Posted by Susan, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm
People who fear and hate homosexualiy are dying out. The prejudice and discrimination are disappearing as time goes on. It's just a matter of time. There are destructive forces in human beings that make us all suffer, homosexuality isn't one of them.
Posted by Lynda, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I couldn't agree more, homosexuality should NOT be glorified/advertised any more than pre-marital sex should be. I don't discriminate against gays but they don't need to put it in people's face that they are having sexual relations with a person of the same sex. Some people still have morals and don't want to read about homosexuals. Times may change but the Bible doesn't change, what's wrong is wrong no matter how trendy or popular it has become.
Posted by Mary M., a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Lynda, Their marriage was about declaring their love and desire to be a family. The way you put it, heterosexual marriages are about a man saying, "I want to put my penis in her vagina." Is that what a heterosexual marriage is about? I don't think so, so why do you see homosexual marriages in such a vulgar way "putting it in people's faces that they're having sexual relations with a person of the same sex."
A religion which promotes condemnation, contempt and discrimination against adults feeling attracted to other adults and making consensual unions of romantic love is not a religion worth anything.
Posted by Nancy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Gay marriage is currently legal in the State of California. Therefore, for the Pleasanton Weekly not to run an announcement would be discriminatory. I certainly do not like all of the businesses that advertise in the Weekly or even all of the editorials but they have a right to print them.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2008 at 9:44 am
You are a bigot and a tool! Stop the damn hand-wringing already and get a life! But, but the bible says......
Keep your religious beliefs out of other people's lives!
Here's the stupid statement of the day as written by Lynda: "Times may change but the Bible doesn't change, what's wrong is wrong no matter how trendy or popular it has become."
It's only wrong according to you and you don't get a say fortunately! Gay people have been around forever and will be around forever. It's not trendy or popular, it just is. Don't you understand that people are just living? You must be one miserable person to keep worrying about something so insignificant in the grand scheme of life.
I'm sooooo glad I'm not you!!! For the record, I'm a straight, married woman with children and I hate people who use the bible as an excuse to bully and ridicule others. That's exactly what you're doing whether you admit that to yourself or not!
Posted by Donna, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm
How consistent that people who are opposed to gay "marriage" are always labeled hateful. The very idea that the proponents of gay "marriage" confuse "tolerance" and insist I must condone gay behaviors otherwise I am hateful and intolerant is so dishonest. Defending the lifestyle because its "been around forever" does not make it right or natural or good for society. Sorry, as much as I will totally accept and love the person, I will never accept their transgressions. Not only are the people opposed to Prop 8 trying to change the definition of marriage and family, they are trying to change the definition of tolerance. Sadly, they can count on Fr. Green and a few deacons at CCOP who shares his support of gay marriage, to move this community in that direction.
Posted by Leslie, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2008 at 8:24 pm
WOW! Just read these posts. I honestly have no opinion about gay marriage either way but sounds like Cholo is the one with the hate issues given her posts. Seriously, Cholo........do you ever read what you write? Please tell me no otherwise I can't take you with any credibility. And the upper case? Is that suppose to mean you are really mad and yelling? Looks like you spend way too much time on these posts just hating.
Posted by Shelley, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 11:28 am
I don't understand what Carol's problem is. I mean, it's not like she is being forced to read the Pleasanton Weekly and nobody is making her look at the "Couples Confirm Their Love" section. And nobody is advertising their opinion about it. Actually, Carol is the one who is espousing her opinion on us. But of course! We don't have to read her opinion! America is beautiful!
Anyway, if Carol wants to read/listen to news that is biased, there are plenty of other options out there (namely Fox News) for her.
Posted by Patricia, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Oct 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm
My goodness. I'm ashamed to see so many hateful and personally insulting comments from those who claim to value tolerance and inclusion in our community.
I do want to say that I support the right of all to OPENLY love, honor and cherish whomever they love, honor and cherish. I see no reason why their commitment to one another would threaten my family, my marriage, my sexuality, or my faith. My hometown paper ran an announcement of my wedding, and I'd expect my new hometown paper to do no less for my neighbors.
So congratulations to the newlyweds on your commitment to one another. I'll be voting AGAINST any attempts to revoke your right to marry.
Posted by Neil, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Patricia: you can "openly" love, honor and cherish. Just can't marry. Marriage is reserved for a man and woman. Civil unions , yes. Equal protection, yes! Marriage, I don't think so. Do your homework. Marriage was not instituted by government. It was established through religious beliefs Its only an attempt to normalize something that otherwise is not and impose it it on society. I am tolerant and respectful of all loving unions, including, gay unions...but don't expect that tolerance to support calling it marriage. I will be voting YES on Prop 8.
Posted by Maryann, a member of the Walnut Grove Elementary School community, on Oct 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Patricia: Just curious. Would you equally support marriage between 3 people? Would you say "congratulations to the newlyweds" and want to read all about this union in your hometown paper? Would this idea be a "threat" to your family? If no, why? If so, why? "My goodness, I ashamed" that we live in a society that gets to make up all the rules with no norms and even more ashamed that the very idea of doing that poses no threat. Looks like you have lost your compass(notice I did not say moral compass) to what makes a civilized society work.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I've been trying to wrap my mind around some of "logic" flying around on this thread. It's going to be tough since it makes very little sense.
Here's my question: Do you go around questioning heterosexual couples about whether or not they've been married in a church? I can tell you I wasn't (though I was married by an ex-priest), am I still married? I have been married for 9 years and no one has ever accused me of co-opting the word "marriage" and tried to tell me that I wasn't actually married because I didn't do it in a church. Now, if some of you were to say that to me right now, I would tell you that yes, I am married, regardless of how you define that word. The beauty is that I get to define it however I want because it's my relationship. If you don't like how I'm defining/using that word, then that becomes YOUR problem, not mine.
All I see are a bunch of scared people whose interpretation of reality isn't matching up with what is actually going on. I understand that freaks you out. I know that scares you, but you need to deal with YOUR problems head on and stop blaming others for your fears and insecurities.
This is plainly discrimination of gay people, poorly disguised under the notion of somehow defending "real marriage." I know that's true because the marriage word has not been an issue before. If you really cared about how the word is being defined/used, than you would've already been screaming about people like me who are non-religious, and who use it to describe their own union.
Posted by Lucy Lucy, a resident of another community, on Oct 6, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Jana: Here is honest....it has NOTHING (get it, nothing) to do about if you are married in a church. It s all about the definition of marriage being between a man and woman. Not between a man and man...or woman or woman. No one is discriminating against you. Call it whatever you want but don't try to change the definition of marriage to suit your arrangement. It's like changing the definition of "is". Go make up your own word and then we can have an honest discussion.
Posted by Brit, a resident of the Bonde Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Jana looks like she suffers from moral relativism. Look it up. She has all the symptoms. She basically wants to see the world not as it is but as she wants it to be. She treats the question of the definition of marriage to her own individual and cultural reality. She accuses others of imposing their idea of marriage, but she clearly intends to influence others to see her way as the right way. Me? I am suppose to see myself as scared. Her "if you don't like the way I'm treating the word marriage its my problem" is probably her most pronounced symptom that she indeed does not believe in any set of laws,(natural law or divine law for those who are religious)For her, anything goes, because it all relative to her own set of laws driven by the culture of anything goes. If Jana believes its OK for her to marry her brother, then thats OK just because Jana believes its OK. In her world there are no moral or natural laws of absolutes. And that's unfortunatly is the direction our society is going.
Posted by Shelly, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 7, 2008 at 8:17 am
Vote "NO" on Prop 8. As far as I know no Civil Union/contract, entitles the domestic partner to their partners Social Security, when
they pass away? Corrected me if I am wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is mine. When does it end? The hatred and bias against homosexuals. We are talking about a human being, living, breathing, hard working, tax paying, person. Are they not entitled to the same rights as "The Straights" As far a morality and the sanctity of marriage, the "Straights" ruined that a long time ago. Are we all not made in his image? Don't be a hater.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Feel free to address me directly, I can take it.
So you see no difference between a gay relationship and incest? Comparing a real loving relationship to incest is, frankly, very sick on your part and just goes to show how demented your mind is. It also shows how you belittle those who aren't like you. I know you think that if we allow gays to marry, than everything is then a possibility. I'm very aware of the slippery slope argument you're engaging in. "Next people will be wanting to marry animals OMG!" Perhaps in your mixed-up brain, that's the next step, but that's just not so and never has been. I stick by my original statements about fear; you are letting it run your life and everyone else's as well. I want to know do what you would do if your kids were gay? Would you accept them or tell them they have no morals and strip away their rights for simply being who they are?
Since you seem to think I'm some sort of deviant, I'll clear that up for you. I am a married heterosexual woman with young children and I believe in equal rights for all and that is what I'm going to teach my children, even if you don't think I should.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 8, 2008 at 12:46 pm
You're right! No one is discriminating against me because I'm not gay! I am standing up for others because I believe in human rights for all, not just rights for the chosen. If you want to preserve marriage, whatever that really means, than let's make it impossible for people to get divorced. Or, an even better idea, let's discourage people from getting married who don't understand that it should be a life-long commitment. I'm simply speaking about acceptance of everyone. Live and let live, as long as no one is being hurt. Guess what, no one is hurting you. It's all in your mind.
