Rally opposing Prop 8 Other Topics, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Oct 15, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Several community leaders in San Mateo County, including Supervisor Rich Gordon, will speak at a rally to oppose Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 16, at the Redwood City Courthouse Square at 2200 Broadway Street.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 5:34 PM
Posted by concernedincalifornia, a resident of another community, on Oct 15, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Undecided on Prop 8??? Consider that to tolerate is not the same thing as to condone. Tolerance is a lens through which we should view all people, including gay and lesbian people. We cannot and should not condone all actions. You can love people without loving what they do.
Voting Yes on Prop 8 is a vote for tolerance. Voting Yes on 8 guarantees that rights will be preserved for traditional marriages and for domestic partnerships. Voting Yes on Prop 8 is NOT intolerant, bigoted, or discriminatory. Please vote YES on Prop 8!
Posted by Jeffrey, a resident of another community, on Oct 15, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I am a catholic and a gay man. I have known since I was young, im from a very conservative family, very strict parents. I came out when I was 13 my parents pulled me out of school so I wouldnt be influenced by anyone(nobody came out at that age). I even came out to my church and i was accepted with open arms. I am. I am 21 now, nobody influenced me to be gay, I do not drink, smoke, party, or do drugs, and i am in a long term relationship. I always dreame of getting married someday! As a catholic and citizen of the united states I deserve to have that privilege !
Posted by KateOHanlanMD, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Monica, I live in Portola Valley Ranch with my spouse of 23 years. We pay loads of taxes just like you, and want the same rights, responsibilities, taxes, and access to civil contracts from our State that you do.
Did you know that the American Psychiatric Association has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral,and immutable?
Did you know the APA confirms that sexual orientation is neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society?
Did you know that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same sex couples?
They said it was good for the children, because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for families.
When Americas premier child and mental health associations unanimously endorse marriage equality, there is really no ethical reason for you to want to codify discrimination against gay families and their children in our constitution.
Why would you do that?
Please reconsider, and vote to allow my spouse's and my very cherished dignity of marriage to withstand this terribly sad onslaught.
Posted by Trevor N., a resident of another community, on Oct 15, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The APA will say not what conclusive evidence shows, but what gay activists have influenced it to say. There were plenty of Psychiatrists who disagreed with the APA decision in the 1970's to take homosexuality off the official list of mental disorders. The fact is, there are many people who struggle with same-sex attraction, but nonetheless feel it is a disorder they need therapy and treatment for. Your cherished dignity is not actually marriage, since marriage has always meant the union of a man and woman, not two women. Although gay activists may try and change the definition through the courts, the people of California will have the ultimate say on what marriage actually is. And for millions of traditionally married people, what you have is not the same as heterosexual marriage. There are obvious biological and sociological differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual union. This is not a question of equal rights, its a question of whether or not Californians want acceptance of homosexuality shoved down there throats. Tolerance doesn't equal acceptance.
Posted by my country my rights, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:41 am
Trevor, my sister is gay. She is in a loving relationship and she seems very happy. She has chosen not to be married. She finally had a choice in the matter.
I will make this very clear.
I get enough garbage tossed at me by people who think trucks and guns and stadium-sized churches means America.
You come into my world and try to tell me or my loved ones that we don't deserve the same rights as you because of your God complex, you better come with more than your opinions.
I will fight for those rights to the bitter end. You can have your Chevy trucks and your plaid shirts. None of that stuff will help you. I will fight you to the end for my rights.
This is about rights and as far as I am concerned, you are coming in a Red Coat into my house and taking what is mine. You will lose this fight my friend. Because America does not stand for taking right away.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:59 am
I am always appalled by people who think they are entitled to decide for others. None of us should be in a position of judging others, their beliefs or their sexual orientation.
And we should not be bothered by gays wanting in their lives the same rights as us straight people. Why should I be bothered by the marriage between two gay people? Why should I fight to stop it? It doesn't affect my life, it doesn't take anything away from me or anyone else.I hope to be alive the day we look back at this issue and it will seem as absurd and ridiculous as not allowing people of color to be seated in a public bus. Let people be free to make their choice and to have the same rights.
Posted by straight but scared, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:59 am
If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then we should outlaw marriage between senior citizens. Men who have had vasectomies and women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to wed anyone.
I love the way some of you redefine marriage to suit your own personal biases and to try to disguise your bigotry. It terrifies me to think that you live in my community.
Posted by Mama Mia, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I'm married to a man, we've produced a child, and I agree whole-heartedly with "straight but scared." If two consenting adults love each other and want to get married, God bless 'em. Gay marriage enriches our community, it doesn't threaten it.
People on this thread need to get a grip on their own homophobia.
Posted by happily married, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 4:19 pm
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get married to someone gay.
For those of you who think gay marriage threatens your marriage, I am truly sorry for you.
What a fragile communion you must feel you have.
To think that a gay couple getting married in anyway reflects on my marriage is laughable.
Divorce, disrespect, adultry, financial crisis, death, unmatched values, illness, poor communication -- these things are legitimate threats to marriage.
Perhaps those of you with extra time and energy attempting push this draconian initiative might be better served strengthening your own marriages, rather than butting your heads into issues which have absolutely nothing to do with you. Maybe you can find a way to outlaw divorce. That would at least be interesting and not quite so absurd.
Posted by Elaine KaY, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 5:22 pm
We are strongly against Prop 8 for obvious reasons. This is a personal and religious issue and should not be decided by the political process. The constitutions, both state and federal, are to establish freedoms. This proposition would be used to prevent a freedom that gays and lesbians have a right to. It would harm all of us if passed. If passed this will mean the constitution can be use to stop other freedoms as well.
We fought this type of prejudice with the civil rights movement and for the women's right to vote plus many others. Preventing freedom is not what this country it about.
I have found that people who are for this proposition say they do not know any gays or lesbians. In reality they probably do but the gays and lesbians will not tell them because of the negative reaction they might encounter. If these people would only take the time to understand this culture they would find they are wonderful, loving people.
My husband and I have seven children. One of our sons is gay and has a wonderful partner and an adopted girl. Our whole family supports and loves them. We have many gay and lesbian friends who we love. They have enriched our life's.
Please think beyond prejudice before voting for the proposition. Voting against it precludes taking away basic human freedoms for gays and lesbians. It would be another step towards equality for gays and lesbian just as was granted to other minorities and women.
Posted by KateOHanlanMD, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Trevor, would you say that the entire American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American PsychoAnalytic Association were all taken over by just a few lefties? They each and every one endorse marriage. While I am at it, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists,Child Welfare League, and the National Council on Adoptable Children all endorse parenting by lesbian and gay couples---because the research shows that two loving parents are better for children than one, any two: two dads, two moms, a mom and a dad---so say the Pediatricians of the AAP. So, Trevor, there are no facts that back you up. On what will you base your vote for Prop 8?
It all boils down to some people needing to feel that they are somehow better than someone else. We are all humans, Trevor, all deserving to have the same rights. Please vote no on 8.
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Why do Gays have to call it 'marriage"? Why can't it be called something "union-like"? I sometimes look at this issue as Gays trying so hard to get back at the establishment, the "normal, non-Gays", for treating them poorly over the last thousand years. Gays can have all of the "rights" including divorce, splitting of assets, etc., as "married non-gays", but why not leave the word, and the institution of "marriage", alone?? It's typically viewed as a Biblical rite, most marriages are performed in a church, and most church's do not recognize the Gay lifestyle, so why not let the religious folks have "marriage" as their own???? What is the big deal with the wording of this?
Posted by Mabel, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Marriage isn't limited to Christians, people of child-bearing age, the fertile or even the sexually active.
Marriage back in the days of the Bible involed a contract between two fathers and the exchange of goods and livestock. It may have been about offspring, but many marriages were solely political or economic alliances. Let's not over-glamorize the history of marriage.
Today, marriage means two adults who want to create a family together, and it's no one's business if that marriage involves raising children or puppies, sexual activity or church attendence.
This doesn't affect anyone whose church, temple, mosque or shrine forbids same-sex marriage. This affects people who get married at city hall and at any religious establishment that performs same-sex unions.
Posted by Elaine Kay, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Carl Why don't we ALL call it "union-like" for everyone. Do you think it was blacks trying to get at the "normal-non-blacks", or women getting back at men and the establishment. No, they wanted to be treated equally. Why is "marriage" just allowed for a selected group why not ALL. Are those that are not white or men not "normal".
You stated that "marriage" is a Biblical rite. That is the very reason proposition 8 should be defeated. Marriage is religious right and the proposition 8 takes away rights of freedom for all and should not be an amendment to our constitution.
There were churches and still are churches that do not accept blacks in their churches or women as leaders. Do you believe they are right? Our constitution does not stop them and should not. They have the freedom to believe what they want. "Freedom of Religion"! There are churches today that DO believe in gay and lesbian marriage and are preforming them TODAY.
Creating a family does not just mean a couple that gives birth. What about adopting children. Do you mean anyone that adopts and take care of children are NOT parents or a family. McCain and his wife would take issue on that statement as would millions of "families"
Monika and Trevor: Please talk to and get to know gay and lesbian parents and children raised by gay and lesbians. You will be very surprised at how well adjusted and happy are their families.
No one is shoving these rights down our throats. Gay and lesbians just want what it RIGHT. We as Americans need to stand of up against prejudice and bigotry again. We are in danger of losing sight of what America is about. We no longer have great leaders like Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln, Roosevelt to help guide us through this. We have to lead ourselves.
Greg Larson has assembled it and is updating it daily. Greg has worked in government, politics and non-profits in Silicon Valley for many years. He is the Town Manager of Los Gatos, former President and CEO of United Way Silicon Valley, former Chief of Staff/Chief Deputy for former State Controller Steve Westly (they were co-student body presidents at Stanford years ago) — and an all-around good guy and reliable source. We’re fortunate that he has undertaken this project.
Posted by elaine Kay, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:01 am
The argument by "biological" resident of PV and many other does not hold up. Using you statement "Marriage is to create a union conductive of procreation. Only Man and Women can procreate." Proposition 8 should read "Only individuals that are able to procreate are allow to enter into Marriage." Also something that might be added "If they do not procreate they must divorce.
If we are going to start using our Constitutions take away freedoms this would do it. If you want to give more freedom the proposition should read. "Individuals do not have to enter into marriage to procreate."
Posted by citybythebay, a resident of another community, on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:20 am
Trevor said: "This is not a question of equal rights, its a question of whether or not Californians want acceptance of homosexuality shoved down there throats. Tolerance doesn't equal acceptance."
I'm not sure what you mean by "homsexuality shoved down their throats." (Seems odd that the Right keeps using this metaphor, which they love in other contexts, when we're talking about sexuality, but no matter.
What you are saying in non-Orwellian English is this: I disapprove of gay people. I should be able get together and go to the ballot box with people of like mind and impose any burden I want on homosexuals because that's my "right" to discriminate. Not novel, really, considering Jim Crow, but Trevor did you ever hear of equal protection?
Posted by KateOHanlanMD, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:42 am
No major intellectual resource group (newspaper, civic group, medical association, professional association) has endorsed Prop 8. Only religious groups and the republican party endorse 8. It is patently unintelligent to support 8. Sorry to be so frank. The only reason to endorse 8 is to push Christian values into state laws.
I think that we should feel fortunate that our Jewish friends are not trying to pass a constitutional amendment to make everyone follow Kosher rules, and that our Pagan friends are not trying to make us follow Pagan worship rules. Religions can and will always be able to discriminate.
But you harm our families when you vote to remove marriage access to us. Our children know the difference between marriage and civil unions---and they know that you disparage us by "protecting marriage" from us gay folk, and trying to keep that term for heterosexuals only. why would your heterosexual family ONLY, be so special? Our families are special to us.
3% of children of every generation, every race, every culture will realize that they are gay. Sexual orientation develops in the fetal brain during the first trimester, and is unchangeable.
I pity the 3% of children that grow up in religious families who realize that they are gay...as these are the kids who are 3-7 times more likely to attempt suicide, more likely to have failure in their lives. Why? because their families, churches and education institutions robbed them of the chance to develop a healthy self-concept....and for no good reason. Sexual orientation is not a moral issue. It is what your brain is triggered to point you to for love, and it is hard-wired. It is like being left handed---most folk are right handed. Teachers used to consider left-handedness evil and that is how the word "sinister" (latin word that only means left!!) came to mean evil. At least we NOW know that children should not be retrained to be right-handed. Different is not bad.
The Catholic church just issued an apology to Galileo for its being wrong about the Solar system having earth as its center. (just in time! 500 years later.) In many more years, churches will realize that they were really wrong and harmed millions of innocent children with their baseless dogma that homosexuality should be rejected or suppressed. But churches are free to discriminate....I just cringe in sorrow for their children. Think of all the military careers that have been trashed by the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.
We gay folk really only want what everyone else has been granted by OUR state: a civil marriage contract that dignifies our families in the traditional ways that we all respect and cherish.
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2008 at 9:14 pm
About 1% of the population is homesexual(yes they are desperate to convince you that it is really 3%). You wouldn't know that there are so few homosexuals around from watching television or listening to MSM. The MSM attempts to give the impression that homosexuals are a significant portion of the population and that this behavior is absolutely normal, not sordid behavior to be ashamed of. Homosexuals know better, and understandably are fighting to eliminate the shame they feel.
If you want to get a feel for homosexual culture, one need only to take a short trip to the Castro district. There you will find a great number of shops displaying plastic dicks and other offensive sexual regalia in just about every other shop. The Castro celebrates homosexual culture, and that culture is about embracing deviant sexuality. You wont find stores like that on main street in Menlo Park, because it is inappropriate behavior for the vast majority of us. You will find it in every other store in the Castro District, because that differentiates homosexual behavior from hetrosexual behavior, . . . in your face deviant sex. This is what little kids living in the Castro District face every day as they walk to school, go shopping etc. This is what differentiates homosexual culture from hetrosexual culture.
One has only to attend a Gay Pride Parade or the Folsom Street Fair to note that homosexual behavior is wildly out of place in hetrosexual America.
