I think it will be a win for supporters of traditional marriage either way.

If Prop 8 wins in CA, it will be HUGE. CA is arguably the most liberal state in the union.

If Prop 8 is defeated, I believe it will build a fire under those who have heretofore not been all that involved because they thought it couldn't happen in their back yard.

With defeat of Prop 8 will come fear (justifiably) that activists will make an arguement to the Supreme Court of the US using tortured definitions asking the court to force other states to accept those CA homosexual marriages.

It will awake a sleeping giant.

Seeing as I identify pretty closely with the middle-aged guy in terms of appearance, this...uh...hurt my feelings a bit.

It will awake a sleeping giant.

Actually, what we find is that after the giant flies into a big rage, after 3-4 years or so, the giant gets tired and decides it isn't worth his time and effort anymore.

Plus, politicians looking to score points realize that the opportunity costs of riding the anti-gay-marriage train to victory are high compared to the hot-button issues that will be available 5-10 years from now.

The first ad hits a point that even some real social conservatives can feel icky about: locking discrimination into the constitution.

of course, some will say this isn't discrimation (hello, el viajero!), but a turd looks and smells a turd even if one tries to ignore it.

This begs the question about all of the other sexual and marriage deviations that will feel as if the liberals opened the door, just a bit, to let the homosexuals in the 'club', but then slammed the door again.

They, too, will complain about 'discrimination'. How 'bout them?

EV: Wouldn't the MA example prove otherwise? Beyond which, when is the right point to end discrimination?

Is it 'discrimination' to require that airline pilots meet a vision standard or police patrol officers meet physical standards?

Homosexuals simply do not qualify for marriage if you believe that marriage is all about one man and one woman.

So, I guess it all boils down to what your definition of marriage is. Does one hold the definition that has been understood without question for centuries in Western Culture, or does one hold the tortured liberal view of marriage that was specfically designed to allow for homosexual marriage....that is the question.

In other Prop. 8 news, I think this should get a lot more coverage: Prop. 8 supporters are trying to blackmail opponents of the initiative.

Hey EV, if a pilot can't see, if a police officer can't run, what are the consequences? People could die, criminals could get away. Is there any real comparison to gay marriage in your tortured metaphors? No.

Survivor benefits for married couple can be seen as discrimination against singles. Why would we want to extend that to 2 men? In this day of two income couples I think that government should get out of the marriage business. Let marriage be a religious concept. Marriage is in decline across the world anyway. Isn't there a better way that we can all say gays we accept you as you are?

"There's the chance that the ads will turn off as many voters as they'll turn on, but the Prop 8 opponents are making a simple bet: That when activated, their base is bigger."

I would assume these ads are only running in LA and SF, in which case that's a pretty safe bet.

Clearly the next Generation will be Generation Z. After that, what? The end of the human race? We switch to numbers? The little symbols on the keyboard?

"I'm of generation Y, and my kids are of generation %"

The most important thing in all of this is that the people of California will be able to decide for themselves. Apparently, there was enough of a block of citizens that believed the court may have gotten this wrong. There must be a way to address this and CA has the prop system as the check on he court.

Hey, if CA defeats this proposition, great.

Vox Populi

Well said alex, tortured indeed!

I don't think these ads are actually running, are they? I've seen one No On 8 ad, and it was pretty crappy (as ads go): just way too high-minded, boring, and nowhere near as effective as the lying fearmongering Yes On 8 ads.

Oh, and all y'all: ignore the troll. Your continuing to engage annoys. Quit it.

The radio and TV ads are a little defensive. As in: don't worry, we won't teach the children about gay marriage in schools. Which implicitly concedes that that would be a bad thing. It wouldn't.

"I think it will be a win for supporters of traditional marriage either way."

Dear heart, "traditional marriage" is neither going to win nor lose, regardless of what happens to Proposition 8.

"If Prop 8 is defeated, I believe it will build a fire under those who have heretofore not been all that involved because they thought it couldn't happen in their back yard."

Uh-huh... That's just what you said about Vermont, about Massachusetts, about New Jersey, and about all of the other states where equal rights have been, finally, extended. Strange how that "fire" just hasn't been lit yet.

"activists will make an arguement to the Supreme Court of the US using tortured definitions"

Dear heart, we don't have to use any kind of "tortured definitions;" the Constitution itself will suffice.

"It will awake a sleeping giant."

No, dear, it won't. You're not part of a "sleeping giant," dear; you're part of a herd of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that are, thankfully, slowly but surely dying out and whose passing will be unmourned.

"Hey, if CA defeats this proposition, great."

Because, heaven knows, fundamental civil rights should always be subject to a vote....

"This begs the question about all of the other sexual and marriage deviations ....

Not really, dear. They will win or lose entirely on their own merits, just as will same-sex couples. There's no question to beg.

"Is it 'discrimination' to require that airline pilots meet a vision standard or police patrol officers meet physical standards?"

No, dear, it's not, because those requirements are germane to the job they are applying for and the tasks they will be assigned. Alas for you, this "analogy" completely fails when it comes to same-sex marriage.

"Homosexuals simply do not qualify for marriage if you believe that marriage is all about one man and one woman."

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, have you ever heard of a tautology? It's a classic logical fallacy.

"So, I guess it all boils down to what your definition of marriage is. Does one hold the definition that has been understood without question for centuries in Western Culture"

Since this statement is completely false, in that "Western Culture" has had an ever-changing definition of marriage, including eight definitions in the Bible, alone, I'm afraid your question is moot. Do feel free to come back once you've done a little more homework, dear.

Dear heart...

Queer Paul....I was wondering where you were!

"Actually, what we find is that after the giant flies into a big rage, after 3-4 years or so, the giant gets tired and decides it isn't worth his time and effort anymore."

