State Supreme Court to hear Proposition 8 lawsuits

Home » News » Local

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Comment

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Where was the No on Prop. 8 support BEFORE the election?

2:15 p.m.SAN FRANCISCO — California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to the state’s new same-sex marriage ban, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules on the measure’s validity.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment which passed with 52 percent of the vote. As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim Proposition 8 abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group and therefore voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

176 comment(s)

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 19, 2008 2:38 PM:

" Direct democracy was never the intent of the founding fathers who realized separation of powers and a system of checks and balances was necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Equal rights for a minority should never be subject to a popular vote. " "

napascot wrote on Nov 19, 2008 2:56 PM:

" Thank goodness the courts decided to hear these cases. i just hope they do the right thing and overturn prop 8. Discrimination has no place in our constitution "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Right on, equalnotspecial!! And these yes on 8-ers keep trying to compare the fight against 8 to overturning the election. They have nothing to do with each other because they're about totally different things. Equal rights issues should never be left in the hands of those who have nothing better to do than exercise their hate against that group. I'm not saying all yes on 8-ers are haters, but there are plenty of people out there who hate gays because they are different then them. And I'm sure those haters out there had some influence on the turn out of the vote on prop. 8. In fact, since it won by a slim margin, had the haters not been allowed to vote, prop. 8 would have been shot down. It's like allowing slave owners to have a say in black's rights. It's a faulty system we have. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:27 PM:

" It has absolutely nothing to do with "equal/civil rights", but a pure mockery of family values.

The Prop 8 opponents are out SHOPPING again!
They better overturn it now, because when BO takes over almighty power...and he is not a gay friendly kind of guy, at least that's what "they" say, who knows what could happen. "

debstallings wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:50 PM:

" It is, indeed, a faulty system we have! A system that allows voters to act as lawmakers is wrong on every level. The voters elect lawmakers to set law in this country. That's the only system that will work. I hope and pray with all that I have and all that I love, that the Supreme Court will overturn the travesty that is Prop 8. There will be no peace until then. That is a promise. "

WHY wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:59 PM:

" Again I ask why even vote if you pass something and then have the losers cry fowl until they get their way. A bunch of babies I say.

Do your work to get it on the 2010 ballot and do your work selling those who support yes on 8 and when you have worked for it on won it, it will be more satisfying. Oh I forgot it should be given to you because you cry the loudest.

Earn it!!!! "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:02 PM:

" No on h8 "

steph wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Gee, funnyme, you make it sound like gay couples with children don't have family values.

I know a few who would beg to differ. They are raising beautiful children who wouldn't think of gloating over the deprivation of others' civil rights.

Though I did not vote for President-elect Obama, I do have faith that he will have higher priorities than meddling in people's personal lives. He himself may say he believes in one-woman-one-man marriage, but I'm just certain he won't carry on a crusade against two men or two women who responsibly commit themselves to each other.

And you know, good for him. Good for us! "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:13 PM:

" debstallings-

you favor a dictatorship? That is the system you propose. Personally, I prefer the system that starts with the line..."We the People".

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election. "

irishman wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Its a sad ,sad ,day "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:35 PM:

" freeport....forget a couple sections?

ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at
a general election the question whether to call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question,
within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention.
Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from
districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable. "

steph wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:37 PM:

" We'll see how many people continue to say "Get over it" and call others' "crybabies" or "losers" when the Supreme Court gives a big deja vu ruling.

Maybe all you 8-ers will find something useful and non-persecutey to do. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:38 PM:

" equalnotspecial-

I think most of you on the "No on 8" side need some classes on our constitution and our form of Republic. We actually live in a Representative Republic and have a Democratic form of Government. These basics most of you should already know.

Your comments show Facist\Communist leanings. An initiative made the state ballot via signatures collected, it was voted on by the electorate, and by a majority it passed. There is no truer form of Democracy anywhere else.

I am truly sorry you do not like the outcome. trhat is what sometimes happens in elections. But look who is acting out their hate and bad mouthing people. You do not set the example for others to follow as adults. "

cordell wrote on Nov 19, 2008 5:03 PM:

" Propositions have to be constitutionally legal, not just passed by the voters, to go into law. Why are so many of you acting like a passed-by-vote proposition has never been challenged in the courts as being constitutional? "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 19, 2008 5:25 PM:

" After all of the back and forth that has been going on between the two factions, I'm curious - is there anyone out there that voted for or against the first prop (22) and then voted differently on prop 8? "

a teacher wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Freeport leaves out the part where Constitutions and the courts come into play. The California Constitution protects minorities against the whim of the majority. The courts decide whether a law meets constitutional standards. There is a legitimate question about the constitutionality of Prop 8. You may not like it or agree, but THAT is the democratic process in California. You can't have one without the other. "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:09 PM:

" so, stripping rights away from a minority doesn't equal fascism, freeport?

As has been stated a number of times, this is a representative republic ruled by laws that must pass constitutional muster and it doesn't matter how many times, or passed by how many people, if an unconstitutional measure is passed, the court is obligated to strike it down....

the examples set by you and many of the proponents of prop 8 on these threads is one of bigotry and discrimination. I am sorry you don't like people exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and a redress of their grievances but there is no truer form of democracy. "

amigo wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:43 PM:

" Selywn Duke offers a great article on this topic..... Check it out "

tfytmp wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:13 PM:

" Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it is ex post facto and it says that we, California, will not accept an action of another state. Screw the rest of the arguments. "

napan79 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:31 PM:

" The government should tell me nor you who he or she can marry. We shall marry whoever we want to without the government interfering with our marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:59 PM:

" Raven wrote: " so, stripping rights away from a minority doesn't equal fascism?"

I say again, enumerate all those 'rights' that were stripped away. You can't, because you're too intent on stirring up emotions rather than real facts." "

John Richards wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:08 PM:

" The majority of constitutional lawyers say that the anti-8 side will probably not prevail. The main argument seems to be that this should have been a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. The pro-8 side can point to major amendments that weathered the claim that they should have been revisions rather than amendments: the death penalty (how's that for taking a major right away!), and the Prop 13 restrictions on property taxes. A constitutional revision needs to pass the test that it is a major structural change to state government. Prop 8 doesn't do that. "

jmo wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:14 PM:

" Let's hope the Court get's right this time and we are done with this. What’s the saying… third times the charm or is it ….three strikes/tries and you’re out. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:27 PM:

" The majority of constitutional lawyers say that the anti-8 side will probably not prevail. The main argument seems to be that this should have been a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. The pro-8 side can point to major amendments that weathered
the claim that they should have been revisions rather than amendments: the death penalty (how's that for taking a major right away!), and the Prop 13 major revamp of property taxes. A constitutional revision needs to pass the test that it is a major structural change to state government. Prop 8 doesn't do that. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:28 AM:

" the right to marry JR...that is the right or haven't we been paying attention....

and it doesn't have to be a revision to government, JR..stripping away rights from a class of people in most people's eyes would be a major revision....and those same lawyers can point to Prop 14 in the sixties that would have allowed people to deny someone housing based solely upon their race as a revision that the court threw out "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 7:27 AM:

" Sexual preference a right, give me a break.....
That would make pedophilia a right and bestiality a right.
Homosexuality is not a right, it is a chosen lifestyle and should never be confused with a civil right "

jersey guy wrote on Nov 20, 2008 7:35 AM:

" It currently takes a super majority to pass a tax measure-55-66.67% depending on the tax. We should not be able to amend the state constitution with a simple majority vote. It should also take a super majority like 60%. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Rich. Affectional orientation in not a choice, and is really about love. Some gay people are celibate but are still gay. While people can choose whether or not to act on their emotional attractions, the can't choose who they fall in love with. The only way you can understand this though, I suspect, would be for you to think about whom you love and then imagine trying to fall in love with someone of the opposite gender of that person. While some people who are bisexual may feel they have a choice, most people cannot choose. If you can, you may be bisexual. And there is no one gay lifestyle. Most gay people live a mainstream lifestyle. They go to work, go home, eat, watch TV, etc. And committing yourself to another person requires informed consent. Animals, children, inanimate objects cannot give informed consent. "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Go Rich!
It just cracks me up when drama queen/kings keep playing the emotional card......
No one has said that you can't do as you please. THAT is your right.
To throw tantrums when you don't get your way.....is NOT the way to make yourself heard...is just plain a fit. Time out kids.
You are calling yourselves a "minority" of people being picked on...comparing yourselves to the civil rights acts of the 60's. Last I saw....you (gays) have never been made to ride on the back of the bus...or be denied drinks of water....or the use of bathrooms. There is NO comparison! Nice stretch though.
And as a minority as you have labeled yourselves......you must also remember that it is the MAJORITY that shall prevail....dear. "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Hey....to all you necropheliacs out there....aren't you a minority ( I hope) too? Why aren't you all out ther standing up for your rights to love whom ever you choose? It doesn't hurt anybody right? "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:18 AM:

" equalnotspecial, I respectfully disagree.
Same sex partners lack the biological difference needed to properly "consummate" a marriage.
The act is by nature unnatural and as such certainly can not be considered a civil right.
I will accept a civil union for gays but the description "Married" belongs to a man and a woman alone. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Rich, why is it when all else fails, opponents of same sex marriage throw out those two topics, there is no connection between them and same sex marriage because we are talking about legal consenting adults here......and we are saying only that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The majority only prevails, Napanana, when they do it according to the law...and there is no self labeling as a minority here, homosexuals are a minority...no one disputes that marriage is a civil right that all enjoy....what restrictions would you like on who you or your kids could marry because of a majority vote. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Raven wrote: "stripping away rights from a class of people in most people's eyes would be a major revision...."
You're using a definition of a constitutional revision that doesn't meet the legal test. It requires a major structural change to the way government works.
By your definition, reinstitution of the death penalty should have been considered stripping a major right (the right to life) from a class of people (prisoners on death-row). As we all know, that court challenge failed. "

jmo wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Thx! Rich! "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Rich, when you say, "The act is by nature unnatural", you are totally wrong. Homosexuality is seen in nature, amongst animals too. It IS completely natural. Maybe not to you because you clearly do not understand homosexuality. 10% of the population is homosexual to some degree. And yes, there are degrees of it ranging from pure homosexual to bi-sexual to straight. Because it appears in nature AND because any gay will tell you it is NOT a choice to be gay, IT IS NOT A CHOICE!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK!! Especially before you go and vote on something. That's why I say we have a faulty system. We allow people who don't fully understand an issue to vote on something that takes away rights. It is a broken system. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Today's Chronicle indicates that there are at least two strong indications that the justices will uphold Prop 8.
1. The vote to take on the case was 6-1. What is significant about that is that the lone hold-out was justice Kennard, who voted with the 4-3 majority in May. Has she changed her mind? Insiders say she is so strongly convinced that Prop 8 is constitutional that it doesn't even warrant review.
2. The vote on a temporary injunction (allowing gay marriages to proceed while the issue is under review) was 6-1 against. Normally an injunction is granted when there is a good likelihood that the merits of the case will prevail such that Prop 8 would be overturned. So, the justices are tipping their hand by indicating that the likelihood of Prop 8 being overturned is not strong. "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:44 AM:

" hawkeye, animals operate on the "if it feels good do it" premise. They have no ability to know right from wrong nor do they have any morals
Fortunately the majority of the voters do. "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Strangely enough....my sons were raised with MORAL values.....ya know that silly stuff about right and wrong. Now if one of the boys had come to me and said that he was in love with his 4-H Ewe....I may have had an issue with that.
What YOU aren't seeing here dear Raven is that YOU have put your own restrictions on YOURSELF through your OWN choices! And now you complain because we the majority.....have LEGALLY told you all NO again. Now ain't that just confusing?
Have your cutsie little weddings all you want. Commit your lives to each other in front of your friends and family. Whatever it takes to float your boat....but you still aren't getting the point that WE the MAJORITY.....aren't going to change our minds about this and change the constitution because a minority group can't understand why we refuse to chip away at our constitution to suit them.
Domestic partnership was established a long time ago.....mainly for heterosexuals that choose NOT to marry as their own personal choice. Seems to work for them.....sorry about the tax breaks tho............ "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:20 AM:

" well, nice arguments but if they were going to uphold Prop 8 they could have solved the entire issue by simply deciding not to hear the case at all ... then Prop 8 would be upheld now ...but i guess we shall see next spring "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:17 PM:

" Take away rights....Take away? No you do not have the right to marry legally......so how is this taking away your rights....seriously? You are asking for a right that is not yours.....so how is it being taken from you? Can ya follow me here?
You have the right to act as you please....but please don't demand the rest of us to put our blessings on your choice. And it is a choice.....(sorry kids...I do have gay friends that are embarassed by the actions of the MY rights protesters) homework or not.....I was taught as a kid to write essays by stating a few facts and then BSing the rest of it. This is EXACTLY what is being done here. The "I want so I am going to keep talking and whining and keep coming up with new sad reasons until you give up and I get my way." The only fault with the system is that.....well you all didn't get your way.....again! "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:13 PM:

" a little anger there napanana?...actually the court said the homosexuals do have the right it is a minority of Californians who say otherwise...

and there will be protests, and new ballot measures and right will prevail...the question is how long will it take...

the first time Prop 22 passed with about 65 percent of the people who voted, thios time prop 8 passed with just 52 percent of those who voted....any bets on how the next ballot measure comes out? The trend is against those who want to discriminate against same sex couple who merely want equality...nothing more and nothing less...

btw at what point did I ever say I was gay or a lesbian..making a few assumptions there aren't you? For your info i am and always have been straight, been married and have two married daughters and one wonderful granddaughter....doesn't meet your assumption there does it...I happen to be one of those people who sees injustice being perpetrated upon my friends and neighbors and want to see it stopped...

and regarding you the majority ...you aren't, you are merely the group that had more people show up...there are 17 million voters, 36 million people in California yet only about 6 million voted for Prop 8....no where near a majority of the voters or the state...

but let me ask you this...show me how a same sex couple being married harm you in any way? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Hawkeye wrote: "Homosexuality is seen in nature, amongst animals too. "
Since when is animal behavior something we should imitate? Most animals also lick their hindquarters clean, instead of using toilet paper. Is that another "natural" act that should be imitated by humans? "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Raven, You would do well to consider this ....
No one likes a sore loser and you folks are most definitely sore losers.
The more the no on 8 people attack the will of the voters the more determined the voters will be.
You will never have the turnout that you had at this election so the large spread will return assuming of course that the court is willing to face the wrath of the majority should they be so foolish as to overturn prop 8. The deal is done, accept it and move on. Acting like a two year old on a time out does nothing for your "cause". "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:23 PM:

" No Raven....not angry. Just confused on the issue of taking a right away....that isn't legal. Therefore it isn't a right. That makes it a want. And we can't always get what we want. I could go into how the bank robber could say it was his right to rob that bank because he wanted the money...but it is still against the law...but I won't.
I am sorry if I offended you. When I use the word "you" to discribe the you as in your cause...it is a general statement. It makes no difference to me what your preference is. I thought that I had made myself clear on that point long ago. I am sorry if I have made you to feel that you have to defend your sexuality so strongly.
Sooo how does it harm you in any way if I seriously oppose the chipping away at our constitution. At least we showed up to vote. I guess that does say a bunch.....doesn't it? "

funnyme wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:13 PM:
...but let me ask you this...show me how a same sex couple being married harm you in any way?

Well, in that case let us ask you this...show us how does it benefit us ALL? "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Rich, who were the sore losers who put Prop 8 on the ballot?

Meddlesome sore losers who can't let people mind their own business, that's who. "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Raven has been nothing but thoughtful and polite and articulate on these forums. Where do you get off accusing him of acting like a two year old?? "

napanana wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Oh dear....I'm going to have to do it.....admit that agree with John Richards!
Couldn't have said it any more clearly myself. And I will also admit....it took me only just a few minutes to stop laughing so I could respond to that one.
My brother is still rolling on the floor.........
And yes...we WILL continue to use toilet paper. Thank you very much. "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:33 PM:

" The State Supreme Court said that gays have the right to marry.
Prop 8 strips that right away.

I find napanana's mean-spiritedness a bit disheartening. "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Well steph, that would have been the folks that voted the first time and did not appreciate their majority vote being overturned by a bunch of black robed stuffed shirts.
I don't think that will happen again. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:03 PM:

" nana. It was black civil rights leader and top adviser to Dr. King , Bayard Rustin, who in 1987 said "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated." Now, over 20 years later gay people cannot join the California National Guard, Coast Guard or any branch of the military, have no job protection in many states, can't foster or adopt in some states, have no legal protections when they travel, and on and on. Gay people continue to be beaten and killed just because they are gay. But history has shown the struggle for equal rights will continue as long as people are oppressed.
But this is not about throwing a fit, though some are angry about yet another setback in the struggle for equality. It is an attempt to educate. Prejudice can be overcome through education, and this vote showed that there is much more work to be done.
And one more time, informed consent does not include animals, children, inanimate objects or dead people. "

verum wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Does it occur to anyone that these marriages will boost the economy? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:27 PM:

" JR. Gay people have been everywhere throughout history in significantly sufficient numbers that the occurrence has to be considered a "natural" population, though clearly a minority. The fact that this exists in most other species as well demonstrates this is not a choice humans make, but a natural state of being for a part of the population. The moral judgement has changed throughout history as well. There have been times and places where it has been accepted and times of persecution. While some judge this natural sub-group to be immoral, many religious institutions and leaders as well as many secular people do not. In fact, many view denying equality to a minority to be immoral. So just because some institutions and people think being gay is immoral does not make it so. Hope that helps. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:40 PM:

" a teacher-

There may be a question about it. But based on the three law suits marriage is not in the category of civil rights. all Prop 8 is doing is preventing the re-definition of the term marriage. It is historically between a man and a woman. I would like to see it left that way. I am sure iot is much to the chagrin of my gay cousin in S.F., but I feel that the gay community has everything they need under civil unions. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:43 PM:

" funny... you didn't answer the question of how having 18,000 gay married couples in Calif. has harmed your marriage. I have been wondering that since the day the supreme court granted marriage equality. As to how it has benefited you, a lot of money was spent on those marriages, strengthening the local economy and taxes were collected to support your community. Now that revenue will be lost, so denying marriage equality has actually hurt you. So how about it? How have those 18,000 marriages hurt you? And will you work to tear them asunder? "

Rich wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:00 PM:

" equalnotspecial, give up on the other species argument, animals engage in homosexual activity instinctively in order to establish dominance. "

Nomen wrote on Nov 20, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Please tell me exactly what rights are being deprived by the passage of Prop 8 "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 6:43 PM:

" So, standing up for a right makes you a sore loser? Rich, I merely thought we were exercising our rights to free speech, assembly and a redress of our grievances...

and turning the question around doesn't work, funnyme....everyone opposed to same sex marriage eventually trots out that traditional marriage will be harmed, so how has the marriage of a same sex couple harmed you or your marriage?

your bank robbery argument is specious, napanana.....the courts have never said there was a right to rob banks, they have said that 1) marriage is a right, and 2) in California they said it applied to same sex couples as well as heterosexual couples...what offended me and I would wager others was you patronizing dismissal of same sex couples wedding as cutesy, and there seems to be a rather prevalent assumption that the only people fighting this bigotry were gay or lesbian.

and freeport, you are wrong..Prop 8 did not simply define marriage...it stripped that right away from possibly as many as 10 percent of your neighbors and friends..

and the estimate by the state was passage would cost the economy of the state some tens of millions of dollars..

ever read about the bonobos, Rich...they also do it for what appears to be .well...fun

Nomen, I will assume your question is serious but I think you know the answer already...the right to marry... "

hellokitty wrote on Nov 20, 2008 7:12 PM:

" Just to tell you all.. I am in "neutral" I don't care if prop 8 passes or not...... I just hope the court finally decides on something..... because I am sick and tired of all this "prop 8" thing.... "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2008 7:26 PM:

" I think some of you people should look inward a bit and try to figure out why it feels so good to you to believe you are superior to and privileged over gay people. Do they frighten you? Why does it feel so good to hurt other people? What does it say about you and your heart and soul?
Think about it. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:12 PM:

" napanana - I was happy to read your sons were raised with MORAL values. I assumed you meant values like respect, fairness, dignity and empathy. Then I read the rest of your posts. I guess we have different ideas regarding moral values . . . "

cordell wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Read the results of the vote in Napa. Prop 8 was soundly defeated in our county. The bigots only dominate in this forum. "

str8fornoh8 wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:31 PM:

" The 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision of the United States Supreme court "DISMANTLES THE CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTIONS to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions in so far as MARRIAGE is concerned" because the result of the Court's opinion is that there is "NO LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST" in MORALLY DISAPPROVING of HOMOSEXUALITY or structuring the law based on such disapproval. The preceeding paraphrases and QUOTES Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Even the Supreme Court Justice often considered the most conservative, can see the writing on the wall. It's only a matter of time, but hopefully sooner rather than later. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Okay, Rich, Napanana, John Richards. Homosexuality is immoral and should not be tolerated. What do you propose we do with gays under your hatred? Lock them up in underground concentration camps? Let me pretend for a minute that I agree with your sick and pathetic views. Now tell us, who brainwashed you into believing homosexuality is a "moral" issue? "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:48 PM:

" Comparing hind-licking to homosexuality?! Wow, John, who's feeding you these filthy lies against homosexuality? Please don't say the bible. If you don't say the bible, I'll just assume it's hatred talking. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:02 PM:

" Comparing homosexuality with morals demonstrates pure ignorance, hate, brainwash or all of the above. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:29 PM:

" No rights were "stripped" away from anyone as a result of the passage of Prop 8. If you simply look at the issue without being emotional, biased, or blind, you will see that it is about preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

The Domestic Parternship Act EQUATES partners with spouses. Under California law, registered domestic partners have the SAME rights as spouses. So, to claim that a substantive "right" has been taken away is simply inaccurate, disingenuous, and quite frankly, laughable.

How does same sex marriage affect me? First and foremost, it affects the common good, and therefore, it affects me. Changing and distorting the
age-old definition of marriage, undermines the institution of marriage and goes against what has been tried and true: that the best nuclear family unit model for society is one in which there is 1 father and 1 mother. This is the most ideal familial foundation that should be promoted and revered.

When a man and woman marry, they bring to their union the intrinsic uniqueness of their gender which balances and complements the other. There is a synergistic effect in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Such a benefit cannot be replicated, duplicated, or achieved in a same-sex union. So, in this respect traditional marriage is superior to
same-sex unions. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:30 PM:

" From a religious perspective, when God
fashioned the perfect companion for man, he created a woman. Throughout the Bible, the following terms are used in pairs: husband and wife, bride and groom, mother and father. Additionally, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexual acts are sinful and immoral. "You shall NOT lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
Also, take note of one of the Ten Commandments: Honor your FATHER and MOTHER. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:00 AM:

" TO CLARIFY THE RECORD:

In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia voted to UPHOLD the
anti-sodomy law. In fact, he wrote a very strong dissenting opinion in which he concluded that the Court had "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia argued that the Court had an obligation to decide cases neutrally (which he argued it had failed to do in this case).

Secondly, one of the Justices who voted to strike the anti-sodomy law explicitly stated in the opinion that a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would PASS the rational scrutiny test as long as it was designed to preserve TRADITIONAL marriage, and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons.
Further, the Justice's opinion left the door open for laws which distinguished between homosexuals and heterosexuals on the basis of a legitimate state interest. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:27 AM:

" the court says in may that same sex couples have a right to marry...Prop 8 is passed in Nov stripping away that right..simple enough for you MNV...a right has been taken away....

and how does 18,000 same sex couples being married affect the common good?..has there been a sudden breakdown in moral values....is crime on the rise..no...there has been no harm to heterosexual couples who are married or wish to marry...they still can ... as far as being the best model...a model where nearly 50 percent end in divorce....where the biggest rise is in single parent families..this is the best model to follow....

do you really want to start quoting the bible to support your position MNV....which parts of the old testament don't you follow?

and has been stated time and time again, domestic partners do not have the same rights as married couples....and you know that...the tax example is one example of where they don't...

your biggest argument against same sex marriage is that it make you feel less unique, less special....isn't that more much of an emotional, blind, disengenuous position? "

Jose wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:56 AM:

" MY church performs same-sex marriages. Prop Hate is a violation of MY freedom of religion. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 21, 2008 6:35 AM:

" MissNV: If prior to the passage of Prop 8 homosexuals had the right to marry and after it's passage they did not, then Prop 8 strips the rights of homosexuals to have a same sex marriage. THAT WAS THE POINT OF PROP 8.

To suggest otherwise is ... you know, I might have to start inventing new words to describe the kind of nonsense you spout off. Mendacious comes to mind, but doesn't quite carry the audacity of your claim. Clintonian, Rovian?

Words fail me... "

Nomen wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:02 AM:

" Raven,
What are the rights of marriage that those who oppose prop 8 are being denied? "

jmo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:34 AM:

" ok I'll try again.
All the no H8ers are trying to put up all these smoke screens (how are you hurt? and this about civil rights etc.), just ask the majority of African Americans where they stand on prop 8 as a civil right issue, to chock us into submission. It will not work.

Hey Rich isn't that why gays often to refer to themselves in their community as a top or a bottom? Do you know any heterosexuals who need that kind of sexual identity...not necessary is it?

Today’s Chronicle article was spot on with the ultimate direction the court will take. If for some reason the court doesn’t uphold prop. 8, I see a massive successful recall effort just as the people of California did when the court got it wrong on the death penalty issue.

I think this does belong in the courts to get a resolution. However, I bet the no fascists folks (my way or no way people dictating to the majority) won't accept a favorable court ruling upholding prop. 8, if the ruling comes down that way. They will need to go the US Supreme Court and they will have to wait years to have a chance there with the current court make up and even new appointments won’t guarantee an over turn 8. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:39 AM:

" explain again how same sex marriage harms traditional marriage MNV...no one has been able to yet ...so it would pass the rationality test...show the legitimate state interest in not allowing same sex marriage...there is none

and scalia's opinion was viewed as a warning about the scope of the majority opinion... "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:11 AM:

" well nomen...the right to marry.....isn't that enough?

jmc....i don't think you will get the same response for a recall of the justices that you did for rose bird...the passage of Prop 8 has opened many eyes among those who opposed the measure.

as far as top or bottom, that is the bdsm community, which includes all genders, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender...

and how does standing up for your rights in all means legal make you a fascist?.seems to me the reverse, trying to take away rights from people is the fascist way to go..

and finally, I would say the no on 8 will avoid the fed courts until the makeup of the supreme court changes...a ballot measure repealing 8 is much easier and much faster "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:18 AM:

" MissNM: Let me get this straight. So the same book (the bible) that teaches that the earth was formed 7,000 years ago, which we know is not true, also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. It was written thousands of years ago! You're actually going to believe everything you read in there? It is not to be taken so literally. It was based on the very limited knowledge they had then and the beliefs at that time about how society should function. But that was thousands of years ago. Societies are supposed to advance and improve over time. I'm sorry, but the bible if taken so literally, keeps us stuck in the distant past. It goes against progress. I'm certainly not saying not to have a faith in god. I'm just saying that if you base your whole life and all your decisions around something that was written thousands of years ago and take ALL of its writings so literally, you're keeping yourself in a bubble. Even other churches are doing same-sex ceremonies. What does that tell you? Do you really believe god would want you to keep other people's rights limited forever? Homosexuality is found in nature. We ARE a part of nature. We are mammals aren't we? Last I checked, I was flesh and blood and not made of circuit boards, memory chips or CPU's. If we're going to believe god created us, then we must also realize he created homosexuality too. Simple reasoning. If he created all of reality, then he would've created what you call "sin", too. "

Rich wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Raven, Can't think of the last time I saw two male bonobos wearing Daisy Dukes and making out in public.
Keep the animals out of the argument, they are instinct driven to do what they do. "

napanana wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Poor Hawkeye....can't see the forrest through the trees.
You are good at reading what uyou want out of a comment...yet you always seem to miss the part that
1. Homosexuals may do as they please. It is their lifestyle and I am not here to say that they can't be gay or Bi...or that I don't like gay or Bi people. Or that they should be locked away...such drama! That is your own fears and insecurities talking....a little unstable?
2. It is the constitution....I'll asy again that has kept this Country in somewhat of a structured state for how long? It is the Foundation of our country and our way of life we have fought to protect for how long? Changing the structure of our foundation such as in changing what is considered a legal marriage....is just another "chip" being removed ........it tends to weaken any foundtion.....Ya follow me here yet kid? Can't state it much plainer than that, now can I?
(...thinking to myself that if they all knew how many of my adopetd children have sexual preferance differences...... no one would ever believe it......) "

Nomen wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Raven,

No that is not enough. What are the marriage rights you claim are denied. Are you saying that it only about being able to say they are "married"? Or do you think there are rights attributable to marriage that are being denied? Because if the former you only want the right to redefine a word. "

Nomen wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:50 PM:

" According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
Marriage - 1. a: The state of being married. b. the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK. c. the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Napanana, I know you don't have hate for gays. You've mentioned that in past blogs. The hate I was detecting and referring to was mainly two other bloggers here. I won't mention names, because they are quite apparent who they are. But I don't consider including gays within the definition of "marriage" to be destructive to any foundation. It's not forcing people to marry the same sex. And it really doesn't hurt anyone. It will provide the same rights we heterosexuals have. Equal. What is wrong with equal? Really, tell me. The people who display hate talk about it as if homosexuals are beneath them. Anyone who considers themselves better than someone else has something wrong with them. I don't hate yes on 8-ers or think I'm better than them, nobody is perfect. I'm just disappointed in my fellow citizens who don't get the picture or just butt out and allow a slight redefinition to marriage. It's about equal rights. Homosexuals should have ALL and I do mean ALL the rights that we have. Why is that so hard for people to swallow? Besides, at least I'm happy the majority of Napa County and California for that matter voted against 8. But I think the power of something like this initiative lies in the wrong hands. It should never have been on the ballot at all. I hope the courts do the right thing!! "

Rich wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Hawkeye, don't worry the courts will do the right thing.
Marriage will remain between a man and a woman. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Nomen, how many times does it have to be explained to you...marriage is a right...any two people can say they are married, but being able to do so legally is another different matter....Prop 8 denies that to same sex couples, ergo, they have been denied the right to marry. Not asking for more...just that..

napanana....so the 18,000 same sex couples who married have had what effect upon traditional marriage...? can I make it any plainer for ya kid...can I huh....

Nomen, glad you have a dictionary but webster's is not the legal standard...

Rich, just pointing out that animals do it for fun as well... "

Rich wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Raven, I just don't see what can be gained by comparing gays with animals.
Seems kind of odd coming from a no on 8 supporter. "

nomen wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Raven,
So it is just about redefining the word. You do not know what rights attend the institution.

Why redefine? Its not marriage, its something else unless you redefine.

The domestic partner legislation remedied all the other inequities. So the left wants to redefine, but to what end?

If words have no meaning then how can people have an honest discussion? Its just Orwelian. "

nomen wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Raven,

Marriage. Legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Blacks Law Dictionary quoting case law. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Raven and Teacher:

When I use the term "right," I am referring to a SUBSTANTIVE right.

If you read the majority opinion handed down in May you will find that the 4 justices who voted to overturn Prop 22 conceded that at the time of deciding the case before them (in Re Marriage), registered domestic partners already had the SAME SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS as spouses under CA law. These justices acknowledged/conceded in their majority opinion that it was really a case of NOMENCLATURE.

Through the passage of Prop 8, the traditional definition of marriage was rightfully restored and registered domestic partners continue to enjoy the SAME SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS as spouses under CA law, just as they did before the passage of Prop 8.

The judicially created "right to marry" for homosexuals that you refer to is really the right to CALL a homosexual union "marriage." The "right to marry" is really the right to CALL the ACT of joining 2 homosexuals for life in a legally recognized union as "marrying." Substantively, nothing changes.

John Richards explained it best when he used the balloon analogy.
It's like little Jonny crying because he got a different colored balloon than his sister. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Hawkeye:

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32). "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2008 5:19 PM:

" MNV - can you please give us one - just one - reason that we should even consider using the social constraints of nomadic goat herders who lived 3000 years ago in deciding twenty-first century public policy? "

once wall street wrote on Nov 21, 2008 5:22 PM:

" why the violence at your demonstrations? Set a good example for the young gays. A vote is a vote. That must be excepted. You lost, now what? It doesn't count because you lost? Wrong, it counts. Now go home. You lost nothing. You gained nothing. The people have spoken. Its FAIR. If it would have gone the gay way you would have wanted us to deal with it , right?5 "

pharper wrote on Nov 21, 2008 5:56 PM:

" Er....what violence? I was at the Napa protest, and it was peaceful, respectful and patriotic.

Again, the majority is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. It's why we HAVE the judiciary in the first place. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:07 PM:

" FireMike:

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Homosexuality is unnatural. Ergo, same-sex unions are NOT the best family unit model for society.
Heterosexual unions are superior to homosexual unions because they are more complete, in accordance with God's law, and in accordance with natural law. Ergo, it is a legitimate state interest to promote the BEST model for the foundation of the familial unit which is 1 man and 1 woman (embodied in the traditional definition of marriage.) "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:18 PM:

" MissNV, I have some questions for you. You say,"While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are." Who determines what is still applicable and what is not? If god said it, is a psychic medium communicating with god and relaying the information to your church?

You then say, "but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures." Does this mean all cultures regardless of their religion? What about cultures under buddhism for example? This tells me that your church regards your religion superior and ruling over all others. I don't think god would be that arrogant.

And, can you answer Fire Mike's question? Why apply outdated rules to a modern society? "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:23 PM:

" Homosexuality is NOT unnatural at all!! Found in nature remember? Google it and you will see. Fortunately, my eyesight can look WAY WAY beyond the bible. So can my BS detector.

The same bible that says the earth was formed 7,000 years ago. I can't believe the narrow-mindedness and pure ignorance in these blogs. "

hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Will someone PLEASE answer a simple question. Why apply ancient rules to a modern society? "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:28 PM:

" MNV – Leaving aside the fact that you didn’t answer the question – why should we use 3000 year old social constraints to determine current public policy – your assertion that “the natural sex partner for a man is a woman” is true only for heterosexuals. If you’re gay, your natural sex partner is someone of the same sex. Your claim that “homosexuality is unnatural” is contradicted by every recent reliable study into human sexuality, and is indicative of the problems of relying on ancient social constraints to determine current public policy. 3000 years ago, people didn’t have the understanding of human sexuality that we have now. If you’d like to live your life arrested in the mythologies of 3000 years ago, that’s fine. But please don’t try to force your nonsense on the rest of us. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:37 PM:

" When on the losing side of the issue, the anti-Prop 8 crowd is quick to say "the majority is not always right."

I would like to point out that the
the judiciary system also functions by handing down decisions based upon a "majority" of Justices who agree on a particular holding.