California has already voted on Homosexual marriage. The vote was a resounding NO. We don't want our kids exposed this deviant life, or taught this deviant way of life in our schools. A recent SF Chronicle headline told us about a first grade field trip to a lesbian wedding, and how the teacher regarded this as a great learning opportunity. Ouch, the truth hurts.
Unfortunately our kooky court overturned the will of the people and so, once again we go to the ballots to let homosexuals know that they can have the same civil rights as normal folks, through civil contracts. It was absolutely amazing that after the courts overturned the ban on homosexual marriage, that wedding licences were changed to remove the words "bride" and "groom", replacing them with "Party A" and "Party B", so as not to offend 1% of a deviant sexual population. Talk about hitting above your weight.
I don't have a problem with what consenting adults do in their bedroom, but I have a problem with them flaunting in our faces in stores, in the classrooms and on our television sets. I don't take my kids to the Castro district, just like I don't take them to the Adult Video store or Strip clubs or that part of town. I do not want the Castro District moving into my schools, my mainstreet, or in my kids faces. Just like I do not want a strip club moving onto Santa Cruz Avenue.
I do not go to church, and I do not see this as a religious matter at all. I do understand that homosexual men dressing like nuns during homosexual events is intended to insult the Catholic religion, and I do understand that homosexuals are attempting to portray this as a religious prejudice. I don't see them mocking the Muslim faith, because they know that will get them killed.
Homosexuals are right to fear the outcome of Proposition 8, and the will of the people of California. After Proposition 8 is passed, the next step will be to disolve all those sham marriage contracts that have been issued over the past year. I look forward to a vote on that issue next year.
Posted by a straight NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I'm still trying to fathom the connection between the Castro and gay marriage, and gay marriage and Santa Cruz Ave. The Castro reflects mainstream gay culture about as much as the strip clubs on Broadway reflect mainstream straight culture. No matter what happens with Prop 8, Menlo Park and Atherton are not likely to turn into freak havens, nor is Good Vibrations opening a store on El Camino any time soon.
I have yet to see a rational argument in favor of Prop 8. Just a bunch of rants from overprivileged people who think they are more entitled than their neighbors. You're the same people who insisted that interracial marriage would spell doom for society, and you were proven wrong. You're wrong on this too.
Posted by yes on 8 = coward, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is about my rights and the rights of others. Anyone who thinks they have the power to tell someone else who they can and cannot marry, is someone I need to see eye to eye. This is what is wrong with America today, the religious righteous have decided that their religion goes before my rights.
And I will tell you now, if you actually stood up in public and tried to take our rights you would lose that fight and, I would argue, would be lucky to stand again.
This is America, Jack, not a church.
People bled and died to keep our rights sacred.
You people ain't ready for that kind of fight. You just want to hide in the shadows behind your fat politician and radio personalities.
Cowards like you will also go to extremes to keep a black man from becoming president.
This is America. It is time we put your kind out to pasture.
Posted by Eye to Eye, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 11:47 am
You can not marry more than one man or woman at a time. I don't care about your church or lack thereof, and I will fight you to prevent you from doing so.
You can not marry your brother or sister. I don't care about your church, Jack, this is America and I have bled to prevent you from doing so.
You can not marry an underage boy or girl. Cowards like you, that prey upon them, will go to extremes to keep the best qualified candidate from the White House.
You can not marry a man or a woman if you are the same sex, except in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. After the election this November, California will fall off of that list. There has never been a state that has supported this abomination by popular vote or acclaim, it has all been done in darkness with lawyers and kooky judges against the wishes of the people. Sunshine tends to purify things, so lets see how it turns out next month. Let the sun shine.
In regards to your bravery, as stated by a previous poster, you see lots of homosexual males prancing about in nuns garb, but none in Muslim garb. That's the definition of cowardice.
Posted by Straight Yes on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 11:55 am
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement — and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.
For contrary to what "Straight no on 8" seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, all they were looking for was something to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms — the same food at the same counter at the same price.
Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren't demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren't trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren't bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.
All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment — approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 — had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 — passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed into law by President Grant — had barred discrimination in public accommodations.
But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court's betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them — that was the great cause of civil rights.
The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.
But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.
Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state's leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. "Martin Luther King," one left-wing legislator barked, "is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this."
But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.
Posted by Straight NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Don't tell me what I believe. Being black isn't the same as being gay, and no one has made that argument, although there are obvious similarities between the treatment given both minority groups.
Long historical treatise aside, you still don't give a reason why gay marriage presents any kind of problem. I understand your fear at the expansion of the definition of marriage -- the support of Prop 8 is about 99% based on fear -- but marriage will continue to be a fundamental institution of our society. Enlarging the marital pie to include gays has had an imperceptible impact at most.
As a straight married woman and mom, I foresee exactly one impact of same sex marriage: the likelihood of being invited to more weddings. I suspect that you Pro-8s don't have many gay friends, so gay marriage will affect your lives even less than it will affect mine.
If you must worry, worry about the economy, about terrorism, about global warming, about possible water shortages, about crime, or about a few dozen other real issues. But gay marriage? Shouldn't merit a blip on anyone's radar. A non-issue that's been hyped way out of proportion.
Posted by Civil rights for all, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with civil rights? What about the right to marry someone of another race? Laws banning miscegenation were on the books here in the US until the Supreme Court struck them down in 1967.
Anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in a few other places in the last century: Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.
This is the charming legacy that the Yes on 8 people would like to continue by denying the right to marry to gays.
Posted by Propag8 love, not hate, a member of the Woodside High School community, on Oct 20, 2008 at 1:02 pm
In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of Perez v Sharp:
"The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The court held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."
This decision allowed a Mexican-American woman to marry an African American.
See any similarities to what's going on now with Prop. 8?
Posted by Kelly, a resident of another community, on Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Funny how so many accuse those in favor of Prop 8 to be racist, to be bigots, oppressors,to be haters! I love all of the labels that you put on us! I like how "tolerant" you all are. We are taking nothing away from gays/lesbians. The fact is, the majority of California voted in favor of marriage between only a man and a woman. Isn't that democracy? Isn't that what our nation is founded upon? Last I checked, that's what I heard. Your beliefs (religion) will be forced upon us if this does not pass. Think about it. Read through Prop 8 very carefully. It WILL take away religious rights, it WILL negatively affect many, many children, including all of yours.
Posted by what are you so afraid of, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I keep waiting to hear one of yes on prop 8 proponents explain how or why someone else doing something contrary to THEIR beliefs/ values etc. hurts them
We got it, the purpose of marriage is procreation and that is only done by men and women - that argument doesn't hold otherwise sterile couples should be banned from marriage
majority of american are against gay marriage so courts shouldn't interfere- the "majority" were against freedom for slaves, women's right to vote and interracial marriage> Oops, as it turns out the is (and was) ignorant. It's always been up to the -- educated minority -- to lead the masses our of their darkness, fear and prejudice.
if the (your) Creator made us all in his Divine imagine - why do you regard homosexual choices as so perverse? Your God created them, right? No mistakes. Don't play the free will card here, unless you know how to explain homosexual behavior in wild animals - seems even the monkeys are "deviant" (as you describe them).
Why do you get to pick and choose which aspects of Christian dogma to shove down our throats.
Dont be so afraid. The bogey men are only in your head.
Posted by Peel them off, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I keep waiting to hear one no on prop 8 proponent explain, without lapsing into Christian theocracy bashing, why homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
This Christian dogma canard is extremely laughable, especially here on the peninsula where the majority population is Asian. Whether you are an atheist, a muslim, a buddhist or Shinto or a Jew, the one thing these citizens can agree on, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not a religious issue.
This is not a muslim issue. This is not a buddhist issue. Try getting married in Japan as a same sex couple. In Japan, people of the same sex are denied the right to marry by Article 24 of the Constitution, which defines marriage as a union of two people of the opposite sex.
You don't have to codify this 99% of the planet. These people of different faiths, including those that do not practice any faith at all, get it. No homosexual marriages.
Its the homosexuals that don't get it(or pretend not to). You can't travel through the US, much less the rest of the world as a legally wed homosexual couple. That critter don't exist. And after November 4th, it will not exist in California. A bunch of left wing crazy judges tried to overturn the will of the people. I look forward to the vote this November. And by next year we will eliminate recognizing the few homosexual marriages that have already taken place.
Homosexuals are working day and night trying to convince people that pedastry is as American as apple pie. Yes on 8 proponents don't need the hard sell. There is nothing complicated about it, and the vast majority of hetrosexual couples will tell homosexuals that civil law affords them all the protections they need. They don't get to subvert or change the definition of marriage. They need to find another word to define who they are and what they do.
I cannot think of anything more perverse than a woman referring to another woman as her wife, or a man referring to another man as his husband.
Posted by Straight NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:19 pm
>>>I cannot think of anything more perverse than a woman referring to another woman as her wife, or a man referring to another man as his husband.<<<
Really? Nothing more perverse than that? My, you have had a sheltered existence.
Your post betrays your fear. Allowing gays to legally marry does not infringe upon any of your rights, but merely extends the legal protections and obligations of marriage to a previously disenfranchised group.
P.S. I would challenge the assertion about the "majority population" being Asian. Not in the mid-peninsula. Do your homework.
Posted by IMAGINE, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I'm having this warm fuzzy feeling of imagining "peel them off,", "yes on 8" and "eye to eye" joined in a group hug at the Folsom St. fair with men clad in their leather chaps and bull whips, the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence standing by for support, surrounded by Dikes on Bikes sending their love.
To bad it's only a great, hilarious fantasy. Too bad they imagine that all they imagine gay to be is some extreme image as opposed to more accurately normal people who are their neighbors, their family, their colleagues, all leading " normal", decent, upstanding, responsible, lives.
At any rate, perhaps better to visualize than the ugliness that surrounds the Yes on 8 initiative and those who support it.
I would rather be lose the right of "marriage" than to live in their shoes for even one day. What a nightmare to be so ignorant, angry and afraid.
Posted by idiots on castro, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 6:22 am
Imagine, you can blame the gays image problem in the Bay Area and everywhere else on the flamers on Castro and the gay pride parades and TV. They are not normal. The are deviants and no one wants to live next to that. No one wants to see it. No one wants to support it through their government recognizing it.
Posted by John, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:04 am
I am not afraid, I am not angry, I am not ignorant, I am just a guy that thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. It has been between a man, and a woman, for hundreds, I'm thinking thousands of years, and majority of the time the marriage is performed in a church. I'm not overly religious, but again I'm thinking this is a religious ceremony that is mentioned and promoted in the Bible by a man and a woman. Why can't we leave this alone? Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Give it some other name, give these individuals the "rights and freedoms" that they want, and be done with it. It's now become almost something where Gays are vigilant and angry about themselves. If I get called "a breeder" one more time, perhaps I will get as angry as those that have expressed themselves on this blog!
Posted by Gay Hatemongers, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:42 am
I too have noticed that the hate and fear posts belong exclusively to those that oppose Prop 8. They are exactly what they espouse, intolerant (of heterosexuals), angry and afraid (of the passage of Prop 8 and a return to normalcy), lost in fantasies of abuse and violence against those that do not agree with them.
I pity those that oppose Prop 8. They are filled with fear and hate, and ignorance. Ignorant that blacks are offended by Gay attempts to paint their sexual needs as a civil rights issue, ignorant by attempting to paint racial differences as similar to basic sexual difference, and frustrated in their attempts to spread their proproganda to the elementary schools of our youth.
They are ignorant that every religion on earth including Christianity condemns their sexual behavior, and that agnostic adults are repelled instinctively by their deviancy.
Opponents of Prop 8 just don't get it. But they will on Nov 4!
Posted by Straight NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 10:04 am
Lots of generalizations and stereotyping there, Gay. I'm heterosexual, happily married to a member of the opposite sex, a deeply religious person, and a parent. But I am very afraid - of people like you. You're the same people who pushed my grandparents and great-grandparents into ovens in Poland, the same people who joined lynch mobs in the South, who savaged Hutus in Rwanda, who support murder in Darfur today...need I continue? Your intolerance and lack of acceptance of those who are different terrifies me.
Anyone who thinks that continuing to allow gay marriage is going to corrupt our children isn't paying attention. Thanks to No Child Left Behind, our schools don't even have the bandwidth to teach art and science, much less offer courses on gay marriage. Please.
If Prop 8 wins in November, as I expect it will do, it will be because of irrational fears propagated by people like you. And so I am too am afraid, because disenfranchising one group of people is the beginning of the end for us all.
Posted by biological, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 10:39 am
Straight NO, you are crazy, sick and insulting.
You are going to compare a marriage bill based on thousands of years of tradition and biological fact to the Holocost?
You are trying to say that if I don't want to support someones sick agenda that I am akin to pushing someone in an oven?
The over-the-top gay agenda has messed with your head. They are pushing their intolerance of anything traditional on good people and calling them aweful names when they don't buy into it, and you are drinking the koolaid.
"Gay Hatemongers" is absolutely correct and your post is proof of that.
Posted by Gay Hatemongers, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 11:31 am
Can you believe someone stating they are "deeply religious" and against Prop 8? LOL. When's the last time these "deeply religious" folks checked in with their religious organization?
In any case religion, as many folks on this thread have explained, has nothing to do with it. When practically all religions and agnostics line up against Homesexual marriage, that pretty much says it all.
If one lives in fear, of a world without Homosexual marriage, if one is afraid of such a world, then one has truely lived a sheltered existance, welcome to the real world.
Some event attempt to trivialize the vote, ss to whether this is a major issue in todays world of complex security challenges and economic turmoil. I have to say it is not. The idea that such a minute percentage of people would try to change the definition of marriage (a foundation of our society) does not dominate the headlines or most of our lives. When we vote on Nov 4th, we will as matter of course, vote YES on Prop 8 and then focus hard on the other weighty matters in the voting booth.
No one is advocating going into everyone's bedroom and checking out your business. But I surely do not support a bunch of polygamists, pediaphiles, incest advocates or homosexuals to push their business in our homes and schools and communities. It is this extreme advocacy that has been pushed in only three states of our union via judicial fiat that offends the Main Street citizen. This is about changing the definition of the union between a man and a woman not about denying some small clique their rights, which as they fully acknowledge, they already possess.
