Californians, Please Vote NO on 8

-


It’s time for tolerance to break out in this country.
I was the first blogger to put the disgusting Republican National Committee mailers from the 2004 race on line which suggested that Democrats would ban the Bible and turn their states into havens of homosexuality. These flyers were sent to church parish rosters in Arkansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and other key battleground states in that Bush-Kerry race.
That flyer was not about homosexuality breaking out everywhere or that Dems would not support the Christian religion. It was about generating fear of change — and designed to promote bigotry and discrimination.
The notion that America should embrace versions of marriage that help perpetuate discrimination needs to be abandoned. This battle over Proposition 8 in California is not about marriage. It is a crusade funded mostly by a group of Mormons obsessed with maintaining laws that are discriminatory against homosexuals.
No on 8. . .Please lead America in a healthier direction.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

54 comments on “Californians, Please Vote NO on 8

  1. brook says:

    i request every one to vote for the right person.
    ===========
    Brook
    kentucky drug rehab

    Reply

  2. dirk says:

    ernieg:
    For me, your arguments don’t withstand scrutiny.
    I don’t know where you are getting this “chosen” crap. — Gays don’t choose to be gay any more than you or I choose the color of our skin! If you expect gays not to live the “gay lifestyle” (your words), that would be the equivalent of asking a person to change the color of their skin and to live as somebody they are not (think michael jackson!).
    If gays are free to marry, there is no need for “special rights”.

    Reply

  3. ernieg says:

    Its not about Civil rights its about “Special Rights”
    The No on 8 people continually try to claim this is a “civil rights” issue similar to the struggles of the minorities in the latter half of the 20 century, it is nothing of the sort.
    As a minority I was born a specific class of people whose rights were being denied. I did not Choose to be born this was and I cannot change my skin color or heritage even if I wanted to, and herein lies the difference, the homosexual’s has “Chosen” this type of lifestyle and can choose to change it, (unlike those of us born a minority or handicapped)
    Some in their community haven’t decided (bi-sexual) but it is still a choice.
    They made a “Choice” to live a certain lifestyle and now want us to grant them “Special Rights” claiming we are unfair, and are trying to use the Equal Protection clause as an excuse, this section does not apply to “Choice” it applies to those denied their rights, through no decision/choice of their own (minorities, handicapped down syndrome etc) and cannot change it.
    The No on 8 people want us to grant them a “special right” Not a Civil Right since that is Not what this, and in doing so we now, who have not made that lifestyle choice would become a discriminated class and to quote Senator Findstein “discrimination is wrong”.
    Additionally the No on 8 people claimed this had nothing to do about religion, then why are they protesting the Mormon Church, they excised their “freedom of religion” and for that because they, and the rest of mainstream society (with Yes on 8 winning) have exercised our Freedom of Speech, now we are wrong!? So does that mean tolerance is ok as long as you agree with “their Lifestyle Choice”? but to disagree is Intolerance, they just showed what they claimed in their commercials it had nothing to do with
    Lastly giving if we do give them this “Special Right” then we need to remove the domestic partnership and civil union laws and require them as the rest of the heterosexual community to either marry or do not claim these other special privileges (or grant them to the rest of society). If we do not repeal these laws then I as a heterosexual become discriminated against, because if I live with my girlfriend and we are not a same sex couple, neither one of us can claim the benefits or rights of the other as the homosexuals can, and that again is what Senator Fiendstein claimed she was against “discrimination” and this would be discrimination in its highest form against all heterosexual society.
    No on 8 is not about civil rights, its about “special rights” and choice.
    I did not Choose to be born a minority, but they can chose a lifestyle
    I cannot chose, they can. Choice should not be given a “special right” as they can chose to change.
    A great example is Anne Heche, she chose to be a lesbian, now she has Chosen to be Heterosexual, she is a perfect example of type of Choice
    No to Special Rights and
    Yes to Traditional Families and true civil rights to those who have No Choice

    Reply

  4. dirk says:

