Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Please vote YES on California Prop 8

It is with great fear and trepidation that I start this post. Last week I decided I should write about Prop 8, but because of the high emotions on both sides I’ve been reluctant.

While Janine and I blog on a variety of topics, we’ve chosen to avoid politics most of the time. My experience has been that political discourse rarely changes people’s minds. Thomas Sowell makes the point in his book Conflict of Visions that most political beliefs stem from certain fundamental attitudes, and these are not addressed.

One of the reasons we blog is to make a difference in the world. Our hope is that through our blogging a few more people will decide to homeschool, and maybe a few homeschoolers will stick with it when the going gets rough. The result will be a few more children with a good education who grow up to make a difference in the world.

This post is aimed at a small audience, those who live in California and haven’t decided how they will vote on Prop 8. I hope to encourage you to vote YES on Prop 8, the Defense of Marriage initiative.


History

Eight years ago California faced the same basic issue in voting on Prop 22. The whole intent of Prop 22 was to define marriage for legal issues as being between a man and a woman. It was passed by a surprising 61%, this was a three to two margin. A large majority of Californians agreed that for the purposes of law marriage was what Americans had traditionally considered marriage, between one man and one woman.

Earlier this year four activist judges decided to ignore the will of the people and basically passed their own law saying women could marry women, and men could marry men.


The following are a few reasons why I urge you to vote
YES on Prop 8
.


Democracy

Our country is built on laws. One of the fundamental beliefs is that we are governed in part by the will of the people. Through history the majority have used the word marriage to mean a very specific institution with an understood set of rights and responsibilities.

Vote YES on Prop 8 and tell activist judges they don’t get to make new laws. New laws should be passed by the legislators and by the people through the initiative process.


Legal Tradition

Over the decades hundreds, maybe thousands, of laws have been passed related to marriage. We have laws on the books on the rights of a spouse, how marriage is taught in the government schools, inheritance issues, and so on. By deciding by decree that the fundamental meaning of the word is being changed in a legal sense, the intent of all these laws are being twisted and abused.


Vote YES on Prop 8 to reaffirm the traditional meaning of the word marriage.


Free Speech

Language is key to the free expression of idea. We on both sides of this issue need language to have a discussion. When the 4 activist judges changed the legal definition of marriage, they in essence made the word "marriage" meaningless. Their true intent was to prevent the expression of ideas contrary to their own. Our Proposition 8 yard sign have been stolen 3 times. In fact, every sign on our street has been stolen at least once, if not twice. It has been reported that over 200,000 Proposition 8 signs have been stolen so far.

Vote YES on Prop 8 to protect free speech.


Respect of God's laws

God has said in both the Old and New Testaments that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.



Vote YES on Prop 8 to say you will follow God’s guidance and commandments.






If you want more information, or wish to support Prop 8, check out the Protect Marriage web site.



Ground rules for discussion

Because this is such a hot topic I’m expecting there may be a few comments. Comments are welcome as long as they are respectful and not too long.


(Now to go find some flame proof clothing.)


----------
Technorati tags: parenting, children, Prop 8, California, Marriage, election

33 comments:

Dena said...

I'm respectfully unsubscribing from this blog. You really should've avoided politics.

Frally said...

Even though I disagree with you on your above post, I can at least commend you for it not being a hate-fuelled rant like I have read on other parts of the internet. You have stated your views with a respectful tone and I can appreciate that. I hope you see that I wish to maintain that tone in my reply.

Here is where I disagree with your post:
1) There are parts of your country that had (and still have) similar views to minority groups such as blacks. If it weren't for activist judges/lawmakers paving the way for them, then your country would be a lot different to the way it is now. Do you think racial segregation is a good or bad thing? My point is, people can't help being black, just as they can't help being gay. Why should anyone be treated differently for something they can't choose, and essentially doesn't hurt anyone?

2) Laws are changed all the time. It's not that big a deal. It also used to be legal to be allowed to beat your spouse. Has banning this traditional practice changed the meaning of marriage? Marriage used to be a contract between families to maintain property rights. Can you honestly say that marriage still has it's "traditional meaning"?

3) Marriage does not become "meaningless" if you believe in the idea of marriage. I find it an illogical argument considering any drunk heterosexual couple can have a wedding in Las Vegas after knowing each other for 10 minutes. Surely this is more harmful to the "meaning" of marriage than two consenting adults who love each other making a commitment, despite being of the same sex. I'm sorry your sign has been stolen, but there's always going to be someone who disagrees with you. It's the way of the world.

4) Please understand, I am not knocking your religion, I believe you have the right to practise whatever religion you please - but I believe that this goes for everybody. Considering the USA is now a modern, multicultural country, whose God are we talking about? What about the non-religious folk? "Live and let live".

I am not asking you to go be friends with a homosexual. I am not asking you to change your mind about your beliefs. I am asking you to consider that the fabric of society is not held together on whether gay people can marry or not.
FWIW, I don't live in the USA. I live in a country where Gay people can marry and I can report that life goes on as normal. Everyone's already forgotten why it was such a big deal in the first place. I'm sure you will too.

Henry Cate said...

"Even though I disagree with you on your above post, I can at least commend you for it not being a hate-fuelled rant like I have read on other parts of the internet."

I'm afraid I'm seeing more hate from the pro-gay side. Thousands of signs are being stolen every day. Doing a quick Google blog search turns up lots of mean spirited comments attacking the Pro-Prop 8 supporters. The local news has found several instances of hate from those who claim to want tolerance. The same local news had to go fifty miles away before it could find any thing close to objectionable. What they found were a few No on Prop 8 signs stolen.

Humans come in great variety, and I grant that there are probably a few Pro Prop 8 who are over the top; however, my experience with this issue, it is the anti-traditional marriage forces are spew more hate.

Yellow House Homeschool said...

Also respectfully disagreeing here. Tradition is really not a good reason to keep on doing something. There is room for social progress, and I see gay marriage as such.

Also, if politics is a dangerous subject, an appeal to the Bible is worse and has no place in public life. A civil marriage between any two people is not a religious institution. The state can decide to recognize religious marriages or not as it pleases. People whose religion opposes gay marriage are not obliged to marry another person of the same sex.

Henry Cate said...

"If it weren't for activist judges/lawmakers paving the way for them, then your country would be a lot different to the way it is now."

Your point is comparing apples and oranges.

In the past the law was changed by going through the process of having legislators change the laws. Judges might rule certain laws were unconstitutional, but they won't then dictate new laws.


"Laws are changed all the time. It's not that big a deal. It also used to be legal to be allowed to beat your spouse."

This is a wild goose. You do nothing to address the main points. Your logic seems to be that laws change, some changes are good, therefor all changes are good.

Clearly laws change, but not every change is good.

This change is not a good change.



Frally, your comment is all over the map. In four sentances you raise eight points. Maybe later in a post I'll try to address a few more of them.



"I am not asking you to go be friends with a homosexual."

For the record I have both family and friends who are homosexual. This is an issue I have studied for years, thought a lot about and talked with friends about.

Frally said...

Henry, your response to my post shows you have only paid attention to the most insignificant part of what I had to say and chosen to ignore anything I've said that actually had any bearing on the issue. I am disappointed, but not surprised. Some people will always see what they choose to see...

Henry Cate said...

"The state can decide to recognize religious marriages or not as it pleases. People whose religion opposes gay marriage are not obliged to marry another person of the same sex."

You seem to be saying that gay marriages won't affect anyone else.

The problem is that when the state of Massachusetts decided to recognize gay marriages as the same, children in public schools were taught that they were the same. This was contrary to the beliefs of the parents. It wasn't something the parents could avoid. Well they could by homeschooling, but they had few other options.

In another state a Christian photographer declined to photograph a union between two lesbians, they took the photographer to court and the court made the photographer pay $7000.

For the last fifty years most of the United States has had a live and let live attitude. The problem is now we are being asked to more than tolerate. We're being told we have to accept and embrace.

Frally said...