Yup. Precisely what happened in New Hampshire, when civil unions were introduced, and in Massachusetts, when same-sex marriage was legalized. All the storm and fury signified ... nothing.

And that's precisely what has dinosaurs like our travelling friend so scared: the longer this continues, the more it will snowball, as people realize just how misguided and bigoted the opposition is.

Let's say that Prop 8 is defeated.

It will be a hollow victory. Few homosexuals really want to marry. Mostly they want to be "Good as you". That's really what it's all about....acceptance.

Doubtful that homo marriage will change anyone's mind about this particular sexual deviancy. It's not going to legitimize anything other than the legal issues.

And that might be the best outcome of all. Without the marriage issue, what other "battle" would the homosexual activitst have to promote their acceptance?

Bottom line is.....it may not really matter.

The larger and more important issue is that CA voters can decide for themselves. It's Democracy in action regardless of the outcome.

it's interesting to see what motivates El V.

Questions of war and economics might merit a post or two. Start talking about gay marriage and he knocks off work early to man the cyber battle station.

"Does one hold the definition that has been understood without question for centuries in Western Culture"

So we should all be marrying 13 year olds. (or whatever age they start their 'time') Nice, EV. That characterization was around far longer then our current one. So now EV is defending the rights of child molesters to marry.

Then there's the matter of putting dowrys and arranged marriages back into law. That would bring us back to the more draconian tradition that EV espouses.

'Traditional' marriage in its current form is a construct of the 20th century. Any number of other versions existed in western culture.

Maybe we should revive all the old marriage traditions. then we can start 'exposing' our children when they arent wanted. Putting them out on a hill to die of exposure if we're unable to care for them. Always a popular western family tradition.

Traditional != right.

"It will be a hollow victory."

No, dear, it won't. The "victory" of fundamental civil rights is never hollow. That you think it will be just shows how much of a bigot you really are.

"Few homosexuals really want to marry. Mostly they want to be 'Good as you'. That's really what it's all about....acceptance."

No, dear, it's not, as any perusal of a gay forum or conversations with gay men and women would show. Gay men and women simply want the same fundamental civil rights you enjoy.

"Doubtful that homo marriage will change anyone's mind about this particular sexual deviancy."

ROFL.... It's so nice when a bigot reveals himself for what he really is. And actually, dear, you're wrong, as the polls clearly show.

"It's not going to legitimize anything other than the legal issues."

That will do for a start, dear; the rest will follow in time, as we're already seeing.

"Bottom line is.....it may not really matter."

Really, dear? What about that "sleeping giant?"

"It's Democracy in action regardless of the outcome."

Because, heaven knows, fundamental civil rights should always be subject to a vote....

"Start talking about gay marriage and he knocks off work early to man the cyber battle station"

Fear and bigotry are great motivators.

Queer Paul....I was wondering where you were

Dear heart, who ever said I was "queer?"

Oh, and apparently unlike you, dear, I actually have a life. I just look in every now and then for my regular dose of comedy.

"Then there's the matter of putting dowrys and arranged marriages back into law."

And, by all means, let's go back to the polygamous days of Biblical times, right?

It's hilarious, actually, watching idiots like our dear little chum pretend that marriage has been immutable for "centuries," when the reality is that it has been all over the map. And if you broaden it past "Western Culture," whatever the hell that is, it's *really* all over the map.

The truth, which our bigoted friend simply cannot handle, is that there has never been a univerally-agreed-on immutable definition of "marriage." Every culture, every time, has placed their stamp on this institution.

Wow!

Queer PaulB's on a roll!

I must have hit a nerve

"Queer PaulB's on a roll!"

ROFL.... Thank you for confirming your bigotry, dear.

"I must have hit a nerve"

ROFLMAO.... And thank you for conceding defeat, dear. Always a pleasure humiliating you, dear. I can hardly wait for the next opportunity. Do try a little harder next time, won't you, dear? I like more of a challenge.

As I stated, it's great to have the people involved in this decision.....either way it goes.

It's called love of democracy...you should try it sometime!!

Ezra: I think el viajero has crossed the line into outright bigotry with this:

Queer Paul....I was wondering where you were!

Posted by: El Viajero | October 24, 2008 4:00 PM

Isn't it time for el viajero's banning? Paul B is the name of this commenter, not the words viajero used.

viajero doesn't come here to contribute, but to disrupt. is he paid to do this, like a whore?

"As I stated, it's great to have the people involved in this decision.....either way it goes."

Yes, dear, we know that's what you said. Sadly for you, your bigotry is too obvious for us to take this love of democracy seriously. And, of course, there is this little matter that fundamental civil rights should never be up to a vote. Our system of government was specifically set up to avoid the "tyranny of the majority."

"It's called love of democracy...you should try it sometime!!"

In your case, dear, it's called bigotry. Sorry, but I refuse to "try it."

"Ezra: I think el viajero has crossed the line into outright bigotry with this:"

Oh, hell, that's mild compared to some of the stuff he's spewed on this issue. Personally, I'd much rather he not be banned, since I'd rather his blatant bigotry be exposed for all to see. Personally, I find these attacks to be funny as hell, particularly since he has no idea whether I'm gay or not.

"viajero doesn't come here to contribute, but to disrupt. is he paid to do this, like a whore?"

Does it matter? He's just a garden-variety troll, almost always completely wrong, and always easy to debunk, just as we've seen in this thread. He has no facts, logic, data, or reason to back up his views with, so all he's left with is ad hominem attacks, again, just as we've seen here.

Isn't it time for el viajero's banning?

Tried it once. It didn't take.

Isn't it time for el viajero's banning?

