http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=991


Town Square

Another anti-Prop 8 vandal at work....

Original post made by Concerned Parent, Highland Oaks, on Oct 30, 2008

What a learning experience for my children this morning as I was taking them to school. As we were going down West Las Positas after crossing 680, the kids, all students at HART Middle School, had a chance to see a vandal at work, as some crazed-lady driving a white SUV, with No on 8 signs plastered to the side, was ripping down YES on 8 signs.

Honestly, it was amazing to see someone doing that with West Las Positas very busy with school rush hour traffic. In a way, I was glad my kids had a chance to see it, as showed just how outlandish and crazy these anti-8 people can be.

Here they are, supposedly the tolerant people, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Lady you know who you are and I hope you can live with your demented self after showing three teenagers how pathetic you are.

Great lesson for the youth of today.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by raven
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 30, 2008 at 8:37 am

Thanks for the post. My 20 year old son had the same experience a couple of days ago.. She is a busy lady. Too bad she is so demented.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by not really vandalism
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

It is a code violation for either "Yes" or "NO" signs to be placed on public property. The police are very good about removing them and if you call the police dept. and report the violation, they are generally removed within an hour or so. Obviously, the person removing the signs decided to remove them from public property herself. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but the signs are on city/county space and essentially "have no owner" once they are left there. It's not really vandalism, just failure to report the code violation. If you see someone stealing signs from private property, that's theft and a whole other matter. Sounds like this person wasn't so off the mark.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dennis
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:29 am

Nice, always typical to see someone condone the behavior of someone like that. That's responsibility.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:36 am

It is not right that any of these signs is being vandalized.

However, don't let the actions of a couple of folks let you get carried away and paint all No on 8 voters as "outlandish and crazy."

All groups have their share of nuts...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dennis
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:48 am

Homeowner,

You are correct about that. It is too bad the youth of today did have to see an adult acting that way however. I just don't buy the idea because they were on public property, it gave that kook the right to tear them down. That's basically taking the law into her own hands and we know that can lead.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Oct 30, 2008 at 12:23 pm

It's always unfair when some people deny others their right to free speech.

I'm for No on 8 but I don't appreciate that signs are being vandalized. sad...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 30, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Shame on you - what kind or role model are YOU? Using the actions of ONE to describe an entire GROUP. In other contexts that would be racism. I can only imagine what you said to your kids - if it's anything like what you posted here then you are no better than the "demented lady".

"Here they are, supposedly the tolerant people, but that couldn't be further from the truth"

You write THEY and yet you only report seeing an individual - hardly representative of ALL "No on 8" supporters.

"showed just how outlandish and crazy these anti-8 people can be."

Again with the generalizations. How would you like it if I used the actions of individual Yes on 8 zealots to describe you? There are always going to be people on both sides of an issue who behave inappropriately. What's disappointing is when those few individuals are held up as examples of their entire group.

If the signs were placed inappropriately she should have called the police. My understanding is that you are in violation of "free speech" rights when you tear down someone's campaign sign. I would never do such a thing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jason
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:28 pm

For once in my life I actually agree with Cholo.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PJ
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Julie, then shame on Tara (anti 8) too, right? She says she ran into some young, ignorant, abusive knuckleheads (my description) in Oakland while campaigning on the street and then posted (on this site) that everyone should vote no "unless you support hate-crime and bigotry, of course"

I completely disagree with you and Tara on the issue of prop 8, but if I were there when she was being abused by some young thugs I'd probably end up punching one (or hopefully a few) of them in the face. That's no exaggeration.

She paints the whole group (millions) as hate-crime supporters and bigots based on the actions of a handful of young idiots.

Here's her posting on the site in a related prop 8 discussion:

"I decided to exercise my free speech again tonight and I ran into a group of hate-filled teens singing Mormon Hymns and flipping me the bird. They were also screaming "faggot" and picking fights with people driving by. I guess that's what I deserve for leaving Pleasanton?

I'm choosing to send my video to the Mormon church, the press, and I'm posting the footage on Flickr. Anyone who knows Mormon culture will instantly recognize them as one of their own. Hate in any form is not okay, whether I wander to Oakland, New York, Ohio or stay in Pleasanton. It's just not okay with me. Vote No on 8 (UNLESS YOU SUPPORT HATE-CRIME AND BIGOTRY, OF COURSE). I guess that remains to be seen..."
Posted by Tara Walsh


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mac
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:18 am

Tara,

You've just described the opposite actions I witnessed tonight at the intersection of Hopyard and Valley, a prominent political gathering spot. The NO on 8'ers were loud, rude, rambunctious, stopping cars, and frankly, out of control! On the other hand, the Yes on 8'ers were standing nicely in a group waving at the passing cars.

Quit categorizing......both sides can act dishonorably.

YES or NO...8 is NOT about hate!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Birdland
on Oct 31, 2008 at 1:27 am

Julie -

I'd venture to guess that if someone wrote that they witnessed "No on 8" signs being taken you would be outraged. I've read most of your postings over the last week since our letters were published in the Weekly and your overall theme is that those of us who support "Yes on 8" are narrow-minded and hateful bigots. How dare we take away the right to get married from a group that by definition doesn't fit the description?? Never mind that domestic partnerships provide every right and privilege enjoyed by married couples. Read the opinions of the three California Supreme Court Justices who dissented on this issue.
I'm done with this forum, but I couldn't resist one last posting in response to your criticism of "Concerned Parent."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 1:46 am

Take it a step further and go to CA Voter Guide, where the state has presented the props and their pros and cons.

Here are a few comments on the 'NO on Prop 8' side:

*Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.
--->(Yes, they should, AND they should accept the responsibility that comes with marriage but they can call it what it is...domestic partnership.)

*DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.
--->(Well, yes they are/should be equal to marriage, and rather than redefining marriage to suit them, they can use a term that doesn't take away traditionalists rights.

*Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.
--->(No Way! In fact, I think they would be more respected if they wouldn't force their desire for a redefinition of marriage on others. I dont' see how a title confers "dignity". I am respectful of gays obtaining proper unions and hope their love would be carried with dignity.)

<okay, it's late, I fear I may not be making sense...>









 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:34 am

Julie,

After reading your comments here, as well as your various Prop 8 posts on this forum, you seem to be a very bitter, angry, person...

You attempt to chastise Concerned Parent for her thoughts, to which she has every right(Ah, there's that word "right" again), and also have no problem doing the same to people that disagree with you on Prop 8.

You seem to enjoy labeling those that disagree with your beliefs as bigots, zealots, narrow-minded, even hints at racism(which some find useful as a last resort). For what reason?? Why not a civil debate without "labels".

By the way, wasn't I once married to you...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 7:03 am

No on 8.

No on Hate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 8:58 am

Ahh, Homeowner, why is it you and others cannot stop equating no on 8 with hate. This is NOT an emotional issue for many of us Pro-8er's and definitely, unequivocably NOT about hate. It is about definition. And frankly, yes, rights, too. The right to keep a definition consistent throughout time. With the evolution of our societies and cultures, new words are created to define new situations and it appears this is the right situation for a new definition - civil unions...domestic partnerships...etc.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 9:01 am

<correction> ...this is the right situation for new terminology..




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

"The right to keep a definition consistent throughout time."

Can you please tell me where this right is specified in our constitution? I'll keep watch for a link but I'm sure I'll grow old waiting.

That is NOT the same kind of rights guaranteed to all American citizens. There are no rights to a concept even though you'd like there to be. No one is changing the churches' definition of marriage because that's not in the constitution either.

I think some people need to take some civics classes instead along with their church visits. You are practicing religious bigotry.

You say it's not an emotional issue for you, but it IS for gay people as well as for people like me who are not gay. The hate descriptor make sense because of your complete disregard for those for whom it is not only an emotional issue but a quality of life issue.

Why can't you see beyond yourself?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PJ
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Janna wrote: "I think some people need to take some civics classes instead along with their church visits. You are practicing religious bigotry."

Wow, the poster child for hate is preaching about hate??

Folks, you should read the numerous venomous posts she writes against those who disagree with her.

I think someone needs to take anger management and PR classes.

At least Julie, who is anti 8, tries to have dialogue and "attract" people to her position. All you do is spit, spit, spit.

The little white guy on my right shoulder wants to tell you: Janna, you think you're doing your cause a favor here but you're not; I hope you find some peace.

The little red guy on my other shoulder wants to tell you: Keep it up!

Disclaimer: No little white guys or red guys were harmed in the making of this post. As a matter of fact, they are figurative. If you actually see little white or red guys on your shoulders, consult your physician immediately. :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RM
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I am sick to death of seeing and reading all of this rhetoric about how allowing 2 people of the same sex who are completely committed to each other to marry redefines a word. I don't care what you say, you're just hiding behind your hate and fear. What are you afraid of? What are you protecting?! Our California Constitution is clear - marriage between 2 people of the same sex is protected. A 51% divorce rate in this country clearly illustrates that not all marriages have anything to do with religion... if that were the case, the percentage would be much lower. And suggesting that "Domestic partnerships" are equal to marriage suggests that yet another group should only be allowed to sit in the back of the bus! Our Constitution should never be amended to take rights away from a specific group of people. It's a slippery slope - your rights could be next! Oh, and as a side note, my "No on 8" sign was stolen from my property. It's just wrong! Vote NO on 8!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Parent
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Julie,

I simply posted because I saw a crazed looking lady ripping down signs and thought it was a bad example for my kids.

I thank you for posting your thoughts and further my beliefs -- sometimes, letting others make your point is even more successful.

Thanks again for displaying your hate...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Janna, you are so caught up in this from an emotional perspective that you aren't able to see beyond your own self.

I am not emotional about it. There is no hate. No bigotry. Not even a religious issue for me.

Simply a definition. I figure when new things arise...then new descriptions should be used, ie. domestic partnership or civil union. How about "garriage" instead of "marriage". I don't know...but I don't think it should be forced upon those living under the historic definitions to alter their way of thinking and change their definitions. Isn't that an infringement? It feels like one.

And with the 50% divorce rate that the 'vote no' group keeps reminding us of...what's the big deal, anyway?



It's Not About Hate.
It's About Definition.
Vote YES on 8,
and Keep the Tradition!


Yikes, I'm going to get clobbered by some haters! ;}


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Concerned Parent,

I like your succinctity, er...succinctness! Good on ya.

mm


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2008 at 8:50 pm

No on 8.

No on Hate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 31, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Dang! I guess I didn't get the memo that this board's title had changed to "Let's Bash Julie".

I have posted well over 60 comments (yes, a lot which has been pointed out to me), spread across multiple forums. *Overall*, my posts have been respectful. With one exception (the infamous "bigot" comment) I have not called anyone names. I may have considered your arguments illogical and your views intolerant, but I never intentionally engaged in bashing any of you. I actually said outright that I RESPECT your right to your religious beliefs. I agreed that a field trip to (any) wedding during school hours was questionable. I've tried to express common ground when I've seen it, rare as it may be.

It's a common belief that extremely conservative religious views (e.g. "I will NEVER accept a gay marriage) are examples of "bigotry" or "intolerance" It is not a common belief however that "Julie is bitter and angry". I responded to your posts on this TOPIC, not to you personally. I, however, have been called a "moron", "bitter", "angry", "heterophobic" and "zealot" as well as "displaying hate". And, really mature comment, Jerry. No, we weren't married as I've never been divorced. I've been with the same person for over 20 years. I've also NEVER jumped on anyone else's band wagon to insult a "Yes on 8" poster thereby contributing to a "posse" mentality as some of you did here today. If you are so good at researching my posts, go read ALL of them so that you have a larger picture. I am human, I may have indeed lost my cool in a small percentage of them - still no behaviour like was displayed here towards me today. To quote Eeorye: PJ, "Thanks for noticing".

"I simply posted because I saw a crazed looking lady ripping down signs and thought it was a bad example for my kids."

Sorry, but I think you had other motives as well. You wanted to present "No on 8" supporters in a bad light. Look at the language you used in that post. You say, "Here they are, supposedly the tolerant people, but that couldn't be further from the truth". I'm sorry, but did you just call me "intolerant" right there?

"I'd venture to guess that if someone wrote that they witnessed "No on 8" signs being taken you would be outraged". You are right Jane, I would have been. If you truly read my posts so closely how did you miss my comments about: "There are always going to be people on both sides of an issue who behave inappropriately. What's disappointing is when those few individuals are held up as examples of their entire group." I don't condone inappropriate behavior on either side of the issue.

I have displayed no hate here. I have displayed frustration with a position and with views that treat gays as "second class citizens". I do apologize if sometimes my frustration with anyone's actions crossed the line. But, I stand (or rather sit) behind all of my posts. I have answered all questions posed to me. I do disagree with a "yes" vote on 8 and I have generally found the arguments supporting such a vote to be irrational or inappropriate (e.g. using a government *constitution* for religious purposes) and definitely intolerant. You may not like those terms applied to your points of view, but this is a *debate*. At least I have not called anyone names that have nothing to do with the debate.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Birdland
on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:07 pm

I thought I could resist posting another comment, but I have to respond to Julie's last post.

I think the crux of our disagreement on this issue is that most of us who support Prop. 8 do not feel that gays are "second class citizens." We simply don't get why two men or two women who want to enter into a relationship persist in their insistence that we call their relationship "marriage" when 1) they do not fit the definition and 2) they already have all the rights and privileges afforded to married couples. They ARE equal under the law! I will ask readers to again review the opinions of the three CA Supreme Court justices who dissented from the majority back in May.

Julie, I have to respect your passion on this issue even tough I disagree with you on every point. Hopefully, you feel the same about those who take the high road in their disagreement with you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:29 pm

"I thought I could resist posting another comment, but I have to respond to Julie's last post."

It's addicting, isn't it!!

"Julie, I have to respect your passion on this issue even tough I disagree with you on every point. Hopefully, you feel the same about those who take the high road in their disagreement with you."

Thank you Jane, and I do - take a look at the very first post I made on the forum that posted my letter: "Gay Marriage Does Not Weaken Traditional Marriage" :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janet
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:04 am

So sad that citizens would want to deny rights to anyone. The deception of the campaign and the obvious racism should be obvious to all. The only thing missing is the hoods. I agree with the statements about the proposition, in reality, being "Proposition Hate."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by are you kidding?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Janet, are you serious? Folks who know that marriage has been celebrated in civilisation for thousands of years as a bond between one man and one woman are now displaying 'obvious racism?' Huh? Do you want to look up the definition of racism and re-think your post? Or is racism just another word you've decided to re-define?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Maddie:
"With the evolution of our societies and cultures, new words are created to define new situations and it appears this is the right situation for a new definition - civil unions...domestic partnerships...etc."

You know I agree with you on this which is why I'm voting NO on 8. This should be handled in the legislature which can make the laws appropriately to address this concern and not the initiative process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 1, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Oops, wanted to add, I heard from someone else about this same lady driving around in a white SUV removing signs. There was no mention of a No on 8 sign on her SUV though.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Yeah, the lady in the white SUV. The day I saw her it was about a week or so ago, about 12:30 PM at the corner of Bernal and Stanley, and she was wearing white pants! I was sitting at the light on Bernal. She marched about among all of the signs there, and seemed angry as she pulled out the two Yes on 8 signs. Parked a bit down the street on Stanley was her white SUV. I could not see if it had signs on it. She marched off toward it with ripped up signs in hand.

Hey, I don't like prop 8 either, but vandalizing signs is crossing the line!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:26 pm

To Jane of Birdland. You say

" 2) they already have all the rights and privileges afforded to married couples. They ARE equal under the law! "

When and if prop 8 passes, they won't be! That's what this issue is all about! How do you people think otherwise? Your logic is NOT logical.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 1, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Frank -

When and if Prop. 8 passes, gay couples will NOT lose any rights. They will still be equal under the law. The only difference is that they won't be able to call their unions "marriages."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 1, 2008 at 10:54 pm

"The only difference is that they won't be able to call their unions "marriages.""

I think it is a little more than that. There is the issuance of marriage licenses and who and who cannot obtain one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm

"The only difference is that they won't be able to call their unions "marriages."

That's a big difference. I thought "words" were important - the big reason people are pushing this Prop. (they don't want to share their word).

Long before a person even realizes that they are gay they are socialized in their culture according to their gender. I have a couple of preschool students who actually talk about "getting married" someday (separately, not together). Perhaps their parents also think way in the future to the time when their child will be married & talk about it. The kids likely attend some weddings & assume they will do the same. There's quite a bit of social pressure/influence early on to someday "be married". I can only imagine how it would feel someday, after all the socializing, media marketing, cultural pressure, dreaming, etc, to find out that you can't get "married" - you have to "register as domestic partners" or "sign up for a civil union". Children don't grow up hearing that language, so imagine how they must feel as adults when they are excluded from getting married. Perhaps with my preschoolers I should start using the "civil union" term so that someday if they turn out to be gay and if this horrible Prop passes they won't feel excluded.

By the way, what is the verb? As a lucky hetero I said, "We're getting married tomorrow". What is it for gays? "We're registering online tomorrow as domestic partners"? "I'm seeing the lawyer tomorrow to draw up my civil union"? "We're civilly unifying"? "We're partnering domestically"? What if it's your daughter or son that is gay. How will you feel if you have to say such a silly thing, rather than simply, "my son/daughter is getting married tomorrow"? I think you will feel separate, strange, odd. Well, gays don't need anything else to make them feel different or odd in our society.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Jane, you are naive. You don't understand the effect of the constitutional amendment that you support. You are voting to eliminate a right and you don't even understand that. Shame on you and all of the others like you! You are an example of how direct democracy turns into the "tyranny of the majority".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:00 am

Jane, to clarify further, the analysis to which everyone mostly agrees is:

"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. "

Sounds to me like no civil unions can further be made that have the rights that are the same as marriage rights afforded man/woman marriages.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddiemarie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:57 am

Stacey - "This should be handled in the legislature which can make the laws appropriately to address this concern and not the initiative process."

The problem I have, Stacey, is that people use initiatives because the legislature often fails to represent them. Given that the legislature (and those judges) overruled the 61% who already voiced their opinion on this a few years back,the people are feeling a need to be heard.


YES ON 8!
Next...let's gather together to support the gay community to find all the equality that is not already availed to them, and let's all cheer on their unions!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:34 am

I do believe that many people are not voting yes on 8 with the intention of "hating" or "discriminating". However, intended or not, discrimination is a consequence of Prop 8 passing. Many times things happen that we did not *intend* - I'm sure we all have examples of such from our lives. That said, for many it IS a vote of "hate/discriminate". They've been taught that being gay is "bad" or "immoral" and they are voting to restrict that group of people's rights (well, they use the term "agenda", but they are really referring to "rights").

And my questions in my previous post were not rhetorical. Those of you voting yes on 8 - would you feel odd or separate to have to refer to your child's upcoming marriage as a civil union or domestic partnership? Wouldn't you feel "odd man out" that all your friend's kids are getting "married" but yours is not? Would you be closer to understanding how it is discrimination in that case? We make a big deal when people get married - just look at People Magazine. I once had a "special issue" full of nothing but weddings. My daughters loved looking at it. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if one of them ended up gay (note I didn't say "chose to be") and if Prop 8 passes they would be denied taking part in an act that was presented to them their whole life as being a part of their culture.

Prop 8 = Discrimination (Whether you intend it to or not).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Wow... a lot of emotion has been expressed. So, going back to the original comment about a crazy person in a white SUV removing "Yes on 8" placards, the driver was wrong and also has no authority to remove signs on public property.

Regarding "crazy these anti-8 people can be" also shows the original author's narrow viewpoint of the world.
Pro-8 people have been seen taking down the small number of anti-8 placards, so the rude, boorish and childish behavior is prevalent on their side as well.

I believe most voters have already made up their minds, so everyone, please take a deep breath. Rather than rehash the same arguments go take a walk before the rain comes back and enjoy nature's beauty.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 8 supporter
a resident of Mission Park
on Nov 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Another voice of agreement to those on this post that have rightfully pointed out that campaign signs can be removed and should be removed from public property - a YES on 8 sign was recently seen on church property here in town - which puts the church (as a nonprofit) at risk with the IRS. However I also don't want to condone "crazy" behavior from BOTH sides of this debate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by geezzz
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Just because people vote for something does not make it a just law. Historically--no interracial marriages and segregation in schools and public--both supported by the masses. The masses are not always right. The founding fathers created a court to provide, yet another check. Civil unions does not guarantee you the same rights as a married couple.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

These are just a few differences. It is about equality, not one church trying to dictate the civil rights of others.

Protection of rights is paramount to all...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by yomama
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:22 am

It is ironic (but not surprising) that all the vandalism is coming from the anti-8 folks. They have no respect for anyone who has an opinion that differs from theirs. They are just down right nasty to anyone who is pro-8.

Marriage was created by God and is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman. Even if gay marriage is legal, it isn't a "marriage" in the eyes of God or anyone who is a true Christian. Just because being gay has become popular doesn't make it ok (nor is pre-marital sex between heterosexuals ok).