Tiger Ann, a celebrity and a fierce opponent of Proposition 8, has agreed to appear in today's blog as, um, eye candy. I asked her if she is gay and she just gave me the stink eye. Then she stretched.Prop. 8 opponents take lead in money race
A tsunami of new money has poured into the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, as Hollywood celebrities, deep-pocketed donors and thousands of people from across the country wrote checks to block the proposed ban on same-sex marriage in California….
Proposition 8 proponents and foes raise $60 million—Contributors on both sides are motivated by personal beliefs
Sara Havranek quit working five years ago after the birth of her first child. Since then, she said, she and her husband have had to be frugal. "Every cent we spend is carefully considered." ¶ But the Aliso Viejo couple consider Proposition 8 so important that they have donated $1,100 to support the initiative to ban same-sex marriage. ¶ "Our faith is completely centered around the family. We believe the family is a divine institution," Havranek said to explain the contribution. ¶ Larry Maiman feels just as strongly that Proposition 8 is wrong for California. ¶ "I'm a gay man who has been in a relationship for 19 years who got married [six] weeks ago," he said, "and we'd like to stay married."….
Mormon church pulls plug on pro-Prop. 8 calls from Utah:
The Mormon church, whose members have emerged as the leading backers of a ballot measure to end same-sex marriage in California, is scaling back its Utah campaign operation but will continue to support the initiative. ¶ Church members will no longer be making phone calls from Utah to California voters, Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a prepared statement Friday. ¶ At the request of the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, church members in Utah had been enlisted to make calls on behalf of the measure. ¶ "However, the church has since determined that such phone calls are best handled by those who are registered California voters," Farah said. … ¶ The Courage Campaign, a liberal advocacy group, plans to deliver a petition to a Mormon church in Los Angeles next week demanding the church stop funding the Yes on 8 campaign….
Churches take sides over gay-marriage ban:
The Rev. Rick Mixon, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, considers himself an evangelical, but opposes a ban on same-sex marriage. Speaking of his fellow evangelicals, Mixon said: "It baffles me that they come down on the wrong side of this issue." ¶ San Jose evangelical lay leader Larry Pegram has a very different take on that "watershed issue." He declares that "pastors all around the valley are preaching on this issue, that the Biblical truth comes down on marriage as being between a man and a woman." ¶ Catholic, Mormon and evangelical leaders such as Pegram have been influential supporters of efforts to ban gay marriage in California. But Mixon is among a smaller group of clergy, including two dozen ministers and rabbis who spoke recently against Proposition 8 for the Council of Churches-Santa Clara County, which publicly supports same-sex unions….PLUS!
TIGER ANN says, "Vote YES on Proposition 2!"
16 comments:
I've got mormons next door. They hand out "Yes on Prop 8" signs like candy.
I'd take a picture of my street to show you, but I told a few friends who are very passionate about prop 8 about my street. I don't see as many signs anymore.
Thanks Roy for posting this story. IMO it just disgusts me how many people & churches will espouse that they are not spreading hatred against people who are different than they are, and yet will come out & support an over the top initiative like Prop 8, and make this their sole goal until the last Sunday before the election, practically threatening their congregants with hell, fire and damnation if they vote against the proposition. I've seen all 3 of their commercials. You know, the lies (remember, the commandment good Christians, which these people presume to be, "Do not speak false witness against thy neighbor"?) about how our children will be taught about gay marriage in the schools, & how our children will be subjected to the "gay life style." As far as I'm concerned, who cares if children are taught about gay marriage in public schools. What is wrong with children learning to "respect" (notice I didn't use the word "tolerant" b/c that sounds patronizing to me) other people's lives? Who are we to judge what somebody else does in their own house? Unfortunately, embarrasedenly (if that's a word) to say, I've seen these pamphlets first hand b/c one of my older sisters brought a huge stack over to the house for my mother to put in her Catholic Church. Why? The Church preaches all about their views on pro-prop 8. I just wish that many of these bigots would just evolve to become rational & loving human beings, but the sad part is it's many of them who will be out in droves to vote for this bigoted proposition merely on the grounds of their own ignorance.
P.S. I say by all means allow gay people to be able to marry & have the same rights as heterosexual couples do. Have the right to see a loved one in the intensive care unit when it's usually only "family" who is allowed in there. Allow them to make decisions for their partners about their welfare. Who says that a family unit has to just be between a man & a woman? Heck, I don't go into these bigots bedrooms to see what sexual act they are performing on their spouse, or lovers, so why in the world should they be allowed to dictate what goes on in somebody else's? Although the issue doesn't directly involve the aspect of gay couples being allowed to have any surrogate children or adopt a child, I'd say let them. Heck, THEIR Vice President Cheney has a lesbian daughter, with a life long partner & have a baby (I believe she was surrogate, not adopted). Would this have stopped them from voting for Cheney if he were running for POTUS? I doubt that, so why subject the rest of the population to their bigoted set of rules? Very simple, society shouldn't accept bigotry on any level & this is why we need to put our feet to the pavement & vote a resound NO on Prop 8. Why? Simply b/c IMO it's the right and decent thing to do? It's called human decency, and too bad those supporters of Prop 8 don't have this sense to realize this.:-)
Prop 8 will pass. Thank you Gavin Newsom.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. It will pass overwhelmingly, especially in homophobic Orange County. Sure, when you take a polll & some people will swear that they aren't bigots, including homophobic, but it's a different story whenever it comes to going to vote or mail in their ballots. In this case it will be, as the saying goes, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter."
Children have a right to a mom and a dad. The state of California allowing same-gender marriage may seem progressive to some– –but what it says to me is that the state of California sanctions a relationship that does not best serve children.
While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.
While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06021601.html
Society should sacrifice for the health and well being of its children.
This is why I am voting “yes” on prop 8 (on my absentee ballot).
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/legislation-and-social-issues/
yes on prop 8!
I deleted a post that spoke of "homos."
To the author: please go elsewhere.
I believe in same sex civil unions. I have never been a homophobe. I’m voting YES on prop 8 because I don’t believe it’s good for California or any other state for that matter. The way Gavin Newsom and the activist judges basically forced this whole issue on us also factors in my decision. It was too damned sneaky! It’s inherent the majority of Californians never wanted same sex marriage. The opponents (of prop 8) arguments that teachers won’t be teaching this stuff to kids while at the same time a teacher is caught taking her 6 year old students to a gay wedding, is just fascinating! Someone argued above that government should stay out of our bedrooms and mind their own business. Wasn’t it a corrupt government that has forced the majority to just accept the will of a tiny fraction of the minority? They’ve forced it right down our throats! Hasn’t the government already dragged-out into the open, the bedroom activities of same sex couples by legalizing same sex marriage in the first place? Why do educators support “no on 8” anyway? I just don’t get it.
I honestly spent over two hours preparing critiques on the comments regarding P8. Initially I was aiming for something satirical, which mocked the above posters, then I realized, as the rum wore off, that, that sort of thing never goes over well as it just leads to an emotional haze of name calling and no one learns a thing.
I should be studying for my midterms, or preparing my college acceptance letters, but instead I felt it necessary that I put aside these things to honestly try and convince a few people here that they shouldn't screw up someone else's life. It appears evident to me that not everyone here is voting from a faith-based point of view. That is, they feel they are being intelligent, fair, and that they are really considering the facts. Rather than mocking those few I'd rather reinforce such behavior and feelings, and remind them that because they feel this way, this doesn't immediately make them correct; just well intentioned, which is NOT enough.
I URGE those who feel unsure of themselves, while they look over their ballot, to realize that they DONT have to vote for all propositions/candidates/etc.... If you feel comfortable in what you think about 2 or 3 propositions, vote for those and leave the rest blank. If you don't know any of the names on the ballot, leave those blank. It's better that you don't vote, if you're going to make an uneducated vote.
As such, I collected whatever arguments I could from above, and I am just going to put what the arguer said, and what I think.
[What it says to me is that the state of California sanctions a relationship that does not best serve children.]
[While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad.]
[While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.]
The above three seem almost identical to me, i.e. they elude to the idea that if gay marriage continues to be legal, then gay couples will be adopting children in to homosexual families. The construed idea is that a healthy child is raised in a mother and father family unit. I.e. it is necessary to have a male and a female parent for a child to be healthy. This is not true, but rather than trying to copy and paste links to studies here, I am going to argue from the authority of the adoption agencies that would most likely head this kind of thing. As it stands right now single parent adoptions are not only okay, but they are increasing in their commonness. If what is said is true, i.e. that a mother and a father is necessary, then surely something is awry here. I think it is safer to assume that the people who run adoption agencies know better than we do. They are okay with single fathers, or single mothers adopting, since it is known to them that things like how many parents you have, and what the sex is (aside from rape statistics) are not important. What IS important are things like are the parents qualified role models? Can they support the child and themselves adequately? THOSE are the important questions when raising a child, not socially shallow concepts like "mom and dad."
[The way Gavin Newsom and the activist judges basically forced this whole issue on us also factors in my decision.]
This SHOULD NOT affect your decision. It's irrelevant.
[It’s inherent the majority of Californians never wanted same sex marriage.]
Actually, it's not. Since the 1970s or something (according to wikipedia) same sex marriage has had rapidly growing support, and we're currently at a 50/50 acceptance. We live in Orange County, so yeah, it might seem inherent that the OC is intolerant. But remember, there are over 36,000,000 people living in California. Orange County isn't the majority.
[The opponents (of prop 8) arguments that teachers won’t be teaching this stuff to kids while at the same time a teacher is caught taking her 6 year old students to a gay wedding, is just fascinating!]
I'm actually not sure how anyone can argue that this stuff isn't going to be taught. It's something that should be explained. Being gay isn't dirty, or bad, or gross, or anything weird like that. If a kid is raised in a heterosexual environment and sees two men or two women kissing, they are going to be curious, and it should be explained that they are homosexuals. This doesn't mean that the kid is going to be more inclined to be gay either. I.e. teaching kids about homosexuals doesn't make them homosexuals. Sexual preference is genetic, not social. I.e. You're BORN gay. Imagine, if you're a guy, I told you that you had to have sexual relations with another guy, you're going to be repulsed by the idea. You're genetically programmed to be attracted to women, no matter how much persuasion is used, you aren't going to be 'converted.'
-
Anyways, if you actually read all that, give yourself a gold star.
Otherwise, bring on the good debates!
[The way Gavin Newsom and the activist judges basically forced this whole issue on us also factors in my decision.]
"This SHOULD NOT affect your decision. It's irrelevant."
Yes in utopia it should not, but this is the real world. If we feel it was a forced political agenda (it's ok to be gay) and laws were usurped in the process, of course we personalize it. So I think you're completely wrong there.
[It’s inherent the majority of Californians never wanted same sex marriage.]
"Actually, it's not. Since the 1970s or something (according to wikipedia) same sex marriage has had rapidly growing support, and we're currently at a 50/50 acceptance. We live in Orange County, so yeah, it might seem inherent that the OC is intolerant. But remember, there are over 36,000,000 people living in California. Orange County isn't the majority."
True: Acceptance is up.
Untrue: People are willing to accept it as law.
You use wikipedia as a source?
[The opponents (of prop 8) arguments that teachers won’t be teaching this stuff to kids while at the same time a teacher is caught taking her 6 year old students to a gay wedding, is just fascinating!]
I didn't learn about homosexuality until about the 8th. grade and it wasn't from school. This is because it is perverted behavior and outside the norm. I don't think schools should be teaching perversions to children.
The righties love "activist judges" (like Scalia e.g.) when they further the right wing agenda. Otherwise, then they're bad and all.
Also, do some research on Constitutional law before saying such stupid things.
Thanks, Bohrstein, for some nice analysis and critiques of bad arguments. Much appreciated.
One other point deserves mention: even if a majority of a state's or nation's population believes that something is wrong, that's irrelevant to what the Constitution is meant to protect. One reason we HAVE state and federal Supreme Courts is to protect citizens' basic rights from a tyranny of a bigoted majority.
The comparisons with interracial marriage cry out to be made; even when a majority of U.S. citizens were repulsed and outraged by the idea, interracial marriage was implicit in our Constitution ("equality under the law"), and courts were right, finally, to make that clear. Same for "Brown v. Board of Education" on school integration.
And same for marriage rights for all citizens, gay or straight.
NO on Prop. 8, emphatically.
As torabora said in another thread...
"Don't waste the ones and zeros here. They're not gonna listen to you....they won't vote for an R if you put a gun to their head. The best you can get out of them is a flame war for a response...these dissenters don't debate. They're always right you see, so why should they debate? Besides, you're stupid and they're smart."
torabora, you're absolutely correct again.
We do understand constitutional law pertaining equal protection and nondiscrimination, however we feel this issue doesn't appear within that scope. We also believe this issue merits no further arguments and should not be used again to clog up our court system. Further, we believe the SF mayor should be criminally charged and the activist judges involved, forced to step down for deliberately perpetrating this fiasco on the public. These perps should also be made to reimburse the state of California of all associated costs of the hearings and triggered initiative, pay restitution and serve prison time. I recommend CIM (Chino) general pop.
Regardless of Bohrstein's argument, we're still not convinced we should just roll-over and accept gay marriage in California. We, yes ALL OF US will be voting YES on Prop 8 as we believe the majority will "whether you like it or not!" (Gavin Newsom)
We do understand constitutional law pertaining equal protection and nondiscrimination, however we feel this issue doesn't appear within that scope.
You'd be wrong.
We also believe this issue merits no further arguments and should not be used again to clog up our court system.
Unfortunately, that isn't how the real world works. So long as there is a significant majority opposing what you say, these things are going to be in your face, whether you like it, or not.
Regardless of Bohrstein's argument, we're still not convinced we should just roll-over and accept gay marriage in California.
No one is asking that you just roll over and accept gay marriage you twit. What is being asked is that you consider, reasonably, the arguments put before you and that you make a choice.
So now, I ask you, the anonymous coward who claims to be the voice of all voting for prop 8, what would it take to discourage you from voting YES on prop 8.
What point of contestation has not yet won you?
"We do understand constitutional law pertaining equal protection and nondiscrimination, however we feel this issue doesn't appear within that
scope. "
And why on earth would you NOT see that gay marriage falls within the scope of these fundamental values? May we have an argument, please? Sorry, but feelings aren't enough. Racists didn't "feel" that interracial marriage fell within that scope, either.
It doesn't pass Obama's litmus test of fairness.
Post a Comment