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 }
← Previous Comments
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.
“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?
“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?
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.”
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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!
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.
Thanks for the info on the field trip, Jefferson!
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
????
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
The results in 2000 were 61% versus 38%. That is a landslide, however you slice it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
“choosing”
“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.
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.
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
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 government for their activities. If their activities include discrimination, then the US government will withdraw support. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund organizations that discriminate.
Now, let’s swap a few words out of your stories and see how they sound.
A person’s sexual orientation is as much of a choice as the color of their skin, and if you deny someone a right based upon that you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. It’s that simple.
Don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one. But don’t think you have the right to deny basic rights to someone else because it makes you feel icky inside.
“But the court system took equality to heart, and went against the will of the people. ”
The court system is not to take anything to heart. “Just the facts, mam, just the facts.” The role of the court is to interpret legislation, not write it. It has nothing to do with the will of the people; they should only be interpreting law that is already on the books. To do otherwise is an abuse and misuse of their power.
Repeat: Gays have every legal right to fiscal and legal privileges that straights do. Get informed. That is what the civil union/domestic partnership campaign was all about (I supported that and still do.)
Gays CAN get insurance, they have visitation and inheritance rights, the whole nine yards. So put that argument aside; it does not hold water.
Regarding the ridiculous discussion of whether 61% is 61%, of course it is. It is the percentage of the vote among those who cared to exercise that right. If others who supposedly care actually had, they would have voted. No one can use the excuse any more that they could not get to the polls. Motor voter laws took care of that, too.
If the election had turned out the other way, the left/gay crowd would be heralding it as a smashing victory. It was, but for traditional families. No one splits hairs like this unless they have no better argument, so can that one, too.
And why do I care about the life spans of gays? 1)Because some of them are my friends, and I feel grief when they suffer and die before their time. 2)Because they adopt children, or have them from previous relationships, and children deserve parents who survive their childhood. 3)Because their irresponsible (and unnecessary) behaviors increase the cost of medical care for the entire nation. All of those three reasons are cause for public concern, and so yes, it is the business of the straight community how you live.
Most gay couples have open marriages. It is a commitment in terms of their friendship, their living arrangements, but it is not a commitment (for most, statistically established, not personal opinion) in terms of exclusive intimacy, which most gays consider oppressive. Read the statistics that are not supplied by gay groups, whose research is conspicuously biased to support their predetermined outcomes. Yes, you will argue with that statement, too, but that does not change facts. I’ve done the research at medically respected websites. Studies that purport to support gay arguments are notorious for using inadequate samples and for lack of controls.
To our friends in the gay community: there IS help available. You CAN return to a healthy, fulfilling, self-respecting life style. Many gays are doing just that, but they are remarkably under-publicized — for the obvious reasons.
Last but not least: There IS a choice, at least for the vast majority of gays, whether to live that life style or not. The notion that it is genetic has been disproved. There is NO gay gene. Same sex attraction is often the result of childhood abuse, but the answer to that is treatment, not more of the same. This is not on a plane with inherited disabilities, gender or race. It is a personal choice, just as infidelity among heterosexual couples is a choice.
“Don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one. But don’t think you have the right to deny basic rights to someone else because it makes you feel icky inside.”
That is the same self-centered argument used by those in favor of abortion, late-term abortion, and partial birth abortion. It’s not about how WE feel inside. It’s not about the “rights” of SELFISH adults. It is about the children.
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
This is a good article about the shorter lives of gays. It is from a Christian perspective, but it uses solid facts, not theology to argue the case.
From the article:
“Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.
Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.”
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
In regards to the shortened life-span of gays, the above is an interesting article. In looking at the issue, I saw lots of links trying to debunk the study conducted by Cameron, but no one seems to be addressing all the evidence presented by other studies. Excerpt:
“Life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man is 8 to 20 years less than all men. The authors estimate that ” nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O’Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., ” Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.”
There are some studies, conducted by the pro-gay crowd, that attempt to argue that it is not true that gays have shorter life-spans. But, their studies are too small to be deemed reliable.
Several years ago, I read an article in The Reader’s Digest about San Francisco’s Cannabis Club. In that article, they mentioned that gays were among the largest number of those seeking marijuana for medicinal purposes. The reason offered was that gay sex causes health problems which result in severe pain. They seek the marijuana to alleviate the pain.
Now, I know some of you are going to ask why I care if gays have shorter life. For me, it is all about the children. Many adoption agencies will not place children with heterosexual couples beyond their mid-40’s because they want to be fairly sure that the parents will be around to raise the children into adulthood. Anyone can die any time, but it is not fair to place children with parents who are likely to not be around for at least another 30 years. Due to the shorter life span of gay males, placing children in their homes places the children in a home with an insecure future.
Hogwash, nonsense, rubbish.
Just because science hasn’t isolated the exact cause off homosexuality, that doesn’t mean it’s not inborn. There are studies that link it to birth order, gestational hormone levels in the mother, and genes. To say there is no “gay gene” is to ignore the many many other biological factors that may be at work here.
To say that it is “often a result of abuse” is also a fallacy. Correlation does not imply causality. To be sure, there are abused children who grow up gay. There are also millions more abused children who do not. There isn’t a causal link between abuse and homosexuality. There is, however, a causal link between childhood abuse and self-destructive behavior. And it is these behaviors, which occur in the gay community and the straight community, that lead to these “decreased lifespans” of yours. People who abuse drugs, engage in unprotected sex with many anonymous partners, drive without seatbelts, smoke, join cults, or drink to excess are affecting their lifespans and health. But Gays do it, Straights do it and it hurts both of them.
It’s entirely possible that gay men are statistically more likely to engage in self-destructive behavior, but have you considered that maybe they’re not gay because of abuse – that they’re abused because they’re gay? Most gay people know they’re gay very early on in their lives, and go through great pains to hide it. They torment themselves with fear of being found out, and if they are found out, are subject to beatings from friends, siblings, even parents. This is abuse, and it can scar.
Also, your argument that “most gays have an open relationship,” is thin. I know gays and straights in open relationships. Some work, some don’t. Also, I think that statistic, even if it were accurate, only applies to gay men. Lesbians seem to have a higher rate of fidelity than heterosexual couples.
Aside from that – fidelity is a choice. It’s a choice that gays, lesbians and heteros have. It’s a choice that married straights have. But sexual orientation is not, repeat, NOT a choice. And hiding, shaming and condemning those who live openly with their orientation is the abuse that pushes them to the fringes of our culture. If we accepted them for who they are, and let go of the fear of something different “corrupting” our precious perception of what is the “right” way to live, we could finally put an end to the violence that’s hurting both sides. What they do, how they live, does not affect YOU. It will not “make” your children gay. it will not force you to become gay or live the gay “lifestyle.” You cannot “catch the gay.”
Do Methodists, Catholics, photographers, caterers and fertility specialists all take public money?
No one has told me yet why a violent crime against a homosexual receives a stiffer penalty than the same crime against a straight.
What about teaching marriage to children 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.
Recruiting? You bet the militant homosexuals recruit. We’ve seen it on our local Jr.High and High School campuses. And what about that “man/boy” deal? That’s not recruiting? It’s not just recruiting; it’s child abuse.
Wow…the arguments being presented against homosexuality are getting drastically more specious and/or fringe-related. “What about the ‘man/boy’ deal?” It is condemned at least as strenuously in the general GLBT community as it is the “traditional” community; possibly more so due to the nature in which it damages the rest of our reputation. Child abuse is reprehensible and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Please do not lump me in with child molesters because I engage in consensual sexual and emotional relationships with adult males. They are very, very different classifications.
We seem to keep going back to adoption and children on these comments. Spondee put it quite nicely in one of her previous posts saying that allowing or denying same-sex marriage will neither prevent nor grant rights to same-sex couples regarding the conception, adoption, fostering or rearing of children. That is an entirely separate issue. Yes, legal marriage will make rearing children that same-sex couples have easier in many governmental matters, but the gaining of those children is separate. We can go back and forth on whether discrimination based on marriage status is legal or not, but the rules of adoption/fostering are changing regardless of marriage status.
As to the life expectancy of gay men (which again, Spondee accurately pointed out that you’re looking at one side of the community and not the other, while denying the rights of both), even the study that Jayde referenced mentioned that it has more to do with social pressures and interference than who we are. Yes, there is an incidence of STD related death in gay men (though they lumped us with IV drug users, which I assure you most of us are not), but far more telling to me is that according to that study we are 116 time more likely to be murdered and 24 times more likely to commit suicide. I can tell you unequivocally that is entirely causally related to the fear and hate that has been propagated against us in the modern age. We are sought as scapegoats to make people who are dissatisfied with their lives or relationships feel better about themselves. Legalizing same-sex marriage is one way in which we are trying to make the mainstream realize that despite our differences we are human beings that bleed and feel the same as everyone else.
If you want to say it’s about the children, make it about the children. Please help us make it so that when I have children, or you, if our son turns out to be gay I don’t have to tell him that he’s 116 times more likely to be murdered than his heterosexual friends because of who he is.
Until every single governmental agency changes their documentation to state “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership” instead of “Marriage” there is no equality. And this fight for equal rights as guaranteed to ever US citizen under the Constitution will continue.
No matter what argument is thrown in here, Proposition 8 is adding discrimination into our state’s constitution. Every argument concerning the true definition of the word “marriage” is soley imbedded in the fight between separation of church and state. Until the government realizes its mistake and changes the wording on their documentation, this fight for equality is for the good of all US citizens covered under the Constitution.
For those who are for Proposition 8, it is time to look within yourselves and examine your beliefs. For if you are truly on the side of God, you will see the errors of your ways and go with love rather than to judge others in the place of the true judge.
To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
Let me just clarify hate crime legislation here, and I’ll preface this with the fact that I’m not convinced that hate crimes should have stiffer penalties.
A hate crime occurs when the motivation for a crime is based upon the gender, race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim. The incident that started this conversation, the attack upon a man based upon his political opinion is a hate crime. The gay-bashing murder of Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. Lynching is a hate crime. The Holocaust was a hate crime (or 6 million hate crimes).
Essentially hate crime penalties are another form of “special circumstances” which are used to define the severity of a crime. Just as accidentally causing someone’s death (manslaughter, murder 3) carries different penalties than deliberately causing a death in the heat of an argument or passion (murder 2), and still stronger penalties when the death is pre-meditated (murder 1), committing the crime because of a person’s orientation/race/whatever adds to the overall picture of the crime and is used as a sentencing guideline. ANYONE can be the victim of a hate crime, however an oppressed minority is more likely to be a target.
Now, whether you can criminalize hate is a different subject, and not the subject under discussion here. The idea rings of “thought crime” to me, and as a vigorous proponent of free speech, it makes me queasy.
Also…
April,
Us gays can already have kids, either biologically (with some help), or adopt, legally, in almost every state. And yes, we can achieve benefits and rights through lawyers and paperwork one way or another. AND, in California right now, I was able to have all of those rights and privileges by getting Married to my partner. It is the law right now.
So, nothing you say has any bearing what-so-ever on me being able to have kids and receive benefits.
So, the only thing Prop 8 will do is remove our rights.
And I’ve said it earlier in comments, I never chose to be gay. Because there is no ‘proof’ (yet) either way of the ‘gay gene’, or ‘upbringing’, how can be so anti-gay? Very sad.
Fairy Dog Mother,
“Do Methodists, Catholics, photographers, caterers and fertility specialists all take public money?” = I believe Methodists and Catholics do. And if the photographers, caterers and fertility specialists work for the Federal, State, County, City or other government, then yes they do.
“No one has told me yet why a violent crime against a homosexual receives a stiffer penalty than the same crime against a straight.” = Same as violent crimes against blacks because they are black. If it’s proved in court that the defendant’s violence wasn’t caused by their hatred for the person being black, or gay, then no stiffer penalty would apply.
“What about teaching marriage to children in school?” = I don’t have the time research, but I believe there’s something in there about ‘age appropriate’.
“Recruiting? You bet the militant homosexuals recruit. We’ve seen it on our local Jr.High and High School campuses.” = Hmmm … I’ve never gotten my free toaster! I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve never EVER heard of any type of recruitment. What would that be like? ‘Come join the gays! Be ridiculed, abused and hated by religious people!’ I don’t think so.
“And what about that “man/boy” deal? That’s not recruiting? It’s not just recruiting; it’s child abuse.” = You are correct. That is 100% child abuse. And they are not gay. They are pedophiles. Not at all the same thing. And anyone I’ve ever known in the gay community scorns that group. We have nothing to do with them. Period.
“Bite me.”
Thanks for the offer, but I’m afraid I’ll have to pass. I’m not your type!
“Also, in first trimester abortions, a fetus is not a child.”
B.S. To paraphrase an argument my brother used about 25 years ago, the baby has his/her own DNA and his/her own beating heart. If not a child, then what is it? A duck?
Have you ever observed an ultrasound of a baby within the first trimester? I have observed all three of my own children in the first trimester. There is no question but that there is life, human life.
Check out this video clip of a baby at just 10 weeks from gestation:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/movies/10weeks.asp
According to the Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
By Week 4, the baby’s brain, heart, spinal cord and other organs are beginning to develop.
By Week 5, the heart begins to beat.
By Week 6, the neural tube closes. (It is because the baby is a human before you many woman realized they are even pregnant that it is so critical that woman of child bearing age get plenty of folic acid.)
By Week 8, fingers and toes form.
By Week 9, the baby is moving.
By Week 10, the baby’s gender may be apparent.
By Week 12, the baby has fingernails and toe nails.
Sounds to me like the baby is already a human by very early in the first trimester!
As for the arguments of late-term abortion, there are many significant studies that establish that medical need for late term abortion is almost non-existent. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute performed a study through questionnaires given to 1900 women who came to abortion clinics in the U.S. Of those 1900, 420 of them (that’s nearly ¼ of them) were past 16 weeks gestation, which is late term. Here are the reasons for those 420 late term abortions:
• 71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
• 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
• 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
• 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
• 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
• 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
• 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
• 6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
• 5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
• 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
• 11% Other
You can read the whole report here: http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm
Here is another good treatise on the lack of far-reaching effects that Proposition 8 will have. As you will see in the article, it is written by a lawyer that is also an active member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. I do not harbor too much hope that even someone much more versed with the issues, as he is, will be able to change the minds of those here that are staunchly going to believe their already-formed opinions, I will give it this one last chance. The article is in PDF form.
← Previous Comments