'Yes' on Prop. 8

Full story: San Gabriel Valley Tribune

I read with surprise the opposition of the Tribune to Proposition 8 , the proposition that provides that only marriage between a man and a woman would be valid and recognized in California.
Comments
1 - 20 of 7,359 Comments Last updated Dec 1, 2010
First Prev
of 368
Next Last
Dexter - San Diego

Chula Vista, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

11

8

8

California public schools (non-private and non-religious) DO NOT teach any sort of marriage to children. It is expected of parents to teach their children and their responsibility at home. The arguments that "Gay marriage will be crammed down my children's throats" are invalid and a fear tactic used by typical conservatives to lie to uninformed voters to vote for intolerance and typical institutionalized American discrimination. The San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles Time, San Francisco Chronicle and the citizens of those cities all say NO to Prop 8 and NO to hate.
Raymond Howard

Alhambra, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

7

6

4

Dexter - San Diego wrote:
California public schools (non-private and non-religious) DO NOT teach any sort of marriage to children. It is expected of parents to teach their children and their responsibility at home. The arguments that "Gay marriage will be crammed down my children's throats" are invalid and a fear tactic used by typical conservatives to lie to uninformed voters to vote for intolerance and typical institutionalized American discrimination. The San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles Time, San Francisco Chronicle and the citizens of those cities all say NO to Prop 8 and NO to hate.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/

“dyssonance hotmail”

Since: Mar 07

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Protect marriage: vote No on 8

don't be lied to anymore. Don't let them use fear to push you around.
MikeNYC

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

5

4

2

Why would any moral person support a proposition that may destroy the lives and marriages of more than 11,000 couples? It absolutely boggles the mind that ANYONE could have so much hate in them. Obviously this is no longer a proposition to "Save Marriage" but has become a proposition to destroy marriage. The people of California have for many years led the country in the moral direction and I hope that continues. I can't imagine any state wants to be known as the state that destroyed the lives and marriages of thousands of people.
Langdon Augers

Kilkenny, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Marriage is, first and foremost, a civil ceremony first and foremost. Case in point, two persons can be married without any religious ceremony. Even marriages conducted as part of a religious ceremony are only legal when recognized by their respective state as a civil union. Therefore, marriage is by definition a civil act, and, when combined with secular nature of our state and federal governments, religious arguments have no legal basis in this argument. The GOVERNMENT of the United States, and as a result of the Supremacy Clause of Constitution, so are the 50 states, so religion has no legal ground in this argument.
What is there to protect? Really? To quote Thomas Jefferson, granted, he was referring to religion, wrote: "It makes no difference if my neighbor believes in one god or a thousand, it neither picks my pocket nor blinds my eye." What right have you to intefere in the lives of others? Those in favor of this amendment offer only slippery slope allegations of sexual impropriety, bigamy, beastiality, and immorality as if they were exclusive to homosexuals. Open eyes makes one realize that improper behavior is a sad fact amongst all people, regardless of orientation.Straw man arguments rooted in wild accusations and paranoia are akin to the same arguments made by previous generations about interracial marriage, women's rights, slavery, etc., etc.
The fact of the matter is that denying tax-paying, law-abiding, decent AMERICANS the right to marry is a stark violation of the nature of our Constitution. How can we claim to be an Enlightened nation when we deny rights to our own citizenry? The fact that people wish to restrict their rights is a form of repression that is inhumane and frightening. Also, there is a clear distinction between advocating for gay marriage and sex education (which is sorely neglected), or for that matter, illegal and amoral acts such as bigamy.
Marriage as a stepping stone to procreation? Does this mean that marriages in which one partner is sterile is less of a marriage? What of couples (like my wife and I) who chose to not have children? Is our marriage a sham? Am I less of a man? Is she less of a woman? Marriage is about companionship (look up the history of companionate marriage), love, compromise, and joy--qualities not exclusive to any one gender.
As for the "activist judges," it is their job to interpret law, and to strike down those which are deemed unconstitutional, despite the will of the people. As a side note, were you as upset with the Gore v. Bush ruling? Would you deem Brown v. Board of Education as a bad decision despite the fact that a majority of Americans were in favor of segregation? This is the nature of our Republic (both federal and state). Perhaps a less-flawed proposition could have made it through the courts, but this was legally irresponsible. Have you read the actual decision, or do you just base your rage on your prejudices?
It is a sad fact that proponnents of Prop. 8 are in line with the sad history of this country where minority groups have been sadly, and unjustly repressed. Fortunately, we do have a history of overturning said outrages thanks to activists (yes, even judges and lawyers) who have fought and died for equal treatment under the law. As voters, we have a chance to undo a grave injustice which says that people of a particular sexuality are less human and have lesser rights as Americans than others. What lesson does THAT teach our children?
Vote no on this proposition so that our children can be taught without contradiction that our people are the freest on earth.
Raymond Howard

