generation. it bothers me like no other to see people who know our history, and the oppression and hate that this caused for americans just a few decades ago, and that we cannot step down from our righteous moral pedestals to strive for freedom and equality for EVERYBODY.

 

[RobInKuwait]

marriage needs to be redefined as between TWO PEOPLE. civil unions do not have the same rights across the nation as marriages do. that is a HUGE part of the movement.

Give civil unions the same rights and call it a day.

and there doesnt need to be a loss of marriage in the state or federal realm, that is where it belongs, because marriage is not, was not, and will never be a religious institution.

Its a Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious institution, that FACT is undeniable. Whether it also something outside of that is open to debate, but marriage is undeniably a part of the those three religions.

this is part of the propaganda. schools are NOT required to teach about marriage in school. my girlfriends mom, a teacher of many years can confirm this, and one of my relatives, the deputy or vice superintendent of a district in socal, can confirm this. there is no part of state schooling that requires the teacher to teach about marriage. if a teacher discusses marriage, that is upon the individual.

You've compared this gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement. Do you think teachers have the option of not teaching that? Who's to say this won't be a part of the curriculum?

and what is so wrong with a same sex marriage? is that unnatural to you? is it immoral to you? they are not different people from the rest of us.

I think same sex marriage is a farce. It is unnatural. If everyone was gay, humanity would be extinct. How can you consider that a natural lifestyle?

they are human beings, trying to take advantage of the rights guaranteed to them under the constitution.

Um, where in the constitution. That's a bold statement considering gay marriage has NEVER legally existed in the United States.

it is very much an issue of equal rights. and why is it that other developed nations can allow same sex marriages, but america, the best country in the world, touting its freedom, and spreading democracy to countries who do not ask for it, cannot grasp such an idea?

and again, the sanctity of marriage argument, to me, is completely useless. i think it is absurd to try to salvage what MIGHT be left of what is sacred in marriage by denying gays the right to marry.

Nothing is sacred with marriage if you ransack its meaning.

same sex marriage is the civil rights movement of our generation. it bothers me like no other to see people who know our history, and the oppression and hate that this caused for americans just a few decades ago, and that we cannot step down from our righteous moral pedestals to strive for freedom and equality for EVERYBODY.

It disgusts me that this in considered 'oppression' to some. If you don't take into account the baggage that comes with the term marriage, we're essentially talking about taxes and hospital visits here. This is not sit ins at racist diners or boycotting buses, this is about subverting norms in American society.

 

[JudoJosh]

You've compared this gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement. Do you think teachers have the option of not teaching that? Who's to say this won't be a part of the curriculum?


Um, where in the constitution. That's a bold statement considering gay marriage has NEVER legally existed in the United States.



It disgusts me that this in considered 'oppression' to some. If you don't take into account the baggage that comes with the term marriage, we're essentially talking about taxes and hospital visits here. This is not sit ins at racist diners or boycotting buses, this is about subverting norms in American society.

I have to disagree witht he above. First about the school, I already posted that school code would prohibit from teachers teaching gay marriage to students whos parents dont want them to learn it. Calinfornia code 51938 clearly states this (Invalid Link Removed) Any parent has the right to excuse their child from a sex education class and marriage is oneof the topics brought up in a sex ed class so it is not forced on your child to learn but realistically speaking same sex realitonships will eventually end up in same sex classes no matter if they are allowed to married or not, there are here and more vocal then ever you cant just close your eyes and wish them away eventually it will be taught. Honestly I dont see the problem with it being taught, I dont see the issue with my child in a classroom and learning that some people have sexual realitionships with people of the same sex, I mean when does sex ed start? 6th, 7th grade?? They will probably already know gay people exist from tv, magazines, movies and other media.. and furthermore how does not telling them that they are gay people in this world help protect them? Best case scenerio you have a high school kid who never heard of a gay kid goes to college and suddenly she sees them or if not then at work, it isnt protecting children any way by sheltering them.

Secondly I dont understand how the gay movement isnt about equal rights... it is exactly what it is about.

The equal protection clause as part of the 14th amendment states...

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Furthermore the Declaration of Independence states,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So what rights are being taken away?

we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

As you can see they are many rights being denied.

Also as I understand it marriage wasn't defined in the constitution until 1996 when congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman Now lets learn about this law, first should have it been passed?

Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds:

Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause.

Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "court-stripping" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. See, e.g., Marriage Protection Act of 2003, H.R. 3313 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.). This proposed court-stripping provision has itself been challenged as being of dubious constitutionality.

So the legality of the ban on same sex marriage is clearly questionable and a equal rights issue.

Now on the issue of is it like the black sturggle? NO! it is far from it, they are recieving no where near the persacution the black people did but still are being denied equal rights. However they are somewhat similar in the sense of, dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is pretty similar to "separate but equal" policies, like that overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education.

I believe this is a equal rights issue and they derserve the rights everyone else is given this is no way different from 30yrs ago when it was looked down upon for interacial couples to wed except now the govt is making laws to prohibit it and going against our constitution and what we stand for.

I said this earlier in this thread, The history of America, the greatness of American is the progression of individual rights and freedoms. It is the base for our country and is why we founded the country and is our history as far back as the salem witch hunt where woman were burned for being smart then not allowed to vote or when we passed the equal pay for equal work or when blacks werent allowed to own property or when they were considered property, what makes America a great country is we reconigized those individuals and gave them the same rights we all had, this is the tradition of America. Gay people are indeed a new minority and are being persucuted and denied rights based upon their beliefs, how is this not wrong to do?

 

[rolandajoint]

Give civil unions the same rights and call it a day.

there is no need for civil unions if marriage is for EVERYONE. gay people are not asking to be in a civil union, they are asking to be recognized as a married couple.

Its a Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious institution, that FACT is undeniable. Whether it also something outside of that is open to debate, but marriage is undeniably a part of the those three religions.

obviously. i would be a fool to deny this. i am saying that marriage did not START with religion. yes it is a part of religions, however, it was not founded within a single religion. refer to one of my earlier posts. for the first 1000 years of the church, marriage was not part of its ceremonies, and was not affiliated with it. it was designed as a means of property or household arrangement.

You've compared this gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement. Do you think teachers have the option of not teaching that? Who's to say this won't be a part of the curriculum?

if a child is considered mature enough to learn about the civil rights movement, they will be mature enough to learn about another civil rights movement outside of the race card.

I think same sex marriage is a farce. It is unnatural. If everyone was gay, humanity would be extinct. How can you consider that a natural lifestyle?

sounds like you are a believer of the "homosexuality is a choice" doctrine. i could be wrong tho. seeing as how being homosexual is apart of ones physiology, and is engrained in their genes, yes, i think it is a natural lifestyle.

Um, where in the constitution. That's a bold statement considering gay marriage has NEVER legally existed in the United States.

the part that makes all citizens equal, and guarantees all citizens the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, or sex. does it need to say sexual preference in there as well to include homosexuals??

Nothing is sacred with marriage if you ransack its meaning.

what is the meaning of marriage then? because, again, it is not religious. it is a part of certain religions, but it did not originate with religion. and marriage isnt sacred anymore because of the people who did not consider it sacred. which, sadly is about 50% of americans. not to mention of the 50% who arent divorced, how many do you think are happily married, and are not simply staying together for kids, a house, income, insurance, etc? i dont have a number, it is more of a rhetorical question.

It disgusts me that this in considered 'oppression' to some. If you don't take into account the baggage that comes with the term marriage, we're essentially talking about taxes and hospital visits here. This is not sit ins at racist diners or boycotting buses, this is about subverting norms in American society.

being denied marriage or an adopted child sounds worse then being denied food in a diner. especially because it is something that one must truly have a desire to go through with. and because of all the trouble that gay couples go through to simply put in an application. maybe no violence, but being denied a right given to any other person in the US, simply because they are heterosexual, is complete and utter horse sh1t. damn right thats oppression.

 

[JudoJosh]

sounds like you are a believer of the "homosexuality is a choice" doctrine. i could be wrong tho. seeing as how being homosexual is apart of ones physiology, and is engrained in their genes, yes, i think it is a natural lifestyle.
.

There has actually been a study done that shows homosexuality exist with the animinal kingdom which strongly suggest it is not a choice and infact somepart of our brain that makes them attracted to the same sex.

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals

Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.
In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.

The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.

In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.


Not At All Unusual
Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.

As for numbers, here are a few:

species - - homo% - bisexual% - hetero%
silver gulls (females) - 10 - 11 - 79
black headed gulls (both sexes) - 22 - 15 - 63
Japanese macaques (both sexes) - 9 - 56 - 35
bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) - 0 - 100 - 0
galahs (both sexes) - 44 - 11 - 44

source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35

The occurence of homosexuality doesn't seem to be correlated with the predominance of a sex within a species. Some species show skewed sex ratios, but among them, homosexuality is not more common than in other species. For example, giant cowbirds and redwing blackbirds show male to female ratios as high as four to one, and in boat-tailed grackles and sparrow hawks, females predominate, but homosexuality has not been demonstrated in either species. Why is a mystery.

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is an undeniable fact. It is as natural as can be. Since it is so common, it is therefore logical for the opponents of gay rights to try to explain it away.

 

[Omen]

Marriage is stupid, a document saying you can't f**k anyone else and if you decide to break it, you lose half your sh*t.

Yeah, if gay people want to suffer, let them!

 

[RobInKuwait]

Government is overreaching by getting involved in marriage. I do think marriage is a religious institution in America. To show that just look at Hollywood....how many movies have a religious figure presiding over them? Almost every one I've ever seen.

Civil Unions for everybody is the answer. If you want a marriage, go to your religious institution. If you want your "marriage rights" go get a civil union contract with your local government. Too easy. Everybody wins.

 

[bpmartyr]

Marriage isn't a right. Society decides who can and cannot get married. I do not hate gays just because I don't believe we should redefine the meaning of words just so some people "feel" better. Do I hate brothers and sisters just because I don't think they should be entitled to be married?

Civil union. Problem solved. Unless of course it's not about having the same benefits as straight couples but wanting to ram your ideology and lifestyle down the throats of the majority who find your behavior aberrant.

It is not a strictly religious practice either. Study your history.

 

[JudoJosh]

this is a great debate between former presidential canidate Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart

Invalid Link Removed



Funny enough this was on I believe this was on this past wed or thurs, it sums it up pretty good, Stewart makes alot of the same points that I had tried to make in this thread while Huckabee tries to rationalize his view. Watch and say what you think

 

[rolandajoint]

i like huckabee. hes a good spirited dood. sense of humor, well spoke, intelligent, and i kinda wish he was in mccains place for this past election. hopefully he has plans for 2012, WITHOUT palin haha.

they both made good points tho. stewart made a point that i have never heard before either, that religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. good find.

 

[RobInKuwait]

i like huckabee. hes a good spirited dood. sense of humor, well spoke, intelligent, and i kinda wish he was in mccains place for this past election. hopefully he has plans for 2012, WITHOUT palin haha.

they both made good points tho. stewart made a point that i have never heard before either, that religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. good find.

I agree, Stewart made excellent points. I think Huckabee could have had a stronger argument by bringing up civil unions and why using the term marriage is a necessity in this 'movement'.

Its funny how in the last 20 years homosexuality and religion have switched stigmas. 20 years ago homosexuality was something stigmatized by the mainstream media. Today, religion gets the same treatment.