Will My Marriage Last?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: nikol @ 11/05/2008 12:34:44 PM

    Wow, how ignorant can one be? Homosexuality has been around from the start of mankind, it is not a choice it is far beyond that. It is not something you can teach your child at a young age. Born and raised in a Catholic church I was never taught to hate, discriminate or pass judgement on people. I was never taught about marriage, My advice to ignorant people like lou0912, is get a life, mind your business, and if you really want to be passionate about the value of marriage then protest the lagality of DIVORCE. I want my partner to be able to be my beneficiary and receive the pension I worked my whole life to earn. I want my partner to be able to continue to run the household we built together if I were to die. I want one day to say wife instead of partner. I want people like you to be educated on the realities of life and religion. One day your niece, nephew, grandaughter/son, brother, or sister will come to you and say I am gay. What will you do?

  • Posted By: LBaker @ 11/05/2008 11:57:50 AM

    Oh and marriage is a social contract. If people can marry by a justice of the peace then marriage cannot be defined as a a religious institution. You can't pick and choose remember! Those marriages were not joined in a religious manner but yet their marriages are as equal as those performed in a church. Besides, and I get tired of saying this over and over, we have separation of church and state.

  • Posted By: LBaker @ 11/05/2008 11:51:13 AM

    louo912 you make no sense! As a heterosexual you DON'T want to marry another woman. Gay people do NOT want special rights. You don't know what you are talking about and fail to understand the basic issue here. We want the same rights that you enjoy period. Under federal law you enjoy hundreds of rights that gay couples cannot. Just look at tax law for starters.

  • Posted By: RandyHiggins @ 11/02/2008 1:50:55 AM

    And now a Highly Qualified Teacher has decided to offer her students the chance to become allies against discrimination. How can we trust teachers when some of them decide to teach inappropriately and spontaneously? Why should a teacher decide that my 5 or 6 year old child must learn about 'coming out' today? I'm not going to be teaching my children about heterosexual sexuality in kindergarten! Some individual teachers can't be trusted to respect the parents of their students. They decide that their agenda for 180 days is more significant than a parents 18 years of responsibility to raise a child. If the teacher doesn't respect the parents and Gavin Newsom doesn't respect the people of the State of California, we must define exactly what can and cannot be taught in schools with a constitutional amendment.

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 11/02/2008 10:31:31 AM

      Some gay rights proponents don't really support the agendas of these rogue educators with an agenda, including me. If that's off the table, does it change your position on gay rights?

      • Posted By: spunkymir @ 11/05/2008 11:43:31 AM

        If gays marry it does not bother me at all. It is when teachers start wanting to teach my children about things that are not appropriate. I teach my children not to hate, I have talked to them about sex...but it needs to be the parent's decision...not the teacher's...if I want to have the option to not have my children hear things...I should have that option. Parents lost this right in Mass. That concerned me. If it could only be in the middle somehow. I should have the right to decide when my children hear things and at what age i see that it is appropriate. Teachers in Mass. were using the system and abusing their rights to teach explicitly to children who were not at an appropriate age to learn such things. That was what my decision was based on...not hate...but my parental rights.

  • Posted By: HAL--- @ 11/01/2008 12:15:10 PM

    If you are a christian then you cant deny this:

    Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

    Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 8:53:32 PM

      You also cannot deny that eating shellfish and wearing clothes with mixed fibers is an abomination.

      Have you never been to Red Lobster? Ever worn a suit with a cotton shirt?

      Shall you burn in the fires of hell then?

      • Posted By: HAL--- @ 11/01/2008 10:54:48 PM

        Dont confuse Christianity with Judaism. The Bible is a living book, that is to say what is allowed in page 27 may be forbidden by page 238. ie. marriage between brother and half-sister (Sarah and Abraham), later to be forbidden and classified a sin. "Sin" is going against God's word...and God's word can change when he sees fit. But NEVER has homosexuality been condoned.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/04/2008 5:13:45 PM

          But that is irrelvant to US law. The article is talking about US law so bible reasons are invalid.

        • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 11/03/2008 2:07:10 PM

          Jesus was gay. And he dated a Muslim named Sal. Deal with it.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/02/2008 10:40:34 AM

          Or shrimp.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/01/2008 1:30:51 PM

      But since this article is about US law (state law is still covered by the US Constitution) what is in your religious text is of no importance or relevance.

      No one has ever shown that allowing same-sex marriage (we are dealing with two consenting adults so any comment about children is null and void) in any way shape or form adversely affects society, heterosexual marriage or harms people.

  • Posted By: HAL--- @ 11/03/2008 12:28:55 AM

    If you are "born gay" then can someone explain how Anne Heche found it so easy to dismiss her gay lifestyle and suddenly become a heterosexual? According to her...it's ALL choice.

    http://www.celebitchy.com/10740/anne_heche_says_she_changed_her_mind_about_being_gay_compared_it_to_opening_doors/

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/03/2008 11:46:05 AM

      You can't seriously use Anne Heche as a source.

      Might there be a few people who are so mentally ill as to not undersntad their orientation? Yes. The same can be said for heterosexuals.

      She is more likely bisexual and was seeing which attraction was stronger for her. But it is more likely that she is just a very disturbed young woman who is more interested in PR than in love or reality.

