martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Well, we've found that some of the most vocal anti-gay preachers really are!!
Haven't we.
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage
- Thread starter phillyfan26
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Well, we've found that some of the most vocal anti-gay preachers really are!!
Haven't we.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I don't know, I remember wrote as being active while written is passive. Someone wrote, something is written.
MissMoo
Acrobat
Just wanted to tell you all how disappointed the majority of us are here in the SF Bay Area. Luckily Solano county has said it will continue to marry same sex couples until ordered to stop by the government.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
That editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why gay marriage is such a potent threat to society and to families as to necessitate a multimillion dollar opposition campaign. It's just a laundry list of self-pitying grievances about having to share public space with meanie pundits, celebrities and academics, as if actual disagreements over the moral status of gay marriage were irrelevant. One might conclude she believes that "the gay lobby and its allies" have only ever been involved in this for kicks and the sadistic glee of watching social conservatives squirm, and have never actually been dead serious about gay couples and their children deserving the same dignity as families that married straight people enjoy.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i'm just glad that INDY used the quote function this time. 
U2isthebest
ONE love, blood, life
I laughed for about 5 minutes at this. I believe it's called pwnage
deep
Blue Crack Addict
No one objects to people,
gay, straight, bi, trans
it is just the immoral behavior.
remember, Love the sinner, hate the sin.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
It's a not a voice issue.
"wrote" is the past tense
"written" is the past participle used with "have"
For further reference Irregular Verbs
Miringeltje
An Interferer
Solano County was the only Bay Area county to vote yes on 8.
You're not a threat to my family Irvine! I've been reading this "debate" and will jump in here....
I'm a catholic, married for 13 years, with two beautiful daughters, age 9 and 7. Their aunt, my sister in law, is gay. My daughters are thrilled that she's in love and has a girlfriend, just like their other aunt has a boyfriend. They are just happy that each one has someone to love. When we discussed what prop 8 was and what it meant, they didn't understand why two people in love can't get "married". We go to church every Sunday and I explained what the bible says and what our church says about marriage and my 9 year old said, "well, Fr. W---- must be wrong. If they're in love they should be able to get married. God would want them to be happy."
If only it were that simple....
Miringeltje
An Interferer
From the San Francisco Chronicle :
San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate
Same-sex marriage issue back to state top court
(11-05) 18:16 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A day after California voters approved a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the incendiary issue returned to the state Supreme Court, where gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco filed lawsuits Wednesday seeking to overturn Proposition 8.
And Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represents the state in court, said he would defend the legality of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in the 5 1/2 months leading up to election day - even though sponsors of Prop. 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages. That controversy is also likely to end up before California's high court and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is my belief that the courts will hold that these same-sex marriages entered into are valid," Brown said in a statement. He said he would defend Prop. 8 against legal challenges, but would also defend "the marriages contracted during the time that same-sex marriage was the law in California."
A research institute at UCLA has estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples have married in California since the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing such marriages took effect June 16. In a victory statement Tuesday night, the Yes on 8 campaign asserted that from now on, "only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed."
Campaign manager Frank Schubert said Wednesday, however, that his organization has no plans to challenge any of those marriages in court. The question will have to be decided by "the court that created that problem" by refusing to suspend its ruling until after the election, he said, without describing how it might reach the court.
Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.
Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.
The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.
Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.
That leaves the plaintiffs with the difficult task of showing that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other, more basic provisions of California's Charter. The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments.
Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a postelection challenge.
The couples' lawsuits contend Prop. 8 is so far-reaching that it is not merely a constitutional amendment but a revision, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot. Such a vote would be unlikely with the Legislature's houses overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.
Plaintiffs argued the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority - gays and lesbians - while stripping judges of their power to protect that group.
"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups suing on behalf of the six unmarried couples. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions."
The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution.
"If allowed to stand, Prop. 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Sponsors of the initiative were unimpressed. Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign, called the legal challenges "an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process."
San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate
Same-sex marriage issue back to state top court
(11-05) 18:16 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A day after California voters approved a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the incendiary issue returned to the state Supreme Court, where gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco filed lawsuits Wednesday seeking to overturn Proposition 8.
And Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represents the state in court, said he would defend the legality of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in the 5 1/2 months leading up to election day - even though sponsors of Prop. 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages. That controversy is also likely to end up before California's high court and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is my belief that the courts will hold that these same-sex marriages entered into are valid," Brown said in a statement. He said he would defend Prop. 8 against legal challenges, but would also defend "the marriages contracted during the time that same-sex marriage was the law in California."
A research institute at UCLA has estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples have married in California since the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing such marriages took effect June 16. In a victory statement Tuesday night, the Yes on 8 campaign asserted that from now on, "only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed."
Campaign manager Frank Schubert said Wednesday, however, that his organization has no plans to challenge any of those marriages in court. The question will have to be decided by "the court that created that problem" by refusing to suspend its ruling until after the election, he said, without describing how it might reach the court.
Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.
Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.
The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.
Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.
That leaves the plaintiffs with the difficult task of showing that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other, more basic provisions of California's Charter. The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments.
Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a postelection challenge.
The couples' lawsuits contend Prop. 8 is so far-reaching that it is not merely a constitutional amendment but a revision, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot. Such a vote would be unlikely with the Legislature's houses overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.
Plaintiffs argued the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority - gays and lesbians - while stripping judges of their power to protect that group.
"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups suing on behalf of the six unmarried couples. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions."
The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution.
"If allowed to stand, Prop. 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Sponsors of the initiative were unimpressed. Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign, called the legal challenges "an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process."
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i totally understand and appreciate the kind words.
however, i am curious to know why this line of thought -- gays as a threat -- is resonant with some people. i want to understand how something that seems like such nonsense to me makes sense to other people. i want to understand that thought process.
Miringeltje
An Interferer
Prop. 8 foes concede defeat, vow to fight on
(11-06) 12:19 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of Proposition 8, after taking a close look at the ballot totals from Tuesday's election, today conceded defeat in their effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in California.
The estimated 3 million votes yet to be counted across the state are not enough to close the 500,000-vote lead the "Yes" side holds with all California precincts reporting, officials from the No on 8 campaign said.
"While we think the margin will close, we are convinced we will not be able to overcome the small deficit we are in and that Proposition 8 will pass," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in a telephone news conference this morning.
The measure, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage in the state, has received 52.5 percent of votes in favor to 47.5 percent of votes against it.
Kors and other opponents of the measure complained today about what they considered to be false statements and questionable tactics from Prop. 8 supporters.
They also predicted victory for the rights of same-sex couples in the future.
"That day is not today and it may not be tomorrow but I do not believe it is far off," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Prop. 8 supporters won a surprisingly widespread victory Tuesday, winning almost everywhere in the state but in the Bay Area and a few other counties. Voters in Florida and Arizona also voted in favor of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
(11-06) 12:19 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of Proposition 8, after taking a close look at the ballot totals from Tuesday's election, today conceded defeat in their effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in California.
The estimated 3 million votes yet to be counted across the state are not enough to close the 500,000-vote lead the "Yes" side holds with all California precincts reporting, officials from the No on 8 campaign said.
"While we think the margin will close, we are convinced we will not be able to overcome the small deficit we are in and that Proposition 8 will pass," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in a telephone news conference this morning.
The measure, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage in the state, has received 52.5 percent of votes in favor to 47.5 percent of votes against it.
Kors and other opponents of the measure complained today about what they considered to be false statements and questionable tactics from Prop. 8 supporters.
They also predicted victory for the rights of same-sex couples in the future.
"That day is not today and it may not be tomorrow but I do not believe it is far off," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Prop. 8 supporters won a surprisingly widespread victory Tuesday, winning almost everywhere in the state but in the Bay Area and a few other counties. Voters in Florida and Arizona also voted in favor of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
i totally understand and appreciate the kind words.
however, i am curious to know why this line of thought -- gays as a threat -- is resonant with some people. i want to understand how something that seems like such nonsense to me makes sense to other people. i want to understand that thought process.
me too....me too
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
that's why i'm asking.
it's completely foreign to me.
the only thing i can think of is that many parents don't want a gay child. and the think that the continued assimilation of gay people into society will make their children more likely to be gay.
it's preposterous, from every standpoint, but that's all i can think of.
INDY? please, weigh in at any time here.
onebloodonelife
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 15,106
You're obviously teaching them well.
I don't understand how people can rationalize their hatred by claiming that gays are a threat to families either, but I just wanted to say that you're not a threat to me or my parents' families. Hopefully, in the very near future, people will start to realize this and allow for equality.
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
In my personal opinion, gay marriage opponents are fearful of what the effects of allowing same-sex marriage will have on children. At the heart of the issue is the nature vs. nurture debate, where people believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than something you're born.
The following excerpt from that article INDY posted two pages back is quite telling, in my point of view:
It's all about the children. Pu aside the preposterousness of homosexuality as part of the curriculum (we have many teachers on this board that will tell you the idea of children being taught homosexuality in schools—without parents' knowledge—is absurd) what people are fearful of is children eventually choosing to enter same-sex relationships.
toscano
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
FWIW
Sign the Re-open Proposition 8 for California Petition
Asking these people to explain why gays are a threat to families is like asking a KKK member why they hate non-whites
Logic just goes out the window, it's just bigotry.
Either that or they're just in the closet themselves and it's self-loathing.
Sign the Re-open Proposition 8 for California Petition
Asking these people to explain why gays are a threat to families is like asking a KKK member why they hate non-whites
Logic just goes out the window, it's just bigotry.
Either that or they're just in the closet themselves and it's self-loathing.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
so what i'm getting is that people think that their children can be influenced to "choose" being gay. and that this is one way of stopping said influence.
correct?
correct?
onebloodonelife
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 15,106
What I don't understand is that if same-sex marriage would supposedly influence kids to "become" gay, wouldn't heterosexual marriage have the same amount of influence?
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
In my humble opinion, yes. How else can it threaten families? If you're born gay, well that's the end of that debate, since two people of the same-sex getting married wouldn't have any effect whatsoever. But if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then this poses a problem, as the option of marrying a same-sex partner may entice people to go that route.
toscano
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
No, I think their fear is that children will think it's OK if they ARE gay, obviously it's better to put them through years of denial and self-loathing, not to mention the ever-so-effective straightness-therapy programs.....
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i will say that a greater cultural acceptance of homosexuality particularly when i was a teenager through the 1990s did lead me to be more accepting of myself than i would have been had i been born decades earlier. i mean, coming out is a long, hard process, but it was certainly easier to do now than it would have been decades ago.
i suppose i might have even been more willing to work hard at being straight, and maybe dated more women, and maybe even married one.
because, hey, what a lucky girl that would have been, no?
is this what people want?
please, straights, everyone is so nice and supportive to me and of me in my life, help me out here. i don't know how you people *really* think and talk when i'm not around.
i suppose i might have even been more willing to work hard at being straight, and maybe dated more women, and maybe even married one.
because, hey, what a lucky girl that would have been, no?
is this what people want?
please, straights, everyone is so nice and supportive to me and of me in my life, help me out here. i don't know how you people *really* think and talk when i'm not around.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
INDY will not be addressing any of your points, he's going to continue to state why it's great that Proposition 8 passed and post more articles that talk about the victory while ignoring the actual issue.
Nathan will not be addressing any of your points, he will simply quote them and say that it's complicated and that, if you used any language that insinuates he could be a bigot, you are in fact the bigot.
Nathan will not be addressing any of your points, he will simply quote them and say that it's complicated and that, if you used any language that insinuates he could be a bigot, you are in fact the bigot.
elevation2u
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
wow, how discouraging to know that the Prop passed, yet I am not surprised, half my neighborhood was covered in the yellow signs, and at every freeway entrance for the last week it seemed like there was an agglomeration of people parading with these signs. Uhhh, even my parents where so enraged at the thought of gays marrying, then again my mother is convinced that Obama is a Muslim and/or the Antichrist. Seriously, the last couple months have put into perspective how little in common I have with my family. When it was announced Obama won, I was overwhelmed with joy and a huge sigh of relief, even watching people's reactions in Harlem & Chicago made me emotional. But waking up the next day to learn that Prop 8 passed was such a crummy feeling, just the idea of a minority's rights being left for the majority to decide is enraging. especially having to argue with my boyfriend why it's wrong and his response being "why do you care if you're not gay?". Grrrrrrr, it's about rights, basic human rights, for people regardless of color, race, religion etc...Sad day for Californians.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
why? what were their arguments? what enraged your parents?
no judgments. i really want to know what was being said. i want to know the exact words.
i really do.
It's not about the children at all. It's about adults transferring their fears and ignorance. We've just recently "outed" my sister-in-law to my daughters. So they have not grown up seeing gay couples all around them. But when we first discussed this with them, they never said anything other than "Oh, ok" and I bet any other child would say the same if the issue had never been addressed before and was treated as no big deal but just part of life.
It's the fear of adults that took the fun out of Halloween and turned it into Harvest Festivals at our school where kids can't wear costumes, it's adults who wanted the name of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed to the Rays. I'm probably rambling here, but I really don't think the issue is about what the children WILL think, it's what adults WANT them to think.
I don't think we'll ever be able to understand the pro prop 8 opinion, because it's based on a fear that we just don't share and will never understand.
- Status
Similar threads
