Posted by Tom, a resident of another community, on Nov 19, 2008 at 11:26 am
First, to be clear, this post is not intended to indicate any opinion, pro or con, on Prop 8 or on the subject/institution of marriage. How DARE a body of elected officials use their position, and my tax dollars, to pursue their own personal agendas. I checked the election results for San Mateo County on Prop 8--YES 52.1%, NO 47.9%. Interestingly, at least to me, these percentages equal exactly the state-wide result. As a body, elected to serve the citizens of San Mateo County, the message to the Board of Sups could not be more clear in terms of the will of the people they are supposed to be serving. Again, how dare they use my name (as a voting resident of San Mateo County) and my tax dollars (don't tell me there aren't legal/administrative costs associated with this suit) to pursue an issue that is beyond their charge. If it isn't illegal, it darn well should be!
Posted by no right, a resident of another community, on Nov 19, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Tom, you hit the nail on the head, I can't believe the county is wasting my tax dollars on this. This is WAY overstepping bounds.
Majority rule is perfect for this case. There is no "right" to government sponsored marriage. so no "little guy" is getting stepped on. This "rights" issue is a stupid argument by the freaks of SF who want to push the gay agenda.
Posted by Tom, a resident of another community, on Nov 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Dear Fact Check-thank you, that was my bad. I went back to the state web site (www.vote.sos.ca.gov) and you are absolutely correct. I inadvertently read the state column numbers on the "by county page" which also explains why the two exactly matched. However, I'm still of the opinion that this is not an issue that the Board of Sups should be spending my tax dollars on, nor spending time and resources doing which could and should be being spent on county-level priorities. There are five other organizations that have filed basically the same suit, some of which exist exactly for the purpose of promoting their views on this issue. With that I have no problem. Should the County file suits to reverse the will of the majority for all of the other State intitiatives that went oposite the majority in SM County--of course not.
Posted by Gladys, a resident of the Woodside: Woodside Glens neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 5:06 pm
To the people who feel strongly about Prop 8, accepting "the will of the majority" would be to accept a dangerous precedent of abusing a segment of society, much like the internment of the Japanese in WWII, Jim Crow laws in the segregated south, even the early days of the Nazi persecution of the Jews (and gays, gypsies and other "undesireables").
The majority accepted all of these actions. Today, the heroes are the vocal minority who stood up to fight, realizing that unequal treatment of a minority group creates a dangerously unjust society for us all.
Posted by glad to see 8 go, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 5:11 pm
None of the other issues attempted to deprive a minority group of its rights. Human rights should not be determined by popular vote.
If you want to complain about the county wasting money, then ask them why they hired David Boesch at $270k/year plus 45 days vacation plus ample benefits. That's going to cost a LOT more than this suit will, and if he's as big a disaster for the county as he was for our city, the financial hit is going to be a lot greater than just his salary.
Posted by Not my president, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 6:16 pm
A couple of months ago, I saw an article on the net about a new French policy of tax breaks for married couples who are having children! The heterosexual marriage relationship has some benefits that society deems important enough for there to be benefits accrued to this type of marriage relationship from the society as an incentive for people to form these relationships. For someone to form some other type relationship that doesn't benefit the society in the way the society needs to be benefited and demand recognition and similar benefits accrued to those who create the benefits desired and needed is bizarre. Benefits accrued are in direct relations to those given. Demanding something for nothing is like a form of robbery.
Posted by Not my president, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I agree John. The Gay Community did a terrible job of trying to sell this as a civil rights case. That failed miserably, with Black voters overwhelmingly voting for the proposition. Now the Gay Community is trying to position this as an Equal Rights case. This argument is also a loser. Marriage is not a right, but a privilege.
Our constitution does not give them this privilege. Privileges are different than rights. We aren’t talking about breaking down church doors to stop a wedding, or sending co-habitating pairs off to prison–those would be violations of free association.
A ban on state recognition of gay marriage? Not so much.
Many people forget or ignore that Gays can file as domestic partners.
Posted by Not my president, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 1:20 am
"You evidently have a weak grasp of the meaning of equal rights and due process."
You obviously have been living under a rock these past few weeks. Proposition 8 is now a part of the state constitution.
The only people doing any bashing are the gays, against little old ladies, blacks, and the churches showing us their true colors.
A lot of propositions and candidates that I supported did not prevail on election day. I accept the wisdom of the people. Just be grateful that I am not standing outside of your house or business with a sign and a mob because you gave money to a cause I didn't support.
The Gays, they never miss a chance to miss a chance.
Posted by the american way, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 9:56 am
I am not gay; most people on the peninsula who opposed proposition 8 are not gay.
California voters have a history of approving illegal propositions. The courts have overturned the votes of the majority, as is their responsibility. The mob has no standing: they cannot remove the rights of a minority.
When the mob comes after you, I'll stand up for you too. Even if I don't like you. That's what it means to live in a country where equal rights and due process serve as the foundation for our legal system and our social order. Don't like it? You might be happier in a country where the "wrong kind" of people are imprisoned or murdered. (As long as you don't turn out to be one of them.)
Posted by whoa, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Now I'm getting outraged. It was bad enough that our state Constitution could possibly be changed by a popular vote on a measure that only required a simple majority to enact but a super-majority to override. And it was bad enough that homophobes keep trashing fellow citizens and their desire to make the commitment of marriage to someone they love. Now "outraged" adds in the concept that so-called traditional marriage is necessary to the survival of our society because heterosexuals can breed? Excuse me, but our planet is getting too overcrowded as it is. It's time for us to get real about how our species can survive if we continue to promote overpopulation and excessive consumption.
Posted by Tom, a resident of another community, on Nov 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Outraged-I agree with you that the public officials involved in this suit should be removed from office--either now, or come election time. American Way, "Californians have a history of voting for illegal propositions"...let me extend the idea that also our esteemed State Attorney General should also be FIRED! Again, my issue is not Prop 8, or the definition of marriage. Both sides of this issue just spent 30+ million apiece to hold this election. If this was not the proper way to bring this issue to closure, then, pro or con, it should not have been allowed to be a Proposition in the first place. It's funny though, that in this state, its only the things where the will of the people says, "yes", that get overturned. It may have happened, but I don't recall the courts ever overturning a "no" vote. Hmmmmmm.
Posted by american way, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Not just homophobes but racists! Those of you who believe in the bully majority are showing your true colors!
I know quite a few gay couples with children, so the reproductive argument is bogus anyway. (Come on, tell me that "all children deserve a mother and a father" -- and then say that again to all the children whose hetero parents are divorced.)
The proposition system is problematic, and almost 100% of the propositions on the ballot are seriously flawed. Sometimes they are based on good ideas, just badly worded. Other times, as with 8, they are just plain bad.
Oh, and I agree, there is no "right" to marriage, any more than there is a "right" to ride in the front of the bus. The overarching right is the one that requires equal treatment for all. When you start treating a minority class differently, that's problematic and, thanks to anti-discrimination laws (not affected by Prop 8) illegal.
Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
A.W. ten wrongs still don't make a right. Don't call me names and I won't call you any.
Children need healthy male and female role models, that is a man and a woman. Children do need both parents, that is why divorce used to be restricted to extreme circumstances. Children do not need parents who have a high likelyhood of being dead from AIDS in their forties.
Fix the proposition system if you don't like it.
Many anti-discrimination laws are just reverse discrimination and therefore wrong as well.
There IS equal treatment under the law for anyone, gay or otherwise, who wants to marry; find a willing partner of the opposite sex.
Posted by whoa, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
If western cultures aren't reproducing, then why is it that our fair town has to accommodate thousands of new housing units. Or is our state just insisting that everyone in the country move to live here so someone can make money off the development?
Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Whoa, are you really serious?
Has it escaped your notice how many illegal aliens are flooding this state? Did you know that illegal immigration is the main cause of California's bankrupt budget? Did you know that over 15 BILLION dollars a year is spent by California's taxpayers on schooling, medical care, social services and other aid for illegal aliens? Did you know that because of our open door policy to illegals, this situation promises to keep getting worse?
And yes, some people are making money from housing development.
Posted by anyone can be a bigot, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 10:24 pm
What's your point, Outraged? That victims of intolerance shouldn't themselves be intolerant? Au contraire, those tend to be the people most likely to show that they've moved a rung up the ladder by dumping on those that they perceive to be beneath them.
Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Sure anyone can be intolerant. Didn't we just witness the intolerance of the gay demonstrators using the N word against blacks, and attacking little old ladies? The fact that gays think they are victims of intolerance is no excuse for them to be intolerant to others, however.
My point is simple. American society is very tolerant. If we allow its destruction by tearing down its basic institutions, like marriage, we are likely to end up with a much less tolerant society in its place.
Posted by of course, you're not a bigot, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 9:14 am
So, what keeps American society "tolerant" is our ability to maintain the institution of marriage. Got it. What's next? Ensuring that our country remain "tolerant" by forcing gays and illegal aliens (why not, while we're at it?) to live in prison camps? Sounds like a swell idea, too bad it's not legal. Not yet.
The more dissenting voices we can squash, the more minority groups we wipe out, the more tolerant we will appear. Hitler's dream society was completely tolerant as it had been purged of all unsavory minority groups.
Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Wondering, I answered that question already in a previous post. However, here it is again.
Gay marriage is a biological dead end. This is why NO society in history has ever promoted gay marriage.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the BEST way to propagate and raise children. Children need both healthy male and female role models for proper development.
Having and raising healthy children is difficult, expensive, time consuming and requires personal sacrifice. Society ensures its own survival by promoting healthy families and helping them, for instance, with tax breaks and other incentives from its limited resources.
It is not beneficial for society to invest its resources in biological dead ends, like gay marriage.
As I said before, dust off and read a book on sociology to refresh your understanding.
Western cultures are failing to reproduce and thus are dying out. They will be replaced with other cultures that are reproducing and thriving.
Posted by more outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Outraged, you're still not answering the question regarding the destruction of society. Instead, you reframe the question to one about the reproductive viability of various types of mariages, and respond accordingly. But even that argument is fallacious. Gay marriage doesn't stop hetero couples from reproducing, and as has been noted, many gay couples do bear and raise children.
Your argument is ONLY valid if you make the mistake of assuming that people can choose whether or not to be gay, and that the existence of gay marriage therefore provides a child-free alternative to people who would otherwise marry and reproduce. These assumptions are prima facie incorrect.
So, do you have a REAL answer? Given all the verbiage you provided without answering the question, I would guess that you do not.
Posted by I See The Light Say Amen, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
NOW I get it, thanks to Outraged. And now that we've taken this important first step with Prop 8, it's time to get working on the next phase: another constitutional amendment prohibiting anyone who can't or don't intend to have children from marrying.
Enforcement will be easy for women 45 and older -- they simply won't be allowed to marry. Period. End of discussion. Now for the others...
Every city hall and county center in California will have to create a new bureaucracy to enforce the new and improved Protect Marriage and Western Civilization dictates outlined in our New and Improved Constitution -- improved by 50.1 percent of voters. The bureaucracy will have to include a medical doctor who can test marriage applicants for fertility.
When (or if) the applicants pass that test, they will proceed to an interview with a panel -- let's call it the Torquemada Commission -- to determine whether they actually intend to do their duty and breed for the good of humanity -- or rather, Western Civilization. Couples must sign legally enforceable pledges to begin their efforts to procreate immediately. If after 12 months, no pregnancy has occurred... Well, I guess the penalty and remedy will have to be determined by rational people like Outraged and others who truly understand the desperate need to protect marriage and Western Civilization. Good to know we're in such good hands.
Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I already know that you do not want to hear my answer and that you will not accept it. Most of what I am going to disclose comes from my own personal experience. Some comes from my professional experience as well.
Gays do not choose to be gay but they can receive successful treatment for their underlying problems and live happily as heterosexuals. It is not simple or easy but it does happen - I know. (Of course it won't happen often if we keep insisting that homosexuality is inborn or biological - a belief that has no basis in good science).
I also know that some heterosexual men, especially those with sexual addictions, engage in gay sex because it is easier to find casual partners to participate with. Homosexuals have a high rate of sexual addiction (as well as drug addiction and other difficulties).
Gay marriage is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage in many ways. For instance, gay marriages are less stable in general than heterosexual ones and gay married couples engage in much more sexual activity outside of their marriages than do heterosexuals.
If society adopts gay marriage, it is making a statement that this is a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage. This will be taught in our schools. Children whose sense of self and sexual identity is not developed are not ready for this.
There is evidence that shows that a child's sexual identity can be molded by early sexual activities (before or during puberty). Pedophile communities actually know about this and teach each other about it. Since in truth, homosexuality is due to nurture and not nature, we are putting our children at risk for experiences that can lead them into homosexuality.
So yes, if society adopts gay marriage, we will be seeing a great deal more of it in the near future. And it will be at the expense of heterosexual marriage and family and society.
Posted by Not my president, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I think a more productive next phase will be to annul those fake same sex weddings that have occurred over the past few months that make a mockery of marriage.
The constitution clearly states that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. The attorney general need to organize the existing bureaucracy to enforce this law, and strip these gays of any notion that they are married.
If volunteers are needed I am more than willing to sign up to knock on doors and rip up same sex wedding certificates. The Gay Community made an ad stating this would happen if the constitution were amended. Well it was amended, and I wouldn't want to make liars out of the gay community.
Federal law bans same sex marriage. The State Constitution bans same sex marriage. What answers do you need? It was put to the people and they decided as they have all over the world, from every religion and society from A-Z. No same sex marriage, it is an abomination. Gay lifestyle and Gay marriage are choices, just as polygamy, incest, and pedaphilia are choices that the world's societies have abandoned.
Not in this state. The people have spoken. You have your answer.