Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The negative ramifications of legalized same-sex marriage are real?? You site an example of "negative ramification" being that the Catholic Church CHOSE to close a charity. My response to that is "shame on the church"! There were no rights being "usurped", that was a conscious CHOICE by the Catholic Diocese of Boston. You are going to blame that *choice* on same-sex marriage?? Let's blame global warming on it too!
Gay couples live as "domestic partners" because they do not have the option of being married. Perhaps you are right - it's not about rights being "taken away", it's about rights being withheld.
Posted by Concerned, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:27 am
THe web link above is propaganda. Simple things like calling the gay lifestyle a "choice"... color the explanations. Vote No and 8 and yes on tolerance and equality. Don't let that video give you make you feel better about voting against your neighbors rights!
Posted by UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
There is no doubt in my mind that California left-leaning liberals regard the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as a well-funded, politically active source of votes.
Look @ AB2567 as Exhibit A.
Look it up if you don't know what it is.
Exhibit B: Day of Silence. Look it up as well and see what Ca schools are on the list of observing this particular agenda.
Educators are planning to introduce new curriculum changes that highlight the gay lifestyle at all grade levels. It is an UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE if Prop A does not pass. To think otherwise is failure to think.
To believe there are no plans is to say "tolerance" the corner stone of the vote no supporters, does not need to be taught. And who better than your public school system? Unfortunately, their role in re: to education is no longer about critical thinking skills along with specific subject matter that allows a child to become a productive member of society. It has been replaced by a social agenda. Again, look up the Exhibits I referenced earlier and you will appreciate yet another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
Parents are going to be denied their constitutional rights to “opt out” of the teaching of material which impinges on the parent’s and child’s freedom of religion. If its "legal" why do you need to opt out?
So you have parents who are teaching their children one thing about religion and morality and then being openly contradicted by the school’s teaching. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: Confused children and possible erodement of parental freedoms and respect.
This is NOT FEAR MONGERING. These are ALL UNINTENDED AND UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES.
Just like I don't want the public schools teaching my children religion, I equally do not want them to teach my children far-left liberal political ideology.
Until the issues of parental rights and the role of education is addressed in legislation I cannot and will not support gay marriage.
Until the issues of parental rights and the role of education is addressed in legislation I cannot and will not support gay marriage.
Considering what liberal educators have planned for inclusion into the curriculum and the intolerable reduction of a parent’s constitutional rights, I am suggesting every person vote “YES” on California Proposition 8
Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:01 pm
To the folks who consider sexual orientation a choice -- can you identify for me the date and time You chose Your heterosexuality? I can't because I didn't, but I knew I got butterflies standing in the lunch line near Jeannie Walker at Kennett Square elementary, back in 1958.
And I suspect you can't either, because your sexuality, and everybody else's, is not a choice, or a life style. It's as innate as other elements of your heritage -- your skin, hair, gender and eyes. It's not a choice, it just "is."
Once you get past that lifestyle nonsense, it's easy -- of course it's wrong to discriminate against others for their innate characteristics.
Posted by Jasmine, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 19, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I read all the posts on this site but did not read all of them that were on this town forum that had to with Prop 8. It looks like there are a couple of these threads on this forum. I have to agree with one comment that said marriage was not a right (not sure where on these threads I read that) but it did make sense. Everyone calls anything and everything a right these days. Honestly, last night, someone said water was a right. To me thats a resource not a right. The argument that marriage was not a right made sense to me.
Also, I do think changing the way society defines marraige will make a difference. And the post about consequences seemed to also make sense to me and to be honest I never thought about it that way.
I am sure by now everyone has made up their mind.
I just find interesting how people support their opinion.
Not that it will matter to anyone here, but I am voting YES ON 8 and most of friends are as well (I am a 28 yo professional, work in the city of SF and it is surprising to me how many of the people I work with are going to vote YES).
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Jasmine, under the law you receive various rights as a married couple that you do not have as an unmarried couple or as "domestic partners". So while you may think marriage itself is not a right, it does give rights to those allowed to participate in it. I agree with you: water itself is not a right, but shouldn't everyone have equal access to it? Would you ban gay people from getting water? There was a time in our history when African Americans had to drink water from a different fountain than Caucasians. Remember, "separate but equal" is NOT equal!
Everyone should have the equal right to be married. We no longer ban interracial marriage, why ban it for people of the same sexual orientation? Neither race or sexual orientation can be chosen.
How will changing the way society defines marriage make a difference? At least a negative one?
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 9:26 am
Julie - I've read the responses to both of our letters-to-the-editor and it's obvious that "never the twain shall meet," at least on this issue. You seem to like to argue; I do not. So let's just agree to disagree. That's what makes this a great country. We both seem to armed with ammunition to fuel both sides of this debate, and while it's interesting to read the posts, I know I'm never going to change your mind.
Keep on writing, though - I love to hear what you have to say!
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Jane, until I hear a valid, logical argument against allowing gay people to marry, you are right I will never change my mind.
"Argue" has a somewhat negative connotation. I don't actually "like" debating this issue because to me there should be nothing to debate. Usually I am happy to "agree to disagree", but there is a lot at stake here - the constitutional rights of an entire group of people. I will continue to offer evidence of why Prop 8 should not pass because I feel I must do my part, however small, to stop discrimination.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Julie - you are right: the rights of an entire group of people are at stake with Proposition 8. I'm referring to the rights of those of us who wish to restore the definition of marriage to what it has always been, between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. There are no exceptions to this.
You have criticized the Catholic Church for "choosing" to suspend Catholic Charities in Boston, when in actuality freedom of religion is the issue. Churches have always been able to practice their beliefs unrestricted by the government. In Massachusetts, this is no longer the case. I could go on and on with a list of lawsuits filed against churches and individuals who refused to compromise their beliefs. These lawsuits are a matter of public record.
The tax-exempt status that churches enjoy allows them to operate many charities that benefit the public in general, whether or not one is religious. For example, many churches donate massive amounts of goods as well as man-hours under the umbrella of the Red Cross when disaster hits.
Let me state once again: I don't expect you to change your mind, so if Proposition 8 does not pass, I can only hope that what has happened in other states which legalized gay marriage doesn't happen in California.
Posted by The Last Word, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of the 55% of marriages that don’t end in divorce and the fraction of those that can be called “happy” would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. Unitarians don’t count – they’re dis-organized religion.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, women as work colleagues or longer life spans.
Posted by last last word, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 9:56 am
We must also rescind the right of women to vote, they are way too emotional to ever be logical or reasonable. And might as well bring back prohibition since it worked so well the last time. Hey, legislating morality can be fun, eh? Long as everyone does it my way no problem.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I guess I just can't imagine feeling good about knowing that I'm telling people through my vote that their sexual orientation does not make them worthy of being married (and all the benefits that go with it), have children, or even be acknowledged in an equal way. Seems like everyone voting yes is doing so only for themselves and trying to protect their narrow view of marriage. Those who vote no, particularly heterosexuals, are doing it for those experiencing the discrimination because they know it has nothing to do with their own marriage. That is the big difference. Are you selfish or selfless?
Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community, on Oct 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Instead of people having so much care about who marries who, why don't we all just VOTE NO on PROP 8 and maybe redfine our education first- I think that is a bit more important. Did anyone else see the news clip about a van being parked infront of a house with Yes signs on it, and the windows on the van said "Bigot", with an arrow pointing towards the house? I still have yet to read someone's explanation about "I support equal rights for all but not for gay marriage"............
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Jane, I honestly don't understand how churches in Mass. can no longer practice their beliefs unrestricted. My understanding is that, as an example, the Catholic church can marry or not marry whomever they choose. They will not have to marry gay couples if Prop 8 passes. Heck, they almost refused to marry my husband and I because I am not Catholic - we had to fill out "extra" paperwork. They could have chosen not to marry an "interfaith" couple.
Regarding this specific example of a charity in Mass. - what was there a sudden HUGE rush of gay couples vying for donations? They closed down a charity because they felt that helping the *small* percentage of people who contradict their views was more heinous that continuing to help the MANY who did not contradict those views? Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Do they check with each person accepting a donation to be sure that they don't engage in adultery, etc.?
Although to be honest again, religious arguments against Prop 8 do not persuade me at all because I believe in separation between church and state. The fact that so many churches are throwing their money behind "No on 8" is evidence in and of itself to vote yes on it. The constitution should not be about imposing religious morality.
Posted by Astrid, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The Catholic Church should just worry about keeping children safe and the women they hire to clean the church unraped. That's all they need to be concerned with. First things first.
We protect marriage by allowing homosexual people to marry. More stable families. That's what we want, right?
Should we just keep marriage for men and women couples? Hmm...they divorce 50% of the time. Lesbians do a much better job staying together, how much better for the children.
Heterosexual couples are excellent producers of gay children. So I'm thinking we'll get more heterosexual offspring from the gay marriages. And that's what you all want, right?
I'm a heterosexual married woman, but I'm starting to think heterosexual marriage is the questionable union.
There's a great deal of domestic abuse, alcoholism, prescription drug abuse, and the need for anti-depressants among married couples. What do you think about the health of heterosexual married folk? Let's diversify and see how other people do it, we need help.
Posted by Helena, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 12:15 am
We should give heterosexuals and their sex practices some scrutiny, because they do some things that make me sick. Ewww...you know what I mean. Let's say they can't get married cause some of them do that and that's just gross.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:46 am
Wondering, I am accusing *people* of wanting to use the Constitution to impose their religious morality. I am not accusing "the constitution" (a legal document that doesn't think for itself) of anything. Honestly I don't know where your post comes from or what it has to do with the issue we are debating here. It's simply an attack - accusing me of hating churches? It's one of those posts that honestly leaves ME "wondering"......
P.S. the issue is not about SEX, so don't even start down that road. People have sex whether they are married or not.
Posted by FYI, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Ocr 22 2008
"Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to
California Elementary Schools
Hayward, CA – Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.
The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating "Ally Week," a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, "We're learning to be allies." The mother also learned that her daughter's kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.
Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."
These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."
Posted by Magella, a resident of the Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 12:38 am
This just in, that nameless Hayward charter school is going to be playing the wedding song soon as it hosts the marriage of Joe the Plumber to Joe Six Pack. The students are forced to be wedding party members. Boys must be flower girls, and the girls are required to be groomsmen. Everyone and everything is atwitter as life as we knew it goes upside down and inside out now that gays have taken over marriage. More later.
Posted by Stenar, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Because you have a web link it's true? Do you think we're that naive? Everybody, check out that website, 'cause y'know, it's TRUE if it's on a website. And that's a real credible website, 'cause it's got colors.
Posted by Julie, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Oct 23, 2008 at 5:13 pm
FYI, I'm so glad you reprinted that "article" and Facts I am so glad you posted your response too. Why? Because the two of you exemplify PERFECTLY the lack of intelligence/analytical skills/research/etc. that many (note I didn't say "all") "Yes on 8" posters demonstrate.
FYI shame on you for posting (MULTIPLE TIMES) an article that you did NOT check for validity. It originated from a single "news" site that I bet, had I time for more research, I would find is some sort of right-wing conservative rag. If you google the school name the only sites reporting on this fictional "Coming Out Day" are sites that refer to that ONE original (& very questionable) source. They too appear to be right wing conservative rags. Does it not seem odd to you that ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. have reported NOTHING on this article?
Actually, I lied. I'm not happy you printed it. This is what happens - someone doesn't check their source and SPREADS lies and then others pick it up and believe it and before you know it, it's a "fact". That's called PROPAGANDA! There were more hits at google today regarding this article, because now other sites are continuing the LIES of the original site.
Is this how you want to vote yes on 8 - with LIES? Here is the TRUTH: Prop 8 withholds rights from gay people. Period. Separate and equal is NOT equal.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 7:19 pm
That link is dated today from just an hour ago. I think calling people morons in this case is a bit unfair. If you're going to call people morons, at least have the courtesy of making sure they're truly moronic.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm
First, I can't believe you called us "morons".
Did you READ the ABC article? Watch the news report? The title of the article at that ridiculous World Net Daily is:
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Did you READ the ABC report? That's not what happened! That WND article contains partial truths that are spun to support a Yes on 8 agenda. World Net Daily didn't do their homework either. You have some nerve to call me a "moron". I do not need to resort to inept reporting, faulty research and fear tactics. FACT: a Yes on 8 vote takes away the rights of a specific group = DISCRIMINATION.
Posted by M. Louise, a resident of another community, on Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Principal Levy is also the acting principal at an adjacent school, Markham Elementary. A representative at that school did confirm that "Coming Out Day" was indeed being celebrated at Faith Ringgold, but the principal was unavailable for comment due to the fact that she was in a meeting regarding the controversial event.
If it didn't happen then why doesn't the principal just come out and say it? Because it did happen and they the school is in the midst of celebrating "Ally Week" as part of "Gay and Lesbian History Month."
Posted by Bea, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 pm
What does supporting gay marriage have to do with this teacher? Who cares if they say Jane instead of Jack and the Beanstalk? Though I don't know the point of changing it, who cares? And again, this has to do with gay marriage, how?
BTW, isn't middle school a little young to have a gay alliance club? Kids that age are by nature confused and in process, how could they know for sure if they're gay, a few might, but not most. Anyway, this doesn't change my support for gay marriage.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I'm ashamed of myself. I just realized that I've been tricked - ladies and gentleman there has been a "bait and switch" tactic going on.
I don't care if the "gay-oriented" activities at the Hayward school are true or not! It STILL has nothing to do with Prop 8. Prop 8 is about not discriminating against gays. It's not about Tara Miller's curriculum. It's not about the Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science. As usual, since there is no rational or logical explanation for discrimination, the No on 8 camp has to resort to scaring people with an unrelated issue. Do you think that if you win and Prop 8 passes that all of a sudden schools will stop teaching tolerance towards gays? Heck, they are going to have to teach it MORE.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 10:29 am
Julie - This whole debate is getting out of hand. Let's pretend for a minute that we are dealing only with the written text of Proposition 8 and not the deluge of propaganda from both sides of the issue. It all comes down to this: the definition of marriage. The word, "marriage." Not rights, or lack of rights. Not discrimination or a broadening of tolerance. A simple definition.
Individuals still have the right to form any kind of relationship they want with others. Any adult or adults can adopt or be artificially inseminated or willingly become a single parent through pregnancy. The only issue is whether those who do not fit the definition can commandeer the word, "marriage," to please their own agenda.
If rights and recognition are truly the issue with the opponents of Prop. 8, then work to broaden and expand domestic partnership rights!
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 3:38 pm
First, Jane, I don't know why you single me out that the debate is "getting out of hand" or even why you think it's "out of hand".
There's no need to pretend, here is the written text:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
How can you say that it's only about a word and not about rights? It says the prop will ELIMINATE THE RIGHT of same-sex couples to marry in CA. Have you even read it before??
"Individuals still have the right to form any kind of relationship they want with others"
NOT GAYS - IF PROP 8 PASSES THEY CANNOT FORM A LEGAL MARITAL RELATIONSHIP. Would you want that RIGHT taken away from you?
Gays are not trying to "commandeer" your word, Jane. And, their only "agenda" is to be able to get legally married. You say there is no discrimination. Your very language of words like "commandeer" and "THEIR own agenda" IS discrimination!
Propaganda involves manipulating facts, even creating falsehoods (e.g. the World Net News story). There is no propaganda from both sides - at least not from me. When I write that Prop 8 takes rights away from gays all you have to do is READ the TEXT of the actual propostion to see that I am not spreading propaganda.
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Julie - After the writers of Prop. 8 submitted it for the ballot, California Attorney General Jerry Brown added the negative wording that you cite. Backers of the proposition were unsuccessful in their attempt to have the negative language removed. Obviously, Attorney General Brown's move succeeded in prejudicing the public against the original proposition.
I stand by my original premise that this proposition is not about taking away anyone's rights.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm
And by the way, how could anyone state that a proposed amendment to the Ca CONSTITUTION has nothing to do with rights? A constitution by definition defines the (structures of) government and enumerates the RIGHTS of the people. If this were really about *simply* the definition of a word we would not be going to the trouble of amending a CONSTITUTION. Prop 8 is exactly about defining rights - who can and cannot enter into the legal contract of marriage in CA. If you think it has nothing to do with rights you are kidding yourself.
Posted by Lou, a resident of the Canyon Creek neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I am voting Yes on 8 because it is about protecting MY rights not to have a social agenda of ANY kind advanced by 4 appointed (and I really don't care who appointed them) lawyers who decided it was OK to negate the vote of 61% of the population.
A "No on 8" website that comments on facts v. fiction.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
* Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Here is what happened:
Proposition 22 Unconstitutional: California Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court today decided to overturn a ruling banning gay marriage in the state. Proposition 22 was passed by CA voters and defined marriage "between a man and a woman". The court ruled 4-3 that domestic partnerships aren't a sufficient substitute for marriage. Surprisingly, 6 of the 7 judges are Republican appointees, whose party has historically sided with such bans.
It is a judge's job to interpret the law. Thank goodness those 4 judges did their job and saw that 61% (not exactly a landslide) of the people had voted for something that was unconstitutional. There never should have even BEEN a Prop 22. You think disallowing gays to marry isn't a social agenda? You want YOUR social agenda advanced .... the problem is that your social agenda is unconstitutional!
Posted by Rebecca, a resident of the Canyon Creek neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Very true Julie! Maybe it's been too long since some people have taken the senior year Civics class and learned about the 3 branches of government, whether it be federal or state. Judges *interpret* the law and make rulings to clarify it when there are questions about the constitutionality. Simple as that.
Posted by Lou, a resident of the Canyon Creek neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I am voting Yes on 8 because it is about protecting MY rights not to have a social agenda of ANY kind advanced by 4 appointed (and I really don't care who appointed them) lawyers who decided it was OK to negate the vote of 61% of the population.
I want my vote to count. No agenda advanced....just maintained.
The election (2n verse, same as the first) will determine if I get my right maintained or you get to advance your social agenda along with those 4 lawyers (and remember, I don't care who appointed them).
And Julie, because you say it is a fact (or cut n paste it from some no site,) does not make it a fact. sorry. Does not work that way no matter how many time you post on all of the forum sites (and it is a lot but that is indeed your right to do so...understand I am not trying to limit that so please don't accuse of of that agenda.)
However math is objective, and 61% to 38%... well, you do the math
VOTE YES ON 8 PROTECT MY RIGHT and the 61% RIGHTS THAT WERE OVERTURNED BY 4 LAWYERS!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm
What is interesting is that in overturning Prop 22, the judges based their decision on a 1948 case that involved a woman of Mexican ancestry trying to marry a black man. Mexican-Americans at that time were classified as "white" and it was illegal in California for "whites" to marry "Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes". The Catholic Church was allowing the marriage but the County Clerk wouldn't issue a marriage license. The Court ruled that California's law violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Some 19 years later the Supreme Court heard a case and ended up ending interracial marriage bans across the entire US based upon this 1948 case. I wonder if Prop 8 passes will the Supreme Court hear a case and end up enabling gay marriage across the entire US in similar fashion?
BTW, you all should stop using email. One of the most common mail servers on the Internet was written by a gay man. Your email is being tainted with gayness.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lou's post serves as a poster child for the problem known as "the tyranny of the majority". Our founding fathers founded a republican democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy, to solve this problem, which is stated in a wikipedia entry as:
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable to "tyrannical" despots.
Lou's concept that majority rules over any other moral issue such as the rights of a minority perfectly exemplifies the problem.
To be fair to Lou, he feels his rights are at stake, although he does not explain what those rights are other than the right to majority rule. But gay couples counter that their rights are at stake, and with them it's not an issue of a right to majority rule, but rather constitutional rights to be treated equally.
Up until the 60's, the majority rule in southern states under the doctrine of state's rights continued the long history of segregation until federal law trumped it and finally granted rights to the suppressed minority.
Posted by Wayne, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 9:43 am
H8 Lovers of all persuasions. I am just without understanding how people whom you will never meet and you look down upon are doing anything to you?
I think that your feigning of personal infringement is disgusting. Seriously, you are actually capable of reasoning that your rights need protecting by limiting those of people you easily disregard. You are voting to limit the rights of Americans, and your justification is only valid in your own head.
You may need a shrink! Imaging that there are people who need to be put in to line for a personal relationship with thoughts in your head. It sounds like mental illness to me.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 9:53 am
"However math is objective, and 61% to 38%... well, you do the math"
You are correct about math, Lou. 4-3, well you do the math. You make it sound like some arbitrary 4 lawyers decided on their own to overturn Prop 22. In a VOTE, 4 Supreme Court JUDGES outnumbered 3 Supreme Court JUDGES in deciding that Prop 22 was unconstitutional. None of those judges used fear, or any other emotion to decide the case, they interpreted the LAW (remember, that's what a judge does).
I agree with Frank - you have not explained which of your rights you are concerned about. What will be taken away from you if Prop 8 doesn't pass? Your life will go on the same. If it does pass, an entire group of people lose their right to enter into a legal contract of marriage in CA. I understand you are upset that you "won" in the Prop 22 vote and you don't want to lose what you perceive you "won". What did you win THAT time? The ability to tell gays that they couldn't marry? Well, what you "won" was unconstitutional.
I am not the one who needs a lesson on "facts". I was honest and pointed out that my weblink was a "No on 8" website. By the way, what isn't a fact in my "cut and paste"? It isn't something fabricated and twisted like in the link offered up by your side. I don't need to post false/fabricated statements to support my agenda.
Yes, I am willing to admit that I do have an agenda. I want to convince people to vote NO on 8 because I believe that it is discrimination to deny a specific group the right to enter into marriage (a legal contract).
Posted by For the record, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I believe we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of same gender persuasion (see, no name calling or rage), but without having to accept same sex unions as being socially equal in name to the institution of traditional male-female marriage.
Civil unions(or whatever you want to call it except marriage) with rights...yes....if not fair then lets have initiatives on those rights that the NO people feel are unfair. I will vote for them in a heartbeat. We can maintain this tradition of marriage between a man and woman without redefining marriage for everyone just because a tiny fraction of the population really, really wants to.
I know some No people will be somehow twist what I have said and call me evil etc, or a bigot but that will only illustrate the tolerance they have for my belief system.
For ALL (note ALL) the reasons above, I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Just because a tiny, tiny fraction of the population wants to have the same and equal rights to the rest of the population, should we care? Jesus, it's a tiny fraction, who cares what they "really really" want? I really, really want to win a million dollars, doesn't mean I'll get it. Discriminating against a small number of whiners doesn't count. Tiny fractions of population can just fend for themselves. Why should we bother caring about minorities?
Would the tradition of marriage between men and women end if gay people are allowed to marry? Wow. I didn't realize that.
What about the tradition of divorce for half those men and women? Would that be affected?
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I read For the record's post and said to myself, "huh?"
So, after a bit of research and contemplation, I understand.
For the record says you can have civil unions, just don't call it marriage, and you can put out initiatives to gain rights that are already accorded to marriages but civil unions don't have. For the record will gladly support you. Just get to work to climb a hill, so to speak. That's what I take away from the post.
But that's the heart of the matter and the reason why the CA Supreme Court struck down the previous statutes:
(1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
For the record is simply denying the principal logic that went into the court's decision. Because of sexual orientation For the record says you can have civil unions so long as there is differential treatment compared to marriage, and your relationship cannot be accorded the same respect and dignity that accrue to marriages. But the court said that's wrong. For the record goes further and says to gain further rights you have to gain them through initiatives!
Now Prop 8's simple language is absolute and excludes same sex relationships from ever achieving a parity of rights or a parity of respect and dignity afforded same sex unions. Civil unions can never equal marriage, so will say our Constitution. It turns everything around and courts will be forced, for example, to declare unconstitutional on the basis of Prop. 8's amendment attempts by initiative in the future to gain these rights that For the record claims it will vote for.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 7:44 am
Well Frank, people just don't see it that way. People want to get hung up on definitions of words instead of looking at the spirit and intent of the law. And people are willing to use a constitution to create a second-class of citizens over it. In Scandinavia the way that civil unions achieved parity with marriage was to create a law that said anywhere the word "marriage" appeared in the law, it could be replaced with "civil union". Sounds like a joke, right? I guess the Scandinavian lawmakers decided that catering to marriage elitists was the way to go.
Posted by Julie, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:39 am
"I believe we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of same gender persuasion (see, no name calling or rage), but without having to accept same sex unions as being socially equal in name to the institution of traditional male-female marriage."
That statement makes NO sense to me. FTR, I'm not going to call you names - I don't even know you. However, I can say, without "twisting" your words, that your statement is illogical. You use the word "non-discriminatory" to describe how we "need to be" and yet you admittedly support a proposition that YOU say will NOT "accept same sex unions as being socially EQUAL". How can the non-acceptance of equality not be defined as discrimination?? "Equal in name" is the same thing as "equal". I'm glad that you don't feel "rage" toward gay people, but you are discriminating against them. Even "nice" discrimination is discrimination!
Are the Scandinavian lawmakers wrong? I'm willing to give up the term "marriage" to describe the legal contract I have with my husband. If it's the WORD that is such an issue to those who are willing to discriminate over it, then let's call them ALL civil unions! That's what they likely should have been called years ago when the government began to recognize a church contract as being a legal one. Let the churches keep the word "marriage" - it's not legally binding until you complete paperwork for the government. The LEGAL term for all "marriages" should be a "civil union" or heck, "domestic partnership" (though I'm not very domestic :).
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Lauren, I continue posting on this issue here in case there are "lurkers" who read and perhaps don't post, but are looking to see why people feel the way they do about the issue. If I could convince ONE person who was undecided to vote no on 8 my time here would be well spent.
You are correct - in this election you do unfortunately have the option of discriminating against an entire group of people.
Posted by unclehomerr.., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I have to laugh at some of these posts which refer to knowledge of the 3 branches of government coming in the senior year [of CA high school, I assume]. I learned this in US History classes in about the 5th grade in VA. Perhaps the CA educational system is part of the problem.
Anyone who's concerned about 'rights' being taken away, is promoting the case that the 'rights' exist in the first place. There is NO 'right' for same sex people to marry. That's what this is about.
It's akin to bicyclists demanding their 'right' to ride on the streets and interfere with vehicular traffic.. even though we continue to discriminate against the 'rights' of golf cart operators, horseback riders, and roller derby practices.
If you stop and think, every law 'discriminates' against some group. Speed limit laws discriminate against people who drive hot rods and want to test them on the freeways. DWI laws discriminate against those who say 'I'm a better driver when I've had a few drinks!'
Lets stick with the basics. Do we want same sex marriage or not. I vote NO.
Posted by unclehomerr.., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Actually.. it appears that the overturning was based on the protected group status of gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bi-sexuals in that they were being denied the 'issuance' of a marriage license, hence being discriminated against. It did not address their 'right to marry'; merely the issuance of a license.
There is 'still' no 'right' to marry... legal or otherwise.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The issuance of a license by the State is exactly what is at stake and California cannot discriminate in the issuance of such. This is civil law, not church law! Granting a gay couple a marriage license is a State function and does not force churches to change their laws.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Uncle Homerr, Yes, I also learned about the 3 branches of government in 5th grade. In Civics classes in high school you still study government at a *higher level*. Judging from your post you stopped in 5th grade and didn't do that "higher level" of study.
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a complete idiot and that you were just offering up the RIDICULOUS argument that somehow there existed a logical comparison between the rights of gays to marry and the rights of drunks to drive on the road in order to be funny. This is what I have noticed time and time again from the "Yes" side - no logic, no understanding of the legal meanings of "discrimination" and "rights".
If you really and truly stopped and THOUGHT, you would understand that laws exist to protect our rights - remember the famous right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Let's start with speed limit laws. They are not designed to discriminate against people who "want to drive fast". They are designed to protect each person's right to the aforementioned life. It has been determined that having speed limits save lives. Do I even need to explain how the DWI don't discriminate against drunks, but seek to protect life? Thank you so much for not suggesting that laws against murder somehow discriminate against people who really need to do away with someone.
How does gay marriage threaten your "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Speed limit laws, DWI laws, they are intended to protect. The bottom line is that you are not supporting a change in the constitution to protect, but to discriminate.
Being denied the right to marry is the same as being denied issuance of a marriage license. Why stop gays from receiving marriage license by the STATE (i.e. GOVERNMENT). I could care less if a church won't marry a gay couple - it's their right to practice their religious beliefs. I am fighting for the right of gays to have the legal right to be married in the eyes of the STATE GOVERNMENT, not in the eyes of GOD.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I agree with Julie about unclehomerr(err?or) and stopping in the 5th grade!
......Anyone who's concerned about 'rights' being taken away, is promoting the case that the 'rights' exist in the first place. There is NO 'right' for same sex people to marry. That's what this is about........
Please cite your references where it is written that opposite sex people have the right to marry? Federal Constitution? State Constitution? Codified federal or state law? City ordinances????
The right to marry is grouped in with all other rights as defined by the defining statement:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The only place you will find a law where it says OPPOSITE SEX PEOPLE have the right to marry is in the initiative law that was struck down by the CA Supreme Court. That's why we are having this debate!!!!
So, you don't have any logic to your central argument because, using mostly your words, "There is NO 'right' for OPPOSITE SEX PEOPLE to marry." The right to marry is general under the Constitution and afforded all people without discrimination and regard to race, ethnicity, age, or sexual orientation.
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
The notorious miscegenation laws are long forgotten today. Too bad, because their existence and effect upon the society at the time, if understood today, give understanding to the modern issue regarding sexual orientation and marriage.
To get some feel for this effect, see Edna Ferber's "Showboat", especially the 1936 movie version of the Kern and Hammerstein musical starring Helen Morgan as Julie, whose dark secret is her mother was black. It plays a central role in the movie's plot.
(This is a hard-to-find movie, is available on videocassette, and today is not shown because of its political incorrectness in dialogue, song, and situation, as measured by today's political correctness meters.)
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:04 pm
"The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967)"
Not quite. Loving v Virgina is famous for having the effect of ending interracial marriage bans across all of the US, but it was primarily based on a California case in 1948, Perez v Sharp, which overturned California's anti-miscegenation law.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 10:26 pm
unclehomerr, I am not an elementary school teacher. I could care less about your comments on education. You stirred things up with your ridiculous comparisons and illogical comments.
By the way, I saw your comment on another forum:
"Marriage is the blessed union of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and supporting a family."
I didn't want to comment at the other forum as it wasn't appropriate, but it does pertain to this debate. If marriage is entered into only for the purpose of creating and supporting a family then what about couples who are infertile? beyond child rearing age? simply don't want children? can't afford children? Should we change the constitution to discriminate against them too? I can see it now: Prop 9! CA will only recognize marriage as that between a fertile, gainfully employed, child-desiring man and a fertile, gainfully employed, child-desiring woman. If after X amount of years you do not produce or create children your marital contract becomes null and void. And while churches can bless whatever marriages they want - a legal marriage does not in fact have to be "blessed".
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I have lived in Pleasanton and Dublin for over five years. I'm a gay man that lived in SF for 12 years before relocating here to avoid commuting to my job. I have felt totally comfortable living here and never experienced any homophobia until I saw this YES on 8 article here. I looked it up on Google because I posted a blog entry on www.tribe.net under my Mr. M profile.
I want to tell all you yes on 8 people that I think you are bigots and living in the past. It's 2008 you idiots!!!
AND, thank you to all the people that have been on the corner of Hopyard & Valley with your NO ON 8 signs. Rain or shine I have seen people out there. You guys, whomever you are, are awesome!!! There were so many of you out there today and so many people honking and giving you the thumbs up and waving & smiling. That was awesome. I wanted to get out and join you but I had to get my frozen items home to the freezer. : )
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 12:10 am
Whew, Marvin -
I'm sorry that you think I'm a "bigot," a "hater," and an "idiot." You obviously have extremely strong feelings and I can't deny you the right to your opinions. You, on the other hand, seem to think that those of us who disagree with you have no right to do so. Is that exhibiting tolerance? What about my right to free speech?
Generalities usually do not typify individuals and I resent the disparaging way you have categorized all of us who support Prop. 8. I'd say that "hateful" described you, but then I'd be labeling you, and that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 am
I also saw the sign wavers at Hopyard and Valley today.
Whether "Yes" or "No", I fully understand the right to wave signs, shout, smile, or whatever, but please, stay off the median strip. I saw a young lady, on the north median strip grass, dancing around waving a sign that caused her to almost lose her balance and step out into passing traffic. It was a scary moment...
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm
You can think whatever you want Jane. Youve expressed your opinions & I've expressed mine. There's a reason there's a separation of church and state. If churches and their people want to make policy for all of the public that arent Christian that's crazy. I dont know everything or have all the answers to all the worlds problems. But in my opinion Prop 8 stands for hate. You can disagree all you want. People that are for YES on 8 are worried about their children having to learn that there are homosexuals in the world that might like to marry if they are in love. Just like heterosexuals. Children learn about straight marriage from the time theyre born. God forbid they should learn there are different types of people in the world. I'm sure there are some people that would prefer to send their kids to all white schools too. Is that realistic or politically correct. No in my opinion. The KKK can think whatever they want. I think if churches want to make public policy for all people that arent Christian then their tax exempt status should be taken away.
I could go on and on and no matter what I say will NOT change many peoples minds. Everyone has the right to state their opinions. We have done this. Yay. Are you gonna convince gay people that your views are right? Highly doubtful. Are gay people or gay friendly people going to change the minds of you or other people that think the way you do? Probably not.
So you go ahead and feel dignified in your puritanical delusion. And I'll just continue to live my life and hope for the best. And I have no intention of apologizing for having a huge middle finger for people I view as haters.
Youre the mature one here obviously. There's certainly no questioning that at all. So I'll play the role of the stereotypical pervert that homophobes continue to espouse and purvey to the world.
There's a new movie coming out soon that Sean Penn stars in. It's about Harvey Milk. Have you heard of him? Have you heard of Stonewall? There are many books on the subject of the gay rights movement too. If youre not interested in human rights that's cool. Lots of people arent. If Angelina Jolie can't change some peoples minds there's apparently no hope in reaching some people with so many issues.
So keep your chin up and keep smiling proud & know that you are right and always will be.
Posted by Marvin AGAIN, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm
AND!!! If this proposition was a racial issue, people that are for it would most definitely be seen as bigots haters and idiots and express extremely strong feelings against it. What part of that do you not get?
Not all Hollywood Stars are uninformed. Some are quite brilliant. I happen to think SF mayor Gavin Newsom is incredible. Here are some links to things he's said and done in support of NO on 8. And there's a HUGE difference between Bruce Springsteen, Sean Penn, Angelina Jolie, Jamie Lee Curtis and so many others, and a whole bunch that openly say "Don't pay attention to me. I have no public comment on these issues." There are some famous people that are very informed and actively speak of their views. Look at Oprah. lol
So I'm most certainly NOT saying people should base their decisions on what some famous people may or may not say. But there are indeed some famous people I completely respect and DO pay attention to their views. I don't really like Bruce Springsteens music. But I have seen and read interviews with him. I think he's an amazing person and his views do most certainly have an influence on me. I'd pay more attention to his views than I would some crackhead in the tenderloin. Duh.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Dude! You are either fully uniformed and bigoted yourself. Who knows. Prop 8 is WRONG!!! You obviously disagree. So say whatever you want about my posts. Say whatever you want about anything. I have a big middle finger for you and everyone else in that boat with you. There are different reasons for HATE. Choose your relevance and stick with it. All of this is VERY temporal I assure you. Omnicide and the extinction of this planet is guaranteed just a matter of time. In te grand scheme of things, um, you are worth less than a fudgy piece of dog shit on a hot summer sidewalk. And if my opinions are so amusing and irrelevant to you why would you even respond? Because youre a trolling assed hater with illusions of grandeur. We all hate. Some of us can actually admit it and dont adhere to moralistic pretense. Are you really such a martyr? Spineless coward. We shall see.
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Thank you for demonstrating your impotence and irrelevance. Bruce Stringsteen is an incredible person and an outstanding American and world citizen. He has more wisdom in his pinky than you and a million people like yourself have combined. When I mentioned him I stated I wasnt into his music really. But I do respect him as a person and agree and identify with his political views.
And your pedestrian referrence to QUEEN is obviously a homophobic generalized assumption. Even though I do happen to love Queen. Lots of people do regardless of sexual preference.
As if it matters or is relevant to this discussion, just for the record, I love all kinds of music but my faves are NIN, Van Halen, Motley Crue, industrial, etc.....
Anyway. Go F yourself loser. POOF!!! Be gone!!! lol DUMBASS!!!
Posted by Shelley, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I wonder what the yes on 8 crowd has to say about one of the major funders of the proposition, that being a group from Utah who historically were outcast from the Union to the Utah territory because of their "nontraditional" expression of marriage...
The billionaire mother of Erik Prince, head of Blackwater. Yep. Gotta love it. Obama should have stated in his speechlast night that "Anything is possible, except equal rights for everyone. Sorry homos. The Moral Majority has spoken."
Posted by fact, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:44 am
The key word Marvin is MAJORITY.....
It's funny because after the fact, you guys just sound like you're whinning now. The people have spoken and its time that you accept it. Everyones' marriage just got alittle stronger today. This is a great day, don't spend it crying over spilt milk.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:52 am
Funny, I don't feel my marriage stronger since it has nothing to do with anyone but me and my husband. I had no idea the entire gay community was ruining your marriage. It must not have been very strong in the first place.
Posted by Marjority, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 8:30 am
The MAJORITY were all for ridding the world of Jews in WWII too dumbass. Do you think that majority opinion should rule over the minority?
How did this make your marriage stronger? Exactly? People & ads for Prop hate, uh, 8, state "Protect the sanctity of marriage." In my opinion Yes on 8 took away the sanctity of marriage and made it even weaker than it already is. No on 8 would have made it more sanctified. Set in concrete. For EVERYONE!!! Gay or str8.
Enjoy your bigoted homophobic life. Are you racist too?
Posted by Nathan Nagatori, a resident of another community, on Nov 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The Bible has been used so many times to discriminate against people, start wars, and do so many god awful things to your fellow man. Even among Bible scholars, it is well a known fact that the Bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted in whatever way to support a political party or sway the current political climate. Why do you think there are so many versions of the bible? Even as recent as the 1960's there were laws in several states outlawing the marriage between whites and blacks. People argued that it was unnatural and against God's will. Are all our memories that short?
The Bible does say, "...Do unto others what you would want done unto you...." Would you want me to vote to have your marriage annulled? I don't think so. Let's perpetuate love and acceptance -- not hate and bigotry.