As much as I happen to think the gay lifestyle is sinful, and while I don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed… maybe there are some lawful rights (as with partner inheritance when a will isn’t available, or ability to serve in the military) which they ought to be accorded, and are being used to discriminate against them.

It’s not a matter of trying to say both sides are equally right, or even trying to compromise, but I think what your site has helped me see is that it’s about fairness, and recognizing that the other side may still have a point even if overly wrong. And just because they’re on the other side, doesn’t mean we should stop making sure their constitutional rights aren’t being damaged in some way.

again i’m sure someone already cleared this up but im too lazy to look

You’re right; sometimes the majority is wrong; but in this case, I don’t think so.

Just so you know: tolerance is NOT acceptance. tolerance is the ability to be amicable and courteous to someone even though you don’t agree.

Anyways, Prop 8 passed. I’m very very happy it did so. It’s stupid how there are so many protesters right now, especially attacking the LDS community. They are literally saying “the constitution is unconstitutional” *facepalm*

The vote could have gone either way, it was a 50/50 chance of passing or failing. It was totally fair. Its their fault they don’t have enough supporters on their side. It’s their fault if they didn’t do enough “positive reinforcement” to help win voters. All their violence and anger only caused more people to vote against them. They are the ones who dug their own grave, I say live with it…

No rights were “lost”. They got 6 months of being able to get “married” and have it called “marriage”. But the rights were the same as if it were a civil union. Now, its back to the way it was, and the way it always has been. The entire country (besides Massachusetts) is on the same page.

Look all over the internet, and you will find only ONE case of a Prop 8 supporter doing any of the sort back.

Homosexuals and “No to Prop 8″ People: If you want people to accept you as equals, accept you getting the same rights, treat you with respect, or even LIKE you, this is NOT how you do it.

Just seeing how you treat other people over the matter makes me want to “hate” you, or “take your rights away” as you put it, when you clearly don’t deserve them…

And thanks for posting this video about Prop. 8!! I am so tired of hearing negative stuff, it’s nice to see things presented in such a lighthearted but truthful and informative way!!! Video on my friend!!!

“But, many others stay, and try to lead “moral” lives to the greatest extent possible.” – I applaud that even if it seems a bit contradictory. People should always try to do the best they can with what they have.
.
“Obviously, it’s pretty hard for a gay or lesbian person to ‘wait’ when access to the institution of marriage has been blocked, and outside Massachusetts and California, has always been blocked. So it’s a false premise” – I know, but it would serve to demonstrate how serious they were about the institution of marriage.
.
“It relies on an ethnocentric and prejudiced value judgment about superior expressions of sexuality and morality” – By that I assume you mean the common morality by which society establishes its laws.
.
“And by the way, why don’t you try to pass a proposition forbidding extramarital sex and we’ll see how much traction that gets – but, oh yeah, that just proves your point that we’re engaged in a culture war, right?” – And how much values have changed. . . exactly.
.
“There are gays and lesbians who do remain virgins until they find their true loves and they do and have waited (as long as possible – if marriage is never an option, then at least until a deeply committed relationship), and now that marriage is a possibility, some will undoubtedly wait for it.” – You haven’t really substantiating this in any way, but If they do, good for them! I applaud exclusivity in sexual relations, even homosexual ones. That is more morality for you. I remember reading somewhere that lesbian couples were fairly monogamous, but that gay men had numerous partners often within the same month. That would throw into question how much a committed relationship such as marriage would be likely to mean to them. But I don’t need to pursue that line of argument. It is better to take people one at a time.
.
“I bet that given some time with the existence of the possibility of marriage being a reality, the institution will have a “domesticating effect” on many gays and lesbians” – If Prop 8 goes down in flames, I certainly hope domestication is the order of the day.
.
“Maybe this should be a reason for you and your wife to change positions and oppose Prop 8″ – No. The far-reaching moral consequences are not worth it. But if it fails to pass I wish them all the domestic tranquility in the world. ?.
“It is no more than a modern Inquisition” – No small amount of exaggeration there.
.
“Prop 8 hurts California by writing discrimination into law and taking rights that exist away from people only to the pleasure of religious fundamentalists.” – Pleasure? If you only knew how wrong you were. I’m repeatedly making a morally relevant argument against a seismic shift in society that is incredibly easy for the opposition to demagogue and argue from emotion and you think that is fun? I hate doing it and I wish it wasn’t necessary. But I’ll do my best to oppose judicial fiat and convince my fellow citizens not to lightly abandon the traditional institution of marriage.

You wrote:

1) Women’s Suffrage DID pass nationally. (See the Nineteenth Amendment.) It passed, as is necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution,

I originally wrote:

Had the decision for women to vote gone to a national referendum it would not have passed for it was never a national majority opinion. Most western states were in favor, having already granted women that right. Most eastern and southern states would not agree to such a thing and the population at the time was, well, in the east and south.

Which is the truth. Women would never have been given the right to vote had it been put to a national referendum at the time. As I wrote, the western states had already given women the vote while the vast majority of the US population was in the north east and south, places that took quite some time to come around…. like long enough for it to come before Congress, but only after 75 years of fighting for it.

If a poll was taken that lasted 75 years then yes, giving women the vote would have passed. But that’s not practical nor actual.

You wrote:

2) A majority of the community DID vote to give blacks equal rights — twice. (See the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-fourth Amendments.) This is a point that cannot be stressed nearly enough: The will of the majority of the people, expressed in the adoption of FOUR Amendments to the Constitution was and is that Equal Protection under the law should be granted to every citizen of the United States, regardless of

My original post said:

Had Alabaman’s been asked to vote to give blacks equal rights with whites in 1963, how do you think that would have turned out?

Which you have not refuted.

You wrote:

3) Virginia has the most interesting history in regards to the issue of slavery. I’m not sure where they would have stood in 1863, but I do know that before the war, public sentiment was generally opposed to slavery in Virginia. In fact, because of this opposition, most people at the time thought that Virginia

I originally wrote:

Had Virginia been polled in 1863 about slavery, how do you think that would have ended up?

And you post has not refuted that with any specificity.

Jeff

PS: I’m just hoping the Brothers Winn have come to their senses on this one and seen the bigotry in their position.

You seem to not be aware of group selection, homosexuality is common in mammalian species, and appears to provide a population control mechanism, but the genetic mechanism which creates homosexuality is not selected against, it is selected for, because populations with homosexual members grow in a more controlled manner.

All of your subsequent false conclusions follow from your misunderstanding of the mechanism of group genetic selection.

“You can play the “genetics made me do it” card if you like.”

You appear to be playing that card with heterosexuality, there is no difference. If you claim that sexuality is a choice, and therefor deserves no privileges, therefor heterosexuality is a choice, and people who choose it should not be give the arbitrary and significant legal and economic privilege of marriage.

The only truly constitutional(federal) response to the “gay marriage” issue is to realize that the problem is not that a particular minority want access to the same privileges as the majority, it’s that the state is meddling in religious affairs. The government should immediately withdraw all privileges extended to people on the basis of their married status. If the government won’t acknowledge gay-marriage I object to them acknowledge straight marriage, and my reason is the same as yours, I don’t support, and don’t want to be forced to pay for the straight lifestyle and its flagrant indoctrination of our children.

Re: 2 Harms
First, whoever suggests that gay families are “less harmful” are wrong, as you point out. Gay families are no more and no less harmful than any other kind of family. They are harmful gay families, harmful single parent families, harmful so-called traditional families. The percentage is no different from any one type of family to another. Data don’t support you here.

Second, you don’t cite any of these sources that tell you that gay relationships are dangerous for children. I would love to hear about them.
I recommend a recent tome titled Socialization in the Context of Family Diversity: Handbook of Socialization, Theory and Research. The editors are Grusec and Hastings. It was published by Guilford Press in 2007. It’s ISBN is 1593853327.
Unless you’re raising children in a lesbian family on an Amazonian Island untouched by malekind, you cannot escape gender socialization. It comes through media, it comes through every person you ever meet, it comes from your own biology. Families are your support system and to suggest that they only good form of child rearing occurs when you have a man and woman is completely and utterly untrue if only because the so-called traditional family is a modern conception and has always been the minority of families. Historically and psychologically the statements you make here are false.

1. IMMUTABILITY
.
Immutability is definable, and in fact defined simply as those characteristics that cannot be changed, such as race, national origin, or gender. Despite some claims to the contrary made by certain other posters, race is not something a person can change (no matter how much bleach or dye he may use), nor is gender as defined by the courts (the courts use chromosomal gender — legal gender “changes” were accomplished, not through the courts, but through a weighing of opposing moralities in the LEGISLATURE), and “allienage” is best understood in terms of national origin.
.
Now, it is true that government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, but this has little if anything to do with “suspect classifications,” despite the Courts dicta-affected hyperbole to the contrary. If you wish to find the basis for the protection of religion, open your Constitution (state or federal — something the Court ought to consider doing next time). Religion is protected under the First Amendment, as incorporated against State Governments via the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Were that all that was offered on the subject, that would be sufficient. Not to be outdone, however, California has an equally vigorous protection of religion all its own:
.
“Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” (Cal.Const. Art. I sec. 4)
.
“Suspect classification” is not needed to protect religion; it is explicitly protected in California’s Constitution (and it’s PAGE ONE READING — how do you miss that?). Immutability has never been a factor necessary for a determination of unlawful state religious discrimination, thus the Court was plainly disingenuous to abuse that concept in support of its anti-constitutional decision. Allow me, please, to disabuse you of any such notion.

“Courts make law all the time, let’s not pretend like that’s not part of their historic role.” – Oh well, there goes separation of powers. Or I guess I should say there went separation of powers. You will recall that courts making the law was my working definition of an activist judiciary. So, what you are saying is that we have had an activist judiciary that has been overstepping their constitutional authority for a while now. I couldn’t agree more. Courts shouldn’t make law. Their rulings establish precedents by which similar cases are likely to be judged. That why the CA Supreme’s ruling on homosexual marriage is the paragon of judicial activism — it threw out the very recently settled law of the land, created law requiring compliance by other branches of government, and turned common law upside-down.

“The legal system is based in the Constitution of the United States, Laws and Treaties. The Declaration of Independence is a nice document with historical significance but absolutely no legal significance, at all, whatsoever, period.” – Right, I agree completely, except that that is not the way it is in practice. Remember, the Constitution explicitly protected slavery. The principles of the Declaration of Independence were invoked by abolitionists to emancipate the slaves and amend the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence has been cited frequently in judicial opinion too. It is a “founding document” and the legal system tends to use it as such.

“I won’t address your religious arguments . . . these have absolutely no bearing, significance or weight in discussing the purely civil secular matter of marriage in California.” – If you think they are religious arguments, then you have missed the point. I argue that society and it’s laws are founded on a common sense of morality. The concept of what is just or unjust, virtuous or vice are moral judgments. People running around telling everyone not to make moral judgments is ludicrous. Society is one great big commonly-held moral judgment. What they are really running around saying is “Let’s redefine societal morality to tolerate my behavior, and if you won’t I’ll call you names”.

The United States and even the State of California were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and moral principles. Anyone who wants to deny that is lying. Those principles do not condone homosexual behavior never mind gay marriage. Anyone who cares to deny that is lying. So the foundation of our law and moral principle in this country does not approve of gay marriage. A great many people have altered their sense of what is moral since then. The ones running around saying, “Let’s redefine societal morality to tolerate my behavior” over the last 30 or 40 years have found some people to support them, intimidated others, and made others so tired of hearing about it that they are generally apathetic. Prop 8 is a barometer for how much society’s morals have changed. My sense of what is moral has not changed. Many other people’s has. We are about to find out just how much the general public’s sense of morality has changed in the last few years since Prop 22 passed.

“I will say that G-d is not the source of our rights in the United States or California” – That’s a pity. It puts you somewhat at odds with the founders of our country. But I believe the point they were getting at was that rights are not granted by the government. Government is coercion. It does not create natural rights. It can only limit them. When the government “finds” new rights they invariably come at the expense of someone else’s. You may wildly misinterpret what I am saying here. That will depend on how you define “rights” and your idea of the role of government.

“I have not chatted Him (G-d) up lately about His stance on Prop 8.” – Why not? If you believe in such a being and He has power enough to create the earth, mankind, etc, He ought to be aware of the situation and able to answer you in some way. If you don’t then Prop 8 is a pretty insignificant bit of law in a great big universe and life is really short.

“It would prove G-d’s fallibility if He were our source of rights because undoubtedly they have changed drastically throughout our history, indicating they were not perfect to begin with.” – Rights haven’t changed at all. People are not perfect, government is made up of people and has limited those rights in imperfect ways from the beginning. But you are right in that this leads very quickly into a different discussion, which I would be happy to undertake some other time.

“These Justices are 6 out 7 Republicans and Republican appointments, and they tend to generally be a very conservative court. (So stop representing them as small group of freakish liberal San Francisco judges that did something so wicked and unfathomable).” – I don’t care in the slightest about their party affiliation and I never said anything about them being freakish or from San Francisco, so please stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you very much. I reserve the right to call throwing out Prop 22 a liberal / progressive ruling, because that’s exactly what it was. If you search the forum thread you will find that YOU are the one who keeps mentioning San Francisco. Russ mentions SF in passing, since he used to live there. You say you are tired of people calling them freaky SF judges . . . so . . . stop doing it already!

“If the voters got together and passed by majoritarian rule . . . ” – No one can do anything about being Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, or an Orange Umpa Lumpa. Choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender is not an immutable characteristic of humanity, period. If there is a physiological or psychological basis for same gender attraction that does not make homosexuality immutable anymore than a genetic predisposition to alcoholism makes someone a drunk. It is the choice that makes the difference. We are our choices after all.

“Same sex marriage will not harm you, your relationships, or society. . . Why not try to attack the “real” “problem” by making it harder to dissolve marriages. . .” – You try to make a point and then give me the evidence to refute it. The rise of “gay rights” has accompanied the slide of traditional marriage. Suggesting that I turn a blind eye to gay marriage and focus on keeping married couples together is a bit like suggesting that I concentrate on fixing a broken window while someone is pounding on my front door with a fire axe. They are both obviously problems and societal morality issues but one of them seems to be just a bit more urgent. Society has lots of problems (in my opinion). Isn’t it a bit of a false premise to suggest that I can only care about one of them at a time?

My wife brought up an interesting point that you may care to comment on. She was wondering if there could be found any two homosexuals who loved each other and believed in marriage so much that they waited, virginity intact, for the State Supreme Court to approve gay marriage before giving themselves to each other. Heard of anyone like that? That was what marriage was designed to be. That was the standard for thousands of years. It also shows just how far we have fallen from our founding principles.

“Pepperdine Law School is a religious school that is founded on Christian values and requires students and faculty to abide by Christian morals and philosophy” – More evidence for my case of sliding morality. Thanks.

“Citing Massachusetts as a counter point is deceiving because that is a different state with different laws.” – Different states, different laws? Not a law to be found. Judicial fiat is what you are talking about. The rulings were similar. Can one reasonably expect the results to be different? We’ll see what you have to say about it below.

“I would also submit that while teaching Kindergartners about sex is inappropriate” – I assume you meant appropriate, since the rest of your comment claims that same sex should be accepted as a cultural norm and it is entirely appropriate to teach children what is normal, right? It does weaken your claim a bit that school curricula wouldn’t change when you go out of your way to say that you, as a opponent of Prop 8, are all in favor of doing just that. You also provide the grounds for doing so. If gay marriage is normal, why wouldn’t you teach it? Therefore, No on 8 will lead to a de facto change in school curricula. No on Prop 8 doesn’t change it directly, but as you have just demonstrated it will certainly change it indirectly. So who is really lying, the Pro-Prop 8 ads or you?

“But in any case, that’s what individual school districts will decide and they can teach whatever they want irrespective of Prop 8″ – So local school districts are autonomous and no one is trying to make them teach “alternate lifestyles”? Harvey Milk Day? SB 777? AB 394? AB 14? Are you willfully ignorant about this? How could anyone claim with a straight face that school districts have any kind of independence when it comes to homosexuality issues? Maybe your face wasn’t straight when you wrote that.

“It’s not democracy in action when proponents are using extortion and threat tactics to bully opponents.” – In my own little corner of California, I have seen two Yes on Prop 8 signs stolen. I have heard from friends and family (2nd hand info) of all sorts of sign stealing, slashing and property damage, but I have not gone to look at it first had. All of the No on Prop 8 signs that I have seen in the community are still in place. All of them. By way of the news, I have heard of numerous first amendment violations. One incident involved a public school teacher inciting students to commit criminal misdemeanors. There is plenty of intolerance on both sides, too much really. My experience says it has been greater on the side of Prop 8’s opponents, but your experience may vary.

“My list of groups opposing Prop 8 was not meant to dissuade anyone from fact checking or making reasoned voting decisions.” – Then why bother unless you are going for some kind of bandwagon advertising approach? When I learned logic fallacies, that was one of them.

“It is not wrong to factor in where money is coming from on both sides, and where and why certain groups oppose Prop 8.” – Wrong? I don’t know, but it doesn’t make a valid argument. The proposition is what it is. People will support it or oppose it for their own reasons. If Abraham Lincoln or Charles Manson were all in favor of something that doesn’t make it a good or a bad idea. Singling out organizations who are in favor of Prop 8 and misrepresenting their reasons for supporting it can be persuasive, but it isn’t logically valid.

“It is wrong for religious doctrine to control secular government and secular law.” – Like I’ve been saying. It is not about religious doctrine, it is about public morality, and if the public sense of morality doesn’t control the law, what does?

“The many religions of the U.S. are not monolithic on this issue, and even within the Mormon church there is debate whether their drive in support of Prop 8 is acceptable.” – More evidence of the moral slide I’ve been talking about. Thanks.

“Your thoughts about “natural families” are not supported by experts who have done multi-decade and highly reliable studies. I’ll take the APA analysis over your personal and untested thoughts.” – Thanks, I haven’t had a laugh like that in a while! I have the nation’s founding Judeo-Christian principles, the basis of most of our law, mankind’s proven, over thousands of years, world-wide, independently arrived at consensus on the family, the fundamental unit of society, on my side and you trump that with a multi-year APA study. If you will step back a moment and try to be a bit more objective, you’ll realize that this isn’t just my idea on how society ought to work. Thanks for the laugh though. Thanks the “experts” for me too. I wish they could go start a colony on a habitable planet somewhere and I could look in on them after a few thousand years to see how they were doing. Unfortunately, my curiosity is not sufficient to allow social engineering experiments of that scale on this planet unopposed. I have to live here.

“Again, Prop 8 only hurts many and benefits no one!” – Prop 8 doesn’t hurt anyone and benefits everyone. Hate and discrimination have nothing to do with it. Law and morality have everything to do with it.

P.S. I’m still waiting to hear what specific legal rights are being denied to gay couples under California’s civil union law.

The argument to sue a religious organization because they choose not to recognize your mariage is not right. They are religious. You CHOOSE to belong to that organization or not. In order to belong you need to abide by said requirements…it’s your CHOICE. They aren’t forcing you to be part of their religion, they aren’t forcing you to do anything, but to come in force them to marry you? That’s over the line.

If I wanted to get married in a Greek-Orthodox Church I would have to be baptized in their religion…but I don’t go out and sue them because I can’t be married by them…

Be wary…the moment you start legislation that crosses that sacred line of separation of Church and State we start taking HUGE steps backwards.

Do I have an issue with Gay people? Nope…just their lifestyle choice. I acknowledge them as good people and they deserve to be treated as people, they are for heavens sake, but that doesn’t mean I condone their lifestyle.

There’s a simple saying that I think we could all apply here to any situation in life: “Just cuz you can, doesn’t mean you should.” So, next time judges, when you are faced with peer pressure to overturn popular opion (IE the people’s point of view and elected view) remember: “Just cuz you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

Just my thoughts, just my 2 pennies.

Again, Prop 8 only hurts many and benefits no one! Don’t write hate and discrimination in the Constitution. Please Vote No on 8.