      • Posted By: Suttonhoo @ 11/03/2008 12:23:31 PM

        But the fact is she was in at least one homosexual relationship before she married a man and had a child. That fact cannot be ignored, nor can it be dismissed simply as a publicity stunt or the behavior of the mentally ill. If so, the same could be said of any homosexual relationship. You cannot ignore people like Heche; their very lives argue that homosexuality is a choice.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/03/2008 2:31:20 PM

          "But the fact is she was in at least one homosexual relationship before she married a man and had a child. That fact cannot be ignored, nor can it be dismissed simply as a publicity stunt or the behavior of the mentally ill. If so, the same could be said of any homosexual relationship. You cannot ignore people like Heche; their very lives argue that homosexuality is a choice."

          Not at all. As i said she was most likely NOT lesbian at all but bisexual which is an entirely different ball of wax. Bisexuals DO have a form of chocie that homosexuals or lesbinas do NOT have. Homosexuals like the author of this article, as well as like Ellen Degeneres are not attracted to the opposite sex whiel bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. Many feel a greater attraction to one sex thatn the other but due to the fact that there IS an attraction to both sexes some can ignore one of thet two attractions or focus on just one. THAT is the choice issue.

          Given that most gays have never felt attraction for the opposite sex their relationships are not choice based. It could be argued that Heche defrauded Degeneres either by lying to her. It is not ignoring people like Heche but understanding that they are NOT gay or lesbian at all.

          • Posted By: 2008_sj @ 11/04/2008 12:29:21 PM

            When you state that there are good reasons that I hould not be able to marry my sister, you seem to be making the assumption that marriage is necessarily intimate in nature. Why would you make that assumption if you believe it is well within the courts' rights to redefine marriage? What is so important about an intimate relationship that it trumps other relationships (besides, of course, the fact that those relationships happen to be the only relationship that creates a child).

            As far as my sister goes, I was denied insurance for her. Would you not consider it an injustice to deny homosexual couples even one right that was extended to married couples? The fact that I may (under certain circumstances) have some rights that are similar to those granted through marriage does not have any beaing on whether it is just or unjust to allow me to marry my sister. So please explain to me why I should not be able to marry my sister.

            I don't believe that you are defending a coherent defintion of marriage. Rather, you are simply saying it is unjust to not allow some people to marry (because the definition of marriage can be changed), but just (and right) to prevent other people from marrying (and fail to explain why it is okay to prevent some people from marrying).

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/04/2008 5:11:43 PM

              Personally I would not if you married your sister. I can all but guarantee you that there are legal scholars and social scientists who might be able to come up very cogent arguments on both sides of that issue.

              But I would argue that if your only reason for wanting to marry her is for the insurance, your arguement is on somewhat shaky ground. There are people who get married to secure residence/citizenship status in the US. If caught those people's marraiges can be voided and said residence status revoked (I am not sure about the citizenship though.) Thsoe same ground for voided said marriages would be valid reason to deny you the right to marry your sister for insurance benefiots only.

              But as I said, I have not problem with the idea of you marrying your sister.

              You want to try a legal case be my guest. But for you to say that your situaation is the same as a same-sex marraige is invlaid. The simple fact is that except for gender same-sex marraiges have far more in common with heterosexual marriages then they have differences. Even the desire to raise a family can be part of same-sex marriages (since procreation no longer requires intercourse or even sperm and eggs from the both members of the couple) .

  • Posted By: sakuranoko @ 11/04/2008 3:34:23 PM

    I came across an excellent and comprehensive timeline of samesex marriage that covers events around the world (with a primary focus on the US) from 1970 to the present. It is just information and is not partisanly charged which is one of the reasons I think it is so helpful. It is the most comprehensive timeline of these events I've been able to find and if you're interested in this issue I suggesting checking the site out http://borngay.procon.org or visiting the timeline part of it at http://borngay.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=25

  • Posted By: sakuranoko @ 11/04/2008 3:31:29 PM

    I came across a really interesting site that has a timeline of the same-sex marriage struggle around the world. It's BornGay.ProCon.org and they discuss this issue among many others. It's a comprehensive timeline covering events from 1970 to the present, primarily focused on the US but with info. on same-sex marriage policies in Europe and Latin America as well. I suggest reading it if you're interested in this topic. THe URL is
    http://borngay.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=25

  • Posted By: ograbme @ 11/04/2008 3:00:59 PM

    I think homosexuality in all is just a mental problem, like serisoulsy, back in the day, those people would be in asylum. Like this whole idea, sure equality for all, but this is undermining the bases of life. I personally think this has gotten way out of hand.

  • Posted By: Love LA @ 11/02/2008 10:22:21 PM

    Prop 8 will pass. Majority of Californians understands that to vote 'no' on 8 diminishes the word "marriage" to mean only a "partnership", a purely adult contractual agreement for individuals over the age of 18. Children will no longer be the primary focus for the institution since statistics show that majority of gays are childless and wish to remain that way even with modern technology and adoption at their fingertips.

    • Posted By: ArizonaDave @ 11/02/2008 11:48:42 PM

      This argument is a red herring. Nobody ever asks straight couples who want to marry whether or not they plan to or are able to have children.

      Gay couples want to get married for all the same reasons that straight couples do, and it means just as much to us as it does to you - maybe more, because we know what it's like not to be able to have it.

      • Posted By: 2008_sj @ 11/03/2008 12:36:10 PM

        Dave,

        if marriage is not about having children, what is the reasoning for restricting marriage to sexual relationships?

        In 2001, Ford Motor Company denied me insurance for my disabled sister for the sole reason that she was my sister rather than my lesbian partner. If you argue that same-sex mariage will not transform marriage into a purely contractual agreement for individuals over the age of 18, you better have an argument that is persuasive enough to convince me that the two men in this article are accomplishing a social good that I am not when I take care of my disabled sister.






        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/03/2008 2:42:26 PM

          "In 2001, Ford Motor Company denied me insurance for my disabled sister for the sole reason that she was my sister rather than my lesbian partner. If you argue that same-sex mariage will not transform marriage into a purely contractual agreement for individuals over the age of 18, you better have an argument that is persuasive enough to convince me that the two men in this article are accomplishing a social good that I am not when I take care of my disabled sister. ":

          From the state's perspective it is and should be a purely contractural issue. But the insurance issue is only one part of it. The pre-existing family relationship between you and your sister cannot be compared to marrriage (obth heterosexual and same-sex). But since most insurance companies deny benefits to unmarried couples you got caught by that logical trap.

          Presuming that neither you or your sister have offspring or spouses, IF your sister or you died without a will, and the other was the sole surviving relation, many state laws would find the surviving sister the legal heir. Under the same idea, if one of you was in the hospital, as the next-of-kin via biology, you ould be automatically entitled to many rights and priviledges including many medicla choice ones. Thge same with end-of-life decisions. Also, some life insurance companies wold give the surviving sibling the death benefits if the policiy's stated beneficiary was not alive.

          Most of the rights that come automatically to married couples (and some that come automtically to next-of-kin when there is no spouse) are either very hard to get or even denied to committed same -sex couples. THAT is why marraige and those rigths that come with it should not be denied same-sex couples.

          • Posted By: 2008_sj @ 11/04/2008 8:52:34 AM

            You miss the point. If the topic is "how should marriage redefined" you simply can't say that I shouldn't be extended the same rights as a married couple because "the relationship between you and your sister cannot be compared to marriage". This is tantamount to say that marriage should remain between a man and a woman because "the relationship between two men cannot be compared to marriage."

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/04/2008 10:29:25 AM

              "This is tantamount to say that marriage should remain between a man and a woman because "the relationship between two men cannot be compared to marriage."

              Not at all. Two siblings cannot marry. There are many many reasons including biological and genetic risk ones. But as I pointed out, from a purely legal perspective, and this issue (state sanctioned marriages) IS a PURELY legal issue, you and your sister are already granted many of the rights that married couple enjoy and that same-sex couples are denied. THAT is the main problem as far as I am concerned.

              Do I think that Ford Motors (and insurnace companies) should provide a means for your disabled sister to get coverage under your insurance policy? Absolutley. IT would add some cost to yoru insurance but most of my friends who get married and show spouses end up being covered by thier health insurance see rate increases as well. But that is only one small part of a far greater injustice that same-sex couples are subject too.

              The idea that marraige cannot be redefined in a legal form is asisne at best. Marriage is a human created institution (especially the state part of it) and therefore the courts are well within their rights and obligations to clarify or redefine it. And majority rule is NOT how US law works. Minority rights must be considered and protected since the majority is rarely intelligent or humane enough to do so.

  • Posted By: cag4law @ 11/03/2008 6:43:44 PM

    I think prop 8 is nothing more than hate in another form. 8=H8t.. get it. These are people that are "protecting families and children" what about all of the other families and children out there that need protecting. The yes on 8 people even used a child picture withotu premission, basicly exploited teh child with out asking the parents if it was alright to use her image. If the yes on 8 does nto watch it they will be in court and not for the prop but for other reasons. Im a law student so i see it comming down to that... I say NO on 8 truly protect families and children.

  • Posted By: highlandangel @ 10/31/2008 9:31:35 AM

    The whole argument about marriage is for raising children is entirely ridiculous. So every couple who is infertile should get divorced, every second marriage where the wife is past menopause should be prevented, etc. Marriage in the modern society is about about love, honor, and commitment. Or it is supposed to be. And somehow I know more homesexual couples who can manage those things without a wedding ring than straight couples who can with one. I hate when people pick and chose what portions of the Bible they quote. I hope every single person who throws Leviticus at gay people is kosher, because otherwise you are committing sins that will keep you from the kingdom of heaven. Unless you understand that to eat the meat of the pig wasn't safe three thousand years ago, and times have changed, and our understanding of how life works is different. Marriage was to identify who your children were, and to whom your property were to be transferred, not for love and committment. Polygamy was acceptable. Women were property. These are no longer true either. There is really no such thing as "traditional marriage," and don't throw the Bible unless you plan to live with ALL of its requirements.

    • Posted By: neeka @ 10/31/2008 8:55:51 PM

      all societies have their taboos whether they are secular or religious.For me that taboo is taking marriage and redefining it. Obviously for you it's not. So that's why we have this vote. We shall see if society wants to change what we see as taboo. That has nothing to do with Leviticus it has to do with what the majority of Californians want not a couple of judges.

      • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 1:57:26 AM

        This begs the question.....picking and choosing Biblical principals to suit your belief system and worldview doesn't doesn't necessarily make the gay lifestyle morally right or acceptable. And confronting you with what the Bible presents does't mean you have to throw the Bible out because one can't live with all its requirments.

        Speaking of polygamy, Utah was NOT able to be admitted to the union unless it renounced polygamy. At that time it was the teaching and acceptable practice of the Mormon church. So, the law of the land forbade polygamy and the law of the land can forbid same sex marriage as well!!! Rights can be established and rights can be removed.

        I haven't seen any gay rights activists standing up for polygamy at all. Where were they when some of the polygamists were investigated and prosecuted???? Would they support the rights of the polygamists to marry in their own lifestyle???? If not, why not???? What would be their reasons to have the courts force their life style and not the polygamists????

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:04:30 AM

          Polygamy exists today in America and is generally not prosecuted unless children are involved. Your plea for polygamy protections is cynical. You don't care about polygamists.

          However, I do. I think "freedom" should include actual "freedom", and consenting adults should be left alone.

          <snark> But your got me - I was lazy and waited to be born 92 years after Utah became a state, so I clearly don't really care about fighting fascism. Oh the egg on my face! </snark>

          • Posted By: neeka @ 11/01/2008 8:47:36 PM

            Wow, now we are condoning polygamy are we? You want to redefine our entire culture.

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/03/2008 3:13:13 PM

              How does personal freedom redefine America?

              • Posted By: neeka @ 11/03/2008 6:21:12 PM

                I'm taking my personal freedom and voting yes on prop 8 so your personal stink don't get in my personal face.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 10/31/2008 9:52:02 AM

      Bravo!!! Great points!

  • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 1:35:17 AM

    It wasn't too long ago when the topic of domestic partnership came up for vote that the gays said that the marriage situation would not be threatened in California. The backers of Prop. 22 wanted to make this certain and passed this overwhelmingly. There were no marriage rights for gays then. The supporters of Prop. 22 were deceived by the gays when local officials started to take matters into their own hands and hand out marriage license in face of a Prop. 22. The Govenor took a pass and a punt and wanted the courts to rule on this "rights". This is a classic example of how the gay agenda is working. Deny that you are threatening the moral, the customs, and the mores of the general culture and do an end run to get your "rights" for your lifestyle. All the while, softening the public through the media screen that there is nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle. Another way is to get some cooperating local official to sanction a ceremony to give you an "official" right and promoting youself as a victim of discrimination when there is opposition from the public or from the courts. It is another way to say "oh we won't treathen your kids and confuse them about our lifestyle when you already are exposing the young children in public school about stating that your lifestyle is "normal" and "acceptable" and parents can opt out. Unfortunately, in Mass. children are required and forced to be indoctrinated to the lifestyle over their parents' objections and there is NO opt out exception. The local churches on the very liberal side are accepting this lifestyle as "normal" and the gays are saying there is no religious liberty issue here. Pastors, rabbis, and muslims won't be forced to marry and accept the gay lifestyle as normal. You can only look north to Canada and witness religious oppression in churches and any religious media programing by the authorities to muzzle the church and it's pastors and priest due to "hate speech" for expressing any official or personal opposition through the pulpit or teaching or throughj print. Wake up America!!! The camel's nose is not only under the edge of the tent, it is on it's way to being ALL the way INSIDE the tent infecting and influencing every corner of American life in an in your face manner. Woe unto you if you cross their path and express opposition.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 1:40:35 AM

      Change the date on this to 1850 and swap "gay rights" for "black rights" and it would slide right into contemporary conversation without a hitch!

      <snark> Those damn blacks! How dare they try to do an end-run around our culture! </snark>

      BTW, no church is ever required to host any wedding. That's just ignorant fear mongering.

      • Posted By: neeka @ 11/01/2008 7:22:25 PM

        The gay movement is about what kind of sex you want to have it has nothing to do with the struggle of my people.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 9:00:08 PM

          Right.

          Being beaten for being different. Being kept from the freedoms that everyone else has. Being held out because of the way you were born.

          Nowhere near the same.

          • Posted By: neeka @ 11/01/2008 9:54:04 PM

            I believe Dwight McKissie said it best: "When homosexuals have spent over 200 yrs in slavery, when homosexuals have been legally defined as 3/5 human, when homosexuals have been denied the right to vote and own property because they are homosexuals, then we can begin a discussion of parallels.

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/02/2008 10:50:23 AM

              Brother, for someone who spent no time in chains, you sure seem be a victim. In fact, homosexuals *have* been unfree for well over 200 years. Just because they were never lined up and forced into the fields doesn't take away from the fact that society has been apologizing for gay bashers for well over 200 years.

              So a legal codification of being 3/5ths human is what's important? Words on paper?

              The personal violence that they experience every day (even now!) has no weight on your heart? You can't see how many people proudly proclaim that homosexuals are only half-human? Someone needs to write it down first before it matters to you?

              That's just sad dude. Do you hug your mama with that heart?

              • Posted By: neeka @ 11/03/2008 6:18:06 PM

                "So a legal codification of being 3/5th human is what's important? Words on paper?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YES, when supreme justices declared on paper that black people weren't completely human, of course that was important!. Your ignorance and racism speak for themselves!

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 9:01:11 PM

          And dude, seriously, stop focusing on the gentials. It says waaaay more about *you* than you realize.

      • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 2:35:16 AM

        I don't know what planet or country your are living in but seach the internet and a chapel in a church campground was forced to host a wedding by gay activist?

        You try to present the beauty of the gay relationship like one of those beautiful cowry shells that hides a poisonous barb. You haven't seen the results of gays not only wanting to be accepted as "normal" but forcing their values on others.

        I am sorry that you have been blinded to the negative effects of gay lifestyle in your misguided efforts to secure your rights. Shame on you for not investigating the negative influence your efforts have on the rights of others.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:42:35 AM

          Tell me it aint so! What has happened to the sanctity of our campgrounds?

          Exactly what values are being forced on anyone? Committed marriage?

          My wife and I enjoy the company of several gay couples in our lives. They are good people, and the only thing they have ever forced on me is good food, good friendship, and loving support for my kids.

          • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 3:15:08 AM

            Sorry you haven't been looking up and researching the negative situations. I tried to look up what I could. And it was very frightening. Look up what had happend to Canada. Look up what had happened to Massachusettes, the home of the Minuteman and Paul Revere and liberty, about the legal struggles of ONE FATHER protecting his children against brainwashing his kid of the forced indoctirnation of his kids. Look up what has happened to clergy in Canada for the timirity of opposition to your lifestyle and the hell they experienced. It is ironic how the current "perceived" minority will and is currently becoming intolerant and bigotted of any and all opposition of their life style in all areas of life????

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 9:35:37 AM

              I am as likely to "look up" any of these accusations as you are to convince anyone that gays are any more "intolerant and bigoted" than you are.

              Here's a hint: look it up your-own-self. Then post THE LINKS.

              That way you might have a shred of credibility?????????????????????????

              ?????????????

              P.S. ??????????????

              Also, I suspect your "negative situations" would be commiserated by any number of racists (and bigots of other stripes). Seriously, the very idea of using the word "brainwashing", as if such a thing existed (other than by choice). No one is ever "forced indoctirnated". (Is there no F7 on your keyboard?)

              Every American has every right to teach their own kids whatever the hell they want. The best thing about that is that every American kid has the right to grow up and realize that their parents are as wrong about the world as you are.

              • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 5:14:10 PM

                Every American has every right to teach their own kids whatever the hell they want????? You don't really believe that!!!!! You are afraid to do that!!!! Why not let the parents opt out and teach their kids???? What are YOU afraid of???? That's where you show your INTOLERANCE and BIGOTRY.

                • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 8:45:58 PM

                  You don't have to send your kids to a public school! There is *no* required curriculum for being human.

                  Parents already have the ability to opt-out. But hey, keep whining. You paint a very unreasonable picture of your position, and the generation to come will opt-out of your world view.

                • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 8:39:08 PM

                  Now you know more about me than I do. You must be wise indeed.

                  Or you are just an ass.

  • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 4:39:42 AM

    On October 13, Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted and beaten in Modesto after distributing lawn signs from his Parish Church St. Stanilaus Parish. He was peacefully volunteering and distributing the information. He was attacked viciously and walked back bleeding to his church where 911 was called and taken to the ER by ambulance and treated with 16 stitches. He had just become a US citizen from Mexico with three kids under 10. He felt that protecting traditonal marriage was too important for his family and kids.

    Photographers cannot refuse to photograph gay marriage. Doctors can not refuse to artificially inseminate gays even if there are other willing doctors. (No religious concience or choice)

    Religious schools will be required to provide housing for same sex marriage even if it is against their doctrines or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions.

    Ministers who preach against same sex marriage may be sued for hate speech and fines. Canada already has done this. Courts in California held that municipal employees may not "traditional marriage" or "family values" because after same sex marriage case it is "hate speech". ( so much for "free spreech" and tolerance")

    Refer to the article, When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.org, June 23, 2008

    All I can say is A NO of 8 will be the beginning of a trickle, then a torrent ......leading to a deluge and flood of negative change in our American culture and values...... NONE of which will be positive for the good of society.....

    I have already tasted the evil, the hatred, and the bigotry of the supporters of the gay lifestyle right across the street in my neighbor's yard......will a simple YES ON 8 be HATE SPEECH in our future????? May GOD forbid this and woe unto our society if HE wills this on our society......

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 10:30:51 AM

      Tell me it aint so! Violence against cardboard; how could I have been so blind?

      Obviously that justifies the violence our society perpetrates against this particular group of God's children!

      </snark>

      The article you cited includes many examples of ???Christians??? attempting to force their values on others and getting in trouble for it. You seem to think that it???s OK for the government and professionals to discriminate against this group of people because it has been the tradition to do so. But your argument is based on inertia, not principle. It???s the same reason some people were against ???interracial dating???, not to mention ???slavery???.

      It reveals selfishness (which precludes love of any sort); I???m just amazed that so many people think they have that right.

      When those ???lesbian kids??? begin to insist that everyone at their parochial school start having homosexual relationships, then I will defend the school. When gay kids and leaders start insisting that all Boy Scouts wear pink neckerchiefs, then I will defend BSA. When a patient starts to insist that the doctor commits sodomy, then I will defend the AMA. Until then, I don???t see where a person???s sexual orientation has *ever* been forced on anyone.

      I supported BSA???s right to sue for control of its membership. However, in so doing, they kicked themselves out of the public square. Religious organizations don???t have the right to impose their control beyond their church. Personally, I would like to see everyone be more reasonable and allow the Scouts to have access to public facilities, but for now, it has to be the way it is. This fight deserves to be fought, particularly in the confounding of homosexuality (normal) and pedophilia (abnormal).

      As for suing a photographer over a gay wedding, there are bound to be some errors in the sorting (and there may well be errors or omissions in the reporting). Humans are imperfect, and government is naught but a group of humans. But if there are 10,000 such errors before it is said and done, then it will be a cheap price compared to what homosexual people have suffered for centuries (and are guaranteed to suffer in the future unless some sorting is done).

      Do you have any idea what sort of economic upheaval it was to suddenly remove slaves from the property column and place them in the citizen column? Plantation owners easily had 75% of their assets tied up in slaves. Does this economic injustice imply that we shouldn???t have freed the slaves?

      Of course, the Cardboard Signs of America could apparently use your support.

      • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 12:25:38 PM

        Maybe in your blindness you forgot how parents have no right or prior notification of gay vaues being forced down their kids' throats as young as kindergarten......Where are you in defending these kids' and parents' rights or opting out.....There is NO option or prior notificiation in Massachusettes......There is only force......You are avoiding addressing these issues because you want to present the positive side of things and conveniently overlooking or glossing over oppositon or objections as Christian.....May be you haven't considered the muslim objections, the jewish objections, the buddist objections.....as valid ones and only thinking that the oppostion is Christian?????

        • Posted By: Andrew Delo @ 11/01/2008 11:03:38 PM

          I earned the rank of Eagle in the BSA. Should I go and turn my badge in, now that they can say I didn't belong in their troops? The BSA didn't earn my eagle badge, I did. And with the full support of my troop. My troop that knew exactly who I was and what I was about. Yet accepted me into their impartial, non-judgmental brotherhood.

          • Posted By: neeka @ 11/02/2008 12:45:32 AM

            Nobody wants to take away your badge. Why would anyone want to do that? And what the hell does that have to do with Proposition 8?

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/02/2008 10:42:12 AM

              I am also an Eagle Scout.

              The BSA have, in fact, "taken an Eagle" from a young man who publicly claimed he was gay.

              • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 11/03/2008 2:12:47 PM

                No self respecting straight kid would be cought DEAD in the BSA. Bunch of creepy Christian pedophilles!

                • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/03/2008 3:37:45 PM

                  Ironically enough, only self-respecting kids are able to join. It's those who need external approval that quit. :}

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:10:48 PM

          The brand of religion doesn't matter. Any church can hold whatever standard they like for their members.

          Respect for all citizens and freedom for consenting adults is what matters. No church can impose their standard on us all.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 1:57:04 PM

          There is no forcing of sexuality on children. That's just more ignorant fear-mongering.

          It is OK to teach children that respect is expected regardless of a person's background.

          By your posts, I'm sure you don't agree.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 1:33:01 PM

          Go forth unto all the world and explain everyone's blindness ...

      • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 12:13:23 PM

        Here is another example of a blind person. Maybe you didn't read the article on a Mr. Jose Nunez being beaten up by thugs for the freedom of expressing his political views with YES ON 8 lawn signs. No, the signs didn't get beat up, they were stolen and disposed of---by the thugs.....MR. NUNEZ was BEATEN UP in MODESTO, CA on October 13th..

        Are YOU going to come to the AID of MR. NUNEZ and give YOUR outcry on HIS suffering and injuries on a newly naturalized (2 months) citizen experiencing his first political campaign and his first chance at voting to protect his family and children???

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:30:30 PM

          16 stiches! 16 stiches! 16 stiches prove that gays are OK to bash and gay supporters are out to force the destruction of America!

          http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5477a37a-561a-488a-875b-35a385186839

          Comparatively:
          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DA1039F931A35751C0A963958260
          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DF123EF933A25752C0A965958260
          http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/10/19/watchmen-leader-gives-bizarre-account-of-gay-bashing-death/
          http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809
          http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qnews/archive/2008/09/18/gaynews-bites-dc-bashing-death-ames-rally-savage-suit.aspx

          I really wish that was all there is, but that's just from the first few links on a Google search ("gay bashing death") with about 329,000 matches (compared to 1,300 matches for Mr. Nunez).

          I'm not apologizing for violence either way, but I find your outrage to be short-sighted.

          • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:43:17 PM

            For emphasis: I searched for "gay bashing DEATHS".

            In light of that, it seems a little silly to even consider seaching for "gay bashing STICHES", dontcha think?

            Again, I'm not supporting any sort of violence, and your suggestion that even some of gay supporters do is sheer folly. But there has to be a recognition of who is actually "forcing" whom.

            • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 4:17:26 PM

              I find it incredulous that you ignore the force of school officials to cram down respect on little kids in kindergarten. You call it "respect" and it is a clever euphemism for "force". It is the clever imitation of what had happened to Mao's little red book in the Communist Chinese schools. If you dared to cross the "party line" you were sent away for " reeducation camps or worse".

              • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 8:35:56 PM

                That's a pile of "horse hockey".

                No one is forcing sexuality on children, no matter how many times you assert it.

                • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 11/03/2008 2:15:45 PM

                  Actuallly Roman Catholic preachers have been forcing gay sexuality on children for over a hundred years.

                  • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/03/2008 3:15:13 PM

                    Acknowledged, but clearly off-topic to my point. :}

          • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 11/03/2008 2:14:15 PM

            Deport him. Here two months and hhe is already in a riot!!

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 1:43:24 PM

          Violence is always unacceptable, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Pretending is one of your favorite tactics though isn't it?

          Still, did the gentleman die? Can you show me any statistics that suggest this sort of thing happens regularly? So far it seems like a pretty isolated incident.

          Gay people are sometimes killed by their bashers, and at a far greater rate than immigrant Mexicans seeking to suppress their new fellow citizens. Perhaps you don't attack them physically, but you do spend your time giving aid and comfort to those who do by arguing that their persecution is completely acceptable.

          Your argument seems to be that gays are bad because someone (perhaps in their name) committed violence. I don't hear you apologizing for all the straight thugs who do the same thing at a rate hundreds (or thousands) of times greater. You cry about cardboard signs, but have no compassion for tens of millions of your fellow citizens. You have no sense of proportion.

          Your idea of force is when *you* are expected to show respect. But when *you* wish to show disrespect, that's "our culture".

          I look forward to the day when we are both dead and gone, and the people of this world live a greater commitment to freedom than we do.

          • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 3:43:36 PM

            There you go again and again. Trivializing violence against people who express opposition against your views. This is just the down payment of what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. This is just the fore taste of what we will be seeing.

            The violence that came about to some one merely going about his life expressing his political views that was perpetrated by some one who saw blood in his vision and acted out on it.

            What will happened to the Nunez, the Garcias, the Martinez, and the Hernandez who will continue to express their opposition about the gay life style???? When they see the effects of Massachusettes becoming a reality in California. Will they be branded violently as intolerant, bigotted, and perpertrators of "hate speech".

            You speak of gays and their supporters only wanting "respect" but you show your willingness to bash any who dare to oppose your position(s).

            You state about compassion for tens of millions of fellow citizens and YOU have NO sense of proporttion of the outrage of parents having to stand helplessly seeing school officials and authorities force and let's not call it any other thing as this issue was hashed out by the federal courts as of this date for Massachusettes go and look it up yourselves for the details. There are millions and millions of school kids being forced from kindergarten and up that your lifestyle is "normal". I did watch on various websites the actual videos of that was produced over ten years ago for teachers to use in the instruction of the students and the video instructions have NOT changed. NO this is not respect this is INDOCTRINATION. This is like MAO's little RED BOOK of the Chinese cultural revolution,.

            YOUR idea of respect is "let me do what you feel is IMMORAL in front of YOUR KIDS" and YOU won't have a right to do anything about it. MAO's little RED BOOK for the kids.

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 8:37:23 PM

              I notice that you failed to answer for the straight thugs who kill people.

              The red-baiting is another pile of "horse hockey".

              I'm thru bantering with you. You are a fool.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 1:45:12 PM

          The notion that anyone is protecting their family by persecuting gays is ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is the truth. When you fight for a world that disrespects some, you enable a world that disrespects all.

  • Posted By: jennyessj14 @ 11/03/2008 1:48:45 PM

    I am so hoping prop 8 does not pass, for me it is not about marriage, but about a persons rights as a human being, I find the ads that are for prop 8 offensive and I feel like they are trying to manipulate me into beliving that we should pass it for our children, I don't understand how they can say Seperation of church and state if in fact they are using religion as an excuse...its annoying to me that divorce rate is 50% in straight marriages and that is ok with people but letting humans have the right to choose who they want to marry is not ok...It really annoys me how some very religiouse people want this prop passed just because its not what they belive in but yet as a person who serves "God" aren't we supposed to accept everyone for who they are and not judge anyone...as a straight woman I can only imagine the feeling of gay couples who might get their rights taken away from them just because people cannot accept the fact that everyone has a right!

  • Posted By: Claudette Peterson @ 11/03/2008 10:24:35 AM

    Congratulations on your marriage! I'm a 58-year-old heterosexual church-going woman who has been married for more than 39 years. I'm even happier in my marriage than I was at the time of our wedding. I hope the same for you in 39 years. And by the way, my marriage doesn't need to be "defended" from you and your spouse. Again, congratulations!

  • Posted By: wildechild66 @ 11/03/2008 12:46:38 AM

    I respect Mr. Jefferson's relationship, and think it's wonderful that he has found somebody to love. However, he should be aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Saints (not "the Mormon church") has a stance of political neutrality. What one (or even a few) members may say is not necessarily indicative of the feelings of the whole church. By the way, I think your genealogy is awesome. I'm related to James Madison, myself.

  • Posted By: ObamaYesWeCan @ 11/02/2008 4:44:57 PM

    This moronic scumbag Samuel J. Wurzelbacher "Joe the Plumber" had his AZ driver license suspended

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/128323

    Wurzelbacher, who lived in Mesa in 2000 and had an Arizona driver's license, had his driver's license suspended by the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division on May 4, 2000, following a nonpayment of a court-imposed fine for civil traffic violations, according to court records.

    ...owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes, according to public records, still owes more than $700 to the Mesa court system.

    Records show he was cited for failure to stop at a red light and for failure to provide proof of insurance on Feb. 9, 2000, in a black Dodge truck at the intersection of Dobson and Baseline roads in Mesa.

    After failing to pay his original fine of $627.50 issued in March 2000, his license was suspended and the fine was handed over to a collection agency along with a 16 percent surcharge. The now-resident of Holland, Ohio, still owes $727.90 to the Mesa Municipal Court, according to court records.

    Hopefully the collection agency will break both of his legs so he'll never be able to walk nor work ever again. This typical Republican scumbag deserves it.

    http://obamaoursavior.blogspot.com

    • Posted By: Suttonhoo @ 11/02/2008 6:03:17 PM

      Why is it that we know more about Joe the Plumber's past than we know about Barack Obama's past?

      • Posted By: ArizonaDave @ 11/02/2008 11:43:38 PM

        Hmmm... because you don't care to find out or aren't paying attention? He's written two autobiographical books and has been in the public spotlight constantly for 20 months. If you don't feel you know enough about his past, you haven't made much effort to find out.

  • Posted By: Jmon @ 11/02/2008 11:18:29 PM

    As a resdient of CA I can tell you that California is an equal benefits state. Basically, if the author and his partner were in a domestic partnership, they would have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. I have nothing against gays, support civil unions, and have no problem allowing gays to serve in the millitary, but make no mistake about it, a no vote on Prop 8 will allow schools to teach homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, robbing parents of their right to raise and teach their children.

  • Posted By: joeyconf @ 11/02/2008 4:27:00 AM

    Wonderful story. I've been with my partner for 9 years in southern Illinois. I'd give anything to be able to marry him. We'd do it in an instant. Bless you and your husband. I hope these stupid antigay amendments don't pass on Tuesday.

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 11/02/2008 10:13:13 AM

      It's not about being "anti-gay" it's about anti-gay-marriage. No one really cares if you are gay, but dont force us to accept your lifestyle to suit you...and yes, teaching children about homosexuality at too young an age is wrong.

      • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 11/02/2008 2:56:42 PM

        How exactly is this forcing you to do anything? Also those like you use the argument that Gay Marriages threatens the traditional family, please explain this?

        • Posted By: Suttonhoo @ 11/02/2008 6:20:49 PM

          Society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way any society has developed to provide that opportunity. When marriage is redefined, as it has been in California, it sends the message that there is no difference between mothers and fathers, and that one or the other is not essential. The law now creates families that are intentionally motherless or fatherless and where children will not experience the unique contributions of one of their parents.

          So changing the definition of marriage adversely affects us all. When changed as it is in California, marriage, the best means of raising the next generation, no longer focuses on children and a family led by the two adults who gave them life. It becomes, instead, no more than a legal formality for adult relationships. And that devalues this essential institution for us all, as well as for future generations.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/02/2008 10:35:28 AM

        "No one really cares if you are gay, but dont force us to accept your lifestyle to suit you"
        And you should not ask them to accept second class citizenship to suit you. It is about EQUAL rights. Nothing else.

        ".and yes, teaching children about homosexuality at too young an age is wrong."

        That is arguable. Teaching "too young" children about sexuality in general can be problematic. But with more and more same-sex couple families with children being ijn the poopulation, having some educaiton about them as families (not about their sexuality or about the sexuality of heterosexual couples either ) is appropriate to teach when general lesson aobut what comrpise families is taught. The thing about it is that the children tend to learn more on their own about all forms of sexuality than some parents want them to learn of when those parents want them to learn about it. Responsible teaching (especially about self-respect and respect for others in ALL matters but especially about sexual matters) is essential. If our kids learned that type of self-respect and respect for others we would probably find less rape, less, teen pregnancy (as well as less unwanted pregnancy) and even less violence. It is all tied together.

        BTW, I have dozens of heterosexual freinds with children who do nto want thier children taught that homosexuality is wrong or immoral. And all of hem attend religious serives. That is the same thing my girlfreind and I had said we would want if we married and had children (except we would also teach them about our atheism but to respect the beliefs of others.)

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 11/02/2008 11:02:38 AM

          "BTW, I have dozens of heterosexual freinds with children who do nto want thier children taught that homosexuality is wrong or immoral. "

          Yessir. I sure don't.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 11/02/2008 10:24:16 AM

        That's your opinion. A lot of people think teaching children about sex at all is wrong. For me, I believe it's a necessary part of life and that teaching children not to hate, fear, OR be too eager to learn about it tends to produce the most healthy attitudes towards sex later in life, and that talking about gay couples to children is perfectly okay.

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 11/02/2008 10:30:49 AM

      I'm unfortunately getting a bit pessimistic on 8 even though I'm opposing it with all of my very limited might.

      On the other hand, it's almost certain to eventually be challenged on Constitutional grounds for its resemblence to "separate but equal" and the violation of the Establishment Clause prohibiting religious laws.

      My guess is that, in liberal-leaning states, gay marriage bans have about twenty years to live at most. Sadly, this means an entire generation of decent and respectable gay couples who won't be able to wed...but imagine talking to your adoptive children, nephews and nieces, and godchildren about how you struggled for gay rights today, in an era of true intolerance.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse