Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

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 () | Archives (103)

PROP 8 is about taking away rights.

VOTE NO on PROP 8 and don't take away anyone's rights.

Why prohibit same-sex marriage, when there’s so much divorce, single-parenthood, and hours-long celebrity “marriages”? If marriage is so sacred, why not campaign against those practices?

Simple. If laws were being proposed, or judges ruled, that the state should recognize and endorse these practices as equal to traditional marriage, and proponents were seeking for legal protection that considers denouncing these practices, as hate-speech, the backlash would be far more intense than anything seen by the Yes on 8 campaign.

In fact, Yes on 8 IS a campaign against divorce, poverty, and child abuse that results from the cheapening of marriage that occurs by offering it to everyone who loves each other. And allowing same-sex marriages is NOT equality for all.

A Yes Vote On 8 = Discrimination.

Literature publlished by the Yes on 8 Campaign includes this line - "Restore Marriage".
Restoring Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not same sex couples are allowed to legally marry or not. The current rate of divorce is 60%! Over half the Heterosexual couples that marry are divorcing! Our gay brothers and sisters have had nothing to do with this statistic.
Restore Marriage? Direct that at the heterosexual couples that have created the divorce rate of today.

Another line - "Protect Marriage"
My marriage is not threatened by same sex marriage. I have nothing to fear in my own marriage when same sex loving and committed couples wed.

Another line - "children will be taught about same sex marriage in school". NOT TRUE. There is no mandated marriage curriculum in the State of California. Divorce is legal in our state and has been for years. Is there divorce curriculum? No.

Prop 8 is an effort by those that feel they have a closer ear to God (Catholic Church, Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, Focus on the Family, American Family Research Council etc.) desiring to write DISCRIMINATION into our State constitution. I will not be a part of that.


Holly, you clearly don't know the gay couples I know. There is no way they are any less of good parents. Honestly, you should spend a weekend with a gay couple and their kids and I think you will change your mind. Your attitude seems very superior to me.

No on 8!! I want to marry my sheep! And I have a friend that wants to marry his cousin! And I know another that wants to marry a watermelon! No on 8!!

Anyone who says "take God out of the law" has not read the Constitution of the United States OR the Declaration of Independence. Please refer to the founding principles of our country and try again. Thanks. Yes on 8.

Last month I married my long time partner, Michelle, in a ceremony at the courthouse. Her parents, who by the way are straight, were there to support us. My adult children, who by the way are also straight, were there. My 86 year old mother was there.. Many of our friends, gay and straight, were there.

I just want to say THANK YOU to all of you, gay and straight, who supported us in our marriage. THANK YOU to the people who helped make our legal marriage possible. THANK YOU to all of you who are out there everyday fighting against the bigotry and hatred that these so called "Christians" are spewing.

Prop 8 is about DENYING CIVIL RIGHTS. Dont try to lie and say its about "protecting children" "Protecting families". Thats bull. Its about writing discrimination into the law. Plain and simple.



be careful...your ignorance is showing..

I appreciate the opportunity to read some of the arguments for both sides on the issue.

First God, religion, and our founding documents:
With repect to the Declaration of Independence, there are two references to God. The first refers to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God in the context of the citizens of the colonies having the right to declare their independence from England. The second refers to other rights granted by the Creator: Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
With respect to the Constitution, absent amendments thereto, our Constitution has no references to God, church, Creator, Supreme Being, etc. The First Amendment includes only the following reference to religion (not God): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." This statement expressly counters any argument that the Constitution supports the canon of any specific set of religious sects.
If noting that there are God references in these documents is supposed to imply our founding fathers specifically looked to religion to establish our laws, that implication is simply not supportable. On the other hand, if the implication is that no church can dictate any law in the United States, then I agree. The implication being, with respect to Prop 8, that marriage as defined by any number of religious sects cannot dictate how the state defines marriage.

Second, the wishes of the majority:
With respect to majority rule, judges making laws from the bench, etc.: when the supreme court, be that state or US, finds against state or federal law, they always reach that decision based on the finding that one party's rights, as defined by the Constitution, are being violated by the law enacted by the majority. Though this is "legislating from the bench," our nation needs this function to protect the rights of the minority. One obvious example is the 1967 US Supreme Court decision (Love), that struck down laws against interracial marriage. The argument of the Ca. Supreme Court judges in the minority on the prop 22 ruling relied on the concept of letting the electorate decide. These judges would support the legality the enslavement of 63 year-olds with one blue and one brown eye if the majority of the voting public passed a ballot proposition allowing the practice.

Third, homosexual recruitment:
If I'm being recruited for something that I'm not inclined to participate in I have the free will to decline. If I'm 4'11, 130 lbs and the recruiter is 6'2 185 lb, that's not recruitment, that's force... and the perpitrator should be punished. However, let's face it, all of us lie within a sexual spectrum whose extremes are heterosexuality and homosexuality. While the majority of us lie at one extreme or the other, those nearer the middle of the spectrum might vacillate between homo and heterosexuality several times in their lives. Recruitment is irrelevant to the prop 8 argument.

Fourth, a child's right to a mother and a father:
This is probably the most baffling argument in favor proposition 8. By ruling that Ca. must legally recognize homosexual marriages, how does that remove the right of children to be raised by a father and a mother (circumstance permitting)? The actual amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see 'child,' 'right,' 'mother,' or 'father' in the text. Then, is this really an argument to forbid homosexual couples from adopting? Better yet, is it an argument against letting homosexual couples raise their own children, regardless of how those children were conceived? A delicate issue that leads to my next topic...

Fifth, homosexual couples raising children:
Documented evidence (scientific paper, peer reviewed papers) that children being raised by a mother and father "turn out better" than those raised by 2 fathers or 2 mothers would have to be presented
The majority of recent studies have found " no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation." They also found the children sometimes faced stigmatization, which is not an issue related to rearing.
This data, coupled with countless successes in child rearing by single parents, older siblings, etc., undermines the argument that the state should forbid child rearing by same sex couples because these couples cannot or do not provide a good child rearing environment. Success lies not in the gender of the parents but in the commitment to child rearing.

Sixth, our laws coming from the 10 Commandments:
Are we to believe that before Moses received the 10 Commandments from God, it was ok to steal? Better yet, are we to believe that no culture prior to that time or no culture not exposed to the Commandments could have possibly forbidden stealing?

Seventh, forced to deal with gay marriage:
As it happens, in this life we're "forced" to deal with things in this world that we don't like but that DO NOT AFFECT OUR LIVES IN ANY MATERIAL WAY. My former brother-in-law loves to yell at the TV when watching an MLB game. I watch elsewhere. In approving the legality of homosexual marriage, the Court is not forcing anyone to like the union... it is forcing California law not to discriminate against the union.

Eighth, redefining marriage:
The fact of the matter is that different cultures have different definition of marriage. In my view legalizing homosexual marriage does redefine marriage legally, but not religiously.

Finally, the conclusion... sorry about being so long winded.
The arguments in favor of proposition 8 present considerable heartfelt beliefs... but no facts. Proposition 8 arguably discriminates against a group of people, a group the vast majority of whom do not select their circumtance. The question for those whose right to legal marriage is not about to be denied: how would we feel if the tables were turned?

Does anyone remember the Racial Integrity Act of 1924? You know.. the act that prohibited blacks from marrying whites?

Now, are we moving backwards or forwards?

Equality for all... even people that aren't like you!

To the Prop 8 people concerned about this effecting their children, I'm with you. When I think about how my children have been effected by the legailization of interracial marriage, it makes me sick. My daughter has actually got it in her head she has a right to marry a white man. Scares the begeebers out of me! Might end up with some half mixed child that could grow up and think he can become President or something. What next, she'll think she can marry some tool-kit, toting lesbo and have kids that learn how to build houses?

Don't discriminate. VOT NO ON 8

Proposition 8 does not will not take away anyone's rights. It is not a civil rights issue nor is it a religious issue. Some people mistakenly think that couples should have rights. This is wrong. Our constitution is based on the concept of individual rights. There is no provision for “couples’ rights.” All individuals already had equal rights before our flawed Supreme Court ruling. Any person could have married another of the opposite gender, gays included. So no-one was discriminated against and no remedies were necessary. By overturning our existing marriage laws, the judges created a new right. Creating new rights is not the domain of judges.

What about the rights of a child to have a father and a mother? Who is looking out for the rights of children? Of course, not all children are so fortunate, but it is not in the best interests of a healthy society to deny children at least a chance for a normal family structure. And to say that having two fathers or two mothers only is a normal family structure is biased speculation. We shouldn't experiment with the lives of our children.

Karen, what a beautiful way to respond to everyone who don't understand what prop 8 is about! By humanizing and putting a face to words, you accomplish showing what's really at stake in this prop, your rights. And everyone right's for that matter. Thank you, Karen. You are in the right side of history. It takes a while for history to catch up, but this November 4th, it seems likely it will. I am praying for this to happen.

Peter Marlow your argument is flawed. You act like the sole purpose for getting married is to have children. It's not, unless you are some freaky religious person who takes "be fruitful and multiply" literally. Honestly people, most gay people who get married won't have kids. And the reality is, that most gay people, once they get married in order to form a family, will adopt. So for you dummys out there who can’t put two and two together, this means kids who might be likely to grow up in an orphanage or foster home, will at least have a loving home to be a part of. And if you are not for that, then all I have to say is you are just a cruel person. So think about it, the net effect of Prop 8 will be to help kids! Don't believe the religious jerks running hate ads about kids on television. Vote No on 8.

Si en ocho

To the undecideds. Please vote Yes on 8. Protect traditional marriage. Do you really think the gay movement will stop if prop 8 loses. It will be taken to the schools and to the churchs. Why because it already has. I love my gay friends but our children shouldn't be forced to learn alternative lifestyles

Prop 8 is a moral issue.
Race is a civil rights issue

Vote yes stop the hate

I'm voting yes on Prop 8. I'm tired of hearing about how a person is a bigot, religious zealot or hypocrite, a hater or some crazy right-wing individual if they don't support gay marriage. Sounds like Prop 8 supporters are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Prop 8 is about preserving marriage between a man and a woman. I'm not going to be intimitated by these efforts to name call and demonize people who have strong beliefs about the sanctity of marriage.

Prop 8 need not divide liberals and conservatives. If one reasons it out rationally, voting NO on prop. 8 makes sense from all sides.

- Prop 8 Takes Away Existing Rights. The CA Supreme court affirmed the right to marry whom one wants. Prop 8 would take away rights from thousands and destroy marriages.
- Economics. CNBC stated that gay marriages bring in an additional $228 million to public funds in CA annually, and the Congressional budget office estimates $1 billion nationally.
- Civil Rights. Until 1967 blacks and whites could not marry each other in many states. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned those laws, affirming marriage as a civil rights issue, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".
- Religious Rights. The first of the American Bill of Rights confirms freedom of religion. No church would ever be forced to perform a gay marriage if they didn't want to. But those that want to, they can. Allow people to worship in their own way; that's American.

What I don't understand is the rush to preserve the "traditional marriage." What exactly defines the "traditional marriage?" If we really look at what a traditional marriage is supposed to be, we would see a situation where a young woman is forced to marry a man for economic purposes rather than love, and in return the man receives a dowry and a wife to create children. The woman in a "traditional marriage" has no rights whatsoever,and is subject to any abuse that the husband may choose to inflict.

What defines "Tradition?" And in this country, isn't "tradition" constitutional liberties for all people? Perhaps I misquote Thomas Jefferson, but aren't "all men created equal" (and now women as well?)

My question is: why are we striving to take a step backwards and reduce not only the rights of homosexuals, but the rights of women as well? What kind of barbaric society would step backwards and destroy developments in civil and political rights?

If you take out the words that are causing so much angst, Prop 8 takes away the right for two consenting adults to enter into a government-approved contractual agreement. Marriage between one man and one woman can stay the standard in churches that don't want to unite same-sex couples, but the civil contract should not be denied. We still have separation of church and state, and that certainly will not, and should not, change. This is not about religion. This is about civil rights.

Oh, and to all you folks arguing that only one man and one woman can raise children, what horrible things this will do to children, etc....there are about 14 million children being raised by LGBT people in the US. Giving their parents equal rights won't change that. My favorite part is that the T part (transgendered) of that statistic can be married under state and federal laws, and I'm sure that's way more horrifying to some people than same sex marriage.

Proposition 8 comes down to what is morally right and wrong.

Our coins still say "In God We Trust." Sometimes we get the idea that separation of church and state means separation of God and state, but that was not the original design.

Much of what opponents of proposition 8 say is that it is taking away rights from people, possibly unalienable rights. The second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence begins with these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We can take several important ideas from this statement. One is that our country was designed with God in mind. I want to focus on the idea that our unalienable rights were given to us by our Creator, who is God.

All people certainly deserve life. Along with granting us this unalienable right, God gave us an important law to preserve that right. It is found in Exodus 20:13. It reads simply: "Thou shalt not kill." This law from God was enforced in Biblical times by death to the murderer, as it is in some cases today. Thankfully, our legal system keeps severe penalties for those who take away a person's right to live.

Other commandments given by God are also reflected in our legal system. Stealing and bearing false witness are punishable by law and are seen in the headlines as theft, fraud and perjury. These crimes are seen by most as not only legally wrong, but morally wrong.

But what of God's commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery"? Oddly enough, in today's society sexuality is seen as something that a person can choose to practice however they want without consequence. Why is it that people can believe that breaking some of God's commandments is morally wrong, but breaking others is no big deal?

It's a difficult question to answer. Adultery certainly interferes with the pursuit of happiness of the offender's family. A burglar may break a window and the family may lose a television, but an adulterer breaks the family's hearts and loses their trust and often their love. An unexpected pregnancy produced by fornication can change the planned course of the young parents' lives. Homosexual people have to live with the fact that they cannot have biological children of their own. All offenders of sexual law also live with guilt that comes with breaking moral law.

God gave us a commandment on sexuality because he wants us to find success in our pursuit to happiness. Marriage is given of God to be between a man and a woman so they can raise a child of their own in a family that keeps them safe, free, and helps them find happiness.

Government's responsibility is to protect our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Upholding moral law is essential to every person's pursuit of happiness and government is right to back moral law in saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is the way that God defined it; the same God who gave us our unalienable rights.

A YES vote on Proposition 8 is essential to keep our unalienable rights unalienable. For our country to truly be free and able to pursue happiness, our civil laws need to reflect moral law.

no en ocho!

« | 1 2 3 4 5 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: