As You See It: March 1, 2009

There are 20 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Mar 1, 2009, titled As You See It: March 1, 2009. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Concerning your article on Feb. 20 about the miraculous survival of the child who feel through an open second-story window, Mr.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
RobtA

United States

#2 Mar 1, 2009
What Quakers decide to support is irrelevant to the rest of us. "Gay marriage" imposes duties on third parties to recognize the marriage. It is not a private contract between two parties. How would the Quakers feel if the Episcopalians recommended recognizing the Church of England as the official church? We know the answer to that one.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#3 Mar 1, 2009
RobtA wrote:
What Quakers decide to support is irrelevant to the rest of us. "Gay marriage" imposes duties on third parties to recognize the marriage. It is not a private contract between two parties. How would the Quakers feel if the Episcopalians recommended recognizing the Church of England as the official church? We know the answer to that one.
Yawn.

Got hate..........
Santa Cruz Local

Santa Cruz, CA

#4 Mar 1, 2009
Hey MiddleWay - why is it that any disagreement to any liberal's view is always greeted with accusations of hate!
omg

Sunnyvale, CA

#5 Mar 1, 2009
Santa Cruz Local wrote:
Hey MiddleWay - why is it that any disagreement to any liberal's view is always greeted with accusations of hate!
Krikees...because this isn't just a disagreement with views. It's an attempt to treat another individual as less than equal. The difference is obvious, and you're probably just trolling.

That being said, marriage doesn't force anyone to recognize anything. I don't need to recognize your marriage for it to exist. The state has it's paperwork, and that should all surround civil unions, period. Marriage is a religous thing around the individual and their community, and the rest of the world doesn't matter.
omg

Sunnyvale, CA

#6 Mar 1, 2009
Recognized for Strawberries! Yes, Watsonville, you are. You are reognized for WASTING our water on a completely frivolous fruit that takes tons of pesticides. Take all the water for a fruit that doesn't help feed people locally, don't care what the long term effects. Yep, you sure are recognized for that.
Chamber pot letter

Milpitas, CA

#7 Mar 1, 2009
Scott Pinheiro sounds like a sore loser past chamber of commerce president who didn't have a vote go his way. Take it up at the next meeting - I'm sure the new president and other members will really respect your opinion now after you've thrown crap at them in public.
rita

Modesto, CA

#8 Mar 1, 2009
RobtA wrote:
What Quakers decide to support is irrelevant to the rest of us. "Gay marriage" imposes duties on third parties to recognize the marriage. It is not a private contract between two parties. How would the Quakers feel if the Episcopalians recommended recognizing the Church of England as the official church? We know the answer to that one.
how Convoluted! the Roman Catholic Church only recognies marriages, between a man and a womn that are performed in the catholic church. Does this mean we allow the pope to dictate all other couples in the USA are "living in sin" in the civil world of law? Of course not. Speaking of "civil" let's have some more of that with each other. Civil law is all about manners, ways in which society can function in a fairly harmonious manner. Religious laws dictate ways to live to assure entrance to some make believe fairytale. I think it is time to remove marriage from the civil code, for all and leav the word marriage to spiritual communities. If employers want to extend benefits to life partners, fine, if not, also fine, as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of gender. For many, the gay/lesbian marriage issue is about money that employers and the government will have to spend on same sex couples, for others, it is a religious belief zealots are intent on inflicting on people they don't even know. So let's get government out of the marriage business entirely and have a quick trip to an attorney's office to sign a partnership aggreement. Maybe if more couples, both straight and gay had to sit down and look at a contract, we might have more people fully aware of what they are getting into and less broken contracts. This, actually, might be a good thing.
RobtA

Santa Cruz, CA

#9 Mar 1, 2009
Middle Way: I suspected that the immediate response to my first post would include the word "hate." It did. As you put it, YAWN.
Santa Cruz Local

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Mar 1, 2009
OMG - touch a raw nerve did I? Better go take your medication. Thanks for making my point.

Since: May 08

Santa Cruz, CA

#12 Mar 1, 2009
How about the government gets out of the marriage business altogether?

Issue civil union licenses. Let the churches marry whoever they want.

