Proposition 8 Supporters are not all bigots (San Francisco: renting, home, school)

[Huckleberry3911948]

i get called names like bigot and i am going to get called a whole lot worse names in a few weeks when obama gets elected. but on prop 8 i want the gays to get married because i feel we are doing such a rotten job of marriage that somebody else might as well step up to the plate and try to hit the ball.

[futo555]

Here is why people do not want gay marriage. Go Go field trips...

First Grade Field Trip to Teacher’s Gay Wedding : Stop The ACLU

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by futo555

Here is why people do not want gay marriage. Go Go field trips...

First Grade Field Trip to Teacher’s Gay Wedding : Stop The ACLU

It was not a school sponsered field trip, it was the parents of the kids that took them out of school for the day and to their teachers wedding. The teacher was not aware that they were going to attend and neither did the school.

[Urban Boys]

This is really nothing more simple than civil rights that need to be granted to all citizens.

I pay taxes, I own a home, I work and am a productive citizen of this country. Depriving me of my right to get married is depriving me of one of the most basic rights given to the citizens of this country.

Voting yes for this proposition will deprive me of a right that I should be entitled to just as simply as depriving blacks of the right to vote was an outrageous act against their rights as citizens of this country.

By the way, does anybody realize how much economic stimulus has been provided to the desperate economy in this state from all of the weddings that have taken place in the last few months? How about all the happiness that those people and their families have experienced? Do you really wish to deprive them of that?

[caldje]

Interesting. Here is an article raising questions over the validity of the Yes on 8 ads.

It turns out, even the DIRECTOR OF YES ON 8 ADMITS...

The manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, Frank Schubert, acknowledged that constitutional protections for religious practice protect a church's tax-exempt status.
"A church would be very likely permitted to refuse to perform a gay wedding in the church with no risk to their tax exemption," Schubert said in a written statement.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10757746

When the leader of the campaign admits a statement in their own ads is false.. and the state school chief says the comments that voting no on 8 will mean gay marriage is taught in school are..

"..unnecessarily and irresponsibly alarmist...While local school boards could add marriage classes to their curricula, there would be no statewide mandate to do so." -Jack O'Connell, state schools chief.

Something is wrong...... The head of schools says the education argument is a lie. The person who put the ads on the air admits one of his own statements is a lie.

Something is wrong...

"Current state law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level," wrote Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley.

Something is wrong with proposition 8..

[zenjenn]

I don't live in California anymore so my opinion is kind of irrelevant, but I'll share my position anyways.

I'm a political moderate. I care for the security and dignity of all people, gay or otherwise. I also acknowledge that good or bad, same-sex marriage is a HUGE social change from what marriage has been for the entirety of human history. Anyone who claims they know for a fact that sweeping legal endorsement of same-sex marriage will have no unintended consequences, is not, IMO, being intellectually honest.

As a a political moderate, and a federalist, it has been my opinion that this issue should should be left to the states to decide through normal legislative process. Our state system is brilliantly designed, in that states can serve as laboratories for sweeping social change (of which this is one). The rest of the country can then observe over years and decades how these changes work, and decide to then adopt or reject those changes.

For this reason, I have in the past (when I was a resident of California) been adamantly opposed to an amendment to the constitution, be it state or federal, when it comes to this issue.

HOWEVER, the "legalization" of marriage through the judicial branch, has, IMO, completely undermined everything I value. Californians democratically voted on this issue in 2000 (or around then), and the outcome was clear.

While it IS a civil right to live with and love whomever you choose in safety and peace, the legal institution of marriage is not a "civil right" - it is a legal contract identified by the government for various legal purposes. Like any legal contract, it can have conditions, as it continues to have conditions, such as age requirements, a requirement on the # of parties involved in the contract (2), and so forth. There are legal venues by which to pursue similar arrangements outside of a marriage contract, and many people who have reservations about extending that contract to same-sex couples would support and vote for civil unions, for the purpose of keeping a legal distinction for a variety of reasons. This was not the court's place, and now, unfortunately, the people of California are forced to change the constitution if they want the people to have a voice on the issue. Sad. If the court had just stayed within its jurisdiction, this issue would have probably have been handled through normal legislative process, and evolved naturally one way or the other. Now, it's forced into becoming a constitutional issue. I think there are a LOT of people, who might have voted for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage but would previously have reservations about a constitutional change, might now feel cornered into voting for this.

Good people can disagree with me on all these points, but none of this makes me a bigot or hate-filled.

And thus I give my kudos to the OP. In all honestly, I largely keep my opinions on this issue private and I don't consider it a "crusading issue" in my life, but it does get under my skin when I hear people who share my thoughts on this issue demonized as homo-phobic haters.

[caldje]

nobody responded to this so I wanted to post it again...

Since some churches believe in marrying gay people.. Wouldn't the thing that limits religous beliefs be voting yes on prop 8 and not allowing other christian religions like the UCC to practice their religous sacrament of marriage the way they please?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by caldje

nobody responded to this so I wanted to post it again...

Since some churches believe in marrying gay people.. Wouldn't the thing that limits religous beliefs be voting yes on prop 8 and not allowing other christian religions like the UCC to practice their religous sacrament of marriage the way they please?

I agree with you caldje. They would be cutting their own throats so to speak. It opens the door to more discrimination and suppression of people based on their being different than the majority of the populace. I call that separate, but not quite equal.

[zenjenn]

Wouldn't the thing that limits religous beliefs be voting yes on prop 8 and not allowing other christian religions like the UCC to practice their religous sacrament of marriage the way they please?

Neither yes nor no would limit religious belief. A church or individual clergy member still retains the right to marry or refuse to marry whatever couple he pleases based on his theology. If gay marriage is illegal, then a private pastor can still perform a religious service and marry a gay couple if he chooses, even if it is not recognized by the state, the same way there are religious ceremonies to consecrate plural marriage in some sects, even though they are not legally recognized.

Inversely, if gay marriage is legal, that doesn't mean a church is forced to acknowledge it with religious practice - the same way, say, many rabbis will not perform a marriage ceremony uniting a Jew to a gentile, even though there is no law against interfaith marriage.

Spiritual/religious marriage in a faith, and legal marriage are two entirely separate things. Most people choose to unite in both of these ways on the same day, but it's not necessary. When you do, it's two separate acts. The ceremony/blessing/rituals is the religious part, and signing the piece of paper in front of witnesses is the legal part.

[TheDragonslayer]

Zenjenn"""While it IS a civil right to live with and love whomever you choose in safety and peace, the legal institution of marriage is not a "civil right" - it is a legal contract identified by the government for various legal purposes. Like any legal contract, it can have conditions, as it continues to have conditions, such as age requirements, a requirement on the # of parties involved in the contract (2), and so forth. There are legal venues by which to pursue similar arrangements outside of a marriage contract, and many people who have reservations about extending that contract to same-sex couples would support and vote for civil unions, for the purpose of keeping a legal distinction for a variety of reasons. This was not the court's place, and now, unfortunately, the people of California are forced to change the constitution if they want the people to have a voice on the issue. Sad. If the court had just stayed within its jurisdiction, this issue would have probably have been handled through normal legislative process, and evolved naturally one way or the other. Now, it's forced into becoming a constitutional issue. I think there are a LOT of people, who might have voted for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage but would previously have reservations about a constitutional change, might now feel cornered into voting for this."""


There are indeed legal venues outside of a marriage contract, but it does cost a lot of money. Why should gays and lesbians have to spend outrageous sums of money to give themselves the protection that marriage provides to every US citizen that wants to marry the one they love. If gay marriage was left to normal legislative processes, gay marriage would take forever to happen. Maybe that fits your life, but it does not fit mine. The court had to intervene as the court had to in 1968 when they decided against the state of Virginia. It took from 1948 when California became the first state to allow inter racial marriage, to 1968 with Virginia being the last holdout state.

If you feel cornered into voting for this proposition. How do you think gays and lesbian have been feeling all along with being denied the right to marry their significant others? What makes your rights better or more than mine? The only way to stop this dichotomy in marriage rights is to make marriage universal for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.