Backing Prop. 8 in enemy territory

St. Victor's Catholic Church is considered fairly liberal -- and that makes sense given its location in the heart of West Hollywood. But with the ballot measure on gay marriage in California about to be voted on, the church finds itself in the center of controversy. According to WeHo News, some members are vocal about opposition to same-sex unions:

Known for its feeding of the homeless, which causes the surrounding neighborhood problems with those congregants, as well as its long-time pro-life stance in one of the most pro-choice cities in America, this past weekend found parishioners at tables in front of the church disseminating anti-gay marriage literature. They did so on National Coming Out Day, enraging one gay neighbor. Sam Borelli, that neighbor, reported his outrage over the symbolism represented by allowing such a campaign on a church’s property, especially a church with a reputation for its openness to gays and that proclaims on its website."

St Victor's website is indeed very welcoming: "We seek to follow the Lord and live the good news--the gospel--according to our ancient Catholic tradition. We welcome all, regardless of race, nationality, gender, socio-economic class or sexual orientation. We believe in the power of the gospel to transform our lives and society around us, even in the most cosmopolitan of settings. We are a city on a hill. We are the light of the world. We are the salt of the earth."

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Jason]

I recently had the opportunity to have a conversation with a group of supporters of PROPOSITION 8 in California. If you're not familiar with it, this initiative would amend the California State Constitution to include specific wording that would eliminate the possibilities of gay citizens from enjoying the rights of marriage in that state.

Now, regardless of your personal views on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex attraction, there must be red flags flying up for you like they are for me. It seems strange that there is a movement to knowingly remove and prohibit the rights of a specific group of people…what century are we in?

Thanks to this conversation I have come to realize that may of the supporters of this initiative have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE SUPPORTING! Here is a brief history of the issue and why this is on the ballot this year.

The whole GAY MARRIAGE issue began when gay couples wanted to take advantage of certain TAX incentives in the law that had been reserved for "married" couples. After unsuccessfully suing for the rights, they began to seek "equal treatment" under the law and marriage rights (so as to unlock the incentives in the law). This was quickly squashed by the Conservative Right and the option of "CIVIL UNION" was born. This was to be an alternative to marriage and was supposed to make the way clear for GAYS to have the same rights as everyone else. Well, it wasn't long before the truth came out.

When the gay community stepped up to claim their "new" rights under the civil union act they were surprised to find out that little, if nothing had actually changed. You see, the tax incentives and others laws that Gays had been denied due to marriage status had not been resolved. Law makers were quick to point out that the "wording of the law" made it clear that one must be "legally married" to access these rights. The gay community was livid and the battle lines were drawn.

The politicians said it would be too difficult to rewrite the 1000's of laws to include the phrase "domestic partnership/civil union" so the gay community jumped right back on the "GAY MARRIAGE" band wagon.

This really is a rights issue…even if the Conservative Right wants to make it an "end of days" issue. The government had the chance to give equal rights and protection to the gay community and they didn't.

As a gay man, in a committed relationship, I don't need the government's permission to "be married" but I do need their permission to take advantage of over 1000 laws and incentives reserved for "married" couples. As far as I'm concerned, the world can keep their broken system of "marriage"…just give me the rights, freedom, and dignity you give everyone else.

Why is the government involved in marriage anyway? When marriage started it was between the couple and God (overseen by the church). Not until TAXES were introduced to the world did the government get involved. Once there was potential for fraud, the governments made it their business to know who was married to who…and the rest is history. At its core, marriage is a contract between two people; not two people and the government.

Gay marriage would not be an issue if the government was really "no respecter of persons" as it purports to be. As long as the citizens pay their taxes what does it matter who they're married to? This in no way effects inter-state commerce, or border defense. It is counter to the charter of this country to even be having this debate…and yet here we are; victims of the Hysterical Religious Right.

Enough is enough. If you have any influence, or a vote in California, make it your mission to send a message that GAY MARRIAGE is not the business of the government and has no place (for or against) in the constitution. VOTE NO on 8.

[Scott]

VERY well said Jason, you are my new hero. What century are we in indeed; this shouldn't even be on people's radar screens.

People can donate to battle this travesty here: https://secure.ga4.org/01/adchallenge?source=emailb

Donations made before midnight tonight are matched (doubled).

Good luck to us all!

[Monica]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Vote Yes on Prop 8!

[Laura]

To be clear the “over 1000 laws and incentives reserved for "married" couples.” -- Jason references are primarily laws/protections/benefits only available at the federal level not at the state level.

To this day, The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton is what continues to block same sex partners from receiving any of the federal benefits associated with marriage and Prop 8 doesn’t change that one way or the other.

As for state benefits:

“California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or another provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Moris A. Thurston

Homosexual CA legislators have worked very hard to incrementally pass laws to ensure domestic partners have those rights and protections.

From the LA Times itself:

“No matter what voters decide this November on same-sex marriage, the election will not change one fact: Over the last decade, California has become the nation's leader in providing legal protections to gays and lesbians.”

“During its most recent session, the Legislature -- which now includes five openly gay members -- approved five more gay civil rights bills, bringing the total in the last 10 years to 50.”

“The progress has been so substantial, Kors said, that "the vast bulk of achieving equality for LGBT people legislatively has been accomplished in California."

So to be clear, those who inviting others to vote YES on 8, are not doing so with the intent to yank anyone’s rights away -- but to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

[teri]

I don't get it...who really cares who marries who? I do not see how it can effect anybody that is not involved in the marriage. If two men or two women want to marry so be it. The marriage is between them and their God. If you believe it is against God's will, they will meet their fate with him. If you don't believe it is against God, then I guess they will see a smile when they meet their maker.

About the only people that have not faced some sort of discrimination are the straight white men of the country...everyone else should know the injustice of discrimination and should set out to make sure nobody else is denied every right our constitution allows.

Although I do not believe our schools will be encouraging boys to marry boys and girls to marry girls...kids should always be taught all their rights. It is up to the parents to then teach their own children what is and isn't in line with their own moral and religious beliefs. Just because we don't believe in something doesn't mean it is wrong for someone else...Only their God can judge them.

[Gerri]

Please leave your Faith out of everyone's legal rights. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. This is why my family - my husband, my two teenage daughters and I are doing everything in our power to defeat Prop 8. We believe that love, hope and commitment make this world a better place.

In my own lifetime I've known individuals forced to switch to right-handedness, because being left-handed was the 'sign of the devil'. Demonizing homosexuality makes as much sense. Vote No on 8.

[Steve]

I am voting for Prop 8 because government should not take away the right of children to a mother and father. I understand that not every child has a mother and father for a variety of reasons, but those are due to choices and circumstance, not laws. It is not right for the government to tell future generations that they do not have the right to the relationships that all past generations have had. I am unaware of other anytime in recorded history when such a right has been denied by government decree.

[Steve]

One comment about faith and politics: Everyone is influenced by their faith and beliefs, or lack of faith and beliefs. Every law is a statement of morality. It is impossible to completely separate them. Love, hope and commitment do make this world a better place, but that does not mean that recognizing gay marriage, and thereby denying future generations the inherent right to a father and mother, will make the world a better place. The domestic partners act accomplished the best government could offer without taking away the rights of children. We should go back to that standard.

In my experience, I have found that Prop 8 supporters are well educated about their position, and considered both sides carefully, as did I, before making a decision.

[Douglas Urbanski]

...odd that St. Victor's is referred to as "liberal"! There seems this odd wish that somehow St. Victor's is an island and in some way separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Hey everyone: St. Victors is a Roman Catholic Church!! What on earth did you think?

[Brian]

I'm a Yes on 8. This is about the definition of Marriage.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Prior to the overturned vote/law which now allows gay marriage, there was no coup to take away same sex unions or domestic partnerships. They were accepted and tolerated. It is now, only since the re-definition of marriage, that we now have Prop 8.

As stated by Gerri, she make 2 great points I will echo.
1. "This is a democracy"...so why let the judges overturn what was already voted on democratically? Well here we go, we get to do it again and see what our democracy decides.
2. And this is why my family and two children are doing everything in our power to pass Prop 8.

Faith has been the foundation of our great country and traditional families have
been the strength our society.

[Todd]

From what I understand, it is true that same sex couples registered as domestic partners get the same exact rights as married couples in California.
So why is there this push to redefine the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples? It is only for one reason: that some people want to force their view on everyone else- the view that same-sex relationships ought to be on par with one woman/one man marital relationships. It isn't a rights issue.

What is going on here is that some citizens are trying to destroy an institution that has been the building block of civilizations for thousands of years. Why? To force the government and others to "affirm/accept" their point of view.

Proposition 8 would not be necessary if there wasn't first an attack on this incredibly important element of our culture and society. Proposition is a defensive act against the offensive maneuvers of judges and special interest groups.

[Mathew]

A question to those of you who are trying to legalize same-sex marriage- it seems that one of your main arguments is that one ought not prohibit two people who love each other from getting married just because they are of the same sex.

I have heard others pick at this argument by saying things like:
- Why are you (those who are pro same-sex marriage) discriminating against people who want to marry multiple partners, who want to have relationships with individuals younger than 18, who want to marry members in their family, etc.?

It does seem like a good point. If the force of your argument hinges on the "why discriminate against people who love each other" statement, how come you don't argue for the right to marry for anyone who has a loving relationship with anyone/thing, etc.? How could you not, yet that view does seem pretty absurd, yet logically unavoidable.

Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't seem like a good argument. Are there better ones or is this it?

[Gilbert]

I am for Yes on Prop 8. How can anyone tell me to "keep my faith out of it" or "who cares" God created man and woman and the first couple were not homosexual. Not that what God has ordained matters to those advocating same sex marriage. No matter how this turns out I must do my part and side with what God has ordained not what some person who has adopted the humanistic religious philosphy of moral relativism, wants to believe. The Bible Boldly proclaims that God is a God of truth and there is no ambiguity. If the previous writer doesn't care that is his or her decision, I've decided that when I meet my maker,the God of creation, I will not regret that I voted to side on His side. So my faith is firmly in Him and He has not failed yet. The Lord is faithful and His truths continue to stand firm irrespective of the moral or political tides.

[David]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the foundation of the most crucial social unit that exists: the family. Destroying the sacred nature of marriage will do more to destroy the very fabric of our society than we think. Families have been under attack for a very long time. We are bombarded with poor role models and the acceptance of failing homes. Parenthood outside of marriage has become an almost admirable situation. Our society has suffered a great deal. After years of attacks from the outside, this one will strike deep. When marriage means nothing, the family will dissolve. It may take years, but we will pay dearly. Edmund Burke said ""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The line is drawn here. It is time to take sides. YOU will forever remember where you stand now. We either defend the family or are accomplices in its execution. Vote yes on prop 8.

[Chad]

This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have been quick to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with prejudice - in fact, the campaign to protect marriage between a man and a woman has been conducted with kindness, humanity and respect for those of other viewpoints - while respecting the right to stand for what we know to be true: that marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time and provides the best vehicle for rearing children, that those who engage in homosexual behavior already have domestic partnerships with the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses, and that same-sex marriage represents a real threat to a parent's freedom to prevent their children from being subjected to state-sponsored classroom indoctrination in behavior and values they feel are wrong and harmful to thier children.

[TruthHound]

I guess your "spam filter" won't post my comment, because it's pro-proposition 8. How very clever, balanced and TOLERANT of you. Oh, well. It will pass anyway.

[Jebon]

This is AMERICA and we DO NOT legislate RELIGION.

If the CHURCH wants to discriminate that is FINE. But the GOVERNMENT is a secular entity that provides EQUAL PROTECTION under the LAW.

KEEP GOD AND CHRISTIANITY OUT OF THE LAW

You are not the only religious group in this country, and by god you do NOT dictate the law.

[Laura]

Hi Terri,

I think your questions are valid -- I personally take no issue with children being taught that some people experience same gender attraction. But what concerns me, is that our society will no longer distinguish between taking a homosexual life path or a heterosexual one. Calling same sex partnerships marriages obscures what I think is an important distinction -- which is, in choosing a homosexual relationship, one is choosing a partnership that simply cannot result in being able to create life together.

Perhaps that doesn’t mean much when your 15 but it does to many people latter on in life. If one has already chosen a same gendered partnership -- then there is yet another dilemma to be later on encountered -- whatever and however you bring a child into the relationship, this child will either not have a mother (in the case of gays) or a father (in the case of lesbians) and surely this is another difficult concern that shouldn’t be ignored.

So one of the reasons I personally am voting YES on 8 is because, I want these two life paths to remain distinct because they are different and there are many of us whose sexuality is fluid enough to have both options to chose from. I think teens still developing their sexual identity should grow up in a society where these differences are clear.

[Steve]

If people of the same sex are allowed to marry, why can't I marry my brother, or my sister or my mother? Seriously, why not? Why can't my whole family marry each other? THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT to say who I can marry, or how many people I can marry. Mormons should be allowed to marry as many people as they wish. They are all CONSENTING adults! Who are we to impose our idea of marriage on them? This isn't fair. Why is the definition of marriage so narrow?

[dick bohanon]

i dont understand denying rights to those who have done nothing to be denied rights.
what about the exclusion clause in the constitution?
why is defining marriage so rigidly so important?
would the money spend on this election have been better spent on
pre and marriage counseling?
aren't the highest divorce rates where the anti-gays are the strongest?
why do you lose rights for being gay?
if you hate gays,thats your problem.
dont make it everyone else's

[TruthHound]

It's my observation that the push for gay marriage has less to do with something the homosexual lobby wants to GAIN than something they want to DEPRIVE of those of us with traditional family values. The destruction of marriage itself is their goal. Just like the destruction of the Boy Scouts.

If anything that society offers doesn't reflect a 100% ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle, it must be dismantled. Tolerance of those being gay is now not enough. Acceptance is not enough. Absolution > endorsement > promotion > encouragement. That is their goal.

To put it bluntly, this and future generations MUST be indoctrinated that the GENDER of their chosen mate should be of NO consideration or consequence.

They will legislate your morality and castigate you for any resistance.

This is happening now.

What I have witnessed of many who oppose Prop 8 is that they honestly believe we will change our minds if we are called hick, knuckle-dragging, Nazi HATERS often and loudly enough. This tactic is only backlashing and adding to the MAJORITY OPINION that the 3,000-year-old definition of marriage should remain as between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

FWIW, my own brother was gay (died of AIDS in 1989). Through him, I was able to witness the social circle that DOES try to recruit others into their "lifestyle." He and many of his friends openly acknowledged that this lifestyle WAS A CHOICE for them at least. I have another lesbian friend who is that way only because she was brutally raped by a man when she was younger. As heretical as the gay lobby will call these facts, SOME are gay by choice. And subjecting children to alternative social circles as part of SCHOOL CURRICULUM during their formative and sexually vulnerable years is unconscionable. This is happing in the Massachusetts public schools with no permission or recourse available to the parents of those kids. We will be next, leading to nation-wide indoctrination of our youth. Believe it.

We can stop this culture-bending train that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom so arrogantly proclaims will happen "whether we like it or not!"

VOTE YES on Prop 8.

[SeaMex]

Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit Jews and Mormons from marrying. Does this sound right?

Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

What will be next?

Please vote NO on prop 8

[JasonJack]

So, let's look at a law we should all agree should be upheld.

How about shoplifting being illegal? That's a good law. We may quibble about the penalties, but it is a good law.

Where did this law come from? The ten commandments, "Thou shalt not steal." Do we quibble with the law because it appears to also appear in the ten commandments? No, of course not. In fact, we lack penalties against most of the commandments (which is a debate for another time).

The question that is what this all boils down to is
"Is prop 8 helpful to society?"

No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.

Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was a legal/economic bond, meant to produce children. The actual addition to express love was added more recently. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.

But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.

Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.

I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.

Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.

So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.

So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.

Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, which is not good for society.

So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren’t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.

I encourage everyone to protect the value of this bond and vote YES on Prop 8.

[Holly]

Only marriage between a man and a woman provides children with everything they need to grow up to be healthy, productive adults. Prop 8 is about our children growing up in healthy families. Those who oppose Prop 8 are putting their narrow interests ahead of the great good.

[Bill]

Vote No on Prop 8.

California can't afford prop 8 (because it will cost us millions) nor can we afford the politics of hate. Blacks should be allowed to marry, interracial coupes should be allowed to marry -- don't let the state legislate marriage.