Tax breaks go to civil unions. Marriage is a spiritual union that churches can administer as they see fit. Civil unions are recognized by the state.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I don't like churches dictating as to laws anymore than I like the legislature dictating as to church creeds.
RobtA

Santa Cruz, CA

#13 Mar 1, 2009
Rita: Speaking of convoluted...

It is indeed that case that the RC church only recognizes marriage - as a sacrament among church members - when performed within the church. But civilly it recognizes traditional marriage. If you work in an ordinary non-religious job, and your employer is the church, and the employer offers benefits to spouses, then your spouse gets the benefits whether or not you are RC. That applies to real, traditional marriages, not substitutes imposes by a radical judiciary against the will of the people.

Sorry, activists (of any persuasion). Whether you call it "marriage" or "civil union," you want to impose duties upon third parties and punish them if they don't comply. That's because it is YOU who are haters, and I include the supposedly friendly Quakers. Just remember, the Quakers run an elitist school in D.C. so that politicians, such as the Obamas, don't have to send their kids to public schools where the black folks hang out.

Look, suppose I run a photography business. A gay couple comes in and wants me to take a marriage (or a civil union, or a commitment ceremony, whatever) photo. I decline, because I choose not to recgnize whatever contract exists between the two of them. You will demand that the law punish me, take my business license, fine me, or whatever. That's because you are haters. The couple could get photos somewhere else. It's not as if I provided a unique, critical service such as ambulance.
Mark

San Francisco, CA

#14 Mar 1, 2009
omg wrote:
Recognized for Strawberries! Yes, Watsonville, you are. You are reognized for WASTING our water on a completely frivolous fruit that takes tons of pesticides. Take all the water for a fruit that doesn't help feed people locally, don't care what the long term effects. Yep, you sure are recognized for that.
By what measure is water being wasted? Since strawberries are a very high value crop, the amount of money made per unit of water is pretty high.
Conversely, less "frivolous" crops such as wheat, cotton, and corn use equivalent or more amounts of water but do not nearly net the same amount of money as strawberries. Subsequently, these crops do not offer the same amount of economic benefit to the surrounding communities for the amount of water they take up.
Penelope

Brentwood, CA

#15 Mar 1, 2009
Chamber pot letter wrote:
Scott Pinheiro sounds like a sore loser past chamber of commerce president who didn't have a vote go his way. Take it up at the next meeting - I'm sure the new president and other members will really respect your opinion now after you've thrown crap at them in public.
Perhaps, but he article is spot on about Samantha Baglioni. Laying her off was a huge mistake, she was what kept many of us involved with the Santa Cruz Chamber.

“If You Sleep, You Don't Eat. ”

Since: Jul 08

Santa Cruz

#16 Mar 1, 2009
RobtA wrote:
I decline, because I choose not to recgnize whatever contract exists between the two of them. You will demand that the law punish me, take my business license, fine me, or whatever. That's because you are haters. The couple could get photos somewhere else. It's not as if I provided a unique, critical service such as ambulance.
What if I have a business and I just decide that white people are the root cause of all evil in the world and I'm going to stop offering my services to them because I don't recognize them as a good race?

Yeah, that's how fucking retarded you sound right now. I think my ears might be bleeding a little bit from the utter pettiness and stupidity of your argument. It's like watching a three year old throw a temper tantrum because they don't get the piece of candy they want.
RobtA

Santa Cruz, CA

#17 Mar 1, 2009
LosseCruz: If you happen to decide that whites are not a good race, then just put a sign in your window, and I won't patronize the business. No problem. You have competitors whom I can patronize.

The primary difference is that it would be hard for me to fake being non-white. A same-sex couple, whatever their relationship, could fake being ordinary friends.

Frankly, I enjoy the numerous personal attacks I get when I post on this topic. It reassures me that I am right.
Boby M

West Covina, CA

#19 Mar 1, 2009
Santa Cruz Local wrote:
Hey MiddleWay - why is it that any disagreement to any liberal's view is always greeted with accusations of hate!
It's really quite simple! It is their Standard Operating Principle! I think it's written in their operating manual on how to react to someone not in tune with their agenda. Similar to Saul Alinsky's priciples of always going on the attack and vilifying those in opposition! It's really quite entertaining don't you think?
Eduardo

San Francisco, CA

#20 Mar 1, 2009
Regarding the letter by Angela Rocchio, I need a clarification regarding the "access and affordability" of fresh fruits and vegetables. A five pound sack of potatoes can still be had for less than 3 dollars. Strawberries, mid-season go for 2 to 3 dollars a pound. Yes, artichokes are expensive, but aren't really a staple, are they? Even though the supermarkets tend to be on the city edges, there are lots of smaller shops scattered throughout the neighborhoods. Even if one was totally homebound, he or she would still have had access to excellent oranges being sold door to door by peddlers at a very reasonable five dollars for a 20 lb bag.
Furthermore, a stroll through the student parking lot of WHS or PVHS reveal a striking number of late model European cars, many with additions such as magnesium rims, expensive body alterations, and powerful stereo systems. The students are for the most part fashionably outfitted in well made clothing. The overall impression one gets is that these kids have access to a lot of money.
I think these anecdotes would give lie to the idea that fruits and vegetables are in general out of reach for the young people of this city.
rita

Modesto, CA

#21 Mar 1, 2009
RobtA wrote:
Rita: Speaking of convoluted...
It is indeed that case that the RC church only recognizes marriage - as a sacrament among church members - when performed within the church. But civilly it recognizes traditional marriage. If you work in an ordinary non-religious job, and your employer is the church, and the employer offers benefits to spouses, then your spouse gets the benefits whether or not you are RC. That applies to real, traditional marriages, not substitutes imposes by a radical judiciary against the will of the people.
Sorry, activists (of any persuasion). Whether you call it "marriage" or "civil union," you want to impose duties upon third parties and punish them if they don't comply. That's because it is YOU who are haters, and I include the supposedly friendly Quakers. Just remember, the Quakers run an elitist school in D.C. so that politicians, such as the Obamas, don't have to send their kids to public schools where the black folks hang out.
Look, suppose I run a photography business. A gay couple comes in and wants me to take a marriage (or a civil union, or a commitment ceremony, whatever) photo. I decline, because I choose not to recgnize whatever contract exists between the two of them. You will demand that the law punish me, take my business license, fine me, or whatever. That's because you are haters. The couple could get photos somewhere else. It's not as if I provided a unique, critical service such as ambulance.
The catholic church is just a big old corporation that got its' start before there were corporations, religions and emplires being the only source of amasssing power over many. Of course they give benefits to employees, many times because they are required by law and/or competiton with other companies. I think teaching children to believe in fairytales and sexist division of roles borders on child abuse, but I am not about to advocate making these things illegal becasue I don't support them. this is America, we never have lived in a uniculture, as long as we make nice with each other, our society will thrive.
RobtA

Santa Cruz, CA

#22 Mar 1, 2009
Ah, but I do not advocate making same-sex "marriage" (or civil unions illegal. Rather, I refuse legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" or civil unions if they emulate marriage, particularly in regards to things such as adoption.

There is a difference. If something is illegal, it means that it is punished. If a same-sex couple wants so say they are married, or civilly unionized, it is fine by me. I do not advocate that they be punished for saying it. I do not advocate that they be punished for doing whatever it is they do when I am not around.

If something is legally recognized, it means that it creates rights and obligations. The obligations fall upon society in general, or upon individuals who are not party to the arrangement. It would punish ME if I choose not to go along. That has actually happened elsewhere, in the case of photography (which is why I chose the example).

As for the RC church as a corporation, yes. But The Quakers have a far more severe effect on government and society, by influencing radical politicans and (particularly) justices who over-rule the people. There is no difference between judge-imposed leftist law, and the Spanish Inquisition.
The only Deviate

Hayward, CA

#23 Mar 1, 2009
Boby M wrote:
I guess these local Quakers have never read the Bible nor are they familiar with the imoral deviated perverted sexual actions of homosexual practioners!
is you and your twisted mind

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Society of Friends Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Quakers object to funding for developing milita... Dec '14 OwenEverett 1
News Daniel Boone and his family found freedom in th... (Dec '08) Jan '14 confused 15
Philip Gulley and James Mulholland (May '07) Dec '13 David 22
News Huntsville's Quakers keep peaceful traditions o... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Nassar 1
I want to do something to make change (Mar '13) Mar '13 Kelsea Rogers 1
throw the sermon on the mount overboard (Mar '13) Mar '13 god 1
quakers have become such statists/leftists (Feb '13) Feb '13 god 1
More from around the web