Can anyone explain Prop 8 to me? Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 1:18 am
I'm having trouble following the logic of Prop 8. All the signs say "Protect Marriage" but if you read the text of the amendment, it isn't protecting anything. It is actually banning some marriages which the state considers legal because of religious objections.
How can banning some marriages protect others? Tying the concept of marriage to religious intolerance may do more to ‘taint’ marriage than allowing a minority of civil marriages to be same sex. I believe that marriage as an institution strengthens relationships. It is beneficial for all lasting couples. Denying its benefits to some, will obviously harm them, but it will give the institution an air of intolerance which is bad for everyone. To protect marriage we must keep the legal institution civil and available to all.
Gay marriages are not a threat to straight couples. My older brother and his wife live in San Francisco. They're raising two kids. They're a fine happy couple. If there's anything threatening their marriage it's that they both work full time, but he does substantially less than 50% of the house work... If their gay neighbors got married, my brother and sister-in-law probably wouldn't even notice, unless they got invited to the ceremony. It is no threat. Honestly it's not even OF INTEREST to them, and they live within a few miles of the "infamous" Castro District!
25 years ago, if you asked religious leaders why they opposed gay rights they would cite horribly flawed studies which "proved" that gays and lesbians were pathologically promiscuous and incapable of forming lasting meaningful relationships.
Now, it’s a new century and what do you know? Gay couples who have been together for 5, 20 or 50 years (even without the social reinforcements that straight couples get) are taking a “better late than never approach” and getting married!
But, rather than admitting they were wrong, and supporting the lasting meaningful relationships they doubted could exist, those same church leaders are somehow calling more marriages an attack on marriage!
I can't help concluding that some churches (mostly from out of state) just don't like gay people, and they get some kind of thrill out of opposing them at every turn. Maybe it's easier in difficult time to provide a spiritual enemy to their people than to provide meaningful spiritual guidance?
In any case, prop 8 has nothing to do with protecting marriage. It has everything to do with the separation of church and state.
The organizers of Prop 8 are well funded, religious right organizations from outside of California. They have invaded our state to try to overturn the sound logic of our bipartisan supreme court and they are using all manner of scare tactics and bad logic to do it.
The most outrageous part is that California churches are not and will not be forced to accept gay people or to perform gay marriages under the current law. Nobody is telling California churches what they can or can not do. But these out of state churches want to dictate what the state can do with respect to the civil and legal aspects of marriage.
Please don’t be fooled. Prop 8 is divisive, unnecessary and bad policy for California. Vote no on Prop 8!
Posted by gay but against gay "marriage", a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 6:12 am
Even though I know this is simply a ploy on your part, I will bite.
It is the definition.
Marriage by any other name for gay people would pass with flying colors. Various polls show an overwhelming support for gay people to have all the ability of straights for a legal entity which pays more taxes and receives all the benefits of married people, from social security to immigration status changes to ill visitation and health insurance.
But, what straights don't want is do have any confusion about the word "married" being between man and woman. They want no doubt that their churches will be forced into conferring sacred rituals onto gay couples. They don't to make the line for adopting kids even longer than it is now, so that a gay couple has the ability to be in front of a straight couple for adopting a kid. They don't want to pay higher health insurance for couples who want in vitros because they are equal under the law therefore get the right of equal health care...which means that extremely expensive infertility treatments are now considered a right for gays. They simply don't want the Pandora's box opened that changing a definition means.
Ours is a litigious society. If we could be assured that changing the word marriage meant only conferring "forever" rights and responsiblities to gay people, it would be no problem, I am sure. But, with our nation, once a word is changed, it changes all legal aspects touching the word.
Now, if gays were serious about not wanting to "go there" after the definition change, then gays would be perfectly happy with a different word which confers all the rights and privileges of marriage at the state level..immigration and health insurance and social security etc. But, the proof is in the pudding. Witness the push for the definition change.
Posted by Happily not married, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 6:56 am
I don't expect anyone else to particularly agree with me but I'm voting for this measure; not for any of the reasons put forth by those who support Prop 8, and definitely not for any religious reasons.
I just happen to believe that marriage is unnecessary. I have lived with my partner for 27 years and we'll probably be together until "death do us part." Since neither of us feel any less committed than we did in our previous lives when we were married to others, this works for us.
It also saves us from co-mingling our separate assets, therefore when we pass on there will be no problem with our respective children inheriting what is rightfully theirs.
One of the arguments against this proposition by gays is they want the same "rights" as those who are married. This makes marriage for them appear to be more about money than love.
Posted by sue mom, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:16 am
The American College of Pediatricians Web Link stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting:
“ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.
Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited.
The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development.
Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.
This position is rooted in the best available science."
Posted by Married Person, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
If I meet someone and tell them I am married, it tells them something about me. It tells them who I am. I don't have to explain more. Under this new law, telling someone I am married tells them very little. The next question will be "to a man or a woman". This may be OK to you, but it is not OK to me. If I fill in a form I want to be able to see the words "husband" and "wife" not party A or party B. I want my kids to know that their parents are their biological parents. I don't want them to wonder whether we are really their parents, whether they came from a test tube, or whether they are going to grow up to marry someone of the same sex.
Some may say that my feelings don't matter, because the feelings of others are more important than mine. But, my feelings do matter to me and to my kids. I don't want to have to explain my lifestyle to anyone because I happen to be of the traditional persuasion.
Back in the 60s people started living together and didn't want the piece of paper to declare their love and commitment for each other. Now it appears, that a heteresexual couple can be quite happy not being married, but gays feel that they are missing something.
What they are quite possibly missing is that deep down they know that they are different and they feel that by getting a document that will tell them that they are normally adjusted individuals. They feel that by getting married, they will be the same as everyone else. This just may be guilt feelings on their part and when they get what they want they just may feel that it still does not quell their feelings of guilt. They will look for something more. They are acting like spoilt kids who get all the toys they want and still are not satisfied.
The last paragraph is just a suspicion on my part and has little to do with my opinions expressed in the earlier paragraphs, so if anyone wants to question my thoughts on the last paragraph look at it as a theory unrelated to my earlier views. And, as I said, this is just a theory which I know many will not agree with, but I have expressed my views since the original poster asked for them. If you ask for views, expect to hear some you don't like.
Posted by Get this "straight", a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 9:15 am
I get it... one segment of our society must accept second-class status because their claim to equal access and equal opportunity will hurt people's feelings. No wonder the CA Supreme Court - including Republican appointees - said that won't fly.
Posted by Know your source, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 9:26 am
Sue Mom of Gunn HS Community has simply copied and pasted her post from a web site called Conservapedia - a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. C'mon, Sue. Copy and paste???
The pediatric organization cited there is a relatively new organization (founded in 2002), and its core values are all about traditional families. I'm not saying that they fabricate anything or shouldn't be trusted outright, but we should consider their findings relative to their agenda; you know they're going to select studies and data that support the core values they established as a group.
For some contrasting views, look up the opinions of much larger and well-established professional health care and social work organizations with much broader membership.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:00 am
Interesting insights on the consequences of SS marriage
"There is certainly something ironic about the drive by the left in our culture to push something as bourgeois and traditional as marriage, even if it is for couples of the same sex.
Ever since the inception of a political/cultural left during the French Revolution, their goal has always been the overthrowing of traditional, religious based values, especially when it comes to sex. Who would have thought in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even into the 90s that homosexual activists would push for something so assertively traditional as marriage.
So it seems to me, and some of these activists have tried to make this case, that traditional, middle class values have triumphed;
they agree now that promiscuity and endless sexual experimentation are not good things, that marriage is better.
Of course that’s not at all what they are saying.
What they seek is legitimacy for homosexuality itself, the moral imprimatur of marriage, and then they will use the power of the state and it’s courts to shove this moral approval down our throats.
This is already happening in Massachusetts, the first state to adopt via the courts same sex marriage.
Some parents took exception to their children being taught about such “marriage” in their child’s first grade classroom."Web Link
very intelligent article and an interesting intellectual site.
I feel these points the author makes are key----
"They do not want to teach that there is diversity of sexual expression, but that all sexual expression is morally equal, that marriage between two people of the same sex is just as good as, just as right as, just as normal as sex between couples of the opposite sex.
This is what we have to look forward to in other states (in California soon if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass) and the nation at large if we move from civil unions to the redefinition of marriage (which shows that they want far more than equal rights—they already have those).
It’s a shame that we allow this to be framed as an issue of civil rights.
Who is against the civil rights of anybody but the worse deviants? The key connection for the left here is the connection of same sex marriage to race.
It’s one thing if this is the opinion of people of the left, but quite another if this analogy becomes entrenched in our laws and courts.
Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong or deviant or something their religion says they cannot support will be branded as bigots. Their beliefs will be considered hate speech, or hate thought.
It will not be allowed.
One left-wing columnist for the Chicago Tribune called people like that “heterosexist.”
Get it. Racist, heterosexist, what’s the difference?"
Posted by married and open-minded, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:40 am
People who are gay do not choose to be born gay, any more than people who are members of a particular race do not choose that race.
