Political Discussions
California's 'Yes on 8' leading in polls, funds
Posted by TheBigRuski • 10/18/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: California, gay rights, marriage, no on 8, proposition 8, same-sex marriage, yes on 8
Support for a ‘Yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8, which would define marriage as only valid between a man and a woman, has grown since news of a San Francisco class of first-grade students’ field trip to their teacher’s lesbian wedding. However, gay activists continue to scoff at the notion of student indoctrination....
Public reaction to the incident may be affecting support for the proposition, however, according to polling numbers and financial contributions, according to Yes on 8 press secretary Chip White.
“The past week and a half has really been a kind of momentum for the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign,” he said.
Citing recent public polling numbers for CBS News gathered by SurveyUSA, White said that support for Proposition 8 had risen by 10 points in the last 11 days, with polling numbers currently showing 47 percent of Californians supporting the proposition, compared with 42 percent against.
“Additionally,” White said, “the ‘No on 8’ side, in an unusual move, released their internal poll to the Los Angeles Times. It also showed the ‘yes’ side in the lead.”
Campaign contributions show similar support. In the most recent filing of contribution reports with the California Secretary of State, proponents listed more than 5,000 pages of contributions.
“We ended up with 62,000 donors, showing that for the last reporting period,” White said, adding that proponents have raised about $25 million.
thescroogereport.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/californias-slithering-campaign/
User Comments
-
There are some things where majority rules should not apply.
We are not a direct democracy, and specifically for the reason of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage rights shouldn't be going to a vote. Nor should a definition of a legally binding contract have any religious attachments to it. Nor should anyone group get to "own" a word.-
Agreed and if we ever needed to know why religion and state ought to be separate here's a prime example. Those who are against gay marriage are not in any way affected by two consenting adults becoming married to one another. They are simply attempting to impose their morality and their religious beliefs on others ie. tyranny.
-
The founding fathers set up representative democracy for a reason. This direct democracy can be trouble. J. S. Mill had it right about the tyranny of the majority.
-
-
I cannot believe people would form an organization solely devoted to preventing a group of people from getting married because they don't like their lifestyles. I mean, wow, try to go do something useful with your pathetic lives.-
It's truly astonishing that they would go to the lengths of forming and funding an organization solely to lobby government to continue discriminating against an artificially created class of citizens, and then have the audacity to claim that their mean spirited, hateful and homophobic behaviors are "Christ-like".
I can't find a single spot in New Testament teachings where Jesus is recounted as being a hate filled, fear mongering homophobe.
-
-
What a waste of money.-
The money is supposedly going to protect the moral integrity of America. Meh, poverty and lying can be considered after this moral "outrage!"
-
-
States have no business in the marriage business. If marriage is a religious institution, then leave it to each religion to determine who may and may not be married within their religion. If there are legal issues to be addressed, let them be addressed by agreement of the parties like every other negotiated relationship. The time, money and energy wasted on this issue is entirely the result of the fact that states have created this hybrid status called "married" that confers statutory authority upon ministers and the like to create legal obligations. That's 100 times the "entanglement" of many of the operations that have been struck down by the Supreme Court because they created too much interplay between church and state.-
And gay activists have no business in the marriage business as well. Marriage has already been defined in California as a union between a man and a woman, until 4 activist judges overturned California's vote on the the matter.
-
Why do you say that,Ruski? Is there a Constitutional amendment I'm unaware of that prohibits the excessive entanglement of the state with gay activists?
-
Why do I say that? Because it's fact!
Why should any group redefine marriage? -
Yeah, let's go back to the 2000 BC definitions of marriage!
Or, hell, abandon the word altogether. -
Marriage is routinely redefined when new statutes are written. So are a number of other concepts that control the way members of society interact with one another. That's what our system of government is set up to effectuate. The definition of marriage to which you refer is a religious one, over which activist groups and legislatures have no power whatsoever, and which should never have been codified.
-
Sorry, but sounds like you are making some kind of circular argument. You lost me at "routinely redefined." ...and you can save yourself some time on the keyboard....you made your point....which is, for example, if someone wants to redefine marriage between a man and 10 women...the government should not intervene.
-
No worries, Ruski--I'm sure everyone else understands that when I say that it is the government that is redefining marriage on a regular basis (if you doubt this, read the marriage statutes of 50 and 100 years ago and compare them to the marriage statutes in effect today) I'm not saying "government should not intervene". In fact, I'm really hard-pressed to understand how you think that government might refrain from intervening in a governmental action, but that's okay. As usual, I wasn't talking to you, just pointing things out for those who might choose to think about the issue.
-
A very balanced comment.
-
@ TBR
That's not fact. That's an opinion unless you provide a source.
-
-
Seriously what a waste of time. The economy sucks, jobs at an all time low, education is quality poor and time and money is wasted on this. -
Ruski,
What I'm wondering is if you oppose the use of the term "Marriage" or if you are against homosexuals being able to have the same legal relationship as heterosexual couples altogether.-
Gay couples certainly should have the legal rights of married couples if their relationship is deemed a civil union. I am opposed to the use of the term "marriage" for such a union.
-
I agree there, not that it personally matters to me. But the mere use of the term is part of the problem i think. And to be honest, i don't see why that is even important.
Marriage is largely a religious term to me. Registered Partnerships. Civil Unions, call it what you may. To fight over the title of the union as opposed to the right of having the union itself makes no sense.
I'm all for Homosexuals having every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
-
One of the arguments I've heard is that using a different term alienates gay people.
-
@ csiunatc...Somewhere...at some point in time...a line probably needs to be drawn. Mine starts here.
-
Kobra, i'd like to see a different term applied to everyone, not just same-sex couples. Let the churches have marriage and create something entirely separate to enforce legal rights and responsibilities (if we think such a thing is necessary for anyone)
-
I agree. The word marriage has lost its meaning thanks not to gay people, but to people who get married before they're psychologically ready for it.
-
-
I fail to understand why people care about homosexuals being married. It's beyond me. Here in Canada it's legal and the world didn't come to an end. Most of my friends are gay and I'm not ... being in their presence hasn't "turned me gay" or something, LOL!
Most of the long-term relationships I know are homosexual couples. Anyway...I just don't get what the big deal is.
If homosexuals are given legal rights it doesn't take away from any one else's rights. And it dosn't force churches to marry homosexuals if they don't want to. As a matter of fact, a minister/priest can refuse to marry anyone ... it's not the law that they MUST marry people. I worked in a church for several years and the minister refused to marry a few couples ... heterosexual couples by the way. He just didn't feel he could marry them for a variety of reasons, which was his right.
Anyway, people need to grow up. Stop fearing stuff like this. It's so silly. -
With all the problems this country is facing, who the hell cares if gays get married. Some people have some pretty screwed up priorities. -
Another Right Wing Christianity conformity agenda against Gay Rights thread.
Why does Gay Marriage bother these people? Jesus got kissed by guys a lot! -
This must be what they're afraid of:
more lol celebs! -
Well thats a reason to hate Ellen if anything
-
Get some sleep, CSI. It must be tiring, having such a long list of people to hate.
-
-
wrong place
-
Ellen Equates Support for Prop 8 as ‘Hate’
Ellen Degeneres, appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno Monday, voiced her opposition to California ’s Proposition 8 by saying financial contributors supporting a ‘yes’ vote on the measure “don’t need to promote hate.”
thescroogereport.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/ellen-equates-support-for-prop-8-...-
She's right.
-
Yeah, she really is.
-
I love you, too...guys!
-
Sorry, Ruski; I'm into girls.
-
@voodooK...great!
-
Keep it platonic, then.
-
Nervous?
-
It is hate. What's your point?
-
@DM...I know your view...and you've stated it many times. I've also stated my point many times...but here it is again:
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.
Did you read anything about "hate" in this statement? -
Sounds to me like they ONLY want to ostracize gay people. "You can't use our precious little word." Why is a word so important?
Also, look at what the proposition actually does. Intent and effect are two different things. -
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
source: www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballot-arguments -
Yay! for Ellen
-
Yes, heaven forbid our children learn to get along with each other!
-
A "Yes Vote on 8" has nothing to do with children "getting along with each other."
Again, an effort to smear supporters by playing the "hate card." -
@voodookobra
IMO you hit the nail on the head when you said this:
What's wrong with this? If you teach kids that other people aren't to be treated equally, they will discriminate against them. Bully them. Hate them. Kill them.
It would appear that at least some of the most extreme right wing Christian zealots in America today do not wish to be "peacemakers". That's really shameful because it points out how hypocritical they are. You either are a true believer in Jesus Christ, who endeavors to walk the talk of extending love, forgiveness and peace to all as he commended his followers to do, or you are a charlatan.
charlatan - A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or special knowledge; a quack or fraud. -
@voodookobra
Your comment contained the "f" word. I'm wondering why drowseymonkey's comments were removed myself.
Regading the decision of the court made this summer:
The Decision Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno stated:
“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”
The ruling added that all California couples had a “basic civil right” to marry “without regard to their sexual orientation.” The justices said they would direct state officials “to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling,” including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties “in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No matter what excuses may be offered to mask homophobia, hatred and systemic discrimination against gay people, the fact remains that one either believes that it’s reasonable that every citizen within a democracy be entitled to equal rights and equal access to all government services or not. -
It's ironic that my appeal to rational thinking and empathy towards homosexuals got removed by the community. -_-
-
-
It is hate to support one side in a voting position?
No, it just means that it is the proposition you want to win. Being for something doesn't mean you have to hate the opposition.-
Being anti-gay and wanting to not give an entire segment of the population the same legal rights as others, based on their sexual orientation, is a form of hate. Not sure how else you can interpret it.
And no it's not "hate" to support one side of a voting position, but that's not what's happening here and you know it. -
Another blogger's opinion:
Pro-marriage, Not anti-gay
oakford.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/pro-marriage-not-anti-gay/ -
As a side note -- Russians are one of the biggest threats in the U.S. The Russian Mafiya has been involved in manipulating the stock market as well as running much of the child slavery operations in America.
-
Thank you csiunatc for bringing up that point. "Hate" has been thrown around this discussion like a cheap suit.
As a side note -- satijournal..you are one funny dude! -
Well, Ruski... How would you like it if someone tried to pass legislation out of hatred for Russians? How would that make you feel? We should focus on trying to make life better for people -- not more difficult.
-
@drowseymonkey
I never knew such hatred existed 'til I started hanging out here...it's disheartening.
Neither did I and yes, it's disheartening. -
One more time...wanting to keep the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman is not about hating anyone...it may be about hating sin, but that is all.
Please, spare me the Russian analogy. I already went through the cold war...and know perfectly well what ignorance looks like.
-
-
On a related topic, here's the latest from "Gays for McCain":
www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9277
(Remamber, it's a satire!) -
Ruski, what's the point. You know that in your mind, heart and religious beliefs what your definition of marriage is. Why does it need to be put in to any states constitution or voted on? Why does it need to be law?
The only answer to this is to prevent the state from having to recognize all forms of marriage. Therefore it is legal discrimination - which, if passed, will be turned over on the basis that it is discriminatory and exclusionary to a portion of the population.
If you are truly pro-marriage then you should be against this proposition - the legal version not the religious version - keep the two separate as one is passed through a democratic process and the other through personal religious beliefs.-
You are missing the point...the Yes on Prop 8 crowd is NOT trying to overturn the definition of marriage...it was already defined. After being challenged, 61% of Californians voted in favor of keeping the terms of traditional marriage. It is 4 judges who overturned the people's will.
-
This is the order of importance: Constitution, the people, then the legislators. The Constitution comes first, because even with a 67% Christian majority in the USA, there is still a separation of church and state.
-
I think those Judges were correct based on my previous comments about it being discriminatory/unconstitutional.
The point is WHY does it need to be in the constitution or a law. The fact that 61% of Cal's voted for it doesn't change the fact that the "people's will" is legal discrimination and therefore should have been overturned. If we allowed every hair-brained proposition to become law without any judicial oversight or the chance to challenge it what would that leave us with?
In most western states it would still be illegal to walk your "ass" down main street on Sunday.
Sorry, some things need to be challenged. -
@BigRuski you cannot say that "61% of Californians voted in favour of keeping the terms of traditional marriage". It is very misleading for you do so.
Only 22% of the citizens of California cared strongly enough to vote on the issue. Bearing this electoral turn out in mind this means that 13% of Californians voted yes on the issue not as you state 61%.
Essentially only 13% of Californians voted for prop 8. Now in Polybore's book that is just not enough folk. A Judge would have to be insane to let that stand. -
Again, semantics...although accurate, it was by a wide margin for those that voted.
We shall see how many Californians vote this time. -
@ polybore
That's because Ruski is IN that 61%.
-
-
Why don't you try to ban divorce if you're so concerned about the sanctity of marriage?
-
Good point! The sanctity of marriage is a farce anyway. I've had more married women hit on me than single ones.
-
-
-
There is no doubt that the people behind prop.8 are from the ultra Christian right. The irony of this is that these same people are acting like numb nut Islamic clerics unwilling to recognize the fact that not all people have the same sexual preference. While the Islamic extremist treatment of gays is flogging or hanging them in public American ultra Christian right while not physically maiming them (although there are also criminal violent attacks by dumb bigots) are in effect denying gays exist like their counterpart, so what's the difference between these groups that treat each other mortal enemies?-
Yes on 8 = "ultra Christian right"?
Uh, no. It's not about hate. It's not about enemies. It's about traditional marriage as defined by all religions for the last 5,000 years. Why should 2% of the population dictate a new definition of marriage? -
It's about traditional marriage as defined by all religions for the last 5,000 years.
Wrong-o, lama breath. There are some countries where people can marry animals. -
I said "religions" not "countries."
OK...SJ the Comedian? -
Well, again Ruskie - you have to ask yourself what traditional marriage are you talking about?
Because the definition, and traditions have changed A LOT over the last 5,000 years.
Is this a matter of wanting to hold on to some traditions while others are completely forgotten about?
Will we be going back to arranged marriages and subservient wives? Dowries?
Do you even know where the majority of wedding "traditions" originated from? If you did, are you sure you'd want to continue practicing them? -
@ Anok...I dunno...do you want to go back to slaughtering a goat for sacrifice?
You are comparing apples to oranges. Were "arranged marriages" the law of the land ever...anywhere? Were dowries written in some constitution somewhere? -
Yes, arranged marriages were the law of the land as women had no rights - not even the right to marry the person they wanted to because they were considered property. This didn't change until well into the Victorian period, and changed heavily in the 19th century by wild US women who disobeyed their fathers
Dowries too, although that custom varies greatly from culture to culture. But since the bride was a transference of property, the legality of the deal was sealed with an equal trade of some sort. In some cultures, getting someone to take your daughter off your hands (and thus, transferring that expense to another man) was worth paying for by the bride's father. It "sweetened" the deal, if you will, so that a man would be willing to take on such a responsibility. (That is also where the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding came from).
In other cultures, it was the opposite, as women were a commodity. Puritanical US pilgrims would purchase women who were shipped over to our shores because there was a shortage of women here for them to marry. They would bring them by boats, and auction them off.
Another tradition of traditional marriage was "courting", and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Spouses were legally bound to one another, but there was no love there, and in fact love and passion were frowned upon because emotion like that ruined business transactions. To get out their emotional needs, they spouses were encouraged to "go to court" (Social gatherings) and have romantic interludes with people outside of their marriage. Not sex - just romance.
This was acceptable in the church's eyes. So "courtship" today has a very different meaning than it did traditionally, and the original meaning is heavily frowned upon now.
The tradition of the white gown and brides maids is one of Pagan and Jewish origin. The bride would wear her "dowry" on her dress (wearing something fancy), later on the dress became white as a sign of respect for the dead when the happy wedding procession passed by a cemetery (They would cover their heads with a white shawl or sheet, and it morphed from there).
The brides maids, all dressed in fancy dresses like the bride had the sole purpose of tricking demons from impregnating the bride before the consummation of her marriage, and the red carpet she walked on protected her from the demons below - as well as the evil eye, which she also wore the veil to protect herself from. -
@Anok...again, you are talking about cultural differences. Not all marriages were arranged in every country...and I don't believe they ever fell under a government's legislation. Not every man viewed their woman as property...even if that is the skewed perception you have of the definition of marriage at one time...it never was part of any legislated position on marriage.
Sure, there were and are abusive cultures/people around the world now and then that have a skewed view of what a marriage means. However, many people understand it to be between a man and a woman, where both parties are respected at the highest level.
Do people disrespect marriage? Sure. Divorce? You betchya. However, ideally a man is to treasure his wife and vice-a-versa. -
It's not a matter of respect, Ruskie. That was how it was done in ALL cultures - unless you want to go back further in history. The details varied - but women did not have rights, and the LEGAL institution of marriage was governed by the law. It is, and was a legally binding contract. And, it bears mentioning that the couple were children. The age of marriage varied from culture to culture, but rest assured, they were children. In certain cultures you should have arranged and completed the marriage before the children were ten years old, leaving them to live at home with the parents until they were old enough to produce children. In European countries, it was closer to the age of 16. To wed older than that meant you were too old, and marriage would not be likely.
If a bride was found out to not be a virgin on her wedding night, the law stated that she be put to death - and yes, they checked! If the dowry was not given as contracted, legal battles ensued, and the marriage could be rendered null and void, and legal penalties took place as well.
The very original "tradition" of marriage dates back to tribes and/or cavemen who "stole" or took, or won their brides by taking them from one tribe to their own. Which is where the tradition of carrying the bride over the threshold came from.
Now, Pagan cultures had their own rituals and they accepted marriages of people who already had children (or premarital sex), were homosexual, and even multiple marriages or polygamist marriages. But that's a blip in history, really.
Now, getting back to church ordained marriages...the church did not even get involved in blessing marriages until the middle ages, when royalty insisted that their unions be blessed by a higher power - and publicly so all would know the sovereignty of their marriages. Of course, their marriage were all arranged, and done so for power, money, and political alliances.
While commoner marriages were arranged for similar purposes within their socio-political caste, the church did not officiate or bless their marriages until the end of the middle ages, when people insisted on it, so they could be like royalty. But the church was forced into it.
So when we talk about traditional marriages - you have to understand that what we consider traditional is not, in fact, the tradition. And to say that banning homosexual marriage is to protect traditional marriage is a big fat red herring - because marriage has changed so much over the centuries.
We now allow divorce - that is not traditional. We now allow people to choose their partners, that is not tradition, we allow people to marry outside of their social standing or class - that is not tradition, we now allow people to marry with mixed religions, that is not tradition. We allow people to marry when they are not virgins, that is not tradition, we allow people to marry of different races - that is not tradition.
We no longer allow brides to be treated as property, that is not tradition, we have banned the laws that called for death and harsh punishment for non virgins, that is not tradition, we no longer accept concubines and polygamist marriages, that is not tradition, and we seriously frown upon courting outside of your marriage - that is not tradition, and we heavily frown upon marriages for the sole purpose of legal standing, political allegiance, and transference of property - that is not tradition, we legally banned the marriage of children - hat is not tradition.
Even the tradition traditions of a wedding ceremony have become a mixed bag of religious teachings, superstitions and Pagan rituals.
So I'll ask again, are we to revert to actual traditions, or just the ones that make you feel comfortable? -
BigRuski, I am referring to those behind it and not the ones voting for it. The question still remains on what is the difference between between the Islamist extremist view on gays and the ultra Christian right. Here is a good article on a gay priest speaking on prop. 8:
www.latimes.com/news/la-me-lopez26-2008oct26,0,3173104.column -
TBR said, 'I said "religions" not "countries."'
We don't live in a theocracy -- we live in a democracy, and marriage is a civil institution.
-
-
@ anok...sorry, I can't agree with your argument. You are going in 20 different directions to defend your point when it's about one direction.
Again, I support this defense of Prop 8:
"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Pastor Rick Warren wrote. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.”-
By that logic, we can justify the end of democracy in the US, since it's a relatively recent "anomaly." The Constitution, by this logic, is irrelevant. So are all the gains in human rights of the past 200 years.
-
You may not agree - but history is history. Tradition is tradition. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. You say you want traditional marriages, then traditional marriages you should get. But it won't be what we have today.
There is one exception that I mentioned earlier - for a short period of time Pagan traditions had marriages very much like we have in the US today. They included homosexual marriages. SO if you want to continue traditional marriages like the ones in the US - then you'll have to accept homosexual marriage as part of the package. -
Good point. Heterosexual marriages today are vastly different in times past. Make that another thing we would have to turn the clock back on by the standards of TBR's argument.
-
@Mark - I mean, we could just go traditional from about 60 years ago...divorce? Not unless there's a damn good reason! Women being the head of the household? Not likely! Women's aspirations? Getting married right after high school and raising a family! Dinner on the table at 6pm sharp for the husband? You betchya!
And no interracial marriages, or interfaith marriages, either. -
@Anok...and all those things are in the Constitution where? Dinner on the table at 6? Which amendment was that? Or was that a state proposition somewhere?
Sorry, again you are bringing up cultural and societal issues when we are talking about an institution and law. -
Since when is a tradition the same thing as a law?
You want marriage TRADITIONS, then that is what you get.
If you want to protect marriage laws - then you need to get rid of divorce, interracial marriage, and, if you want to go back farther than 60 years, back into the 19th and 18th centuries and prior - you need to reinstate arranged marriages, virginity clauses, dowry laws, and so forth.
If you want traditional marriage laws that is.
If you just want tradition, well then you have even more changes to make.
Tell you what, how about you make your own marriage traditions in your household, and we'll make our own in ours. And the law will reflect equality for everyone to make sure they get to follow whichever tradition they choose?
How about that? -
What does divorce, interracial marriage, arranged marriages, virginity clauses, and dowry laws have to do with marriage as defined as being between a man and a woman?
Divorce is legal, interracial marriage was never governed and you are confusing bigotry with opposition to legally sanctioned gay marriages.
Arranged marriages are cultural and never legislated. Virginity has nothing to do with Prop 8. Same with dowry.
This juxtaposition of cultural and antiquated traditions to the support of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman is odd. -
Those were all laws pertaining to the traditions of marriage. Interracial marriage was ILLEGAL, banned! UnGodly! Divorce? was only "legal" in at fault circumstances.
Arranged marriages were law, dowries were upheld and enforced by law, virginity clauses? LAW. At one time it was heresy for a Protestant to marry a Catholic - in fact, Protestants ended up being persecuted anyway - but that was LAW!
It was legal, however, to buy your wife
These are laws that have changed over time. traditions have changed my friend.
And, right now Gay marriage is LEGAL. So, so much for you wanting to "stick with the law" on tradition.
Edit to add - I think it's very funny for you to call all of the marriage traditions you don't like "antiquated" when it's the one you want to uphold that is antiquated. -
"interracial marriage was never governed"
WHAT?
Interracial marriage was a CRIME, Ruski. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to say that you couldn't put people in prison for inter-marrying...and that didn't happen until 1967. -
Quote from the Big Ruski
"There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.”
2% of the population is Gay ???
Cute!!!
-
-
I think it's great someone from the Ole Old School a learnin how to use the internet.
-
-
Bye, MW! Although I see you removed your comment. Your characterization of the Yes on 8 campaign as being about hate, ignorance, and intolerance is a gross mischaracterization.
Tolerance? Shaming Yes on 8 supporters and BC? Who are the tolerant ones? -
@ TheBigRuski
He simply made a stand. Why do you chose to heckle him?
Are you just angry because you didn't get the chance to hit the "report" button??? -
Why would I hit the report button on an opinion on an issue?
(BTW, I have "heckled" no one.) -
@ TBR
IMO, since social networks sites like this one approve blogs that are Pro Gay marriage or civil unions, then they should only allow advertisements that are neutral or not related to such matters.
-
-
Hooray for smallmindedness and bigotry!
The same Biblical arguments currently being made by conservative Christians agains homosexuality and gay marriage were made in favor of slavery and segregation...with one small difference: there's a lot more pro-slavery stuff in the Bible than anti-gay stuff.-
"The same Biblical arguments currently being made by conservative Christians agains homosexuality and gay marriage were made in favor of slavery and segregation...with one small difference: there's a lot more pro-slavery stuff in the Bible than anti-gay stuff."
People were arguing that the Bible mandated slavery? That's fascinating--can you provide examples? -
Tiffany, I've heard people try and argue that point as well - I'll have to look up the scriptures they used for it. I'll have to remember it, first
-
Most reasoned argument I have read to date is on the Asymmetric blog at www.nelsonguirado.com/
-
Most excellent! Thanks for sharing this link.
-
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
Could you please explain to me how you correlate a decline in ALL marriage with the legalization of Gay Marriage?
Seems that straight people aren't marrying much, either.
And, the statistics show that marriage is on the decline, in general - regardless of who is allowed to marry because societies - and the individuals who comprise them - have a different view of the importance of marriage at early ages.
It is far more likely and plausible that cohabitation, divorce, and marriages of convenience have damaged marriage's reputation than gay marriage. -
Two (or several) wrongs don't make a right.
-
Why not outlaw cohabitation and divorce first? Get to gay marriage when you can prove you have a winning solution. -
Because cohabitors and divorcees aren't trying to get the green light from the rest of society. They simply go about their business without making sure all children are taught about cohabitation and divorce. They'll learn soon enough.
-
Bad correlations don't make for scientific data, either.
Your "two wrongs" are your opinion. They are not wrong in the eyes of millions of other people, and so should not be legislated as such. Governments are not there to legislate personal morality.
In other news, I've stumbled across some data indicating that the church did in fact accept at least one homosexual union:
www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).[continues]
www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.[continues]
www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthesciencesays.pdf
Are gay relationships dangerous to children and marriage?
Three decades of research demonstrate that children raised by gay and lesbian
parents are as mentally healthy as children raised by heterosexual parents.
For example, a 2004 study published in Child Development (Vol. 75, No. 6)
compared eighty-eight teenagers randomly selected from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Half of the teens had same-sex parents
and half had opposite-sex parents. The study found very few group differences
between the teenagers. The teenagers did not differ in symptoms of depression,
self-esteem, grade point average, or in their ability to develop healthy romantic
relationships. It found no basis for the assertion that children with same-sex parents
suffer because of not having a mother or a father figure.41[...]Gay and lesbian relationships are the vanguard of what heterosexual relationships
could be. Heterosexual couples have a lot to learn from gay couples.
Same-sex couples tend to be more positive than straight couples during conflict
and tend to use more affection and humor when discussing difficult subjects.
They tend to use fewer controlling and hostile emotional tactics during a fight;
and fairness and power-sharing between partners appears to be more common
in gay and lesbian relationships than in straight ones. 48
I have more, but I'll wait.
-
-
Anok,
I am having trouble understanding your logic.
You say, "Bad correlations don't make for scientific data, either. Your "two wrongs" are your opinion. They are not wrong in the eyes of millions of other people, and so should not be legislated as such. Governments are not there to legislate personal morality."
1. Bad correlations are scientific data. What makes correlations 'bad' does not invalidate the data, whether it be your opinion of the data or the definition of the data set, or the problem or thesis being tested with the use of the data. You are merely defining its use in the testing of the problem or thesis.
2. You are correct in saying that the two wrongs are his opinion, not necessarily fact. The term wrong requires a standard against which to weigh right or wrong. An opinion must be made to so judge rightness or wrongness compared to the standard. Your disagreement with theBigRuski is not about who is right or wrong. It is about what should be the standard.
3. You are suggesting that since gay marriage is not wrong in the eyes of millions it should not be legislated against. I think that implies that if in the eyes of millions of people it is not wrong to beat your wife, or marry 12 women, or marry your dog, or cheat on your taxes then those actions should not be legislated against. I feel like I am hearing a 12 year old complain that 'all the other kids are doing it' so it has to be okay.
4. In your view, governments are not set up to legislate personal morality. You may be right, but the history of governments says you are wrong. Most governments have legislated against marrying your sibling. They have legislated against marrying your parent. They (most) have legislated against having more than one spouse. I have not studied the subject but feel fairly comfortable saying that most governments were, in fact, set up to do just that: legislate personal morality, among other things. Governments legislate to set standards, including personal morality standards.
So what I get from your argument is that you really want this; it makes sense to you; you have lots of friends who also want it and it makes sense to them. Therefore you feel you should have it. And, don't bother giving me good reasons why it is correct for government not to give this to me because I will not listen to them. Instead, I will research all the people who think like I do and show you, based on their thinking, that you are wrong.-
No.
Correlations that have nothing to do with each other are not scientific data. It is neither provable nor falsifiable that legalizing gay marriage has caused a decline in married couples. You are trying to take an unrelated correlation and confused it for causation.
That doesn't fly.
Re: point number three - this is a standard straw man argument. You are arguing the difference between morality, and tangible harm. Beating someone to a pulp is tangibly, physically harmful and an act that is perpetrated by one person onto another person without their consent.
Gay marriage does not have any tangible effect of this sort, and to compare them is ridiculous.
What the government legislated in cases of tangible harm are those actions which deem a real and present danger to the community at large. It allows legal recourse for those who are victims of crime - not those who consent to non dangerous or harmful activities.
There is no indication of any sort that gay marriage will harm anyone. Ergo - it is not wrong. Personal opinions and religious doctrine need not be legislated.
Re: point number 4: The government place restrictions on marriages for the simple purpose of legal protection of others, generally based on scientific data. Inbreeding of family members cause serious mental and physical disorders, and is scientifically proven to cause problems. Although it is legal to marry distant relatives. Marriages of parents to children is in place, not only for the purpose of preventing inbreeding (which benefits society) but also protects children from parents legally binding themselves together, and perpetuating child molestation. Which is tangibly harmful.
What I get from your post is that you want to blame all the woes of marriage on one group, and legally ban them from being equally protected by law, based on your religious bias, and you are willing to use any argument you can latch on to to try and make that happen.
The arguments you make are disingenuous at best, and outright false at worst.
-
-
I will waste only a few more minutes on this.
It was not my intent to offend you. I did not call you names. I did not change the subject as you have in the above. I did not mention gay marriage doing any harm. In fact, I only referred to gay marriage as you did when you responded to theBig Ruski's "two wrongs don't make a right."
On point 1, you continue to say that data that does not fit what you want (or does not correlate) is not scientific data. You are wrong. If something does not correlate, it can still give clues to your scientific inquiry and is scientific data.
On point 2, you avoid responding to the suggestion that you and theBigRuski are differing on standards. Is it difficult for you to set a standard? Are you afraid that any standard may inhibit your actions?
On point 3, I made a mistake. I included "beat your wife" which would indeed mean physical harm (as your words colorfully portray). You however called my argument a straw man because one of my four examples was not about the topic at hand - legislating morality. You used this mistake to avoid the point of #3. The point is not whether gay marriage is right or wrong, but that your argument is wrong. You argued that millions have an opinion and therefore that opinion should not be legislated against. That is the 12 year-old's argument.
On point 4, you have claimed that governments are not there to legislate personal morality. I say they do legislate individual morality and feel I have ample reason for my belief. I should have mentioned prohibition, blue laws, abortion laws, etc. If you don't believe that governments legislate morals I believe you are avoiding the facts.
You state that I am blaming all manner of woes on gay marriage, based on my religious bias. It appears you had problems when things didn't fit your world view and you felt the need to resort to race baiting, or in this case, religious baiting. You don't know what my religion is but you grasp at straws and attack it. Since you avoid the points I bring up, I assume you cannot attack the facts. I said nothing about blaming woes on gay marriage. I did not even say how I would vote on the proposition. Not living in California, I can't vote so it is not really important. I was merely reading a post and the thread was interesting. Many of the commentators on both sides made good arguments. You did not and I thought it appropriate to point it out. I will bow out and let you have the last word because this discussion is not worth my time (or yours).-
Was the post you referenced yours? If it was, that was what I was responding to, if it wasn't, my apologies.
But my arguments stand.
The axiomatic statement in that post are as such:
Marriage has declined, gay marriage has been legalized, therefore gay marriage is the reason for the decline in marriage.
That is a false premise, and not scientific data. There is no scientific data to support it, ergo - it's a guesstimation at best.
For example - Japan has the most rapidly declining marriage numbers globally. They do not have legal gay marriages. So what is to blame for their decline? Scientists are looking into it - but at the moment they have discovered an overall shift in trends and social structure that deems marriage unimportant, or not necessary.
I'm not sure why you continue to label scientific arguments and legal arguments as the arguments of a 12 year old, but that's your choice. It doesn't bode well for your argument
Law does not legislate morality. Law legislates that which harms or benefits society in a real and tangible manner. Your insistence that it does doesn't change that fact.
Laws had previously tried to legislate personal morality on issues that did not effect society negatively in a real and tangible manner, such as prohibition, and interracial marriage. Those laws have been changed to correct those legal errors.
So too is the law banning gay marriage. It is being overturned slowly in the US, but other countries have legalized it fully and some did so many years ago.
There are still standards in marriage according to the law that don't change:
It is a legally binding contract, and so the people entering into the contract must be of the age of consent, and mentally capable of entering into the contract.
Marriage must be officiated, in some capacity, and rendered official by the state, that all state laws have been complied with before it is legitimate.
Marriage included legals benefits for those who have entered into that contract, including but not limited to inheritance rights, tax filing, child custody, estate rights, hospital rights, power of attorney rights, etc...With a legal marriage the rights conferred upon the spouses cannot be overturned by other family members.
And so - these are legal standards - they do not legislate morality - but rather legality of a standing, legal contract.
As it should be.
The so called "traditions" or - as you call them "standards" of marriage have changed drastically over the last 5,000 years. There is no "traditional marriage" to save.
And yes - in your examples you included acts that render tangible harm to others as an example of legislating morality - and that is a straw man argument. -
There's one more example of how the laws don't' legislate morality:
No fault divorce laws. There was a time in history when adultery was a crime. We have since done away with that law. Following that, and with the acceptance of divorces, there were "at fault divorce laws" essentially allowing people to divorce faulting one spouse for the breakup, for one or several reasons (adultery being one of them). Most states have done away with that also - rendering a divorce and the reason for that divorce, up to the couples.
The law now only legislates and regulates the splitting of the estate, and child custody based not on who's fault it is (morality) but on state laws and individual cases and legally binding contracts involved in the marriage - such as prenuptial agreements. (Law)
-
-
I will waste only a few more minutes on this.
It was not my intent to offend you. I did not call you names. I did not change the subject as you have in the above. I did not mention gay marriage doing any harm. In fact, I only referred to gay marriage as you did when you responded to theBig Ruski's "two wrongs don't make a right."
On point 1, you continue to say that data that does not fit what you want (or does not correlate) is not scientific data. You are wrong. If something does not correlate, it can still give clues to your scientific inquiry and is scientific data.
On point 2, you avoid responding to the suggestion that you and theBigRuski are differing on standards. Is it difficult for you to set a standard? Are you afraid that any standard may inhibit your actions?
On point 3, I made a mistake. I included "beat your wife" which would indeed mean physical harm (as your words colorfully portray). You however called my argument a straw man because one of my four examples was not about the topic at hand - legislating morality. You used this mistake to avoid the point of #3. The point is not whether gay marriage is right or wrong, but that your argument is wrong. You argued that millions have an opinion and therefore that opinion should not be legislated against. That is the 12 year-old's argument.
On point 4, you have claimed that governments are not there to legislate personal morality. I say they do legislate individual morality and feel I have ample reason for my belief. I should have mentioned prohibition, blue laws, abortion laws, etc. If you don't believe that governments legislate morals I believe you are avoiding the facts.
You state that I am blaming all manner of woes on gay marriage, based on my religious bias. It appears you had problems when things didn't fit your world view and you felt the need to resort to race baiting, or in this case, religious baiting. You don't know what my religion is but you grasp at straws and attack it. Since you avoid the points I bring up, I assume you cannot attack the facts. I said nothing about blaming woes on gay marriage. I did not even say how I would vote on the proposition. Not living in California, I can't vote so it is not really important. I was merely reading a post and the thread was interesting. Many of the commentators on both sides made good arguments. You did not and I thought it appropriate to point it out. I will bow out and let you have the last word because this discussion is not worth my time (or yours). -
San Diego City Council voted 6-2 to oppose Proposition 8
The Union-Tribune reports The San Diego City Council voted 6-2 on Monday to oppose Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 state ballot measure that would institute a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Nearly 62,000 San Diegans are part of households led by a same-sex couple, according to a U.S. Census Bureau survey conducted two years ago.
www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081027-1524-bn27prop8.html -
Nine American River College leaders still standing
The nine American River College student leaders targeted for recall after the campus government voted to support a statewide ballot measure banning same-sex marriage will remain in office, campus officials announced late afternoon Thursday.
www.sacbee.com/101/story/1339927.html -
Council won't take stand on Prop. 8
LA MESA – The La Mesa City Council last night became the latest political body in the county to discuss where it stands on a November initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.
After a brief discussion, council members voted unanimously 5-0 to not take a position on Proposition 8, describing the state measure as irrelevant to day-to-day city operations. The decision came a day after the San Diego City Council voted 6-2 to oppose it.
www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081029-9999-1m29prop8.html-
Good for them. I'm very puzzled as to why a municipal government WOULD take a position.
-
wrong place
-
-
removed by author - I'm turning it into a blog post.
-
It's a mistake to impose SSM on a society of free people "whether you like it or not", and regardless of social impact.
There already are disturbing social impacts where gay marriage has been legalized. The experience of European countries that have legalized gay marriage demonstrates that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage erodes the already weakened stability of marriage, family and children. Research shows that marriage is weakest, in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest, and that there is a direct connection between gay marriage and illegitimacy. As scholar Stanley Kurtz concluded, “If gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic [European] pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution. In the American context, this would be a disaster.” (The Weekly Standard 9, No. 20 (February 2, 2004): 26-33.)-
I am happy to see that you added the "already" weakened stability of marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates like to add to their drumbeat..."ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!"
-
There is no research to back up what you are saying. Please stop spreading hate.
-
"ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!"
@TBR
Please post a link to the specific citation that provides the substance for making that defamatory remark. -
@TT I have reported your remark because
A) You are again, harrasing posters with uneccessary requests for links.
B) You are misusing the word "defamatory." I have defammed no one.
There has been several posters here that have repeatedly pointed to already failed marriages in an argument that therefore gay marriage should be allowed.
@Anok... I don't think playing the hate card is constructive. Why are both of you not addressing beattlebabee's comment? -
@ beetlebabee
IMO...that's a very bigoted statement.
There's a CLEAR difference between "imposition" and equal rights.
Do you feel that minority groups like Hindus and Muslims are imposing their cultures upon the US?? -
TBR said: Same-sex marriage advocates like to add to their drumbeat..."ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!"
Previous to asking TBR for a link to the citation for the quote above, I did a Google search in an attempt to locate the source and this was the result: Your search - Same-sex marriage advocates like to add to their drumbeat..."ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!" - did not match any documents.
I also did an MSN search and this was the result: We did not find any results for Your search - Same-sex marriage advocates like to add to their drumbeat..."ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!" - did not match any documents.
And I did a Yahoo search and this was the result: We did not find results for: Same-sex marriage advocates like to add to their drumbeat..."ah hah, ah hah, your crappy marriage aren't any good anyways, so leave us alone!".
If TBR cannot provide a citation for the quote, and it's only his opinion that's being expressed then he can just say so. I can accept that. But, if it proves that he has pointed pointing a finger at me cried "harassment" to BC Admin simply to avoid taking responsibility for his words that is unacceptable. -
I also googled "skip to my loo, my darling" and "the rain in spain stays mainly on the plain." But I did not have time to do a Yahoo or MSN or Wiki search.
-
Ruskie that was addressing beatlbee's comment.
There is no proof to what s/he is saying, and the assumption that gay marriages are the cause of the breakdown of anything is hateful.
-
-
(1) State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said campaign ads focusing on kindergarten children “are alarming and irresponsible. Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage and using kids to lie about that is shameful.”
(2) California State School Board President Ted Mitchell said “Let me be clear, there is nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage and that will not change. These ads are ridiculous and they are an insult to California voters,” he added in a statement.
(3) Monica Trasandes, spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
“Since they lack arguments to support their discriminatory proposal, they resort to fear using children and targeting Hispanics, in their campaign of lies,” said Monica Trasandes, spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
References:
nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/081029/8/8vzr.html
rawstory.com/news/afp/California_split_over_gay_marriage__10292008.html-
Oops! I missed one reference: afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAgFOQAt_-wB4iIaZEDrOOj2Ka_Q
-
-
Vote on reversing gay marriage laws could be carried in California
THE REFERENDUM to reverse California's gay marriage law, which will be run on the same day as the US presidential race, is set to be lost, according to the latest polling figures.
In the Public Policy Institute of California poll, 52 per cent of Californians say that they will reject the bid to ban gay marriage, while 44 per cent want the referendum to pass, with a three-point margin of error. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage23-2008oct23,0,4937128.story-
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Some findings of the current survey:
* Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, is losing (52% to 44%) among likely voters. Support for Propositions 4 and 11 is less than 50 percent.
* Likely voters prefer Sen. Barack Obama for president over Sen. John McCain by a 23-point margin, a 13-point gain since last month.
* Seventy-one percent of Californians think the state is headed in the wrong direction.
www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=846 -
I'm kind of surprised it's still so low though, 52%, I would have thought it would be much higher in a State like California.
I wonder which State would be the most likely to accept gay marriage...one of the New England States ? New York, Vermont ?
Which state would be the least likely to accept gay marriage...Texas? Alaska? -
Kansas, or one of the neighboring states.
-
-
The "Yes" vote campaign -- targeting such groups as California's Hispanic community, which makes up more than 30 percent of the state's population of 37 million and which voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage in 2000 -- has picked up speed since August. ... "Proposition 8 contains the same words that were passed in 2000 by 61 percent of voters in California, the majority of whom were Hispanic, like you," says one of the adverts....
nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/081029/8/8vzr.html -
Why Just One Wedding Isn't Enough for Some Gay Couples
In the latest twist, gay marriages, legal in California since a state Supreme Court ruling in May, could vanish again if voters approve a state constitutional amendment Tuesday.
That's prompting a last-minute rush to the altar, fueled by lawyers who say marriages before Election Day may continue to be valid even if the ballot measure passes. The measure, known as Proposition 8, doesn't specify that it will apply retroactively. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office says it expects prior marriages to remain valid.
Marriage-license applications in San Francisco this month have nearly tripled, to 1,965, from 726 in October a year ago. Three-quarters are same-sex couples; there are no available slots before the Tuesday vote. Statewide, more than 11,000 same-sex couples were married in the three months to Sept. 17, according to the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles Law School.
online.wsj.com/article/SB122531715603381673.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
