Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letter: Gay marriage doesn't weaken 'traditional' marriage

Original post made on Oct 17, 2008

Dear Editor,

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 17, 2008, 12:00 AM

Comments (67)

Posted by Patricia, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I am with Julie. So is my entire 'traditional' family. My prayer is that we all move forward toward tolerance and the freedom and equality our nation was founded upon. Vote NO on Prop. 8.


Posted by No on 8, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 17, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Agree! Vote No on 8 and yes on tolerance.


Posted by Douglas, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Oct 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Julie Giessler Pleasanton wrote:
"I will not support any proposition that seeks to exclude any group from the legal right to marry"

Really, you've no limits? Really?


Posted by No on 8, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Ok, how about a limit of no apes and people? I mean, we are ancient cousins, but we need to draw the line somewhere!


Posted by Ava, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm

That commitment to marriage will be weakened if homosexual marriage is allowed is an odd statement. Does that mean that if Joe and Steve, a married couple, move in next door to me my husband and I are going to start looking at each other and questioning are choice to marry? Hmmm....maybe my husband will start questioning his sexuality, depending on how attractive Joe and Steve are. Are we all teetering on the edge of homosexuality? Interesting.


Posted by I agree with Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm

"Ok, how about a limit of no apes and people? I mean, we are ancient cousins, but we need to draw the line somewhere!"

This is such a silly statement!

While I would not want my children in homosexual relationships, I hope that one day, same-sex marriage and all the rights that come with it, becomes a reality across the country and the entire world.

People will continue to be in homosexual relationships regardless of whether you like it or not. They should at least have protections under the law (insurance, inheritance, etc), and this is not just for their protection but for that of the children they may have and raise together.

Live and let live, people! Homosexual couples are just as entitled to rights under the law as heterosexual couples.


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm

It has always amazed me how many people in our democracy are willing to use the constitution to eliminate or limit rights, especially over ideological issues. The purpose of constitutions has always been to grant rights rather than to take them away.


Posted by al, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Oct 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Frankly, I don't care who marries who. However, I voted yes on Prop 8 because I don't appreciate the fact that rogue courts and leaders like Gavin Newsom changed the original will of the people. States should be able to decide who marries who...period.

I find the earlier post:

"While I would not want my children in homosexual relationships, I hope that one day, same-sex marriage and all the rights that come with it, becomes a reality across the country and the entire world."

to be so hypocritical. I, for one, have nothing against homosexuals and will love my children just as much if it turns out they are homosexual. I just feel that as our current laws state, MARRIAGE applies to a man and a woman.


Posted by Pleasanton Neighbors, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm

For nearly 7 weeks now, my wife and I have been going door-to-door sharing information about Prop 8 with neighbors. We are seeking support for Yes on Prop 8. We really do not have many lengthy discussions at the door; most people know how they initially want to vote. Many are confused what a yes vote means and a no vote means. It is pretty much that registered Republicans will vote for traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman and Democrats feel aligned with Julie's statements and those above. Only one or two exhibit "hate" behavior and these come equally from those voting yes or no. The gays that we have met have been generally courteous with us.
It really is how "marriage" is going to be defined by our society and we each have an opportunity to affirm our values about this. Our conclusions will impact the future generations of innocents unborn. It is much larger than you and I are individually. A simple bit of research as you Google Prop 8 and look at all of the news articles will prove this. I read all sides. I began this quest because I feel a deep responsibility to share my convictions...not impose them, because of strongly held religious foundations. That seems to bother the opponents. We all are voting based upon our values and right to choose. We all will experience consequences after we choose. That is why I strongly urge you to do your own research and ponder what is best for our society. There are a lot of civil rights in jeopardy here, impacting a lot of people.

I believe that most will recognize that to change the definition of marriage would yield too severe consequences.

I will vote Yes on Prop 8
www.protectmarriage.com


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 7:46 pm

O.K. Douglas, you "got" me...I certainly have limits. For example, I guess I am for a minimum age requirement. Why are you taking focus off the real issue though? You offered nothing valid to disprove anything else I wrote.

"Pleasanton Neighbors", I really like your post above. You were most respectful and I am the first to agree that you have the right to vote Yes on Prop 8. While I disagree with your vote, I agree 100% with your tone of respect and with your advice for people to do their own research. I applaud you for going door to door and for fighting for your beliefs! I was motivated to write my original letter to the editor for just that reason: people often do not research, they just regurgitate propaganda.

I understand the strong feelings people have regarding sexual orientation. The thing is, people do not choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin colour. In fact, more than one gay friend has shared with me that they wish they *weren't* gay as their life would be so much easier. I think that if they want to be married they should have that right and not be relegated to the "booby prize" of being "domestic partners".


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 17, 2008 at 8:11 pm

To al and Pleasanton Neighbors: Great passionate pleas. But can you provide some substantive and fair reasons why homosexual couples cannot be protected under societal law equally as heterosexual couples are? I'm open to logical argument.

However, "will of the people" does not win out. Our founding fathers feared the "tyranny of the majority". And they subsequently founded a republican (representative) democracy with checks and balances with three branches of government. The courts are the third branch. With Prop 8 we will discover if it is a majority that votes yes.

I bet that in 1933 Germany a majority was in favor of taking away the rights of Jews and would vote yes if a proposition were offered (instead Hitler did it by fiat). In some places in Europe today, this still would be true. The comparison example of Jewish persecution over the millenia is appropo because we have a group distinguished only because of their adherence to a practice of religion, like a homosexual couple's practice to a way of sexual life. Get the point?

And I would like to hear arguments about the "too severe consequences". What are they? And please explain to me how this affects our "future generations of innocents unborn"? When the future unborn enter our world will they somehow be fundamentally different human beings because Prop. 8 failed to pass? I'm really open to hearing your arguments. How does Prop. 8 diminish marriage between a man and a woman? Is some right taken away?

All I read in the above posts are unexplained fears regarding "values" and chest pounding rights of the wills of the majority at the expense of minorities.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Prop 8 is another fine example of direct democracy's prevalence towards "tyranny of the majority". I'm sure, if a majority could, they'd vote in Sharia law into California's Constitution as well because hey, they'll just be voting based upon their values and right to choose.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 17, 2008 at 8:19 pm

LOL! Hey Frank! Stop writing at the same time as me!


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I must say that this debate has indeed inspired me to do research. I've heard all sorts of comments about what "marriage is" and "always has been". I honestly don't know anything about marriage (other than participating in one :). I'm assuming it is founded on religious principles? Was it for reasons of pro-creation? If the latter is the case, do we limit post-menopausal women from marrying? All kidding aside, I'm with Frank. I'd really like to hear some real examples of "negative ramifications" of same-sex marriage. To me, a church CHOOSING to close a charity is not a valid example.


Posted by Pleasanton Neighbors, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm


Frank and others...I think this just may answer your questions

I think this is the easiest, clearest explanation I
have ever seen on Prop 8. It eliminates a lot of the emotion and hype and is CLEAR. Please spend a moment looking at it.

Web Link


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Wow. What can I say? The cartoon did it for me. I'm really now convinced now how simplistic and fear-laden the arguments for Prop. 8 are!!

I especially like a number of the cartoon scenes. The ending one where Dan and Michael are enjoying a family barbecue with their heterosexual biologically child-bearing neighbors I presumed is supposed to scare me into thinking "how awful". It actually came across as Jan and Tom finally accepting them as human beings. So, it depends upon your biases how you view that last scene.

Why Dan and Michael? Where are the women domestic partners? Was putting only two men out there in the cartoon designed to make it more repugnant? During the first run through I saw Jan and Nancy talking on the phone and thought maybe Jane divorced Tom, got the kids, and re-located to MA where she married Nancy, her true lover. But, no, instead this was just information gathering on Nancy's part. Are there not many gay lesbian partners with children from previous marriages that are seeking legal status? Must they remain forever as divorcees with children on child support from the father, for example?

The cartoon seemed to tiptoe through things by pretending to be objective, demonstrated by the many question marks throughout. Lot's of question marks. But clearly it showed that heterosexual couples have biological children. You were supposed to understand this as a fundamental difference. Of course it is! Do we need a cartoon to know this? How is this threatened by gay marriage? Will this change? Is this not the main difference that will always exist irrespective of any law man creates? Why are we afraid of then of gay couples if we are heterosexuals and have biological children shared by the two biological parents?

But, like in my example above, gay couples do form partnerships where children are involved. This is left out in the cartoon. Since human relationships are more complex than what is shown in simplistic cartoons, societal laws are needed to address those rights. Are those children to suffer less rights?

Finally, my earlier posts invited logical arguments, but all that was returned so far was a youtube cartoon. Is this indicative of our ability as Americans to debate? Do we as Americans now get all of our information from Fox News, attack emails, and youtube? What happened to critical thinking?

Footnotes: the whole Massachusetts thing was over my head. "king & king"... what the h'll was that about? But who really cares? Probably issues likely more complex than a cartoon with simplistic single words in each scene can explain. Also, why does Dan say Hey when Jan and Tom say Hi? Lastly, trying to make the judges look evil was really quite feeble.


Posted by al, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Frank-

I said that current laws do not provide for same-sex marriage. If it were to be legal, I would like it to happen because it was voted through by the majority of California citizens. I am still not sure it is really necessary, however, since most large companies provide for same sex/live- in couples. Once again, I am disgusted with the fact that people like Newsom decided that they should make up laws on their own rather than comply with our state laws. That is just bad precedent as far as I am concerned.


Posted by al, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Julie,

You and I agree that people do not choose their sexual orientation, so why would you not "want (your) children in a homosexual relationship" if that is what would lead to their personal happiness? People confuse Marriage definitions with sexual preference.


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Al, your opinion is your opinion and everyone respects that. My only advice is to try to view the big picture issue apart from the specific individuals involved.

In the 60s many felt that MLK Jr. was a perpetrator like you view Newsome and were indignant about the whole civil rights movement because they disliked his tactics and actions. As you know he was shot and killed because of the great dislike. But the issue is not about agents of change and their tactics, it is the issue itself.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Al, I think you confused me with someone else. That quote about not wanting my children in a homosexual relationship is not mine :)

My children's future sexual orientation has nothing to do with my "wants". I only know that if they do indeed end up to be gay that likely their life will be much more challenging than if they were straight. I'm the same as you - I will love them no matter what.


Posted by Pleasanton Neihghbors, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

Thank you Frank for watching the video...

Last night while going door-to-door, We came to a home unawares as always, to share the information about Prop 8 as we have done hundreds of times before. We were told to never come on their property again. It was as if we were some clear threat of a severe nature. Now I understand the emotional aspects of Prop 8 as well as anyone, but was this really necessary? Others have stated to us that they will be voting No and were courteous about it, only 2 have told us to get off their property and never come back. I feel a flood of emotions in response. Who's really demonstrating the "hate" here? Who really seeks an integrated role in the election process and in society, and who really doesn't want to perpetuate homophobia? There are very aggressive persons on the "No on 8" campaign…very outspoken and contentious on-the-ready. It is crystal clear that there is a deeper ulterior political agenda at work here as I continue my experience. It is a war of morals involving 2 different spiritual camps. It is evident that the Yes on Prop 8 folks are advancing steadily here. I am grateful that I do not have to go door-to-door promoting No on 8 in Pleasanton…there would be several more outspoken opponents to that side…

No on 8 folks seem want to contend and not state or affirm their positions with respect and courtesy toward others who have a right to feel differently. They seem to be quick to tell everyone that the Yes folks are spreading lies when we calmly reveal the evidences out there flooding in from Massachusetts and Canada and Europe where same sex marriages have been legalized.

The definituion of marriage is on trial here. It is not anti-gay but the no folks insist that it is understandably because it places a blockage to their progress to be assimilated without homophobia into society. I can respect them easily as fellow citizens who have a right to choose for themselves. But really... changing the definition and institution of marriage? Marriage is something totally different than simply a union between two concenting entities. It is a foundation to society where the next generation is conceived and reared by 2 distinctly different sexes that develop characteristics that each child requires. A no on 8 reaps a flood of consequences...a little investigation beyond the "live and let live" inducement will reveal this. We ALL have a right to live and let live without our civil rights being usurped by a expanding political agenda that fuels the Gavin Newsoms of the world who manipulate it.

I'm choosing to uphold traditional marriage and protect its definitioon that was altered by 4 SF based judges and now is again brought to the people of California to vote on. Why isn't there a measure for us to vote on same-sexed marriage, not be required to defend the ages-old and proven definition of marriage? State by state (Conn is the next one now...)unconstitutional labels will be made while a flood of other unconstitutional fallout will rain down upon the rest of society's rights in the aftermath.

Vote Yes on Prop 8



I leave here now and allow the No folks to respond as tthey characteristically will to this.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:43 am

"Massachusetts and Canada and Europe where same sex marriages have been legalized"

Just a note. There's only four European countries where same-sex "marriage" is allowed and only one of them (Spain) gives full marriage rights. Most of Europe has registered civil unions where some rights are restricted, such as the taking on a partner's name and adoption.

This argument seems to be mostly about terminology. For example, the UK has "civil partnerships" which are basically given equal status and rights as "marriage". I guess for some "yes on 8" people they can't understand why the need to call it marriage while the "no on 8" people can't understand that it doesn't need to be called marriage to have equal status. I don't understand the need to make a Constitutional amendment to strip rights from another person.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:53 am

Pleasanton Neighbors, I'm disappointed in your post...previously I admired your tone of respect but your last post generalized an ENTIRE group of people. I support a "No on 8" - have you found me to be anything but respectful and courteous? Have I said your side is spreading lies? You state:

"when we calmly reveal the evidences out there flooding in from Massachusetts and Canada and Europe where same sex marriages have been legalized."

I still have yet to hear any "evidence". I also watched the cartoon and admit that I'm embarrassed. It appears to be marketed to First Graders and yet still I don't understand how EXACTLY legalized marriage for all ruins life as we know it.

What does "characteristically respond" mean? Am I posting any differently than you, other than our views disagreeing? I admire your passion. I respect your point of view. I simply don't agree with it.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:58 am

Julie,
It leads one to ask "what evidence?". So I took a gander over at the easiest place to start, Wikipedia. Web Link

"Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage."

Citation from Web Link Eskridge, William N. Jr.; Spedale, Darren R.; and Ytterberg, Hans (January 2004). "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate" (PDF). Journals of Legal Scholarship: Issues in Legal Scholarship (5): article 4. The Berkeley Electronic Press. Retrieved on 2008-09-23. (see pgs.29-31)


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:34 am

I think it is useless that you continue to ask for evidence on the determinal impact of 8 passing from the Yes on 8 folks. In many, many conversations I've had, they are simply following the lead of their church in pursuing this path of non-tolerance and discrimination. If they aren't going to use logic and reason in assessing the Bible as an inerrant book of god's word, why would they apply logic and evidence to this proposition. Remember, a lot of these folks think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP.


Posted by LZ, a resident of Avila
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Homeowner..... "Remember a lot of these folks on your side think your liberal agenda "qualifies" you to know what is best for every aspect of society from marriage, families, public education,public policy and even religion (especially Mormons). So much so you need the rest of society to affirm it for you.

You keep preaching toelerance on all these threads. Get a new talking point because you obviously do not walk the talk based on all of your posts.

Until you can show, at least in your posts, the ability to tolerate the beliefs or practices of others, then don't even bring up logic.

One of the principles that guides logic is being able to provide models of acceptable reasoning .

Until you can do that my vote remains YES ON 8




Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of Las Positas
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Speaking of cartoons, one of my favorites shows a father and son on the edge of the boy's bed, and Dad is saying: "Son I think it's time for you to choose your sexual orientation."

Thus laid bare, this notion of a "lifestyle choice" is shown to be absurd. And if sexual orientation is not a choice (BTW, why would a stable 5-10% of the population "choose" to be vilified for no good reason?), then the Prop h8 case collapses, because most fairminded people understand that it's wrong to discriminate against innate characteristics.

Constitutions are precious -- pls vote no on Prop h8.


Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Actually LZ, I tolerate other beliefs and practices just fine. I haven't tried to discriminate against anyone or take away anyones rights, unlike those voting yes on 8.

BTW, I don't think being liberal, conservative, or independent determines that any of us know more or are better than others. There are plenty of smart and not so smart folks on both sides.

I do believe that we should be generous in our views of others and do our best to ensure we all have equal rights to pursue all our dreams and goals. I think that idea absolutely extends to our gay and lesbian friends.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:47 pm

I have made an observation between the "Yes on 8" and "No on 8" posts. "Yes on 8" posts tend to refer to the WAY or to the actual PEOPLE who recommend a no on 8 vote. See:

1) "Douglas" who jumped on me regarding a quote of mine.
2) "Al" who refers to a post as "hypocritical"
3) "Pleasanton Neighbors": "No on 8 folks seem want to contend and not state or affirm their positions with respect and courtesy toward others.."
4) LZ:"Until you can show, at least in your posts, the ability to tolerate the beliefs or practices of others, then don't even bring up logic."

I re-read the posts and I hear "No on 8" posters asking questions and outright POSTING that we respect your views, etc. My analysis is that "Yes on 8" posters cannot come up with answers and so they resort to concentrating on semantics.


Posted by LZ, a resident of Avila
on Oct 19, 2008 at 1:01 am


Homeowner writes and I quote.....

1)" Remember, a lot of these folks think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP."

2) "I don't think being liberal, conservative, or independent determines that any of us know more or are better than others."

Question for you Homeowner. Which is it?

A. Only #1 is the correct statement
B. Only #2 is the correct statement
C. Both #1 and #2 are correct because I want it both ways
D. None of the above because my logic shows no acceptable reasoning

And marriage is NOT a right. And here is the logic:

If it is a right then it must be a universal legal right of all who seek it. It would have to be redesigned in the form of a contract by which ANY group of parties could form WHATEVER sort of alliance they chose.

That means polygamous marriage, open marriage, group marriage would all have to be legal because it is a "right" And like you said, you don't want to "discriminate against anyone or take away anyones rights."

If you don't think activists are not already arguing for an experimentation with "novel family configurations" like this, then check out the websites that have already been set up to support these kind of "rights"

And Julie writes:

"they resort to concentrating on semantics."

Julie, don't underestimate the value of "semantics"....its the philosophical or linguistic study of the meanings in language and the meaning of words.

Is that not the issue we are discussing? The definition of the word marriage? The meaning of marriage?

As a student of Linguists, semantics can be used in a variety of ways.

I won't bore you with all the ways, but advocates of generative semantics insist that the meaning of sentences is a function of their use.

Forming concepts, relating them to word meanings, formulating ideas and from those ideas draw conclusions...or as some might say "answers" is the process used


Your analysis that the VOTE YES people are "resorting to semantics" is in this case a real strength.



Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of Las Positas
on Oct 19, 2008 at 8:47 am

LZ, semantics is one thing, and law is another. Marriage "is" a fundamental right currently enjoyed by all Californians. I believe it's been that way since our "activist judges" struck down a law that banned interracial marriage, in 1948. Would you oppose that decision, too?

And, legally, marriage "is" a contract. So the hyperbole about goats and small children is just so much malarkey.

There's a theme that runs through this debate: the "Pro" forces appeal to fear (of "them" "their agenda" and, of course, "goats"), anger (those "activist judges") and ignorance ("lifestyle" "choice"). The "Antis" advocate for love and equality -- the simple right of two people in love to marry.

There's not so much love in the world that we ought to be making it more difficult to express and commit. Please vote NO on Prop h8.


Posted by No on Prop. 8, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Here is information about Prop 8 from a real source:

Web Link

I plan to vote NO on Prop. 8.

To those voting yes: please think about why you are so much against giving gay couples the same rights you enjoy under the law.

I am married (traditional marriage) and do not feel that prop. 8 in any way endangers my traditional marriage, it simply gives others the ability to marry and enjoy legal protections and rights.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 19, 2008 at 6:14 pm

LZ, I do not underestimate the value of semantics. What I was trying to point out is that most "Yes on 8" posters concentrate on semantics because they have no evidence, no proof to offer exactly how and why Prop 8 is a detriment to society. Have YOU answered that question? You're worried to allow gays to marry because then we'd run rampant and start allowing polygamy? Let's remain logical.

Yes, interracial marriage was once banned - can you imagine that? How is a vote for prop 8 any less heinous than banning interracial marriage? We do not choose our race or colour of our skin and we do not choose our sexual orientation.

Under CA law there are *rights* you enjoy as a married person that you do not have as an unmarried person. For example, rights of survivorship. Marriage is a contract between *2* consenting adults, polygamy is another issue that has nothing to do with this one.

Remember, "separate but equal does NOT mean equal".


Posted by LZ, a resident of Avila
on Oct 19, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Julie, with utmost respect and for the sake of time I really think you need to revisit what I wrote.

To isolate just one point and indeed again "answer" how gay marriage is a detriment to society I repeat......

If it is a right then it must be a universal legal right of all who seek it. It would have to be redesigned in the form of a contract by which ANY group of parties could form WHATEVER sort of alliance they chose.

If you follow that to its LOGICAL conclusion, that means polygamous marriage, open marriage, group marriage would all have to be legal because it is a "right" And like the opponents of Prop 8 say: you don't want to "discriminate against anyone or take away anyones rights."

Once gay marriage became the norm, there would be no principled argument remaining by which society could LEGALLY resist polygamy, group etc marriage. If you can't see that, or follow that logic and see how "novel family configurations" like this are a detriment to society, I really can't help you.

You ask: "How is a vote for prop 8 any less heinous than banning interracial marriage?" I'd like to respond.

Equating opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage is a false equation. Here is why.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same.

Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be rationale and for many both morally desirable as well as rational.

Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational and EQUAL; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is none of the above.

There is no comparison between different races and different genders.

There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes.

To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man etc.

The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. Chromosomes and even their brains differ. And those differences are significant.

So, to oppose interracial marriage I agree with you would be indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every system( be it moral for some, social for others) that preceded us — society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."

Firmly, politely and above all, unashamedly I will be voting YES on Ca Prop 8



Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of Las Positas
on Oct 20, 2008 at 8:54 am

LZ:

Thanke you for your politeness, and your willingness to move past some of the emotionality that has plagued this debate. That said, I believe your argument is wrong. Let's look at its elements:

1 -- you say that if there is a "right" it must be a universal, absolute right. Not so -- even the right to free speech, held most dear in a free society, has limits. Famously, the government can punish the false yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. There are many other limits -- false advertising, for instance (which you may be glad does not apply to political ads). What's important is that the government cannot censor the content of political expressions. Would you say that there's no right to free speech?

2 -- you seem to believe that unless this restriction is imported into our law, polygamy will run rampant. Really? Have the polygamists been running rampant in your neighborhood? They are strangely absent from mine. There's a name for taking issues and running off to the extremes -- it's called fear-mongering.

And I have to ask, partly in jest: if polygamy were a real concern, would the Mormon Church have supplied so many millions to the Yes campaign?

Finally, as someone who's had difficulty pleasing one spouse, do you really think there's a demand for the chance to please many spouses?

3 -- You believe that differences between the sexes justify separate treatment. Your are part way to understanding the 14th amendement on equal protection (also a "limited" right of people to be treated equivalently by government). The law of this land has long made a distinction between routine stuff -- like washrooms in public buildings, and important stuff -- so-called "fundamental rights" -- like the (limited) right to public schooling.

The right to marry, of course, falls in the "important stuff" column. Therefore, the state must have a "compelling interest" in treating people differently to justify a limitation that applies to some but not others. After all, if it's an important right, the state should have to prove it's Really important to limit access to it for some, but not others. We who will vote no believe that no such crucial government interest underlies a ban on same sex marriage.

Also, I have to assume that you, as an absolutist, believe these male-female differences justify differential treatment of women in other areas -- say, like job discrimination. Welcome to the 19th century, when many people believed in that "tradition."

4 -- just when you would pronounce the differences between "us" breeders and "them" gays or lesbians, you fall back on the old saw of "tradition." There are Many "traditions" that have been contradicted by the American Experiment -- and hallelujan for that! Immigrants were traditionally excluded from rights in most societies -- as were blacks, women, the disabled, and anybody else who's "different." America stands for using differences as a starting point, not an ending point.

Because the stigma against gays was "traditionally" so strong, but their "difference" can be hidden from obvious view, many chose to remain miserable "in the closet" rather than fight for their piece of Americana. Brave souls have stepped out of that closet and participate fully in our society. Nothing you have said justifies making them second-class citizens by segregating them as a group relegated to "civil unions" -- which are indeed separate, but are not even equal.

Please vote NO on Prop 8 -- it would be a giant step backwards, and a shame on us all if it passes.


Posted by flyonwall, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2008 at 9:00 am

I just want to THANK and PRAISE all of the fine Pleasanton people who openly admitt that they "tolerate" other peoples beliefs and feelings. I actually had to look that word up in the dictionary. I think it's really nice of you people to "to allow the existence of" and "to endure or resist the action of..."
I'm so glad I moved to Pleasanton, where the fine people have decided to "tolerate" the emotions of others. Although what would happen if you people decided to NOT "tolerate" the love of others...


Posted by Beth, a resident of Foothill Place
on Oct 20, 2008 at 9:55 am

Julie,

What a great letter to the Weekly. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

No on 8. No tyranny of the majority. No religious interference in our Constitution.


Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of Las Positas
on Oct 20, 2008 at 11:25 am

FYI -- CC Times is running a poll on this subject, here:

Web Link

Vote one, vote all.


Posted by Rational Thinker, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Vote NO on 8!


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 20, 2008 at 4:38 pm

LZ, all I can do is shrug. You worry that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. You compare the issue to separate bathrooms. I am absolutely not surprised that you are voting yes on 8. I don't need your "help" as I am not the one who has trouble following logic.

By the way, regarding the whole "polygamy scare" I've heard other places as well. "Marriage" has a definition - it is a legal binding contract between TWO people. The issue here is ensuring that the TWO people in the contract can be both genders. We aren't talking about letting children marry, letting dogs marry, etc. I think some people extend their "logic" to extreme absurdity because it takes the focus off the real issue: not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination. I don't feel discriminated against by having a bathroom separate for my gender (it makes me HAPPY). Gay people DO feel discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

I'm not sure what the differences between "polygamy", "group" and "open" marriages are. I'd think that "polygamy" and "group" would be the same and heck, some people have "open" marriages NOW. It just sounds like a nice long list when you write it that way. Why is "polygamy" so scary anyway? Is it the multiple partners? People commit adultery all the time. I find adultery way more offensive than multiple people who marry and all know what they are getting into - i.e. if there is honesty and openness about the situation.


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm

So, here's something for LZ, the logician, to react to.

But the ground rules for your counter arguments are to stick to rights enjoyed by contract between two people, as in the traditional case between man and woman in marriage. Forget polygamy.

Recall that:

"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."

Keep in mind that the phrase "all men are created equal" without question is meant to apply to men and women equally. It doesn't mean that male humans are equal to each other and female humans are equal to each other, but male humans and female humans are unequal. This statement begins the Declaration of Independence.

So, if traditionally a man and woman can contractually engage in marriage under the law, why can't a man and man or a woman and woman do the same? Is it that these other couples cannot have Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness because of some unequalness? But all men are created equal.


Posted by PTown94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm

It seems some of you haven't even done your homework when it comes to what is and what is not allowed to be taught in California- thank god that since I am GAY and studying to become a teacher I was thoughtful enough to research my rights. Seeing that sex/family education usually doesn't happen till 5th grade, students in the lower grades will not be taught about same sex marriages- Prop 8 support commericals are FALSE! Don't belive in the lies without doing your research. Also, the sex education that is recieved in this state is a comprehensive one- meaning that a discussion of respect for marriage and committed relationships will take place. By the way, this is all stated under Senate Bill 71. This bill also allows that during sex education, sexual identity, gender, and family life may be discussed, so if you think that your child is going to go through school without ever hearing about a lesbian or gay couple you're naive then.

Here's the Senate Bill it's it orginal form if you so choose to read. Web Link

One last thing, the California State Superintendent also is ashamed of the lies that Prop 8 supporters are spreading around- I urge people to research the lies and find out the truth before making their vote.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8!


Posted by PTown94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm

O and if you do read through the who Senate Bill, you'll also notice how it states "Age appropriate [which] refers to topics, messages, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group." Again, it would naive to sit there and think Kindergarteners are suitable and developmentally ready to learn about marriages in any context. And this "age appropriate" business falls under the educational health codes and standards for our state.

Here's more from the bill: "11) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall
provide pupils with skills for making and implementing responsible
decisions about sexuality."


Posted by SAM, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm

VOTE YES on 8.

Glad to hear so many people are leaning in that direction. Got a call today from co-worker. Prior to reading all these posts she and her daughter were going to vote no on this prop. She was interested in what the people in Pleasanton was saying. She works outside this area, further up 680N. She has a lot of gay friends in same sex relationships. She is a professional woman and her daughter is 27 years old.

We both disagreed but we did so with such respect and honesty it was a pleasure to converse with her. Never once tried to get her to change her vote, nor did she try to change my vote. We simply talked about why we held our particular positions.

today she mde it point to call me. Said after "doing some homework" including reading all of the threads on this site about Prop 8 she and her daughter are now voting YES ON 8.

Never explored with her what made her change her mind. I only thanked her for calling me and letting me know.

Just want to thank both the No's and the Yes's on here for helping my friend and her daughter re-formulate their opinion.

Keep up all the good work

VOTE YES on 8.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2008 at 6:25 pm

LOL! The Pleasanton Weekly Town Square Forum is a good place to research "homework"?!


Posted by Tons of Pleasant, a resident of Las Positas
on Oct 21, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Sam:

May we assume that your note is consistent with the standards of truthfulness generally displayed by the Prop8sters? ;-)


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 21, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Sam, your friend must have missed the topic:

"Prop 8 puts discrimination in the Constitution" by Tara Walsh. I don't see how anyone could read that and still vote yes on 8.

You say you didn't discuss why your friend changed her mind and yet, reading between the lines, you seem to be implying that the way people posted somehow affected her decision. If your implication is true, then that's not research. This is a very important proposition that holds the constitutional rights of an entire group of people in jeopardy. I certainly hope your friend did not "switch sides" due to *how* a handful of people post. This is my analysis of how people end up voting yes on 8: they use emotions (e.g. fear, hate, etc.) and not logical analysis to choose yes or no. I'm sorry if that sounds disrespectful. I can only go by what I have observed.


Posted by To be precise, a resident of Birdland
on Oct 21, 2008 at 8:31 pm


Shame on all of us if Prop 8 does not pass

I agree EVERYONE needs to do their homework

No doubt an informed decision is the best decision...using fear and hate tactics negates critical decision making

vote with your head and Vote YES on Prop 8!





Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 21, 2008 at 8:44 pm

And Sam, take a peek at:

"Prop 8 puts discrimination in the Constitution" by Tara Walsh. I did not see any respect or kindness in the Yes on 8 posts I just read. I'm only pointing this out since how people post seems important to you and since you *seem* to think that only "yes on 8 posters" are honest and respectful.


Posted by Sam,, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 21, 2008 at 10:16 pm

To Tons of Pleasant...to be honest, not really sure what you are implying. If you are suggesting I am being untruthful, or bashing me because I am a YES on 8.... well, not much I can do about that so trying to react to or affect what is out of my control is not really a practice of mine so I'll leave it at that.

To Julie: thx for your comments. I appreciate your questions. My friend did do a lot of research and in fact, as my 1st post suggested, we discussed her "research" and my "research" more than once which led to great conversation between the two of us. We are both "political junkies" and love American history, but usually support opposing sides but always have a deep respect for each opinion because we know each other does do the homework on issues of both state and national level.

We talked about a variety of issues surrounding Prop 8 but I will only address the ones I think you are questioning.

About your discrimination question, I can say in our discussions she never tabled it as "discrimination" so I cannot speak to that "word". We discussed why Prop 22 was never challenged @ the ballot box and on that fact we both agreed had it been, it would of lost. Nor was it challenged @ the legislature, but instead, courts were used to write the law. She(not me)pointed out that the constitution was circumvented, and Prop 22 was challenged and made law through the judicial system. Again on this we agreed.

Our point of agreement surrounding this discussion was based on the fact that we both understand the executive or judicial system was never intended by founding fathers to impose laws. Laws are written by legislative bodies or by direct democracy. Where we disagreed @ this point was the outcome of the Ca supreme decision. She honestly wanted Prop 22 to fail due to her own personal relationships w/ gay couples (she is hetrosexual, widow, mom 18, 21 and 27 yr old daughters). So she was very pleased to see it overturned but felt the process was wrong. None the less, she was willing to give up process, because she liked the outcome of validation of gays.

We talked about what were "rights" food? shelter? health care? marriage?) and which ones are derived from the constitution. For example the right to education... It's another "right" that has no basis in the Constitution, but people do generally agree it should be a right. But how much of a right should it be? Should everyone be guaranteed a free college education? Graduate school? Where does the right to education end? So the "marriage" right was discussed.

RE; Tara Walsh post,although well written and very respectful, I read it and am still voting for Prop 8 because I do disagree w/ many of assertions and find some of her comparisons faulty etc. Apparently my friend did too or at the least not compelling enough to sustain her No vote..

None the less, we can agree that we do have the freedom to post our thoughts, support our opinion and do not have to draw the same conclusion or as in my friend's case...change your opinion.

She read the Forum because when she asked me how people were voting down here, I referred her to this site, not wanting to draw any conclusions for her. In other words, do your homework Friend, and draw your own conclusions.

She indicated, via VM, there were quite a few posts here that demonstrated "thoughtful consideration" of the whole issue and clearly supported their position with apparently what she felt was sound reasoning.

For the people who again want to smash the more thoughtful posts here that my Friend might have drawn from, again....out of my control.

Anyhow, she concluded her VM saying she did read the forum, and after lengthy discussion w/ her daughters, they had decided to Vote Yes and wanted me to be the first to know.

What posts influenced her switch? I can't say but I have to assume both the YES and NO posts both played a part. To assume only one side played a role in her decision process is not typically how my friend arrives at most decisions.

My VM back to her? Thats music to my ears.

My response to the forum posters....thank you Yes and No.

Julie, I hope that I have addressed your concerns and also honestly communicated what I understood re: my political friend. She'd be the last person I'd want to mis-represent!

Vote YES on 8!!!!!!






Posted by Sam, a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 21, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Julie: just read your post as I was busy writing my lengthy response to your first post.

now, frankly, I am sorry I wasted my time....

VOTE YES on 8


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2008 at 10:57 pm

"We discussed why Prop 22 was never challenged @ the ballot box and on that fact we both agreed had it been, it would of lost. Nor was it challenged @ the legislature, but instead, courts were used to write the law. "

Uh... Only a court decision or another proposition could affect Prop 22 after passing.

P.S. Courts don't write laws. They interpret them.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Check out Perez v. Sharp Web Link which removed the ban on interracial marriages.

"All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void,"


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of another community
on Oct 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

To all the Yes on 8- no you haven't done research. All you guys have done is listen to the ads and phone calls and believe them to be true. Having Prop 8 NOT pass does not mean one thing about same sex marriages being mandated curriculum in schools. Obivously you haven't done your homework because any person that has knows that California has already included same sex couples/unions in their curriculum- YEARS before the supreme court overturned the decision. There are many same sex families in California and it's a shame that you are sending their children (which by the way there are over 50,000 children in our state coming from same sex couples)messages that they are being raised in less than perfect family. How dare all of you assume that on these children when they aren't even in your lives! The curriculum in the state of California has already inlcuded relationships in the curriculum that are different from traditional ones. Schools have implemented books such as the "Kings" one, years before this Proposition ever came about. I'm guessing people are that ignorant of their own children's education and don't involve themselves when it comes to sex and family education- but then again dicussing sex and emotions is still very taboo in our society so go figure. If you want your child to attend a sex education class and have it be all "straight" or heterosexual oriented, you are sending them the messages that straight is superior and anything less is wrong- history will repeat itself, taking on a differnt form.

Maybe people in support of Prop 8 passing also need to look at how homophobic this country still is. You're seriously that scared of having a teacher discuss the different lifestyles people live? Shameful. Gay marriages don't effect you so maybe you shouldn't think that you have the right to make decisions for other people. Each individual person has their own rights as to who they can marry or who the choose to spend the rest of their life with.

If Prop 8 passes, education will still swing towards a neutral side so maybe people need to get over it. It would be a bittersweet day when our State Superintendent signs into curriculum that same sex unions must be taught in our schools, even if Prop 8 passes- what would you do then? Pull you kids out of school and homeschool them? I highly doubt that. Whether you like it not, topics addressing gays and lesbians are going to be discussed in schools.

NO ON 8


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Read this article, posted today on yahoo news:
Web Link


Posted by FYI, a resident of another community
on Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 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."


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm

So far "WorldNetDaily" is the only news source reporting this...interesting.

Even if it's true - what does this have to do with Prop 8? There is nothing in Prop 8 that stipulates such activities. Why would the school have to inform parents ahead of time - it doesn't sound like sex education. Would parents have to be notified before a "Celebrate Hetero Marriage Day"?

Honestly I'm against that type of curriculum anyway. You know, the kind where we "celebrate" African Americans for a "month". I believe in including diversity education everyday - not for special "weeks" or "months" where you bombard children with such messages. That type of teaching makes our differences seem all the more severe/separate.

If the kindergarteners are not in the room for the Gay Straight Alliance Club, why does that matter? If you are going to allow a room used for one club, you can't *discriminate* against another club.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 22, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I sure hope you verified the validity of this news since you posted it on every forum having to do with Prop 8! I'm not saying it isn't a true story, but I am saying that it's suspicious that the regular news sites have nothing on it.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm

FYI needs to provide a link. The only story I found pertains to a university in Oregon. What is the name of the charter school? National Coming Out Day was October 11th. Don't you think if a school was going to do that, it would use the same day as the rest of the country? I smell cow-patties!

Fear, fear, fear. "They're gonna get your kids!" I think FYI is spamming propaganda. There's no real argument in their favor, so they just make it all up. Just like the republican party.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 22, 2008 at 8:46 pm

The school is: Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science. When I google it, even *news* google, it only directs me to that one site.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 22, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Thanks Julie! That site is definitely far right wing and not reputable.


Posted by June, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Oct 23, 2008 at 1:10 pm

It's actually funny, this made up stuff. At least they have a sense of humor: 'Adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk"' Someone was having fun.
" And the mayor will read "If You Give A Dyke a Motorcycle" to the students."


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm

FYI is posting LIES. FYI did not check their source for validity. Do not believe a word of it! Google "Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science" and you will see nothing from a VALID news source (e.g. CNN, ABC, NBC) regarding that story.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 23, 2008 at 7:52 pm

ABC just *recently* responded to the report in World Net Daily (it was inevitable that the propaganda would hit the masses). There was no "Gay Day" in the kindergarten. WND took some truths and twisted/lied/etc. for their No on 8 agenda.


Posted by Eloise, a resident of Heritage Oaks
on Oct 23, 2008 at 10:50 pm

I read the teacher showed kindergarteners a film 'depicting gay families.' Is that supposed to be some kind of horror? Do you think there were African American families in that film, too? Shiver me timbers! Some kindergarteners have gay parents, or their friends or other family members have gay parents. It's great to know all kinds of families are represented, not just the kind some people think are the 'right' kind.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 23, 2008 at 10:55 pm

More underhanded tactics from the "yes" people.

Web Link


Posted by Fred, a resident of another community
on Mar 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Why do gay marriage advocates point to race when talking about homosexual marriage? It's as if they are placing sexual preference in the same category as race. How silly. I believe human sexuality involves genetic inheritance and choice. While people may have some homosexual tendencies that they have genetically inherited, I believe people are inherently heterosexual. It's when they act on those homosexual tendencies that they become habitual and then seemingly natural and even primary to them to the point where they actually come to believe that this was their primary inclination at birth. I have no desire to argue that point as I'm sure many will disagree. Back to the main issue, I don't think we can legislate morality, but do gay partners really need to be officially "married?" Why? Can't states just give them the same rights without calling it "marriage?" Why does it have to be officially recognized as "marriage?" If the term "gay marriage" offends so many people, why not just call it a civil union and be done with it? And all you Christians out there that like to point fingers at gays, there's a lot more to sex sin than homosexuality. There are plenty of heterosexual perverts out there too, you know who you are... If we are honest with ourselves, we all have evil inclinations in various ways, and we all need forgiveness - thank God He made it available through Jesus! And He can change us into what God intended if we will just look to Him. He loves us that much!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 1,724 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 26 comments | 1,092 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 880 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 699 views