Proposition 8 discussion continued

[A_Wanderer]

that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.

there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.

that and the fact that U2 haven't released an album since then, and you just get lower traffic than you used to.

Yes, the lack of conservatives is George Bush's fault, that guy is responsible for everything

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, the lack of conservatives is George Bush's fault, that guy is responsible for everything

the debunking and dismantling of the GOP project that began in 1980 and saw the marriage of the Religious Right with Free Market True Believers has absolutely come to an end under George Bush. he's the least popular president in history. American conservatism was smashed last Tuesday and the GOP is now a white, southern, christian, elderly party.

 

[namkcuR]

the debunking and dismantling of the GOP project that began in 1980 and saw the marriage of the Religious Right with Free Market True Believers has absolutely come to an end under George Bush. he's the least popular president in history. American conservatism was smashed last Tuesday and the GOP is now a white, southern, christian, elderly party.

What about Sarah Palin? What about Jindal?

What about that guy Ron Christie that's been appearing on MSNBC recently?

 

[Irvine511]

What about Sarah Palin? What about Jindal?

What about that guy Ron Christie that's been appearing on MSNBC recently?

Palin and Jindal are in the center of the firing squad where the Peggy Noonans and David Brooks' and the other intellectual-ish moderates are squaring off against the traditionalists.

there's no coalition anymore.

 

[nathan1977]

this isn't about gauzy, vague notions of "what marriage means as a society,"

There's nothing vague about it. It's black and white -- 14 words: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

it is about equal protection under the law.

Do you include voting rights in this?

it's not about the right to get married, it's about the right to be treated equally under the law.

A right which already exists.

there is not a word in Prop 8 about education. no child can be forced against the will of their parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school.

Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

the court decision specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Ask the Catholic Charities in MA.
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays - Boston.com

 

[A_Wanderer]

There's nothing vague about it. It's black and white -- 14 words: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Yes, that is the law, why was it put in place, why do you feel that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Why aren't you encouraging people to vote in favor of gay marriage? You don't seem to just oppose a court decision, otherwise you would offer suggestions of how gay marriage should be brought about

Do you include voting rights in this?

Civil liberties need protection from democratic tyranny. Things like unpopular or obscene speech, crazy religious beliefs, freedom to choose your sexual partners and other liberties would be threatened if put up to a vote. A liberal democracy can protect minorities and civil liberties when they are threatened at the ballot box. You are on the anti-freedom side, the freedom for gays to get marriage recognition from the state does not and should not involve any coercion of outside parties.

A right which already exists.

The right for a gay man to make a straight woman miserable isn't the same as equal recognition for relationships, for the state to not discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Your sources include WorldNetDaily and MassResistance.org, I encourage everyone else to look through those sites and make up their own mind.

 

[melon]

Do you include voting rights in this?

Umm...do you even know what "equal protection" means? No, it doesn't mean you have a right to vote a group of people into an unequal status.

A right which already exists.

No. Domestic partnerships/civil unions do not cover all the rights of marriage, particularly when it comes to federal rights. Secondly, even if they did, there is the issue of "separate but equal," which was deemed unconstitutional. The sheer fact is that people, straight and gay, pretty clearly see domestic partnerships/civil unions as subordinate to marriage; otherwise, why would straight bigots be so adamant to ban gay marriage, but accept partnerships?

Oh, and to echo A_Wanderer, to say that gays have the "equal" right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as ridiculous as to support anti-miscegenation laws with the argument that blacks had the "equal" right to marry someone of their same race as whites.

Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Were these discussions about graphic depictions of gay sex, or just the mention that gay people exist? Do people have the right to require permission for schools to talk about the existence of blacks or Jews?

Ask the Catholic Charities in MA.
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays - Boston.com

Eight members of Catholic Charities' board stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.

First off, despite the name, "Catholic Charities" is not a church. It's an organization that provides services at the pleasure of the state. The state is under no obligation to rubber stamp organizations that discriminate, and have every right to presume that organizations that do services for it will abide by anti-discrimination laws just like any secular private organization. Should the state have approved a KKK-sponsored adoption agency that refused to place children in the homes of blacks? Actual churches, on the other hand, are freely able to support and deny whomever they'd like; it's why the KKK and white supremacists still legally operate their own churches, no matter how offensive they are.

Really, for someone who loves to talk about the "slippery slope," you seemingly have no interest in recognizing the errors of your logic. But that's conservatism for you.

 

[BVS]

Do you include voting rights in this?

The fact that you keep using this in context of this debate just shows me you have no clue what it truly means.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If Americans voted that the Churches of some denominations should be forcibly shut down by the state because most Americans believed that those churches corrupted public morality would it be alright?

if Americans voted that all guns must be banned would it be alright?

Do you only care about rights that you exercise?

 

[yolland]

Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Robin Wirthlin (of the Boston Globe story you linked) on CNN, April 4 2006, explaining why she objected to the King & King storybook being read to her children: "My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (from the WorldNetDaily article): "they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners." (The "lifestyle push" in question involved a kindergarten teacher reading to her students then having them sign a pledge stating: “I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. As an ally, I pledge to not use anti-LGBT language or slurs.” Which, as one might suspect from the vocabulary, was intended for junior high students, no other grade schoolers signed it, and the school has apologized to parents for the error.)

The Brookline High incident (see here for a far less hysterical article from the Boston Globe) involved an outside community health organization mistakenly leaving about 10 copies of a safe-sex pamphlet intended for gay men ages 18-up on a table where they'd displayed other (age-appropriate) materials, at a conference on gay and lesbian issues for staff and students held at the school (on a Saturday, so obviously not a mandatory event).



You've been presenting yourself as having no problems with gay and lesbian people, just whether their legally formalized relationships could ever fulfill the ideals you feel are conveyed by the word 'marriage'...and yet, here you're citing as supporting arguments articles that clearly aren't about that at all, but rather about parents who object to their children merely hearing it acknowledged in school that men who love men and women who love women exist. Even though that likely describes the families of some kid(s) their kids already know, even though it without a doubt describes some of their children's future classmates, even though gay and lesbian couples and parents will continue to exist whether they like it or not and their children will grow up to know some, just like you do. These parents aren't worried that gay marriage means their kindergartners will be reading picturebooks about fisting and anal sex--they're worried that the first direct acknowledgment of gay and lesbian people's existence their children will hear WON'T be accompanied by an unambiguous message that gay relationships are sinful and unnatural, and people involved in them are bad and wrong. And parents worried about that will oppose gay marriage for exactly the same reasons.

I'm not sure whether you don't see this, whether you cynically don't care, or whether you secretly agree with those parents, and share their fears that exposure to these "lifestyles" might "turn" your children gay or otherwise "unfit" to lead a morally upright life.

 

[maycocksean]

someone certainly did after last Tuesday's tsunami.

Snap!

 

[maycocksean]

you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.

It's comin' though. Just you wait.

Shoot, we already got Phillyfan agitating for the vote.

 

[maycocksean]

whether you secretly agree with those parents, and share their fears that exposure to these "lifestyles" might "turn" your children gay or otherwise "unfit" to lead a morally upright life.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

The crux of the argument, really is that homosexuality is wrong--if there is a reason, as Toscano suggested, that they don't have the cojones to admit, this basic argument is it. Homosexuality is one of THE defining signs of a society in moral decline, and when society openly approves of something that is morally wrong. . .well, you're looking at the end of society.

Of course he can't make this argument here and I think we all know that. He'd get massacared.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If there was a hell, this would be a bad thing

During an exuberant shopping expedition three years ago, Peg Oliveira made a spontaneous proposal in an aisle of Ikea, blurting, “Marry me!” to her partner, Jennifer Vickery.

Last fall, long before the Connecticut Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the couple became formally engaged, with Ms. Oliveira explaining that she “wanted there to be a moment when we each consciously chose to be together for the rest of our lives.”

On Wednesday morning, with their 3-month-old daughter, Willow, in tow, Ms. Oliveira and Ms. Vickery became one of Connecticut’s first same-sex couples to wed, in a chilly breeze outside City Hall here. Surrounded by journalists and a few friends, they exchanged rings and shared the Ikea story during their vows, along with a slow, tender kiss.

The state’s highest court ruled on Oct. 10 that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional, and a week ago the court announced that gay marriages could officially be performed starting on Wednesday.

Many same-sex couples said they would wait to apply for their licenses, which expire after 65 days, to have time to prepare for wedding celebrations in the spring and summer. Indeed, advocates for same-sex marriage predicted that there would not be the same rush for licenses on Wednesday that there was in 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages, or in June, when California began performing them. They cited both the short notice and the fact that Connecticut has, since 2005, offered civil unions, which offer similar rights and benefits, for gay couples.

Still, lawyers and supporters of gay marriage called the day momentous, especially as a counterpoint to the passage last week of a ballot measure in California that invalidated a court decision legalizing gay marriage. Connecticut voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal, backed by opponents of same-sex marriage, for a constitutional convention that would allow for such direct voter initiatives on the ballot.

“Today Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a senior lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston-based group that litigated the Connecticut case. “It’s living proof that marriage equality is moving forward in this country.”

City Hall here was adorned with bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses as Robin and Barbara Levine-Ritterman, who were among the eight named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state, obtained a marriage license, although they did not plan to marry immediately. “We’re thinking about doing it in May,” said Robin Levine-Ritterman, 49, a naturopathic physician and acupuncturist. “But we really wanted to be part of this historic first.”

But Ms. Oliveira, 36, a yoga teacher and early childhood education consultant, and Ms. Vickery, 44, a lawyer, did not wait. Officiating at the simple ceremony, just before 11 a.m., was their friend, Judge F. Herbert Gruendel of the State Appellate Court, who recalled Ms. Oliveira’s saying five years ago on his porch that she would like to be married. “Today I can say to you that you are,” he said.

Before the ceremony, Ms. Oliveira explained why the couple, who have been together for four years, had not entered into a civil union. “We decided that we wanted to hold out for the real thing,” she said. “Parties are fun, but it’s not about the celebrating piece of this. It’s about honoring the magnitude of the rights that we will be granted, and we wanted to jump in and take advantage of that right away.”

Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states allowing same-sex marriage. New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire have civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships, which are similar.

Across the state on Wednesday morning, couples waited for word that Judge Jonathan E. Silbert of Superior Court here had entered a final judgment in the case, thus putting the new marriage law into effect. It was a ceremonial act, since the Supreme Court had ruled, 4 to 3, that the state’s civil unions violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

State Representative Beth Bye and her partner of seven years, Tracey Wilson, paced the West Hartford Town Clerk’s office on Wednesday morning. As Ms. Wilson handed over the $30 check for the marriage license, she asked, jokingly, if the couple would get a refund on their civil union license from December 2005. The couple’s 16-year-old son, Adam Brown, who filmed the seven-minute ceremony, quipped that the only thing making civil unions equal to marriage was the price.

Ms. Bye, who married Ms. Wilson at 9:41 a.m., said she was not necessarily vying to be No. 1 in the state, but did want to be the first to get married in West Hartford — her hometown and part of her district.

“I always knew you were the most competitive person in the world,” said Scott Slifka, the mayor of West Hartford, by way of congratulations.

By 4 p.m., six couples had obtained licenses at West Hartford Town Hall, including Elizabeth Kerrigan and Joanne Mock, the two lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who planned to marry in the coming months.

Michael Miller and Ross Zachs handed out white frosted cupcakes with the letters M and R on them after marrying on the steps of Town Hall. As Carole MacKenzie, a Universalist Life minister, concluded the ceremony, saying, “By the authority invested in me by the State of Connecticut,” the crowd erupted in applause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/n...bl&ex=1226725200&en=8493bad0556dcca4&ei=5087

 

[Vincent Vega]

I just heard Connecticut disconnected from the mainland and sank in the ocean. Just like Atlantis.

 

[diamond]

Snap!

1. Mormons make up less than 2 percent of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.Mormon voters were less than 5 percent of the yes vote.

2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6 percent of the yes vote and 2.4 percent of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70 percent of black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims -- all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or herself. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

11. The church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out
on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do -- we spoke up, we campaigned and we voted.



These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official church policy or doctrine.

<>

 

[A_Wanderer]

1 million diamonds typing at 1 million typewriters have produced post identical to Kevin Hamilton's letter published in an Orson Scott Card article from the Mormon Times.

Kevin Hamilton's Letter on Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church

Dear Friends,

In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean-spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic-minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better. For example:

1. Mormons make up less than 2 percent of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.Mormon voters were less than 5 percent of the yes vote.

2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6 percent of the yes vote and 2.4 percent of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70 percent of black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims -- all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or herself. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

11. The church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out

on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do -- we spoke up, we campaigned and we voted.

Hold your heads up high -- you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time.

These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official church policy or doctrine.

Thanks,
Kevin Hamilton

MormonTimes - Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle

Can people please remember this when a certain poster criticises Joe Biden over plagarism.

As far as Kevin Hamilton goes he brushes over the influence that the Mormons exerted in the campaign.

 

[indra]

Aww, diamond, you couldn't even come up with your own personal opinions and thoughts? That's pitiful.

 

[Tiger Edge]

These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official church policy or doctrine.

<>

WE

ARE

A

COLLECTIVE

ZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ

 

[martha]

1 million diamonds typing at 1 million typewriters have produced post identical to Kevin Hamilton's letter published in an Orson Scott Card article from the Mormon Times.MormonTimes - Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle

Nice detective work!

It was the use of the word "spectrum" which made me all


And the denials of church involvement are disingenuous anyway; the local Mormon churches were handing about buckets of Yes on 8 signs. AT CHURCH.

 

[BVS]

Caught plagerizing again?!

Ouch!!!

That's like, what the fourth time in recent months?

 

[melon]

You've been presenting yourself as having no problems with gay and lesbian people, just whether their legally formalized relationships could ever fulfill the ideals you feel are conveyed by the word 'marriage'...and yet, here you're citing as supporting arguments articles that clearly aren't about that at all, but rather about parents who object to their children merely hearing it acknowledged in school that men who love men and women who love women exist.

And we're surprised why?

 

[melon]

Aww, diamond, you couldn't even come up with your own personal opinions and thoughts?

And we're surprised why?

 

[indra]

And we're surprised why?

I didn't say I was surprised. I just thought it was pitiful.

 

[melon]

I didn't say I was surprised. I just thought it was pitiful.

It wasn't directed at you, specifically. Just a general observation.

 

[toscano]

There's an LDS backlash ? Hmmm, wonder why ?

I guess that plan to ingratiate themsleves with the real christian world had a nasty side-effect eh ? Awww....too bad.

The irony is to die for.

 

[martha]

Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Robin Wirthlin (of the Boston Globe story you linked) on CNN, April 4 2006, explaining why she objected to the King & King storybook being read to her children: "My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (from the WorldNetDaily article): "they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners." (The "lifestyle push" in question involved a kindergarten teacher reading to her students then having them sign a pledge stating: “I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. As an ally, I pledge to not use anti-LGBT language or slurs.” Which, as one might suspect from the vocabulary, was intended for junior high students, no other grade schoolers signed it, and the school has apologized to parents for the error.)

The Brookline High incident (see here for a far less hysterical article from the Boston Globe) involved an outside community health organization mistakenly leaving about 10 copies of a safe-sex pamphlet intended for gay men ages 18-up on a table where they'd displayed other (age-appropriate) materials, at a conference on gay and lesbian issues for staff and students held at the school (on a Saturday, so obviously not a mandatory event).

So nathan, the poor choices of a few teachers on behalf of a tax-paying, law-abiding group of people is grounds to remove that tax-paying, law-abiding group of people from Constitutional protection?

Next time a Christian teacher makes a poor choice in the classroom, I'll keep this in mind.

 

[Irvine511]

so, there are nationwide protests in the process of being organized this weekend.

Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!

the issue i'm having is that as much as we'd like to protest, we've committed to doing volunteer service this weekend helping elderly, poor-er people winterize their homes so they spend less on heating this winter. still, we thought about how this protest is a good sign that Prop 8 just might be the big kick in the ass that the gay equality movement needs, a time for all those who support the dignity of gay relationships to make themselves known on a national level. while i don't think a protest, in and of itself, ever makes a difference, there is certainly value to the visual impact of any protest and the way to make that impact is simply by putting bodies in the streets (and then hopefully said bodies go home determined to do more).

however, after talking about it last night, Memphis and i thought that an even more effective means of fighting this battle would be not to protest, but to go ahead with our volunteer work. the best thing we can do with other people is simply to share our lives in simple, uncomplicated ways to remove the patina of "otherness" to gay people and gay relationships. being out and open and totally comfortable with yourselves -- and this can take years of hard work for many gay people -- and then sharing that with other people is, imho, the best thing that gay people can do to further their causes.

it's clear that when we think that things like MassResistance or WorldNetDaily are legitimate news sources that gay people obviously have more work to do, since such sensationalistic lies would never have any sort of sway in the mind of anyone who had spent any time with gay couples. if you actually knew gay people and knew their lives, you wouldn't be so gullible as to believe that child sex tourism in Thailand is a mainstream activity for most homos. you wouldn't believe that 6 year olds are going to be learning about water-based lubricants.

so that's what we're going to do. and that's how it's going to continue to happen.

we -- the collective "we" -- will simply have to hold up a mirror to the nonsense and bigotry that's thrown at us.

love and logic keep us clear. reason is on our side.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Yet another collective.

There are several protests planned in Miami tomorrow too. I'll be watching the news for sure. I had a bunch of gay friends on facebook who had the saddest status updates on November 5th amidst all the happy ones.

 

[u2gek]

Join the Impact - my daughters and I will be there in Sacramento sometime during the rally on Saturday. Looking forward to it.

On another Sacramento note, the artistic director of California Musical Theatre, our fabulous theatre company that brings us all the touring productions and so much more has resigned amid threats of boycott. He donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and none other than Marc Shaiman said that no more of his musicals could be produced here. While of course I disagree with the position of the artistic director, I'm saddened that he was forced to resign from his position. The director made clear that the CMT does not share the views of the AD and a boycott would have hurt many more than just the AD. I'm very proud of Sacramento's theatre community, how many local theatres we have and the professional productions we get because of CMT. I don't agree that someone should have lost their job because they disagree on this issue.