Across California, Pro-prop. 8 ads inundate TV

An excited young girl tells her mother that her teacher told her "I can marry a princess." A woman asks her friend whether she's willing "to eliminate rights and have our laws treat people differently." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom loudly proclaims that same-sex marriage is coming to California, "like it or not." Campaigns on each side of Proposition 8, the proposed same-sex marriage ban, are spending 30 seconds - and millions of dollars - on TV ads to get the story they want out to voters, sometimes with little regard for the fine print. In the past two weeks, backers of Prop. 8 have saturated the airwaves with a pair of hard-hitting ads, including one featuring Newsom, warning Californians that supporters of traditional marriage will be sued over their personal beliefs, that churches opposed to same-sex marriage could lose their tax exemptions and that "gay marriage will be taught in public schools" if Prop. 8 loses on Nov. 4. "People watch TV," said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign. "The ads are doing a good job of dramatizing the threat. It lets people know there are real consequences to not passing Prop. 8." How real those consequences are depends on who's being asked. "We're concerned when people spend millions of dollars to lie to Californians," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader in the anti-Prop. 8 fight. "These charges are lies, and the other campaign knows it." Kors and others argue that same-sex marriage will have no effect on churches, schools or opponents of such unions. Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and churches there still have tax exemptions and people still complain about it without being forced into court.</p> More of this story.

[Misti Wilde]

Half of the people in the world are liars. It's hard to come to any agreement. I wish you the best of luck and keep an eye on Texas. I've had a grip on Texan teens for 4 years and they are ready to fight. Most of them are 19 now and in college. I give my home state 4 years tops and know my kids, not just my birth children, but the hundreds I've befriended over these past 4 years will get the job done. And I will take my share of the credit. Teens are my business, they're what I do best, and I've got a good group coming.I have faith in them. They're amazing individuals and super intelligent. They WON'T put up with lies. Texas is going to get a face lift.

[nhjeff]

Misti Wilde wrote:

Half of the people in the world are liars. It's hard to come to any agreement. I wish you the best of luck and keep an eye on Texas. I've had a grip on Texan teens for 4 years and they are ready to fight. Most of them are 19 now and in college. I give my home state 4 years tops and know my kids, not just my birth children, but the hundreds I've befriended over these past 4 years will get the job done. And I will take my share of the credit. Teens are my business, they're what I do best, and I've got a good group coming.I have faith in them. They're amazing individuals and super intelligent. They WON'T put up with lies. Texas is going to get a face lift.

Thanks, Kristen! More power to you... and your kids!

[Misti Wilde]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Kristen! More power to you... and your kids!

Aw, Kristen's one of my little geniuses. I'm Misti Wilde. Thanks for the encouragement.

[Emily]

MA has only been performing legal same sex marriages for about five years now and already some churches have lost their tax-exempt status, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to close it's doors because it was forced by the government to make a compromise of standards or to close down, and children as young as kindergarten have come home with books from "diversity" packets that educate children on homosexuality and homosexual families. It is one thing to argue that this is fine and how it should be and how you hope it turns out in CA, but to lie and deny that these consequences will follow weakens your argument. Be honest with yourselves.

[Robert In West Hollywood]

Emily wrote:

MA has only been performing legal same sex marriages for about five years now and already some churches have lost their tax-exempt status, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to close it's doors because it was forced by the government to make a compromise of standards or to close down, and children as young as kindergarten have come home with books from "diversity" packets that educate children on homosexuality and homosexual families. It is one thing to argue that this is fine and how it should be and how you hope it turns out in CA, but to lie and deny that these consequences will follow weakens your argument. Be honest with yourselves.