Heh

That's the liberal solution to those with whom you have a disagreement of ideas, values and even language.

The problem with that, even if you can make it stick, is the site becomes an echo chamber with bobble heads all nodding in agreement. However, it's the Prospect's call and not yours or mine.

I guess talking religion is out of the question, then....?

"That's the liberal solution to those with whom you have a disagreement of ideas, values and even language."

No, dear, it's the classic, not to mention universal, solution to anyone who routinely trolls, as you do. Conservative sites are even more likely to engage in this behavior, dear; you'd have lasted all of five minutes at redstate.com had you trolled there as blatantly as you troll here. Dear old Moe would have seen to that.

"The problem with that, even if you can make it stick, is the site becomes an echo chamber with bobble heads all nodding in agreement."

Dear heart, we'd love to have some intelligent conversation and disagreement. Sadly, your posts don't qualify, as we've seen on this thread. You bring nothing but bigotry and ignorance to the table, mindlessly spouting talking points that you don't even understand and cannot defend. That sort of thing we can get anywhere.

"I guess talking religion is out of the question, then....?"

Only if it's appropriate to the thread, dear. This isn't rocket science; do try to keep up, won't you?

I think Paul likes me since he follows me around like a puppy.

...he has no idea whether I'm gay or not.

Good LORD! Everyone knows he's a homosexual...

"I think Paul likes me since he follows me around like a puppy."

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, I always love a good comedian.

"Good LORD! Everyone knows he's a homosexual..."

Like I said, he has no idea whether I'm gay or not. You really are hilarious, dear heart. Here's hoping you never grow up.

Was that Molly Ringwald in the 2nd commercial?

Few homosexuals really want to marry.

Yeah, seriously. Just 20,000 in California since June 1. Hardly anyone.

Okay, watched the ads, read the comments. Here goes.

I live in California and am aware that what I say to this audience may be considered as heresy? bigotry? I don't know.

And that's just it--I don't know about this Prop 8. I'm uncomfortable with all of it, frankly. When the buzz began, my husband and I really agonized over both sides--seeing the benefit for the gay community (not only legal benefits, but also stability, the chance to raise families, build close monogamous relationships among other things), but find it very difficult to override (even with all its variants) the current societal definition of marriage.

I rarely speak up, because it's tortuous. If I say I'm for Prop 8, I'm branded a homophobic bigot (just see the above comments if you doubt me). If I say I'm against Prop 8, I'm cheered because I'm giving citizens their full and deserved equal rights, yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years.

Do I fear Prop 8? No. But some nights I don't welcome it either, knowing how governmental edicts can become convoluted and morph into something new and unexpected (Title IX for example), while fixing inequalities and injustices.

I have 10 days to make up my mind. I've got all the rest nailed down (Obama, and the plethora of other items on the ballot, even my local school board candidates) but this one eludes me. I talk to my friends in the gay community and interestingly, they are split (mostly No's but there are a few "eh"). In my church community, I'm a pariah for not coming down hard on the side of Prop 8, but as I sit in the pew I agonize about what the Lord's message really was--and not just how can we borrow his words to suit our own political needs.

I hesitate to post this--it's a bit too earnest, perhaps--but I did want someone to know that it's not all easy for some of us.

Wow!
Queer PaulB's on a roll!
I must have hit a nerve
Posted by: El Viajero

Actually to us bystanders, it's YOUR NERVE that was hit!! ROTFL! Also, consistent scientific studies have shown that homophobia has a direct correlation to homosexual orientation in the phobe. Sounds like Queer Viajero is a MORE ACCURATE label!! ROTFL!!

Isn't it time for el
viajero's banning?
Heh
That's the liberal solution to those with whom you have a disagreement of ideas, values and even language.
The problem with that, even if you can make it stick, is the site becomes an echo chamber with bobble heads all nodding in agreement. However, it's the Prospect's call and not yours or mine.
I guess talking religion is out of the question, then....?
Posted by: El Viajero

This post is so IRONIC and HYPOCRITICAL coming from a CONSERVATIVE! Most red state blogs don't allow any dissent, some like Malkin no longer even allow posts! Sorry you poor little creature, but what you describe is a CONSERVATIVE solution - banning that is...

You really want to talk religion? Sure. How about we discuss all of the polygamy, racism, sexism, misogyny and murder in the XTian texts? Heck, you're probably to ignorant to even know that TRADITION marriage is the ROMAN system, and no the XTian edition? Aren't you?

ROTFL, Conservatives are always so funny! So full of bigotry, ignorance, projection and hate! Keep it up with all of your bile, and some day they'll FORCE you to get married in a same sex forced union to help you deal with your self loathing repressed feelings!! ROTFL!!!

I think Paul likes me since he follows me around like a puppy.
...he has no idea whether I'm gay or not.
Good LORD! Everyone knows he's a homosexual...
Posted by: El Viajero

Don't blame your fake deity into this, we're able to surmise based on YOUR POSTS that it is in fact YOU that are the gay one. There's an over 80% correlation between homophobia and repressed homosexuality, most of the rest being pedophiles. You strike everyone as the homosexual type, but hey maybe you're from the remaining 20%!

See, you're just too ignorant to realize how much you TELEGRAPH who you are with your posts!!! Like the typical GOP mindless bobblehead... ROTFL!!

Torturous for Some,

Extending rights to others does not override the traditional definition of marriage. It didn't override it when Chinese were allowed to marry whites, it didn't override it when blacks were allowed to marry whites, and it doesn't override it when two people of the same sex are allowed. You aren't creating new marriage definitions, you're allowing people that have been discriminated against to be included. Period.

This doesn't take away the rights or the institution for an existing marriage. It does however do away with an age old prejudice founded on ignorance, and propped up by religious hatred. The same bigotry hatred that a century ago was used to justify enslaving africans as the 'cursed' race. The same bigotry and hatred that denied your grandmother the right to vote, the right to divorce and the right to her own job, career and independent voice. It's the same crap, wrapped in a new bow.

yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years

voting against proposition 8 doesn't say that.

it says that your marriage is right for you, and for your wife, and for your children; and that my marriage is right for me, and for my husband, and for the children I may yet have ... and that neither of us should be telling the other that our way is the only way that the state should recognize.

Torturous,

I don't think you're homophobic or closed-minded or anything. Homosexuality was anathema almost everywhere in the country just 15 years ago and the idea of gay marriage wasn't remotely viable. It's great how far we've come, and I hope you'll help secure that in November.

As people have pointed out, this:

"If I say I'm against Prop 8, I'm cheered because I'm giving citizens their full and deserved equal rights, yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years."

…is not really germane to the issue, because gay marriage does absolutely nothing to change or invalidate straight marriage, in any sense of the word. I'm in a straight marriage, and I love it, regardless of gay marriage! Actually, it feels better knowing that my wife and I don't have rights that other loving couples can't get.

Think of it this way: we've had gay marriage in CA for almost six months now. Have you noticed any negative effect on families, communities, etc.? If not, vote No to keep the status quo; don't vote discrimination into the Constitution.

Thanks for listening!

So PaulB is queer and El V is his closeted and jilted lover? Will a yes vote on Prop 8 heal El V's broken heart? Will a no vote make PaulB give up the dear heart schtick? Is any of the covered in the voting guide?

"Will a no vote make PaulB give up the dear heart schtick?"

LOL... Nope. It's too much fun. I do so love playing with trolls like our dear little chum.

"I live in California and am aware that what I say to this audience may be considered as heresy? bigotry? I don't know."

Heresy? No. Bigotry? Let's read on.

"but find it very difficult to override (even with all its variants) the current societal definition of marriage."

Why? In what way does this fundamentally change or override anything? In particular, how on earth does it affect your own marriage?

"I rarely speak up, because it's tortuous. If I say I'm for Prop 8, I'm branded a homophobic bigot (just see the above comments if you doubt me)."

LOL... Our dear little chum, El Viajero is labelled a homophobic bigot for the simple reason that he is, in fact, a homophobic bigot, as he's revealed here many times over. This isn't exactly the first time this subject has come up, nor it is the first time that our dear little chum has commented on it. He's got a track record of unabashed and unashamed bigotry, which is why none of us take him seriously and why we make fun of him.

"If I say I'm against Prop 8, I'm cheered because I'm giving citizens their full and deserved equal rights"

Which is, in fact, undeniably true. Why should this trouble you?

"yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years."

Um... in what way have you been "doing it wrong?" Is your marriage any less sound, any less meaningful, any less sacred, any less loving, because same-sex couples can now enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges that you now enjoy? If so, why?

How is allowing a loving couple to pledge their love to one another, cleave to one another, promise to support and honor one another, till death does them part, fundamentally different than your own marriage?

"knowing how governmental edicts can become convoluted and morph into something new and unexpected"

Can you think of just *one* thing that can become "convoluted" here? Or any way that granting same-sex couples the same privileges you now enjoy can "morph" into something else? This isn't new. Same-sex marriage has been recognized for some time in Massachusetts, and for years longer than that in other countries. Surely, if there were some risk, if there were to be unintended consequences, we would have seen them by now.

"but as I sit in the pew I agonize about what the Lord's message really was--and not just how can we borrow his words to suit our own political needs."

I'm afraid that the Bible is not particularly helpful when it comes to matters of marriage, particularly since there are no fewer than eight different kinds of marriages recognized in the Bible, including, as noted above, polygamy.

But we're not really talking about religion here. We're talking about the civil institution of marriage -- state recognition, not religious recognition. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and all that. No church or religion is required to recognize, perform, or honor these state-sanctioned relationships. None.

"I hesitate to post this--it's a bit too earnest, perhaps--but I did want someone to know that it's not all easy for some of us."

But you've provided no reason as to why it should be difficult; just vague concerns about consequences that you cannot define and fears about your own relationship that you cannot substantiate. You have given no reason why this decision should be difficult.

An example of I think Torturous was getting at -- with "how governmental edicts can become convoluted and morph into something new and unexpected"-- might be the incident in Massachusetts, where a Catholic adoption agency was closed down for not adopting children to same-sex couples.

Another may be an incident in Lexington involving the children's book "King & King" -- (I'm finding contradictory details, so I won't go into them).

An example of I think Torturous was getting at -- with "how governmental edicts can become convoluted and morph into something new and unexpected"-- might be the incident in Massachusetts, where a Catholic adoption agency was closed down for not adopting children to same-sex couples.

Another may be an incident in Lexington involving the children's book "King & King" -- (I'm finding contradictory details, so I won't go into them).

That's not an example of the marriage issue being complicated. It's a question of whether , if I am to guess, the Catholic adoption agency was linked to a governmental agency/function in such a way that it would have in essense been acting as an agent of the government. This is just a guess because I don't know the facts. but knowing the law as a lawyer helps. However, there is no such issue with marriage. For example, a church isn't required to marry interracial couples either.

The example of the book is completely irrelevant. It's an excuse in search of a justification to discriminate. A kind of throw the kitchen sink analysis that wastes everyone's time. I know the book of which you speak. The core argument is one of the educational system and what should be taught in it versus this question which is what rights should be accrued to citizens in terms of marriage.

Even the claims regarding the students in SF attending a gay marriage was false due to the context- ie, the students asked their parents for permission, and other students didn't go because their parents didn't want them to go. These are all scare tactics.

