Remember California’s successful election campaign to ban same-sex marriage? The Associated Press reports that the organizers of “Proposition 8″ have asked courts to make them exempt from campaign finance laws that let the public see who has given them money.
Apparently, some not-too-subtle folks from the pink liberation army’s guerrilla wing have been using the donor list as a sort of hit list:
[The lawsuit] cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support the ballot measure have received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman reported being told, “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”
Another donor had a widow broken, one had a flier distributed around his hometown calling him a bigot and others have received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.
Businesses have been threatened with boycotts because people who worked there contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign, the suit said. In Sacramento, the artistic director of the musical theater company resigned after his $1,000 donation to the Proposition 8 campaign was made public, prompting threats to boycott the company’s productions.
Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight a ballot initiative seeking to overturn the constitutional amendment.
“Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions … and the public disclosure of that fact,” the lawsuit said.
“Indeed, there is significant evidence that, because of the disclosure of their names, donations to groups supporting the passage of Proposition 8 led directly to those donors being singled out for threats, harassment and reprisals.”
I don’t personally have a strong feeling one way or the other on the whole gay marriage issue, but I’m generally in favor of encouraging people to get involved in the political process. Harassing voters (or their businesses) because they went out on a limb and expressed their political opinions on a contentious issue is disturbing, and ought to be immediately recognizable as an election-year party foul.
And anyone who’s the victim of such shenanigans deserves the political equivalent of a pair of free-throws. That’s right — a little something called “moral high ground.”
Unless, of course, the victims have been doing the same thing themselves.
Here’s a letter from the “Yes on Prop. 8″ people that their opponents archived. It was apparently sent to all the high-dollar donors to the gay-rights side of the campaign. The basic message: You wouldn’t want everyone in California to think you’re siding with them, now would you? So donate to us too, or we’ll make a big public stink about it:
Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.
We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution sincerely hoping to receive your positive response.
Because, you know, people have a right to know who’s bankrolling political campaigns! Yeah!
What? We’re against that? Never mind.
And besides, no one on the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” side of the battle ever terrorized people on the other side. Nosirree.
By the way, I asked a gay friend to recommend a political cartoon for this post, and he gave me three. Click here and here to see the ones that I almost picked.
Hat Tip: Deceiver reader Sadaye
Related posts:
- Gay Rights Groups Cheer President Obama’s Public Support for Same-Sex Marriage Whoops, did I say President Obama? I meant former Vice...
- Mel Gibson Annuls 29-Year Marriage Through Secret Tribunal I would love to know how Mel Gibson justifies this...
- Forget Those Nudie Photos: Carrie Prejean Has a Sex Tape Former Miss California and “opposite marriage” morality advocate Carrie Prejean...
- Gay Rights Groups to Obama: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pee in My Ear Every day, President Obama’s image as some sort of historically...
- Katie Couric Is Keeping It Classy (Sorry, I Mean Nasty) I know you’re all super jealous that Katie Couric went...
AS far as I am concerned, the Prop.8 law in California and the Prop.2 in Florida is a shame for America. What was the last time the United-States removed the right of individuals? I guess it was “Jim Crow’s laws”…
Oh well, I hope the supporters of this farce got their just share of the blame.
“Fair fight?”…not a chance.
I personally don’t care who gets married to whom. But I sure wish someone would arrange a boycott of MY business. I could use the free advertising, and the money it would bring in.
And I also have a forked tongue. Ladies?
Sorry, but I have seen the protestors in California that are on the pro gay marriage side and if any of them got in my face they way they were to thier opponents I would deck a few of them. The Rabid Rainbow Crowd can hold as many rallies as they want but to start terrorist tactics ranks them right up there with PETA, Greenpeace and the other nut job groups.
Isn’t it a federal crime use intimidation as a means to sway votes?
Nothing says sexual tolerance like a rock.
I’m gay and I despise the way pro-gay marriage folks have conducted themselves. They most certainly do not represent me.
Whichever side you fall on in regards to this argument, a little help: Please point out the supposed “right” or “rights” that is/are being withheld. Please point out where in the constitution these may be. It would be helpful for all involved.
Pasta, I’ll arrange a boycott for you. Just give me a cut of the profits, ‘kay? About 50% will do. And I promise not to break your kneecaps or bite your forked tongue.
I am all for gay marriage, but I think that on both sides of this debate, there have been a lot of people acting in wholly inappropriate ways. I sure hope that common sense returns to this debate.
It’s not about sexual tolerance, it’s about human rights. If your right to marry your partner were stripped away from you and you learned that many businesses you use had donated money to have your rights taken away, you’d be upset too; if you were forced to accept second-class citizenship, you’d fight tooth and nail to overturn it, wouldnt you?
Intimidation and various negative tactics are the result of a frustrated group of people pushed to their limits because their voices are being heard but completely ignored. Rationale debate is quickly ignored because some guy heard a burning bush talk to him or because some believe they saw a guy walking on water.
We’re talking about the inner dignity every human being is inherently born with being trampled on by a bunch of bigots who believe they have God on their side, which is completely irrelevant when discussing the topic of human rights.
No biting? the deal is OFF!
Using intimidation tactics and violence because someone doesn’t believe in what you believe in? From groups that are more than likely liberals in their opinions?
I love the smell of irony in the morning.
Bigmama I think Pasta has other ideas for his forked tongue….
Pasta YOU are my hero!
These liberals kill me. They’re all pro peace and anti war/violence. UNLESS someone dares to say that they think pot should remain criminalized, that their religious beliefs dictate that marriage remain a union between to people of oppostie sexes and that maybe teenagers shouldn’t be able to have their babies aborted without talking to their parents first, etc. Any of those opinions put you in line to be harrassed/nuked/attacked and parodied on SNL. This is America and we are all supposed to be able to voice our opinions without fear of violence or retaliation. And the people of this country VOTE to have the leadership and laws enacted that the MAJORITY of them want. And guess what – even the Obama voters don’t want gay marriage.
Pasta, I don’t offer biting with my boycotts, but I wield some nasty heated tongs. Deal?