Liar. The Catholic Adoption Agency's CHOSE to close rather than comply with the Massachusetts non-discrimination laws. Their issue had NOTHING to do with marriage. No church in Massachusetts has lost it's tax exempt status over marriage. They have lost their tax exemptions over becoming politically involved in trying to repeal the equal marriage protections afforded to ALL citizens of Massachusetts but not one church has lost it's tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex marriages. As far as educating children goes. That is the most bullshit argument of them all. No school teaches ANY children of that age about sexual relations between opposite or same sex couples. Your lies and deceit is so typical for a christian bigot. The only way you can try to force you point of view on the world is by lying to people in order to trick them into thinking you're right. You should have your tongue cut out for such behavior...

[nhjeff]

Emily wrote:

MA has only been performing legal same sex marriages for about five years now and already some churches have lost their tax-exempt status, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to close it's doors because it was forced by the government to make a compromise of standards or to close down, and children as young as kindergarten have come home with books from "diversity" packets that educate children on homosexuality and homosexual families. It is one thing to argue that this is fine and how it should be and how you hope it turns out in CA, but to lie and deny that these consequences will follow weakens your argument. Be honest with yourselves.

Actually, the adoption agency affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church lost its charter because it elevated discriminatory church doctrine above the best interests of the children. We should all be glad that such people no longer make decisions about who can adopt which child.

As for those books, lots of schools are providing them to children whether same-sex marriage is legal in the state or not. It's called educating children about the world we actually live in. And Heather can have two mommies in Alabama just as well as Vermont, Massachusetts, or California.

[ElPasoGuy]

Please provide us with links to all this important information. Surely you have some right?

Emily wrote:

MA has only been performing legal same sex marriages for about five years now and already some churches have lost their tax-exempt status, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to close it's doors because it was forced by the government to make a compromise of standards or to close down, and children as young as kindergarten have come home with books from "diversity" packets that educate children on homosexuality and homosexual families. It is one thing to argue that this is fine and how it should be and how you hope it turns out in CA, but to lie and deny that these consequences will follow weakens your argument. Be honest with yourselves.

[Emily]

definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
definition of intolerant:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

I am no intolerant of your view points, I enjoy listening to them and respect your agency to have such opinions. I am not trying to make you feel the same way I do, rather express my feelings after reading this article. According to the definitions above, it appears as though YOU are strongly partial to your own group and that YOU are unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

You accuse me of lying, but I am not lying about anything. I feel that the claim that anyone who is against prop 8 is a gay hater and a christian bigot is quite a lie. It is possible to disagree about an issue and still love a person. I disagree with those who drink and drive, but I also have friends that do those things and I still love them. I am not a bigot. I rejoice in the agency we all have to free speech and to acknowledge and practice our beliefs.

The closing of the adoption agency did have something to do with marriage. It is only because same sex marriage was legalized that the religion had to begin under law to allow their children to be adopted in same sex marriage households.

Here is a link to the evidence that school children are exposed to education involving marriage http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bc...

[Tony C]

Emily wrote:

definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
definition of intolerant:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
I am no intolerant of your view points, I enjoy listening to them and respect your agency to have such opinions. I am not trying to make you feel the same way I do, rather express my feelings after reading this article. According to the definitions above, it appears as though YOU are strongly partial to your own group and that YOU are unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
You accuse me of lying, but I am not lying about anything. I feel that the claim that anyone who is against prop 8 is a gay hater and a christian bigot is quite a lie. It is possible to disagree about an issue and still love a person. I disagree with those who drink and drive, but I also have friends that do those things and I still love them. I am not a bigot. I rejoice in the agency we all have to free speech and to acknowledge and practice our beliefs.
The closing of the adoption agency did have something to do with marriage. It is only because same sex marriage was legalized that the religion had to begin under law to allow their children to be adopted in same sex marriage households.
Here is a link to the evidence that school children are exposed to education involving marriage http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bc...

You're equating my marriage with drinking and driving.

May you rot in Hell.

[ElPasoGuy]

That's not proof that is propaganda and has nothing to do with the issue. They're arguing about parental rights and the book was sent home to inform parents. If parents choose to not let their children learn that everyone in our country is equal that's their problem not ours. He was put in jail because he refused to leave the school offices. They sued and lost and went on to home school their kid. That's their right. Religious beliefs have no place in the taxpayers school. Keep that in the church not the public square. PERIOD. Next!

The closing of the adoption agency was a choice made by the catholic church. They can't dictate who is and who is not a good parent because of their religious belief and still receive public funds. What they do with their own money (which it isn't it's DONATIONS) is their business. If they want public money they play by public laws not their own little (very rich) kingdom.

Now about those churches that were closed down. Where's your proof.

Emily wrote:

definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
definition of intolerant:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
I am no intolerant of your view points, I enjoy listening to them and respect your agency to have such opinions. I am not trying to make you feel the same way I do, rather express my feelings after reading this article. According to the definitions above, it appears as though YOU are strongly partial to your own group and that YOU are unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
You accuse me of lying, but I am not lying about anything. I feel that the claim that anyone who is against prop 8 is a gay hater and a christian bigot is quite a lie. It is possible to disagree about an issue and still love a person. I disagree with those who drink and drive, but I also have friends that do those things and I still love them. I am not a bigot. I rejoice in the agency we all have to free speech and to acknowledge and practice our beliefs.
The closing of the adoption agency did have something to do with marriage. It is only because same sex marriage was legalized that the religion had to begin under law to allow their children to be adopted in same sex marriage households.
Here is a link to the evidence that school children are exposed to education involving marriage http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bc...

[DontCallMeByMySl aveName]

Any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage should be pad locked by the state and te church leaders and members be jailed on hate crimes charges. As well as a tax exemption loss retroactive to the churches founding.

[Misti Wilde]

Emily wrote:

definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
definition of intolerant:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
I am no intolerant of your view points, I enjoy listening to them and respect your agency to have such opinions. I am not trying to make you feel the same way I do, rather express my feelings after reading this article. According to the definitions above, it appears as though YOU are strongly partial to your own group and that YOU are unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
You accuse me of lying, but I am not lying about anything. I feel that the claim that anyone who is against prop 8 is a gay hater and a christian bigot is quite a lie. It is possible to disagree about an issue and still love a person. I disagree with those who drink and drive, but I also have friends that do those things and I still love them. I am not a bigot. I rejoice in the agency we all have to free speech and to acknowledge and practice our beliefs.
The closing of the adoption agency did have something to do with marriage. It is only because same sex marriage was legalized that the religion had to begin under law to allow their children to be adopted in same sex marriage households.
Here is a link to the evidence that school children are exposed to education involving marriage http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bc...

Emily, we aren't intolerant of different view points. We're hurt and personally offended. You're trying to convince us and yourself we closed down an orphanage. That's hurtful to those of us so willing and prepared to adopt right now. They won't be convinced, they'll be hurt that people so easily believe such terrible things about them when all they want to be are good parents. A couple above me here felt as though you compared their love to drinking and driving. That's painful. We love just like you and yours love. You're also saying that education about homsexuality and homosexual families is a "negative' result of the marriage initiative. That personally hurts me and my children. We don't believe it's a negative thing for other children to learn about us, but it's hurtful that you choose to degrade our family in such a way. That's getting a little too close to home Emily. I'm a mama and your damn right I won't tolerate you speaking negatively about my family. No mother would. That doesn't make us bigots. It makes us human beings. And you are lying, and manipulating, and trying to shame us into feeling the same way you do. You're delusional to think you can insult a person and/or their family and then pass them off as bigots when they defend themselves like any other person would. We're not defending an insult to our collective homosexuality here, like some may do for their religion, as much as we are defending the personal insults we get. You're mean

[Zachary]

Beautiful Misti!! Just Beautiful. I wish that your post could appear of the front page of every California paper. It speaks the truth and it speaks of love. Opposing prop. 8 is as much about opposing "Hate" and promoting equality as it is about marriage!

[Tony C]

DontCallMeByMySlaveName wrote:

Any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage should be pad locked by the state and te church leaders and members be jailed on hate crimes charges. As well as a tax exemption loss retroactive to the churches founding.

I disagree.

There are plenty of churches that perform gay marriages. They did mine.

But no church should be forced to do it, just as no church is forced to marry straight people they deem unfit.

We and they do have freedom of religion, after all.

[Jessica]

Homosexuals may not choose the fact that they are attracted to the same sex, but they choose to act on these attractions and in so doing define themselves as practicing homosexuals.

By this choice, they forfeit the right to naturally procreate-- unequivocally the greatest privilege and power we can hold. We marvel at the creations of literature, art, architecture, and technology, but in life the greatest creation is made when a man and woman come together to create a human being with the capacity to think, love, and create. This is what truly separates homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages and makes them inherently unequal. How can you deny this? I believe procreation and the loving raising of children is the most important purpose of marriage, albeit love and commitment are essential as well, marriage would not matter to the government if it weren't for its critical role in childrearing. Romance in marriage is a pretty contemporary notion, and has throughout time been secondary to marrying to create a stable environment in which a mother and father can create and raise children. I am sure some homosexual couples love and treat each other better than some heterosexual couples do and some homosexual couples would love and treat children better than some heterosexual couples, but the potential for a same-sex realtionship is UNEQUAL to a heterosexual relationship and it is odd that people are fighting so hard for recognition of same-sex relationships as equal. They cannot be. I believe homosexuals should be treated with love, respect, and dignity as should every human being, but I do not think we need to change the definition of marriage to acommodate people who have chosen to pursue relationships inferior (NOT in love or attraction-- but in the ability to create) to heterosexual relationships.

[Emily]

DontCallMeByMySl aveName
Texarkana, TX


Any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage should be pad locked by the state and te church leaders and members be jailed on hate crimes charges. As well as a tax exemption loss retroactive to the churches founding.

Thank you for admitting what your campaign is ultimately trying to cover up. Prop 8 eventually leads to the loss of religious freedoms, because if denying homosexuals the right to marry is under law considered discrimination, religions that consider homosexuality a sin as taught in the bible, will be forced to either compromise their values, doctrines and beliefs, or leave America. Our forefathers came to America for religious freedom and the implications of Prop 8 threaten this. I appreciate your honesty, I can respect that you want your lifestyle to be completely accepted by all facets of society I on the other hand, have different views. Thank goodness we live in a democracy that serves the will of the people.

And Misti, I don't deny that you are a wonderful mother and love your children with all your heart. I do not mean to personally offend you by my beliefs, and I am genuinely sorry that I did. However, I would appreciate the same respect in the fact that I would like to raise my family in a society where families raised by a loving biological mother and father is the ideal. And I'm not trying to lie, manipulate or shame you into feeling the same way I do. I am not expecting you to change your views, I just thought that maybe I could express mine.

[Jerald]

Jessica wrote:

Homosexuals may not choose the fact that they are attracted to the same sex, but they choose to act on these attractions and in so doing define themselves as practicing homosexuals.
By this choice, they forfeit the right to naturally procreate-- unequivocally the greatest privilege and power we can hold. We marvel at the creations of literature, art, architecture, and technology, but in life the greatest creation is made when a man and woman come together to create a human being with the capacity to think, love, and create. This is what truly separates homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages and makes them inherently unequal. How can you deny this? I believe procreation and the loving raising of children is the most important purpose of marriage, albeit love and commitment are essential as well, marriage would not matter to the government if it weren't for its critical role in childrearing. Romance in marriage is a pretty contemporary notion, and has throughout time been secondary to marrying to create a stable environment in which a mother and father can create and raise children. I am sure some homosexual couples love and treat each other better than some heterosexual couples do and some homosexual couples would love and treat children better than some heterosexual couples, but the potential for a same-sex realtionship is UNEQUAL to a heterosexual relationship and it is odd that people are fighting so hard for recognition of same-sex relationships as equal. They cannot be. I believe homosexuals should be treated with love, respect, and dignity as should every human being, but I do not think we need to change the definition of marriage to acommodate people who have chosen to pursue relationships inferior (NOT in love or attraction-- but in the ability to create) to heterosexual relationships.

Based on your "logic", all infertile couples, those who choose not to have children, or those women who are past menopause should not be able to marry and their marriages should be ruled invalid. My 70-year old widowed aunt got married last month in a lovely ceremony to a local widower. You can't tell me that their marriage is inferior to anyone else's simply because they can no longer procreate. And I'm so glad that she invited my partner and I to attend (there were several gay couples in attendance). She supports us as much as we support her.

Why do you have such a problem with it? How does my marriage to my partner affect you in any way? Are you or your spouse likely to "turn gay" because of our relationship? Will marriages all over the place suddenly break up because of our marriage? Are you really this stupid?

[Jerald]

Emily wrote:

...Prop 8 eventually leads to the loss of religious freedoms, because if denying homosexuals the right to marry is under law considered discrimination, religions that consider homosexuality a sin as taught in the bible, will be forced to either compromise their values, doctrines and beliefs, or leave America....

Please provide evidence for these claims.

[Josh in New Orleans]

DontCallMeByMySlaveName wrote:

Any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage should be pad locked by the state and te church leaders and members be jailed on hate crimes charges. As well as a tax exemption loss retroactive to the churches founding.

As a gay man, I will be the first to say I do not support doing anything such as that! I will defend religious freedom and the freedom of speech every bit as much as I am a supporter of equality. If a church doesn't want to marry same gender couples, that is their constitutional right. I only wish to see my constitutional rights protected just the same. I could give a s**t less about forcing churches to preform a civic duties which fall outside of their opinion of acceptable. A public service such as adoption might be another matter, but I think an exception should be made for the sake of the children in cases where church run facilities are not the only adoption agencies.

[Josh in New Orleans]

Jessica wrote:

Homosexuals may not choose the fact that they are attracted to the same sex, but they choose to act on these attractions and in so doing define themselves as practicing homosexuals.
By this choice, they forfeit the right to naturally procreate-- unequivocally the greatest privilege and power we can hold. We marvel at the creations of literature, art, architecture, and technology, but in life the greatest creation is made when a man and woman come together to create a human being with the capacity to think, love, and create. This is what truly separates homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages and makes them inherently unequal. How can you deny this? I believe procreation and the loving raising of children is the most important purpose of marriage, albeit love and commitment are essential as well, marriage would not matter to the government if it weren't for its critical role in childrearing. Romance in marriage is a pretty contemporary notion, and has throughout time been secondary to marrying to create a stable environment in which a mother and father can create and raise children. I am sure some homosexual couples love and treat each other better than some heterosexual couples do and some homosexual couples would love and treat children better than some heterosexual couples, but the potential for a same-sex realtionship is UNEQUAL to a heterosexual relationship and it is odd that people are fighting so hard for recognition of same-sex relationships as equal. They cannot be. I believe homosexuals should be treated with love, respect, and dignity as should every human being, but I do not think we need to change the definition of marriage to acommodate people who have chosen to pursue relationships inferior (NOT in love or attraction-- but in the ability to create) to heterosexual relationships.

1. Equal and fair treatment under the law is a constitutional right.
2. Civil marriage (not the religious or social institution) is not what a marriage is, but the rights that go along with it. These are documents granting two individuals the nessessary rights of kinship to one another and simply that.
3. "marriage" is an improper term for use within government as it endorses religion. What we now call "marriage" licenses should be retitled as something else.
Taking all this into consideration, suppose the documents of civil marriage (marriage licenses) were instead called something like certificates of civil partnership. in that case you may be able to make the distinction between what is for you a civil institution, and a religious/social one. One group (heterosexuals) having exclusive access to these rights hurts our families. We're tired of our rights being trampled on.
Your opisition to homosexuality is no reason to turn America's promise of equality into a hypocrisy.