Nov 4 State Propositions! (San Francisco, Bakersfield: crime, schools, gated)

[happ]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

You play a very poor psychologist there, and compound your errors in the assumption of a religious basis for my stated sentiments.

Please explain your reason to deny marriage to gays unless it is based on religious beliefs. How do you justify your behavior? Like the Dick Cheney who supported anti-gay measures until he found out his daughter is lesbian. Now he supports gay marriage. Republicans have no empathy unless it effects them personally.

Seriously, any bias against gay people should be carefully examined with the help of a counselor.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by happ

Please explain your reason to deny marriage to gays unless it is based on religious beliefs. How do you justify your behavior? Like the Dick Cheney who supported anti-gay measures until he found out his daughter is lesbian. Now he supports gay marriage. Republicans have no empathy unless it effects them personally.

Seriously, any bias against gay people should be carefully examined with the help of a counselor.

Since when is voting against gay marriage a bias against gays? I am, and have long been for gay rights. Who made you the judge of what constitutes adequate support of homosexuality, or being homophobic? Perhaps your "all or nothing" baseline approach is really the core problem with your reading of my posting.

Perhaps you should be "unhapp".

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Other folks have sentiments similar to mine about the issue, such as Democrat Bob Casey, Pennsylvania:

Bob Casey on Civil Rights

Bob Casey is a POLITICIAN in a conservative state. What would you REALLY expect him to say?

[happ]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Since when is voting against gay marriage a bias against gays? I am, and have long been for gay rights. Who made you the judge of what constitutes adequate support of homosexuality, or being homophobic? Perhaps your "all or nothing" baseline approach is really the core problem with your reading of my posting.

Perhaps you should be "unhapp".

You continue to avoid answering the question. And how, pray tell, "have [you] long been for gay rights?" Please elaborate.

This is a defining issue that in 30 yrs will be another American embarrassment like those who oppose integration. You clearly betray your true feelings of homophobia & maybe racism to boot.

Dealing with ignorance from those who purport not to be an evangelical but still buy into that privative world view is quite exasperating & why you deserve to be confronted on your prejudice. Sorry for being blunt.

[LASam]

Here are some of the LA Times' endoresements for those of you that are interested.

Yes on California bonds - Los Angeles Times

They are for 1A, 3, and 12.

Looks like Prop 8 is the hot topic on this board! I am still voting NO on this. I don't see what harm comes from allowing gay people to be married. For those of you who have a religious issue with this... remember that we seperate the church and state here in the US! All law abiding citizens deserve equal rights.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by happ

You continue to avoid answering the question. And how, pray tell, "have [you] long been for gay rights?" Please elaborate.

This is a defining issue that in 30 yrs will be another American embarrassment like those who oppose integration. You clearly betray your true feelings of homophobia & maybe racism to boot.

Dealing with ignorance from those who purport not to be an evangelical but still buy into that privative world view is quite exasperating & why you deserve to be confronted on your prejudice. Sorry for being blunt.

No need to apologize, folks are generally pretty narrow minded on the extreme sides of most issues.

Let's see now, I participated in a protest against Anita Bryant and her public stance on the issue back in 1978, that far back enough for you? Also participated in the orange juice boycott associated with that protest.

I think most reasonable folks would conclude that someone who was supportive of companies, universities and public institutions to offer "partner" healthcare benefits, favor allowing gay couples to adopt and have homosexuality included as part of "hate crimes" would generally be considered to be pretty supportive of gay rights. Still can do this, and not support gay marriage (just like Bob Casey).

[happ]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

No need to apologize, folks are generally pretty narrow minded on the extreme sides of most issues.

Let's see now, I participated in a protest against Anita Bryant and her public stance on the issue back in 1978, that far back enough for you? Also participated in the orange juice boycott associated with that protest.

I think most reasonable folks would conclude that someone who was supportive of companies, universities and public institutions to offer "partner" healthcare benefits, favor allowing gay couples to adopt and have homosexuality included as part of "hate crimes" would generally be considered to be pretty supportive of gay rights. Still can do this, and not support gay marriage (just like Bob Casey).

You make no sense in your last & quite telling statement. So you must be a Catholic or a Baptist. Why don't you admit it? Do you feel guilty admitting to being a Christian? As I have clearly indicated, I am a Catholic who goes to Mass [sometimes ] but clearly disregard some un-Christian beliefs of my church. I have never heard a sermon on homosexuality & it is most certainly not mentioned in the context of the November election. Catholic politicians are confronted, on occasion by a bishop on abortion but not gay marriage. None-the-less official Catholic teaching denies marriage rites to homosexuals [and I can elaborate on that some other time]. I am embarrassed that the Knights of Columbus contributed $250,000 to stop gay marriage [but they are a right wing lay organization so it figures].

Now on the other hand, if you are not bound by religious beliefs, as you have suggested, can you please answer the question: Why do you oppose gay marriage, please?

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

No need to apologize, folks are generally pretty narrow minded on the extreme sides of most issues.

Let's see now, I participated in a protest against Anita Bryant and her public stance on the issue back in 1978, that far back enough for you? Also participated in the orange juice boycott associated with that protest.

I think most reasonable folks would conclude that someone who was supportive of companies, universities and public institutions to offer "partner" healthcare benefits, favor allowing gay couples to adopt and have homosexuality included as part of "hate crimes" would generally be considered to be pretty supportive of gay rights. Still can do this, and not support gay marriage (just like Bob Casey).

wow! i have to say that i am surprised that you have done all of that in your lifetime and yet you won't go "all the way" and provide gay families the opportunity to build their lives together. i would agree that the CA civil union laws go further than most states, but it still is not marriage. how do your gay friends feel about prop 8? for example, if a CA couple moves to nevada, they cannot take their civil union with them. why should taxpaying, law abiding citizens in this day and age have to choose where they want to live based on how many god given rights they are "granted" by the resident state?
not to belabor the point, but why exactly do you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples when you're obviously a very moral person?

[NewToCA]

Happ and wehotex, as I state in my original posting on the topic I see no logical basis for gay marriage in California because it is irrelevant at the federal level.

You cannot file a joint federal tax return, and cannot have spousal social security benefits.

It also isn't recognized as legitimate in other states, so all one has to do to negate the relationship is abandon living in California and "poof" the obligation no longer exists.


http://www.glad.org/rights/OP2-protectionsbenefits.shtml (broken link)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid29434.asp (broken link)

[happ]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Happ and wehotex, as I state in my original posting on the topic I see no logical basis for gay marriage in California because it is irrelevant at the federal level.

You cannot file a joint federal tax return, and cannot have spousal social security benefits.

It also isn't recognized as legitimate in other states, so all one has to do to negate the relationship is abandon living in California and "poof" the obligation no longer exists.


Protections, Benefits, and Responsibilities of Marriage (http://www.glad.org/rights/OP2-protectionsbenefits.shtml - broken link)

Federal legislation would give gay couples equality in Social Security *|*News | Advocate.com (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid29434.asp - broken link)

Pathetic attempt to justify your homophobia\ intolerance\ ignorance. Live with yourself & maybe you will return where you came from [soon!