Cowardly "No on Prop. 8" supporters in California?

[CQ]

And, the reason for that is that our society has CONTINUED to belittle marriage and other values. Furthermore, hypocrisy works both ways. Citing divorce rates and out-of-wedlock babies to show a loss of value about marriage on one hand, while complaining about gays, not being able to re-define the issue on the other sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Bit lost bear in mind I am ESL, but I think I agree. I do believe values have been "belittled" but really it's done now. I personally do not accord to live like that, but fact is most do. And in the end, being gay isn't a moral failure IMO. Sleeping with married men, stealing, being a bad mom etc - those are moral failures.

Also, really, these were the Mormons. The [orthodox wing] has the highest incidence of funerase [sp?] syndrome caused by incest procreation. We know they have issues with uh, child molestation, I personally think they could have focused on stopping the disgusting habits within their own mist. "If you want the world to change start with yourself".

Plus, my guess is that this particular church has humanitarian funds and programs, which are used to help the less fortunate.

Yes and the fact still remains they spent millions of dollars to try and stop this, while people are starving and homeless and all sorts of tragedies.

Why don't those gay "marriage" protestors start feeding some hungry and clothing the naked, instead of acting a fool and vandalizing churches and other private property? I haven't heard you complain about the millions of dollars that Prop. 8 opponents got for their campaign.

Different expectations. I don't expect to dial the florist and have them come to my rescue, if I dial 911 I expect that however. The Prop 8 ppl are ppl, private citizens, churches hold themself up as some bastion of the right and proper - so expectations differ.

[TrapsMcLats]

98% of the public should not have to cave in to the whims of 2%.  If you feel so strongly about another person and cant get legally married, you can co-mingle your assets, make that person your POA, name that person your health care proxy, leave everything in your will to that person, buy things jointly, and act as if you are a married couple.

Marriage is meant so that the society can pro-create and reproduce.  That requires a male and a female, whether it be humans, animals, birds, dogs, cats, or otherwise. 

Being gay is against natures' design to survive.  If everyone were to be gay, the human species and every other species would cease to exist.

These are the facts, deal with it.

Haha, religious nut alert! 

Everyone is not going to be gay, you can't be gay without a biochemical reaction that makes you become sexually aroused or stimulated by a member of the same sex.  Marriage, or being married, is a legally binding document provided by the state... some people choose to involve religion, and that is their own choice.  You cannot provide that for some and not for others.  That is the definition of discrimination.  What about that do you not understand? I know many married people without children. My girlfriend and I plan on getting married and never having kids.  Should we be denied the right to marry because we don't plan on procreating?  Of course not.  Take religion and the bible out of the equation and your arguements have no basis.  You are the idiot letting a made up book full of made up stories define your social thinking.  I am judging the world scientificaly and rationaly with no emphasis on what a made up god decreed as right and wrong.

[timfogarty]

Marriage is meant so that the society can pro-create and reproduce.  That requires a male and a female, whether it be humans, animals, birds, dogs, cats, or otherwise. 

yes, only people in marriage can procreate, and can be seen by the lack of out of wedlock births.   so obviously we can't allow post-menopause women to marry, either.   that would be against the meaning of marriage.

the purpose of civil marriage is to help people to take care of each other through good times and bad.  the government helps by giving benefits and guarantees.  these small benefits lessen the burden on the government later on.  if people take care of each other, then the government doesn't have to.

Being gay is against natures' design to survive.  If everyone were to be gay, the human species and every other species would cease to exist.

well, God only made a few percentage of the population gay, so obviously we don't have to worry about that.

[Dan-O]

You mean moral decline, like vandalizing public property, stealing, and assault (i.e. what protesters of Prop. 8 have been doing before and since the amendment passed)?

Plus, churches have helped and continue to help the poor and needy, both here and elsewhere. It's called missionary work. Contrary to what you might think, you can do all of that AND keep the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. Where you got the idea that this amendment was done, at the expense of charity work, I'd love to know.

And, it goes back to what I said earlier. These protesters are COWARDS. They don't want to go head up with black churches or Latino churches in their respective neighborhoods. I doubt they'd even confront the lion's share of white voters who pulled for Prop. 8.

Thank you--you're right...  picketing and harrassing the Mormon church is relatively safe (i.e. pretty weenie) because, to put it bluntly, the protesters are pretty much guaranteed not to get their asses kicked like they might if they went up against other certain ahhh, more "militant" demographics who also voted in favor of Prop 8.

Trust me--the Mormon church has plenty of funds at their disposal (that's putting it mildly) and $20 mil is a drop in the bucket, although obviously not an insignificant amount.  But to imply that some poor needy person's needs went unmet when they otherwise would have, is pretty lame and has no basis in reality.  The church has a welfare program which is second to none, and I can also say as a former missionary (I did a stint in Holland many years ago) the missionaries do acts of service for anyone and everyone in their community, certainly not just for card-carrying Mormons.

And I still maintain--changing the definition of a term that has meant the same thing for thousands of years, opens up all sorts of legal loopholes and once it's done it will never be un-done.  Opponents can laugh and mock and make light of it but overturning this amendment would be another step towards the decline of western civilization.  Honestly at this rate I see history repeating itself vis-a-vis the fall of the Roman Empire.  I doubt it will be in our lifetimes but we're certainly on our way.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a wacky right-leaning conservative Christian.

[TrapsMcLats]

Thank you--you're right...  picketing and harrassing the Mormon church is relatively safe (i.e. pretty weenie) because, to put it bluntly, the protesters are pretty much guaranteed not to get their asses kicked like they might if they went up against other certain ahhh, more "militant" demographics who also voted in favor of Prop 8.

Trust me--the Mormon church has plenty of funds at their disposal (that's putting it mildly) and $20 mil is a drop in the bucket, although obviously not an insignificant amount.  But to imply that some poor needy person's needs went unmet when they otherwise would have, is pretty lame and has no basis in reality.  The church has a welfare program which is second to none, and I can also say as a former missionary (I did a stint in Holland many years ago) the missionaries do acts of service for anyone and everyone in their community, certainly not just for card-carrying Mormons.

And I still maintain--changing the definition of a term that has meant the same thing for thousands of years, opens up all sorts of legal loopholes and once it's done it will never be un-done.  Opponents can laugh and mock and make light of it but overturning this amendment would be another step towards the decline of western civilization.  Honestly at this rate I see history repeating itself vis-a-vis the fall of the Roman Empire.  I doubt it will be in our lifetimes but we're certainly on our way.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a wacky right-leaning conservative Christian.

How on earth can equality lead to the fall/decline of western civilization?  Sounds just like rhetoric spewed by people trying to keep "dem darkies" out of public school. You religious people are insane.  oh wait, you believe a "god" floats in the air, speaks to you, and guides your life.  Sounds like something that would land a person in the mental ward.  We totally fucked up jesus by the way.  We killed the shit out of him.  And you know what?  he was just a crazy guy who claimed to be the son of god.  I would totally skull fuck jesus. Now i await the wrath...

[loco]

Why did they not protest like this and file lawsuits before election day?  I mean, they knew it was going to be on the ballot, right? 

Well, probably because they were confident that Prop. 8 would be defeated by a land slide.  But it wasn't.  It back fired on them. 

If Prop. 8 had been defeated on election day, they would have been more than okay that it was on the ballot.

Sore losers.

[MCWAY]

But it didn't.  California Supreme Court overturned their miscegenation law in 1948.  The US Supreme Court did not do the same until 1967.

That miscegenation law ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the whole issue behind that particular case (Perez v. Sharp) was that a woman of Mexican descent wanted to marry a Black man. CA law allowed her to also say she was White, which she did. And that's what caused all the controversy. If she says she's Mexican, she can marry a black man; if she says she's white, she can't.

Plus, lost in all of this is that, regardless of her ethnicity (real or claimed), the definition of marriage WAS STILL ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. That didn't change with CA's court overturning, nor did it change with Loving v. Virginia.

so if the ballot initiative had existed in the 1950s, the California voters would have most certainly reinstated the law.   and according to you, that would have been ok, because the will of the majority takes precedent over the rights of minorities.

What part of, "unless it runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution" don't you understand? Plus, in both cases, the driving force behind those laws wasn't racial purity (as was claimed). The will of the majority is what we call DEMOCRACY. Yes, there are checks and balances to see that such isn't abused. But, that doesn't mean that the will of the minority trumps the will of the majority (barring federal consitutional breach).

And, according to Baker v. Nelson (a Minnesota case, effectively enforced by the Supreme Court), states have the right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That occured about 5 years or so, after Loving v. Virginia, where two gay guys tried to use Loving to force the stae of Minnesota to allow gay "marriage".

[timfogarty]

That miscegenation law ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

how did it run afoul of the US Constitution?  because the CA SC said it did?  Even if the US SC said it didn't for another 19 years?  and how is that different than now?

[timfogarty]

And I still maintain--changing the definition of a term that has meant the same thing for thousands of years,

that's the thing, the definition of marriage has not meant the same thing for thousands of years.  it use to include polygamy, still does in some parts of the world.   marriages were business arrangements made by the parents, still are in some parts of the world.   in Europe a thousand years ago, marriages were arranged by serfdom kings and bishops too.

your definition of marriage is only a few hundred years old.

[MCWAY]

how did it run afoul of the US Constitution?  because the CA SC said it did?  Even if the US SC said it didn't for another 19 years?  and how is that different than now?

I explained that earlier, as to how it is different. Baker v. Nelson states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union DOES NOT run afoul of the federal constitution. That case was from Minnesota and the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by two gay activists to overturn Baker, based on its merits. That's makes it binding on all lower courts.

Unless something run afoul of the Constitution, it's the will of the majority that makes it law. Last time I checked, at least 52% of CA voters approved Prop. 8.

And, as stated earlier, marriage, before Perez v. Sharp was 1M-1W; after Perez v. Sharp, it was STILL 1M-1W. Same goes for Loving v. Virginia: 1M-1W before; 1M-1W after.

The races of the man and woman involved didn't change the definition of marriage, especially since both Virginia and California allowed different non-white races to intermarry without penalty.

[loco]

that's the thing, the definition of marriage has not meant the same thing for thousands of years.  it use to include polygamy, still does in some parts of the world.   marriages were business arrangements made by the parents, still are in some parts of the world.   in Europe a thousand years ago, marriages were arranged by serfdom kings and bishops too.

your definition of marriage is only a few hundred years old.

I thought it was older than that.  

Deuteronomy 17:14-19 (New International Version)

The King

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

[TrapsMcLats]

I thought it was older than that.  

Deuteronomy 17:14-19 (New International Version)

The King

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

religion has no place in civilized, modern political discussion.  God doesn't exist.

[loco]

religion has no place in civilized, modern political discussion.  God doesn't exist.

But that is not what timfogarty and I were discussing.  We were discussing the age of the definition of traditional marriage.

Your statement above is not for discussion on this board, but for the religion board instead.

[loco]

Why did they not protest like this and file lawsuits before election day?  I mean, they knew it was going to be on the ballot, right? 

Well, probably because they were confident that Prop. 8 would be defeated by a land slide.  But it wasn't.  It back fired on them. 

If Prop. 8 had been defeated on election day, they would have been more than okay that it was on the ballot.

Sore losers.

No takers?

[Soul Crusher]

Haha, religious nut alert! 

Everyone is not going to be gay, you can't be gay without a biochemical reaction that makes you become sexually aroused or stimulated by a member of the same sex.  Marriage, or being married, is a legally binding document provided by the state... some people choose to involve religion, and that is their own choice.  You cannot provide that for some and not for others.  That is the definition of discrimination.  What about that do you not understand? I know many married people without children. My girlfriend and I plan on getting married and never having kids.  Should we be denied the right to marry because we don't plan on procreating?  Of course not.  Take religion and the bible out of the equation and your arguements have no basis.  You are the idiot letting a made up book full of made up stories define your social thinking.  I am judging the world scientificaly and rationaly with no emphasis on what a made up god decreed as right and wrong.

I have not stepped in a church or temple in probably 10 years. 

[Decker]

Marriage brings happiness?         

I'm beginning to wonder that myself.  All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.

What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?

You're not going to wear that, are you?  You're not goint to eat, drink or smoke that, are you?  What football game?.....my parents are coming over to help decorate the house.  Turn off those MMA fights....blood sickens me.  How can you lift weights when there's laundry to hang?

Speaking of hanging....this just might be the last post from Ol' Decker.

[Straw Man]

I'm beginning to wonder that myself.  All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.

What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?

You're not going to wear that, are you?  You're not goint to eat, drink or smoke that, are you?  What football game?.....my parents are coming over to help decorate the house.  Turn off those MMA fights....blood sickens me.  How can you lift weights when there's laundry to hang?

Speaking of hanging....this just might be the last post from Ol' Decker.

Really?  Why?

You have some of the best posts on this site and if nothing else, it's fun to see the right wingers get so riled up

[timfogarty]

But that is not what timfogarty and I were discussing.  We were discussing the age of the definition of traditional marriage.

ok, your bible quotes say polygamy is bad, yet it is still a valid form of marriage in many parts of the world even today.   and they say nothing about arranged marriages, which certainly is still going on today, even in the US.

the modern definition of marriage, two people choosing to marry for love, is a very recent development.

and that's all we're asking for, the ability to marry the one we love.  allowing us to do so will not have any negative impact on you or your family.   not allowing us to do so will not make us go away.  gays will continue to be in committed relationships, gays will continue to raise children.  your children will continue to have classmates with gay parents.   given that gay families will continue to exist, it is in societies best interest to offer them the protection that straight families have.

[timfogarty]

What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?

it is nice to be best friends with your lover.   there are advantages to being able to make love to your best friend.

[Decker]

Really?  Why?

You have some of the best posts on this site and if nothing else, it's fun to see the right wingers get so riled up

Thanks.  I'm just kidding.  I'm married and the nagging was of the scales this past weekend.

[loco]

I'm beginning to wonder that myself.  All the nagging you want....who cares if it comes from a skirt or a pair of jeans...nagging is fucking nagging.

What the hell was I thinking defending this institution?

You're not going to wear that, are you?  You're not goint to eat, drink or smoke that, are you?  What football game?.....my parents are coming over to help decorate the house.  Turn off those MMA fights....blood sickens me.  How can you lift weights when there's laundry to hang?

LOL.   

Speaking of hanging....this just might be the last post from Ol' Decker.

I like your posts Decker, even if you disagree with me most of the time.  Hope you stick around!   

[Decker]

LOL.   

I like your posts Decker, even if you disagree with me most of the time.  Hope you stick around!   

I'm not going anywhere soon.  It's just that nagging in the marriage might make me hang myself...at least the thought of it is somewhat comforting.

It really is the little things that help you get through the day.

When I do leave GB, it'll be my typical style...slinking away without the brazen sound and fury of an asinine announcement.

Like death, it'll just happen.

[loco]

I'm not going anywhere soon.  It's just that nagging in the marriage might make me hang myself...at least the thought of it is somewhat comforting.

It really is the little things that help you get through the day.

When I do leave GB, it'll be my typical style...slinking away without the brazen sound and fury of an asinine announcement.

Like death, it'll just happen.

LOL...okay, I get it now.  Be strong!  Hang in there...you know what I mean.     

[timfogarty]

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continued to march outside churches across California.

By Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza
November 10, 2008

Reporting from Sacramento and Lake Forest -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."


complete article at LA Times

[Dan-O]

I have not stepped in a church or temple in probably 10 years. 

I haven't set foot in church in over a year but apparently I'm still a religious zealot too.

In all honesty I don't give a shit if gays want to get married.  It's no skin off my back.  But it's not about me as an individual--I can see definite long-term implications for society as a whole if we are to start monkeying with constitutions and the semantics of the definitions of certain critical words.

And besides--why is it okay for liberal organizations to throw their money behind a cause, but when a conservative organization like the Mormon church does it, people are yelling and screaming and marching in the streets?  It just kinda makes you wonder.