Posted by Objective bystander, a resident of another community, on Oct 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Oh my. In my instructive years learning how to write I was always encouraged to be sure my "voice" was heard in my writings. Frankly I don't care what happens to prop 8. But the anger in the voices of those who support it is really very apparent. So angry in fact, it clouds any argument they are trying to make. Just an observation from someone looking in who does not really give a hoot about this.
Posted by Lucy Lucy, a resident of another community, on Oct 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jana, lets try this one more time: ....it has NOTHING (get it, nothing) to do about if you are married in a church and NOTHING about preserving marriage or about outlawing divorce etc and all of your other weak arguments. It's all about the definition of marriage being between a man and woman. Not between a man and man...or woman or woman. Call it whatever you want but don't try to change the definition of marriage to suit your arrangement. It's like changing the definition of "is". Like I said, go make up your own word and then we can have an honest discussion.
Posted by Another Objective bystander, a resident of another community, on Oct 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Oh my. In my instructive years learning how to write I was always encouraged to be sure my "voice" was heard in my writings. Frankly I don't care what happens to prop 8. But the anger in the voices of those who oppose it is really very apparent. So angry in fact, it clouds any argument they are trying to make. Just an observation from someone looking in who does not really give a hoot about this.
Posted by Yet another objective bystander, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 8, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Oh my indeed. I don't believe my "voice" has been heard here in any of these writings, either. Like Janna (or Jana, as some who post want to change her name), I am a married female, heterosexual, with two children as well. I suppose that makes me somewhat suspect, in a group with that crazy Janna. As the kids say, WHATever. The truth is that I am not going to vote for Proposition 8, no matter how many Christian/Church of Latter Day Saints/Neighborhood Watch groups knock on my door and try to corner me. I, too, attend church. I, too, believe in God. I, too, promote family values. However, I do not believe it in the best interests of California or Pleasanton to pass a measure which changes the constitution, which is what Proposition 8 is about, no matter how many holy sticks you shake at it.
Isn't it odd that Republicans, after a long and very vocal historical trend against this, are now saying that the government should be getting into people's personal spaces and adding measures to the state constitution? I guess it's OK when it's something that isn't in agreement with their agenda?
Posted by Objective bystander my a**, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 8, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Isn't it odd that a few activist judges and Attorney General Moonbeam would attempt to thwart the democratic process and disenfranchise millions of voters? I guess it's OK when it's something that is in agreement with their agenda?
Posted by stayhomedad, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I'll go ahead and call myself ignorant about this subject. I honestly haven't spend much time thinking about "gay marriage". I figured maybe you guys can answer my question. You people sound pretty heated about this subject.
My question is- How does a marriage between two other people affect you (or me).... I mean, why should I care if two other people get married? I really don't care either way. Should I?? Whats going to happen in the future if they are allowed to marry. What are the draw backs...?
Posted by Wayne, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 9:32 pm
VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. No fear mongering....just facts.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:37 am
OMG. Who's the total loser posing as Wayne? Too cowardly to post with your own name? Don't you believe in your bigoted cause enough to put your name on your post? Stand-up and let everyone see you for your the fool you are!
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:46 am
Stay at home dad,
The drawbacks are that the religious community will have to live with the idea that gay people are equal to them in every way and the thought of that drives them out of their minds. Prop 8 has the full backing (read: money) of the Mormon church and they are encouraging their followers to vote yes on 8. That sounds like breaking the law to me. They should have their tax-exempt status ripped away immediately. If Prop 8 passes, our state constitution will be amended so that gay people can never get married. That is permanent discrimination sanctified by bigotry and it is wrong. The irony is that this is coming from a religion that thinks polygamy is a-ok but wants to keep others from marrying who they want.
You really should think about what a yes vote means stay at home dad. This cannot be undone.
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:25 am
My anger stems from churches using their congregations' money to pass this proposition. Why should one group get to tell another group how to live because they can afford to? You should give a hoot about it, because at some point in the future, someone with powerful backing may try to permanently take away one of your rights. Wouldn't you want others, who know it's wrong, to come to your defense?
This is a permanent change to our state constitution! It is tantamount to state-sanctioned bigotry paid for by big religion. Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it. Why should their bigotry be validated by law? Maybe if you really thought about it, you would be angry too.
Posted by Ron, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 6:19 pm
You guys sound like you are afraid of religious people....especially Mormons. Not a Mormon and not a religious person,(but hey, I do have some who are my friends)........ but the part that made me really LOL was the "big religion" line". hahahahahahahahaha "big" religion??? That just may be the talking point that has helped me make my decision on this prop. Thanks for making it so obvious to me how to vote.
Posted by Wayne, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm
VOTE YES on 8. Restore the DEFINITION of marriage. 4 activists judges claimed the right to re-define marriage yet 61% of the population of the Ca voted to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. No fear mongering, no bigotry, just facts STANDING UP to sitting judges
Posted by Janna, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:14 am
I could care less about religious people until they start trying to force their religion into government. Then all bets are off! Why should one church be able to influence how everyone, not just their followers, are going to live? I am a firm believer in separation of church and state, how about you?
Posted by History lover, a member of the Donlon Elementary School community, on Oct 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Janna: In all due respect,(and since you asked) you appear not to have a clear understanding of the 1st amendment, thus your argument is invalid.
Separation of church and state means that the state (gov)cannot establish a religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
So in no way is Prop 8 supporters trying to "force" religion into the government.
Posted by RJ, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2008 at 4:56 pm
The no on 8 folks are already directly and purposefully starting to teach six year old first graders in public school about gay relationships. Web Link
Read past the headline. This was undoubtedly a public elementary school sponsored event. This was on public school time and involved public school teachers and principal.
The director/principal of this PUBLIC SCHOOL said this was educational. It was conducted during school time. The kids were given no on 8 buttons to wear. The teacher is a no on 8 promoter. The teacher’s partner is an event planner and was in on it. Gavin Newsom officiated. They were going to drive around town with no on 8 banners. This was a purposeful “whether you like it or not” Web Link political statement using six year old public elementary school students and public school resources; not a private ceremony on private time.
As parents know, school field trips are not in a bubble: There are flyers handed out to the kids to take home, there is classroom discussion before the trip, kids talk about it afterwards on the playgrounds. Leave the public elementary schools out of it!
Let’s read what no on 8 supporters have posted on this website in our own town about public elementary schools teaching six years olds about gay relationships:
“Kid's are much more accepting than adults. See, if you explain things simply to kids, they go, oh, okay. But when you are imposing all of your anger and negativity towards gays that you have yourself, of course that's going to make them wonder what the problem is. What is so wrong with teaching our children to be open-minded?”
“Nice story, seems like a happy ending to me.”
“Shouldn't we allow our children to understand that it exists rather than masking it only for them to find out another way?”
“Schools should be teaching respect and tolerance for any marriage and/or committed relationship, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Same sex couples aren't going anywhere soon so why fight it? Maybe California should start out small so as to warm you guys up and already mandate a tolerance education plan and curriculum focusing on LGBT issues.”
No thank you! We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.
Pass the message on. Leave our kids alone. Yes on 8
Posted by RJ, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Fear mongering? Laughable. It's well established that the no on 8 folks do want to teach our elementary school kids about gay relationships. The books are ready, they’ve started in Massachusetts (where the courts are now saying that parents can’t have a say in it) and San Francisco, posters on this site have promoted it, etc.
I see even you don't deny that, instead you justify it with false and immature mockery of personal values and family communication with kids.
No thank you. We parents can teach our own kids tolerance for and friendship with gays, about the civil rights they and we already enjoy, and the true meaning of marriage as billions practice and as we believe in.
Pass the message on. Leave our values, kids and public elementary schools alone. Yes on 8
Posted by UNINTENDED Consequences, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2008 at 7:29 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 8:49 pm
If it quacks like fear-mongering, it's fear-mongering, despite your protestations to the contrary. There is already local control of schools and parental rights to opt out of any health curriculum in CA. You could look it up -- it was passed so [benighted, in my view] folks who didn't want their kids to learn sex ed didn't have to do that, either.
Who is this "They" who oppose Prop h8? I'll tell you who it is -- it's "we" -- your het and homo friends and neighbors, in and out of closets, who are tired of the stigma and the prejudice. It is me, and my grown daughters, breeders all. It is, I believe we'll see, a majority of Californians who vote.
Posted by Haiku, a resident of another community, on Oct 21, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Just read all the posts here and the person called Unintended Consequence might be best post I read so far. Seriously. A well written post. So much so I have to use the clever name and write a Haiku to Tons of Pleasant(another clever name)but sounds in direct conflict with what she writes.
Posted by fyi, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm
OCT 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."