On the subject- neither group has the right to harass voters. If a business publicly announces their position, by all means boycott. But any scare tactics are just stupid- for either group, you’re just giving people a reason to hate you even more if you resort to it.
Hurricane- the “rights” in question is the right to marry the partner of your choice. No, it’s not spelled out in the constitution. But neither is a man’s right to marry a woman, last I checked. We’re so far in shades of gray beyond what that thing was written for that all we have to go on is common sense and fair play…and we know how abundant *that* is. If we start dictating how people arrange their personal lives, we’re on a slippery slope, regardless if it’s cut and dried, “the constitution says so” kind of rights that are being infringed on.
Put it another way- the constitution does not say explicitly that you have a right to watch whatever you want on television. But if someone tried passing a rule that you weren’t allowed to watch shows of a certain nature that your neighbor was allowed too…you’d feel like you were being singled out too. And you’d be right.
Considering it’s politically popular and encouraged in popular culture and the MSM to *be* a homosexual or at the very least *encourage* others to be homosexuals, there is a difference between exposing someone as supporting a popular political and cultural viewpoint versus killing, maiming, terrorizing, vandalizing, etc. someone because their viewpoint is unpopular.
Like the Nazis and Soviets, they know they can’t win in the arena of ideas so they have to resort to violence and intimidation to force people to surrender to their oppressive regime. These Leftists are the real bigots and are the home of real intolerance.
“Intimidation and various negative tactics are the result of a frustrated group of people pushed to their limits because their voices are being heard but completely ignored.”
I get it – as long as you’re really frustrated, it’s alright to be an obnoxious/violent douche. Get the hell over yourselves. I absolutely love how the gay agenda is so quick to compare their ’struggle’ to that of civil rights, yet they toss out the tried and true tactics of those very movements. MLK and Ghandi would surely approve of gate-crashing churches and intimidating those super scary 85 year old Mormon grandmothers.
Huh.
One side of this thing thinks Armageddon is set for next Thursday.
The other says we’re frying the earth like soy-bacon.
And their state, if it doesn’t fall into the ocean from the weight of illegal immigrants, will be $28 billion short this year.
But this is what they come to fisticuffs over?
Since when does the minority rule. Where does this end, when the ACLU gets rights for the sickos at nambla. Who’s moral set do we need to follow, Pro-prop 8, or anti-prop 8. So far the majority has spoken.
Hurricane, the right to marry whoever or whatever you want is clearly stated in the first amendment…or, wait, maybe in the Second…no…AH! here it is in the third…crap, I can’t find it, but quit denying people their rights! Pretty sure I could marry Lindsay Lohan if I wanted (and the restraining order is removed) and So could Derek.
So in fact, what Derek is asking for is an EXTRA right. In which, I don’t really think is wrong, but they way they are going about it is retarded, and they are just setting it back.
Don’t claim that you are being held as a second class citizen, and being denied your rights, and are not going to pay taxes to this tyranical government, when what you are really asking for is a special circumstance that you would like for the country to make for you.
I think you would get a lot farther with that line of reasoning…because outside of the hard religious sects, no one can argue with it, and you are being intellectually honest. Seriously…if you couldn’t get this passed in CALIFORNIA of all places, maybe you are doing it wrong, duh!
@Hurricane:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Oh, alright Pasta. But just a nibble.
A friend of mine wondered something which I found interesting; how many people who voted “Yes on Prop. 8″ were actually from California and hadn’t just moved here from Buttf*ck, OH, or some other equally backwater place? (For example, where “rob” most likely has lived his whole life. PS: Why not take a moment to look up the definition of ‘irony’?) Well, that’s beside the point. But try going to Hillcrest, or to West Hollywood, or the Castro, or wherever, and try to tell people that you think gay people don’t deserve the same rights that a straight person has. Then see how many calm and rational discussions evolve.
Do I read that correctly, Ed?
ENJOYING life is a right? But later you’re only given the right to PURSUE happiness?
That’s one crappy piece of writing.
Ed- nice try but nothing is there. Besides, the “defending life” part isn’t being protected now in California is it? Or are you going for happiness? There are a lot of things that would make me happy but I’m not allowed to do by law, let alone my own beliefs in morality.
Phoenix- yep-, you are correct. There is no right to gay marriage therefore there are no rights being infringed upon.
The will of the voters have spoken. Dare I say “suck it up” and get over it. Keep fighting in the political arena to sway the voters if you can. But if one person harrasses me for the way I voted than they will see me enforce my “right” to happiness and my protection of personal property. Then they won’ thave to worry about all this when they are dead.
15 years ago I would have voted for Prop 8 but having made gay friends who were in committed and loving relationships changed my thinking on the topic and I voted no. That kind of example is the best way to change minds, not harrassing individual citizens who voted for and/or contributed to Prop 8. Pushing to have people fired from their jobs, vandalizing churches, etc. are ugly tactic and will harden peoples feelings on the matter and do more damage to gay couples who wish to get married. However Eve brings up a GREAT point and I too am concerned about the mass of OH citizens who flooded California for the low taxes, great schools, amazing traffic, empty emergency rooms and the chance to vote no on 8. Since Eve and her friend are so smart I’m sure they know what to do about this invasion.
Darek, I understand your opinion on this issue, but there is no reason to take potshots at my religion in trying to get that opinion across.
Eve, I’d be interested to see how many ‘Yes’ votes came from recent arrivals and how many came from those who’ve lived in CA a long time. I think you’d be surprised. There is plenty of CA outside WeHo and the Castro.
And bigmama and Pasta, I love the ongoing biting discussion in the midst of all the legal and moral shades of grey. Keep it up.
To me, the whole gay marriage debate seems like it should be a non-issue. I think it’s reasonable for the various churches to take a stand on this in their doctrines, and they should have every right to do so; however, why should everyone else in the country be expected to uphold the Christian definition of marriage? Last I checked, we were supposed to have separation of church and state. If you’re Christian, and believe marriage equals one man and one woman, then don’t marry someone of your same sex. Simple. I am pretty sure that being Christian doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to judge another person’s personal relationships. Gay people are going to pair off with or without a marriage certificate. It’s a piece of paper you get at the county clerk’s office, not from the hand of God (unless of course, you choose to have a Christian wedding, in which case, good for you)! Take a deep breath, accept that you don’t understand being gay because you’re not gay, then live and let live.
‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ -Jesus
Yes, eve, I do come from buttf*ck, Ohio.
I guess that makes me an ignorant redneck, correct? Quit the smug sh*t, it’s disgusting, and typical of your culture.
Sometimes I expect libs, such as yourself, are actually walking around sniffing your own farts. Then when you argue with someone “backwater” as myself, you scoff, “My rational opinion is far superior to your white trash beliefs,” and attribute all of my opinions to being a religious nut.
And they say that white conservatives are racist bigots. Whatever.
Delphi – “however, why should everyone else in the country be expected to uphold the Christian definition of marriage?”
Not everyone in this country has to uphold christian values. The people of the state of California, with all its diversity, said no to state sanctioned gay marriages. Regardless what you think about the issue that is what the majority decided, a majority of Democrats I will add. Do you think these people were duped? All of them (dumb stupid masses that voted for Obama, can’t even think straight. Someone should just vote for them!)? Okay, get the measure on the ballot for a third time.
“Gay people are going to pair off with or without a marriage certificate. It’s a piece of paper you get at the county clerk’s office, not from the hand of God”
Exactly correct and no one is stopping civil unions (they are legal in California)
“accept that you don’t understand being gay because you’re not gay, then live and let live”
That is hysterical….accept what you don’t understand, like that people voted against something you wanted….accept it.
Oh and the stone thing is way over used.
There are no laws on the books for separation of church and state. It can only be found in a letter, which if I can remember right they were trying to get the state out of the church not the church out of the state.
Also Jesus never preached acceptance of sin. He preached turning away from it. So if you are going to try to defend you point on one quote from the bible, you might want to read through the whole book and think again.
As a Christian and an Ohioan, I can’t help but sit around and wonder why it is that when liberals get their undergarments in a snit, their first recourse is to start insulting what I am and where I’m from. (Incidentally, everybody in Buttf*ck is pro gay marriage–thus the name of the town.)
Try logic first. If you can find any.
Jrod is brilliant. Comment #20 is all this discussion needs. But what I say doesn’t matter because I’m a Christian from Ohio. Gotta run, “y’all”! My cousin’s having an orgy at my half-sister’s farm down in Buttf*ck, and since she ain’t got driver licence no more, I gotta drive her up there.
MC Mom – I don’t mean to take potshots at an entire religion, as someone that wanted to be a priest long, long ago, know that when I speak of the Bible it’s from a learned place and not an ignorant one. But when people use their PRIVATE beliefs to hinder the PUBLIC rights of people, it’s unacceptable. No one who is against same-sex marriage can give an intellectual and rational reason why and any reason they can come up with, is something based on their private belief system (because God said so).
When those same, ignorant groups of people began attacking businesses and private citizens before the results of the election out of fear of Prop 8 failing and then cry and whine because they are now getting exactly what they put out – well, cry me a river, I really don’t care about your safety since you didn’t care about my human rights. It may be mean but why should the gay community take the higher road? Look what it’s got them. Hate, bigotry, ignorance, and religious fervor. They’ve been taking the higher road for years, politely listening to idiotic beliefs on God as a reason to be hated. Read some of the posts on this thread, I and the community I belong to based on a trait I was born with, have been likened to Nazis and Soviets! Need I remind everyone that Hitler believed in God and Stalin, yes a staunch atheist, didn’t preform his horrific acts of violence in the name of atheism but in the name of ignorance.
darek – “well, cry me a river, I really don’t care about your safety since you didn’t care about my human rights. It may be mean but why should the gay community take the higher road? Look what it’s got them. Hate, bigotry, ignorance, and religious fervor.”
are you saying that gays have made no in roads into the main stream in 50 years? Really? I am assuming you are very young or are ignorant of the past. The higher road has gotten you plenty of changes but it takes time to change a mindset and a generation. Your anger only makes the next generation leary of what you are selling.
As to your human rights, if your biggest bitch is that you cannot marry then your life is pretty damn easy. Try living in country were the term human rights is laughed at. You are allowed to live your life as you please, what you are asking for is a greater level of acceptance by the masses. Doesn’t look like that is going to happen.
Let me be clear, I am not oppossed to gay marriage. I don’t really care who you marry. I am a native Californian and was shocked that Prop 8 passed but it passed with a majority of voters being Democrats. That’s saying something my friend
I’m afraid that there’s plenty of arguments for keeping traditional marriage defined as between one man one woman. First of all, believe it or not, it’s for the good of any children that may result from such a union. I know, you’ll tell me you know of same-sex partners that have children, and that they’re good parents; the kids are well-adjusted and happy-more so than the children of some divorced or twice married heteroes you know. I get it. But in the long run, children do better if they have a mother and a father in the home to rear them. That’s not religion. That’s sociology.
Second of all, your rights have not been trampled on. All Prop 8 did was to provide a definition of marriage. It did not tell all gays to go back to the closet. It did not take your property or your right to work away. It did not tell you that you cannot live your life the way you want, and it did not tell you you couldn’t love your partner. You can still go and get power of attorney from the state in order to get visitation rights. It didn’t even take that away! You simply are not “married” in the eyes of the state.
Thirdly, there are religious arguments because it’s religion that’s under attack, not the gays. Just take a look at what’s happened in Massachusetts since “gay marriage” became legal there. If you choose to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and against nature and God, then you better not say it. You could go to jail, be convicted of hate crimes, be fined, and told not to teach/preach that any more. You can’t teach your kids that it’s wrong, and if the school wants teach that it’s right and good and natural, then guess what? You can’t interfere. Half the time you aren’t even notified, and can’t opt out your kids. And that, sirs and madams, sounds like a direct assault on the First Amendment and free expression of religion to me.
I’m fine with gay marriage, it’s gay divorce I’m against.
D—-
I’m man enough to admit when I’ve been knocked upside the head by a valid point – and yours was it. Yes, the gay community has made great strides in the past 50 years. I was not glossing over the fact that many people have died, been incarcerated, and beaten all so I can have the right to come out at work and not worry who knows or the fact that I was able to tell my parents I was gay at 20 and not, you know, ever. It wasn’t my intent to just by-pass the hard work of the past generation.
But let me clarify, it’s not that my biggest “bitch” is that gays currently living in the gayest state of the USA (because come on, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Hollywood, and West Hollywood, need I say more?) had their rights taken away to get married, it’s that a lot of people now feel it’s okay to do what the majority of california voters did. That’s something people should be ashamed of, not praising.
2keyboards *cracks knuckles*
“First of all, believe it or not, it’s for the good of any children that may result from such a union. I know, you’ll tell me you know of same-sex partners that have children, and that they’re good parents; the kids are well-adjusted and happy-more so than the children of some divorced or twice married heteroes you know. I get it. But in the long run, children do better if they have a mother and a father in the home to rear them. That’s not religion. That’s sociology.” No it’s not, it’s ignorance. Children do not care what hangs between the legs of their parents. All they care about is that their parents a) love them and b) love eachother. You proove EXACTLY what I’ve been saying – you made the point yourself that gay people DO make fine parents. But and there’s always a but, you for some reason, just believe that straights are better at being fine parents than gay people are – even though you just said gay people are fine parents. It’s not that your listening to the arguments of gay people, you’re ignoring your OWN points about gay-marriage.
“Second of all, your rights have not been trampled on. All Prop 8 did was to provide a definition of marriage. ”
And that definition trampled the rights of people. You’re double-speak is irritating.
“It did not tell you that you cannot live your life the way you want, and it did not tell you you couldn’t love your partner.” Actually it did. What if the way I want to live my life means I want to get marriage in California? To many, California is there home, why should they go to another state to get married or another country? What if two same-sex partners want the state, that they pay taxes to, to honor their commitment to eachother? Can they? Nope. So you see, Prop 8 isn’t JUST giving a definition of marriage; it’s creating a second-class citizenship.
“Thirdly, there are religious arguments because it’s religion that’s under attack, not the gays.” Please tell that to Matthew Sheppard.
I dont care about your religious rite, I care only about my civil rights. Your religious definition of marriage has only been around since 800 BC (when the Catholic Church made it a rite of passage offered to all catholics, the others being baptism, holy eucharist, confirmation, priesthood, annointing of the sick and reconcialiation) before that it was a civil matter, granted only to men and divided by various castes. Youre right to marriage is relatively new and therefore not under attack.
“If you choose to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and against nature and God, then you better not say it. You could go to jail, be convicted of hate crimes, be fined, and told not to teach/preach that any more. You can’t teach your kids that it’s wrong, and if the school wants teach that it’s right and good and natural, then guess what? You can’t interfere. Half the time you aren’t even notified, and can’t opt out your kids. And that, sirs and madams, sounds like a direct assault on the First Amendment and free expression of religion to me.”
Then put your kids in a private school where they can be told the backward theories you want to teach them. Or homeschool them. The point is, YOUR rights to live your life havent been taken away, you have plenty of options still around. Everything else youve said doesnt seem horrible, in fact is sounds like your bought the lies of the YES on Prop 8 propaganda – it seems the state is telling people to keep their private beliefs private and essentially “if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything”
Darek
“It’s not about sexual tolerance, it’s about human rights”
Not only does the term ‘human rights’ require human interpretation, but even the foremost document on human rights (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) doesn’t mention sexual orientation with regards to marriage despite offering other qualifiers as to what constitutes unacceptable reasons to prevent marriage rights. That is to say, what you call human rights is just that: what YOU call human rights. Other people have differing opinions on what qualifies and apparently based on other comments you’ve made, you seem to think that terrorism is an acceptable means of getting people to accept your definition over their own.
“Rationale debate is quickly ignored because some guy heard a burning bush talk to him or because some believe they saw a guy walking on water”
It also seems to be quickly ignored and dissolved quite readily (into violence, no less) when a state population democratically decides to make things back the way they were before the state government opposed democracy by instituting a law without any sort of popular consent. It would seem that it’s easier to dive into terrorist acts than to rationally debate the matter so that the outcome might be different in a future bill.
“I don’t mean to take potshots at an entire religion, as someone that wanted to be a priest long, long ago, know that when I speak of the Bible it’s from a learned place and not an ignorant one”
I trust then that you actually went to a seminary, theological college, divinity school, or some other institution so as to train for the priesthood for at least some amount of time before deciding against it, yes? For if not, then your claim that because you wanted to be a priest at one time doesn’t actually make you any more qualified to discuss the finer points of religious beliefs and doctrine than I am qualified to breed giant pandas just because for years I “wanted” to assist in preserving their populations.
“No one who is against same-sex marriage can give an intellectual and rational reason why and any reason they can come up with, is something based on their private belief system (because God said so)”
Of course somebody can. In fact, I’ve heard a few in my day and if I tried perhaps even I could come up with one. However, that doesn’t mean everybody will except such arguments as “rational” if they don’t already agree with the viewpoint. After all, there are still those who don’t believe in evolution either despite the evidence. Further, it also depends on one’s definition of “rational.” “Logical” is often used (perhaps inappropriately) as a synonym in which case one could probably contend that it’s easier to make a logical argument against gay marriage rather than for it. But then again, who lives logically now anyway? lol.
“It may be mean but why should the gay community take the higher road? Look what it’s got them. Hate, bigotry, ignorance, and religious fervor. They’ve been taking the higher road for years, politely listening to idiotic beliefs on God as a reason to be hated”
Wow… in there very same post where you mentioned that you don’t mean to take potshots at an entire religion, you continue on to claim people of the religion have “idiotic beliefs on God” simply because they differ from your own. You’re other argument was better that having God on one’s side is irrelevant when discussing ‘human rights’ rather than again insulting the religious beliefs themselves. Further, are you sure that it was because of taking the alleged “high road” for years that led to such a situation rather than the acts of individual groups and individuals doing heinous things such as is happening right now which just happen so far to have drawn more attention? Would it be fair to assume your assertion is something like “as long as other people have messed up our public appearance, we might as well just all go with how they perceive us already”?
“Read some of the posts on this thread, I and the community I belong to based on a trait I was born with, have been likened to Nazis and Soviets! Need I remind everyone that Hitler believed in God and Stalin, yes a staunch atheist, didn’t preform his horrific acts of violence in the name of atheism but in the name of ignorance.”
The first point I’d like to make here is again something that you have asserted as fact without any significant proof one way or the other. That is to say, there is currently no more proof that homosexuality is something one is born with, develops later from psychological events, or a choice (albeit perhaps subconscious or the apparent route based on another self choice). To state it so matter-of-factly is fine however unless you expect that other people simply should believe it without any reason. Sort of similar to how you seem to think religious groups shouldn’t state as fact that which is unproven. I trust then that you either 1) accept if people don’t believe that it’s something you were born with 2) want other people to accept it and that you yourself are willing to accept the same sort of unproven assertions by others or 3) you’re a hypocrite in which case you’ve come to the right place. As for your statement on Hitler, that one is just plain wrong. Hitler was raised in a Roman Catholic home but frequently spoke out against Catholics and protestants (Christianity in general, really, but those were the major targets). He did, however, continue to pay dues to German churches, but eventually founded his own. His Positive Christian church was indeed Christian, but that was for the people who weren’t quite ready to accept his Aryan (that is, old German paganism (not old Iranian which is the modern usage of Aryan)) religion. He also had a fondness for Islam, but was himself in favor of proto-Indo-European religions. Long story short, no. He didn’t believe in God. As for Stalin, again it could be argued that his behaviour was, in a sense, the result of his atheism. That is to say, without worrying about God or his works (i.e. mankind) so much as man’s works (i.e. the U.S.S.R). I’m certainly not saying though that that’s what atheists do though, of course, as that would be as foolish as saying all Christians or followers of Islam and so forth are also all alike. Though perhaps not making sweeping generalisations about entire religions is a rarity nowadays?
There goes a slogan. Though both should be plural or singular.
Darek,
It is not ignorance. No, I did not say that I know of thought of gay parents as just as good. What I said was, that you would try to counter my argument with “I know of someone…” These studies have been done for years. A child does best when the influence in the home is a loving, two parent, different sexes home. I think you need to go back and reread my post before you make comments. I never said that gay marriage makes for good parenting.
““Second of all, your rights have not been trampled on. All Prop 8 did was to provide a definition of marriage. ”
And that definition trampled the rights of people. You’re double-speak is irritating.”
The rights that were trampled were the people of California. Once before, gay marriage was voted against by the majority of Californians. 5 judges on the Supreme Court overruled the will of the people. It was put back on the ballot, and again, the majority of the people do not wish to have gay marriage recognized by the state. They consider this an issue of morality, and religion.
Prop 8 did not say that you could not call your commitment to each other marriage. It only said that you would not be recognized as such by the state, nor could you force another religion to recognize your marriage. Call it marriage if you want, in your home, with your friends. Just don’t tell me that I have to call it marriage. There are already many things in place in California that allow you to celebrate your love for your partner, hetero unmarried or same sex. I believe that Disneyland gives benefits to unmarried same sex partners, and as I understand it, so does the state of California. Tell me, how does that not honor your commitment to each other?
“Thirdly, there are religious arguments because it’s religion that’s under attack, not the gays.” Please tell that to Matthew Sheppard.
I’m sorry. I know that what happened to Matthew Sheppard was a horrible crime. But there are people being murdered all the time, and in horrible ways. His murderers should absolutely be punished, and they will themselves deal with their crimes here, and also the life beyond. (There’s your religious reference.) However, they do not represent the majority of the religious. If you would like to make broad stereotypes, them let me remind you that I will judge you by what happens at the Folsom Street Fair, and in every Gay Pride Parade.
I happen to believe that marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. If you’re personally married by God, then that’s MARRIAGE. Which means, marriage has been around since people have.
How can my rights to raise my children NOT be taken away when I can’t opt them out of curriculum I don’t agree with? Your double speak is irritating. So, I can’t take advantage of the public sector to raise my kids, that I have paid my own taxes into, I have to find alternate means to educate them if I don’t agree with you. Hm. That sounds a lot like intolerance to me. I have not told you that I think your children should go elsewhere. I have not told you that you cannot practice the lifestyle that you have chosen, but you have a vast intolerance of the lifestyle I have chosen. There are still options for you, as well. Plenty of them.
Even though marriage has been around for centuries, it is still not a guaranteed right, set forth in the Constitution. If this was a right, then you would find everybody married to someone. There would be government institutions set up to marry everyone off. Your civil rights are not gone. You never had them (neither did I in this case) in the first place.
Oho! Nice call on my comment. I seem to have forgotten to set my name to its standard when switching to linux from windows. I was the one who wrote the (perhaps too) long response to Darek. Sorry about that anonymous-ness there
i’m personally against marriage, period…;)….that being said, i don’t care who gets married to whom as long as they’re consenting adults and they don’t ask me to be a friggin bridesmaid…oh, and for the record, a similar proposition was on the arizona ballot and i voted for gay marriage and it didn’t pass…
So before I pull out my hair screaming from the top of my lungs, I would like to address just one last point made by someone wanting me to come up with a clever name or some such nonsense.
“The first point I’d like to make here is again something that you have asserted as fact without any significant proof one way or the other. That is to say, there is currently no more proof that homosexuality is something one is born with, develops later from psychological events, or a choice (albeit perhaps subconscious or the apparent route based on another self choice).”
Well let me be blunt. I’m as queer as a three dollar bill tucked into a stripper named Long Dong Silver’s G-string. Trust me, when I tell you, I didn’t choose my sexual orientation just like I didn’t choose my eye or hair colour. If you’ve glossed over this, quickly filled your head back with the statistics you’ve learned from church, we cannot continue. If any part of you believes that somewhere in my past, I appeared at a fork in the road and chose one way instead of the other – well we’re pretty much at an impasse and cant begin.
I’ll end it at this -> it’s pretty said in this day and age when people cannot see the difference between legality and justice. 50 years ago, it was illegal to marry someone of colour in the USA. The exact same treatment towards black people was showned towards gay people. A minority is a minority but we’re all human in the end and all humans deserve to be respected and shown dignity. Dignity does not come in the form of “love the sinner, hate the sin” or “seperate by equal”. “Rogue judges” may have changed the law but they did it because of the immense contradiction apparent in California’s constitution – in order for people (adults and consenting) to have the right to pursue happiness, they must have all options available to them to pursue that happiness, this includes marriage.
I sincerely hope I wont be seen as coping out of an argument but if anyone on here believes Adam and Eve were real, that a serpent spoke to them then I can naturally assume you believe that lobster and shellfish are no-nos, that if you saw your neighbour working on the sabbath you are under orders from your God to murder them and that if times are tough, fathers have the right to sell their daugthers (It’s all in leviticus). These beliefs are not rational. And therefore I can assume you aren’t either.
First of all I am against the idea of banning gay marriage. Anyone who wants to get married is fine by me, I wish them well as they journey together down lifes long highway.
That being said, am I the only on who is thinking this is a smokescreen? A way of diverting attention from the fact that economy of California is looking quite poorly?
A google news search just minutes ago seems to corroborate this. Will Kempton’s Editorial in the online version of the Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1536736.html
Judy Lin at the Mercury online saying poor old Governor Ah-nuld is up to his wossnames in it.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11437109?nclick_check=1
Even the erstwhile Dallas News are saying that there seems to be some sort of exodus from the state, report quoting The Los Angeles times.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-california_11bus.ART.State.Edition1.4b1cc11.html
Here is my hypothetical.
So you are in a position of power over your lands and your economy is set for a less than soft landing after years of possible economic mismanagement or runaway profiteering. So what do you do? You have two possible options.
1. Publicly admit that the economy of your lands is in freefall with a no parachute. This will trigger a panic, undermine investor and consumer confidence and depending on the system of government you are in, you will either have an angry mob burning your palace down or be voted out of office. Or possibly both…we are kind of talking about California after all…But I digress.
2. OH NOES! (*insert ‘hot button’ topic here*)
This is Barnumist politics at its best, take a contentious issue like gay marriage, or whatever is likely to get a strong reaction in your area, blare said issue on the front pages of every newspaper, every TV news for 24 hours, and watch the crowd rally to the colours.
Soon you will see marches, organisations springing up to defend their position on said issues, column inch after column inch will suddenly be filled with lively debate and remember when I said the economy of your lands was tanking? Of course you dont, you are getting hot under the collar about an issue that is suddenly REALLY important! Who wants to go to page twelve and read about the lands imminent bankruptcy? I am talking about the issue on PAGE ONE!
And I have seen this with my own eyes. In Australia, a country I feel proud of and lucky to have been born in, I can cite two shameful examples of smokescreen issues. In Western Australia in the late 80’s a daily newspaper and a weekend newspaper were shut down by the Lawrence Labor government because they published too much about their (and the previous government’s) less that savoury dealings with big business and the criminal underworld. What was the topic raging on the news that night? Daylight Savings. Yes, its a hot button issue here that works real well. Second example comes from years of financial mismanagement under the Hawke/ Keating Federal Government. As bad quarter balance of trade figures were announced, they were pushed back as the front pages of a cowed and compliant media screamed about the REAL IMPORTANT issue of Australia seceding from the Commonwealth and becoming a Republic.
By all means talk about the issue of gay marriage, that is your right, but dont forget to look for the political sleight of hand as well. Because the people in power, regardless of political stripe, are counting on your vote and your continued distraction.
D-
Maybe the stone comment is ‘overused’ because it’s a valid point. I’m not gay, Christian or Californian. I clearly don’t grasp the legal talking points as well as you do, and that’s fine with me. It makes no difference to me whether gay people get married or not. The point of my comment (and I apologize if it wasn’t clear) was that I don’t understand why people on the ‘anti’ side are so upset about this issue. I assume they are mostly all straight, so to me it seems like gay marriage is an issue that doesn’t have much (if any) impact on their own lives, choices or immortal souls. As I stated in my first comment, this is just my OPINION on the issue; I’m not trying to start or win any arguments, so there’s no reason to split hairs.
Chud-
You and I took different lessons away from that story, but thanks for letting us all know you found my interpretation wanting. You unwittingly provided a perfect example of the judgmental behavior I believe is at the heart of this issue. I interpreted the moral of that story on the Mount of Olives (John 8:1-11) to be examining our own actions before judging the actions of others. In verse 11, Jesus says, ‘Go and sin no more’, and I see this is where you gather your interpretation. To me, the message of compassion in verses 1-10 are so much more powerful. But hey, to each his (or her) own.
If any gay activist is going to use the Bible to justify their arguments, then they had better read it thoroughly, and not just take their left-side supplied arguments as facts. Yes, those restrictions were written into Leviticus. No, they were not meant to be applied for the rest of civilization. It was for a specific people in a specific time. The Law of Moses was then fulfilled when Christ came. No longer was it necessary to provide a burnt offering, as Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for us. However, when He came and fulfilled the law, He did not say that now every sin was acceptable. He said that we should love all who sin, but that we should not and cannot accept the sin itself. That is why we fight so hard. I have nothing against you personally, even after you have called me irrational for my religious beliefs. But I cannot allow what I see as a sin, that is embraced by such a small minority, to be forced upon me and my family as acceptable. I will fight for as long as I have breath to make sure that marriage is protected as one man and one woman.
“If you’ve glossed over this, quickly filled your head back with the statistics you’ve learned from church, we cannot continue. If any part of you believes that somewhere in my past, I appeared at a fork in the road and chose one way instead of the other – well we’re pretty much at an impasse and cant begin”
Where on earth did you even get the idea that I’m even Christian? Simply because I disagree with you? Even on that count, I never made clear in my post whether I do or not on the main issue at hand, just that I disagree with your apparent tactics and support of tactics towards the cause. It sounds to me like you have a little bit of prejudice going on towards anyone who might question you strongly and are more than willing to make assumptions as a result. Further, these “statistics” I’ve allegedly “learned from church” are not only not statistics so much as the personal search through and critical analysis of peer reviewed research papers (yes, I know. Probably one of the most unscientific and religiously oriented information sources out there. Or something…), but also (as just mentioned) I didn’t find them from any church so much as from scientific journals and online databases when available. To be honest though, most seem to be fairly rare either because a) nobody wants to touch the issue and/or b) it’s really, really tough to get good and reliable data for the study. When I said “asserted as fact without any significant proof one way or the other” I meant that. There isn’t any good evidence ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. That should be obvious right there that I don’t necessarily believe that it must be a matter of choice and nothing else. Just that I’m questioning equally that it could indeed be a choice. The acceptance of opposing ideas as being presently equally valid isn’t exactly being force fed statistics through a church (which, by the way, wouldn’t be any different than being force fed statistics by organisations that you just happen to agree with). Further, if any part of you believes that somewhere in your past you didn’t appear at such a fork in the road simply because you’re either too blind to see it, unwilling to see it, it was so occult that nobody would have been able to see it, or that it wasn’t a direct choice so much as the consequence of a prior (perhaps even equally occult) choice, then you’re right: impasses galore and I would be unable to begin.
“I’ll end it at this -> it’s pretty said in this day and age when people cannot see the difference between legality and justice”
Some would argue that even decisions made by an organisation without consent of the people is inherently unjust as well as illegal even if perhaps the body in question does agree with those same people who question the justice of the decision. Note, also, that your subsequent comment about 50 years ago is somewhat irrelevant if you think about it. After all, societies perception on morality and justice changes greatly over time (note: it doesn’t necessarily “evolve” or “get better.” Just changes). Still, it’s something that you think of as justice, but isn’t necessarily because that, too, is defined by people. Right now, the will of the people isn’t on your side and so it could be said that, no, justice isn’t on your side either. Also, in 50 years you may find that justice won’t be on your side once again, but by then it may well be because you were a sort of backwards hick back in the day for some other beliefs you may hold now that you think people should or should not be allowed to do. Accept change as it comes. Perhaps even instigate it. But don’t force it or claim moral superiority in order to do so. Or, if you do, then don’t be so quick to complain about other people using moral superiority in their own arguments.
Additionally, I had a few qualms with this statement to somebody else: “Your religious definition of marriage has only been around since 800 BC (when the Catholic Church made it a rite of passage offered to all catholics, the others being baptism, holy eucharist, confirmation, priesthood, annointing of the sick and reconcialiation) before that it was a civil matter, granted only to men and divided by various castes”
Not only is it entirely possible that people who aren’t Christian can be opposed to gay marriage, but even many Christians don’t follow the Catholic definition of marriage due to strong aversion to Catholic principles by at least a significant number of protestant churches. Most egregious though was your claim that the “religious definition of marriage has only been around since 800 BC (when the Catholic church made it a rite of passage offered to all Catholics…” Now, I can forgive the most obvious point here (which is that the Catholic church didn’t exist in 800 BC) because maybe you meant to put an AD in there instead. Even then, I’m assuming you’re refering to the 866 AD statement by Pope Nicholas I regarding, not that marriage is a right to Catholics, but rather to append the impediments to marriage by adding that consent is necessary. Before then, most marriages weren’t entirely civil matters either though nor were marriages only allowed between members of the same class. That was entirely a civil aspect because most of the higher classes didn’t want to marry lower. In the religious sense it was already free among all classes and legally it was too. Not to mention that if you want to refer to how civil aspects were applied to marriages back in those days you also have to take into account that many of those nations were also either theocracies or had religious institutions at least somewhat implemented into the government (i.e. national religions). Even before you’re referencing such as back to ancient Rome, marriages were still religious in nature even though the government granted privileges to married Romans (note: privileges only to Romans due to the family’s ability to produce future Romans). Again, this was a civil addendum to a religious institution. NOT a religious addendum to a civil one.
To Hurricane (and a little bit to Minnow):
Let’s look at this again.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
All people …. have inalienable rights. Then the next sentence says AMONG these. That word AMONG specifically means that they are not listing all of the inalienable rights. Why would that be? Because the people who constructed the document know that as the human experience expands, the more these rights will be understood.
But let’s just look at the pusuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Yes, we can pusue happiness in California. If pursuing happiness involves getting married, then it is protected by the constitution.
So H., now leave those people who have never done anything to stop you from pursuing your own happiness alone.
And since you sound kind of like you are taking the religious “reasoning” point of view here, find me in the new testament where Jesus says anything about being gay. Not Leviticus, that’s the old testament that is often quoted (while you enjoy shrimp cocktail, lobster, and crab; among other Lev transgressions). I’m looking for New testament. That’s the part where Jesus says love your neighbor and don’t judge lest ye be judged. It’s only fair to ask because I provided the constitutional text you asked for.
Delphi
Again you miss my point. you have the read the bible as a WHOLE. you can’t just pick and choose as you see fit. The whole reason why Jesus was here on earth was to try to get people to turn AWAY from sin (all sin) and turn to Him. He died on the cross for our sins. Everyone sins, from the hated murderer to the best pastors in the world. The difference is Jesus knows the heart and knows who is trying to turn away from sin. I am not trying to judge someone elses personal relationship, but when it comes to legalizing something that makes it illegal for my pastor to say that it is a sin, then it does affect me directly. What if the shoe were on the other foot. What if they came out with a law that said everyone must attend church or be charged with a hate crime? Then I’m sure people would be up in arms to fight that too.
Zomg! So many comments I can’t even read them all. My brain shut down in self-defense. But the gist I got was that we all have opinions and are good at voicing them and then belittling anyone that disagrees. On both sides of the argument. But I have a question. A real one, not a snarky, loaded one.
Why do gays want the right to get married? Personally, I’m all for it but just saying that it’s in inalienable right (when it’s really a religious right) clearly isn’t cutting it. So is it for the right to adopt children? The right to property? The tax break the married couples get? The health insurance? Or some intangible desire to feel that your relationship is recognized by the state? Or something else I haven’t thought of? I’m serious. For those of you oppose or for, what is it about the term “marriage” and all it’s trappings that make you so adamant for or against it?
Here, I’ll go first. I believe gay people have the right to get married because to me, as a agnostic Kentuckian with moderately liberal views, it’s more about civil liberties like health insurance and shared bank accounts than anything to do with God. I mean, that’s why me and my man got married. Yay tax breaks! ^_^
some people need to think before they type…too easy
Ed-
“Yes, we can pusue happiness in California. If pursuing happiness involves getting married, then it is protected by the constitution.”
What if Killing horses makes you happy? Or smoking Crack? Is this protected by the Constitution?
You can’t just fill in the blank with whatever your interpretation is!
Or you end up with this:
“Yes, we can pusue happiness in California. If pursuing happiness involves making snuff films, then it is protected by the constitution.”
No, I am not comparing Gay Marriage with Snuff Films or killing horses, I was using ludicris examples to show the silliness of your argument here.
PS- See Post #20 (my other post)
PPS- I love Habanada !!!
Seriously, Jrod, that’s the best you’ve got?
Why not just say yelling “fire” in a movie theater should be protected as free speech.
Two people who want a legally protected monogomous relationship was found to be NOT illegal by the courts. That is why those biggots put the constitutional ammendment on the ballot in the first place.
So your comparisons of things that ARE illegal are “ludicrous” when comparing them to something that wasn’t.
Well folks, after reading this thread, I officially renounce my crown.
I can no longer claim to be the Queen of Incredibly Long & Detailed Comments.
Ed, Hmmmm, Albert, Keyboard, Darek… y’all can jello-wrestle for the Queen title.
Ed, you got your history wrong. Marriage was not available to gays until the courts made it so. It was already on the books, just not in the Constitution, voted on by the majority. It’s called democracy. So the judges made the decision and overturned the will of the people. The people got together, and decided it again, this time, as a Constitutional Amendment. (I hope this one was short enough!!!)
Kaliska – I wonder that same question because in California domestic partners have all the same rights as a married couple. The federal government is a different story but legalizing gay marriages does not change the federal laws.
This posts have gotten way off track though. The main point of this story was that the touchy, feely, give peace a chance hardcore lefty’s are throwing rocks and threatening those people that disagreed with them on Prop 8 (I believe that threatening violence to intimidate votes is a violation of an individual’s civil liberties, something the ACLU should be jumping on but won’t)
Actaully D—
The point of the post was that BEFORE the vote on Prop 8, the Yes on Prop 8 crowd were initiating letter writing campaigns in an attempt to smear people and businesses that donated to the No on Prop 8 cause. Now that the vote has been done and Prop 8 passed, those same people are not getting the same treatment from the No on Prop 8 and whining about it. (I guarantee that No on Prop 8 crowds got similiar death threats before the Vote).
Kaliska,
Good questions! Yes, tax breaks, the right to be referred to as next of kin, having your state that you pay taxes too recognize you as an equal (and not seperate citizen) are wonderful things! And yes California already offers all those but had they legalized same-sex marriage, they wouldn’t need to create all these various laws to ensure gay people are treated equally. All these procautions were done to protect the religious right’s definition of marriage. But the LGBT community doesn’t care about the religious rite of marriage, only the civil right of legal marriage. We do not care what one’s holy book says about what one’s God believes to be marriage; we only care that our government treats us like everyone else, seperate by equal is still seperate.
PS – if your marriage to your man was recent, congrats!
Crap, typo – “And yes California already offers all those but had they legalized same-sex marriage, they wouldn’t need to create all these various laws to ensure gay people are treated equally.” should be:
“And yes California already offers all those BEFORE had they legalized same-sex marriage, they wouldn’t need to create all these various laws to ensure gay people are treated equally.
2keyboards,
Yes it was on the books, and then overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds. When I’m not making terribly long posts here (meh), I’ve actually brought this up to my freinds when they don’t understand how prop 8 passed. But since I was originally responding to Hurricane when he specifically asked for text from the constitution, that is what I supplied. Then in my next post, I opined that the nature of human experience expands and allows us to understand more of what our inalienable rights actually are.
That original law was overturned, and so have many, many other ballot initiatives in California. Just because they are voted on, doesn’t make them constitutional, it only means that someone or some group got enough signatures to legally get it on the ballot. Legal review after an election is the norm. I wish it would happen before an election to avoid these post election issues.
Thanks, D—, for reminding us what the original post was about. I don’t envy all the Californians caught in the middle between the angry anti-Prop 8′ers and the pro-8′ers keeping score.
It reminds me of the whole issue of doing away with secret ballots for union votes, but this thread has gotten off-track enough…
In defense of the secret ballot thread, I don’t think we got THIS far off track.
Although now that I recall, I don’t think the secret ballot thread was even supposed to be about secret ballots… eh, c’est la vie.
Homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right. Having food to eat is a fundamental right. Having clothing and shelter are fundamental rights. If we can’ define marriage that has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years, then why have definitions at all? I want a hamburger to be called a hot dog now. I want to marry a Hershey Bar because I desire it. I want to run over baby ducks with a steam roller because it amuses me. Adams and “those white guys” assumed your pursuing happiness was as a God fearing person who didn’t let their desires get the best of them. I don’t know of any religion or freakin’ China that agrees with gay marriage. All of a sudden we find a fundamental right of gay marriage? Good luck selling that at the Gates. You have to answer for what you did in your life. I am going to be red faced watching the grainy 16mm film of my life that shows all of the stupid shit I did. Promoting homosexuality won’t be one of them. I don’t hate gays at all. I don’t want them to go to Hell so I’m vocal about taking command of one’s desires. Homosexuality is morally wrong. Always was, always will be no matter what court on earth says even if they say it’s the greatest thing since the George Foreman Grill. Gays. I love you, but storming churches and fingering each other on an altar ain’t giving you brownie points.