    Stone
    I’m not gay (not sure it matters), I really don’t understand your points.
    1. What people do in private IS definitely their own business — unless children are involved. But the “do no harm” concept would seem to apply here.
    2. True — we shouldn’t be discriminating based on sexual preference, just as we shouldn’t be discriminating on other factors such as age, sex, religion, lack of religion, etc.
    3. I don’t know if people are necessarily asking for your approval — I really don’t care if you approve, for example, of my disbelief in God/gods/god. However, I do expect you to accept it, i.e., that people are different, and to acknowledge that these differences are just that, differences.
    Having said that, your basic gripe seems to be that there is some formal agenda to force an agenda on other people, in your words, a gay agenda. — I have a real problem with people (e.g., religious people) want to force me to behave in a certain way because they think they know what is right. For example, the religious right wants to remove the rights of women to an abortion. To me, that’s a full stop. Don’t choose an abortion if that’s your belief, but also don’t stop other people from getting one just because you believe you are wrong.
    So, you seem to be accusing gays of having an agenda of . . . what? Teaching tolerance to children? Seems okay to me! California churches plastered up their front lawns with signs that read “save traditional marriage” — how is that tolerant and accepting?
    As a straight, married male, I cannot understand how a gay couple affects my marriage in the least! Please explain that to me! What you seem to have is a group that has been severely discriminated against (and in the case of some individuals like Matthew Shepard — murdered in Wyoming in 1998) and worse. Prop 8 was an affront to them — can you not see that? I hope so.

    Reply

  5. stone says:

    Although the folks pushing the gay rights agenda are claiming to be stunned by the victory of prop 8 they have no furhter to look than themselves.
    First is was – What people do in private is their own business
    Then it was – you should not discriminate based on sexual preference
    now it is – we want you to approve of our lifestyle and give it the same status as heterosexual marriage
    Along the way, their positions of ‘tolerance’ and no ‘hate speech’ have clearly been shown to work only one way. In San Francisco where gays have power well in excess of their numbers, school students are prevented frome expressing their views or belonging to organizations whose leadership has run afoul of the gay agenda. The No on 8 campaing was at times ruthless and used lies and intimidation to browbeat voters into submission.
    You say you want ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ but perhaps you should start showing some. You look for society’s ultimate stamp of approval by seeking marriage, but by doing so you will only destroy the value of what you seek.

    Reply

  6. Apple says:

    Isn’t it funny how those Yes on 8 folks argue about the use of the word “marriage” and it’s just a bunch of letters that someone used when they translated the Bible. Government uses those words to mean something civil, not religious. And Protect Marriage was trying to take away rights from gay people. The original wording was meant to invalidate all domestic partnerships and civil unions. It says so on their 2006 FAQ (archived): http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ
    And yes, this is a civil rights issue, or would you argue with Coretta Scott King and company: http://www.soulforce.org/article/766

    Reply

  7. Ryan says:

    I’m 24, Catholic, and I voted for Obama and “NO” on prop 8. I too am disappointed with the gay marriage ban, but I’m more disappointed with some statistics that I just heard of today. They said that 7 out of 10 African-Americans in California voted “YES” on 8. I’m not finger-pointing at all, but I just want to bring up an interesting point.
    We hear all about how joyous it is to finally elect an African-American president, and how long African-Americans have waited for this day. Yet the same voter group approves stripping away basic civil rights from another minority group. It seems very hypocritical to me, and I’m having trouble comprehending the situation.
    Even worse is the fact that we can give animals “humane-rights” yet we can’t even let our own brothers and sisters RETAIN their right to marry. I just don’t understand what’s so wrong about gay marriage, and what fuels the need to ban it. What REAL good does a gay marriage ban do anyway? Less crime? Higher graduation rates? Give me a break. I shudder at the thought of people honestly feeling good about voting “YES” on 8. It’s a real shame that people can celebrate in taking away marriage from the LGBT community. Marriage, which to most, is the happiest moment of one’s life here on Earth.
    OPEN YOUR EYES CALIFORNIA. We’ve learned these lessons in the past. Do we really need to go through more pain and suffering for equality?