Whoops, I didn't realise you were responding in snippets. Although, I now am more stunned by your viewpoint considering you know homsexual people and consider them friends.

Henry Cate said...

"Henry, your response to my post shows you have only paid attention to the most insignificant part of what I had to say and chosen to ignore anything I've said that actually had any bearing on the issue. I am disappointed, but not surprised. Some people will always see what they choose to see..."

This comes across as a condescending response. Rather than ask for a response to a specific issue or two, you assert that I only addressed the "most insignificant part." I'm sorry. I started off addressing your first main points.

I'll try to quickly address a few more of your comments.

"Do you think racial segregation is a good or bad thing?"

Bad.

"My point is, people can't help being black, just as they can't help being gay."

I don't accept this as a valid argument. We all have tendencies, desires, and impulses. There are times I want to hit people, but I haven't hit anyone in thirty years. There are times I want to tell people they are idiots, but I haven't in a long time. Alcoholism runs in my family, so I've never taken the first drink. I happen to find women very attractive, but I have been faithful to my wife.

Just having an impulse doesn't mean you should act on it.


"I find it an illogical argument considering any drunk heterosexual couple can have a wedding in Las Vegas after knowing each other for 10 minutes."

I would be OK with making people wait longer.


"I live in a country where Gay people can marry and I can report that life goes on as normal."

What country do you live in?

Henry Cate said...

"Whoops, I didn't realise you were responding in snippets."

Oh, now your second comment makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion.


"Although, I now am more stunned by your viewpoint considering you know homsexual people and consider them friends."

Why? Why do I have to change my believe in how marriage should be defined just because I have known over a dozen gays and lesbians? Most of them are good people.

But I think it is a mistake for four judges to tell millions of Californians that what they want doesn't matter.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the history lesson.

From the news it wasn't clear that people in California already decided this issue.

John said...

The latest polls have the proposition passing. Will the judges ignore the changes to the California constitution?

Derek said...

Great post, Henry!

On the point about language, I've tried to point out that calling two things that aren't equivalent by the same name is futile. All it does it move the differences into the adjective. So now when we talk about marriage, we have to add the adjective "gay" or "straight."

Everybody already knows they aren't the same, so what do the gay marriage advocates accomplish by forcing people to call them by the same name?

I've read some of the "No on 8" blogs and listened to some of their arguments. It seems what they really want is acceptance and equal treatment under the law. The problem with gay marriage is that it tries to alter a word that is part of a fundamental religious belief of millions of people. By so doing, it creates a backlash which is actually counter-productive to the goal of acceptance.

If gays want to be accepted and treated equally, I think they could start by acknowledging what is already obvious to everyone else -- that they have a different kind of relationship. Acknowledging that difference, we can work toward a positive acceptance and understanding. "Gay" marriage is not the way to achieve that.

-- Derek Taylor

Frally said...

I live in New Zealand.

I guess if you believe Homosexuality is a choice (which I firmly believe it's not), then it will be impossible for us to discuss this topic within the same frame of reference. I had hoped you were able to see what I consider to be logical fallacies in your argument.But our "logic" is too different - What you consider apples and oranges, I consider 2 varieties of apples.

As such, I am withdrawing from the discussion. I now feel I shouldn't have joined it in the first place due to the headache it's given me ;).

All the best.

Henry Cate said...

Derek: Thanks for the feedback.

Frally: One point of clarification, I don't believe our impulses are a choice, I do believe how we chose to act on them is a choice. Proposition 8 doesn't take away from same-sex couples any rights of free association or property, etc.

Thanks for your respectful dialogue and I wish you the best.

emily said...

thanks for this post.

Marriage is our culture’s ultimate expression of equality–it takes one man and one woman to create a family. Even if a marriage can’t have children or choose not to have children the definition of their relationship expresses this equality.

One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

I don't believe government should sanction the marginalization of any parent. And even though some families can't have children, or choose not to have children, you can't separate the child-issue from the marriage issue.

there is a great discussion here:

http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/separate-but-equal/

yes on prop 8!

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said...

Costs to employer health plans will rise. The expansion of the definition of "marriage" by courts is a court-mandated tax increase on employers (and taxpayers, if the State is the employer), without representation.

I am disappointed to see so many libertarians on the other side of this issue.

MamaMcHansen said...

Thank you for the post.

I think that this proposition hits close to home for many Californians, some closer than others.

Why I am voting Yes on 8 is that I do not agree that four judges can take away the voice of the people!!! (61% of voters already voted for this.)

I agree with adding the wording: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” to the state constitution. This is what the people voted for in the 2000 election.

Let's allow the people to change their minds, not four appointed judges!!

Janine Cate said...

>One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

>I don't believe government should sanction the marginalization of any parent. And even though some families can't have children, or choose not to have children, you can't separate the child-issue from the marriage issue.


Thanks Emily. You articulated that well. I am horrified when adults (gay or straight) intentionally burden a child with the loss of a mother or father. Marriage laws of all kinds should be more protective of the needs of children and less concerned about the whims of adults.

Thanks for the link.

Rose said...

And this is totally a homeschool consideration as well. We've already had one news report of a field trip to see 2 teacher "marry." In all my years in public school, nobody ever considered a field trip to see teachers marry. The aquarium, a bakery, the occasional trip to a museum, THOSE were field trips. Then there was the transgender teacher who returned from summer break another gender. The school insisted they couldn't tell parents because of medical privacy. Privacy? How is this an issue that would remain private when the teacher flaunts the change?

BTW, the California teachers' union is a MAJOR supporter of Prop 8, proving once again that their agenda is to promote an agenda, not work for the good of students.

It isn't about tolerance, it is about cram-it-down-your-throat acceptance.

Crimson Wife said...

The whole "equal rights" argument against Prop. 8 is a smokescreen. Homosexual domestic partners ALREADY HAD THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS under state law as married couples. Nothing in Prop. 8 would change that! Homosexuals would still retain all the same legal rights and could still have their unions blessed by any religious organization willing to do so. The only thing that Prop. 8 would do is to re-affirm the traditional definition of marriage.

I know many Christians disagree with me about this, but I don't really care all that much about whether homosexual partners are granted the same legal rights as married couples. While I definitely don't agree with their lifestyle, I also don't think it's the government's job to be the morality police.

The redefinition of marriage by 4 activist judges has implications that go far beyond semantics.

The 96% of school districts offering sex ed will be forced under the ed code to treat gay "marriage" as the same as traditional marriage regardless of how teachers and parents feel about the issue. Even if we don't send our kids to the public schools, what gets taught there often influences what publishers incorporate into textbooks.

Anonymous said...

The reason why I support proposition 8 is because I believe that traditional marriage is the start of a traditional family, which is the fundamental unit of society.

Marriage is more than two individuals who love each other and decide to commit to live together. Father and mother each bring unique talents and abilities that compliment and strengthen each other in the nurture and raising of children that would be lacking in a same sex partnership. The vital role in the development of children played by a father fully engaged with the family is well documented. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Well meaning laws by activist judges which may make sense from an individual point of view have had serious effect on families. One only need look at the effect on black families of legislation over the last 30 - 50 years or so as documented in the archives of Thomas Sowell, and Lashawn Barber (http://lashawnbarber.com/) and others. I believe the actions by the CA judges is a good example.

For those who would argue that same-sex marriage would have no effect on My marriage, you are right. I've been married for over 30 years and plan on stay so for the next 30 and beyond. However please consider the argument presented by Megan McArdle. Megan McArdle coherently expresses some of what I've been trying to say:
(http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005244.php).

That doesn't mean that I insist on traditional gender roles within the marriage bonds. I like to cook and I wanted to help Lynette as much as I could handling three children 5 and younger, so I would often hurry home after work to cook supper. I usually did the dinner on Sundays and holidays as well.

However I do believe that one member of the team needs to be there at home for the family. I admire Duard, one of my coworkers, when he quit work to stay at home with his daughter while his wife continued to work as a manager for Cisco. Likewise, my wife, Lynette, was able to volunteer at the schools where our children were taught because she was a "stay-at-home mom". We found that teachers often do a much better job when there is a caring parent there to help them. And when we discovered that the school was not meeting the needs of our younger son David, struggling with eyes that didn't develop as fast as the rest of his body, Lynette was able to home school him. Eventually he was joined by his younger siblings.

I discovered how hard the role of stay-at-home parent was when I agreed to stay with the kids while Lynette took a woodworking class at a community college. It was quite a struggle for this nerd and definitely one of Lynette's talents.

Bob Durtschi

Anonymous said...

Well done Henry.

With your large readership, you are courageously putting a lot on the line when you address such highly sensitive topics.

Ironically, the failure of proposition 8 would lead to a huge surge in the popularity of homeschooling, which your blog generally promotes.

I too am surprised by the one commenter who indicated that other Yes on 8 sites were disrespectful or rude. Given that the No on 8 side is trying to characterize them as intolerant bigots, my experience is that they are exerting great efforts to argue in the most polite manner.

My step-brother is homosexual, and we are great friends. However, I too am strongly on the YES on 8 side for a variety of reasons, including those you mentioned in your post.

In fact, not all homosexuals are that enthusiastic about what the judges did. They already have all of the rights, and their efforts redefine marriage may produce a backlash, especially because of the anti-democratic manner in which it was achieved.

One of the commenters stated "It seems what they really want is acceptance and equal treatment under the law."

This is partially correct. They already have equal treatment under the law, so all that is left is "acceptance". Unfortunately, acceptance is not something that can be coerced, no matter what laws are passed. However, any efforts the state makes to coerce acceptance will inevitably clash with the speech and religious rights of those who believe same-sex relatonships are sinful.
- Brian Hickman

Anonymous said...

excuse me. i don't understand what defining the word marriage has to do with black segregation. black people were actually denied rights of human beings based on what they are. if homosexual couples already have the benefits of married couples, basically they just want to be called 'married', never mind what the word actually means. being black is not relevant to any of the rights they wanted. being gay is not relevant to workplace rights, and other rights and responsibilities. but it *is* relevant to marriage because marriage has a procreative function that necessarily involves sexuality.

marriage is NOT a right. marriage is a contract and a responsibility, part of which involves the intent to create and nurture a biological family. all permutations of this in all cultures of the world involve procreative intent, between a man and a woman. that is what the word 'marriage' means, and no amount of wishful thinking should make it otherwise. the life commitment of homosexual people necessarily is missing the procreative element and therefore cannot be termed 'marriage'. pick another word for it. you create a new thing, you name it something new. you don't take an existing word that already has a meaning, and then try to change or twist the meaning. whatever it is, whether better or worse in one's opinion than marriage, it is not the same as marriage. i blame fairy tales and the heavily romanticised, selfish notion of 'modern marriage' for clouding the issue, where the story stops at the wedding as though marriage is about just the two people in love, as though romantic love is all the 'meaning' in marriage. that just makes you lovers, it does not yet make you husband and wife - marriage requires the intention of setting up and maintaining a family. society has no interest in rewarding lovers, but does have an interest in rewarding marriages, which form the basis of its own future. this is the reality of it.

by all means if the society accepts homosexual relationship, to be consistent they should have visitation rights, inheritance rights etc. i.e. rights given to family members by marriage (rather than blood) such as husband and wife. but they should not get benefits given by society for married couples that are meant for the procreation aspect of marriage - i.e. if certain tax breaks are for this reason, then they should not be eligible unless they adopt children while remaining in that committed union. some things are compassionate 'rights', but other benefits are given by the society for a reason - they're not 'rights' in an absolute sense. society expects something back - commitment to preserving social stability, decency, procreation and raising of the future generation appropriately. it's terrible that such a basic and universal concept is not properly understood.

2nd2Nun said...

I am gay and have been with my wife for 8 years. We made personal life commitments to each other in 2007 and then committed to each other legally in 2008 after same-sex marriage was granted by the California Supreme Court.

I think it’s overly dramatic to claim that Proposition 8, which denies same-sex marriage in California, promotes or supports hate towards homosexuals. I really believe that most who are against same-sex marriage simply don’t understand it.

The supporters of Prop 8 use the saying that they’re trying to “Protect Marriage.” It’s not about taking rights away, they affirm, but protecting their own rights. I promise you, we don’t want to take anything away from straight couples who have found love.

My devotion to my wife doesn’t take anything away from the commitment you’ve made to your significant other. It would not weaken or cheapen what you have. Instead, denying same-sex marriage or allocating us a “civil union” cheapens our commitment.

If your beliefs on homosexuality are shaped by the Bible, it should still not influence your vote. I could make arguments about the Bible and how it’s been edited or other “rules” it includes that people are not passionate about. But bottom line, the freedom of religion allows you to believe in the Bible. If you choose to do so, I respect that.

But for America to be what it is, and for YOU to continue to have the freedom to worship who you choose and to believe the written words of the Bible, there has to be liberty. There has to be the allowance of people to be who they are and then expectations to respect each other and their differences. The separation of church and state requires that religious beliefs not be the basis for decisions when it comes to how I live my life as an American. Denying me the ability to marry whom I choose is a violation of my civil rights and it legalizes discrimination.

While it is about legal rights, tax filing, and medical decisions, it’s really about love. Marriage is the ultimate expression of a person’s love for another. Some may use the argument that the institution of marriage has been cheapened by the divorce rate and the “Marry a Millionaire” shows, but I respect and believe in it. I honor the commitment that I made to my wife.

This past week in the San Francisco Chronicle, a 29 year old woman by the name of Myrna Elias was quoted as saying, “A lot of friends had a hard time coming out to their parents and others, and I’m sympathetic to what they went through. But I can still love those persons and still be for Prop 8.”

If you vote yes on Prop 8, you are supporting an idea that ignores my core identity and declaring that my commitment to my wife is deficient. You may not be promoting hate, but I cannot see how you can claim to love me.

I ask you to please respect me and my liberties as an American and vote NO on Proposition 8. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. If you’re interested in discussing the topic further, please feel free to contact me and I would love to do so.

Christy said...

Cates,
Bravo! on addressing a difficult topic and opening it up for discussion. I have to say this was one of the most civil internet discussions I have read. If it means anything, I added you to my feed reader to make up for the commenter who unsubscribed ;)

Janine Cate said...

Sorry that we have been slow to respond to the latest comments. We ended up hosting the next Carnival of Homeschooling, so we are a bit short of time.

This is not the kind of topic where you can whip out a quick response.

I, too, appreciate the civil discourse. I'm feeling a bit testy right now since the Prop 8 yard signs on our street have been stolen for the 4th time.

Becca said...

Democracy
I share your concern about the will of the people not being carried out.
That said... I think you are misinformed about the nature of how laws change in this country. At the time of Brown vs. Board of Education, many would have argued that the judges were not merely upholding equal protection, but that they were effectively dictating that integration occur. Since that thwarted the will of the majority it was, in a sense, undemocratic. Yet I think most would agree that the ends, if not the means, were noble.
Maintaining a legitimate democracy, while avoiding tyranny of the majority, is a truly complicated issue.
Legal Tradition
What laws are on the books in California dictating how public schools teach marriage?
In what way does, e.g., allowing a same-sex partner to make decisions when their partner is sick twist or abuse a law beyond it's intention?

Free Speech
How is restricting usage of a word pro-Free Speech?
Somewhat tangentally- I would be rather irked to be on my 4th lawn sign myself. However, people (of many political views) have stolen yard signs before, and will most likely be stealing signs in the future regardless of whether Prop 8 passes.

Respect of God's laws
You can personally follow (what you understand to be) God's guidance and commandments regardless of whether Prop 8 passes.

@Derek Taylor- I think you have good insight into some reactions to the use of the term "marriage". That said, you are wrong about what "everybody" knows. For me personally, there is no difference between a gay marriage and a straight one.

Janine Cate said...

I'm going to start this comment with disclaimer. Our Proposition 8 Signs have been stolen for the 6th time, and any good will I was feeling for those in an alternative lifestyle is pretty well gone. I've come to the conclusion that tolerance is a one way street in California. I'm so done with this topic, but I feel I should respond.

So-called "Gay" marriage is just another way for adults to fulfill their desires at the expense of children.

Children are entitled to a mother and a father. Promoting same-sex relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage will help create a generation of children who are robbed of their birthright.

Even if gay couples choose not to be parents, calling that relationship marriage promotes the false idea that the marriage commitment is only a romantic one.

[It is fair to say that heterosexual couples started that ball rolling, but that is a whole other post.]

Proposition 8 is just one step in many to restore the protection that traditional marriage once provided for our children.

I would try to wax more eloquent, but I've got a toddler that needs his mommy and daddy to put him to bed.

RespectForAll said...

This issue isn't about whether gay marriage is right or wrong; it's about freedom of religion. When this country was founded people were being discriminated against because they held different beliefs from the majority. This issue is about whether the majority that is not gay is going to prevent those who are from the economic security that goes with marriage? Will the majority prevent gays from visiting their loved ones in the hospital, and sharing their resources with each other? This proposition is about legal marriage, not spiritual marriage. Your religious group can continue to not recognize gay marriage if Prop 8 doesn't pass. Prop 8 destroys marriage for a significant minority of the population; it doesn't preserve it. You can still have your marriage without prop 8. And it doesn't keep people from being gay, or talking about it on radio. It allows them to participate more fully in our society, without in any way providing you any harm or forcing them into your circle of friends.

Janine Cate said...

>This issue is about whether the majority that is not gay is going to prevent those who are from the economic security that goes with marriage?

Name one tangible "right" except the word marriage that gays are now denied under the current domestic partner laws.

Gays already have the personal property rights, they just can't transform the word "marriage" to include alternative lifestyles.

Have the intellectual integrity to call it what it is and we can all get along. Gays want the freedom to express that they are different, yet want to pretend that they are the same. Pick one.

This isn't about civil rights. Nobody is making gays sit at the back of the bus, blocking access to education, housing etc.

In fact, gays have extra legal protection. If my white, heterosexual husband is assaulted, the perpetrator will get a lesser sentence then a random attack on a gay. If my husband if harassed at work or is unfairly fired, he has less legal recourse than if he were gay. If (for the 7th time) my free speech rights are trampled on by vandals who steal and tamper with signs on my property, nobody cares.
If a school decides not to notify the parents about the "gay coming out day" like at Hayward school district, they have no recourse.

Why? Traditional families have less legal protection than gays.

John said...

Janine Cate wrote:
"Our Proposition 8 Signs have been stolen for the 6th time, and any good will I was feeling for those in an alternative lifestyle is pretty well gone."

Condemning a group of people for the acts of one is prejudice. I'm sorry that your sign was stolen, and I certainly don't condone such action, but it is no reason to withdraw what you describe as good will for those in an alternative lifestyle. Was it a gay person that stole your sign? Was it a black person? If it was, are you giving up on blacks too? Maybe it was a Hindu, and you should campaign against them.

Of course these statements sound absurd. Just as absurd as your statement.

Sadly, this is just one example of questionable morals and errors of fact that I have seen here. You said that you have "come to the conclusion that tolerance is a one way street in California" You are providing ample evidence that you are right. I hope that you can see your way clear to make it a two way street and be more tolerant in the future. In the mean time, you can write what you want, but being unwilling to litter my life with further detritus, I will no longer view this blog.

Henry Cate said...

Everyone we know who had a Pro Prop 8 sign had their sign stolen, some times several times. Our friends in other towns also their signs stolen.

Yet, the one house in our neighborhood with Anti Prop 8 signs always had their signs up. Their two signs were never stolen.

The local television station reported that two Gays parked their car in front of a house with a Pro Prop 8 sign, and wrote on their own car claiming the family were all bigots. The two gays wrote some hateful things on the car.

Some of our good friends had a Pro Prop 8 sign up in their yard for a week, but then took it down when some other friends with Pro Prop 8 signs had damage to their house.