Alhambra, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

11

9

8

MikeNYC wrote:
Why would any moral person support a proposition that may destroy the lives and marriages of more than 11,000 couples? It absolutely boggles the mind that ANYONE could have so much hate in them. Obviously this is no longer a proposition to "Save Marriage" but has become a proposition to destroy marriage. The people of California have for many years led the country in the moral direction and I hope that continues. I can't imagine any state wants to be known as the state that destroyed the lives and marriages of thousands of people.
"Marriage" is between a man and a woman.

What the GLBT has between one another is some kind of affinity; but it is not a marriage as between a man and a woman!
Resist Ignorance

Huntsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

6

4

2

Stop the hate, vote NO on 8!
Concerned

Salt Lake City, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Proposition 8 is not a question of civil rights. It is a question of the definition of marriage.

All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. have the right to marry. But what is marriage? Marriage is a word used to describe a social institution created by the people. So who has the right to define marriage? Members of society! So who can set the guidelines for what marriage means? Society.

Proposition 8 is a perfectly legitimate effort to restore what California voters chose in 2000: Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is important to a majority of California voters, and so it is part of California law.

Yes on Proposition 8!

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

3

3

2

How is the Church showing it's true bigot self, as in shutting the doors on all adoptions in order to stop possible gay adoptions, a reason not to allow same-sex marriages?
MikeNYC

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

5

3

2

Raymond Howard wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage" is between a man and a woman.
What the GLBT has between one another is some kind of affinity; but it is not a marriage as between a man and a woman!
Regardless of your personal prejudices, marriage is and will always be between two consenting adults. The fact that you support the possible destruction of over 11,000 marriages and families merely shows you for the selfish, hate filled person you are.
MikeNYC

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Concerned wrote:
Proposition 8 is not a question of civil rights. It is a question of the definition of marriage.
All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. have the right to marry. But what is marriage? Marriage is a word used to describe a social institution created by the people. So who has the right to define marriage? Members of society! So who can set the guidelines for what marriage means? Society.
Proposition 8 is a perfectly legitimate effort to restore what California voters chose in 2000: Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is important to a majority of California voters, and so it is part of California law.
Yes on Proposition 8!
By your standards, society should have been able to maintain anti-miscegenation laws. It is interesting to see the anti-marriage crowd yell that marriage was established by God and when that doesn't work they yell it is established by society. Well both society and the Bible supported slavery and that no longer exists in this country. The fact remains that in this country, the majority cannot over ride the rights of any minority and to attempt to do so is simply un-American.
Raymond Howard

Alhambra, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Langdon Augers wrote:
Marriage is, first and foremost, a civil ceremony first and foremost. Case in point, two persons can be married without any religious ceremony. Even marriages conducted as part of a religious ceremony are only legal when recognized by their respective state as a civil union. Therefore, marriage is....
It is argued that there is a minority amongst blacks, i.g. in South, and East L.A. or Chicago that would prefer that their children attend all black schools. As is, amongst those populations in those areas it is already exclusively black, as a "Anglo-Saxon-American ",(politically correct)population isn't really present there and isn't wanted there either.

Still, in virtue of civil rights and affirmative action these people are able to avail themselves of employment as the rest of society does. How come in these areas they have the highest un-employment rate and the highest crime rate in the country? Opression from "whitey?" I don't think so!

If Afro-Americans form the model of the new-society, then what have we to expect from the minority status of the GLBT in the future, albeit most seem to come from fairly affluent backgrounds primarily from the Anglo-Saxon variety.
John Bisceglia

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Would heterosexuals allow themselves to be taxed the same as all Americans while being denied the basic constitutional right of civil marriage?

I don't think so. Some of us in the LGBT Community have realized that regardless of whether our tax resistance brings about any change or not, THAT'S NOT WHY WE DO IT.

Spending our hard-earned money for UN-equal rights is insanity. We don't care about opinions anymore - we just refuse to be taxed while current US laws that discriminate against our FAMILIES and CHILDREN. And we will fight the IRS - The Agents of Injustice.
MikeNYC

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Raymond Howard wrote:
<quoted text>
It is argued that there is a minority amongst blacks, i.g. in South, and East L.A. or Chicago that would prefer that their children attend all black schools. As is, amongst those populations in those areas it is already exclusively black, as a "Anglo-Saxon-American ",(politically correct)population isn't really present there and isn't wanted there either.
Still, in virtue of civil rights and affirmative action these people are able to avail themselves of employment as the rest of society does. How come in these areas they have the highest un-employment rate and the highest crime rate in the country? Opression from "whitey?" I don't think so!
If Afro-Americans form the model of the new-society, then what have we to expect from the minority status of the GLBT in the future, albeit most seem to come from fairly affluent backgrounds primarily from the Anglo-Saxon variety.
Well at least you're consistent. You seem to be prejudiced against everyone who isn't just like you. I thought thought your kind died out with George Wallace........
Mark Franken

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The so-called "San Francisco activist judges" are actually republican appointees. It is widely known that this is no an activist court. I agree that the root of marriage is between two people. I don't buy the claims that it opens the doors to polygamy. Those are frankly scare tactics.

The thought that somehow government can force a church to marry gay people is absurd. We have a long held tradition in this country of separation of church and state. Those principles and our US constitution trumps that argument.

Why deprive loving couples of enjoying the benefits of marriage? Isn't our society better served by promoting marriage? Voting no on Prop 8 would bolster family values.

Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”


Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage 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.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent's objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don't agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won't affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won't have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Concerned wrote:
Proposition 8 is not a question of civil rights. It is a question of the definition of marriage.
All Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. have the right to marry. But what is marriage? Marriage is a word used to describe a social institution created by the people. So who has the right to define marriage? Members of society! So who can set the guidelines for what marriage means? Society.
Proposition 8 is a perfectly legitimate effort to restore what California voters chose in 2000: Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is important to a majority of California voters, and so it is part of California law.
Yes on Proposition 8!
You appear to offer what some may see as a rational approach to the subject, but your position betrays a blatant disregard for the concept of equal protection of the law and the preservation of minority rights in a constitutional republic. We do not live in a democracy, where the majority gets to define rights to the exclusion of the minority. And the suggestion that "all Americans regardless of... sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. have the right to marry" is a meaningless right when it offers nothing to people who cannot exercise that right to marry the person they love, only classes of people to whom they are not attracted. The claim that all gay people have an equal right to marry since we, too, can marry members opposite sex is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of rational thinkers.

Since: Aug 08

Venice Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Protect the human rights of Californians

VOTE NO ON PROP 8
http://www.noonprop8.com/government_video
David

Cathedral City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Every one knows that if we allow gay marriage, we will be surrounded by gays because it is a proven fact that homesexuality is contagious. Even talking about it too much can turn a person gay. Gay people speak of being equal. Every one knows thats not true. Thats why the Red cross doesn't allow them to donate blood. Teachers will be forced to teach of gay marriage in school. Whats next? Teaching evolution???

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 11, 2008
 
David wrote:
Every one knows that if we allow gay marriage, we will be surrounded by gays because it is a proven fact that homesexuality is contagious. Even talking about it too much can turn a person gay. Gay people speak of being equal. Every one knows thats not true. Thats why the Red cross doesn't allow them to donate blood. Teachers will be forced to teach of gay marriage in school. Whats next? Teaching evolution???
&wa tch_response
Aaron

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 11, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

i believe all this is ridiculous they already passed the gay's can get married let them be i am in no way gay but how are you going to tell someone how to live there life, what if the government decided it's unlawful for a man and woman to be married? i guarantee every single person would ignore it because its stupid to even think that someone who puts there pants on one leg on at a time just as everyone else is going to tell you who and who you cant spend the rest of your life with. i am a 20 years old and when i hear the word "marriage" i dont think man and woman i think of someone finalizing there relationship whether they be 2 different races or the same sex. our society is so destroyed because theres always someone trying to say what they believe is right so let me just bow down to you because you obviously know it all.. those who our against it get your head out of your butt and stop trying to tell someone how to live there lives we are in the millenium now NO ON PROP 8

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 368
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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Calif. Lawmaker: Leadership Could Free Marine J... 23 min Eduardo 8
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 25 min Jacques from Ottawa 177,255
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 26 min Farfel 54,787
California's Bullet Train: No Plan, Not Enough ... 31 min rgbenson 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Mothra 46,267
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Pea solved 200,564
The latest on damaging earthquake in California 7 hr nancie is hot 12
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••