The shocking thing is historically how similar they are to the interracial arguments if one has ever read them. I read them 15 years ago before gay marriage was even a big issue, and let me tell you- there is practically no difference except the class involved. The way legalized discrimination works and the arguments for it- are bizzarely constant despite class.

PS

Even the religious argument regarding gay marriage is practically identitical to the religious arguments against interracial marriage except the passages used. They completely irrelevant too. Not to a person's personal beliefs, but with regard to questions of secular law. if we are to use such standards,then we need to stop being hypocrites and make this a theocracy. End divorces, end football in which people touch pigskin, and indeed, end all things that aren't according to Biblical law. The problem with using religion is that selectivity of saying one sin is okay under civil law (because the sinners are in the majority) but not gays as sinners (because they lack the majority). I've always wondered what kind of moral compass is that. But then it's isn't a moral compass at all, is it? It's just the power of the majority of the minority masquerading as morality. Any morality that says you can do what you want, but others are limited to what you decide is the "important" sin isn't a moral code.

I actually think akiason is exactly right on the book question. (full disclosure: I'm actually against Prop 8, but curious about the opposing arguments, etc).

But with regard to the CAA, I would think the marriage element is at least germane:

if same-sex couples have all the same rights and privileges as hetero couples, but the Catholic church has the 1st Amendment right to not recognize certain families -- (to take a completely a different example, the non-catholic marriage of one of their own) -- then, and only then, does the role the adoption agency plays in church state relations even come up.

Now many people (including myself) may be fine with this. But there are plenty of people (Rick Warren comes to mind) who care deeply about the issue of child adoption, and believe strongly that religious institutions have a strong role to play in it.

Although, all that being said, it would be interesting if these same issues (church role in adoption) were raised in the wake of Loving v Virginia.

Dear Torturous for Some,

Your earnestness is much, much appreciated. There is plenty of outright bigotry out there, and we have to call that what it is, but I'm not hearing it in what you wrote.

Here I think is the crux: you write that "yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years." But actually it's not the case that all your marriages are wrong -- not at all. No more so than same-race marriages were wrong when interracial marriages were banned, as they were for so very long in many places. All those heterosexual marriages were wonderful, or at least they had the potential to be, given that we're all flawed human beings and, alas, some of our marriages fail. Rather, what's been wrong is not heterosexual unions, but the inability -- and I know it's difficult, because it is so different -- to recognize that our love for someone of the same sex can be just as real, just as powerful, just as good as that of an opposite-sex couple. I've been with my partner for seventeen and a half years. I never thought I'd see the chance to be treated equally. Emotionally, we've been "married" forever. Now we're going to have the chance to have our society say, yes, we're equal, too. Not everyone as an individual has to feel that way, of course, and neither I nor a rejection of Prop 8 would ever force a church to perform gay marriages; this is purely the civil, legal side we're talking about. So on November 1, he and I are claiming equality while we still can, and I just hope it won't be crushed and thrown back at us in bits three days later.

When I was young, I was more of a fighter. Now I don't want to fight. I want to be treated with kindness and fairness and dignity, and I want the same for everyone here, gay, straight, religious, not religious, whatever. I shouldn't have to ask and plead for this, really, but I'm sick of all the anger, and our fates are in the hands of well-meaning, open-minded and yet sometimes conflicted people like you. So I won't fight, but I will ask: we are your neighbors and family and friends -- please, please allow us to be your equals.

You don't have to guess Considering. I encourage you to read about the history. The sad truth is that we are repeating ourselves here. When I see fellow African Americans make religious based arguments for denying gay marriage, all I can think of is how ironic considering those same arguments were used to justify Jim Crow. Now, you won't get many AA Christians to admit to this. They deny this history or call those who believed in "not real Christians" but that history is there for anyone honest enough to look at it. More damning to me is that not only is that prior history there as to interracial marriage (including attempts to amend the US Constitution to prevent marriage between the races- again in part for religious reasons and the moral fiber of society, etc), but also there are more than enoug 'sins' that Christians are willing to allow so long as those self same Christians benefit from secular laws allowing them to be legal. It's hypocricy through and through. There is no moral authority here other than rule of the majority. The religious aspect in fact couldn't exist without it because they certainly dont apply their own religious rules against themselves.

"Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Under Education Code Section 51933, would students be required to learn (1) about/ (2) respect for, same-sex marriage in kindergarden?

It certainly sounds like there is, but --

Do you know an example where a racist "faith based" adoption agency faced similar legal predicaments?

Dear "Considering":

I think you misunderstand what happened in Massachusetts. Starting in 1987, Catholic Charities in Boston had a contract with the State of Massachusetts to perform adoptions. As required by state law, the contract prohibited Catholic Charities in Boston from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation when making placements. Catholic Charities in Boston subsequently placed a total of thirteen children with same sex couples. Because gay marriage was only recently legalized in Massachusetts, I would assume that most if not all of these placements were with unmarried parents.

Apparently the Catholic bishops in Massachusetts were unaware of these adoptions until the Boston Globe published a news article in 2005. Although the board of directors of Catholic Charities in Boston voted unanimously to continue placing children with homosexual couples when appropriate, the Bishops overruled the board and Catholic Charities in Boston didn't renew its adoption contract when it expired in 2006.

The controversy was not about gay marriage. And, at least for the poeple on the board of directors of Catholic Charities in Boston, it wasn't about gay rights. It was about being able to place children in families when the best, or only, family that was willing to adopt a particular child happened to be a homosexual couple.

"might be the incident in Massachusetts, where a Catholic adoption agency was closed down for not adopting children to same-sex couples."

Even if that were true, and the more detailed account that Kenneth provides sounds much more plausible, what does that have to do with same-sex marriage? Those sorts of issues will always be there, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is allowed or not. There will still be same-sex couples, even if they are not allowed to marry, and they will still want to adopt children.

"Under Education Code Section 51933, would students be required to learn (1) about/ (2) respect for, same-sex marriage in kindergarden?"

This is simple. No.

"But there are plenty of people (Rick Warren comes to mind) who care deeply about the issue of child adoption, and believe strongly that religious institutions have a strong role to play in it."

Again, this is independent of the issue of same-sex marriage. Moreover, those religious institutions can easily avoid any problems by not accepting government contracts or government money for this work. *Anyone* who accepts government contracts and/or government money must abide by a certain set of rules.

Religious adoption agencies could run afoul of those rules by discriminating against, e.g., unmarried heterosexual couples, single men or women, unmarried same-sex couples, and so on. Same-sex marriage doesn't cause these sorts of problems and discriminating against same-sex marriage won't make them go away.

Considering

I don't like playing games. if you found this site, then you have the capacity to research these issues just like I did. Why are you continuing to post when I suggested you do your own research on the topic of race and how religion was used to justified discrimination?

Kenneth

Thank you for the post. Although I didn't know the facts re the adoption agency, I am a lawyer so I did know there had to be something more than what was presented as "facts" here. Namely,t hat the adoption agency had to somehow be working as an agent for the state. This is just simple understanding of how these things work that they teach in first year law school. When considers omit these facts, it is to pray on people's ignorance.

Sincerely,

Akaison

PS: RE TEACHING SEXUAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IN CA. Nothing can be taught without parents permission. THat's just the reality of CA law that was omitted again by another manipulative post. More than that, the Superintent of Schools in CA has said verbatim that the Pro Prop 8 campaign is lying about school curriculum. These are just lies. I don't know what people get out of repeating them on a random blog, but I thought I would give others here the insight that theyare just repeating lies that the Pro Prop 8 people have been making up.

Finally, they prey on people's ignorance about the difference in laws from one state to another. What maybe true of MA for example doesn't necessarily reflect on CA because they are governed by different state constitutions.

Kenneth and Paul B

Thanks! Your post really clarified my understanding of the issue. I had thought one motive these organizations had was the protection of their programs beforehand, but it looks like these difficulties did not begin, and likely will not end, with gay marriage.

Akiason

Sorry if I upset you. I assure you, I am not playing games.

I am not upset Considering. I am more correctly described as frustrated. I don't understand why people don't research issues before coming to opinnions about them. There are a lot of American voters who simply accept arguments from both sides without verifying whether it is true or not. I think that's dangerous for a democracy since democracies depend on informed citizens rather than citizens who are force fed lies and who then decide to accept those lies without verfication. It's not just on this issue, but certainly it's a pattern in our society. The whole problem I have with California's proposition system in general is exactly the issue of a lack of informed awareness. There any number of propositions where this comes up where people such as the pro Prop 8 people can basically lie to the electoral realizing that the electoral will never find out what is the actual truth.

It's worth pointing out that if you *really* care about children, then you ought to be supporting same-sex marriage. What opponents of same-sex marriage conveniently forget is that marriage not only offers privileges and rights, it also offers responsibilities, including responsibility for each other and for the children raised in their care.

Same-sex couples routinely have, adopt, and raise children today, but those children do not have the same protections that other children have, primarily because the state does not recognize these relationships.

I would like to see ads that make it more direct and personal. I would like to see gay couples saying why they want to be married.

I would like to see couples describe how they could be denied hospital visitation rights for their partner of 30 years.

I would like to see them talk about how they want to be able to pool their finances jointly.

I would like to see them talk about how they met, and how much they love each other, and how much they want to make a life commitment to each other.

Marriage isn't about sex. Not these days. It's about love, commitment and responsibility. More of those things is good.

I am hoping that now that they are flushed with money the No on 8 will show the older gay couples like my friends who have been together 15, 20 and in one case 30 years. We live in an up is down, down is up world where their morality is questioned by the amoral. Afteralll, how many straight couples would have been able to keep it together despite being treated like 2nd class citizens in their own country. This is the definition of courage. Not denying other people what you would not deny yourself.

The "no to proposition 8 campaign" add is good, but it is not the most powerful argument against proposition 8.
Here is why it must be defeated. Proposition 8 will, if passed, divorce 20000 people by ballot fiat.
Proposition 8 is saying that it is not only okay for people to end their own marriage for any and all reasons, but that marriage wows can be dissolved by government fiat *without the consent of the couple in question*
Is this really a precedent you want to set? Is this really a path that strengthens the institution of marriage?

"yet somehow it feels not quite right to say that my marriage, and those of my children, parents, friends, and my community have been doing it wrong all these years."

I'm happy people actually did engage this, but you have to wonder what is wrong with somebody that they can write such a thing.

Heh...

It's been very enteraining to see all of those who disagree with anyone on this subject immediatelyn label them "the devil". There can be no discussion on this subject in ultraliberal venue, apparently.
Ahhh....that's the way it goes in the liberal world of thought control through PC. That's right, if you don't think that way, then you are a _____________________(insert appropriate epithet).

What's hilarious is the names are all made up. Even the "science" someone above claimed where he said 80% of those who don't agree are homosexuals!

Ain't that something! I gusss that means that 80% of the estimated half of this country's voters are queers and they just don't know it!!!

Who knew??!

Well- the question is do we take "science" from the reading of the Bible or from scientists?

I will lead it to the reader to decide, but I am certain of one thing-t his is just the latest in a long line of skirmishes between literal doctrinal religion and science.

A Baptist minister got into hot water in 2006 for having the audicity to point out that the animal studies, which takes it out of the realm of speculation or theory, showed sexual variation wasn't limited to the humans. The Christian response? Humans aren't animals.

Ummmm......schizophrenia, narcolepsy and many other 'variations' besides homosexuality are shared by other species.

I guess they're all "normal" as well?

"I guess they're all 'normal' as well?"

ROFL.... I do so love it when a moron who hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about tries to play silly games and get all pseudo-scientific on you. All you have to do is point and laugh.

"It's been very enteraining to see all of those who disagree with anyone on this subject immediatelyn label them 'the devil'."

ROFL... It's even more hilarious watching you squirm, deny reality, and now simply make shit up, all because you cannot face the truth about this topic. What's even more hilarious is how blatant you are in creating this little strawman of yours.

"There can be no discussion on this subject in ultraliberal venue, apparently."

Why yes, dear, there can, as all of the above posts would attest. Do you need someone to read them to you?

"Ahhh....that's the way it goes in the liberal world of thought control through PC."

ROFLMAO.... Yes, dear, that's why you aren't allowed to post here and nobody is allowed to disagree. Oh, wait....

Tell me, do you even bother to engage your brain before you simply make shit up like that? Does it even occur to you to recognize how silly and whiny you sound? My goodness, what a drama queen you are.

"That's right, if you don't think that way, then you are a _____________________(insert appropriate epithet)."

ROFL... This is just wonderful. I do so love EV. Since he can't win the debate, he'll just engage in random drive-by ad hominem attacks, regardless of whether they make sense or not!

"What's hilarious is the names are all made up."

Dear heart, do tell us, what "names" are you referring to? We're simply dying to know.

"Even the "science" someone above claimed where he said 80% of those who don't agree are homosexuals!"

No, dear, he didn't say that. What he actually did say was supported by a scientific study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, with the exception of the pedophile insult, which he added gratuitously.

"Ain't that something! I gusss that means that 80% of the estimated half of this country's voters are queers and they just don't know it!!!"

No, dear, just the overly homophobic ones who doth protest too much.

Do feel free to come back when you're in the mood for more punishment, dear. We're always happy to oblige.

Oh, and dear heart? To answer an implicit question of yours, yes, homosexuality is undeniably normal, by both the scientific and popular meaning of that word. Deal with it.

Thanks, El V, you illustrate my point. You can't handle the science so you try to fall back on beliefs. Don't get me wrong- the queer theorists types can be guilt of that too, but it is pretty silly to read your posts on lecturing me on science when you have no idea what you are talking about.

You basically now agree with me that the trait is found in other species. That's why you are left trying to spin what is increasingly a discrimination based on biology rather than choice. Your best argument relied on sexual variance not being a thing of biology. We both know your bigotry can't survive if the trait is found to be immutable. So you must argue silliness.

You go from saying "it's a choice" to arguing "well, if it's not choice, then the variance must be a bad thing."

The short answer to this is that we have no idea what this sexual variance is for. You are making shit up because you can't address the science without addressing your own hate.

In the few species that have been studied (the science is still new because until the last few decades religion and cultural bias got involved), the evidence is leaning somehwat toward sexual variation being something that is a good for the species whether to create population regulation mechanisms or child care (same sex coupling actually is shown to exist in some species for rearing of the young of the species) or any number of other reasons.

The point is trying to turn it into a disease is a cultural bias that has nothing to do with why the variation may exist. If you want to understand my point about population regulation- it maybe the case that it exists in species as a mechanism to reduce fertility when the species threatens to be so overpopulated as to kill off the species because it overtaxes the resources in the environment somehow. I don't know. This is just one theory to understand how having said trait could be an evolutionary advantage. Child rearing is another. It allows for a pooling of resources among one sex rather than another.

What it doesn't show to be is the stuff you are now making up because the science is coming out against your first position that it is per se choice.

The whole treating it as a disease is the next front for many of you crazies. I know this. but let me give you the same warning a biologists working in the area has said- we can certainly go mucking with sexual variation under the mistaken view thatit is a disease to change something that maybe necessary to our species at our peril.

There is a whole complex of variation for a reason. We don't understand it all. Some of it may seem counter intuitve to the religious type who has been taught that species only try to procreate. But then, they often get it wrong- its survival of the species- not of the individual that matters in nature. Indeed, some species are so developed as the r rate of having offspring that they have so many with the assumption that many will die off and only a few will surrive. Others, the k rate assumes that the small number of children will survive.

There is a lot of variance, and you obviously don't understand that. So stop embarassing yourself.

I barely understand the science here, but I do know enough to know when someone else should be lecturing to me about it.

ps

the reason why it matters if sexual orientation is found to be a biological trait is the same way it matters that gender and race are biological traits. Immutable traits as you know aren't something that religion can handle well. Thats why so many of your bigoted brethen must argue its not immutable. It brings up all sorts of doctrinal question about the nature of God is its immutable, now doesn't it?

You can't handle the science...

I would like a link to some real science on this, please, because I can't find any. Real science has been quashed by the activists themselves.

What I see is the APA changet their position without any new research at all. No basis whatsoever. I see a 'gay colition' within the APA form within months of that change. Either they recruited a lot of homosexuals or they were there the whole time working from the inside to make this change....change that you can't believe in.

So....where's the science??

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage8-2008oct08,0,693406.story

"I would like a link to some real science on this, please, because I can't find any."

ROFL.... Dear heart, there are literally thousands of links out there to scientific studies on all aspects of homosexuality. That you "can't find any" tells us everything we need to know about you.

"Real science has been quashed by the activists themselves."

No, dear, it hasn't, as any perusal of the available evidence quite clearly shows. Anyone is free to conduct any studies they want on any aspect of homosexuality they want.

"What I see is the APA changet their position without any new research at all. No basis whatsoever."

Yes, dear, we know what you "see." What you fail to see, because you don't want to see it, is that serious research on homosexuality began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, most notably with the research of Dr. Evelyn Hooker, and continued until the overwhelming weight of the available evidence finally convinced the APA to reverse itself. All available research since that time has confirmed that reversal, which is why it has not changed since.

"I see a 'gay colition' within the APA form within months of that change. Either they recruited a lot of homosexuals or they were there the whole time working from the inside to make this change....change that you can't believe in."

Dear heart, no "gay colition" [sic] is powerful enough to convince enough scientists to change a scientific diagnosis without the overwhelming weight of the evidence on their side. It's hilarous, though, that you really seem to believe this bit of paranoid nonsense.

"So....where's the science??"

Start with the APA and work from there, dear. But you really shouldn't bother, since *no* amount of scientific evidence is sufficient to convince a bigot like yourself.

a) You aren't the judge of whether science is valid or not. The science is based on scientific method.

b) Psychology isn't biology. One is a social science. You can argue and quibble over that, but the other is a hard science. You can not use your disagreement with the social science to dispute scientific research in biology. It again demonstrates your ignorance outside of what you think on this issue that you would equate pscyhological studies to biological research. The later is subject to a much higher level of empiricism.

c) I won't be providing you any l inks. I along time ago on these sites stopped wasting my time doing that. We are online. If you truly wanted to understand the state of the research in a non partisan way, you would look it up rather than engage in the flat earth argument.

Finally, good luck, you are waste of my time. This has principly been for anyone who happens into the thread who happens to open minded, and understand the nature of the discussion we are having- which is about empiricism (modernity) versus belief (religion). I am not against religion. I am religious. I am however against anti intellectualism and a lack of empiricism.

akaison,

I understand that you have a personal stake in this, but there is little science and that was my point.

This is more a political issue than a scientific issue....and that's OK. Just don't start rattling off about the scientific evidence because there is none.

And you must also recognize that the 'community' hates on anyone that questions the prevailing political positions on this issue.

However, the most important issue is the democratic process that CA is engaged in. One way or the other, the people of CA will have their say.

Good luck

Yes, dear,...

As he types, one can see his gown flowing in the breeze of his computer's fan right next to his prescription bottle of AZT...

"I understand that you have a personal stake in this, but there is little science and that was my point."

Yes, dear, we know that was your point. Unfortunately for you, your "point" was wrong, provably false, flatly incorrect, and in all ways, stupid. Is any of this sinking in, dear? You were wrong.

"This is more a political issue than a scientific issue"

No, dear, it's not. The science on this is unshakable and overwhelming. You just don't like it, so you're trying to pretend it does not exist.

"....and that's OK. Just don't start rattling off about the scientific evidence because there is none."

ROFLMAO.... There are none so blind as those who will not see. You really should rejoin us here in the real world, dear. You might even like it here.

"And you must also recognize that the 'community' hates on anyone that questions the prevailing political positions on this issue."

No, dear, we don't. We just don't like mindless bigots who haven't even done the basic five minutes of Google research necessary to show them just how foolish their views are.

"However, the most important issue is the democratic process that CA is engaged in. One way or the other, the people of CA will have their say."

Because, heaven knows, fundamental civil rights should always be subject to a vote....

TTFN, sweetums. Do feel free to come back for more humiliation any time you like.

Well since I am also African American as well as gay- yes, I have a stake on what happens in America in terms of right and wrong moral decisions. Right now, like the slave owners and Jim Crow supporters you have the moral authority being in the majority. That doesn't mean you are being moral. One test of that is whether or not you are even being factual. If you can't handle the science , much like the segregationalist had to pretend African American blood wasn't the same as their own blood not so long ago, then you lack moral authority. You know this. I know this. Hence you denial.

What I absolutely love about our dear little chum is the unabashed and unashamed exposure of his ignorance. Over 50 years of research, literally thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed studies, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals studied, often over periods of years, in multiple cultures and countries, including multiple scientific disciplines, and covering all aspects of homosexuality.

And all of this, much of which is available online, to our dear little chum is "little science" and "[no] scientific evidence." The mind boggles both at the complete cluelessness and the depth of the denial. Is it any wonder that I find him so fricking hilarious?

I don't think it's funny. I think its sad. People who have nothing cling to their fears. Thus, because the majority has nothing, it clings to the only thing that provides them answers. Even if those answers are wrong. Because its better to be wrong, and not afraid in the security that the wrongness provide, than the take a leap of real faith that God isn't petty and he doesn't play with dice. Therefore, gay , if the science says so, isn't something to be feared. It's just a natural part of life as much as heterosexuality is.

"I don't think it's funny. I think its sad. People who have nothing cling to their fears."

In general, I agree with you. I was referring, though. to this specific poster, whose bigotry and penchant for posting mindless partisan drivel have been on full display here for quite some time.

What I love about the guy, and find so absolutely hilarious, is the combination of ignorance and blissful unawareness, the penchant for writing absolutely idiotic statements (like the "little science" and "[no] scientific evidence" comments above), all the while completely unaware of just how ignorant he reveals himself to be with every post he writes.

Now *that's* comedy and it's the reason I love baiting him so much. It's even funnier when he, vainly, tries to find some way to bait me back and the best he can come up with is "queer Paul?" LOL....

Well since I am also African American as well as gay- yes, I have a stake on what happens in America in terms of right and wrong moral decisions.

akaison,

I think everyone has a stake on what happens in America in terms of right and wrong morla decisions. What you wish to do is simply say "I'm right".

An interesting observation that indicates that most blacks in CA will vote FOR Prop 8.

So how do you explain *that*?