Comments on: California Prop 8: Early Polls show likely to pass

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:06:37 +0000

Greg, that’s just not true. Most simply (and not exclusively), civil unions aren’t recognized on the Federal level, meaning they are not offered Federal protections. It really is a case of the spurious but formerly popular “separate but equal” argument for segregation.

More importantly, why does it matter to you? How does extending the right to marry to homosexuals affect you, even if homosexuality is a condition, as you say? What about the other half of those 3 dozen men you’ve treated? Why should they not be allowed to marry in a way that seems right to them and does not cost you a thing?

Also, I’d like you to point me to these studies you mention (I mean that) and I’d like you to tell me where on earth in the Iowa trailer park in which I was raised, where in my Catholic upbringing, precisely where and when between Matthew Shepard and Proposition 8, society told me that “this is who I am and I need to accept it.” I’ll give you 12 weeks of soulful introspection under your diligent guidance, provided you eat the bill if I’m still happily with my boyfriend at the end of it all. Deal?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:01:22 +0000

Allison, same-sex couples have all of the sames rights in California already, including what you listed above.

By: Allison

Allison — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:53:10 +0000

I know this is an emotional issue but today is a very sad day for the United States. The defined rights of marriage include: Spousal immunity in court trials, Inheritance Rights, Pension benefits, Wrongful Death claims, tax benefits, etc. California just removed those rights from a group of people. Marriage “by the state of California” should not exclude any human who wants these rights. Maybe we need a new word for in the constitution and for these rights and leave the word marriage to the church.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:56:48 +0000

And to Dan’s points:
“we would have to change how to educate children on how they came into the world.”
- How does gay marriage change the process of birth? Do children ONLY come from heterosexual marriage? I know plenty of children who were born out of wedlock or through scientific methods. Does gay marriage change this somehow? I fail to understand your assertion.

“We would have to change the laws on divorce to exclude adultery and behavior as grounds for divorce.”
- California is already a “no fault” state. Adultery hasn’t been a cause for divorce in California for a long time. And how on EARTH do you figure that same-sex marriage means a whole new definition of monogamy? Again, I am not following your logic.

“We would have to change the teachings of the boy scouts of America and our religious freedom.”
- How does marriage impact current religious freedoms or Boy Scouts – or ANY private organization for that matter? Since when is any church obligated to marry couples who aren’t members of their congregation? Again, I believe this to be mistaken information.

“We would have to change the matrimonial acts.”
- What acts?

“How do you explain to children that some have 2 moms or 2 dads?”
- How do you currently explain other non-traditional families? What about children with only a mother or a father? What about children being raised by adoptive parents (or parent)? Or being raised by relatives who aren’t their parents? Children are already being raised by same-sex couples. This isn’t new. How will granting the legal right to marry change that?

I would like to see some actual instances and back-up to the claims of the would-be impacts same-sex marriage would have. Because it otherwise sounds like un-substantiated fear tactics.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:43:56 +0000

“marriage” is not solely from biblical context. It’s a contract that is primarily focused on transfer of property and lineage. The Jews and Christians aren’t the first people to invent “marriage.” Further, I’d like to see ONE reference ANYWHERE where Jesus Christ talked about homosexuality as a sin. It’s nowhere in any of the gospels. It’s a relatively recent interpretation in the history of the church. I take exception to the anti-gay movement being a moral, or even remotely “Christian” stance.

Frankly, this is fear and prejudice perverted and wrapped in the package of “protecting our children.” How are fear and prejudice protection for our children? How does perpetuating hate prepare them to be productive and happy members of society?

By: Natasha

Natasha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:59:11 +0000

Sorry folks, I didn’t mean to post that message 3 times. There was a delay on its appearance on the page so I posted it a few times. =D

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:13:03 +0000

Homosexualtiy is a condition. Itis not genetic. It is not hereditary. I was completely on the other side of the fence years ago. I have a psychologist in SoCal (PhD from Stanford). I did my undergrad at Cal. I was taught by professors that homosexuality was not treatable and was was determined before birth. This was before all of the studies that have proved otherwise. I started my practtice and started to get gay men that wanted counseling, and I started to discover that in each individual there is a specific cause for homosexuality. In speaking with my colleagues, more and more of us are coming to the same conclusion. Homosexuality is a condition, and it is treatable. I would never have believed it if I had not experienced it. I have since treated over 3 dozen gay men, and over half of them are in heterosexual relationships. They are so much happier than they were before. Granted, it took a lot of work and time for most of them. It’s tough at times, because society tells them that this is who you are and you need to accept it. You can’t change. I just can’t put into words how much happier they are now that they have confronted themselves and moved on.

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:49:56 +0000

I have to say I am in favor of Prop 8. I am not a bigot or close minded. I think any two people should be able to have a civil union with all the rights and responsiblities that come along with it. Defining “marriage” as between a man and woman just protects religions from having to recognize those unions if it goes against their beliefs. And FYI, I am thrilled that a man of color was elected to be president, but that is not WHY people should have voted for him!

By: jon

jon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:33:05 +0000

marriage is a biblical principle? one might want to consider the concept that their religion is not the only religion and the world does not revolve around just them. the concept of marriage is universal even among other religions. marriage is not just recognized by your god. it is recognized by everyone. in passing prop 8 in a country consisting of so many cultures and ethnicities is like a slap in the face and favoring one side over the other. this proposition is just plain selfish and wrong.

By: isiseyes

isiseyes — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:38:24 +0000

What’s next, separate water fountains and entrances to restaurants for gay people?