    Reply

  8. Chris says:

    No, Carly it “ain’t going to happen now” thanks to stupid, unread, mean spirited, small minded bigots just like you. I wish you and your children joy in your hatred. My beloved partner and I pay our taxes and are entitled to the same rights as you and you ilk. Like Brian, we are not going to go away, so get over it. It may have been a majority but it was less of a majority than before. One day humans will get beyond this need to tell others how to live.
    You would have us all back in the dark ages.

    Reply

  9. Carly says:

    Well, it AIN’t gonna happen now, whether you like it or not!

    Reply

  10. BrianInSacramento says:

    Besides having my right to marry ELIMINATED this morning, one of my biggest problems with this whole thing is the lies and deceit that the yes on 8 people flooded the airwaves and internet with to promote their backwards agenda. It is inconceivable to me why they think that letting me marry my partner of 9 wonderful years in any way devalues or un(protect)s their marriage. I don’t get it. Homosexuality is a fact of life, it ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be and those that believe it is a choice are completely ignorant. Why would we choose to be gay, it doesn’t make any sense. I really feel sorry for those homosexuals born into extreme Christian fundamentalist families like the Slavic people that moved here to spread hate and work to suppress the civil rights of others. I will not accept being a second class citizen; I will not go quietly into the night. It may not be today or tomorrow but it will change eventually and we will see AMERICANS stand up against bigotry and say YES to EQUALITY!!!!

    Reply

  11. Mary says:

    Oh and all you fools who think kids need a father and a mother?? You are also ignorant, how about just “good parents”, and not have a “father” there to beat all of their asses every day, or a drunk “mom”. Here are a few stats for you….94% of LGBT parents attend parent-teacher conferences compared to 77% of national sample of parents.
    67% of LGBT parents volunteer at their child’s school compared to 42% of a national sample.
    Yesterday California gave farm animals more rights that gay humans.

    Reply

  12. Mary says:

    I love how straight people call gay folks “they” and “them” and “those people”…I wonder if they wear their white coats and hoods when they type this crap? If you voted YES on 8 you are a racist, bigot, hate monger, whatever the word of the day is. You are narrow, plain and simple. There are lots of things we have now that were not in the bible… like the machines that save your babies or your aging parent, should we put a ban on them too? Ignorance is bliss!!!

    Reply

  13. Don Bacon says:

    Hugh Hewitt says that “no” proponents have gone over the edge with this ad. I think it’s cool.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

    Reply

  14. Steve Clemons says:

    Weber — we are on opposite sides on this one.
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  15. Weber says:

    Why should I vote no on 8? All gays have done is brought about gender confusion and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. They force their views on people more than anyone. But all the facts will tell you that children grow up better with a male father and a female mother. That’s how it’s designed to work and anyone who says otherwise has just bought into the propaganda.

    Reply

  16. Sharon says:

    I just voted No on 8 along with everyone else in my city! I don’t know anyone here voting otherwise. If 8 passes I’m blaming SoCal. lol
    Mavis, I very much agree dropping the “tolerance” word and replacing it with “acceptance”.
    Sharon
    San Francisco

    Reply

  17. Steve Clemons says:

    Mavis, I agree. Steve Clemons

    Reply

  18. Mavis says:

    Steve,
    I have a problem with the world “tolerance”. Isn’t “acceptance” a much better word? Do you want to be “tolerated” or “accepted”? It’s time we celebrate each other for just what we are.

    Reply

  19. Don Bacon says:

    re: changes in the Bible, my wife’s favorite joke: God said “celebrate” and the monk translated it as “celibate.”

    Reply

  20. Buckley says:

    Thanks Steve, for having the guts to stand up for this Prop.
    What is the Mormon’s stake in this anyway?
    Are the Mormon’s pissed because Homosexuals only want one
    husband?