In fact, many believe the four (4) person "majority" of the CA Supreme Court was WRONG when it overturned the will of the People. Afterall, three (3) California Supreme Court Justices dissented and the decision to overturn Prop 22 was ultimately decided because of just one (1) extra vote. "

Hawkeye wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:45 PM:

" Very well said, Fire Mike!! It amazes me that people still live this way, bounded by fiction. Why do they refuse to see the truth? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:50 PM:

" Here's your answer hawkeye: Because it is the WILL of the majority of California voters who voted not once, but twice to preserve the
age-old, "ancient," traditional definition of marriage.

It's absurd and ignorant for anyone to insinuate that the traditional definition of marriage does not apply in modern society. In fact, traditional marriage was on the ballot in 30 states in the most recent election, and guess what? ALL THIRTY (30) TIMES TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PREVAILED!!!! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:03 PM:

" Fire Mike:

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior "natural" for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is. "

once wall street wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:18 PM:

" fire mike, Miss napa valley is not speaking from a way of thinking thats 3000 yrs. old. She is refering to the vote that just took place Nov. 4th. You still lost. No matter how much you write here, you lost. She's not the bad guy. There is no bad guy. Just two differing sides. You lost Nov. 4th not 3000 yrs ago. Answer me this, if the vote would have gone the way you wanted it to, would you have wanted everyone to except it? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:32 PM:

" MissNapaValley. I agree with you when you say "We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal".
But you next leap of logic is flawed. Homosexuality is a perfectly natural state of being for a minority of the human population. Not for you or the majority of the population, but for a minority of the population, it is a perfectly natural state of being. A through examination of history, not a sanitized version, demonstrates that homosexuality has been around longer than written history. It has often been accepted and even celebrated, though many religions don't want to admit that fact. It has existed in statistically significant numbers such that it cannot be considered an anomaly. It has nothing to do with bestiality or any of those other things that don't involve informed consent between 2 humans. While the evidence that it occurs in most other animal species as well is offered as further evidence that it is a perfectly natural state of being throughout the animal kingdom, the occurrence throughout history is enough to demonstrate that it is a natural part of the human experience, though only for a minority of the population. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:36 PM:

" MissNV In a perfect world two natural parents might be best, but in the real world, straight people abuse and abandon their children sometimes, and parents don't always stay together, especially when there is abuse. The best environment is one where the parents love and respect each other and the children. The research shows that some gay couples can provide that stable, loving, nurturing, environment just as well as straight couples while some straight couples cannot. The best interests of society are served by supporting commitment between couples, including gay ones, rather than trying to keep them apart.
I also hope you realize not all religions agree with you, including Christians. When you impose your religious beliefs on those other religions who see it differently, you prevent them from the exercise of their religious beliefs, but if they were allowed to practice their beliefs, it would not restrict your practice of your beliefs, except for the part where you want to make yours the law of the land. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:37 PM:

" MissNV I also agree "it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral." When you tell gay people they are "unnatural" you deny them the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses. That causes emotional pain and suffering, and often results in the infliction of physical violence. Therefore, treating gay people as unnatural is immoral. All are created equal. Liberty and justice for all means even the gay ones. While that may not convince you homosexuality is a natural sub population of humans, do you really have the right to impose your moral judgement on an entire segment of the population and inflict pain and suffering on them? You can still believe you are superior, but when you write it into law and force your beliefs on those who see the world a little differently, you cause emotional pain. "

once wall street wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:42 PM:

" For a liberal group, you sure are a hateful bunch. My gay friends all know all their rights are still intact. They understand this was just about one word. Where have you people gotten lost? "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:46 PM:

" MNV – Feel free to answer the original question any time you’d like. But while you’re ignoring it, you might want to think about a couple points:

If you want to argue that human sexuality is a result of cognitive conditioning, you must apply the same reasoning to both heterosexuality and homosexuality. It’s simply silly to argue that conditioning effects one and not the other. So either gays and straights are both “unnatural,” or we’re all equally “natural.”

Secondly, it is widely understood that homosexuality is not a “behavior” (or a “lifestyle” as many people call it). It is an orientation, and is as much a part of a gay person’s being as your heterosexuality is a part of your being. To label a person’s sexual orientation “acceptable” or “unacceptable” is demeaning, disrespectful and hurtful, and is inconsistent with our current understanding of human sexuality.

Finally, your comparison of homosexuality to a disease (in this case, alcoholism) is a large part of the reason that gay rights proponents often feel that your side is full of “haters.” Can you imagine how you would feel if a core part of your identity was so frequently compared to a disease? Please think about the effect your words have on others. We all feel strongly about this issue, but to imply that other people are “diseased” is hitting below the belt and is absolutely uncalled for. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:50 PM:

" once wall street - MNV was indeed arguing that Old Testament rules are still "binding." My question to her (which she has yet to answer) is why should a 21st century secular society be bound by such rules. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:59 PM:

" MissNV. Do you really think you could become gay? If so, given your judgement that it is immoral, that must really scare you, and I can see why you would want to make it painful for anyone to be gay. But due to the persecution of gay people which continues even today, no one would want to be gay, and it is not a disease like alcoholism that is treatable. The attempts at treatment only cause more pain and suffering. And it is not about only sex, it is about who you love. It might help if you quit thinking about what gay people might do, and started thinking about whom they are as people. "

once wall street wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Fire Mike, which one of the 10 Commandments do you have a problem with? That darn Old Testament. Maybe you should reword what you said. Some of the Old Testament IS still "binding". Could I get an answer to my question? Or can you not answer simply questions? "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:34 PM:

" So before the election, marriage was an inviolate right that should be limited to heterosexual couples...now the same people are dismissing it it as a non-substantive right?....how does reducing the right to marry to being insignificant help maintain that traditional marriage....and try telling the millions of couple of who are married, same sex and hetero, that their marriage is not a substantive right..

and the majority you keep trotting was actually not a majority of California voters...it was barely more than a third, while the 4-3 was majority that occurred when all the members of the bench participated..

Rich ...you didn't post this?...<" hawkeye, animals operate on the "if it feels good do it" premise. They have no ability to know right from wrong nor do they have any morals
Fortunately the majority of the voters do. >>

and nomen, the law definition you quote doesn't include that in Massachusetts and Connecticut the definition includes same sex partners... "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:34 PM:

" Fire Mike:

I am not forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else for that matter. There is no need to get angry or defensive. I am merely sharing my perspective and exchanging ideas/beliefs/facts in this online forum.

Although I vehemently disagree with the comments you have posted, I respect your right to believe as you so choose. With that said, I would never accuse you of "forcing" your beliefs on me simply because we disagree. That would be immature and nonsensical.

If you are referring to the way I voted,
then consider this. I exercised my Constiutional right to vote according to my beliefs (both religious and
non-secular), and I am proud to have been among the majority of California voters who defended and restored the traditional definition of marriage. "

jmo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Hawkeye wrote: "" Will someone PLEASE answer a simple question. Why apply ancient rules to a modern society? "

try a couple of these:
Tho shall not kill
Tho shall not steal
Need 8 more?

Again more smoke screens from the no on 8 folks. "

once wall street wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:07 PM:

" equalnotspecial, please tell me, with all due respect, what group historically "celebrated" homosexuality? By the way, addiction is managable not treatable. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Fire Mike,

As stated in a previous post.....
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. The prohibition against homosexuality appears not just in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Once Wall Street poses a great question. Do you think the prohibition on commiting murder should not apply in a "secular" society even though such a prohibition appeared 3000 years ago?

The bottom line is that a majority of California voters want to preserve the "ancient," age-old, traditional definition of marriage. The traditional definition of marriage is supported by the majority of Americans as well as the overwhelming majority of other nations (both secular and non-secluar) around the world . "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:30 PM:

" steph wrote: "who were the sore losers who put Prop 8 on the ballot?

You've got your timetable backwards. Prop 8 was circulated for voter signatures long before the 4-3 Court decision on May 15. Prop 8 was just meant to be a reinforcement of Prop 22 which passed in 2000. Just how does that qualify as "sore losers"? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Raven wrote: "So before the election, marriage was an inviolate right that should be limited to heterosexual couples...now the same people are dismissing it it as a non-substantive right?"

You are twisting words around. What we have said is that the difference in rights between gay marriage and gay domestic partnership is non-substantive. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:58 PM:

" MNV wrote "sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning"

I have a theory along those lines that I'd like to bring up for discussion. Hopefully I can keep this at the scientific level so that the NVR censor won't get too antsy. :-)

Sigmund Freud had some interesting theories about how a person can become fixated at a certain stage of their childhood development. Have you ever noticed that most babies go through a phase where they are fascinated by their own waste? Most outgrow it. Then they develop an interest in their own genitals. A few years later most lose that interest and start becoming interested in the genitals of he opposite sex. Wanting to play 'Doctor' is one expression of that trait. Homosexuals never reach that stage, they've become fixated at prior stages. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:22 PM:

" Equalnotspecial:

I agree that having two natural parents is the ideal and that there are many aberrations from the ideal. However, that does not mean we should abandon the traditional definition of marriage. Rather, it should be promoted and revered because it is the BEST familial model for society and for the common good.

You stated, "The best interests of society are served by supporting commitment between couples, including gay ones, rather than trying to keep them apart."

Let's focus on the issue here. No one is trying to "keep gay couples apart." Homosexual couples who choose to establish a registered domestic partnership have the SAME
rights as spouses under CA law. I'm simply advcating we preserve the traditional definition of marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:23 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote: "Can you imagine how you would feel if a core part of your identity was so frequently compared to a disease?"

Until late 1973, an organization as prestigious as the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. That controversial change of heart was based more on being politically correct than on science.

I don't know if the tendency for developing homosexuality exists in a person from birth, but there is no doubt that many people are born with birth defects of one type or another, and most of them don't mind if you call hemophilia a disease, or being born with club feet a handicap. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:44 PM:

" Equalnotspecial:

You stated, "I also hope you realize not all religions agree with you, including Christians."

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have been INSUFFICIENT to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Catholic Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

You wrote, "When you impose your religious beliefs on those other religions who see it differently, you prevent them from the exercise of their religious beliefs, but if they were allowed to practice their beliefs, it would not restrict your practice of your beliefs, except for the part where you want to make yours the law of the land. " WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

First, I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I have the Constitutional right to vote in accordance with my religious beliefs. The doctrine of separation of church and state works both ways. I can vote according to my faith and religious beliefs. What law says I can't vote according to my values and faith?

Second, many of the greatest constitutional legal minds on both sides of the issue agree that allowing same-sex marriage would eventually create a whole host of constitutional problems with respect to the First Amendment and freedom of religion. It's already happened in MA and in other places as well. "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:49 PM:

" not twisting any words around, JR., didnt MNV use this pharse..."When I use the term "right," I am referring to a SUBSTANTIVE right."
......just pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments....

It has been more than 30 years, JR, society evolves....live with it..at one time it thought women were property...and more recently that african american's were not equal to the good ole white folks...and JR are you seriously arguing that homosexuality is a phase people grow out of?

the difference is there is no right to domestic partnership...domestic partnerships exist at the whim of the legislature and can just as easily disappear.....but the justices have said there is a right to marry...

and MNV...since you brought it up...which ancient definition of marriage do you want to use .... abraham's .... david's ... solomon's? but the bigger argument is we are not a theocracy and using the Bible to try and justify bigotry will not in the long run succeed "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:56 AM:

" MNV When you write your beliefs into law and those beliefs restrict the rights of others, you are imposing your beliefs on others. No one said you can't do that, we just want you to admit to what you are doing. You are imposing a narrow religious interpretation not shared by all, on a minority population.
I fear no amount of facts can overcome a conclusion based on emotion. Books have been written explaining that homosexuality is a natural state of being for a minority of the population, and space here prohibits passing all of that info along, but I suspect your beliefs would prevent you from believing it even if space allowed and your would take the time to read it all. Your judgement is based on a belief system, not on science. Even your understanding of "natural law" is a biblical interpretation of nature, not a scientific understanding of the laws of nature.
And despite what the fear mongers have told you, allowing marriage equality will not restrict your right to discriminate in your church, only in public accommodations like the pavilion on the public beach in Ma.

Your traditional definition of marriage conveniently ignores the tradition of polygamy, forced marriage, treating women as property and other historical understandings.
While you are free to sit in judgement of others if that is what you believe is right, when you judge gay people to be immoral, you inflict pain and suffering, and according to you, that is immoral. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:10 AM:

" JR. The APA story is the other way around. Viewing homosexuality as a disorder was based on biblical interpretations and the political climate at the time. It was scientific understand of the nature of human sexuality that led to the reversal. And while we owe much to Freud for getting psychology going, much of his work has been proven to be inaccurate, especially his work on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a birth defect or disease. It is a natural occurrence for a minority of the population. Viewing it as a disorder is merely a rationalization for discrimination. Since discrimination inflicts pain and suffering, we need some way to tell ourselves we are justified in causing that suffering. But the suffering it still very real for the minority that is being judged as defective. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:47 AM:

" "When I use the term "right," I am referring to a SUBSTANTIVE right."

I guess that all depends on what is is... "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:29 AM:

" MissNapaValley claims that, "the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are," and once wall street asks which of the 10 commandments I have a problem with. I hope this discussion can clarify why I think it's a bad idea to base public policy on religious belief.

The first four of your commandments describe what god to believe in, how and when to worship, and what words one can speak. These are all expressly contradicted by the First Amendment.

Commandments 5 thru 9 outline basic ethical behaviors. However, they were understood to be ethical behaviors by many cultures well before they were adopted as "Commandments, " and are not strictly "Biblical." Furthermore, in the context when they were given as "commandments," we must remember that those "commandments" applied only to how Jews treated other Jews. It was perfectly fine to kill, enslave or rape - often at the command of God - neighboring tribes who happened to occupy land the "God's children" wanted (there's that darn Old Testament again, once wall street).

Finally, the 10th Commandment has two major drawbacks if you're trying to apply it to a modern society. First, it is a list of prohibitions on what types of thoughts one can have. I don't think we have a need for spiritual thought police. Second, it lists wives in the same category with ox and donkeys. I'm pretty sure that most of us don't consider our wives to be property - even the most politically incorrect among us.

To be continued . . . "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Just to sum up - Public policy should be based on our current understanding of the ethical treatment of other human beings, using universally recognized ethical principles which apply to everyone. I suggest that equality, respect, dignity, responsibility, empathy and compassion are a good place to start looking if we want to find such principles. I will always defend your right to believe, practice and proclaim whatever religious beliefs you choose to hold. But I will also oppose any measure which attempts to impose religious law at the expense of truly ethical principles. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:39 AM:

" MissNapaValley says: "I am not forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else for that matter."

Of course you cannot force others to believe what you believe. But no one should be forced to live by the rules of another person's religion. When you argue that a right should be denied on religious grounds, and that right is denied, then the religious belief has prevailed, and that religious belief IS imposed on others. Your right to your beliefs does not extend to the point that it does harm to others. That is why public policy must be made on the basis of universally accepted ethical principles, and not left to the whims of any particular religion. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:52 AM:

" John Richards might be interested to note that the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses is also supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the Interfaith Alliance, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers and dozens of other medical and professional organizations. Furthermore, continuing research into human sexuality since that decision 35 years ago has reinforced the fact that homosexuality is not an illness, and shown that attempts to treat it as such are terribly destructive. In fact, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder has no support among any mainstream health and mental health organization. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:16 PM:

" MissNapaValley states: "The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have been INSUFFICIENT to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law."

First, there is no "argument in favor of homosexuality." Sexual orientation is not something to be argued. That would be like "arguing" in favor of being right-handed. There is no "pro" or "con" here, and there are no ethical or moral implications - a person's orientation is simply a part of who she is.

Second, while you might cite Biblical references as "evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law" that notion is in conflict with our current rational, scientific (meaning "real life", not "faith-based") understanding of human sexuality. And this is exactly why it is a really bad idea to base public policy on religious or faith-based ideas: faith-based ideas cannot change with new discoveries and understandings that make them obsolete.

It is much more responsible to base public policy on universally accepted ethical principles, which apply to all people, and which can accommodate changes in our understanding of the world around us. Can you imagine a lawyer standing in front of California's Supreme Court next March and arguing that gays should not be allowed to marry, "because my Bible tells me so"? Again, I will defend your right to believe what you choose. But it is inappropriate (and unAmerican) to link public policy to faith in a religion. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Raven wrote: "the difference is there is no right to domestic partnership...domestic partnerships exist at the whim of the legislature and can just as easily disappear"

Then the proper remedy for that is to enshrine the right to domestic partnership in the Constitution.
You don't go cutting your toe off in order to cure a hangnail. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:37 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "The APA story is the other way around."
It is preposterous for the APA to suddenly 'discover' in 1973 what the nature of homosexuality is, when scientists even today can't agree on whether homosexuality is due to a genetic origin or whether it is mostly a learned behavior. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Fire Mike wrote "you might cite Biblical references as evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law"
You are conveniently ignoring the non-Biblical arguments based on natural law. The plain fact is that Nature made male and female genitals complementary (not to be confused with complimentary). Mother Nature (or God, if you will) also designed the urinary tract to be a sterile environment, free from pathological disease organisms. I can't say the same for the alternative. "

pharper wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:04 PM:

" I'd advise everyone to look up John Corvino's lectures on this subject, but really, homosexuality has very little to do with sexual intercourse, besides the obvious. The kind of sex that a couple has is irrelevant to the argument and to the population of people on the whole. We think of heterosexuals in terms of relationships, but homosexuals in terms of sex, which is extremely interesting given that relationships between any two consenting adults have the exact same emotions, problems, and triumphs (though unique to the individuals) no matter what the sexes of the individual members of the couple are.

Regardless of what is supposed to “fit” where, people can be intimate in a variety of different ways. If they couldn’t, no one would bother trying, but clearly intimacy is equally as satisfying and right among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals, regardless of whether or not it produces children.

Heterosexuals have many different ways of being intimate--not all of them involve the "proper" equipment in the "proper" places. Sex is not part of the issue here, and never was or should be. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:24 PM:

" we have no need to enshrine domestic partnership, JR because courts has said there is a right to marriage for same sex couples...

and JR, what about the hermaphroditic lifeforms that can transform their genitals as the situation requires...or can self fertilize....

and in the human male's case the tract is not always sterile...biologically one could argue that the human male is inferior to the human female because the tract is shared for two purposes, procreation and waste elimination.....

and as far as the APA, why cant it suddenly change..is there a rule or law that says it must do a, b and then c before changing a finding?... it is just the way science works sometimes JR ... not nice and neat but rather messily... but it evolves and changes as more and more evidence comes in ... and there has yet to be a case where an organization has reversed itself regarding homosexuality being a 'disease' because of new evidence or study ... in fact the opposite is taking place. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 4:26 PM:

" <<when scientists even today can't agree>>

do you know of any subject where 100 percent of scientists agree.....? where 100 percent of common folk agree? "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:39 PM:

" JR, just so we're clear. Are you actually arguing that we should deny the right of gays to marry because you have a problem with a particular behavior, which they may or may not engage in, and in which many straight people do, in fact, engage? Again, I don't know how many times we have to go over this, but a sexual orientation is not the same as a behavior. I don't understand why you continue to confuse the two. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:07 PM:

" Raven wrote: "what about the hermaphroditic lifeforms..."
We're talking about humans here, not animals.

"and in the human male's case the tract is not always sterile..."
Google on 'sterile urine' and the Wiki article that pops up tells us that except in cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (i.e. disease), human urine is virtually sterile. The same can not be said about the alternative tract which harbors pathologic organisms such as E. coli. What is Nature trying to tell us here? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Raven wrote: " we have no need to enshrine domestic partnership, JR because courts has said there is a right to marriage for same sex couples..."

Yes, but you said earlier that the difference between marriage and domestic partnership is that domestic partnerships exist at the whim of the legislature and can just as easily disappear." And I offered the remedy for that. Now you are shifting the target again. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall... "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:01 PM:

" the target is always the same, JR....the right to marry...not the right to have a domestic partnership....unless you mean to remove marriage from the civil authority altogether and all couples will have domestic partnerships and if they want it sanctified, they go to the church of their choice? "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:06 PM:

" I want the one who brought up the animals....JR...just responding...and virtually is not the same as always JR..

nature is trying to tell us that there is room for a multitude of wonderful variations and none are the single way to live and survive....and that there is also no single right way for sexuality....that two separate genders, male and female are not the only way a species can exist and procreate... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:28 PM:

" JR. Separate is not equal. People are trying to explain to you how it is not equal, but one point you don't want to acknowledge is that it is not equal.
The bigger issue is that you think gay people are sick. That one is going to be a hard one to get over. Being gay is a part of nature for a significant part of the population. It cannot scientifically be denied to be a natural occurrence. It complies with the laws of nature. As Fire Mike @11:52 shows, every major scientific professional organization agrees, it is perfectly natural for some people.
But because of your religious beliefs, you will probably not be able to accept that fact. See Pharper 4:04 and quit thinking about what gay people might do, (though many don't do what you imagine) and think about who they are. Your understanding of natural law is not scientific. Simple biological parts do not determine who you want to spend your life with.
While I suspect you may not be able to overcome your prejudices, please realize that when you write your beliefs into law, and those beliefs deny equal treatment to others, it causes harm to those denied equality. You can believe what you want, but realize that when you hurt other people with those beliefs, they will be angry and resist. Many think inflicting harm is immoral.
While you think your group has the right interpretation, most sects think that and much conflict, pain and suffering results as it has throughout the history of organized religion. Practice your beliefs, and proclaim your judgements in your church, but just don't use the law to force it on everyone else. "

jmo wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Hawkeye where are you? I am waiting for your response.
Trust everyone on both sides is have a fun weekend and will enjoy their Sunday, weather permitting, as sometimes we lose sight of being close to our families and loving our friends what ever the persuasion. I'll be back at you on Monday. Go Niners! Love Napa for what we are! "

zist707 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:25 PM:

" geez...i keep reading all these comments about how the anti-prop. 8 people should just "move on" and "leave things the way they are". if that's the case then what was the need for prop. 8 anyways? if that's the logic then why didn't they just "move on" when the court ruled it unconstitutional to deny same sex couples to?
so what if timmy has the same color balloon as you? you still have a balloon and it wont change your balloon.

it's sad when people have all these assumptions on something they don't really understand.. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:53 PM:

" This whole discussion is fruitless, since no one's mind is being changed. It is moot for now anyway, since the matter is in the hands of California's Supreme Court. Preliminary indications are that there is a majority (at least 4 justices) in favor of upholding Prop 8. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:49 AM:

" Raven wrote: "nature is trying to tell us that there is room for a multitude of wonderful variations."

You missed Nature's primary message here. Nature tells us that one type of intercourse is natural and normally disease-free while the other is fraught with E. coli and other disease organisms. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:57 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "Separate is not equal."
But often it is good enough.
For example, most large stores have separate men's and women's public restrooms. Heavens to Betsy, discrimination based on gender! What is this world coming to... "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:07 AM:

" Come on!!!!!! you guys lost!!!! Why are we still wasteing our time with this? We have bigger issues at hand like this economic depression we've all been feeling. For those of who voted "NO" on prop 8 here's a solution. If your gay either accept that you can't get married in california or move to another state... try alaska.. If your non-gay then you can just mind your own bussiness as well as you really can't complain because you CAN get married... "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:49 AM:

" good enough isnt good enough JR....equal means equal...and as far the restrooms are concerned it is discrimination based on what are perceived as health issues, which could be argued as a legitimate state interest...there is not legitmate state interest in denying same sex couples the right to marry...

and you might take a look around and see more and more business are using unisex bathrooms....one person at a time but it takes no account of the gender....cheaper for the businesses too

and hospitality...so, by your standards...if African Americans didn't like being denied their civil rights they should have moved?...and no white folks should have helped them? The fight for equality is not limited to those being discriminated against.....and I will complain when I see an injustice being done... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:29 AM:

" JR. While your mind may never change, the hope remains that someone might read something in this discussion that helps them understand why gay people want and deserve equal civil rights. It is also necessary to counter arguments based on beliefs that have no basis in fact, especially when those beliefs are used to deprive people of liberty and justice under the law. History has shown that education can overcome bias, but people must speak up for education to take place. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:53 AM:

" hosp. You are right that there are more important issues facing our country and the world, such as poverty, homelessness, starvation, war, religious factions killing other religious factions, not to mention the economy. But the Mormons and Catholics, Evangelicals and "social conservatives" felt it was more important to spend their time and money to take away a civil right from a minority group. So those who are directly harmed and those who believe in equality for all Americans, had to divert their energies to defend freedom. The sooner we accept liberty an justice for all, the sooner we can work together on the larger problems that confront all of us. But oppressed people and those who defend freedom and equality will not give up until there is no longer oppression, and liberty is secure. "

Fire Mike wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:14 PM:

" equalnotspecial - You hit the nail on the head. That's why we're here. Someone has to speak up in the face of intolerance. It's good to know you're out there, fighting the good fight. Keep it up . . . "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:45 PM:

" Mike. Thanks for the encouragement. I wish I didn't have to be doing this. There are many other things I'd rather be doing, but fighting for equal rights just seems more important right now.
And my appreciation to you and all the others on here who are speaking up for freedom and equality. I sincerely hope we can convince some people they have the nothing to fear by allowing freedom for everyone. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:25 PM:

" oops, since I have to correct that last sentence, let is say: I sincerely hope we can convince some people they have nothing to fear and nothing to loose by allowing freedom for everyone. "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:10 AM:

" "Raven" with all due respect please do not compare prop 8 to the civil rights movement. I find it to be quite offense. Gays are not being sold as slaves, forced to mate or are being hanged. If they were then I would have diffently voted "NO" on prop 8.. I don't belive that people should have their rights taken away, but I also don't belive that at this paticular time this is an issue we need to spend so of our tax money on. As a young hispanic male I would have wished that we would have had this many people standing up for "Our rights" when they were trying to kick honest, hardworking mexicans out of the country. I mean "equalnotspecial" I would assume since you believe so much in equal rights you were marching down jefferson in support of your fellow mexicans right? To answer your questions I don't care if gay's want to get married. Let them be happy. Anyways marriage is going down the toilet. It is constantly being mocked by polticians,celebrities,average americans. I mean just look at the divorse ratio.. I bet you if they made infidelity illegal that rate would have shot up. Next thing you know we'll have prop 77. humans wanting the state to recognize their marriage between them and their pet... "

steph wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Yes, the reason I chime in from time to time on this issue is so that gay people will know there are many rationally thinking people who support their quest for equal rights under the law--they are the minority but they are not alone. And I share my thoughts so that those who would take away the constitutional rights of gay people know that they are not without opposition. It may seem like it in their world, but not everyone agrees with them. Not even close. Pride is a cardinal sin! "

mominapa wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:38 AM:

" I can't tell you how sick of this debate I have become. It should never have been an issue. Two people walk into the license bureau to get a marriage license. So what, big deal. Who cares? Get married, do whatever you want to do as long as you don't violate any existing laws or hurt anyone in the process. I don't care if you are gay, straight, bisexual, transexual or pink. Do it, stick to your beliefs and have a good life. As long as it is illegal to marry a same sex partner, fight for the right to do it, but don't be violent or obnoxious about it and you will have my vote. No one will be free until everyone is free. Get it right, get done and get it over with so we can go on to fix our economy and I can have a nice retirement and enjoy Obama as president.

Lighten up, dissenters,gay people are here to stay and if you want to remain miserable for the rest of your life, don't accept them. If you want a nice peaceful life, let them move in next to you. You don't have to send out the Welcome Wagon or bake them pies or even be cordial, but you must be peaceful and if you aren't very very careful, you might make a new friend or two. If you feel that what they are doing is wrong, don't do it yourself, but their souls are not your problem. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:56 AM:

" I agree with Elton John......gay marriage is silly....ok...has nothing to do with equal rights...

Taken from another post:
One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution. "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:29 PM:

" hosp, I am sorry you are offended because people are standing up and fighting for a civil right you may take for granted....and I think if you look around you will find the people fighting this battle are also fighting the battle for equality for all people....that there are a lot of people fighting prop 8 that were on the street with you fighting for the rights of all ... if one loses a right, who is going to be the next one...

glenroy....elton 'married' his long time partner, his words not mine..at a wedding, again his words, not mine, in 2005 and considering England does not allow gay marriage but only allows civil unions, he didn't have much choice now did he? As for amicable, the only amicable solution for you appears to one where same sex couples cannot marry... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Hosp.Iit was black civil rights leader Bayard Rustin back in 1987 who said the "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated." Can you take his word for it. Dr. King and his wife also felt the gay community was unfairly targeted for discrimination and abuse and welcomed them into the civil rights struggle.
The history of the struggle for equal rights for gay people goes back a long way, but is rarely taught, due to the social stigma against being gay, so it would be unfair to blame you for your lack of information and understanding. Gay people were in fact rounded up for extermination and forced to perform slave labor in the 1930's and 40's in Germany. That is where the pink triangle as a symbol of gay persecution and the struggle for equality came from. The McCarthy hearings of the 50's included persecuting gay people, not just communists. It was perfectly legal and routine for the police to raid places where gay people got together, round them up, beat them and put them in jail just for being gay. Their names were published in the paper, which resulted in being fired from their jobs and often further beatings and being run out of town. While some gay people can hide who they are for a while at least, some cannot and those people were and still are routinely beaten and abused even today. Matthew Shepard is just one of many gay people who have been beaten to death simply because of who they are. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Hosp. (cont.) Michael Sandy and Lawrence King are just 2 of the gay people who were killed this year for being gay. While hate crimes are down overall, they rose 6% this year for gay people. Being gay remained illegal in parts of the US until 2003. If space allowed, I could go on, but books have been written on the subject, and the information is available if you want a better understanding of the history of the equal rights struggle for gay people. Once you are more informed, you may be offended when you hear people saying gay people haven't had it nearly as bad as black people have. "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:19 PM:

" equalnotspecial you are entitled to your opinions (wrong as they may be) I wish you the best of luck in your battle for gay's rights. I hope that you will one day be very gay (happy) but until then prop 8 will remain in effect.... sorry.... "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:53 PM:

" hosp, I hope you realize that you are becoming part of a minority in this....every year more and more Californians find no problem with gay marriage....it is not a matter of if it happens but when....and you are entitled to your opinions as well...wrong as they may be....but the fact is Prop 8 stripped away a right to marry from your friends and neighbors...but don't kid yourself into thinking that it will be a permanent state of denial. "

hospitality24 wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:32 AM:

" okay ? you know what Raven and Equalnotspecial you both win.... Now that we've established your victory. I want to have an "all hands on deck" run at prop 77. I have a friend who wants to marry his horse and the state won't recognize his right to do so... So I'll assume since you both are all about "equal rights" I will see you first thing next week at the napa court house........ Oh and if it is any concern he also has been discriminated against and beaten up and stuff... SEE YOU THERE :) "

Raven wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:32 AM:

" what is the obsession that opponents to same sex marriage have with sex between men and animals....hosp, I shouldn't even dignify your response with an answer but I will, we are talking about marriage between legal, consenting adults....you get the horse declared one of those and by god, your friend can marry him.....the horse may show more sense than a lot of the posters here "

equalnotspecial wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Hosp. The brief history lesson is a statement of verifiable facts, not my opinion. Look it up if you don't believe me. The Holocaust museum is a good place to start.
And that animal argument. Informed consent is required for any marriage. A child or animal or inanimate object cannot give informed consent. Allowing equality for gay people has nothing to do with animals, etc.
And this is not about a victory, but an attempt to use reason and logic to persuade and convince people to overcome emotional bias. We don't want to beat you into submission, but to change your mind with your full consent and agreement. The problem is, this is an emotional issue for many, based on beliefs instead of science and reason. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:31 PM:

" I suggest you anti-8 people google on "USA Today Elton John Prop 8" (without the quotes).
It is refreshing to read what this gay man has to say about why Prop 8 lost. "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 1:40 AM:

" and it is too bad he feels that way but he doesn't get a choice since England only recognizes civil unions.....and he was more than happy to use the word married and wedding when he and his partner started their civil union several years ago.....

but be that as it may...what he said has no bearing other than to agree that the no on same sex marriage folks have a visceral reaction with no basis in fact over the word marriage "

jwk wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:43 AM:

" The people spoke and it needs to be left alone. Just like Prop. 187 that these Knucklheaded Liberal judges overturned. Going against "The Will of the people" Look what throwing out 187 has done to our state. We are Bankrupt because of this ridiculous Group of Judges making up their own rules.. And for the record, The Honest truth is that Barrack SUpporters and The Blacks voted 78% for Prop 8. Again you guys voted for the wrong party. You Liberal Dem's will never learn will you!! "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:38 PM:

" once more jwk...just because people vote for something does not make it legal ... and you want to explain how judges affirming a right to marriage has anything to do with the budget crisis the state faces?...

and the honest truth is 78 percent of Obama supporters did not vote for Prop 8....70 plus percent of African Americans did, whether they supported Obama or not...but Obama's support went beyond the African American community....

what we won't ever learn to is lay down and roll over when we see injustice being visiting upon or friends and neighbors... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Raven wrote "the no on same sex marriage folks have a visceral reaction with no basis in fact over the word marriage."
We can quibble over your characterization of "no basis in fact", but "visceral reaction" is right.
The fact that 52% of the voters had that visceral reaction would tend to argue in favor of the "basis in fact". "

Raven wrote on Nov 28, 2008 4:52 AM:

" 52 percent of those who voted on the prop, JR...was just slightly more than one third of the state's voters.....and visceral reactions are not a basis for law....but rather the basis for bigotry and hate...

and where are the facts?...no one yet has shown harm caused by same sex marriage....can you find one case one a claim was filed saying that same sex marriage harmed a heterosexual marriage...that would be a basis in fact...there are more than 18k same sex couples who are legally married in this state...has the divorce rate for heter couples suddenly shot up...? "

John Richards wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

" According to the dictionary "visceral" simply refers to deeply felt emotions. There is no reason to presume that it is a negative thing. It can also refer to positive emotions, such as physical attraction or empathy.

It is a smoke screen to point out that not all eligible voters voted. As far as I'm concerned, "voters" refers to those who voted. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Raven, you are being unreasonable.
It would be grossly premature to expect to see documented cases where a heterosexual marriage was harmed by a same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages were only in effect for 4 months. It takes decades for social changes to leave their mark on society. By then it would be too late. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:13 PM:

" I guess that I'm a little late on this game, but I may as well opine. This should be a close issue for the Court: does a constitutional amendment based solely on gender constitute a revision?

I look forward to seeing the hearings on the CA Supreme Court's website.

Personally, I think homosexuals should be granted the same rights as any married couple. Call it what you want it, just give 'em the same exact rights and privileges...for better or for worse (as it were).

That way, we could get rid of this domestic partnership status altogether. Did you know that a heterosexual couple can be domestic partners? The only catch is that one of the parties must be over the age of 62. Equality indeed...

Did you also know that the right to choose (i.e. abortion) is not specifically protected under the state and/or federal constitution? Yet gender equality is specifically protected under U.S. Const. Amend. 14 (i.e. "all citizens").

Let's get rid of the fictions and get over it. And to say gay = necrophilia/bestiality/pedophilia is tantamount to xenophobia. Well, that's my Saturday night rant! :) "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:29 PM:

" show me a case from Massachusetts then....JR, they have a bit more experience..... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: