You can tell a lot about the militant gay community by observing the behavior of those who oppose California’s Proposition 8. The anti-Prop 8 crowd must be coming unhinged, judging from this story of a violent attack perpetrated yesterday against a Prop 8 supporter, in Modesto, California.
PRNewswire reports a violent attack against a Prop 8 supporter, on Sunday, October 12, in Modesto, California:
In a violent display of intolerance, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured a man who was volunteering on Sunday” to distribute Pro-Proposition 8 signs:
Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting . . . after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.
The assailant grabbed about 75 signs and yelled at Nunez accusingly, “What do you have against gays!” Although Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays, he was attacked anyway. The assailant punched Nunez in the left eye and ran off with the signs.
Nunez, his eye dripping with blood . . . was rushed by ambulance to a local hospital where he received 16 stitches under his eye.
“It’s outrageous that the No campaign calls themselves the voice of tolerance and moderation and wants people to feel bad for supporting Prop. 8. There was nothing tolerant or moderate about beating up Jose,” said ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 press secretary Chip White. “Clearly the man who attacked Jose is intolerant of those who support traditional marriage,” White added.
The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can’t stop standing up for traditional marriage. I may be bloody and bruised, but I’m not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids,” said Nunez, the father of three children, ages 9, 5, and 3. “I don’t want my kids taught in public school that same sex-marriage is the same as traditional marriage,” Nunez added.
Nunez immigrated, legally, from Mexico only two months ago. Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos! Ojala que el futuro le trate mejor que el presente en su nuevo pais.
As we have previously highlighted in relation to Massachusetts, Nunez’ fear — that gay marriage legalization will lead to his children being force-fed gay propaganda in school — is well-founded.
The Massachusetts story was followed just days ago by a school teacher in San Francisco who took her first-grade students to attend a gay wedding as part of their school program. In that instance, because it was a “field trip”, parents were reportedly given notice and permitted to opt out. The teacher called it a “teachable moment.” Indeed. I wonder when the children were last taken to a traditional protestant, Catholic or Jewish wedding.*
More at PRNewswire.
*Traditional Mormon marriages are solemnized in temples in ceremonies not typically attended by children. Not sure how the FLDS handle weddings, so I’ll leave it to FLDS readers to clarify as desired.
{ 117 comments… read them below or add one }
Cosmo 10.13.08 at 11:09 pm
Shouldn’t that be tried as a hate crime?
emily 10.14.08 at 12:49 am
is there a way you could send me the link to that article? i’d like to do a blog post about the intolerance of the opposition. i have a friend in california whose signs keep getting stolen and someone even wrote “bigot” on one of them.
anyways, there is a really good discussion going on here:
http://emiliadelmar.blogspot.com/
(my blog) but i’m trying to make a forum of arguments people can consider as they make their decision (yes on prop
that directly counters what the opposition says.
ouch 10.14.08 at 1:37 am
too bad for him–but maybe it’s good that we (the gays) start paying you folks (the bigots) back for all the violence that you do to us.
Gravitas 10.14.08 at 2:20 am
Dear Ouch: We are not bigots, and we have done you no violence. Most straights have friends who are gay, people we respect and whose company we enjoy. But those people are not militant gays; they really believe in “live and let live.” Behavior like this only assures more votes in favor of Prop 8.
Militant gays (and lesbians) would do themselves and the world a service to think about what impact they are having on others, not just about their own gratification.
Marriage is first of all about children. and children are not trophies or lab animals to be displayed or experimented with. Like Nunez, we would die if need be, before we’ll yield on this question. We care about our children more than we care about ourselves.
Cosmo 10.14.08 at 3:04 am
Ouch, I’ve never committed any act of violence against any gays. In fact, there are some gays who I’ve considered to be close friends over the years. I don’t have to approve of a person’s choices to love them as a person. But, I strongly believe that children come first, and there is tons of evidence to support the need for children to live in a home with both a mother and a father.
Kari 10.14.08 at 3:07 am
“Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos! Ojala que el futuro le trate mejor que el presente en su nuevo pais.”
I think I get the main idea here, but can you translate, Kurt?
Kurt Schulzke 10.14.08 at 5:44 am
Ouch –
Your note is distressingly typical of the kind of vicious stereotyping for which the gay community is famous. Mr. Nunez had committed no violence against anyone. I have committed no violence against anyone. And yet you dare suggest that “the gays” are justified in sending Nunez and anyone else who opposes your Stalinist agenda to hospital.
Kurt Schulzke 10.14.08 at 5:45 am
“Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos! Ojala que el futuro le trate mejor que el presente en su nuevo pais.”
English: Welcome to the United States! I hope the future treats you better than the present in your new country.
Thomas Forguson 10.14.08 at 11:48 am
Kurt; You would deny someone a fundamental right and insist that you do not hate them. That marriage must involve children is laughable. a A Man and a woman often get married without any intention of getting married and nobody arrests them. The following principle emcompases both gays and the FLDS. Government has no business telling anyone how they can form a family
Thomas Forguson 10.14.08 at 11:58 am
The above should read a man and a woman often get married without any intention of having children.
Kurt Schulzke 10.14.08 at 2:07 pm
Thomas –
You must have misread something in my posts. I didn’t say that marriage should depend on having children. There are plenty of couples who marry intending to have children and end up without them. Others get married without intending to have them and do.
As to “fundamental rights,” you haven’t identified any fundamental right that I have “denied” to anyone. If you think you’ve identified one, point it out and I’ll respond. Hint: You might start by defining “fundamental right”.
I’ve played it straight up with you on polygamy. I expect you to play it straight up with me on gay marriage. Show me the money. What’s a “fundamental right”? Which one do you allege I’ve denied?
Doran Williams 10.14.08 at 2:15 pm
Second marriages, particularly later in life, after both parties have already raised children to adult-hood, almost never have anything to do about having more kids. I would like to see some stats on how many marriages at child-bearing age actually result in the birth of children and how many do not.
Kurt, Cosmo, etc: Do you object to a straight, single woman or a straight single man adopting a child, if they are otherwise qualified in every way to do so?
Kurt Schulzke 10.14.08 at 2:51 pm
I don’t object to single-parent adoptions IF a suitable married couple is not willing to adopt the child. A single parent (biological or adoptive) is usually, though not always, better than none. Other things being equal, it is better — in my view — for children to grow up with a father and mother.
Cosmo 10.14.08 at 3:19 pm
I agree with what Kurt said. Right now, many adoption agencies will only place with married couples, a mother and a father.
Domestically, state agencies (as in CPS) are nearly alone in placing with single parents and gay couples, because they are desperate for homes in which to place confiscated children.
When there are huge numbers of married couples, who are unable to bare their own children, on waiting lists to adopt babies, it makes no sense to place those children in a single parent family when countless studies have established that children fair better, both short term and long term, when raised by both a mother and a father…not two parents, but the unique traits of a mother and the unique traits of a father.
Right now, the “married requirement” allows adoption agencies to make that distinction without discriminating against gays, which can’t offer both a mother and a father. If gays are allowed to legally marry, adoption agencies will be forced to place children in homes that will not offer them the same advantages of a home with both a mother and a father. That, in itself, is reason enough to not allow gay marriage. If we want to talk about fundamental rights, let’s talk about the fundamental right of children to have a both a mother AND a father. Let’s put children first in our fight for rights!
WAKE UP PEOPLE 10.14.08 at 4:45 pm
I dont understand what the problem is with changing the definition of the term ‘marriage’ to be more inclusive. if two people choose each other because they love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other,
1. what does that have to do with YOU and why should YOU get to have any role whatsoever in that person making that decision for themselves
2. marriage has many different definitions and meanings in different cultures, faiths, and traditions. Considering how diverse of a land California is, how can you limit the definition of this word to Christian/Catholic views and try to have those views be legitimized through the law, which is supposed to remain SECULAR/nonreligous? If me, someone in my family, a friend, my child, a community member, whoever makes the decision to marry someone, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
And as for the whole claim about ‘indoctrinating’ children–Prop 8 not passing will not change anything. The law already exists that allows gay people to marry each other. if it passes, you will be TAKING AWAY people’s rights. and, if you really have a problem with teaching kids in school about homosexuality i suggest that:
1. you introduce legislation that would ban this and take it to the courts as an issue SEPARATE from the marriage issue, which deals with ADULTS ONLY
2. you move out of california. If you are trying to raise your kid in San Francisco or LA, your child will probably encounter, be friends with, and have no issues whatsoever with gay people. If you live somewhere else in the state where there aren’t really that many gay people, then why does it matter to you what people in California and SF are doing anyway?
If you really think that children are the number 1 reason for someone to get married, why don’t you push for legislation that targets all of society and not just gay people (who you probably dont know anything about except for the fact that you may have some gay friends that you possibly considered to be good friends–however, this is FAR different to actually being gay). Examples of legislation that would keep the definition of marriage within its ‘traditional’ bounds while still ensuring that children live in a house with a father and a mother (which most certainly does not ensure a happy and healthy upbringing) are:
1. Push for legislation that makes divorce illegal in California for all people seeking divorce
2. Push for legislation that would make it law that if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, she legally has to marry the father of the baby.
In California, the likelihood that either of these pieces of legislation would get passed is zero to nothing. So by focusing on limiting and taking away the rights of the gay community alone, you thereby engage in bigotry and discrimination toward the gay community.
I think the point of all of this at the end of the day is that everyone should mind their own damn business. Oh, and stop trying to use children to pass a law that will limit other people’s freedoms.
There is a WORLD of difference between marriage and domestic partnership. and it IS a civil issue, because it is a civil union in front of the law–which has NOTHING to do with God. When you are married in front of the LAW of the state of California (not even talking about god in any way shape or form), no one can delegitimize or play down the seriousness of your commitment to your partner.
You people need to wake up and learn how to mind your own. I’m not trying to make a law limiting your right to practise your faith, to marry who you want to marry, or to limit how many children you have (this issue is raised considering the fact that the world is grossly overpopulated and more children will ultimately lead to the annihilation of us all due to the severe lack of resources on this planet) so don’t you try to manipulate the law to limit other people’s right to live life the way they choose and be committed to their partner in the way that they choose.
And lastly, violence should never be perpetuated against ANYBODY, regardless of what they think or who they are. But for those of you that have such a big problem with this poor man being attacked, why don’t you go out and demonstrate against the war in Iraq or against the genocide in Darfur–two tragedies that are killing and injuring thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.
Hipocrisy is no easy feat of the mind. It’s probably much more stressful, difficult, and upsetting to maintain than just relaxing and living your own life instead of dabbling into other people’s lives–people you don’t even know anything about.
Thank you.
Kurt Schulzke 10.14.08 at 5:14 pm
Wake –
Interesting comment. What makes you think that “we” can’t simultaneously support Prop 8 and oppose genocide in Darfur and Iraq?
Funny that you omitted to mention the genocides — yes, genocides — committed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Is Sudanese genocide somehow more immoral than Iraqi genocide? What was that you wrote about hypocrisy?
You wrote:
Actually, the rights were fabricated only recently by a California Supreme Court in defiance of a 61-39% majority of California voters who voted for exactly the same language in 2000. Those same voters can overturn this fiction with a constitutional amendment. You have a right to vote, but your vote only counts once — unless you registered with ACORN, in which case who knows how many times you can vote?
There are many good reasons not to extend special legal blessing to a lifestyle which, as I have previously pointed out, would necessarily result in
I have close friends who practice homosexuality. I sympathize with them just as I do with anyone who is captive to a destructive habit that they, for the present, are not controlling. My love and sympathy for them does not mean that I should condone or encourage others to engage in the destructive habit by according special legal benefits to it.
Moving out of California would offer no refuge from this plague. Have to draw the line somewhere.
mdallinm 10.14.08 at 6:08 pm
“which is supposed to remain SECULAR/nonreligous”
A separation between Church and State did not mean that government was to remain non-religious. It meant that there was not to be a defined State Religion, as there had been in the old country. That the Founding Fathers intended this nation to be Christian is no question when you look at who the Founding Fathers are and what they stood for, when you look at the words they drafted and the money they minted. We have already fallen far from where they left us; they would rollover in their graves to think that this nation and families had deteriorated to the extent that we are now allowing for marriage to include same sex couples!
Cosmo 10.14.08 at 6:14 pm
“In California, the likelihood that either of these pieces of legislation would get passed is zero to nothing. So by focusing on limiting and taking away the rights of the gay community alone, you thereby engage in bigotry and discrimination toward the gay community.”
So because we can’t first make things better by fixing other problems for children, we should allow things to get worse for them? Otherwise were bigots?
Cosmo 10.14.08 at 6:17 pm
“for those of you that have such a big problem with this poor man being attacked…”
Anyone who doesn’t have a big problem with this poor man being attacked doesn’t have any business getting involved in a discussion about human rights.
Johannes Steiner 10.14.08 at 6:25 pm
Wake Up People-
In your first three paragraphs, you assume that we can legitimately change the definition of marriage. Before we should do that, you ought to demonstrate a reason for us doing so. The notion that it would be more tolerant, or inclusive as you style it, really isn’t legitimate. It would be intolerant if we were to pass laws forbid homosexuality. No one is saying we should. We simply say that marriage is what it is, and it needs to be recognized as the sole union capable of that status.
Consider a birthday cake and a cookie. Just because the cookie wants to be called a birthday cake, doesn’t mean that it should be. We wouldn’t forbid the cookie its right to be a cookie, and do what cookies do, but we insist that a cake is a cake, and a cookie just doesn’t fit the bill.
Your next paragraph and its accompanying suggestions deal with the indoctrination of children. I say again, as I do in every post about this topic it seems, marriage between a man and a woman has demonstrated itself to be a better institution. It’s a healthier institution emotionally, physically, and socially for any children involved, as well as for the adults. It is for that reason that we give traditional marriage special status in our society. Homosexual relationships are not healthy. We do not want them taught as though they were.
Would it make sense for us to teach kids that cookies and donuts where equal to lettuce and tomatoes in value for the body? Likewise we should not pretend homosexual unions are equal in their value to society by setting them up as equivalent with traditional marriage.
Your next three paragraphs assume that we are trying to modify how people are allowed to behave. We are not. We insist that we and our governments should not have to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. What you suggest violates freedom of choice, like when you suggest forcing single pregnant women to marry could be a law. Prop 8 would not prohibit the exercise of any rights, as your suggestions would, but would leave marriage between a man and a woman in its preferred status, due to it because of its demonstrated worth. You wouldn’t give someone a tax credit for going green if they weren’t following any of the environmental regulations, would you?
As to this being a civil issue, I agree with you entirely.
As to your genocide comments, I think Kurt addressed them well. It would seem contradictory to complain about overpopulation AND genocide, wouldn’t it though?
I apologize for the length of this post everybody, but it’s a response to a very long post. Any grammatical/spelling errors, please attribute to my being an incorrigible idiot.
Johannes Steiner 10.14.08 at 6:34 pm
By the way, regarding your suggestion that people are being insincere about their friendships with homosexuals:
“gay people (who you probably dont know anything about except for the fact that you may have some gay friends that you possibly considered to be good friends–”
or
“other people’s lives–people you don’t even know anything about.”
You’re not in a position to make a judgment on that, are you? I happen to have friends who are homosexual, some of them very dear. You know nothing about me, and then you assume that you can make a judgment on who my friends are or aren’t?
It’s interesting that you would accuse us of bigotry while engaging in such obvious prejudice and bigotry in your own post.
Thomas Forguson 10.14.08 at 6:46 pm
The fundamental right is the right to get married. You would deny others the right that you enjoy. There has been a constant barrage on this blog claiming that marriage was for the purpose of having children. If you were not the one who made this claim, I apologize.
Thomas Forguson 10.14.08 at 6:49 pm
Steiner: Marriage between a man and a woamn is not the preferred situation for someone who is gay.
Johannes Steiner 10.14.08 at 7:12 pm
Please refer to the context in which “preferred status” is used. It does not refer to being preferred by any one person, but by society as a whole. It is preferred because of the benefits it presents society, few to none of which are presented by gay marriage.
Thomas Forguson 10.14.08 at 7:36 pm
Steiner: Allowing people to be themselves is of great benefit to society.
Jefferson 10.14.08 at 8:07 pm
Kurt et al,
It sounds as though you believe that being gay is a choice, hence your comment about your friend ‘practicing’ homosexuality. I can assure you, that I never ‘chose’ to be gay. I just am. I tried to ‘play straight’. I had girlfriends, and yes, even had sex with them. But I’ve never been 100% comfortable with them, as I do with my husband. Yes, I am legally married to another man, as far as the State of California is concerned, along with now over 11,000 other couples! Being Married by the State allows us to have hospital visitation rights, legal custody rights, will rights, etc, all in one, that would normally take lots of lawyers and tons of paperwork to achieve without it. One piece of paper. Should we be made out as second-class citizens and made to go through hoops, just because we are both males? This is NOT a lifestyle. This is our lives.
Would you rather a world 100% straight, and force gay people to be straight? And make them sacrifice who they are for how you feel they should act and be? Homosexuality IS natural.
I feel bad for your gay friends thinking you are a true friend. It’s only a mask, if you really feel it is a choice.
Johannes Steiner 10.14.08 at 9:05 pm
I do not oppose them being themselves. It’s interesting how you and others keep trying to say that I, and others with my viewpoint, want to restrict homosexuals freedom. I do not. I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that, as it is patently untrue. They can be homosexual. I will not try and stop them. It is their right to do so. They can perform “marriage” ceremonies if they wish. They can be joined by a civil union. They can call themselves married.
Marriage, however, does not apply to that relationship.
It is not a restriction of their rights to define marriage as what it is, but rather, it is an abuse of government and societies’ recognition of marriage for people to try and exploit it to their own ends.
Johannes Steiner 10.14.08 at 9:25 pm
Homosexuals is supposed to be homosexuals’ in:
“want to restrict homosexuals freedom”
Cosmo 10.14.08 at 9:28 pm
“The fundamental right is the right to get married.”
Wrong. The fundamental right here is the right of children to be born into or adopted into a home with both a mother and a father. Legalization of gay marriage will threaten and erode that right.
It is incredibly selfish of any adult to think that their right to play house is a higher priority, a greater right than the right of children to have their needs met.
Allowing children to be the first priority is of great benefit to society.
mdallinm 10.14.08 at 9:30 pm
It is not heterosexuals who are trying to force anything on anyone. If gays had not started trying to redefine the meaning of marriage, then this would not even be an issue.
Noah Webster defined marriage in this way:
The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of man and woman for life. A contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in marital affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for the promoting of felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled (Hebrews 13).
Heterosexuals are not the ones trying to force their will on homosexuals; it is the other way around. Heterosexuals are simply trying to defend marriage, families, and civilization.
Marriage is a sacred institution, not a right.
fairydogmother 10.15.08 at 12:46 am
You know, whenever I hear of violence against anyone, yes anyone, it makes my heart sick. To hear people who profess to be experts on tolerance, acceptance and human rights being so cold and calloused makes me even sicker. In fact, it makes my blood run cold. How do you live with yourselves? You are hypocrites of the worst kind.
How can you talk about what we are forcing on you while you take other people’s children to gay weddings? When you want to take away my right to freedom of speech? When you want to take away my freedom to worship as I choose? When you want to fine me for not catering or photographing your wedding? When you want to take away my tax exempt status because I will not violate my religious beliefs and marry you in my private church?
Can you imagine how the dung would hit the fan if a kindergarten teacher took her class to a Christian heterosexual wedding and had them participate in the ceremony and maybe read some scriptures while they were there? Or what if we started teaching kindergartners to pray to God–on a field trip to a Catholic church?
If you want tolerance, acceptance and kindness, don’t you think you should also exercise a little? Why is it always a one way street for you?
Cosmo 10.15.08 at 1:14 am
clap-clap-clap
Well said, Fairydogmother!
Fairy Dog Mother 10.15.08 at 1:38 am
Oh, and we musn’t forget that if I were even to think about hurting you, that would be a “hate crime”, but, if you send me to the hospital because I was peacefully delivering signs, which is my constitutional right, that’s justice?
Nate 10.15.08 at 2:05 am
“Consider a birthday cake and a cookie. Just because the cookie wants to be called a birthday cake, doesn’t mean that it should be. We wouldn’t forbid the cookie its right to be a cookie, and do what cookies do, but we insist that a cake is a cake, and a cookie just doesn’t fit the bill.”
A good analogy, Johannes.
Who gets to define marriage? I just tried looking it up in Webster’s Online, but to no avail. There was no definition there. Scout’s honor. Maybe they(the dictionary people) will soon decide what marriage is. Or maybe they are waiting for California to decide before arriving at a consensus. I think a lot of people wait to see what the citizens of California before deciding where they stand. It’s as if the rest of the world is waiting for California to write for them the definition of marriage. What a massive responsibility!
I agree with those of you who believe that this is an enormously important issue. I believe it’s consequences will be long-lasting and have awesome potential for good and bad. I say this because I believe that how marriage is defined will greatly affect my children and their children. I don’t want them being taught about homosexuality as an option. As a Christian I believe homosexuality is a sin, something God doesn’t want his children(us) to engage in. I want to be the one to teach my children about what homosexuality is. I want to be the one to teach my children what marriage is, and I believe that marriage is the lawful union of a male and a female.
Those are some of my core beliefs. We all have our beliefs. I respect your right to hold your own beliefs and hope you will respect my right to my beliefs. At worst, let us disagree on this issue, but remain respectful of each other’s views by not hurting each other, tearing down signs, etc.
Proposition 8 doesn’t require the straight majority to ask ourselves whether we like or dislike gay people. Certainly friends and neighbors of all kinds disagree on major issues. It does, however, require us to ask ourselves how marriage should be defined by us. It requires us to ask ourselves if we want homosexuality taught in school in addition to or, in some cases, in the place of the home.
I will vote for proposition 8. I’d rather offend a few of my friends and neighbors than my own conscience and belief system. I plead with those of you who share my beliefs to do the same and ask those of you who disagree with me to do so respectfully, since I respect your right to disagree with me.
Kurt Schulzke 10.15.08 at 8:54 am
Jefferson –
“I can assure you, that I never ‘chose’ to be gay. I just am. I tried to ‘play straight’. . . .
My heart goes out to you. Perhaps there is a spectrum of choice in the matter. The impulse may be harder to check for some people than it is for others. I do not believe, however, that anyone is incapable of living a rewarding, productive life without engaging in homosexual (or heterosexual) relationships.
But no one is asking you to refrain from the relationship. We’re just speaking the truth when we say that
1. homosexual relationships do not contribute to society in a way that qualifies them for the “marriage” brand, and
2. we’re not willing to allow our government to be hijacked by militant gays into denying us the right to decide when, where and what our children will be taught about marriage and family.
Given (a) the personal deprivation suffered by children without both father and mother, and (b) the societal catastrophe that would result from universal adoption of this habit, it would be very unwise for the nation to place homosexuality on the same societal pedestal occupied by married men and women.
It is also well known that gays recruit and that they “convert” many vulnerable young and middle-aged people to what, for them, is initially a behavioral choice that becomes over time a socially isolating, highly destructive habit.
On this basis, we cannot afford, as a nation, to set the stage for homosexuality to be given “protected class” status — as has happened in Massachusetts and is happening in California — such that schools force-feed gay propaganda to young children and that parents and others are prohibited by “hate speech” laws from clearly warning children and friends against falling into the trap.
“Being Married by the State allows us to have hospital visitation rights, legal custody rights, will rights, etc, all in one, that would normally take lots of lawyers and tons of paperwork to achieve without it. One piece of paper. Should we be made out as second-class citizens and made to go through hoops, just because we are both males?”
All of these issues can be handled through “civil unions” or other legal constructs without branding homosexual union as “marriage”.
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 1:21 pm
Kurt,
One thing I did forget to mention was, that I am against all forms of hate and violence as well. So the fact that someone was assaulted for passing out signs sickens me too.
You mention spectrum’s, but not quite accurately, IMHO. I too believe there are spectrum’s in all walks of life. In my community, there is a wide array of people who are 100% gay, no if’s, and’s or but’s. There are also a ton of bisexuals. They openly admit to liking both sexes. And no, not one of them I know wants to marry 2 people at the same time.
There are some that feel the need to dress in womens clothes. There are some that have even had ‘the operation’. There are also body builders and Marines that you wouldn’t want to run into in a dark alley. There are doctors, and teachers, and electrical engineers. There are people like me, who manage data centers that house the data and technology for us to be able to do things like blog and comment!
I also know a large community of straight people. Some are married with kids, some are divorced with kids. Some are married and don’t want kids. None of them ‘chose’ to be straight, as I would assume you did not choose to be straight. However, they do choose to be open and understanding in regards to equality. They have even done the research themselves and understand that there is a difference between State and Federal recognition of the term Marriage. In California, A Domestic Partnership offers most of the rights of Marriage. But did you know that until the Federal Government recognizes at least some sort of DP/Marriage for same-gender couples, there are still over 1,100 rights and protections missing? Per the GAO, areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Is this not discrimination? If you want to keep your precious Marriage word, then what do you suppose for a solution? Oh yes, I forgot. We should just all pretend to be straight. Sorry, I’m not that good of an actor.
Oh, and regarding children raises in single, and same-gender households, I recommend you read the facts, directly from the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
You say you ’speak the truth’ on the following statements?
“1. homosexual relationships do not contribute to society in a way that qualifies them for the “marriage” brand.”
- What is the basis of this statement? Where are the facts behind this? Homosexual relationships bring more money into this State! Can you imagine how much money California has received from all of the party planners, wedding planners, cake makers, decorators, food providers, etc, just from the 11,000 couples so far in the last few months?!?!
“2. we’re not willing to allow our government to be hijacked by militant gays into denying us the right to decide when, where and what our children will be taught about marriage and family. ”
- This is one of the biggest lies of the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign. In California, every parent has the right to be informed about what their kids are taught in schools. They have the right to take their child out of school for a day when something about ‘Marriage’ is going to be taught. Every parent has the right to home-school their child! Kids are going to learn that gay people exist in the world. Why not teach them accept them, as they do their black and asian friends?
Taco 10.15.08 at 2:10 pm
Relying on the AAP for information on the emotional well being of children is like relying on the NEA to educate our children. Have you noticed how high the U.S. ranks in education? There are some really good teachers and some really good doctors who are qualified to talk about the physical, emotional, and academic health of children, but neither the AAP nor the NEA are qualified to speak about the welfare of children. They aren’t around the children, yet both have an agenda to promote for the children.
I did mention that there were some good teachers. In dealing with foster kids, I worked with huge numbers of teachers and therapists who deal with struggling children. I also worked with a number of mainstream teachers. Some of those teachers and therapists were great! Some were not so great. But, in talking to all of them about meeting the needs of my foster children, time and time again I heard them comment on how the children should begin to improve in all areas of their lives now that they were in a home with both a mother and a father. When I showed interest in their comments, they would explain that children from single parent families struggle in all aspects of their lives. They would note that children, both boys and girls, have different needs met through fathers than can not be met through mothers and vice versa.
There is absolutely no question that society has deteriorated as more and more children have been forced to be raised in homes without both a mother and a father.
mdallinm 10.15.08 at 2:23 pm
What happened to the comment numbers? We used to be able to refer to a comment by number.
Up the thread a bit, I gave the definition of marriage in the 1828 Webster dictionary. In 1913 it remained mostly the same, losing the Bible reference. It has slowly deteriorated. My 1996 Webster defines it as:
“The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”
Taco 10.15.08 at 2:38 pm
It is interesting to me that all of my gay friends, except for one, came from broken homes.
The one who didn’t, came from a home in which the father traveled a lot for work and was hardly ever home. Also of note, all of them have told me that they were abused in some form in their childhood. All but one of them-not the same one that wasn’t from a broken home, say it was sexual abuse. The one that was not from a broken home, but had an often absent father, said that his grandfather molested him. I can’t remember the specifics of all the others; the sources vary from person to person, some same sex, others not. The one that has not divulged sexual abuse said that he was beaten by his father and emotionally abused by his grandmother. His was, and is, a very broken family, even the extended family. The one foster child who has shown a same sex inclination was molested by his biological father. In that home, the mother was abused along with the children, and she was not allowed to care for the children when the father was present.
But, out of all my friends who come from homes with both a mother and a father, only the one is gay, and his home was not stable, despite having both parents.
It appears to me that it matters if children have both a mother and a father. There are exceptions to all rules, but hoping for children to benefit from a lucky exception to that rule is like playing Russian Roulette with their well being.
Kurt Schulzke 10.15.08 at 2:49 pm
Jefferson –
I don’t dispute that many people who currently engage in homosexual relationships are productive members of society in other ways.
But denying the marriage brand to them has zero to do with their performance as computer programmers, marines, teachers or doctors. No, it is not “discrimination” to say that the term marriage and the full array of legal privileges that is offers are reserved for those men and women who decide to marry someone of the opposite sex.
When I said that homosexual relationships do not benefit society sufficient to earn the “marriage” distinction, I simply meant that the relationship between a man and wife (a complete family) fills a vital role in populating a nation, ensuring societal cohesion, and seeing to the needs of both children and aged parents. Homosexual relationships cannot and do not fill such a role. Hence they don’t measure up to the criteria of the marriage brand.
In terms of the children, you might take a look at my post from August 18. It provides links to solid evidence to support the assertion that children need a mother and father and that to deliberately deny them one or the other amounts to deprivation or abuse. This quote is especially on target:
“According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn’t say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it’s sound science.
“In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.”
But do read the whole post and the associated links. Yes, I’m aware of the AAP stuff. It doesn’t successfully refute anything stated here.
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 2:58 pm
Taco,
It’s a pretty even distribution among both my gay and straight friends who come from broken homes and not. My parents divorced when I was 9, and my sister 5. My sister is straight with an awesome husband and 2 kids now, and I ended up gay, also with an awesome husband, and planning on having kids. I also know bi and gay people that have never been abused, sexually or emotionally. No, I am not a researcher, but I don’t think a single persons perspective (yours nor mine) constitutes blanket statements for a cause. I’d go with the research.
Kurt Schulzke 10.15.08 at 3:20 pm
Jefferson –
By the way, gays who perform well as soldiers, teachers or doctors get the same reward as heteros who do the same things: money and accolades for a job well done.
Heteros don’t get a marriage certificate for heroism in battle (though some might actually deserve it). They get it for doing what married people do: get married to someone of the opposite sex.
I’d like to know — without too much graphic detail — in what sense you view homosexuality as “natural”.
Kurt Schulzke 10.15.08 at 3:26 pm
Jefferson –
Do you need research to know that drinking gasoline is bad for you? Or would one person’s anecdotal account of sudden death work for you?
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 3:28 pm
Kurt,
“No, it is not “discrimination” to say that the term marriage and the full array of legal privileges that is offers are reserved for those men and women who decide to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
- I can see your viewpoint about the term ‘Marriage’, but then you continue with ‘the full array of legal privileges that is offers’ IS 100% discrimination at it’s core.
“a man and wife (a complete family)”
- I know many ‘complete families’ that happen to have 2 mom’s or 2 dad’s with children. They also have the support of all of their diverse friends and families to help each other out. A ‘complete family’ is not just parents and kid(s). It’s our entire social network of immediate family, friends and extended family.
“populating a nation”
- Gays and lesbians can, and do, have children through surrogates. And there’s also adoption and fostering.
“ensuring societal cohesion”
- I’m not sure what you mean by that.
“seeing to the needs of both children and aged parents”
- Name one single thing you think I can’t provide for a child. And aged parents? Who says I can’t or won’t take my parents in when they can’t provide for themselves?
Jeffrey Satinover is slanted in his ‘research’. He is extremely religious and believes the bible as more truth than science. I don’t take anything he does as ‘fact’.
And the Family Research Counsel? The FRC is a Christian right non-profit think tank and lobbying organization. It was formed by James Dobson, of Focus on the Family fame. They are slanted as well. I don’t take anything they have to say as ‘fact’ either.
All of your references are to Christian or Catholic sites.
I’d love to find some middle-ground, center, non-partisan research on the topic. Any ideas?
I’d like you to think about the Loving v Virginia ruling 41 years ago. Yes, it was only 41 years ago that interracial marriage was legalized. Last year, on the 40th anniversary, Mildred Loving released a statement. I recommend the short read. (FYI, it’s in PDF form)
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 5:42 pm
Kurt et al,
Regarding whether or not homosexuality is natural or normal, I give you a section from a longer brochure directly from the APA:
“Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 5:43 pm
As a side note, I’m not sure why some of my comments need moderator approval, and some do not. Odd.
Noah 10.15.08 at 6:13 pm
As to what sort of family situations gay people come from…
I was raised by two loving parents who have been married for 35 years. They are both teachers and were both very involved in my upbringing. I was never abused, sexually, physically, mentally or otherwise. My parents never even spanked me, not once! And I happened to be gay. I know many other gay people who came from similar loving situations. Yes, some gay people were abused, but so were some straight people, and this is truly unfourtunate, but to say that is what makes people gay is silly, and I don’t see how it furthers your arguements.
Additionally, I am a well adjusted human being, I don’t smoke, use drugs or hurt myself. I drink perhaps a drink or two a week. I do not depend on external substances to deal with any problems I may have to deal with. I have loving relationships with friends and have had healthy relationships with boyfriends. I find it hard to understand how my “lifestyle” is destructive to myself or anyone else. I know many people of many different ages and beliefs, some know I am gay, some do not, but it has never been an issue.
Lastly, I absolutely deplore any acts of violence (as I would guess do all of my friends, gay or straight) against any individual for their beliefs, regardless of whether or not I agree with them or not. We have significant differences of opinion, but that is NOT reason to act violently. I believe that the person to committed this act was not acting on behalf of the No on 8 campaign or the majority of Prop 8 opponents, they were merely acting as an individual.
spondee 10.15.08 at 6:17 pm
I would just like to focus on the “for the children” argument here. The pro prop 8 folks seem to be arguing that since their data says that a man and a woman are essential for the optimal raising of children, and a marriage is the best way for a man and a woman to join forces, then it follows that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
This seems like a non sequitur argument. Even assuming that an XX+XY is a superior child-raising force to an XX+XX or XY+XY pairing (and the jury is still out on this), a continued ban on gay marriage will not stop Gays and lesbians from having babies themselves. Surrogacy is an option for men and sperm donation is an option for women. All that a ban on gay marriage does for the children born into these families is deny them the basic protections of married parents. it de-legitimizes the only family the child knows. To a 3 year old with two mommies, the one who didn’t give birth to him is no different than the one who did. He doesn’t love and depend on either of them any less because he’s not blood related. So when something happens to his birth mother, and his other mother can’t make decisions for him, or for her partner because of the lack of legal protection, the child suffers. The family is weakened.
Prop 8 is anti-family.
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 6:40 pm
Let me preface by saying that Mr. Nunez should not have been physically assaulted. I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to back up their political and/or religious points of view by resorting to violence. It is ignoble and generally counteracts their intentions. I hope that Mr. Nunez recovers quickly and that his attacker is brought to justice under the law.
That said, most of the comments on this post have nothing to do with the issue that was reported, except that Mr. Nunez was supporting Proposition 8. There are so many points here that I won’t waste time by referring to the individuals who first posted them. Here are my thoughts:
Proposition 22 in 2000 was indeed passed by a 61% majority of those voting on that issue in that election. It happens that voter turnout in said year was one of the lowest in California history. I find it disturbing that people will use this statistic to say that 61% of Californians favored eliminating the rights of homosexuals to marry. Let’s also keep in mind that Prop 22 did not amend the constitution, but was a state law. Laws are much easier to mold to the times than amendments. Twice since Prop 22 has passed, the people, in the form of their elected representatives, have tried to overturn that law. They were subsequently shut down by Governor Schwarzenegger. True to his word, the Governor has opposed Proposition 8 because of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. Why is there such a fight to amend our Constitution to remove a legal right that was properly granted through due process? I’m particularly disturbed that this push for amendment was initiated before the new law went into effect.
As to whether gay people come from broken homes, I can’t say. I haven’t done enough studying on my own, nor have I read any unbiased studies. Every study that I’ve seen on the subject finds what it expected. I do know that I am my mother’s fourth child. She had two daughters from her first marriage; my brother and I are from her second. My biological parents divorced when I was 5. Though not from our parents, all four of their children were abused sexually at some point in our childhood. Sometimes by the same people, often not. My sisters and brother are heterosexual. They are all married. Two of them have children and the third would if she were able to bear them. I am gay. We shared an upbringing for the most part that most certainly didn’t aggrandize the “homosexual lifestyle” as people like to call it. We were raised to believe in finding your partner, getting married, having children, working hard and providing for your family. We all still firmly believe in all of those things. When I find the right man, I will make my life with him. Personally, I don’t need the State to sanction the union, but it will make things much easier for us, our children and our families if we can do it all with the one document rather than having to file for adoptions, living wills, executor status, power of attorney and the plethora of other legal documents necessary to begin approaching the benefits of civil marriage.
Many people have brought up “traditional marriage” as meaning a life-long union between a man and a woman for the express purpose of raising children. While this may have been the definition given to marriage within the past couple of centuries, history tells a different story. Frequently marriage has been about property, money and inheritance, not about the rearing of children. I’ll point you to feudal Japan or any of the feudal societies in Europe. The Celts often married for a year and a day, only then choosing whether to renew their vows. Ancient Greek and Roman societies carried on sexual relations completely independent of their marriages, whether their carnal partners were same- or opposite-sexed. My intention s not to aggrandize or diminish any of these definitions of marriage, but simply to point out that the definition has always been mutable. Not so long ago in this country, marriage was denied to two people of opposite gender that wanted to marry if their ancestors were of different races. Through a long battle we managed to overcome that idiocy. I feel this issue is just another step in that line.
Teaching the acceptance of homosexual marriages in schools is a ridiculous straw man argument. I haven’t been out of school for so long that I have forgotten what was on the docket. Nowhere was marriage an issue discussed in school. The furthest extent I expect that this will have in is possibly being taught within the next few years, in High School, as an object lesson in democracy at work. Marriage is not a standard subject of study in any school that I’ve encountered.
Religious freedom is secure. Religious institutions are specifically exempted, thanks to the ruling of the Supreme Court, from performing ceremonies that would breach their doctrines. This is not to say that there are not individual churches that may perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, but that will be a decision left to the congregation and its leaders. Tax-exemption is only threatened in the case of a disproportionate amount of church resources being spent on a political subject. It is not political to say that your church does not recognize the sanctity/validity of same-sex relationships. However, it is political to use the pulpit to say that the state must concur. As long as the sermons stick with the spiritual well-being of your congregations, you should be fine. Isn’t that why you are in church?
Personally, I don’t think marriage is for everyone. If I don’t meet the man that I want to spend the rest of my life with, I doubt I’ll get married. Certainly I won’t do it on a drunken 72-hour binge in Vegas. On the other hand I’ve been to several weddings in the past couple of years. Some were heterosexual, some homosexual; all of them were beautiful affirmations of individuals committed to making families together. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to deny them every chance to succeed.
Cosmo 10.15.08 at 6:57 pm
“Teaching the acceptance of homosexual marriages in schools is a ridiculous straw man argument. I haven’t been out of school for so long that I have forgotten what was on the docket. Nowhere was marriage an issue discussed in school. The furthest extent I expect that this will have in is possibly being taught within the next few years, in High School, as an object lesson in democracy at work. Marriage is not a standard subject of study in any school that I’ve encountered.”
Maybe you should try enrolling in first grade in S.F. or in Kindergarten in MA.
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 7:07 pm
Cosmo:
If you are referring to the children in SF being taken to their teacher’s wedding as a field trip, it was sanctioned by their parents. All of the children’s parents had to give permission for their children to go and any of those parents had the option of forbidding it, just as with any field trip. In this case the children, and their parents, were so fond of the teacher that they wanted their children there to support her. Why is it so important to you that her spouse is a woman? I doubt that matters to any of the children, and doesn’t appear to matter to their parents. I certainly would not object to my future children being taken to their teacher’s wedding, regardless of it being hetero- or homosexual. In fact, I’d probably volunteer to chaperone.
Cosmo 10.15.08 at 7:09 pm
“it de-legitimizes the only family the child knows”
No one is de-legitimizing the family. You can only de-legitimize what was once legitimate.
“So when something happens to his birth mother, and his other mother can’t make decisions for him, or for her partner because of the lack of legal protection, the child suffers. The family is weakened. ”
All the more reason same sex couples should not have children. Besides, there are legal steps that can be taken to make that not an issue. Just as I can protect my children by designating a legal guardian in the even that I become physically or mentally incapacitated or die, so can a gay person with children. If they want to name their partner as that legal guardian, that is their choice.
“Surrogacy is an option for men and sperm donation is an option for women.”
So because they can choose to bring children into this world under a less than optimal situation for children, we should subject children being placed for adoption in the same less than optimal situations?
Cosmo 10.15.08 at 7:15 pm
“If you are referring to the children in SF being taken to their teacher’s wedding as a field trip, it was sanctioned by their parents. All of the children’s parents had to give permission for their children to go and any of those parents had the option of forbidding it, just as with any field trip.”
It is indoctrination at the expense of the tax payers! I don’t care if it is a heterosexual wedding or a homosexual wedding. Tax payers should not be footing the bill! It is time missed from school, when our nation is already floundering in the academic community. I have a problem with all the excuses already offered for missing school for a day.
But, as long as tax payers are footing the bill for marriage education, and the children missing academic time anyhow, shouldn’t the kids also be attending a field trip to witness a heterosexual wedding?
Jayde 10.15.08 at 7:18 pm
And, bringing back to the original topic of the “more tolerant and peaceful left” being responsible for acts of violence against those with differing view points, this story is interesting:
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/30930849.html
“George Manos, the 75-year-old Republican, told police that Edith Walker, the 73-year-old Democrat, jumped on his back and struck him in the head three to four times with her fists. Manos said two other elections workers had to pull Walker off his back, according to a report filed with Cuyahoga Falls police.”
spondee 10.15.08 at 7:27 pm
“So because they can choose to bring children into this world under a less than optimal situation for children, we should subject children being placed for adoption in the same less than optimal situations?”
Well now, I didn’t say anything about adoption, but since you brought it up…
There are many many many children in the foster care system, group homes and institutions. Many of them are special needs, and most of them are not babies. Sure there are many opposite-sex parents who want to adopt a baby. The demand is much lower for older or special needs kids, and right now there are not enough parents to go around.
Are you really going to tell me that for these kids its better for them to be in group homes, institutions, or shuttled from foster parent to foster parent with no stability, than to be placed in the care of a stable, loving, gay couple who only wants to give the kids a shot at a normal life? Foster parents and potential adopters are put through a rigorous screening process, and the system desperately needs qualified people to care for these kids. How can you deny them that?
You say that a gay relationship is “less than optimal” for rearing of children, and that “Gay couples shouldn’t have children.” But you can’t legislate that. You can’t deny people the right to reproduce. What you want to do with Prop 8 is further undermine a situation which you already think is sub-optimal for children. Why? Even if you don’t agree with a woman getting pregnant out of wedlock, wouldn’t you agree that it’s a potentially better situation for her to marry the father of her child than to raise it on her own? Why wouldn’t it be a better choice for the lesbian to marry her partner and extend the legal protection of marriage to cover her family as well? Maybe it’s sub-optimal in your eyes, but it has to be better than the alternative, doesn’t it?
People are going to be gay. Gay people will have children. Those children WILL be raised with gay parents whether you like it or not. For the sake of the children, don’t deny them the legal protection and stability married parents will provide.
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 7:34 pm
Spondee:
Well spoken!
Cosmo:
“But, as long as tax payers are footing the bill for marriage education, and the children missing academic time anyhow, shouldn’t the kids also be attending a field trip to witness a heterosexual wedding?”
Perhaps their second-grade teacher will be heterosexual and getting married. If so, I hope he invites them to his wedding. Regardless, this was far less an issue of going to a gay wedding than you’re putting it, I think. It seems to me it was about the children, who are special to their teacher, sharing in something that was also very special to her.
Taco 10.15.08 at 7:36 pm
“Are you really going to tell me that for these kids its better for them to be in group homes, institutions, or shuttled from foster parent to foster parent with no stability, than to be placed in the care of a stable, loving, gay couple who only wants to give the kids a shot at a normal life? ”
Most of them would have been better off had they not been removed from their birth homes in the first place! And, if CPS would stop abusing the families that try to help these children, they wouldn’t be desperate for good families to take them in.
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 7:45 pm
Taco:
“Most of them would have been better off had they not been removed from their birth homes in the first place! And, if CPS would stop abusing the families that try to help these children, they wouldn’t be desperate for good families to take them in.”
Be that as it may, and I think there is some SERIOUS room for argument there, CPS’s use of their authority is not the question that was being debated. The question is, as it stands, are the children in the system better off in group or foster homes than they would be in the home of a stable, loving, homosexual couple (or single individual) that has been screened by adoption services. Misdirection is a cheap trick used in debates when one is unable or unwilling to continue discourse. Don’t belittle yourself by using it here.
Taco 10.15.08 at 7:49 pm
I had some heterosexual teachers get married while I was in grade school. Those weddings didn’t take place during school hours though.
Especially given the low rankings of public schools in the world today, if I were to be asked to give permission for my children to miss school to attend a wedding, I’d be ticked. It would be one thing if the wedding were on a weekend so no school was missed, and if parents paid for their own transportation. But, when teachers have a hard time getting educational field trips approved, because it’s not textbook learning, why is it that they can attend a wedding, heterosexual or homosexual? When schools claim not to have sufficient funding for art/music/science education, why are taxpayers being forced to pay for diversity education in the form of a field trip to a homosexual wedding?
spondee 10.15.08 at 7:50 pm
Oh Taco, really? Most of them? Can you please point to the statistic or study that says that most children removed from their homes by CPS should not have been removed at all? And then there’s the orphans, the abused, the abandoned. Making the assertion that “most” of the children in the system are simply unjustly removed from safe, stable, two-hetero-parents homes is rubbish.
And do please point to the examples of CPS “abusing” foster parents. I’m sure there have been bad experiences, but I’m not up on that news thread.
This still doesn’t answer the question: Is it better for children to float around in group homes, institutions and foster care than to be placed in a permanent home with a stable gay couple who loves them and wants to take care of them?
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 7:59 pm
Taco:
I can see that you are going to insist on seeing it as “diversity education” rather than a teacher sharing a bit of her personal life with her students. Which means we will have to agree to disagree. Regardless of the basis for the field trip, it was a single incident. Hardly epidemic in the California educational system. It was voluntary. I do not know what form of transportation was used, so I can’t say whether tax-payers money was being used or not. What I CAN say is that the parents of those children, their teacher and their teacher’s new wife are all tax-payers, too. They do get a little bit of say in how that money is used.
Taco 10.15.08 at 8:00 pm
I wasn’t misdirecting. I was stating my opinion that the children would be best left with their own parents.
I agree with what Kurt and Cosmo said on this topic. If there a suitable home with both a mother and a father can not be found, I believe the children would be best with a single parent or a gay couple, rather than bouncing around in the system. I applaud those who are willing to deal with the system and take those children into their homes. Been there. Done that.
But, that those children would be better off (after being abducted from their own parents) being placed in a single parent home or with a gay couple is not a reason to open the door for the adoption of babies by single parents and gays, when there are countless homes with both a mother and a father on a waiting list to adopt.
Taco 10.15.08 at 8:06 pm
“I can see that you are going to insist on seeing it as “diversity education” rather than a teacher sharing a bit of her personal life with her students. ”
I hold to this because I know what is normally required for a teacher to obtain permission to take her class on an academic field trip. It’s like pulling teeth! In order to have obtained permission to take the children out of school, it had to have been justified by explaining that various benchmark requirements were being met by the outing.
Yes, they are tax payers too. But, the rest of us are also paying for their education, and it is offensive to me that children are being deprived of the arts, while a field trip to a wedding is being financed.
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 8:12 pm
Taco:
Again, it is unclear to me what you mean by the financing of this field trip. I’m willing to concede that they missed part of the day in the classroom, but we don’t know what adjustments were made here. If, for example, the children’s coloring time was infringed upon so that they could go, I fail to see the issue. If you’re talking about transportation, usually when it is a single classroom that is done in volunteer parent’s vehicles, at the expense of the volunteers. I don’t know this, but presumed it to be the case.
Regardless of all of that, it is still one classroom, for part of one day, in one school, in one City. That is such an infinitesimally small percentage of all students in the state as to be nearly incalculable. It isn’t even enough to set a precedent.
spondee 10.15.08 at 8:23 pm
“I wasn’t misdirecting. I was stating my opinion that the children would be best left with their own parents. ”
All children, no matter the circumstances, would be better left with their own parents? Their parents?
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to lose your rights to parent through abuse and neglect, and when CPS swoops in in these cases it’s absolutely necessary.
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 9:10 pm
Regarding the Lesbian wedding field trip:
“The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a public bus and walked a block at noon” = Hence, no tax dollars used.
“As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first grade class, the interim director said.” = So, parents were informed ahead of time, and you had the option of keeping your child in a class instead.
“Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.” = The kids got to meet the Mayor!
“A parent came up with the idea for the field trip.” = It was not the teachers idea! It was one of the parents!
Jefferson 10.15.08 at 9:12 pm
Taco et al,
Gays already have the legal right to adopt children in most states in the US. As long as they are screened and qualify.
TimEnchanter 10.16.08 at 12:16 am
Thanks for the info on the field trip, Jefferson!
Mac the Knight 10.16.08 at 12:27 am
TimEnchanter 10.15.08 at 6:40 pm
FACT CHECK:
You said
“Proposition 22 in 2000 was indeed passed by a 61% majority of those voting on that issue in that election. It happens that voter turnout in said year was one of the lowest in California history. I find it disturbing that people will use this statistic to say that 61% of Californians favored eliminating the rights of homosexuals to marry”
California General Election 2000 turnout of registered voters was 70.94%. The previous 20 years statistical average was 66.19% - low 1993 at 36.37 - high 1968 at 85.75%
CA Secretary of State
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/reg.pdf
????
Jefferson 10.16.08 at 12:46 am
Mac,
So, if I do my math right, then 43.31% of Californians that voted in 2000, voted for Prop 22. Correct? So we should be saying it the correct way?
Mac the Knight 10.16.08 at 1:27 am
Any way you want to say “It happens that voter turnout in said year was one of the lowest in California history” you are in error.
61.4% approved the measure, that is 4.76 % below the total historical average turnout. In other words “saying it the correct way”, you lost by a landslide.
TimEnchanter 10.16.08 at 1:33 am
Sorry Mac, I misstated. It wasn’t one of the lowest in history. I will point out that I was speaking of eligible voter turnout, which can be found here. That was 51.92%. Doing the math, presuming that everyone voted on Prop 22, for which I cannot readily find statistics, 61.4% of 51.9% of eligible voters said yes to Prop. 22. That’s an overall total of 31.9% (rounding) of eligible voters that year. That’s hardly a staggering mandate to enact the law. It certainly isn’t one to keep it, in my mind.
In addition, I’ll point out that it is a percentage of eligible voters, not Californians as a whole.
Mac the Knight 10.16.08 at 1:56 am
You are still in error. You can not increase the population and have the sample remain the same. It sounds like Democrat math to me. 61.4% is still 61.4% no matter how large or small you make the total population.
(unless you are calculating the infinite. Then we get into quantum physics, and from your previous response I’m afraid that could hurt)
Stanley 10.16.08 at 2:35 am
After living all my life, being surrounded by parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, employers, and CHILDREN who love me, I can’t believe there is still so much disregard for basic human rights. One of my students came up to me last week while I was discussing with a co-worker the upcoming election and said to me, “you should vote now on Proposition 8.” This student does not know that I’m gay. And I asked him, why? “Because my mom is voting NO and I want everyone to be equal.” I said thank you. And went on discussing what to vote on Prop 7.
A PARENT told their own child that it was wrong to take away rights of others. That child is more moral than any of you who would deny another human being the same rights as anyone else.
You truly are hurting the world and the nation. You’re hurting the state. And you’re hurting the rights of every single individual.
I choose to be equal, and I demand the respect as a person of such equal standing as any of you.
April 38 10.16.08 at 2:59 am
You are already equal, Stanley. Civil unions and domestic partnerships provide all the protections afforded to heterosexual marriages. Nothing is being taken away from gays by Prop 8.
The potential for harm runs the other direction. The intent here is to destroy traditional marriage, to indoctrinate children in deviant life styles, and to wreak havoc on society.
Gay life is anything but gay. Your average life span is roughly equivalent to men living in 1871, twenty years shorter than that of straight men in the current era. AIDS is only a part of the health risks that go with this. Gay men have a vastly increased risk of anal cancer. And the list goes on. All of us know one gay after another who has gone long before his time.
If cigarette smoking is a hazard not to be inflicted on others in the form of second hand smoke, why should we tolerate advocacy to our children of a life style that is a built-in virtual death sentence? It is irresponsible, short-sighted and self-centered to attempt to normalize something so inherently unhealthy.
April 38 10.16.08 at 3:03 am
The results in 2000 were 61% versus 38%. That is a landslide, however you slice it.
TimEnchanter 10.16.08 at 3:11 am
Mac, I don’t think anyone is arguing that 61% of the votes on Proposition 22 passed it. I’m simply stating that 61.4% of votes does NOT equate to the same percentage of people within California. You can call me a Democrat if you wish, though you’d be mistaken since I’m not registered with either major party, but it doesn’t change facts. Math is a constant regardless of political affiliation. I presented you with what the numbers say. It saddens me that you’re choosing to ignore it.
Or are you asserting that the result of that particular vote is actually representative of the entire population. The polls at the time don’t reflect that.
Regardless of any of that, Prop 22 was a law, not an amendment. The current polls show a much closer margin.
Abby 10.16.08 at 9:11 am
April,
If gays have a shorter life span, whats that to you?? Did you know there is more AIDS in the hetrosexual community now than the gay community?
If they are consenting adults, what the hell difference does it make to you?
Im not gay, but HATE for gays is not only ignorant but Stupid. They dont try to convert hetros to being gay. 99% of them just want to live their lives, and most live with the same partner for years and years, but they are denied the same rights as hetrosexual marriages.
They cant get on insurance of their partner because they can’t legally get married. They don’t have a Legal piece of paper saying they are married.
There are so many hate crimes against gay people for no other reason than their sexual choice. Gays are killed, just because they are gay.
Kurt Schulzke 10.16.08 at 10:00 am
Tim —
Just so you know, my spam filter automatically “moderates” comments containing more than one URL. Irritating, I know. But it’s necessary to protect the site.
Jefferson 10.16.08 at 10:41 am
April,
“Civil unions and domestic partnerships provide all the protections afforded to heterosexual marriages.” = Not exactly. You seem to have missed my other comments.
“Nothing is being taken away from gays by Prop 8.” = VERY WRONG! There have been over 11,000 Marriage licenses issued to same-gender couples in the last 3 months. Those will be taken away. Along with the rights that come with it.
“The potential for harm runs the other direction.” = How so? If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t have one! It will have no bearing on you what-so-ever. Do your homework.
“The intent here is to destroy traditional marriage, to indoctrinate children in deviant life styles, and to wreak havoc on society.” = This statement is so completely ludicrous, it hurts my brain. Please read the comments.
“Gay life is anything but gay.” = Most of my friends are pretty happy.
“Your average life span is roughly equivalent to men living in 1871, twenty years shorter than that of straight men in the current era.” = You must be looking at old studies. What are your references for this? And what does it matter to you?
Mac the Knight 10.16.08 at 11:04 am
Tim,
You said that the 2000 vote was the lowest on record, when in fact it was an above average turnout. You were wrong. I wasn’t necessarily calling you a Democrat, but that the math you were using sure sounded like it. You said “I’m simply stating that 61.4% of votes does NOT equate to the same percentage of people within California.” Our political system only allows registered voters to cast a vote (some would like it otherwise, but it’s not) and they need to get off their butt and go to the polls in order to be counted. You are right math is a constant, and Prop 22 passed by a significant margin of the registered voters who turned out in an above average year. It saddens me that you are choosing to ignor it (well sort of).
fairydogmother 10.16.08 at 12:05 pm
If heteros have nothing to lose when gays are granted marriage status, then please explain why there are preachers in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Canada and Europe being penalized because they have spoken against homosexuality. Why are photographers, ob/gyns and caterers being sued for chosing not to participate in gay marriage ceremonies because it is against their moral code?
Some examples:
“in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.”
“…Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.
Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.”
“The Des Moines (Iowa) Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend ‘family membership’ privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.
Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as ‘families’ for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.”
“Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.
In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ”gravely immoral.”) …
If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can’t discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk.
A potentially greater threat is that government agencies will try to change church teachings. It is already happening in other nations. ”
LifeSiteNews.com reported on August 19, 2008:
“A lesbian woman in California has won a law suit in which she claims doctors at a fertility clinic discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.
Dr. Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the clinic, said she would not perform an intrauterine insemination on Guadalupe, a lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm, stating she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, regardless of sexual orientation.
Benítez sought the treatment in 1999 after two years of trying to conceive using an at-home insemination kit; she had been diagnosed with an ovarian syndrome that would require her to get the help of fertility specialists to get pregnant.
When Dr. Brody refused to do the insemination Benítez sued her and the clinic, which resulted in a 2004 court ruling in favour of Benitez. ”
Okay, I’m curious to know if there are no other fertility doctors or clinics in California. Why is it necessary to force a doctor to do something that goes against his or her moral code?
Please also explain “hate crimes” to me. Why is there a stiffer penalty for assaulting a gay than for assaulting a straight? Why is the penalty for a violent crime not equal across the board?
Somebody said that marriage wasn’t being discussed in school.
California Education Code Section 51890:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
. . .
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
fairydogmother 10.16.08 at 12:10 pm
“choosing”
mdallinm 10.16.08 at 1:09 pm
“I’m simply stating that 61.4% of votes does NOT equate to the same percentage of people within California.”
So, are you proposing that illegal aliens and minors should be able to weigh in on the matter? Other than registered voters, what populations are we supposed to be asking?
Tim, you started by claiming, “It happens that voter turnout in said year was one of the lowest in California history.”, which Mac has proven was grossly wrong. It was, in fact, one of the higher voter turn-outs in a twenty year period. By the way, your statement-of-fact that it was one of the lowest turnouts in history draws any statement-of-fact made by you into question.
People are not arguing that 61% of the population of California voted for Prop. 22. Legal aliens, illegal aliens, felons, and minors were unable to vote in the election. Wild animals, livestock, and domesticated pets also can not vote. Of those who are eligible to vote and were registered to vote, an overwhelming number made their voices heard that day. And, of the votes cast in that overwhelming turn-out, 61% supported Prop. 22. A meager 39% opposed it or did not vote on that issue.
Cosmo 10.16.08 at 1:12 pm
I lived in CA at that time. It was a well publicized issue. The wording of the initiative was straight forward, without room for misinterpretation. The voters read it and agreed that marriage should be between one man and one woman. As for those who didn’t show-up at the polls that day, they must not give a darn about the supposed “right” of gays to marry, or they would have taken the time to get there. In the months prior to the election, television and radio commercials ran. Signs were everywhere. Prop. 22 grass roots volunteers walked door-to-door in nearly every neighborhood. Registered voters knew it was on the ballot, and an overwhelming number of them turned out to agree that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Jefferson 10.16.08 at 1:30 pm
Up until, and even beyond 1967, when Mildred Loving won her case against Virginia, an ‘overwhelming majority’ believed interracial marriage was wrong, and against God’s will. I bet you money they would have voted overwhelmingly against interracial marriage! But the court system took equality to heart, and went against the will of the people.
Same thing between the 2000 Prop 22 and 2008 court ruling. What, you say that interracial marriage and same-gender marriage isn’t the same thing? Well even Mildred Loving thought it was. Here’s part of her statement made last year. (she just passed away this May)
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
- Mildred Loving
spondee 10.16.08 at 1:40 pm
Fairydogmother - you list several discrimination cases where public organizations discriminate against individuals for their sexual orientation. For instance:
“Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as ‘families’ for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.”
A private institution that takes no government funding is free to discriminate against whomever they choose. Blacks, Jews, gays, children, grandmothers, Scientologists, pastry chefs, whatever. But the SECOND the INSTANT they accept public funds, they lose that right. When they accept public money or tax exempt status, then they accept the tacit approval of the US