    Reply

  21. questions says:

    Amending my 12:48 post — marriage can have nothing to do with property — vid. pre-nuptial agreements. Since there isn’t much to the institution, why do people get so worked up?
    The right wingers should DEMAND and end to all barren marriages, to all pre-nups, to all post-child marriages…. Or they should fess up to the utter hypocrisy of their position. It’s not marriage that’s the issue.

    Reply

  22. Heather says:

    I believe in equality for ALL. Even if you think being gay is a sin (and I dont), we do not restrict marriage rights for any other “sinners”. You can be an adulterer, a murderer, even a rapist and have 3 or 4 “sacred” marriages that are “protected”. Why would gay people get less rights? This is “ANTI-AMERICAN”.

    Reply

  23. dirk says:

    ToddinHB
    Yes, I agree — the only thing you can really say about the authorship of the bible is that it is clearly the work of man. All else is conjecture and wishful “thinking”.

    Reply

  24. ToddinHB says:

    I’m no biblical scholar, but I do recall hearing the author of “Misquoting Jesus” on Fresh Air with Terry Gross one night, and he made a point of all the myriad changes the bible has undergone as various monks, governments, churches, etc. have copied the text – usually by hand – to conform to their particular beliefs. It’s present form (which is not universally agreed upon) is an amalgam of thousands of years of disparate voices with their own unique agendas. I would take any quote from the bible with a huge grain of salt.
    Of course, I’m an atheist, so it’s all BS anyway…

    Reply

  25. dirk says:

    Don Bacon: (et al)
    No, it’s not clear at all, especially in terms of an actual marriage ceremony — to my knowledge there is no such thing in the bible.
    And, notice my earlier quote on Abraham “knowing” her on “going into the tent” — no marriage ceremony, just “bam-bam we’re married!”
    Of course, seeing the bible as a clarifier of any subject is a fundamental mistake to begin with. Else, we would have to be stoning our neighbors for all kinds of supposed offenses.
    For me the fundamental issue is tolerance. I’ve never really understood the opposition to gay marriage from the start (fyi, I’m not gay) — I mean, who or how would gay marriage hurt?
    It only makes sense to me if the opposition is explained in the context of religious bigotry and intolerance. Then it’s easy to understand.

    Reply

  26. koreyel says:

    Steve,
    I’d be interested in seeing a piece that explains why you can come out of the closet on Prop. 8 and make an endorsement, but stay neutered on choosing a president and vice president.
    I mean really, if the issue is that important to you: Which President and VP want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?
    Or am I missing something?
    Perhaps you are you worried that if you endorse someone for president there will be riots in the streets?

    Reply

  27. rich says:

    Better off not having to differentiate and taxonimize every last thing under the sun.
    Don’t believe me? Read the bio of Fitz-Greene Hallock.
    http://tinyurl.com/6e7cbh
    p.s. — I worked on this book as production editor.

    Reply

  28. rich says:

    allegedly.

    Reply

  29. Arizona says:

    Why is it our business if two men or two women want to marry
    each other?
    This country, allegedly, was based on freedom, and at the
    beginning, separation of church and state.
    We need to leave each other alone, mind our own business (I’m
    talking to you the “Christian” busy-bodies and the pro- Zionist
    neocons) and live in peace, both domestically and internationally. I
    don’t think that it will ever happen, but one can hope

    Reply

  30. Don Bacon says:

    The Bible is clear on marriage, its components and its responsibilities:
    Genesis 3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
    Eph.5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
    1 Pet.3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”

    Reply

  31. ToddinHB says:

    I am voting “No” on Prop. 8, but not for the reason you might think. While I do oppose discrimination and feel this is a massive waste of people’s money, the proposition process in California is a Gordian knot serves no purpose other than release the state legislators from their duties and challenge vested interests to devise increasingly confusing ways to write laws. Whether it’s allowing chickens to flap their wings (Prop. 2) or drug-related criminals to get rehab (Prop. 5), these are issues that can and should be addressed through the proper channels of government. We pay these people to debate and vote on this stuff, and I frankly don’t trust my fellow voters to have the capacity or intellect to make a rational decision on any of them.
    I’d vote the bums out if I could, but they aren’t elected!