Those that are in fear that the definition of marriage will stay the same as it has since the beginning of time, are in some form of deep deep denial. When the front page of the SF Chronicle trumpets 1st grade field trips to a Lesbian Wedding, as a "great teaching moment", all the lies about Prop 8 are made transparent.
Posted by Follow the $, a resident of another community, on Oct 21, 2008 at 11:57 am
I am a deeply committed evangelical Christian neighbor who comes regularly to Menlo Park to shop and to worship. I see myself as a part of the community. I'm a man. I’ve been married to the woman I love for almost 50 years. I’m the father of two wonderful adult children.
I've followed this issue carefully. I think it is time to 'follow the money.' It is estimated that $50 M will be spent on ads supporting Prop 8 and about half that on ads seeking its defeat. I believe the Jesus I follow would rather see that $75M spent on 'the least of these My brethren.'
Large sums of money supporting Prop 8 are flowing in from Utah, Nevada, and Idaho at the command of the LDS leadership. The single largest donation is from the Knights of Columbus, “formed to render financial aid to members and their families.”
Most galling is a very large sum from Colorado Springs, donated in the name of preserving marriage. It comes from a group that told a fellow evangelical, "we concede that family breakdown is caused much more by heterosexual dysfunction than by homosexuals ... but we can't vouch for our fundraising department. You can find the whole story here:
Through its ex-gay program, this same community encourages homosexual individuals to undergo 'reparative therapy' so that they can engage in a "mixed orientation marriage," one statistically prone to divorce and a broken family.
I'd rather live in a community that supports and encourages stable marriages and loving families, not one man and one woman marriages, with no regard for the consequences.
Posted by A father from Atherton, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I was pleased to read the comments of a fellow evangelists on this forum. Although most people rightfully associate us with Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell and the Bob Jones University there is a more liberal spokesman, Jim Wallis, who speaks for progressive evangelists. Follow the $ rightfully links to Mr. Wallis' views which are that we evangelists focus too hard on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of other issues. I agree with this.
Follow the $, fails to tell the whole story, which is that Jim Wallis is a big supporter of Proposition 8 and is adamently against gay marriage and the redefinition of marriage.
All of us would like to live in a community that supports and encourages stable marriages. Two men or two women can no more marry than a dog and a donkey can have a sacred union. I understand what my fellow evangelist is trying to say, which is that we must focus our money and efforts on other issues other than gay marriage.
Unfortunately it was the gay community that forced this issue on us, by going to court to attempt to make marriage gender neutral, which it is not. I'll let Bob Wallis speak for himself, since Follow the $ seems to listen to him:
Bob Wallis on gay marriage:
I don't think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, and that's technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it's not gender-neutral.
I have never done a blessing for a same-sex couple. I've never been asked to do one. I'm not sure that I would. I want churches that disagree on this to have a biblical, theological conversation and to live with their differences and not spend 90 percent of their denominational time arguing about this issue when 30,000 children are dying every single day because of poverty and disease.
I don't have all the answers on homosexuality. Fifty years from now, when we understand more what's going on, we'll look back and we'll ask: How did we treat gay and lesbian people? Did they feel like we treated them the way Jesus might have? And how do we treat each other in this conversation? When this becomes the defining issue of our time, I get nervous.
I'm happy to hear that you know some rabbis that perform gay marriages. All religions are free to perform whatever ceremonys they wish, I'm not at all religious and have no objection to whatever actions they wish to sanction, however just as very few people are gay, even fewer religious leaders support their union.
I do not want the state to sanction homosexual marriage and redefine marriage for all of us. Vote Yes on 8, and don't let the hate mongers stop you from voting for Proposition 8.
Posted by biological, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm
>>The bible endorses both slavery and polygamy. biological, should we re-institute those "traditional" practices?<<
Tell me where this is? There may be examples of these practices in the Old Testament, however, they are not endorsed prinicples and they are certainly not supported in the New Testament or the Gospel by Jesus. Additionally, we've already covered the bilogical concept that, in principle, it requires a man and a woman to procreate and therefore form a legitimate family from a purely scientific point of few, so to bash solely on the religious is an incomplete and ineffective argument.
>>Or are you willing to be open-minded and accepting of those who are different from you?<<
You obviously aren't of the mindset to be tolerant of my traditional view so why would you expect anyone to extend the courtesy to you? Especially with the hateful message that comes with it, "Religion, traditional values, the Bible are all evil and we need to move past it."
>>Large sums of money supporting Prop 8 are flowing in from Utah, Nevada, and Idaho at the command of the LDS leadership. The single largest donation is from the Knights of Columbus, “formed to render financial aid to members and their families.”<<
Here is more hate for religious organizations who are endorsing this. There is obviously not any tolerance for the LDS or Catholics.
>>Gay, the board of my Jewish congregation has expressed its opposition to Prop 8, and quite a few rabbis perform gay marriages.
Let me guess, though: you probably aren't real fond of Jews either. <<
So lets turn it around, one congregation has expressed its opposition, so now we must hate Jews too, because we disagree?
What congregation is this? This is one in how many? I can find you a list of Catholic Priests that may disagree with prop 8 as well, but they are the minority, and won't stay in favor with Catholic leadership long if they continue to voice this misguided opinion. The teaching of the Church is specific and a lone few dissentors don't make gay marriage correct.
Support ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN as the definition of MARRIAGE.
Posted by Gay Hatemongers, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 8:07 pm
So being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Hinduist, is about preaching hate. Somehow, I think that's NOT WWJD, or Buddha, or Muhammed or Krishna would do. Hmmm, actually Krisha might even feed off of your hate.
Some people haven't got the message, it just aint about the Christians. No faith supports this bastardized interpretation about marriage. You obviously don't get out of town much.
Posted by Laughing, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:47 am
You people can argue about being gay all you want...that is not the issue. 4 judges overturned the votes of millions...and when 8 passes, these leftist lawyers and judges will do again from the bench what they cannot do from the ballot box. Our democracy is dead. That is what this is all about, that we can vote on laws, whether a particular group likes the laws or not. Our system is badly broken. This emotional argument crap is garbage...no one cares who you love and have sex with...really, and the whole back and forth is boring. How about we save the republic before it is too late.
Posted by constitution, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
This is why we need to change our constitution by adding an Amendment stating the definition of Marriage as between a man and woman, so the idiots in the Supreme court can't call it "unconstitutional".
Posted by vote no on 8, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:58 am
You folks hate gays so much that you're demanding a constitutional amendment? Frightening. There are many totalitarian nations on this planet; why not move to one? You will be much happier under a dictatorship.
Posted by vote yes on 8, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 9:50 am
You folks hate biological fact, traditional family and religious values so much that you would oppose anything or anyone defending them. Frightening. There are so many secular and totalitarian nations on this planet; why not move to one? You would be much happier there.
Posted by Oh Happy Day, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 10:21 am
The level of discourse is now scraping the bottom of the barrel. I enjoy the Forum for its witty conversation, stimulating discussion and informative facts.
I'm leaning towards supporting Prop 8, but mainly because its the status quo and I haven't heard any cogent and convincing arguments for changing the traditional definition of marriage.
I understand the proponent argument which can be religion-based (I am a Christian) or tradition-based or similarly culture based. I don't want Gay culture introduced to First Graders, yet I feel it has its place in traditional sex ed classes at school.
I haven't heard much on the opponents side of the argument. The opponents seem mainly hate-based. A lot of name calling, accusations of bigotry, and the old passive agressive hausfrau argument of "I feel sorry for you", or "I feel sorry for me" living in the same community as you. Since name calling is a staple of the opponents argument, this results in retaliation by the proponents who reply in kind.
I would be interested in hearing from gay couples on how legal recognition of gay marriage makes things administratively easier for them, over civil contracts. I would like to hear arguments on how they believe that gay marriage can overcome a natural repulsion to their lifestyle and lead to acceptance. In short I would love to hear cogent arguments from opponents of the measure.
The Civil Rights comparison has been brought up in this forum, and pretty much discredited, both by the black population and folks showing the differences between fighting for equal rights for all skin colors versus redefining what skin color is.
So I'd be interested in hearing just some practical every day examples of why changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is justified.
So, lets stop with the name calling and get back to hopefully, some new and innovative solutions to integrating gays into mainstream society and whether changing the definition of marriage is acceptable to mainstream society and people of faith.
I look forward to reading your thoughts in this forum. So stop with the passive agressive "no content" name-calling and rub some brain cells together and put up a rhetorically beautiful and convincing piece on the Proposition, or a clinically factual treatise, or a moving religious soliloquy on this issue.
Posted by straight and anti-8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 10:26 am
Oh Happy Day, civil rights is not just about skin color. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also gave <gasp> equal rights to women. At the time, that was considered an abomination by many traditionalists and religious groups. If there had been an internet then, I'm sure that many of them would be posting on a forum with arguments similar to those of the Yes on 8 folks.
If you are straight, gay marriage has no impact on your life or on your children's lives. But it gives a small group of people access to the same protections and responsibilities that the rest of us have. What's so bad about that?
Posted by funding, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 10:29 am
Whats so bad is I don't want MY tax dollars going to a lifestyle that I don't support nor feel is right or is morally questionable.
They can have all the commitment ceremonies they want and can live together and have their own personal "marriages" fine. No one should be able to prevent that. But I don't have to agree with it. And I shouldn't have to fund it.
Posted by funding, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 11:58 am
If one of them worked and the other didn't and were "married" then they would pay less taxes.
Then when the one that worked died the social security check would continue to go to the one still living.
There are plenty of more examples, but this illustrates the point.
Once again, Mr. Human Rights, you bring up hatred and bigotry, but you show no regard for my values. I say it is YOU who are full of hate. I have shown no hate for the homosexual community. I am fully tolerant of their lifestyle, but I am not willing to support or condone it. It is YOU and your hate for my values and lack of respect for my point of view, and lack of rational support for your cause that frightens me.
Posted by human rights, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm
So, we like having unmarried gay people in our midst because they pay into the social security system and then they die and no one gets to collect the money they put in. In other words, we like the fact that they subsidize US, and allowing gay marriage would put an end to that.
The income tax argument doesn't hold any water. If two gay people live together, they pay less in taxes if they stay single than if they are married. That's why it's called the "marriage tax" and why many straight couples decide not to marry. It's impressive that marriage matters so much to gay couples that they are willing to pay that extra tax (thereby subsidizing stay-at-home hetero parents).
I fully understand the Pro on 8 mindset because I grew up among people with that mindset, including my own parents. I had friends who realized, at some point during their teenaged years, that they were gay. It was not a lifestyle choice (their lifestyles didn't change!) but rather an agonizing acceptance of their differences, along with the concomitant fear of being rejected by their families or stigmatized by the community.
So for me and for many other straight people, "tolerating" is not an option. These are our friends, and we accept and support them just as they do us. There's no scary "homosexual community" that's out to brainwash your kids, just a bunch of regular people who went to school with us and work with us and live next door to us.
Posted by funding, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 2:17 pm
now its down to namecalling...
You continue to hate me. you're a hater.
Tolerating IS an option...I don't want to accept that lifestyle. Per my previous email...I don't want to fund it.
as for the "scary homosexual community" you've obviously never made it up to San Francisco from your sheltered little Menlo Park neighborhood, go to Castro St. on Halloween and tell me that that is something you want your kids to experience and/or be a part of. There is nothing right about that scene.
Posted by funding, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm
BTW MS. Human Rights, you must not pay taxes in your sheltered little home, because the "Marriage Penalty" only applies if both spouses work.
IF (key word here which was also used in my earlier post)
IF one of them does not work and one does then they PAY LESS TAXES if the state recognizes their marriage than if one was a stay at home gay and the other gay worked and the state DIDN'T recognize their "union".
So if the state recognizes their marriage they would PAY LESS TAXES in this instance and I would be funding their unholy union. I DON't want to fund it.
Posted by human rights, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm
All research and census figures show that gay couples are far more likely than straight couples to have two gainfully employed members. Therefore, married gays would be subsidizing everyone else, not vice versa. Net, they would be paying substantially more than they are now!
If one partner is not bringing in an income --staying home with the kids, or unable to work -- then why shouldn't they get the same tax breaks that hetero couples do? If you don't like the tax code, complain to the IRS.
Posted by Oh Happy Day, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I was happy to see the tax issue brought up by some posters. That is an issue that I hadn't considered. What would have been better was some concrete numbers on what taxbreaks heterosexuals get versus homosexuals using various income scenarios. If anyone knows about a website or is willing to do some crunching, it would be interesting to check out the financial repurcussions on not legalizing gay marriages, and what if any alternatives there are aside from changing the definition of marriage. Could we pass some tax laws to address the issue.
I know the issue of Palimony came up over a decade ago, in terms of redefining relationships over time without marriage, and would be interested in hearing from any lawyers on the thread about penalties and advantages of marriage from a legal point of view.
So thanks for adding another issue to consider when weighing the fairness of Prop 8 and solutions to address it.
Any way we can come up with some other points of view other than the ones that have already been run into the ground via traditionalists and civil right advocates? Without name calling, please.
Posted by for equality, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm
This discussion about where our taxes go is frightening. I for one am a heterosexual happily married parent who does not believe it's good for the world that human population grows at the rate it is. Thus, it does not seem right to me that we subsidize through our tax code large families. I would not dream of pushing for a constitutional amendment to prevent families from having lots of children but I do question the tax code.
The issue of Prop 8 is about the right for people who love each other to be able to marry and have the privileges and obligations that accompany that sort of commitment to each other and society. I am not at all threatened by others exercising this right, just as my heterosexual marriage does not threaten others. Please vote NO on prop 8.
Posted by YES on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Proposition 8 does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage. It is NOT an attack of the "gay lifestyle". Nor does it impact rights. Propositon 8 will overturn the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme COurt Jusdges who took it upon themselves to ignore the will of the voters. Marriage is between one man and one woman. THe majority of the people will demonstrate how sick and tired we are of having this "gay political nightmare" crammed down our throats. Children should not be taught that there is no difference between gay and traditional marriage. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! YES YES YES YES on Proposition 8!!!
Posted by for equality, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well, I'm at least glad I'm going to cancel out your vote with my NO vote. This is all about rights. Stick to your own beliefs but please don't infringe upon those of others. Marriage between two homosexuals will never bother my own heterosexual marriage, nor the health and happiness of my children or yours.
Posted by YES on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Equality, you are a moron. You think that you are going to cancel out MY vote? Well...you are not going to cancel out every person I know along with every person who is SICK AND TIRED of having this gay nonsense shoved down out throats. MARRIAGE IS LEGALLY DEFINED AS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. We the people overwhelmingly voted this in in 2004. ONLY because of 4 jackass judges who were way out of line did this change. Proposition 8 WILL pass by a LANDSLIDE. If you don't think that children being taught that men marrying men and women marrying women is wrong...you need to seriously evaluate your values. MARRIAGE is a special and unique institution. NOT something to change everytime the political wind blows left. YES ON 8!!!!!!!
Posted by agreeing, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 9:32 am
I agree with all those who support Prop 8. This is a basic fundamental issue...to protect marriage. Gays would still be afforded all their rights via domestic partnership. Nothing will change and no discrimination will take place. This is a simple basic common sense proposition. It is to overturn what four out of line judges did to us 4 years ago. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing complicated about that. It is just disgusting that we have to vote yet again on this issue. I agree with Yes on 8 that this will be a landslide victory. I too do not know anyone (neighbor, friend, family members, co-workers) who are voting against this. I also agree that the people are really quite tired of having this gay lifestyle political correctness thrown in our faces. Trying to change the defination of marriage and make our children confused is just the final straw. They finally have pushed this too far and now those of us with proper morals are going to stand up and slam them back. YES on Proposition 8. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Yes on Propostion 8-no discrimination will take place as those who choose the homosexual lifestyle are protected under domestic partnership. Yes on Propostion 8-Let us overturn what four out of line over zealous judges did to us 4 years ago! YES ON PROPOSITION 8!!!!!
Posted by A resounding NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 9:47 am
Are you more concerned about confusing your children? Or about having your legacy of hatred and exclusivity perpetrated onto the next generation, and using them to camouflage your own bigotry?
My kids are growing up with kids who have two moms or two dads. Yes, they think it's a little unusual, but that's all. It matters not one whit to my kids, nor should it to anyone else, whether or not these gay couples are married.
Gay marriage has been legal in this state since mid-May. Can any of you Prop 8 proponents point to one single way in which this legality has affected you, personally, or anyone you know? I thought not.
Let's all practice a little kindness toward those who are different from us. It doesn't hurt any of us to accept gay marriage.
Posted by Concerned, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Belle...you are correct. Kindness is important as is respecting those humans who are different from us. One must respect others, and one ought to tolerate other views, but tolerating and accepting/assimilating/endorsing are two separate concepts.
You ask how the newly endowed legality of gay marriage has affected me personally. The reason that nobody can provide concrete reasons AT THIS MOMENT is that it has only been a few months since the court overturned the law. Nobody knows what might happen. If you look to Massachusetts, you will see that changes have occured there that haven't had time to occur here. Adoption agencies have had to close their doors rather than be forced to place babies in homes without a mother AND a father. A parent spent time in jail for getting upset that gay relationships were being discussed in elementary school and he wasn't informed or allowed to opt out.
The point is that nobody knows what long term effects opening this door may have. The rights of gay partners are already protected by domestic partnership laws - AS THEY SHOULD BE. And, if there are holes in the laws, we should fix those to make sure that gay people have the rights they need to pursue happiness and stability in their lives in the way they choose. However, slapping the word 'marriage' onto an already established domestic partnership is not the right path.
Marriage is not simply the legalizing of a "love" relationship. The government has no vested interest in legalizing who can love and who cannot. It *does* have a vested interest in trad. marriage as it, in most cases, brings about the next generation of children. That is why traditional marriage has been government sanctioned for so long. If the government *is* in the love business, then there are many more types of relationships that will be able to step forward and rightly claim legal recognition as then who is to say what sorts of love is right and OK. Opponents of 8 say otherwise, but they are incorrect. It will only be a matter of time.
Are we ready to go there?
In the end, we live in a democracy and we the people are entrusted with choosing and establishing the nature of the society in which we live. If you support traditional marriage, vote yes. If no, vote no. All the hatred and mudslinging on both sides the argument have made this whole thing so fraught with nastiness and no matter the outcome, I am afraid the negative climate has been set and will be very difficult to overcome.
Posted by concerned by concerned, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I really disagree with you that good parenting requires both a father and a mother. Very few households in the country even have both in them, yet many children who are physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy result from such households. Households with both a father and a mother often do not do a good parenting job. Households with two moms or two dads can do a great parenting job, or lousy also. It's not the gender of the parent or parents that matters, it's how they parent.
So by your definition I should get a divorce because I've hit menopause? Or my neighbors should do so because they are infertile? You frighten me. I will vote NO, partly because I don't know when you will stop your intolerance.
Posted by YES on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm
A Resounding no...you are completely uneducated about this proposition. This propositon does not have anything to do with hate or bigotry. It is simply about righting a wrong. About making it clear that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. The homosexuals will continue to be afforded rights as domestic partners. The fact that any child calls two women parents or two men parents is wrong enough...but that is an entirely different topic. This about returning the values of the majority of voting Americans back to what it was voted for in 2004. Letting men marry men and women marry women makes a mockery of marriage. It hurts our value system, our children and our future. YES on Propositon 8.
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm
To concerned...you are completely missing the point of prop 8. You people who think this is a parenting issue...it has absolutely nothing to do with that. This is about restoring marriage. This is about correcting something that should have never been done by four liberal judges who were way way way out of line. We the people VOTED in favor of this in 2004. It passed by a huge margin. The only issue here is this...Marriage is between one man and one woman. PERIOD. End of Discussion. It has nothing to do with parenting, or children or anything else. No one cares about your menopause analogy! That was laughable!! Yes on 8 merely restores the legal defination of marriage to what is is supposed to be. The joining of one man and one woman in matrimony. Where have the basic common sense morals gone??? You people are uneducated and uninformed. Read the propostion in its entirety before you jump on here spewing your ludicrous and nonsensical utterings. YES ON 8
Posted by yes to human rights, no on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
In 1950, you would have said that marriage is defined as a union between two people of the same race. You would have been sure that interacial marriage would spell doom for society. And has it?
"You people are uneducated and uninformed." How about looking in the mirror and seeing someone who is way too rigid and narrow-minded? Times change. Instead of being stuck in the past, let's embrace the future.
Don't be afraid: gay marriage has not and will not hurt you!
Posted by Still concerned, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2008 at 9:00 pm
By affirming and upholding traditional marriage I *am* embracing the future. The traditional family - when healthy and stable - provides the *best* possible environment for a child to thrive. By voting to preserve traditional marriage, I am voting for the hope of a better future for our whole society.
I know...I know....the state of marriage is already a shambles, no thanks to the heterosexual community. That is because our society has distorted the primary purpose of marriage and made it to be primarily about romantic and sexual fulfillment. When the needs of the family started coming in second to self-centered desires, the institution of marriage became impaired. Now, those of us who value the traditional meaning of marriage and family are seen as "rigid" and "stuck in the past" (and bigoted, and hate-filled, etc.)
Yes..times HAVE changed, but not for the better. By legalizing gay marriage, we increase permissiveness, underscore the faulty notion that marriage is solely about love, and further devalue the traditional place of family in society. I fail to see how this is forward thinking.
Posted by choice, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 7:23 am
Don't compare the civil rights movement of the 50's. You are born a particular race. You don't HAVE to be gay. This is a disturbing statement from a bunch of nutcases from the most disturbing part of SF. NO on 8.
Posted by No on prop hate, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 8:30 am
Choice, gay people don't "choose" to be gay. That's a huge fallacy perpetuated by Prop 8 supporters. In that way, being gay is exactly the same as being black or female -- people are born a certain way.
It may not be that obvious to outsiders that someone is gay, but if you ever had a gay friend (sounds like most of you avoid that), you would understand how wrenching it is for many gays to come to terms with their orientation.
It IS a civil rights issue, and that's why I believe that Prop 8 will ultimately be irrelevant. Even the most religious and dogmatic among you won't be able to continue to deny a minority group the basic rights that everyone else has.
Posted by marriage for commitment, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 9:40 am
People I know who want to get married do so as part of their commitment to each other. I fail to see how this promotes promiscuity for either heterosexuals or homosexuals. In fact, it's just the opposite.
I don't condone promiscuity by anyone. We should rejoice that so many people want to marry the person they love.
Posted by no on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Fair Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 9:50 am
When you ask some of the Pro 8s why they support the ban on gay marriage, they point to the Castro and voice their fears that gay marriage will cause the Castro culture to permeate California. But in actuality, married gay couples are more likely to buy the house next door to you and raise tomatoes than to spread an offensive culture.
Those of you who abhor the Castro ambiance should be big opponents of Prop 8. Gay marriage will keep those deviants off the street!
Posted by sickened, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 10:18 am
"No on 8"...you think that voting no is going to keep these people from living in your neighborhood? These homosexuals can still do that under domestic partnership. Proposition 8 simply restores traditional marriage. That is it. These Castro freak shows can still live together and do was ever makes them happy with protection under domestic partnership. NO rights will be squashed. This proposition is to protect traditional marriage. The only protection will be for those of us who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. No marriage should ever be referred to as "party 1 and party 2" and certainly not groom/groom or bride/bride. It is morally wrong. It is ethically wrong. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ON PROPOSITION 8! Save traditional marriage vote YES on 8!!
Posted by end the hate: no on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 11:20 am
Why does traditional marriage need to be "saved?"
Gay marriage does not threaten your marriage or mine. It simply allows more people -- a much maligned subgroup, in this case -- to partake of this wonderful custom.
Some of you seem to think that the laws regarding marriage have been set in stone for centuries. Nonsense! The definition of marriage has evolved (you can no longer get married when you are 10 years old, for example) and will continue to evolve.
Gay marriage is a reality and you are not going to make gays go back into the closet on this one. Civil rights and simple humanity will trump your fears and hatred.
Posted by YES ON 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 11:36 am
I do NOT feel threatened, and I am not a "Gay Basher", I just believe in a custom, a tradition, that has lasted thousands of years, and has ALWAYS been about "A Man and A Woman", period. No matter how the other side wants to slice and dice, and call me angry, or call me uninformed, or threatened, or archaic etc., it is about "A Man and A Woman".
Posted by Shaking my head..., a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Those of you opposing 8 are really shooting yourselves in the foot when you throw out labels like Hate. There are actually people who are undecided about this issue. Some of us actually have spent a lot of time and effort trying to figure out the right way to look at it, and thus the right way to vote. There is no hate involved, no fear. Many of us have gay friends and family that we dearly love and respect. I would welcome a gay couple to my neighborhood and would hope to trade their tomatoes for some of my homemade bread. I would ask them to babysit on occasion. Yet, you have already judged this to be impossible; I support the traditional concept of marriage and family, so therefore I *must* be a bigoted, fearful hatemonger.
This issue is not cut and dry. However, when I am slapped with this "hateful" label, it just pushes me towards the yes side because it shows the intolerance, disdain and, yes, hate that people have for traditional thinkers.
I find it so interesting that the very people who are so worried about fairness and equality and civil rights, etc., are not somehow bothered by their own use of the very tactics they claim to despise. Funny....
Posted by Ang, a resident of another community, on Oct 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
As a parent and a human being I am against Prop 8. My daughter is 8 months old and I don't know if she is gay but I will not deny my child or anyone else the right to live their life the way that they want to.
This is a legal issue not a religious issue. We should not amend a Constitution to take away rights. Constitutions are written to guarantee individual "inalienable rights." People are guaranteed â€śequal protection of lawâ€ť which includes the freedom from unjustifiable discrimination. Even if this prop passes it is still unconstitutional.
People who say that they do not want big government should not be giving the state government this much power over individuals' lives. I voted early and I voted against prop 8.
Posted by no on 8, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm
First: I can't believe anyone is making up her/his mind on how to vote based on this thread!
Second: I have seen quite a bit of fear and hate expressed by pro 8s here on this forum. I call it as I see it. I don't believe that all pro 8s are hateful people--some are just devoted to a religious philosophy that does not accept gays. (And religion is one of those eggshell topics, in general not one I'd choose to debate.)
Gays can be celibate, but they are still gay. Let's not get stupid here.
And I don't disagree that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman...or a man and a few women. But why stay stuck in the past? The president of this country has always been a white male, but chances are that that's going to change with this election. Don't forget that women's rights were added to the 1964 civil rights bill by politicians who fully expected that the inclusion of women would cause the bill to fail.
Read up on recent history: the sentiments expressed against women and blacks in the mid-60s were very similar to what I see here regarding gays. And "tradition" played a big role in those arguments.
As a society, we should have moved beyond these petty exclusions long ago. Prop 8 is evidence that we have not.
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 3:55 pm
You idiots! Proposition 8 has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with "moving on as a society". This not excluding anybody. This is a basic decision as to what we the people want the definition of marriage to be. Marriage is, always has been, and after this election will be between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with anything other than just that. YES ON 8 to make the final legal definition of marriage was it is supposed to be. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. End of Discussion. I am confident that the people will overwhelmingly pass this proposition. Yes on 8.
Posted by oh ya?, a resident of the Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2008 at 4:03 pm
This is directed to the person who wrote under "No on 8"...if you think that BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA who associated and associates with domestic terrorists and black clerics who preach hatred against whites, you got another thing coming. McCain is going to win this election simply because of his qualifications. "Barry Obama" is nothing more than a gifted public speaker with a good writing staff. His resume is a total joke. Being a "community organizer" does not prepare him to deal with the very serious threats we as a nation are faced with. McCain is the ONLY qualified candidate for the job. I am a Democrat and am voting for McCain. It is based on qualifications and nothing else. No CEO would ever hire "Barry" as to run a company based on his qualifications. We the people are the CEO making the very important decision of who will be in charge. Be smart people...think about what is at stake here.
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of another community, on Oct 29, 2008 at 8:44 am
My faith guides me on how I make decisions. Your last two sentences are nonsense. Freedom of religion lets me practice the religion that I want, which influences who I am and how I vote. Tough luck for you.
Posted by Yes for human rights, No on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 9:25 am
You have the freedom to choose your religion. You do not have the right to ipmose your religious beliefs on others. This country was founded on those two principles. Proposition 8 represents an effort to uproot those principles, which also serve as the basis for our Constitution. Even if Prop 8 passes, it will not stand.
Let's save ourselves some grief and show our support for human rights.
Posted by No on 8 for all people, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yes on 8, time for a refresher course on civics! If you're still in high school, you can sign up now. My elementary school kids know more about civil liberties and the Constitution than you seem to know.
Posted by Once Again, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with civics OR the constitiution. Rights will not be infringed upon as homosexuals are protected under domestic partnership!!!!! This is about restoring TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. Marriage is, was, and always will be between one man and one woman. That is the ONLY issue here people!! Read the proposition. This is about fundamental morals and values. No child should be taught that it is OK for Uncle so and so to marry a man! and same goes for women. This is about the legal definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman. PERIOD. YES on 8! Protect marriage! YES ON 8!
Posted by unreal, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm
"No on 8" you are completely off topic. We are not speaking of
"other cultures". This issue pertains to OUR SOCIETY. NO ONE ELSE'S. We the people voted to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in 2004. This was illegally and unfairly overturned by 4 left wing nut judges who were out of line. Proposition 8 simply restores what we the people voted for. Traditional marriage in OUR OUR OUR Society is between one man and one woman. Read the proposition before you jump on your soap box. YES ON PROPOSITION 8!!!!!
Posted by odd, a resident of another community, on Oct 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Mary M. Why are you Catholic if they get everything wrong? Everything the Church teaches has a long list of reasons as to WHY it believes the way it does. Go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. People that say, I'm Catholic, BUT..." are a strange breed. You either do or you don't. If you don't you are only fooling yourself.
Posted by PA Resident, a resident of another community, on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Alternative lifestyles need alternative words to describe them.
Nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, rights, or narrow mindedness. We use different words to describe different things. This is not demeaning them, it is just showing that they are not the same. A traditional marriage is not the same as a gay union, so they should not be described as being the same. They can have identical rights, identical feelings, but they are not identical so let's not call them identical. They are alternates, nothing discriminatory in that. So let's used alternate descriptions.
Posted by Just say no to 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Marriage encompasses many kinds of relationships, but in general describes unrelated people who have a strong affinity for one another and expect to remain in close association over a prolonged period of time. (Although there are short-term marriages of convenience and other exceptions.)
No need to come up with a new word for gay marriages when we already have a perfectly serviceable word. Separate-but-equal doesn't cut it in 2008.
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:47 am
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
I believe we have laws saything we shouldn't steal, murder, provide false testimony. So are you saying we should be allowed to steal, murder, commit perjury because these were first laws from the Jews 4000 years ago?
US laws are based out of these fundamentals and have a moral foundation in religious law and morals which have influenced all of our laws including those of public safety. If I run a red light and mow down a pedestrian and kill them don't I violate one of the 10 commandments? Therefore I should not run red lights. I would get a ticket. Traffic law. If I lie to the judge during my manslaughter trial, I get in extra trouble.
Religious beliefs and the man woman only argument are not being voted in by a minority. a MAJORITY has to make this law, so they are not forcing their beliefs on the "masses". we ARE the "masses".
Posted by FF, a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Whooooooo! Hello, Yes on 8, I am the ghost of a Founding Father. We created a democracy, not a theocracy or a monarchy. We specifically left religion out in order to avoid this kind of divisive nonsense that plagued other nations. Whooooooo!
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm
How did the Founding Fathers leave religion out of everything when God references are thoughout their letters, on our money, etc and soforth.
Additionally, if you want to leave the FF out of this and invoke the English Common Law argument above, you MUST include religious references because the Church of England ran everything, so those laws were religiously based. If our laws were based on English Common Law, then OUR laws must be religiously based.
You can argue the "Separation of Church and State" all you want, but this isn't a case of the State establishing a religion, its about people voting their beliefs to create a law. Since this law, in the case of proposition 8 would be an amendment to the California Constitution, it can't be ruled as "unconstitutional".
Posted by no mob rule, NO on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Prohibition was ratified in 1919, an amendment to the US Constitution that was promoted by religious groups. Many of the comments about morality and indignant self-righteousness parallel those we have seen in favor of prop 8. The proponents were so sure that they were right, but that amendment was repealed. Do you suppose that a similar amendment would gain much traction today? Times change.
It is well known, by the way, that quite a few of the Founding Fathers were anti-theists if not atheists who felt that religion should play no part in the establishment of the national. Apropos is a quote by Jefferson:
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Posted by annoyed, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 10:06 am
Once again people...now pay attention! Propostion 8 has nothing to do with anything OTHER that the legal definition of marriage. In 2004, the voters unanimously voted against gay marriage. This was wrongly over turned by four zealous and out of line judges who did not understand that their job is to uphold the law. Not change it at will. So...here we are again. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the only issue here. If everyone would stop insulting one another and READ the propostition, this would not be such a devisive issue. NO ONE will lose any rights. Homosexuals are afforded all rights under the Domestic Partnership Act. Proposition 8 does one thing and one thing only- PROTECTS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. Marriage is between one man and one woman. YES ON 8. YES ON 8. YES YES YES ON 8. This is about righting a wrong. Fixing something that we the poeple overwhelmingly voted for in 2000. YES ON 8. PROTECT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE! YES ON 8!
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I do not have a problem with voting,"No" on Prop. 8 except that we cannot limit people to a traditional marriage between an man and woman, or between two women or two men. In the interest of fairness, we should then be able to marry more than one person if we choose. We could take it a step further and allow an adult to marry a child. NAMBLA (National Association of Man-Boy Love) would like the age of consent to be 5. While these sound absurd to resonable people, there are those out there who hope that changing the traditional definition of marriage occurs so it opens the door for them.
Posted by annoyed, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You are wrong. Those judges were completely out of line. A judges job is to fairly uphold the law. NOT change it! The four judges were not doing their jobs. They were taking matters into their own hands and disregarding what WE THE PEOPLE voted for in 2000. YES on 8 is about one thing. Protecting traditional marriage. Joe is right. Imagine all of the sexual deviants that are going to jump on this bandwagon if the definition of marriage is changed to mean anything other than between one man and one woman. YES ON 8! Protect traditional marriage! YES ON 8!!
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm
For those of you considering going down the slippery slope of what is considered a marriage, if we change the rules, who is to say that I cannot marry Mr/Mrs Ed (yes, the horse). If we are going to practice ethical relativism, we should consider all the marriage options and give rights to anyone who wants to form a marriage union.
The schools in California do teach about marriage as evidenced by the teacher in SF that brough her class to witness her woman to woman marriage, and according to the California Department of Education.
Posted by no on 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 4:59 pm
People made those same silly arguments when women and blacks got the vote, as if the infamous slippery slope really is a greased playground slide, and once you climb on you can't stop until you fall off the end.
Our society may and has tweaked the age of consent. In some states, it used to be 16, in others 18, or 19. Now it's 18 for most things and 21 for alcohol (go figure). But the likelihood of us agreeing to lower the age to 5 is approximately 0.
Similarly, there's no reason to believe that anyone beyond a few kooks would consider it appropriate for a human to wed a horse or a car. (Some of us might like to be able to take our pets as tax deductions, but that's a different issue altogether, and probably not real likely.)
"The schools in California do teach about marriage..." no they don't. There's sex ed beginning in fifth grade in our district, and that's not going to change. Just because one teacher showed poor judgment and scheduled an ill-advised field trip doesn't mean that all our children will start attending weddings on school time. Besides, as a parent you have the right to refuse to let your child participate in a field trip. Sheesh.
I understand that the thought of gay marriage offends some of you and that you have moral objections to gays, but gay marriages have no real, tangible negative impact on you or me. No matter what your personal or religious beliefs, if you subscribe to the constitutional mandate that all of us deserve equal protection, and that no minority should be deprived of his/her rights, then there is only one way to vote.
Posted by YES ON 8, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Gay marriage most certainly does have a tangible negative impact on society. Homosexuality is WRONG. Most homosexual males are deviant and are often sexual predators. The majority of little boys molested is victimized by a homosexual male. This is fact. To teach our children that this type of behavior is "normal" is wrong to say the least. To teach our children that marriage is any thing other than a union of one man and one woman is morally irresponsible. To change the definition of marriage to make homosexuals feel "equal" is ridiculous. Proposition 8 protects marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. YES ON 8!
Posted by PA resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I do not see in the Constitution or anywhere else for that matter, a right to marriage. I don't see therefore that anyone's civil rights are denied if they cannot marry someone of the same sex.
If we have all legal rights to those entering into civil unions or domestic partnerships then there is equal rights under the law. All those wanting to use the term "marriage" are just being pedantic.
It used to be in the 60s that the permissive generation wanted to be able to live together and saw no need for the establishment granting of a piece of paper as a sign of their love and commitment. In fact even today, many couples are living together and raising their children without the "burden" of marriage. So why, except to cause others' annoyance and anger, do the proponents of gay marriage insist on this legislation?
Posted by YES ON 8, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:09 am
If everyone would look at the issue at hand...this is a no brainer. Matrimony is between one man and one woman. To allow this to be changed is fundamentally wrong! YES ON 8! This is to protect traditional marriage! YES ON 8! I am very confident that those of us with moral values and common sense will pass this proposition! It is time to stand up for what is right! Homosexual marriage is wrong for SOOOO many reasons. Those of us who are sick and tired of having the homosexual lifestyle thrown is our faces are going to get to the polls and vote YES ON 8!!! Those of us who DO NOT want this deviant lifestyle choice taught to our children will vote YES ON 8!! Enough is enough! YES ON 8!
Posted by No on 8, yes for human rights, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm
And what will you do when your child decides to tell you that he is gay? Scream at him for "choosing" a "deviant lifestyle?" Drive him to suicide? It's happened.
Every gay person is someone's son or daughter. Wouldn't you want your child to be happy? And don't think "it can't happen to me because I'm 'normal'" because gays come from all kinds of families.
Fortunately, we live in a land that protects the equal rights of minorities, so I expect that gay marriage will remain a reality, like it or not. But meanwhile, why not reflect on the fact that you who despise gay people probably have a relative or a neighbor or a friend who is gay and is afraid to let you know.
Gays can't change their sexual orientation. But you can change from responding with hate to responding with acceptance.
Posted by YES ON 8, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Maybe homosexuals can't change their orientation. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Propositon 8 only will change the language back to where it belongs. All civil rights of homosexuals will be (and always have been)protected under the domestic partner act! Proposition 8 ONLY changes the legal language of the definition of marriage back to be between one man and one woman. This is the language is is supposed to be. This is not hate. This is common sense politics. I could give a darn about homosexuals. What I do care about is the legal definition of marriage being changed to appease a few liberal left wing people. Homosexual marriage is NOT OK. Just as it would not be OK for a man to marry an animal (Someone who is into beastiality-they may not have chosen their orientation either!) It takes away from the true special meaning of a bond between one man and one woman. Every legitimate religion recognizes this as well. Marriage was, is and always will be between one man and one woman. This is not hate, prejudice or any other demeaning words you are trying to associate this with. If the homosexuals want to name what ever their union is, fine! Name it something else. Just not MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!!!! YES ON 8!!!!!!!
Posted by Yes On 8, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The caps locks have nothing to do with anything. Who ever is writing under "No on 8" is an even bigger moran than he/she portrays!!! I should not be forced to have to recognize anything other than a marriage being between one man and one woman. Who ever you are, you are clearly supporting a deviant lifestyle. I do not care what my neighbors do. What I do care about is the legal language of a basic fundamental institution being changed. The legal language to define marriage to be between anyone OTHER than a man and a woman is out of line. Let the homosexuals come up with a word they want to call their so called "marriage". Two men cannot and should not be allowed to marry. Same goes for two women. Our children should not have to have any of this thrown is their faces either. You clearly have no eduacation on this issue what so ever. The entire basis is to change the legal definition of marriage back to what is was, and will always be. The union of one man and one woman. Nothing else. This has no effect on civil rights what so ever. Like I said, let the homosexuals figure out a term that they want to call what ever it is they do and leave it at that. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Get a life "no on 8". You clearly need a hobby.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ON PROPOSITION 8!!!!!!!
Posted by PA Resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Any Church, Synagogue, or other religious group building that has tax exemption status should not be placing political advertising outside their property because they are in danger of losing the tax exemption.
Posted by laughing at the silly gay bashers, a resident of the Menlo Park: Park Forest neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 7:39 pm
PA Resident, think you need to dust off those law books. You are obviously not well-informed about the campaign regulations as they apply to 501(c)3 organizations.
And while we're talking about legal -- what about those pro Prop 8 pieces that deliberately distort Obama's position and make it appear that he is for Proposition 8? Duplicitous, dishonest, disgusting. You think gay marriage is abhorrent? What about trying to deceive voters by misrepresenting the man who is most likely our next president?
Also illegal: putting Prop 8 signs on public property. They were sprouting all over town today, like fungatl growths after the rain. Clearly illegal, but the pro Prop 8s were hoping that at least a few people would see them before law enforcement removed them.
When you have to resort to such immoral and illegal tactics to try to win, and claim that you need to win because you're upholding morality -- well, that's kind of ironic, don't you think? Hard to pretend to stand on higher moral ground when you're quickly slipping into your own slime.
Posted by oh please, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:08 am
This is not about anyone "gay bashing" as you refer. This is about changing the language back to what is right. Marriage is between one man and one woman. There is no other discussion here. You people who like to use the words "hate" "gay bashing" etc...just don't get it. This is about a moral issue. No rights will be squashed! I agree with the post above. If the homosexuals want to pick a name for what ever they call what they are doing...fine! Just don't call it marriage. And don't you dare drag our children into this. No child should be forced to watch a homosexual marriage as an "educational outing"! No school has the right to talk about this type of behavior as well! Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always has been, always will be.
Posted by oh really?, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm
So you are supportive of members of gay couples making a long-term legal commitment to one another and obtaining every advantage and responsibility that married heterosexual couples have, including adoption, parenting, hospital visitation, church blessing, tax advantages, etc. as long as this isn't called "marriage"?
Posted by oh please, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That is right "Oh really"...you can call it anything you want. Just not marriage. Marriage is betwen one man and one woman. You can get on your soap box all day long but it will not change the fact that it is NOT ok to marry someone of the same sex. It is NOT ok to teach our children about it and it is NOT ok to force this ridiculous notion that marriage is ANY THING OTHER THAN THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!! The homosexuals will still be afforded all the protections and rights they have always had under domestic partnership. Do the right and morally correct thing voters! VOTE YES ON 8!!! YES ON 8!!! YES ON 8!!!
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:26 am
Dumb is right! But at least the voters got ONE thing right! Proposition 8! These homosexuals tried to change the legal definiton for 98% of us. NOT!!! You homosexuals can call whatever it is you have something else...NOT MARRIAGE!! This was never a civil rights issue. This is and always has been a democratic issue. Homosexuals already have all the rights and benefits equivalent to marriage. We just stood up and prevented them from re-defining marriage for 98% of the population!
Now...God help our Country for the next four years. We are gonna need it!
Posted by It's over, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
The people have spoken. Marriage is only between a man and a woman as it has been since the beginning of time. We no longer have to wince as a man is introduced as "my wife" or a woman as "my husband", a gross distortion of these titles. We also don't have to refer to ourselves as "Party A" and "Party B" on our marriage certificates to avoid offending a perverse 1% of the population.
Gays still have all the civil protections of the law, but their attempts to pervert the sacred institution of marriage has been put to rest.
I know there are a lot of readers of this forum that are shaking their heads and wondering how this proposition got passed, when everyone they KNOW, was against it. That's a good question, and a reflection of the company one keeps. Gay marriage is forbidden everywhere in the US, with only a couple of exceptions, and those exceptions were accomplished via a kooky judiciary and not by popular acclaim. There is a reason the gays don't want Americans to vote on Gay Marriage, and that is the people are against it.
Obama is against Gay Marriage and so are the people of California. You don't have to live in a closet, but keep your bedroom out of our classrooms and away from our kids.
I'd like to thank the SF Chronicle for putting that 1st grade field trip to a lesbian wedding on their front page. That was truly a gift that kept on giving. What was funny, were the gay supporters that continued to argue that Gay Marriage would never come to OUR elementary school when it was quite clear that was the agenda from jump street.
Posted by It's over, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Its as over as the presidential election. There are always a few kooks out there that just don't get it. Hey, I'm running over to the courts to overturn Obama's win. Because I didn't get my way. Cry me a river.
Posted by Wait One Minute, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sorry, it's over, but it ain't.
There's something more fundamental at stake here and its called the Constitution. There's no way that a Constitution (federal or state) should be amended by just a simple majority vote. Two-thirds vote, OK, but 50%, no way.
Posted by Equal, not separate and unequal, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Agree, it is NOT over, and Obama did not support Prop 8. In fact, he said "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."
The Prop 8 backers lied to the voters about that. Much of the pro Prop 8 funding came from out of state. Disgusting.
Still, the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority. This is a setback for all of us, not just our gay friends and family, but one that will be overcome. I hope that having a president who understands civil rights will help ensure that this kind of bigotry is eliminated from our laws.
Posted by civil rights advocate, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Obama is not in favor of gay marriage, but he was opposed to Prop 8 and to other efforts to deprive any minority group of its separate rights. Should individual rights be abrogated by the majority? I say no, the Constitution says no, and Obama agrees.
I expect that Obama was being circumspect in his comments about gay marriage, knowing that a misinterpretation could be political suicide. But his opposite to 8 was very clear.
Posted by Jeff P, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm
O.K ...the tribe has spoken! The homosexuals are voted off the Island! Marriage was, is and will always be between one man and one woman. Get over it. You lost. You have your rights protected under the domestic partnership act. Buh Bye!
Posted by what no one will say, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The current debate on the definition of marriage is the direct result of calling a legitimate mental disorder "normal". In the 1970's wealthy activists sued to have homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in spite of the clinical evidence that the etiology of the disorder is psychologically based and in many cases related to a history of sexual abuse. Politics trampled science and medicine.
Meanwhile, over the years, a great deal of time, money and effort has been spent trying to find inborn or physiological causes for homosexuality without sucess. All evidence to date shows that one is not born gay but rather that unfortunate circumstances lead one to become gay.
Many in the gay community are aware of the connection between their personal histories and their sexual issues but in general only disclose these things amongst themselves. Gay activists have a vested interest in maintaining denial since they want to change society to accommodate (and not just accept) their lifesyles. Most gays do not even care about how marriage is defined.
It should go without saying that gays are not "bad" people, that this issue is not about discrimination or hate - but this is such an emotionally charged topic that it is too easy to misunderstand or misrepresent these things.
The redefinition of marriage will not resolve anything for anyone. It is just another political football. The truth lies elsewhere and it will take a lot of soul searching, hard work, compassion and honesty to deal with it.
Posted by Not laughing, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 5:18 pm
"what no one will say", your analysis of gays and the "causes" of homosexuality would be gut-splittingly laughable if it weren't so harmful. You really need to turn away from your religious and/or hate-mongering propaganda and find some sound scientific literature about homosexuality. You seem to sincerely believe what you say, but your understanding of all this is grievously misinformed.
Posted by pig wrestling, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:15 pm
"Meanwhile, over the years, a great deal of time, money and effort has been spent trying to find inborn or physiological causes for homosexuality without sucess. All evidence to date shows that one is not born gay but rather that unfortunate circumstances lead one to become gay."
This is simply wrong (and, dare I say, typical of the misinformation propagated by the pro 8s). There is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality has a biological origin, but no one has been able to pinpoint the cause with certainty. Biological/genetic differences between gays and straights have been noted in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I assume that the pro 8s are straight. Do you suppose you could you "choose" to be gay? No, you couldn't and you wouldn't, because that's not how you're wired. Sheesh
Posted by who cares, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 9:53 am
You LOST!! Get over it! You will lose your legal challenge as well as this time we did it right! This constitutional ammendment will be upheld in a court of law. Quit your whining. You LOST. The people of the State of California have spoken! YES ON 8 won!!! I could care less how homosexuals are "wired". All I care about is they get out of my face, and our childrens faces! The homosexuals have only themselves to blame for the loss. People are sick and tired of all the homosexual garbage that is thrown at us everyday. The final straw was attempting to infringe upon traditional marriage. Thank God for YES ON 8!
Posted by guess again, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:00 am
The reason this issue is not over is that the courts need to weigh in on the issue of rights as guaranteed by our state and federal Constitutions. I do not think that judges are "activists" in making these determinations. It's their job.
California's proposition process should never include revisions to the Constitution, and certainly not by a mere 50% + 1 majority of those who voted (never a majority of the people). This is a prime example of a process gone awry.
Posted by Oh!, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
So if it had gone the other way...I am sure you be OK with it going through a lengthy and expensive legal process! Ya...RIGHT. You LOST! Homosexuals make up barely over 1% of the population. The majority vote won. It does not matter one bit if even one measly vote won this. Yes on 8 won! Fair and Square. Now pick up your marbles and go home. That is how it works. Move on. Go name whatever it is you people do something OTHER than marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman!
Posted by GoodForALaugh, a resident of another community, on Nov 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Mr./Ms pig wrestling, you must be scientifically illiterate. The worthless so called "peer-reviewed" nonsense of which you speak is not taken seriously by anyone except those who are desperate for any shred of evidence, no matter how silly and inconclusive, that they can cling to that supports what they already want to believe.
For instance one such "peer-reviewed" journal report tried to stipulate that there was a difference in average finger lengths between gays and straights. And of course the number of people included in this investigation was too small to be meaningful in any way.
I've read the "literature" on these supposed biological/genetic differences, and I can attest to the fact that it is lacking in scientific rigor, scope and relevance. Some of it is outright trash. You can be sure that if anyone had found anything significant, it would make media headlines. It would be trumpeted by gays from coast to coast and everyone would know of it. As it is however, in reality there is nothing.
I know you will not accept this because your mind is already made up. Please, I challenge you to produce your best evidence so that others who have the training to interpret scientific research can also have a good laugh.
Posted by again...who cares, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Why are you people spewing on and on and on about scientific literature blah blah blah? Here is the simple fact: No on 8 lost. Period. Get on with your lives. No on 8 lost. This is not complicated. Every other proposition that lost is not carrying on like a cranky 5 year old! Even the Republicans who lost the big ticket are not behaving like the cry babies the No on 8 people are behaving like! The people voted and you lost. Take this as a very strong message. Do not try in infringe your ridiculous beliefs that homosexual marriage is the same as traditional marriage. It is not. Plain and simple. If you would like to use a word to assign the homosexual domestic partnership that is NOT marriage, go right ahead. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Always has been, always will be. Grow up people and take your lumps like adults.
Posted by Still concerned, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:10 pm
It would be nice if it were over, but it isn't going to be over for a long time. A small group of people who didn't get their way (twice) are not going to let this die. They will convince everyone that being "inclusive" is the right thing to do and that nothing will change. If that were true, then there would be no reason for concern. However, as seen in Massachusetts, things WILL change if gay marriage ever becomes legal in CA. The purported "lies" of the Yes on 8 committee are in fact very true and happening NOW in Massachusetts. Check out this web site with links to video, photos and transcripts if you want to see what will end up happening in CA if the will of the people is once again denied. Web Link
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 11:00 am
Over 5000 years of human history -- marriage between a man and a woman. And the self-indulgent gay community that lives in a fantasy world thinks they can change reality just because that's what they happen to want.
You can't just have what you want because you want it.
I'm 5'5" and will never get to play in the NBA.
I'm tone deaf and will never be a concert pianist.
I don't speak Russian so I can never be a Russian teacher.
But I can get over it.
We all have our differences and limitations, but we can't expect the world to change reality just because it doesn't suit us.
Posted by equal rights for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 12:57 pm
If this forum had existed 100 years ago, some of you would be putting forth the same arguments that you're presenting against gays to try to deny rights to women and blacks. You would cite centuries of women's subservience or black slavery to buttress your case. You would scream "majority rules!" to camouflage your lack of logic or compassion. You would point to Plessy v. Ferguson and other cases to "prove" that the courts supported your stance.
And ultimately you would lose).
Proposition 8 was supported by voters in less affluent, less educated areas of this state, where fear-mongering translates into votes. Over 62% of the voters turned it down in San Mateo County, where we non-trolls live. In the mid-peninsula, statistically above average in affluence/education for the county, the vote was a whopping 3:1 against.
This is not going to die, not as long as so many of us who have the education, the means, and the will to continue are united in ensuring that all people obtain the rights to which they are entitled. Within the next few years, it will be as socially unacceptable to disparage gays as it is to make racist comments about ethnic minorities.
You don't have to like gays and you don't have to be gay to accept the reality of their presence and their access to equal rights. It's not too late to overcome your prejudice and join the forces for good!
Posted by nice, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm
let me translate "equal rights for all" 's comments
If you don't live in a big city, you must be an uneducated hick who clings to guns and religion. Only us big city types are smart enough to know about human rights.
You hillbillys don't deserve the air you are breathing because you have the audacity to think that God exists and might not like the things that some people do.
I am a metrosexual urbanite who is so smart that I should be able to rule over all of the rural morons since they are too dumb to take care of themselves. I will tell them what is right and I will take away everyones money and rights and dole them out equally as I see fit because I am smarter than everyone because I went to a big city college.
You dumb valley people could never have gone to college and moved back to rural areas, because who in their right mind would do that?
"equal rights for all" you are the classic elistist liberal.
Posted by Equal rights for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Across the state, members of racial minority groups (traditional minority groups, no longer necessarily the minority in terms of numbers) voted *for* prop 8. These groups also tend to be less educated, less affluent (whereas the gay community tends to be well above average on both metrics).
I realize there are some educated people who voted yes on 8 and am quite sure that many uneducated people voted no on 8. But the overall trends are clear. You don't have to be a statistician to see them, but you would have to be willfully ignorant to pretend they don't exist. Why shoot the messenger?
Nice, although you seem to have a chip on your shoulder because you didn't go to a brand name school and have chosen to live in a rural area, even though I may not agree with you on anything, I would still fight as needed to ensure that you retained your constitutional rights. That, not education or affluence, is what separates the good guys from the rest vis a vis prop 8 and associated issues.
Posted by once again, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm
This is NOT about equal rights. Homosexuals have all their rights provided under the domestic partner act! This issue is simple. Do not call a man with a man or a woman with a woman marriage! It is not. If the homosexuals want to name it something other than marriage...go ahead! The people have spoken throught the ballot. YES ON 8 WON!!! Gee...I am a highly educated person and I voted yes on 8. Matter of fact, every person I know voted yes on 8 and they are all college educated as well. Do not try to blame this on minorities or those who may be less educated. Those of us with an education read the proposition in its' entirety. This is about standing up to protect marriage. Get over yourself.
Posted by educated, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The trend may be there, but you were the one that brought in education and affluence. The faithful come from all walks of life, and because they may choose to live in a rural area you mock them.
>> I would still fight as needed to ensure that you retained your constitutional rights. That, not education or affluence, is what separates the good guys from the rest vis a vis prop 8 and associated issues. <<
- Except in this case because my right to vote against it doesn't count apparently because the faithful are ignorant and wrong. Now that this Prop passed you are trying to fight the outcome.
>> I would still fight as needed to ensure that you retained your constitutional rights. <<
- I appreciate that. Now, please tell me where getting married is a consititutional right? For the sake of argument, say it exists, tell me why it can't be limited. My first amendment right can be limited, note the "Fire in a crowded theater" argument. My second amendment right can be limited, see the recent Supreme Court decision "DC vs Heller".
Posted by educated, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm
oh yeah...and finally...the "chip on the shoulder" comment.
Im not the one whining about the outcome of the election. Who has the chip. who says I went to college. who says I didn't vote "no"? the truth is you don't know squat about me or where I live. You're the one with the argument filled full of holes not me.
...and finally...the last ditch effort of the losers/liberal elite....insults...nice.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm
This just goes to prove that when you educate people beyond their intelligence you create true stupidity. Gays have been promulgating their propaganda in our public schools for some time now. The so called "educated" have been taught to believe that anal sex, fisting, sex using implemets such as coke bottles and even sadistic sex is "normal" and should be accepted. Meanwhile these same schools are failing to teach the basics like reading, writing, arithmetic and science. Those with less education are not less intelligent, they just haven't had their common sense bullied out of them by our public education system. Homosexuality is a psychological disturbance with a well documented etiology. And although gay activists sued to have homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders, it dose not change the medical facts. Changing the definition of marriage won't either.
Posted by typo, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Dear Mr./Ms. Better Educated.
Thank you for proof reading my post. Im sorry I didn't give my full attention, you are quite the scholar. Im also sorry you, like your friends don't have a leg to stand on. If you did, you would have something more than a smug comment about reading it in its entirety. For your information the ENTIRE proposition passed. Now put it in your pipe and smoke it.
Posted by equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I notice that in today's Palo Alto Weekly's "person on the street" feature, several people mention their disappointment with the prop 8 outcome. On Tuesday night, at the public Menlo Park gathering place where many people were celebrating the Obama victory, most were equally devastated about prop 8's passage. Yesterday, I listened as a tenured Stanford professor discussed her theory on why the proposition won. Everyone in the room (successful, educated) was upset and wanted to try to understand what had happened.
If you pro 8s truly believed you had won, you wouldn't still be coming to this message board with your crazy posts (eg "draw the line" above). You understand, on some level, that the rest of us are not going to allow this injustice to stand. You may have won your spiteful little battle, but justice will prevail.
Posted by The truth hurts, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Here are the Gay supporters showing their true feelings, now that Prop 8 is enshrined in the constitution and reality has set in:
A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.
Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.
Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion.
That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.
Posted by Brave Prop 8 opponent, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Why don't the Anti Prop 8 folks go protest a mosque? Heh, we all know the answer to that one. So go ahead and demonize those Mormons. They'll just turn the other cheek . . . and then mobilize elsewhere to defeat futile attempts to normalize pedastry.
Posted by change is coming, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2008 at 11:05 pm
So much hate expressed by you anti-gay people! Have you forgotten your medication?
Re the travesty of prop 8 -- a UC professor was quoted as saying: "The moral arc of the universe may be long, but it always bends toward justice." And so justice will be served, though it may take a little longer than some of us would like.
Prop 8 is the last gasp of the old, the narrow-minded, and the morally weak. Propositions designed to disenfranchise gays will soon seem as outmoded and obsolete as the laws against blacks, women, the handicapped, and other minorities.
Posted by Cosmo, a resident of another community, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:21 am
>>the travesty of prop 8 -- a UC professor was quoted as saying: "The moral arc of the universe may be long, but it always bends toward justice." And so justice will be served, though it may take a little longer than some of us would like. <<
Assuming the no on prop 8 side is the side of justice. This is an arrogant assumption from a UC professor. Go figure.
All of this "mobilization" from the no on 8 crowd after the fact. Where was this activitiy a week ago? oh...it was the same, just less desperate and it mattered. The 10% of the population that is still yappin' isn't going to get anything changed now, the train has left the station. Go home to your gay friends and cry in your cosmopolitans until next November.
Posted by hilarious, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:07 am
This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read! Geez...this is not that big of a deal! Gays still have all of the rights that the rest of us do! Nothing has been taken from them. All this proposition did was to legally define marriage to be between one man and one woman. This was also the way it was before the nutty judges illegally over turned it. Come on homosexuals, if you want your own word to define two men and/or two women...do it! It is not that complicated. Just stay out of main stream traditional marriage. Getting petty and claiming discrimination that is non existant is only going to make people even more angry. Get out of our faces, get out of our traditional marriages and most importantly, get away from our children and go find a new word that applies to whatever it is you want to call it. Proposition 8 passed. Enough already. Move on.
Posted by equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 11:15 am
So some gay people in LA don't like blacks. Is that the reason to take away the rights of all gays? Nothing like the L.A. incident happened in San Francisco, where blacks and Latinos were among the thousands and thousands of gays and friends gathered.
A minority of the population is gay, but a much bigger percentage of the population believes in ensuring that all minorities have the same rights as the majority. Some of you say "oh, it's just about the definition of marriage" but the rest of your post betrays your disdain for people who are different from you.
I know these are scary times, with the economy faltering. All the more reason not to eliminate anyone's civil rights. Yours could be next.
Posted by The truth hurts, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Equality for all, you are unbelievable. San Francisco Gays are among the most racist in the state. Where have you been? These are scary times indeed with people like you around ignoring the hate that gays feel for blacks and minorities. Until the gay community can come to grips with their racism, they will continue to let their supporters down.
Are too many white gay men, and one apparently very white gay bar in San Francisco's famed gay Castro District, racist? San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last Friday appointed his predecessor Willie Brown to mediate a dispute between the city's human rights commission and the owner of a gay bar named Badlands, where the commission has determined that 13 instances of racial discrimination by the staff occured. While the city commission's finding on Badlands carry no legal weight on their own, the state liquor commission is soon to complete an investigation that could pack some punch. More here from the San Francisco Chronicle.
They are among the most maligned groups in society, but when it comes to discrimination, many say, gays can give as good as they get.
A city investigation of S.F. Badlands, one of the largest and most popular bars in the heart of the Castro neighborhood, has added evidence to that argument. In April, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission found that the bar discriminated against African American customers and job applicants.
That finding, which is vigorously disputed by the bar's owner, is elevating the murmurs of racism in the gay community to a national discussion...Protesters have picketed the bar every week (for tweo months)....(they) are affiliated with a group called And Castro For All, which formed around the issue, and have a stated short-term goal of putting bar owner Les Natali out of business and a long-term aim of "fostering a generally welcome Castro neighborhood ... and exposing actions that undermine inclusion."
....this community built on tolerance and diversity has to answer to members who say those ideals do not match reality. "I was told that Harvey Milk would be rolling in his grave if he knew a black man was running San Francisco's gay pride parade. I was told Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave. I was told that I was not qualified," said Calvin Gipson, who was president of the parade committee from 1998 to 2000 and on the board of directors for five years. He is the director of human services for Glide Memorial United Methodist Church.
"I have been called 'big, black nigger bitch' while walking on the street in the Castro," said Zwazzi Sowo, a lesbian who has lived in San Francisco for 20 years. "I am 52 years old. Nowhere else in my life have I experienced walking down the street and someone calling me a nigger."....Lesbians who have spoken with And Castro for All consistently say two things, according to John Newsome, who started the group.
"When I asked lesbians if they had experienced or heard of discrimination at Badlands, they generally offered one of two responses: 'My friends and I feel unwelcome almost everywhere in Castro,' or simply, 'I don't even go to the Castro anymore,' " Newsome said.
Posted by I agree, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Turnabout is fair play. All these comments from No on 8 Supporter about how hateful and angry the Yes on 8 Supporters are. It seems to most of us that the hate and anger are all coming from one side ... the gay side.
Gays are defending their hate and assaults on citizens that supported Proposition 8 in todays Chronicle ""They voted for hate, and that's what we are going to give them," said Gary Young, a San Francisco resident when asked about the hate and rage expressed by the homosexual community.
Read for yourself what type of people these gays are.
Prop 8 gives everyone the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. It denies those that want to marry more than one person at the same time, siblings or those that want to marry someone of the same sex. No special rights for polygamists, incest worshippers or gays. I think we can all agree that beastiality also deserves to be banned.
Posted by Doofus in charge, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:24 pm
You just don't get it. No rights were taken away from Gays. They have the same right as anyone else in this country to marry someone of the opposite sex. They just don't get any special rights.
Let me spell it out to you, since you just don't get it.
The voters of CA rejected gay marriage by 62%.
Our courts foisted it on us by a 4-3 margin, ignoring our deliberate, well thought out, and considered votes.
Immediately going for all the gusto, we saw gay marriage being pushed in the public schools, through textbooks, teachable moments, and such things as trips to lesbian teacher's weddings for kindergartners.
We heard in the news from other states about Catholic charities having to stop adoption services due to being unwilling to place kids with gay families, wedding photographers sued (and losing) for being unwilling to photograph gay weddings, and churches getting hassled for not loaning out their sanctuaries for gay weddings.
Then, Jerry Brown goofed around with the constitutional amendment we managed to get on the ballot, deliberately confusing the issue.
Then, we voted again.
We'd appreciate our vote being respected this time. When the courts forced gay marriage upon us, we didn't go marching in the streets.
Posted by Lies and the gullible voters, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 8, 2008 at 9:42 pm
This election saw a number of specific, legal claims made about Prop 8 and gay marriage:
Churches will be closed. Ministers will be jailed. Gay marriage will be taught to kindergarteners as "just as good as traditional marriage." Adoption agencies will be forced to kowtow to gay couples. Churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, contrary to their doctrine. Photographers will be forced to chronicle gay weddings. Churches will lose their tax exemptions. IAnd to top it off, of course, cute little girls will be sent home with copies of _King and King_. "Think it can't happen?," asks one commercial. "Think again!"
It seems clear that a number of greatly exaggerated, misleading, or downright dishonest legal claims are being advanced by Prop 8 proponents. This is particularly disappointing since some of these arguments are being made by individuals linked to religious organizations which have a stated institutional commitment to honesty and integrity as a religious value.
These arguments come from lawyers who support the proposition, and who are willing to mislead in order to advance their political views. And these arguments are circulated by often well-meaning, but underinformed laypeople.
Let's look at a few of these claims. We'll start with the religious freedom claims.
These claims are certainly attention grabbers. It would be reasonable to be concerned if the Marriage Cases opinion actually forced churches to change their doctrines. But nothing in the _Marriage Cases_ decision will result in forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages in their churches or temples. In fact, the court opinion itself says exactly the opposite. The _Marriage Cases_ majority opinion actually states:
"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. (Cal. Const., art. I, Â§ 4.)"
This statement is linked to the court's holding, too, so it won't easily change. That is, it is partially _because_ no church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, that the court comes out the way it does; if it were otherwise, the court would have had to examine that interest, in its strict scrutiny analysis.
So the _Marriage Cases_ opinion does not force churches to perform same-sex weddings. Nor will it result in churches being shut down if they oppose same sex marriage. Thus, claims that the decision will close churches or force priests or bishops to perform gay weddings, are flat-out wrong. That claim is one of the more pernicious lies about Prop 8.
A second major category of lies about Prop 8 relates to antidiscrimination laws. For instance, one widely circulated document lists as various "consequences" if Prop 8 does not pass: "photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors."
The claim is in part based on actual facts. It's true that there was a case in New Mexico involving a photographer who refused to photograph a civil union; and it's also true that there was a case involving doctors who were unwilling to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.
The problem is, that these are claims that come from anti-discrimination law, not from Proposition 8 or the Marriage Cases opinion. And regardless of whether Prop 8 passes or fails, those antidiscrimination laws will not change.
What are those laws? Let's take a look:
Cal. Civ. Code. 51(b): All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
Cal. Civ. Code 51.5(a): No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, or refuse to buy from, contract with, sell to, or trade with any person in this state on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or of the person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers, or customers, because the person is perceived to have one or more of those characteristics, or because the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
Thus, it's legally incorrect to claim that businesses in California cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians because of the Marriage Cases opinion. In fact, businesses in California cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians because of state antidiscrimination law. It is _that_ -- not Marriage Cases -- which requires doctors to offer their services to lesbian couples. (Note that the infamous wedding-photographer case happened in New Mexico, which is not a gay marriage state at all.)
A common claim is that Catholic Charities was forced to stop doing adoptions after Massachusett's gay marriage decision. This claim is overwrought in its details -- Catholic Charities voluntarily stopped adoptions, and was not forced by any state agency, but it is true that Catholic Charities was under investigation for state law violation. However, that investigation dates back to 2000 -- four years prior to Goodridge. It is misleading to imply a causal connection between Goodridge, and Catholic Charities's decision to stop adoptions because of the ongoing state investigation and their unwillingness to comply with state antidiscrimination law.
As a descriptive matter, it is very misleading to point to some application of antidiscrimination law, and then say, "this is what _Marriage Cases_ leads to" or "this is what happens if Prop 8 fails."
On the bright side for same-sex marriage advocates was the drastic decrease in public support for the limitation. In the past ten years, support for this kind of ban has dropped precipitously, from 61% (Prop 22) to a bare majority of 52% (Prop 8). If that trend continues, advocates won't need to go to court. They can simply bring their own proposition ten years from now, and watch it pass with flying colors.
Posted by Truth hurts, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 am
Obama wins 53% and its a landslide. A mandate. Proposition 8 wins 52% and according to clowns like Lies, its a squeaker, a bare majority. Gays just make you laugh, they are so bad with numbers. When it favors them, a number is ginormous and when they lose, the same number is a very slim or bare number.
Go away, we've got your number and it says "No special rights for gays". Gays have now got the same rights as Straights when it comes to marriage. We both can't marry someone of the same sex, more than one person at a time or a sibling. How do you like them numbers?
Posted by equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 9:47 am
Sorry to rain on your parade, TH, but I am not gay, and I have an advanced degree in math.
"Majority rules" does not mean that the majority can vote to take away someone's rights. Equating a choice between two candidates with a travesty based on propaganda is simply illogical.
The truth WILL set us all free. We can only hope that when justice is finally served, sometime around 2012 according to the current trajectory, you will accept it instead of retreating to your mental bomb shelter.
Posted by Justice is served, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 10:25 am
Gays have the same rights as all of us. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like all of us, they are not free to marry more than one person at a time, marry a sibling or marry someone that is already married.
No special rules for Gays. The people have spoken!
Posted by Truth hurts, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 10:35 am
To return to the idea of the "blame the blacks" meme, I'm not sure blame is the right word to describe their numerical support of Prop 8. I doubt very much that supporters of the initiative would "blame the blacks"; more likely they'd say "credit the blacks." (The point of my post was not to blame or credit, but to highlight the anomaly and note that politics is all about strange bedfellows.)
But speaking of blame (and scapegoating), I noticed that in other posts, many of those against Prop 8 look at Mormon and Catholic churches and sees them (unlike blacks or black churches) as proper targets of Prop 8 protests. While I don't know what they think of angry gay demonstrators chanting "Mormon scum!" (and I do not suggest that this compares to the use of the N-word), they do not hesitate to condemn the Mormons as bigoted:
Both Catholics and Mormons are accused of calling for theocracy:
These extremist statements and positions are nothing less than a call to establish a theocracy. Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be moved to name this behavior of these institutions for what it is -- and question the tax-exempt status of these institutions.
By that logic, taking a religious position against abortion is also a call to establish theocracy. That is not what the word "theocracy" means.
And if it is "theocracy" to invoke a religious argument against gay marriage, then why isn't Barack Obama a theocrat, as many have suggested? [In ironic imitation of the left's standard.] I don't think Barack Obama is a theocrat, any more than the Mormons or the Catholics are theocrats. But you can't just draw a line and say that Mormons and Catholics who voice religious objections to gay marriage are theocrats, but Democratic United Church of Christ members who voice the same objections are not.
There's altogether too much bigotry for comfort and too many double standards for comfort.
I can't help notice that completely left out of this debate are Muslims. While an SF Chronicle article in April noted that "U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons" and that "the connection is based not on theology but on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America." Can there be any doubt about the Muslim position on gay marriage? While there are no statistics on the Muslim vote, I would be flabbergasted if support for gay marriage mustered more than the single digits.
Yet Mormons have been singled out as bigots.
I'm wondering whether some bigots are more equal....
Posted by majority rules, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 10:55 am
Has it ever occurred to any of you people perhaps the reason Prop 8 failed was because the voters of the state were very ticked off that the law voted in by 61% was over turned by a handful of people? We care not that they are Supreme COurt Justices. The people spoke...clearly. I have zero problems with gays getting hitched-perhaps some other moniker can be used or invented. If these folks were to package this request of the general public in a more appealing manner, it would likely pass right away-as I am fairly certain the majority is not against gays getting hitched. But, we are against the majority being over ruled. The people spoke again. learn from this. Do not attempt to interfere with marriage. Marriage is not for homosexual relationships. Marriage is betwen one man and one woman.
Posted by Make My Day, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Heil Hitler is a great name for you. Haven't you already targeted all the groups, minority and otherwise, for your hate when they stand in the way of your agenda? Groups like the Boy Scouts or small church organizations that legally tried to use Menlo Park City Council rooms?
How you riot, scream and throw tantrums when you don't get your way! Keep on acting out and you may rouse the grownups. And if you did that you might just have to live in a sane, free and decent world.
Posted by Concerned, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 12:04 am
Change said, "Prop 8 is the last gasp of the old, the narrow-minded, and the morally weak." The activites of the NO on 8 folks this week show quite clearly who the narrow-minded are. Those who claim to be so loving and inclusive and "live and let live" are showing by their actions just how bigoted they are. Only people who agree with their misguided and harmful views are worthy of tolerance. Funny.
So...if we traditionalists are morally weak, then the LGBT community MUST be morally strong, right? Quite amusing given [portion removed] the LGBT lifestyle [portion removed]. Yet, I am told that because I don't agree with gay marriage that somehow *I* am the one who is sad, out of step and morally weak? The human and financial toll caused by the behavior of this "poor, oppressed minority" is *staggering* in terms of lives destroyed and tax dollars spent. Yet, they have the audacity to compare themselves with other truly oppressed groups and claim that these behaviors need to be accepted, assimilated and CELEBRATED in the name of tolerance, progress and fairness? Somehow the right to sexual freedom has trumped the need to exercise wisdom and restraint. Yes...gay people may be born with homosexual inclinations, but does the mere existence of these physical urges justify their pursuit?
This issue is not going away. Those of us who support traditional marriage have a choice. We can either choose to stand idle and watch our culture continue to degrade or we can continue to stand up for what is right. I hope those who agree with me won't let themselves be bullied by these "progressive" zealots and will see this movement for what it truly is....a relentless campaign to legitimize a very immoral lifestyle.
Posted by Still Laughing, a resident of another community, on Nov 11, 2008 at 7:20 am
I love this! These people act like we are dragging homosexuals off to death camps. Does anyone remember civil unions? Oh no...keep your religion and morals away from me...separate church and state...until of course I want the church to violate their morals and do something for me. Hillarious.
How come everyone loves democracy when their guy or their agenda wins, and when it doesn't, they rely on the courts to do what they could not in the balot box. This is what, the second or third time the voters of CA have spoken on this. Wake up...we don't want this in our state no matter how much you cry, or how many churches you protest at. This poor behavior cements my opinion that I voted correctly. This temper tantrum stuff is hillarious! Comparing the homosexual experience to the black exerience if even funnier. Democracy is dead. Whaaa...no fair....whaaa!
Posted by more laughter, a resident of another community, on Nov 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm
1. Separation of Church and State doesn't even come close to applying here, Appalled, dumb statement. It was a vote by the people, not a government entity saying we will all be LDS and now by default don't want gay marriage.
2. What rights are you talking about? Guaranteed by what? Marriage isn't guaranteed by the constitution and even if it was, it could be limited just like everything else.
3. You lost. Go home. Quit whining. Try again later.
Posted by civil rights and equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Prop 8 lost by a HUGE margin in this area. Most of the No voters were straight people, imagine that! So Prop 8 supporters, you're in the minority in Menlo Park and Atherton! Doesn't feel so good, does it? Could you please take your hate-filled self off our boards, as most of us are tired of your ignorant raves and your rants against gays. You can't vote away the rights of a minority, even a minority you can't stand.
Posted by 1 man + 1 woman, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Actually it feels great to be a sane voice in the S.F. bay area - the largest open air mental hospital around!
No matter how you scream, no matter how nasty you are, no matter what names you hurl or judgements you make, no matter what you do, You cannot take away my right to speak out, to think freely or to vote as I see fit. Enjoy your tantrum!
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 10:20 am
"civil rights"...no one had any of their rights taken away or ever will for that matter. All prop 8 did was define marriage to be between one man and one woman. homosexuals are still afforded all of their rights under the domestic partner act. Quit your whining and complaining and the ridiculous crying of "we lost our rights". Go make up a word that you would like to apply to a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman or a man who wants to commit to his goat! You see, that is where this is headed if prop 8 passes or is overturned. Get out of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. You lost.
Posted by disgusted, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 11:51 am
I don't like whiners either, though I disagree that No on 8 voters' protests constitute whining. But what I like even less -- in fact, what I'm sickened and disgusted by -- are people who gloat over the real pain and sincerely felt disappointments of others.
The media claims that it was the organizing by religious groups in support of 8 that was responsible for its victory. If the hate-filled, gloating comments from Yes on 8 posters above are indications of the compassion of typical Christians, I'll get nowhere near a church ever again. Instead of adding your light to the sum of lights, you people like nothing more than to wallow in darkness.
Posted by touche, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Ironic, isn't it, disgusted? I am proud to be on the board of a church that voted to officially oppose prop 8. Most of us are married and we don't have any gays on our board at the moment, but all agreed that we needed to take a stand.
Once again, folks, you can't vote away the rights of others. I realize you don't get that yet, but the courts will eventually do their thing and someday you may even have to concede that you were wrong.
Posted by Common Sense, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm
No religion approves of homosexuality, let alone homosexual marriage. Yet Christianity is always singled out by you haters. In the Muslim tradition gays are KILLED for their practices, but I don't see you condemning that. You Christian haters are ever the hypocrites. I am not even a Christian myself and I can see your bigotry.
In fact, I don't practice anything but common sense. Marriage is a basic building block of society. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to produce and raise healthy children. Children cannot raise themselves. They also need both male and female role models for parents.
Marriage is not about self gratification or even "love". Homosexual "marriage" is at the very least, a biological dead end for society. Therefore, no society in history has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage.
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Once again touche...no one had any rights taken from them. Once again...homosexuals are afforded all the same rights as everyone else under the domestic partner act. This issue is about protecting marriage. Clearly this is the will of the people. Now it has passed a 2nd time. Get a grip and get over it. Marriage is between one man and one woman. If the homosexuals want to come up with some other term for what it is they do...go for it. Just stay out of marriage. That is the only issue. This has nothing to do with any of the other nonsense you people keep trying to associate this with. Once again...now pay attention...marriage is between one man and one woman. Got it? Good.
Posted by equal rights for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The Constitution doesn't give people the right to drink from a water fountain either, but if some people can drink from the fountain and others are sent down the hall to a different fountain, then that's discrimination and it's illegal.
Same with marriage.
It's pretty clear that the issue is not about protecting or defining marriage. It's about whether or not a minority group can be treated like second class citizens. And that, my friends, is illegal, no matter how many of you voted for it and keep trying to perfume that pig now.
Posted by what right?, a resident of another community, on Nov 12, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Ok...Ill continue on the public utility analogy.
The Constitution doesn't give people the right to pee either. But as a man I get sent down the hall to the men's restroom. I can't go into the one right in front of me because its a woman's restroom. I would get in trouble. Certain preconditions need to be met. I need to be a man in order to go into the men's restroom. I need to be a woman to go into the woman's restroom. I need to have a Man and a Woman to be Married.
Secondly. As of the vote last week the California Constitution is now changed and so Marriage IS now defined and this precondition is in-fact, Constitutional after all. bummer.
Posted by truth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Heads up religious freaks, Palin lost. Now go home and clean your guns and shut up. Gloating about limiting rights is like gloating about policies that ruin our environment...oh yeah, you religious gear heads celebrate that too. Go WalMart buy all the ammo you can, move into a compound and wait it out. We'll fix it all without you.
Posted by Turned Off And Tuned Out, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Are you really saying that the gay minority's voices are being squelched? You can't be serious. All I hear night and day is their incessant caterwaulling. The loudest and most aggressively vocal minority in history!
And like spoiled children they have been encouraged to believe that the world should bend to their every whim.
They have raised such an obnoxious uproar that it has used up the last of my goodwill and that of many others as well. Although they have the right to speak their minds - they don't have the right to make me listen!
Posted by truth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 8:43 am
Bitter that religion has hijacked the conservatives? Yes. Bitter that WalMart gun toters are now trying to limit my rights? Yes. Bitter that the shriking white south is now trying to leverage church money to stay alive? Yes.
I am an American and I will defend rights as far as I have to. You are part of a group that now threatens my freedoms behind the cloak or morality and God. Nothing in my life has been more offensive than what you white southern supremists are trying to do. You are the cancer of our beautiful free nation.
We need to cut you out.
And if you are surprised that your anger and hostility is equaled by someone supporting gay marriage and individual rights, don't be surprised. There are a lot more of us here than you think. And we will not back and we will not give ground.
Posted by equal rights for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 9:44 am
Walmart, you clearly HAVE a right to free speech and you are exercising it right here! No one is trying to stop you.
However, you have no right to impose your own personal prejudices on others. Even if you find gay marriage repugnant, it has zero effect on you, positive or negative. I really don't understand why so many people feel so strongly about banning it, but epithets like "godless homos" make it clear where you are coming from, and it's not a nice place.
Again, note that 75% of us who live here voted against prop 8. Most of us are neither godless or gay. In fact, my religious beliefs preclude discrimination against minorities.
Posted by The True Face of No on 8, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 9:56 am
It seems I can’t open my e-mail box without receiving a whole host of messages, telling me about rallies friends and acquaintances (or people who have somehow gotten my e-mail) have attended or inviting me to join them at future protests against the passage of Proposition 8. Now, there’s some major demonstration planned for sometime this weekend.
Can’t these people just accept the face that they’ve lost. And figure out what they need do to change minds so they win next time?
This is becoming one long extended temper tantrum. Take a gander at the video below to see just how juvenile some Prop 8 opponents can be. Here, they try to prevent a reporter from interviewing an elderly supporter of the proposition. They don’t just harass this old lady; they pull the cross out of her hands and stomp on it.
Yeah, I get why people are upset. But, what explains this childish behavior? Didn’t their mothers teach them to be kind to old people? Why this refusal to understand their opponents? Why this insistence on silencing them? Do such people deserve the privilege of state sanction of their unions?
Where are the gay organizations condemning such conduct?
The gay movement needs some adult supervision right now.
The fact not a single gay stood up for her in that video speaks volumes to me about the quality of protester we’re getting here. I repeat my point: adult supervision is needed.
Posted by equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 10:33 am
You know, True Face, the problem with your outrageous stereotyping is that there is no single face. There is a lot of pretty ugly behavior right now among gay activists, no question about that. I am not sure whom you expect to sanction them -- there is no King of the Gays -- though I have read of leaders of no-on-8 organizations condemning specific individual behaviors.
But ugliness is not limited to gays. There are many ugly faces on blacks, Latinos, senior citizens, boat people, illegal immigrants, and yes, Christians. Nasty, unpleasant people that I don't want to have anything to do with, and I totally understand why you want to avoid them too. But are those people the majority of the minority? Not in my experience. My gay friends have as much in common with those lowlifes as you and I do with Hells Angels (a group that is predominately white and male!) Should we all condemn whites because of Hells Angels or the Klan?
Far be it from me to take away the rights of a minority just because the extreme members of that group are rude and nasty. Nor would I want to take away your rights just because you're narrow-minded. In our system, even minorities have rights, and many of us majorities are willing to fight to keep it that way!
Posted by equality for all, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 11:59 am
Oh, okay, so this isn't about marriage and it isn't about rights. It's about which side has worse manners, evidence derived from youtube videos.
I love it.
True Face, I have never been to an organized protest of any kind and don't expect to start now. I use my words and my checkbook. I don't condone violent conduct from anyone. Understanding is not the same as excusing.
I may not agree with anything you say, but still, as the saying goes, will always defend your right to say it.
This is not the first time California voters have chosen to single out a minority for special treatment. Let's not forget that the majority voted against housing rights for blacks in the 60s (overturned in the courts). Against social services for illegal immigrants in the 90s (that one died too). Fortunately, we are governed by ethics and laws that protect minorities; "majority rules" does not rule the day.
I would like to believe that this is the last time that California voters will go to the polls in an effort to take away rights from a minority group, but I am not that naive. But in the long run, justice inevitably prevails. I don't doubt that the gay community will have equal access to marriage in this state within the next ten years and perhaps very soon.