Discriminating against someone for attributes over which they have no control is the definition of bigotry. Fifty years ago, it would have been acceptable in some circles to make similar bigoted comments about blacks. Our society needs to reach that stage of enlightment with gays.
P.S. When gay couples discover the joys of divorce, I suspect that marriage may lose some of its appeal.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:51 am
I am beside myself in wondering how anyone who isn't gay cares at all about this. Reminds me a bit of the abortion issue. Why do men think they have any right to decide on abortion? Straight people (like myself) should sit back and shut it and allow gay people to figure this one out for themselves. Actually, the opposition to Prop. 8 screams back the days of racial inequality or when women didn't have the right to vote.
Preaching intolerance and inequality in the name of God is grotesque. Standing in the way of love between two people is abusive and offensive. I'll be voting no on 8 next month, but not because I feel like my opinion on the subject is relevant (being straight, this decision doesn't effect me one little bit). No, I'll be voting NO because I refuse to allow the bigots and homophobes of the world to force their skewed and toxic religious beliefs on others.
For those of you voting YES on Prop. 8, I'll ask you one question: If someone told you that you couldn't marry the man or woman you love, how would you feel?
Posted by mary, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:11 am
Your argument is demolished by Enough is Enoughs post and link,
Did you not read it, I suggest you do and then try again
Also check this out for a sane perspective Web Link
"America is the land of liberty.
The vast majority of Americans who see themselves as conservative don’t give a flip what someone else does in their bedroom.
If some people want to partner with someone of the same sex that is their business.
Changing the definition of marriage to force the majority of Americans to agree with their moral stance on homosexuality is not."
Homosexuals are 2.3%, Tax payers already foot the huge bill from the high risk health behavior this tiny group creates.
The activists would be better off focusing upon the 50% HIV/ AIDS rate among Black MSMs and the comming epidemic of MSRA
The bug, which is spreading rapidly among homosexual men in several major US cities, can cause boils as large as tennis balls, blood poisoning or a necrotising condition that eats away at the lungs.
The newspaper said the type of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was identified in gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.
"The new strain is a far more vicious form of MRSA, commonly found in hospitals, and is believed to be resistant to most antibiotics.
It is thought to be spread by sexual contact, researchers have reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Experts, who found that sexually active gay men in San Francisco were 13 times more likely to be infected than heterosexuals,
fear that promiscuous gay or bisexual men could spread the bug to the general community, mirroring the infection route of the early HIV epidemic of the 1980s.....
"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study, told the Telegraph. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."
In San Francisco's Castro district, home to the highest concentration of homosexuals in the US,
about one in 588 people is carrying the multi-drug-resistant bug.
"We probably had it here first, and now it is spreading elsewhere," Dr Diep said. Web Link
Posted by No on Prop 8, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:47 am
Mary, based on your post, I would expect you to be opposed to Prop 8, as married gays are less likely to be promiscuous and therefore will not be spreading the bug. Married gays who become ill will have partners who care for them, and will be less of a burden on the system.
Sounds like gay marriage is a great way to handle the risks created by these diseases.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:59 am
Mary - Check out "The Laramie Project" to get an idea of the consequences on innocent people with the kind of bigotry-filled language you seem proud to spout out. If you had a gay son or daughter who was brutally beaten and left to die alone, you may be more understanding about the subject. Also, your post goes on and on about the dangers of sexual conduct among gays, but Prop. 8 is about gay marriage, not gay sex.
Those who carry a Bible in one hand and a bullwhip in the other have no hands free for hugs or applause.
Posted by Married Person, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm
For those of you who think that those of us trying to preserve marriage are like those in the past who tried to prevent mixed race marriages or prevent women from voting, are wrong. These were civil rights which were being denied.
Gay people can do what they like. That is their prerogative and I have no problems with it, it isn't harming me, it is not my business and I won't shove my opinion down their throats. They can have legal rights they can have a ceremony, they can get divorced, they can do whatever they see fit. But, why must they call it marriage? Why can't they start using an alternative description? Why isn't civil union, domestic partnership, or spousal coupling an acceptable label? Why do they have to turn the description of marriage into something else? I am not trying to stop them have a ceremony, a religious blessing or even divorce. I am just asking that it be different to mine.
I am not trying to take away their civil rights. I feel that they may be trying to take away mine. I am not equating it with those who didn't like mixed race marriages, because they were trying to prevent something which they saw as distasteful which was sex between the races and the production of mixed race children. I am not equating it with denying women the right to vote, because that was something that could not happen because there was no way for it to happen. I am not advocating anything second class, just a different class.
My traditional marriage does not alter their identity. Please don't let their love commitment to their partners alter mine.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:32 pm
To Married Person: Why do you care how it's worded? Are you concerned gays might actually be treated as (gasp!) equals...? The word marriage is used on television shows, and those "marriages" are fictional. The word "marriage" is used for polygamysts who have multiple spouses. Isn't that worse than a gay person who just wants one?
Believe it or not, this is about civil rights because it's about equality. Consider why you don't want gay people to use "your" word. Your argument is baffling - there's no reason behind it. "I just don't want 'them' using my word." Why, exactly, would a gay couple in Sacramento getting married suddenly alter your identity? Don't you have enough to think about? For goodness sake, I think about the economy, and a war we're in, and my daughter's homework, and how my car is running, and making sure my Dad has a healthy retirement, and playing game night with my family.
The only people who should have the time to be concerned about gay marriage are the ones directly affected by it: Gay people.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Wow Mary, you changed your identity from Mary to PA Mom pretty quick. Pretending to be someone else does not give weight to your argument.
And you're terribly wrong about Laramie. Matthew Shephard was killed because he was gay, brutally killed at that. To insinuate he was some kind of drug dealer or addict is offensive to those of us who know the truth. If you want to argue about Prop. 8 and same-sex marriage, fine, have at it. But speaking hurtful untruths about the dead is wrong on many levels.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The bigots lost the anti-"miscegnation" battle to the liberals years ago. Prop 8 is their last stand. Lose it and they have nothing left. Win it, then get a few Palin-McCain types on the supreme court, and it's time to roll back the permissive attitudes toward interracial marriage.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 2:01 pm
If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, we'll have the same situation we have now.
As part of that straight 87 percent, I don't feel victimized by the status quo. I don't feel less married because "married" can now be used to describe some same-sex couples. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of marriages will have a husband and a wife and combine two sexes.
Since civil unions don't seem to be an issue for people around here, it strikes me that there's an incredible amount of money being spent over a word. Because, no, I don't see churches being forced to legitimize gay marriages--there are lots of churches for all stripes and there's separation of church and state. (ie. divorced couples couldn't marry in the Catholic church, but they could certainly marry outside of it.)
So, again, millions of dollars on both sides about how to use a word. Now I get why the gays and lesbians care--they want a sort of legitimacy. What I don't get is why the opponents care as much as they do. I just don't feel undermined by the status quo.
Posted by Married Person, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 2:52 pm
You say, what is in the name marriage isn't important.
I think you would feel differently if Canadians and Mexicans started calling themselves American. They are most definitely North American, but they are not citizens of the United States of America.
You would tell them that they can call themselves something else, but don't call themselves American. You wouldn't like it.
If Canada decided to call itself Canadian North America, you wouldn't like it. If Mexico started calling itself Mexican North America, you wouldn't like it.
Am I worrying over something that is irrelevant in today's myriad life problems? Possibly. But, that doesn't mean that I worry less about my other problems.
Take another example. A generation ago, the n word was used by all and sundry in prejudicial as well as descriptive purposes. Then it was banished and the word black became the norm. Now we are told not to call people black, but African American. Ok, fine if they are American. But, what about someone who is here from the Caribbean, or somewhere other than Africa and is not American? How would you describe them? And what about the black people we meet when we go to Europe. What do we call them?
A word is useful as long as we all know what it means. As soon as the word changes its meaning, then that is fine as long as everyone knows what is being spoken of. When my parents were young, wireless meant the radio that stood in the corner of their living room. Now wireless has completely changed its meaning and the old word no longer exists. When I was young, gay meant colorful and full of gaiety. Now it means something else. When I was young, a rainbow was something in the sky that reminded me of God's promise and the story of Noah's ark. Now it means something else.
Sometimes changes are good and ok. Sometimes they are not. Keep the word marriage to describe a traditional marriage that we all understand. Don't use it to describe something that will just cause confusion (not hatred, not bigotry, but confusion).
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Dear Married Person.
I don't understand how my using the word "Marriage" affects your reality. You seem to me okay with sharing words like "love" and "commitment" to describe my relationship and yours.
Okay, if prop 8 fails and you say you are "married" it won't automatically telegraph that you are in the heterosexual majority, but why does that matter? It will still be the default. If you really suspect confusion, you can work your wife into the conversation easily enough.
What alternative word would you have me use? "Lover" is too steamy and transient. (We're in our 40's, have a house and worry about our 401(k)s) "Partner" sounds like we own a small business together. "Housemate" sounds like we never got over being in college. We don't have the sheet of paper, but for all practical purposes, we are "married".
I think relationships, weather gay or straight, have a similar evolution. A "boyfriend/girlfriend" is someone you just met, and you're trying to decide if you should introduct him/her to the family. A "fiance" means the family (mostly) approves. A "spouse" is someone who comes to thanksgiving year after year and remembers which niece and nephew belongs to which brother or sister-in-law.
In the event of a medical tragedy, a spouse comes ahead of the family in making care-giving decisions. A boyfriend or girlfriend does not.
There are a million practical secular reasons to allow gay and lesbian people to make a formal legal decision to share their lives. It's called marriage. If we make something else that's identical and call it by another name, it creates more confusion, not less.
Look on the bright side. If you and I meet in a business setting, or socially like say on a scuba charter or nature travel, you probably don't want to know all the details of my private life. If I tell you I'm married, you'll know I don't live alone and have a stable home life. You can tell me about your kids, and I'll tell stories about my nieces and nephews. Maybe we'll share a laugh about the single 20-somethings around us who spend all week recovering from the last weekend, while planning the next one.
If you mention your wife, I might mention my husband... or maybe I'll just keep the peace and talk about home maintance projects.
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Warning: The "American College of Pediatricans" quoted above is bogus. Yes, they have a website, but they were founded in 2002 in Gainsville, Florida. They take reactionary positions on everything from spanking to contraception and of course gay parenting. Check out their website at acpeds.org. Look for the "Find a Physican" link... there ISN'T one! (nor can you find any information about how many members they have)
Now try this: Go to LPCH.ORG (Lucile Packard Children's Hospital) and search for "American College of Pediatricans". All the hits are spurious!
You can get the names of legitimate professional groups from LPCH.ORG. They include the "American Academy of Pediatrics" (60,000 members) and the "American Board of Pediatrics" (founded in 1933 and one of the 24 certifying boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties)
So what do they have to say about gay and lesbian parents?
"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
Note: This is the abstract of "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents" The complete report can be found at Web Link.
I did not find a policy position from the American Board of Pediatrics, but in order to be certified by them in the subspecialty of developmental pediatrics a doctor must "Understand that children whose parents are gay or lesbian have been shown to be indistinguishable from children whose parents are heterosexual with respect to their academic achievement, psychological adjustment, and psychosexual development" (just go to abp.org and search on "gay parent")
I realize this has nothing to do with gay marriage, but I object to people quoting a bogus organization to try to demonize gay people.
Posted by Luciana, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 16, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Are you saying that pointing out the reality of the HIV/AIDS and coming Gay MSRA epidemics seeWeb Link
Is demonizing? no it is truth telling.
MDs have been threatened and attacked by gay agitators for pointing out the reality of Gay Bowell syndrome, for example.
Your assertion about quote "American College of Pediatricans"(sic) is false if you could spell you might have a little more credibility or may be you just want people to go to the wrong site, what you intend probably.
The violence of the pro same sex marriage is creating and enormous backlash, people are waking up, good it is about time
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm
MSRA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a serious health issue affecting health care professionals, their patients, and people who have frequent physical contact with others, such as wrestlers, football players and the sexually promiscuous.
What on earth does that have to do with marriage? If anything, it should be an argument in favor of marriage and monogamy. (though I think love and shared sunsets are more compelling)
Yes there are promiscuous gay men. But I have about as much in common with them as you have with the stars of "Girls Gone Wild"
None of these people, gay or straight, are lining up to get married.
Seriously, if you keep going on about "boils the size of tennis balls", I'm going to have to start googling "yeast infection" and it's going to get ugly...
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Sorry about the typo. I confess I'm addicted to spell checkers. Fortunately, Google has one, and the websites I published are accurate.
You called me a liar but gave no proof. Instead you implied malice.
As a scientist, I went out of my way to cite my sources and give quotes in context. I did not pull the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Board of Pediatrics out of some left-wing hat... I actually found them by searching for your pseudo-college at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. (I did not, by the way, find a single doctor at LPCH who is a member of the "American College of Pediatricians" of Gainesville, Florida.)
If you lived in Palo Alto, like I do, you would know that LPCH is affiliated with Stanford University Medical Center and is a first class local authority on children's health.
If I've miss-stated anything substantial please point it out and I will promptly apologize.
If you cannot, I think it is you who owe me an apology.
Posted by PAMD, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 16, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Take smoking, kills you definitely, shortens your life by 10 to 20 yrs, slightly endangers others.
Smoking is not a civil rights issue it is a public health issue.
Smokers are discriminated against all the time, they can be fired, denied employment, denied health coverage, forced to pay much higher health insurance premiums, forced to leave buildings etc etc
In Palo Alto smokers are treated as pariahs
There is evidence that the tendency to smoke is genetic in many cases
Homosexuality is, given AIDS and the new gay epidemic of Gay MSRA Web Link more of a public health hazard then smoking.
Actually if you read the science Gay MSRA is a different and much more deadly strain, bred by HIV/AIDS patients who take massive doses of antibiotics for infections that they continue to breed through their health risk behavior.
The gay activists refuse to face their denial about this.
The rest of the population will not support this disease promoting denial, never again, AIDS was the last straw.
Prudent measures to protect the non vectors from the disease vectors will be implemented, get over it, it is coming soon, same sex marriage is an irrelevant smoke screen for the real issues-- public health
BTW I am gay and I approve this message, it will save lives
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Stop muddying the waters. All the haters out there want to confuse the issue with all these health and behavior issues, none of which have anything to do with the legal status and legal rights of two gay individuals. No health and behavior issues are introduced into any discussion of traditional marriage. As I've said before, there's nothing to prevent two convicted child-abusers from getting married and having children.
Throw around all the statistics you want, but none of you - in the months or years I've been asking this question - has ever been able to articulate the LEGAL rationale by which we should discriminate. Imagine I'm the justice of the peace or the judge about to perform two marriages. Both couples - one hetero, one gay - are in the room waiting. I'm checking the paperwork - everyone has provided name, age, etc. Now, let's begin. What possible statement could I offer from a LEGAL standpoint that would justify my interference in the each couple's selection of a suitable individual with whom to enter into marriage?
I can't as a judge say, "well, many gays are permiscuous, so you two can't marry. Many gay men have viruses so you two women are out of luck."
I can't say, "well, I read some website that says gays are worse parents, so you individuals can't have the same rights as these two next to you... even if you two are both parenting experts who've already raised happy healthy children, and these two straight people are drug-addicted felons entering into their fifth marriage each."
I can't even say - or shouldn't be able to say - "Most Californians oppose your lifestyle, even though they don't understand it. They think that their view of *tradition* trumps your rights, even though as you stand before me it's apparent that the only difference between you two couples is gender composition. So because it's popular to treat you differently because of who you are, I am going to follow the voters and ignore the court's finding that the voters approved a law that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution."
I don't know why I bother. Most of the comebacks around here are illogical and silly, bordering on bigoted. The few who try to answer seriously can only resort to tradition (it's always been that way), religion (God says that slavery is okay, execution for adultery is appropriate, and homosexuality is a sin - and I follow God's word one time out of three), or their feelings (if they get married, someone might think I'm gay when I say I'm married).
ONE - LEGAL - ARGUMENT? ANYONE??? Cite a standing legal precedent (one that hasn't been rejected like "separate but equal") for offering rights to some people and denying them to others based solely on an irrelevant aspect of their identity.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 1:05 am
Actually, I've met several Canadians who have called themselves "North Americans"--it happened in Europe. Not an issue for me and, no, I wouldn't feel less of an American because a Mexican or Canadian referred to themselves as "American."
So, no, I probably wouldn't bother telling themselves to call themselves something else--I don't care enough.
PAMD and assorted AIDS ranters,
One of the pro-gay marriage arguments that's been made for years is that encouraging marriage would reduce high-risk behaviors.
In general, you're being disingenuous as most AIDS sufferers are actually heterosexual and received the infection through heterosexual sexual contact. That would be in Africa where the damage from AIDS has been devastating.
And, of course, lesbians are at a lower-than-average risk of getting AIDS than the general population. Should they be allowed to marry?
What about hemophiliacs, a group where AIDS transmission was extremely high? Should HIV-positive hemophiliacs be allowed to marry?
This weird disease rant makes no sense, frankly. At least the wanting marriage to have its traditional meaning has a logic to it.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 9:08 am
Whether Prop 8 passes or not, it will not change the behavior of gay people or prevent people from being gay. Therefore the health arguments are not going to work. It won't stop the health issues so it is really not worth discussing in relation to Prop 8.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:28 am
What an interesting discussion. I have long wondered at what is underneath the drive toward this thing about denying anyone the right to marry and it is helpful to me to read these honest posts. Although I disagree with the opponents of gay marriage, I can see better where they're coming from. As a longtime observer of the evolution of gay culture, I've come to believe that the objectionable aspects people ascribe to the gay population come about as the direct result of their long standing oppression. If we get out of the way and stop meddling with these normal human beings, they will right themselves, as they are already doing. The first step was coming out of the closet as demonstrated with great panache by Harvey Milk. But it is a long road from there to achieving the rights, status, and the priviledge of living and striving and also failing alongside the rest of us flawed humans. Along the way it has been easy to find examples of hard to promote behavior and to point at these as being typical of gays as a group. Gays are not a separate group. They are members of the human race. Danny, I so appreciate your sane, human, thoughtful stance. If I were not already married I'd be asking you for a date.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:39 am
You're using the slippery slope fallacy here--just because one thing is allowed doesn't mean other things will be allowed. It is legal to drink, doesn't mean that it will then be legal to drink too much and drive.
And while public health is always an issue--I don't see it as an issue on whether same-sex couples can be married. Lesbians have lower rates of AIDS and, thus, antibiotic-resistant MRSA. Should they be allowed to married? Drug addicts have higher rates--should the hetereosexual ones be forbidden to marry?
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Mary & frank --
This is very strange. Children will not be taught that both are the same. They will be taught tolerance for the same. Homosexuality is genetic, not learned. If you are a heterosexual man you are not going ot be attracted to another man sexually. If you are a heterosexual woman you will not be attreacted to women sexrually. You can still advocate abstinence for your kids, as I will for mine.
But homosexuality per se is not catching, nor is it lethal, as a matter of fact. Promiscuity, whether heterosxual or homosexual, greatly increases the risk of STDs. Monogamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, minimizes that risk. Lesbian sex does not raise the risk of the STDs that you are talking about at all.
No one is shoving anything down your throat, except perhaps tolerance. So is it really that you just want to be allowed to be completely intolerant and to teach your children the same? Guess what? You can still be even if Prop 8 fails. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own sex. No one is mandating that you marry a woman, mary, or a man, frank.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I do agree that homosexuality is not catching. But, many young teenagers are very easily pursuaded. Many young teenagers get very confused about sexuality, particularly their own. Many young teenagers are wary of the opposite sex and feel a lot more comfortable with their own sex. Many young teenagers go through crushes on teachers or older teenagers of the same sex and get confused thinking that this is wrong or that this means that they are homosexual. Many young teenage boys can't understand what all the fuss is about with girls until they are older than their friends who start younger than them.
What I am trying to say, is that teenagers often get confused. Giving them too much information too soon doesn't help them work it all out. I would rather that they were taught very little about homosexuality until they were at least 16. Giving them this sort of teaching too young will cause more problems than it solves.
It is different if a child is being brought up by a same sex couple, or is close friends with a child being brought up by a same sex couple, or if the child has a same sex couple in their extended family. But, otherwise, teaching them "tolerance" of something they have no first hand experience with is just confusing.
Teaching tolerance of differences is fine and I think it should be done very early. But, giving examples of all the differences and explaining all the differences is not necessary to teaching tolerance. There are many types of tolerances that can be explained to a young child, differences in abilities, differences in looks, differences in body types, differences in the type of home we live in, differences in the amount of money we have to spend. But giving them explanations of things they have no experience with is just giving them the wrong questions to ask.
I can teach my children to be tolerant of everyone who is different from them in any way, without giving them lists of things they have never witnessed.
So please do not teach my children about homosexuality until they are old enough to understand and deal with it.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I'm not invoking God. I'm pointing to a study that looks at the different reasons for the theories about the origin of homosexuality. This has been in the news a lot in the last few years. Perhaps rather than saying it is genetic I would be more precise to say that it is innate. It is something you are born with, not something you learn as a result of being told about it.
Authors say: "No one who was heterosexual had first, or any, crushes on the same sex." Which is to say that even impressionable adolescents are not going to be swayed to have homosexual relationships as a result of being told that such relationships exist in the world.
I seriously doubt any child in this day and age, in this area, is completely unaware of homosexuality at age 16.
Posted by A good mother, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I can't imagine trying to prevent my children from knowing about homosexuality. I wonder at you parents who bend over backwards to shield your children from knowledge, given that they will have schoolmates, teachers, and neighbors who are gay. What will you do when they get a little older and realize that they can't quite trust you? What if they turn out to be gay? What hateful people some of you posters are!
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I am not sure if you think I am the one being hateful, but like A good mother, I agree that children probably will be aware of homosexuality before they are 16. This debate going on at present is something that a great number of children are aware of. But, they are not being taught it from kindergarten on and they are being taught at school in science classrooms and in living skills that it exists. To me that is appropriate. I hope that any gay teachers my younger children may have, choose to refrain from advertising the fact. This is not hateful and it is not a question of trust. When enquiring minds want information, they should be told the truth, but only when they are ready for the information, not before they are mature enough to understand the context. Teaching the law about whether or not they can marry someone of their own sex is something that many children will not understand. Putting any requirement on them at any particular age is not appropriate, but discussing an issue if it comes up in the classroom or at home is.
I myself went to an all girls boarding school from the age of 11 to 17. During this time many of us knew very few boys our own age and I myself only knew a few, none of them well. As young teenagers, many of my peers admitted to being in love with one of the teachers of one of the older girls. It was something we all discussed and were well aware of. As far as I know from those I keep in touch with, we all managed to come out of that pseudo unreal environment as well adjusted adults, being able to work round our sexual identity, without needing any kind of help or teaching. But, it was a difficult time for all of us - even those who didn't have crushes.
I have a 13 year old son at present who is very anti girls and has been like this since he was 7 or so. He really doesn't like girls and doesn't want to have to do projects with them or interact with them at all and I have to teach him to be tolerant of the girls who he has to deal with. He finds the idea of sex repugnant and his friends who have started taking an interest in girls are in his opinion crazy. Giving him any more knowledge than he already has about homosexuality will not help him sort out his own identity. I have no doubts he will work it out for himself in his own time in his own way.
For these reasons, I think that letting the kids work it through by themselves is the best. I have nothing against research, but don't always trust the bias. I do have my own experience and as the product of an all girls school and the parent of young boys, I feel I know what is best for my children. I am not teaching them what they are not ready to learn and I am not lying or doing anything to cause them to not quite trust me.
Children are ready to learn the complexities of sexual identity at different ages and stages, and each parent has the right to know what is right for their own child and when. I do not want the law to tell me otherwise.
Posted by MD, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Homosexuality goes against the laws of evolution.
Look , you go to any dog park and you will see the occasional dog humping another.
It is all about dominance not sex, you visit a jail you will see similar behavior.
Homosexuality is anti Darwin, get over it and face the fact that homosexual behavior is the greatest public health threat we face, it is worse than obesity because obese people are not vectors of deadly viruses and bacteria, homosexuals are vectors.
The homosexual community has had 30 years to stop the epidemics, they have done nothing effective, 50% of the black bi and homosexual community are now HIV/Aids infected.
This is an outrage after 30 yrs of compassion and money.
We clearly need a law enforcement and quarantine approach to the even more deadly epidemic of gay related MSRA.
It is evident that a gay lifestyle is deadly to its proponents and others.The horrible diseases vector through bi sexuals
Forcing Teaching of public health, moral or any other equivalence between hetro and homo sex is like denying evolution or global climate change.
The life expectancy of a homosexual is less then 50 yrs, as in a 3rd world country.
The health costs of this lifestyle to the rest of society is astronomical.
They are 3% of the population.
Look at what their behavior cost the health system which all tax payers have to support.It is outrageous.
You may not be able to change how you feel but you can certainly change how you act.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Homosexuality is anti-Darwin--what the hell does that mean. Obviously, homosexual behavior, which is found throughout humanity and much of nature, doesn't lead to the extinction of the species. Instead, it seems to be a small, minor constant among our breed.
None of your claims pertain to lesbianism, but Prop 8 applies to lesbians.
And I'm not sure why encouraging gays and lesbians to form longterm and monogamous bonds would lead to a health crisis.
Aa for the rest of the discussion,
One of my child's friends from preschool had two daddies. Another (adult and, yes, heterosexual) friend of mine has two mommies who we see at group gatherings. So, yes, there were questions--and while it didn't do much to explain biology, the social explanation was actually not that hard. It goes something like most of us marry the opposite sex, but some people don't. It's just one more example of we're like this, other people are like that--which is an ongoing thing in this culturally and ethnically diverse an area anyway.
Prop. 8 won't change any of this. There are homosexual couples whether they get to use the M word or not with all the awkward explanations. Prop. 8 will do nothing to change sexual confusion in adolescence. Voting it down, however, might help gay youth feel that they aren't social outcasts. (And this is so much more the real problem--it's not kids who are heterosexual wondering if they're gay; it's gay kids who are having problems dealing with their nonstandard sexual orientation.)
I have to say one of the big Prop 8 turn-offs to me is that the pro-8 has received more than a third of its funding from the Mormon church--sorry, I have *zero* interest in furthering the agenda of the LDS. What is this? Payback for making Utah outlaw polygamy in order to become a state?
The whole thing is incredibly petty. Oh, and for kids with gay parents--allowing marriage *is* a better option.
Posted by Funny, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 6:30 am
I like that - "against the laws of evolution." It sounds like gays should be arrested, or at least get a ticket and pay a fine.
Luckily gay intolerance in civil institutions is passing and people are realizing that this not only is fair and right, it strengthens our community. Which is good, since we really need all the help we can get.
Posted by CDC, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 7:39 am
We have laws on the books to quarantine people who have SARS, virulent strains of TB and other infectious diseases.
These laws should have enforced in the early days of the AIDS epidemic to save millions of lives.
Instead the gay activists in SF blocked the closing of the bath houses because "that would be discrimination, a civil rights issue that would interfere with their lifestyle"
The public health consequences of homosexual acts continues with new threats like gay related MSRA, drug resistant STDs and HIV.
To force children to be taught that homosexual acts are the same as hetero sexual, which is what is happening in Boston as a result of same sex marriage laws, is an outrage, much worse than forcing the teaching of creationism.
Homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted.
Threats to public health should be dealt with rationally and humanely by isolating vectors from contact with the general population.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:31 am
CDC makes a very valid point
here is another, there is certainly something ironic about the drive by the left in our culture to push something as bourgeois and traditional as marriage,
even if it is for couples of the same sex.
Ever since the inception of a political/cultural left during the French Revolution, their goal has always been the overthrowing of traditional,
religious based values, especially when it comes to sex.
Who would have thought in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even into the 90s that homosexual activists would push for something so assertively traditional as marriage.
So it seems to me, and some of these activists have tried to make this case, that traditional, middle class values have triumphed;
they agree now that promiscuity and endless sexual experimentation are not good things, that marriage is better.
Of course that’s not at all what they are saying.
What they seek is legitimacy for homosexuality itself, the moral imprimatur of marriage, and then they will use the power of the state and it’s courts to shove this moral approval down our throats.
This is already happening in Massachusetts,
the first state to adopt via the courts same sex marriage.
Some parents took exception to their children being taught about such “marriage” in their child’s first grade classroom.
The following is from an article about the lawsuit.
"Parker v. Hurley concerned a parent’s right to exclude their children from discussions about homosexuality in elementary schools.
It began in 2006 when two Lexington families objected to classroom materials that depicted same-sex marriages.
The Parkers and Wirthlins filed suit in 2006 after the Parkers’ son, Jacob, brought home a book as part of the diversity book bag from his Estabrook Elementary kindergarten class in 2005.
The book, “Who’s in a Family,” showed various family types including a same-sex-headed household, as well as single parents and grandparents raising children.
The Wirthlins’ son, Joey, who was then in first grade, was in class on a day that marriage was the topic.
At the time, a book on a prince marrying another prince was read to the class, “King and King.”
Parker said the judges who dismissed the suit at the district and appellate levels agreed that the intent on using the books in class was to change children’s minds about homosexuality.
He said that with the Supreme Court decision, books will be used all over the country to do just that.
Ash said teachers were trying to teach students about the diverse situations they would encounter in Lexington, Massachusetts, and the rest of the world.
“The mere fact that you’re teaching something is not indoctrination,” Ash said. “Schools have the right to teach students about the world they’re living in.”
Since the lawsuit, Lexington schools have created a diversity curriculum called “Windows and Mirrors,” a five-unit program about a range of racial and sexual issues.
“If we really believe that we should be teaching about the types of families who live in Lexington, and to respect their differences, [it] should be a part of our curriculum like any other subject is a part of our curriculum,” Ash said. “It shouldn’t be left to a random teacher on a random day picking a random book.”"
This is completely disingenuous.
They do not want to teach that there is diversity of sexual expression, but that all sexual expression is morally equal, that marriage between two people of the same sex is just as good as, just as right as, just as normal as sex between couples of the opposite sex.
This is what we have to look forward to in other states (in California soon if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass) and the nation at large if we move from civil unions to the redefinition of marriage (which shows that they want far more than equal rights—they already have those).
Posted by Guess What, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:39 am
Guess what, homosexuality is equal in the eyes of the law. We used to have similar discrimination for racial groups but managed to flush that out. Sorry that you disagree but the court has spoken and the people will ratify them shortly. If you want to imbibe your children with discriminatory point of view you can do so among your family and church or social groups, and even in a private school. But our civil institutions aren't going to back you up.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:41 am
so actually we keep cicling back to the same argument, which is that some parents want to teach their children that only heterosexual sex is valid or acceptable. Guess what? You can still teach your kids that. People teach theirkids that other races are untrustworthy, lazy, inferior, etc. Doesn't mean the schools should not teach a different view. Nobody is forcing children to be homosexual. They are teaching them that people do have relationships with people of the same sex. The kids I know are not in the least confused about that. And my kids come from a traditional heterosexual 2 parent intact family. Should we not teach them about the fact that some families include grandparents raising their kids, single parents, etc.?
What you are really saying is you think homosexuality is immoral and you don't want kids taught that sexual preference is not a moral issue (in the absence of church teachings to the contrary). Couldn't a thoughtful parent just say "well in our faith we believ ethat is immoral, but not everyone shres our faith" or something like that?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:51 am
Tell you what, why don't we make it legal for a 12 year old and a 30 year old to marry, and then put that couple in books for schoolkids to teach about diversity in families, then tell parents who don't want their kids to believe this is ok to just teach them the right way to think at home?
Or, what about the polygamist? Why don't we make that legal, call it marriage, put that family in books on diversity..blah blah blah.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:36 am
Still with the disease rant.
And now we're off and running about Western Civilzaiton -- the one that included both Ancient Greece and Spain during the Inquisition and Europe during the Middle Ages. Perhaps we should brand all the right-wing adulterers and make them stand publicly on a scaffold a la Hawthorne's New England?
Posted by Wow, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 11:53 am
If you go back and look at the miscegeny laws and rulings from 100 years ago, they don't look any different from the rants here. It is unnatural, it goes against all our traditions and history, it will weaken our civilization, etc. And I'm sure there are people who wrote "if they can marry blacks, next it will be marry a goat!" and probably people who nodded along to that.
Yep, views have changed about sexual identity and marriage. What was "common sense" is now the fringe, and the fringe is now the mainstream. Personally in this case I think that's a good thing and makes our society stronger and better. You don't? Sorry, but you can still preach your views in your own home and church if you like.
Posted by Mike and Anne, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 12:15 pm
A very unconvincing try, provide documentation for your claims or admit that they are lies, your choice.
Back to the topic--
The reason to vote yes on 8 is to protect the integrity of the family, the foundation of our civilization and to protect our children from the corrupting influence of moral relativists of the " if it feel good do it".
Following their morale equivalence model has led to a horrific public health crisis.
Denial will not solve that public health crisis.
gay activists will say one thing in Palo Alto and Sacramento to push their agenda.
If you want to know how they really feel and act then look at how they behave in SF here Web Link
After you have seen that report you will understand the true agenda of the gay activists and why we need to protect our children and families by voting yes on prop 8
Posted by Wow, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Mike and Anne - Which claim which would you like documentation on? That people defended miscegeny laws by saying inter-racial marriage was against nature, tradition, public opinion, and a long body of laws and would weaken civilization? I will if you like, but please do me the courtesy of first saying that you don't believe such things were written, demonstrating your historical ignorance.
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:02 pm
> Homosexuality goes against the laws of evolution.
You are arguing with a fact. That is usually a losing strategy.
Gays and lesbians *are* part of the human condition. Therefore we must be some evolutionary benefit for our gene pool. Most of us do not make our own kids, but we certainly have a positive impact on our families.
Between us, Larry and I have 14 nieces and nephews. We often joke that we serve as "emergency backup parents" for our siblings. We help out with things that regular dual income, two or more kids parents often can't find the time or energy for.
Whether it's fixing a leaky faucet, shopping for dishwashers, building an earwig costume for a 4-year old (because mommy promised "you can be anything you want for Halloween") or flying to suburban New Jersey to make sure 3 elementary school kids eat right, do their homework and still get to karate practice and gymnastics while mommy recovers from cancer surgery, we have done a lot for our straight siblings.
Also, Larry's parents are in their late 70s, but still manage to host 30 children, in-laws and grandchildren at Christmas. How do they pull it off every year? Easy, Larry and I fly in a week early to clean the kitchen, take out the trash, rearrange the furniture, put up the tree and take them shopping! That's how.
I submit that gays and lesbians do contribute to the advancement of our gene pool. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not happening all around you.
We must be, otherwise we'd have been "optimized out" of the picture long ago.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm
To Wow: If I am a homophobe, ( the last resort of anyone losing an argument is to call names)...then I must be a self-hating homophobe. Believe it or not, there are some of us who are gay AND 'get it" about the whole word thing. I would be more than delighted if we had NOT taken this path, and instead had continued to chip away by establishing what is acceptable to the vast majority of Americans..equal rights and responsibilities under a different name. Now we are probably going to go backward a step and have to work our way out.
Try sticking to the points, you might win over a few folks. But, of course, you can't, so you revert to name calling.
Point: Changing definitions
Point: Words have legal consequences
Point: Slippery slope ( adoption, freedom of association, public education)
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm
100% agreement. The whole evolution argument is not applicable. We are the ones who were the shamans, the ones who adopted unwanted children, took in straight siblings' children since we didn't have any, taught kids, nursed in hospitals, took care of our parents. We tended to be the ones who weren't bogged down with kids, so we could advance arts and sciences from a women's perspective ( actually, I guess I am talking about "single women" and "friends who lived together" through the ages, not men so much..sorry, my bias is showing).
Anyway, I have to admire your respectful tone, even with those of us you disagree.
Posted by polly, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm
That is Standard gay activist propaganda but go ahead.
There are no "gay" animals that is an activists myth.
Genetic variation means that in each generation we have schizophrenics, autistics a whole range of deviance from addictions to pedophiles
non of whom do anything to advance the gene pool, same with homosexuals.The fact that so many of them are vectors for lethal diseases is a net handicap.
When the United States imposed monogamy on Utah do you think that was a civil rights issue?
Most people see it as a matter of standards and civilization, same a making marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman.
The gay activists, if they came out of denial, how a lot of work to put their own house in order- domestic violence- meth and other drug abuse-- 50% rates of AIDS in the black gay and bisexual population-----before they can start lecturing to the 97% of the population who do not share their obsessions
Posted by Marion, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm
FYI, there are fatal diseases spread by all sorts of sexual acts, not the least of which, AIDs, can be spread by straight married men who frequent prostitutes. If you look at your newspaper you will see, not only that heterosexual people engage in an awful lot of promiscuity and then bring home what ever they get to their wives. Although I believe my husband would never do such things, we have lots of evidence that it happens a lot. So this business of painting homosexuals with a disease spreader brush is just as preposterous as all the other arguments we're seeing. I agree, this sort of thinking is a throwback, a kind of pretend thinking needed by simpletons who are too immature, too simpleminded, too insecure to think for themselves. See recent remarks by Michele Bachman for an example of such non thought processes. As we evolve as a species, hopefully these simpletons will be drummed out of the gene pool. For now, we have to tolerate them and let them talk, even though it is clear they are way behind the curve.
Posted by Ralph, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Mike & Anne,
Congratulations, you've learned how to Google and find gay porn. (or maybe your preacher found it for you? :)
Seriously, that video is about as appropriate to this discussion as a "Girls Gone Wild" video would have been at your marriage reception.
You betray your prejudice when you make the assumption that "those people" are all identical. "Gay activists will say one thing in Palo Alto and Sacramento to push their agenda. If you want to know how they really feel and act then look at how they behave in SF"
That's not me in your preacher's favorite video. Truth be told, I'm not even a gay activist. I'm just another Palo Alto homeowner who happens to be gay.
The only reason I'm posting here is because a bunch of Mormon carpetbaggers invaded my state and are trying to mess with our constitution and overturn a sound decision of our conservative supreme court. (Yes, the court that legalized gay marriage is made up of 6 republicans and 1 democrat. The average age of these “radical activists” is 66.)
When your side can't produce a sound legal argument in favor of Prop 8 and when your "college of pediatricians" has been shown to be a fraud, the truth comes out in your final argument: You produce an irrelevant nasty propaganda video and say 'but look how disgusting they are'!
Admit it. You just DON'T LIKE gay people!
Honestly, that’s okay. I don’t want you to like us.
I just want you to leave us and our marriages alone.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ralph, you must be kidding. You just lost me, trying to assert that our Supreme Court is "conservative". You also lost me with your sweeping generalization that the "Mormons" have swept in here, trying to dismiss rational discussions and revealing an incredible amount of bigotry. How do you know it wasn't the Muslims? The Orthodox Jews? The Catholics? Or, gosh, maybe people who just don't like words being redefined and opening the flood gates for ridiculous legal follow ups.
Let me repeat, Ralph. Most Americans are fine with equal rights and responsibilities for committed gay couples who want to "tie the knot", as long as the name "marriage" or "married" is not changed from the legal coupling of a man and a woman.
Posted by Henry, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm
provide evidence for your claim that HIV/ AIDS is spread by heterosexual non IV drug abusers in the USA-- it is a myth promoted by gay activists to get money and to support their denial of responsibility.
AIDS/HIV and the new super strain of gay MRSA Web Link
are only prevalent in the gay/ bisexual and IV drug abusing communities.
Unfortunately the rest of us are stuck with paying for the consequences of this high health risk behavior.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Ralph, tell me the truth..would you go through with this vote on Nov 5 if you were offered the FEDERAL GUARANTEE that you and Larry would always have all the rights and responsibilities that straight marriages have, if only you don't call it marriage? Or would you risk losing it all to push the actual use of the word "marriage"?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I will give you my vote right now..I would be DELIGHTED with a different word, same rights and responsibilities. I am GAY, not straight, I don't want the STRAIGHT WORD!! I don't want to force all my straight family and friends to change their meaning for me!
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 3:39 pm
CDC, why are you confusing the control of airborne diseases like SARS with a bloodborne disease like AIDS? One is easily contagious and one is not. Thus, the difference in the quarantine issue?
Gene S., shouldn't we just call you Sharon? I mean, your obsession with my kid's school is kind of a giveaway. Pathetic really.
Perspective, the Mormon church is providing $9 million of the $25 million pro-Prop 8 campaign. So, yeah, I resent a religious organization trying to dictate laws in my state.
As for examples of polygamous marriage and marriages between men and 12-year-old girls--kids are exposed to examples of this quite early thanks to the Bible. Not to mention a few fairy tales. And the explanation is pretty similar to the other ones--they did this, we do that. Here's why.
For some of the reasons you mention, I think this should be a state issue. I don't see any compelling need on my part to force Utah to make gay marriage legal. But, by the same token, I resent outsiders coming here and trying to overturn our laws. I mean, it is no skin off my back that my friend's elderly mothers married one another after 35 years together. And it certainly meant something to them.
And if you don't want to live in a place where same-sex couples can marry, there are lots of other states.
And if Massachuessetts is is anything to go by, gay marriage doesn't destroy heterosexual marriage, as I recall Mass. has the lowest rate of divorce in the country.
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Perspective wrote: Try sticking to the points, you might win over a few folks. But, of course, you can't, so you revert to name calling.
Point: Changing definitions
Point: Words have legal consequences
Point: Slippery slope ( adoption, freedom of association, public education)
ACTUALLY, none of those should be the point. The point that the CA Supreme Court made in its ruling is that you can't have different rights or "separate but equal" rights based on a person's sexuality. So see if you can stick to the point. Look back to my post above. If you were the judge and the two couples were standing in front of you, upon what LEGAL principle would you deny to one couple the legal status extended to the other couple? (Please remember, tradition, religion, feelings, hypothetical slippery slopes - none of those have a basis in law).
It's amazing how many times I've put this challenge online in these forums, and not one serious, credible response.....
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:09 am
Ok, Al. This is why. Words have meanings which then have consequences. Maybe you don't find it appalling that one person's beliefs must be forced on another, but I do. If it just stopped with the couple being married, I would have no problems. But it doesn't...
NPR.org , June 13, 2008 • In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:11 am
NPR above continued:
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts'$1-a-year lease for a city building.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:14 am
so, that is the problem, and why I will vote Yes on 8. Because I want the freedom of association and religious beliefs to stay true in our country. I want to be able to have all the rights and responsibilities of straight marriage, but without being part of the destruction of the fundamental right to freely associate. I would no more want straights to sue my church for doing gay marriages than I want to be part of suing other churches for NOT doing gay marriages.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 10:20 am
Henry, I never made a claim that heterosexual non iv drug using males were spreading HIV/AIDS. I never mentioned drugs at all. In fact, heterosexual promiscuity spreads an assortment of diseases: hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea (sp?) etc. etc. Since you're using disease spread as an argument against gays, I'm simply pointing out that for many a century, heteros have spread diseases and nobody is arguing against us. Don't put words in my mouth Henry. It underscores the lack of legitimacy of your stance. It is hysterical and emotional and also inhumane and heartless. You can only deny that with further evasions, lies and judgements.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sally, Are you suggesting we have no domestic violence or infectuous diseases among the straight population? I'm so glad to hear that because last time I checked we had lots of those. I assume you waited to marry yourself until all these had been solved among the entire straight population in the world.
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I'll admit, it's sad to see there are still so many bigots in the United States. What's next for these "YES on 8" homophobes? I can picture it now: They'll push for a new Proposition next year to eliminate marriage for anyone "not of identical ethnicity." The YES on 7 campaign will urge that "traditional family values mean marriage should remain between a man of Caucasian ethnicity and a woman of Caucasian ethnicity." Next, they'll push for Proposition 6, stating that "African-American, Latino and Asian U.S. citizens should not be allowed to marry at all." Stating that the "traditional definition" is that marriage is between a man and a woman "of Anglo-Saxon origin." Other Propositions to follow will be one that states marriage "must take place in a church"; "no dogs and cats of the same sex but NOT from the same family are allowed to be in a room together at the same time"; and finally, that "gay people must live in either Hawaii or Rhode Island."
You YES on 8 people are moving in the wrong direction - and NONE of you are gay, so can't relate one little bit. Those who fight for equality are truly heroes.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 2:16 pm
For all those pro-gay marriage types claiming bigotry on the part of anti-gay marriage types, take a look in your own mirror: Most of you oppose plural marriage (polygamy)and marriage among relatives (incest). There are no rational reasons for these bigotries, just tradition.
Marriage is a long-standing tradition, between men and women. It has never been a tradition between same genders. There is no compelling reason to change this, certainly not the argument to bigotry.
There is a compelling state interest to provide a male and female influence over the raising of children.
A "yes" vote on Prop 8 will both maintain the tradtional understanding of marriage, and continue to promote a healthy model for the upbringing of children. Of course, it will continue the bigotry against polygamy and incest, but laws are not always meant to be all inclusive.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Actually, there are specific reasons for forbidding incest. They've akready been talked about. And for some of us who don't oppose gay marriage, we don't actually care if polygamy is made legal either, as it is in other parts of the world. But probably now that will be used against us as further evidence of our desire and intention to destroy the institution of marriage.
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm
John, how does that compelling re male/female influence play out with single parents? Should the state act to outlaw single parents or take away their kids or force them to marry? Did you just make that up?
I would think the state's interest would be in stable, long-term domestic relationships - hey, kind of like marriage! The genders of the partners are not important.
Posted by John, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I do not think you need to worry about promoting polygamy (or incest). Most pro-gay marriage types that I know are incensed that their cause is lumped in with with either of those two issues. They just want their specific definition of the extension of marriage. They are as bigoted as the most of the rest of us.
A simple consitutional provision, that would be fair to a fault, is:
"All consenting adults may be married, if they wish".
However, this would never pass, due to the tradition and bigotry of voters, both straight and gay.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Slippery slop fallacy on your part. Please note that several incidences in the NPR report that you cite occur in states where gay marriage is not legal. Some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
Nor are they about limiting free speech or freedom of association. They seem mostly to be about equal access and use of public areas. Free access to the Berkeley Marina is a privilege not a right. So, yes, the city can and did set terms for that privilege--one to which the Sea Scouts said no to. Are you saying a city has to give free access to a group with no conditions?
The New Jersey case--another case of a facility which is a de facto public space--once you give right-of-way there are limits you can't set. Which is why Stanford about once a year cards everyone coming onto the campus--so public right-of-way isn't established.
Vermont--the civil servant wasn't forced to perform the ceremony.
NM--that one's strange, I'd like to see what was actually going on. My guess is that there was a contract on which the photographer tried to renege, otherwise, it doesn't make sense.
Adoption--to me that's a lot like marriege--in some states gay adoption's a non-issue and in other states it is. California has one set of laws, if you want to do business here, abide by them.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Looked up the New Mexico case. I think the Human Rights Commission was wrong on this one. Wrong enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned. So, that one I think is a legitimate case of one group's rights being put over another group's--and I don't agree with it.
Though, of course, it took place in a state where there isn't gay marriage.
Posted by Gene S, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Oct 20, 2008 at 3:54 pm
If Prop. 8 does not pass, the law will demand their values be imposed on me.
All businesses, all entities and all of us will be compelled by law to treat all marriages without distinction.
The schools in California will be compelled to teach children and that children must accept that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage.
Any child does not accept all marriages are same would be construed as breaking the law.
Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if that is contrary to the church's position.
Churches would not be able to use their doctrinal beliefs to defend their positions.
The opponents viewed this as another scare tactic.
I wish this is only a scare tactic but it is the truth.
It is happening in states such as Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legalized.
Passing of Prop. 8 will protect individual liberty, protect our schools from mandatory teaching same-sex marriage to our children and protect our churches from performing marriages contrary to their doctrine.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 4:37 pm
"John, how does that compelling re male/female influence play out with single parents? Should the state act to outlaw single parents or take away their kids or force them to marry? Did you just make that up?"
Uh oh, your argument is weak. For example, do you support age-of-consent laws (the age when 'underage' children are forbidden, by law, from having sex)? Let me just assume that you do. Using your argument, the state should imprison or punish two 15 year old kids who get it on in the back seat of their car. Alternatively, according to your logic, such age-of-consent laws should be abolished.
My view is that such laws serve a useful purpose, even though they do not produce a perfect world. Likewise, laws that promote heterosexual marriage are positive for society, even though they do not prevent transgressions from the model.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:49 pm
So I really think nobody would be breaking the law for having religious beliefs that contradicted the civil definition of marriage. That is pretty over the top to say that kids would be breaking the law to disagree about marriage. Also, check out Palin's extreme right take on gay marriage -- in fact she "tolerates" gays but thinks they should neither be allowed to marry nor have the right to the same benefits and privileges of marriage, under any other name -- and that this should be a federal law. That really seems beyond intolerant.
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The above comment wasn't mine. But John, sorry I must be slow, as I did not follow your counter-example. I don't see how it applies to whether there is a state interest in two gender households. I still don't understand that. I'd argue there is a state interest in stable households, regardless of gender. You may view that as "less perfect" than two genders, but as you point out, life isn't perfect.
Besides, I just like people being able to enjoy their civil rights. Call me old-fashioned.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:08 pm
"So I really think nobody would be breaking the law for having religious beliefs that contradicted the civil definition of marriage"
Why do you say that? The Salvation Army and Cathlolic Charities and the Boy Scouts have been legally savaged, because they do not accept the homosexual lifestyle. There is no reason, whatsover, to believe that various religious or traditional groups will not be punished, if Prop 8 is defeated. If Prop 8 is affirmed, such groups will be protected from the gay attacks.
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Sorry, Gene, it's just me ;-) And please don't try to speak for Americans, since I'm one too and you certainly don't speak for me.
It's none of my darn business whether someone is gay or straight if they want to get married - so I neither approve nor disapprove. And my children don't need protection from them either.
After all, there are plenty of bigots out there that we DO disapprove and, and we just explain to the kids that some people are just like that, it's hard to understand, please don't be one of them. We don't need to deny their civil rights.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Uh oh (the original one),
State and federal laws are generally aimed at the great middle, not the margins. The homosexual lobby represents only about 1-3% of the population, nationwide. Many straight men are, by nature, interested in having more than one woman. Does this mean that we should legalize polygamy? If not, why not? May I suggest that it has something to do with protecting children from a fragmented and disoriented life?
Pro-gay marriage proponents are self-centered narcissists. They want what they want, without regard to the consequences. They claim discimination and bigotry, but they they are no better than the straights, if they are forced to confront a truly open marriage law. They could care less about the best interests of children, because their own desires come first.
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 9:00 pm
John, it seems like you are saying that gays inherently have lives that are "fragmented and disoriented." Why? This seems like stereotyping and prejudice to me. Lots of people are self-centered, confused, or just bad parents. Some gays will be too; others will be ok. Like anybody else, they should all be able to marry.
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 9:58 pm
"Ok, Al. This is why. Words have meanings which then have consequences. Maybe you don't find it appalling that one person's beliefs must be forced on another, but I do. If it just stopped with the couple being married, I would have no problems. But it doesn't..."
-- Sorry, but if that's what passes for legal reasoning, you're in trouble. The judge can't tell the gay couple that the legal rationale for their exclusion is that some other gay people might start fighting for changes in other laws and regulations. When you talk about "one person's beliefs forced on another" you're only talking about your *feelings.* No one can force you to believe anything. You can believe that you are the king of the world and that on one else has a legitimate claim to breathe your air, if you like. The state cannot force you to hold any opinions, and if Prop 8 goes down, you would have no standing to go into a court and say anything has been forced upon *you.* However, gay and lesbian couples are gradually proving to more and more courts that "your beliefs" have been forced upon them and actually had a tangible measurable result, but without any *legally* compelling interest that the state can articulate to deny them equal treatment based simply on who they are.
It's not that voters and majority rule don't count, but when those legitimate arguments are in conflict with legitimate arguments about individuals' rights, courts have to decide (and when they make an unpopular ruling, then they're "activist" courts - regardless of how conservative their pedigree!). The "majority rule" position needs to have a more compelling argument than tradition, feelings, religion, etc. They don't. They never will. It's a one-way train, like every civil rights issue before it that took decades to work out before being held as self-evident. Polls show this issue (gay marriage, not just Prop 8) breaking mainly along generational lines. Read the writing on the wall.
And as a nod to all those panicked slippery slopers out there, I just presented the key difference between gay marriage and all your other fears. Discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals is based on a matter of identity; don't take my word for it - every leading/major psychological, medical, sociological association will affirm it. Some religious conservatives will still tell you gays and lesbians choose - and every gay/lesbian person I've ever met will tell you that everything in their experience and for everyone they know will back up the idea of identity rather than choice. So, IF the state is going to be involved in marriages at all, it can't discriminate based on identity. All those other types of unions you all worry about are fundamentally different, and any debates on those issues would have to be framed differently. In any case, as stated above, what might happen in other issues and debates is not a legally compelling argument for the matter at hand.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Gene S. I take issue with your remarks about activists and trolls. In spite of my strong feelings against your beliefs, I am neither gay nor an activist, nor a troll, nor do I have anything to do with anyone else posting here. I simply am an American citizen and I believe in the constitution and our bill of rights, for which so many have given their lives. To see this movement to denigrate these, this blind determination to single out people you don't understand and whom you regard as somehow lesser because of the way they were created just makes me sad for all of us, but especially for all of you who have found nothing meaningful to devote your lives to.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 4:03 am
No, they have not had the belief forced upon them. What they have had forced upon them is that they cannot discriminate illegally while benefitting at state expense, because that would implicate the state in their religious belief-based bigotry. Those organizations can find their own private place to meet discriminatorily or they can allow gays into their membership etc. Their choice. Have to choose.
Posted by Gene S, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Oct 21, 2008 at 7:09 am
The it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of behavior, particularly health risk behavior, we do it all the time, smoking, drinking, obesity,
Some people may have an innate attraction to members of the same sex, it is not that tendency that is the problem it is the behavior.
I think this activism will bring about a backlash against those in the gay community who continue to engage in health risk behavior that the other 97% have to pay for as well as the risk of new fatal epidemics breaking out.
Gay MRSA started among gays who, because of their behavior, contracted multiple diseases and took massive doses of antibiotics. As a result they bread resistant strains of lethal infections which are about to break out into the general population Web Link
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 8:19 am
Gene S. If your concern was actually the high risk behavior you would be promoting marriage among the gay community as those who marry are far less likely to engage in the high risk behavior. Marriage, stability, acceptance by the larger community, dignity, rights - all these are the building blocks of healthy positive behavior. You have it backwards Gene S. Also, you wish to deprive the whole group for behavior that only some participate in. Would you like to bear the consequences of everyone in any group to which you belong when they step out of line? Just admit you are a bigot and move on.
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 8:55 am
Funny Peter, I never thought of civil rights as being measured by whether they improved public health statistics. I guess I'm pleased that Holland's did not get any worse. But since that's not in the Constitution while equal protection under the laws is, let's stick with that, shall we?
Posted by Uh oh, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:14 am
Peter thank you for working to protect our children from rampaging Dutchmen. Have any straight people committed crimes in Holland lately by any chance? Please let us know if your research turns up anything.
Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the constitutional right to equal protection under the California Constitution. Anything to say about that?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 am
Marion: You say you have never seen gays band together to take away straight rights...Actually, yes you have. Simply read how Catholic Adoption Services, Scouts, and Salavation Army workers and supporters have been deprived of their rights to free association and the choice of their work and volunteer environment.
Think about if there were laws that forbid LGBT organizations from working in a state BECAUSE they hire gays and lesbians?
Posted by Marion, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:39 am
No no no. Those are examples of gays organizing to prevent the denial of their own rights, not to deprive anyone else of theirs. I know it's dark under that white hood but try and keep up. How many of your own sexual behaviors have come under the scrutiny of gay groups who would take away your right to do them? Now you must admit, your rights to harm others might have been curtailed, but those behind that were not strictly gay.
This Video is very informative. I agree that we can get along with other people and we shouldn’t impose our values on each other. Although the Video refers to a law that confers same rights to domestic partners, Prop 8 will ban the right to marry. Another angle of looking at this, is Prop 8 preserves the traditional views, without having the law forcing us to accept a different view. It is similar to whether to accept immigration. Some people may not like it but have to accept it. How do you balance the difference ? Separately, when one has a right, one should also have an obligation. The right to marry will come with the obligations, such as divorce and will make people go into these commitment more careful, or they will have to pay alimony….
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 5:03 pm
John wrote: "Marriage is a long-standing tradition, between men and women. It has never been a tradition between same genders. There is no compelling reason to change this, certainly not the argument to bigotry."
I'd argue that there is a VERY compelling reason to change this, actually several. First of all, there are FAR more California residents than there were when the "tradition" of marriage was introduced, which means there are more gay people, which means there are more gay people who want to get married here. Secondly, it's about equality. What a lot of you pro-8 people are either neglecting or choosing to ignore is EMPATHY - caring about your fellow human being. Valuing equality.
These arguments about how kids will be affected and so forth are absurd. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice - it is how you are born, how God itself chose to put you on this planet. Don't believe me? That's just more proof that you don't have any gay friends, colleagues or acquaintances (or choose not to interact with them, which would be my guess). You may THINK you're not being bigoted, you may THINK you have all these "real" reasons for pushing for intolerance and inequality. But you are wrong.
And last but not least, I have not written on this board as anyone other than myself, so there's no need to accuse me of using alternate identities. I stand by what I say every time and don't shy away from my comments.
Posted by ??, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Answer me this then.
Since those with domestic partnership or civil unions already have all the legal benefits of marriage, (tax filing, hospital visitation and decision making, health benefits, inheritance benefits) why is marriage important? If these things are not enough then why not work to get them what you want? Why do you need the marriage definition?
As you say, gay people are born different and it is often the case that those who are born different need different rules. We do treat men and women differently because they are different. We do have separate bathroom facilities at most public places for men and women. In some countries, public bathrooms have no separate facilities for men and women, but if that was to happen here, there would be plenty of people who would not like it. Perhaps if we were to get rid of men's and women's separate bathrooms, which are only there because of Tradition, then we would be talking about similar breakdowns of something due only to tradition.
Traditions are good things and culturally speaking are a strength to the culture. If we do away with some traditional things just because tradition is not important, then we do a great deal more harm than good. The traditional marriage has always been a great strength to the culture of this country and most others. To do away with the traditional marriage and reinvent it into something else for no reason other than tradition is too old and times must change, actually will weaken the society rather than strengthen it.
Let those who are not willing to marry someone in the traditional meaning of the word (one man to one woman) get the legal rights they yearn without letting us lose our traditional marriage. The arguments to change are just not enough and not worth it. The legal rights can come another way.
Posted by It's a govt thang, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 7:44 pm
If the government didn't participate in marriages, this would all be moot. But it does - the state doesn't just hand out "civil unions," it marries people. If the state does this, it has to attend to the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Tradition isn't a good enough reason to deny equal protection under the laws to same-gender couples who want to partake in the government sanctioned marriage. "Separate but equal" is a losing argument on its face - civil unions aren't good enough.
So you can amend the constitution if enough agree. But the case seems pretty weak - "tradition" is the primary argument. The laws against inter-racial marriage also relied on tradition, and to read those arguments today is pretty appalling. We COULD make inter-racial marriage illegal by amending the constitution, but most people are repelled by the idea. Anti-gay laws are headed for the same dustbin of history, and it seems like the time has just about arrived.
Posted by common sense midway solution, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm
There are 2 parts of marriage, making your spouse a citizen and social security benefits, that aren't available in civil unions still.
Make those 2 points the same, and civil unions are the same for the gay couple as is marriage for the straight couple, minus the legal hammer that the word "Marriage" brings, forcing "equality" in adoption, the shutting down of charity organizations, etc.
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm
All this hand-wringing from the pro-8 crowd, and still not one argument based in law. Keep whining folks, but you never never never never get to the point. If we're supposed to worry about health issues when issuing marriage licenses, then shouldn't marriage be reserved for people who promise to engage only in healthy behavior? If we're supposed to protect the institution of marriage, shouldn't there be mandatory counselling before marriage and before divorce?
You can't use arguments about gay marriage that are not part of straight marriage.
Gay marriage is inevitable because there's no reasoning based in law or the Constitution to deny it.
Posted by Mary L., a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a medical association of pediatricians and other pediatric healthcare professionals in the United States. ACPeds was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Dr. Joseph Zanga, who were concerned about the AAP's stances on a number of issues. The College produces policy statements on child development to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing.
The American Academy of Pediatricians is a larger organization with more research and broader views of the health of the child.
Any one can throw statistics around and assert they are now facts.
Loving couples come in all shapes and sizes. Proposition 8 fosters suspicion and hate. Think about it: religion is about inclusion, acceptance, and love. Where does Prop 8 fit in that picture?
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 11:26 pm
You write "
All this hand-wringing from the pro-8 crowd, and still not one argument based in law. "
But yet, most of the propositions coming up have people voting using their feelings, their judgment, their opinions and even their common sense, without using arguments based in law. Why should this one be any different? In fact, laws arise from interpretation of feelings, emotions, traditions and opinions, by someone at some time. Even the Constitution was based on these sentiments. The law is only a product of what people want.
Posted by Marion, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Gene S. Bigotry is a health risk to all of us, yet nobody is passing a law against you. I believe in your right to be a bigot and say it out loud. However I suggest that you find a worthy cause for your energy, such as helping the many starving, or diseased, or enslaved, or endlessly raped humans around us - rather than confounding the goals of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives.
Posted by Louise, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 12:38 am
It's been very instructive for this straight married Palo Altan to read the fears and projections of the Yes on 8 crowd. Reminds me of the Music Man song about how having a pool hall would mean "trouble, trouble, trouble right here in River City."
Thanks to Ralph and all who have tried to engage in a civil discussion with those who clearly believe the distortions, lies and prejudice that is being spread about this proposition by the LDS church, fundamentalists and Conservative Catholics. Bottom line: this is about equality under the law. And allowing gays and lesbians to marry doesn't threaten my marriage, nor require any church to perform such marriages if it's against their beliefs. End of story.
But about those polls: There may yet be hope, since the attempts by the leaders of the Yes on 8 coalition (aka ProtectMarriage.Com) to use blatant extortion against companies who dare to donate to Equality California (the No on 8 group) will be all over the news just as the undecided voters are tuning in to the state propositions.
Check out the breaking AP story which pretty much negates any claim to moral uprightness or logic for those claiming to support traditional marriage:
"Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California made an offer to businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay-rights group: Give us money or we'll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions. . . .
'Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. 'Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... 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.'
The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com."