    Reply

  32. bangzoom14 says:

    What can I say? The religious right is wrong.. again. Can’t they ever get it right? Organized religion has had this grip on society for generations. That is until the late ’60’s. Then those of us here in the states, as well as elsewhere, started to actually think about what we were doing and saying on many topics instead of just acting and thinking as knee-jerk responses. That was the start of the fall of organized religion here. While the religious people are so chronically consumed with thoughts of ‘how did we get here’ and ‘where are we going when we die’, the rest of us are perfectly fine with the question of ‘how can we all live in peace and harmony in the present’. Hey, for those of you that still don’t get it, peace and harmony means exactly that. That means that when there is no harm being done to someone, no one gets to push their agenda on the other. If you don’t like the idea of two people of the same sex getting married then don’t think about it. Simple, hah? If you are using your children as scapegoats then shame on you. You should be bringing them up so they get a well rounded education and view of the world as it is and not based on your warped view filled with fear and prejudice. I’m so sick of parents saying.. well, how do we explain this to our children? Well don’t just keep wondering about it, just talk to them. The longer you keep them in the dark and hidden from reality about life, the more harm you do to them in the longrun. Life is what the whole world is about.. not just what is in your head.

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    According to Politico a significant number of African American voters registered by the Obama Campaign for the first time are planning to cast their ballots for Obama and then vote “yes” on Proposition 8. Apparentley African Americans in Californina are expected to vote “yes” for proposition 8 in larger percentages than whites, Asians or even Latinos.
    Unfortunately the Obama Campaign has been largely silent on Proposition 8 other than making some pro forma remarks about their opposition. McCain, true to form, supports Proposition 8.
    The DNC has contributed a paltry $25 thousand to defeat Propistion 8 which is less than one quarter of what Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and Ellen Degeneris personally contributed to the Stop Opposition 8 Campaign.
    According to Politico, while Obama has been virtually silent, Biden has spoken eloquently in opposition In the November 2, 2008 issue, Politico said:
    “Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, has probably been the most emphatic in his opposition to the initiative, stating in a separate appearance on the DeGeneres show, “If I lived in California, I would clearly vote against Prop. 8.”
    There is a disagreement amongst gay activists about the role of Obama in trying to defeat Proposition 8.
    ‘Obama will not say a mumbling word on Proposition 8, proving what has been noted before,’ 365Gay Agenda blogger James Withers wrote shortly after the candidate’s “Ellen” appearance. “He is no better, or worse, than your standard Democratic pol willing to put gay issues on the back burner.”
    More from Politico:
    “The controversial new initiative has pitted A-list Hollywood types, Jewish leaders, future California gubernatorial hopefuls and top state educators against evangelical Christians, the Knights of Columbus and the Mormon Church, with the latter group encouraging followers to contribute millions to “Yes on 8” factions — and accounting for somewhere between 40 percent and 70 percent of the entire total raised to fight the measure.
    The largest show of financial support for “No on 8″ came about at a fundraising party held at the Beverly Hills estate of Ron Burkle. Attended by Barbra Streisand, Rob Reiner, David Hyde Pierce and featuring entertainment by Melissa Etheridge and Mary J. Blige, the soldout bash brought in around $4 million. Other monetary support has come from Apple Computer Inc., Google’s two co-founders, Levi Strauss & Co. and other companies.”
    Obama/Biden is so superior to McCain/Palin in so many ways that those of us with doubts about Obama have no realistic choice but to cast a semienthusiastic vote for him. But Steve Clemons has two posts on the Washington Note that reveal the type of person Obama really is. Read Steve’s comments about how Obama has treated Muslim Americans and then look at his medicore record on gay issues.
    All of this points to a conventional candidate who refuses to take chances and is likely to govern from the center.
    Anyone thinking that an Obama victory tomorrow (which will surely occur)will be great news for progressives is going to be sorely disappointed.
    Good news? Yes! Great news? No.
    Anyone wanting to learn more should read the Politico article that appeared yesterday. Here’s the citation: Obama avoids same-sex marriage fight
    By: Jeffrey Ressner, November 2, 2008 01:10 PM EST

    Reply

  34. Sick of Bigotry says:

    I’m not religious. To me there is exactly no difference between religion and superstition. But I will be praying tomorrow. I will be praying that proposition 8 is defeated. I will also be praying for the anti-rapture. That is, that all proposition 8 supporters are gathered up and escorted to where they belong, the deepest pits of hell.

    Reply

  35. questions says:

    If I have my history right, the marriage sacrament was introduced into Christianity by Charlemagne c. CE 800.
    Marriage is a property relation more than anything else. We hand out tax and inheritance and social welfare benefits based on marital status. There is no relationship between child bearing and marriage, no relationship between sex and marriage, no relationship between social stability and marriage.
    We don’t stop infertile people from marrying; we don’t insist upon divorcing the barren, nor do we force divorce in the case of marital infidelity. We don’t make pregnant teens marry, we don’t have real shotgun marriages (literally at the business end of a gun).
    So if it’s not about Christ, and it’s not about children or sex, why are so many people bent out of shape over this issue? Sheesh.
    Marriage is, again, a property relation. Let the state confer property rights to those who agree to the conferral. If you want sacrament, go to church. The Establishment clause will protect churches that oppose gay marriage, so this is a non-issue.

    Reply

  36. dirk says:

    Despite being force-fed the bible for most of my childhood, I don’t believe I have ever seen any reference in the bible to marriage.
    Abraham went into the tent with Sarah and he . . . . “KNEW HER” . . . that’s it!
    In the new testament when Jesus turned water into wine, it was a wedding celebration, but again, nothing about a marriage ceremony.
    If the churches don’t want to marry people, fine — people have the option of going to a justice of the peace, and getting married by the state. With separation of church and state this is easy, i.e., if churches don’t want to marry gay couples, fine — the state can.
    What I would most like to see in my lifetime, is for churches, and their religious adherents, to stay the fuck out of other people’s business. Believe in the big sky monster if you wish, but until you can demonstrate some validity in your beliefs, quit trying to force your beliefs down other people’s throats.

    Reply

  37. Bill H. says:

    Well, a friend of mine who is a longtime cynic in such matters says–“let gay couples marry! Why should only straight people be miserable in their marriages?!”

    Reply

  38. Spunkmeyer says:

    When half of all marriages end in divorce, it’s difficult for me to
    watch anyone prattle on about the sanctity of marriage with a
    straight face. If you’re really wanting to protect marriage, wouldn’t
    the best way to do that be to ban divorce? Funny how those oh-
    so-moral hypocrites never seem to have the balls to go for that.

    Reply

  39. carol says:

    I do not believe in gay “marriages”, I do think is should be between a man and a woman.
    I do believe though that they are entitled to have gay “unions”, giving them the same rights as married people in the eyes of the law.
    I do not like to see any group of any kind being discriminated against or most of all ” hurt or killed” because of their gender..race..religion etc….that is definately NOT the Christian way!!

    Reply

  40. Don Bacon says:

    There is a myth in the land that human rights are “created” by voters or judges, or the Constitution even, whereas in truth people are born with basic human rights, including the right to associate with whomever they wish.
    Marriage is predominately a civil act, a close human association, and a particular religion has no business establishing criteria for it. In other words the Bible, the Koran and other religious tracts should be banned from affecting basic human and civil rights. So in this sense the picture with BANNED on the Bible is accurate, and correct.
    Unfortunately I’m afraid that too many people in California don’t share these views. They hate homosexuals for their freedom. Pity.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Of course I will vote no on 8. And truth be told, you would be appalled at the bigoted hotbed that California’s Central Valley is in respects to political activism in support of Prop 8. These bigots are a formidable force, and they are spending the big bucks to keep the gays sidelined, closeted, and demonized. If you get a chance, you might want to check out this asshole Chad Davis, and his talk radio groupie Inga Barks. They’ve made no bones about wanting to shove gay people to the back of the closet, and whats worse is this Chad Davis, (a pastor), is also on the school board in Bakersfield, and if he has his way, teaching kids that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin will be in the common curriculum.
    But really, I wish your interest in domestic issues was a bit more eclectic, and you used your connections and widely read blog to more forcefully expose the myriad of domestic issues that deserve the nation’s attention. If we can’t put our own house in order, it really doesn’t matter what the hell we do abroad.

    Reply

  42. citizen spot says:

    4 California Supreme Court Justices ruled that the proposition passed in 2000 was unconstitutional under the California State Constitution. Prop 8 will, if passed, amend discrimination INTO the California State Constitution. This is wrong. As for the “only” definition of marriage that civilization has ever had, I think you are forgetting the original definition, which was between and man and his chattel.
    No on 8. Equality for all Californians.

    Reply

  43. Note to Jennifer says:

    Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. Read it.

    Reply

  44. MLJ says:

    Dave,
    My wife is a kindergarten teacher across the hills from you in Contra Costa County. We discussed the “educational” aspect of Prop 8 a couple of weeks ago and her comment was that the focus in the K-6 environment is simply one of respect for those around you — that’s what our district’s pledge cards address, respect, not LGBT issues. Further, as someone who graduated from high school in Hayward, went to college at CSU-Hayward, and sat on City of Hayward commissions, I know how risk adverse and conservative most of the community can be so I doubt the focus of the pledge cards is solely on LGBT issues.
    I’ve lost too many friends and acquaintances over the years to AIDS so I won’t deny them the joys of marriage that I, a 54 year straight male, have enjoyed for close to 30 years. NO on 8.
    MLJ

    Reply

  45. Dan Kervick says:

    I think Prop 8 opponents need to drop their generalized phobia of bible banners and anti-Christians immediately. Why should it matter?! Opponents of Christianity are no less American than anyone else reading this blog.

    Reply

  46. Dave says:

    This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School in Hayward,
    CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use
    anti-LGBT language.
    Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a
    discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning
    the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-
    out, but instead had to keep their children home.
    What is LGBT? Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender
    A 5 year old needs to understand bisexuality? I’m not thinking
    I will VOTE YES on 8.

    Reply

  47. Jennifer says:

    2000, 61 percent of the voters in Calif, one the most liberal
    states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage
    civilization has ever had.
    in May 2008, 4 out of 7 Calif. justices decided that they would
    use their power to make a new definition:
    Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
    What we have here is truly manipulative. 4 justices create a right,
    4 months old that no one had ever voted to create.
    And you accuse us of imposing our values on society.
    I VOTED YES ON 8!

    Reply

  48. rich says:

    Samuel Jackson did an excellent TV spot on Prop 8:
    “It wasn’t that long ago, that discrimination was legal in California. . . ”
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/31/12040/959
    Jackson cites the American (of Japanese ethnicity) internment camps, the fact that Armenians couldn’t buy a house in the Central Valley, and a state in which the government told latinos and african-americans who they could and could not marry.
    What’s next? Liberty for all?

    Reply

  49. Steve Clemons says:

    . . .possibly.

    Reply

  50. john says:

    Do you think homosexuals will riot in the streets
    if prop 8 passes?

    Reply

  51. Ben Rosengart says:

    I’m glad to see some national attention paid to this important
    issue. The Yes on 8 campaign has been funded lavishly by the
    Mormon church. Meanwhile, the national left’s attention has
    been, understandably, elsewhere.
    I’ve contributed to the No on 8 coffers, and there’s a sign in my
    window. I have six extra signs, suitable for lawns or windows.
    Anyone in the Berkeley area who would like one is welcome to
    pick it up from me. (Google me for contact info.)

    Reply

  52. annjell says:

    I voted, and I voted no on prop 8.
    Here’s why, they were already given permission to marry.
    In addition, everyone is the U.S. has someone in their family that is either gay, in prison, or on drugs….
    No, I don’t believe in any type of gay relationship, but, I am tolerant.
    I accept what other people’s differences are. I may not like it, but, who am I to judge?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *