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)

A Simple Solution to the 'Gay Marriage' Mess:

A battle is waging across the state of California over Proposition 8, and I have a peaceful solution and something I hope both sides can agree on.

There are two realities in this issue. The first is that there are many homosexuals who want to be committed to each other for this life. I think this is commendable, and I applaud them.

Having lived through the 1980s, it was apparent that, because of the promiscuity of so many homosexuals, bisexuals and, yes, even heterosexuals, AIDS nearly became an epidemic. If these people were in committed relationships, and were true to those relationships, AIDS would not have spread like it did. I want the gay community to look down on any homosexual person who is promiscuous just as it is frowned upon and decried in the straight community. When you’re in a committed relationship, you need to be committed to that relationship. I hope every couple – gay and straight – can make that commitment.

However, the relationship of a gay couple isn’t a marriage, and it never will be, no matter what some people say or judges do. From the beginning of recorded time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Through the centuries and millennia, marriage was a religious event that bound a woman and a man together … for this life and, some believe, beyond. Never was marriage between people of the same sex, even though homosexuality is as old as, at least, Sodom and Gomorrah.

Marriage is the uniting of a man and a woman, who then create children and form a family. It’s such a basic truth that most Americans and people around the world say, “Duh.”

So, how do I balance the need for society to bind gay couples into committed relationships, while at the same time protecting the age-old sanctity of traditional marriage?

It’s simple. Call a gay life commitment something else. Something close to marriage. Call it “gayriage.”

Gayriage is the perfect compromise for both sides of the Proposition 8 battle. Just as women and men as genders are equal, yet different, couples in marriages and gayriages would have the same rights and privileges. They’re just different.

As I understand, gay couples in California can already have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples though their civil unions. It’s the law. But, I admit that “civil union” sounds very bureaucratic. “Gayriage,” however, says it all: It’s a commitment of two men or two women to each other for life, and it’s more romantic.

The “Yes on 8” campaign can foresee the time when the rights of churches and believers of the Bible will be trampled due to marriage being defined as between any two people, and lawsuits and court battles in the recent past confirm that this will happen. (National Public Radio spotlighted many of these lawsuits and civil cases in a recent story.) Schools will teach that marriage is between any two individuals, not just a man and a woman. Opponents of the measure said “hogwash” to that, but then a public elementary school class in San Francisco took a field trip to a gay marriage.

Time will tell, but it is my hope that having two different but equal names for couples’ unions will not blur the law and the genders, but rather will make things much clearer for everyone.

It certainly will make it clearer in everyday life. For example, if gayriage is instituted, no one will be confused at a party or gathering when some guy giddily pronounces, “I am gayried to a most wonderful person.” Of course, he means another guy. And, we’ll know exactly someone’s sexual orientation when a female neighbor or co-worker exclaims, “Someday, I plan to gayry.”

My name is Gary, and I will gladly and proudly let gay couples use my name to describe their commitment. I am even willing to take any snickering from less-enlightened folks – both straight and gay – about how my name means a gay union. It’s a small price to pay for some common sense on this issue.

So, when I vote yes on Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, I am voting yes to traditional marriage, peace, common sense and equality. It's also a vote for gayriage. I hope you’ll join me.

Proposition 8 has morphed way beyond a simple battle about legal terms. It has become a referendum on ways of life. The rhetoric has become hot enough, and feelings intense enough, that one basic and obvious truth is somehow being missed.

No matter how much legislation takes place, no same sex couple, in and of themselves, will ever be able to create a child. Never. Same gender couples, may choose to adopt, just as some heterosexual couples may choose not to have children. But let's not ignore the obvious. Only heterosexual relationships bring about the birth of a child no matter what the law defines marriage to be.

So why then, are we getting so worked up about something that nature has already defined and which we cannot change?

Marriage is about a man, a woman, and children. Same sex domestic parternships are not. These two types of relationship are different and the laws of nature make them different. Why should we try and make them the same by judicial or legislative fiat?

Marriage, like all societal and religious constructs, needs to adapt and grow with the times. For over 200 years it was illegal, in the United States of America, for a black person to marry a white person. We had to fight back then to push back the prejudice and let in the light. Use love as your moral compass. I've built a relationship with my partner of 22 years. He is now my husband. We are raising our beautiful, two-year-old son with compassion, love and intelligence. He is surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles and many, many close friends, who all love him very much. We are a family too. My son deserves the same respect and equality that any of God's children deserve. Giving the bond between his two parents a different name will scream out to him that his family is separate from the rest of society. Different. Less than. This is what he will hear on the playground. Everybody is so busy talking about protecting the children. What about my child? And all the other children who are being raised in strong, loving, gay households? We're not going to give our children away. We're not going to stop loving each other as families. So why don't we all just accept each other, in the spirit of God's love, and take it from there.

The underlying bases for marriage are founded in procreation and parental identification, not romantic love or sexual preference. There are no parallels between anti-miscegenation laws and the arguments being raised for and against same-sex marriage. Nor is it rational to insist that all of those who support Proposition 8 are doing so out of hate, religious zealotry, bigotry or discrimination. The institution of marriage as one governing relationships between those of opposite gender has existed since long before recorded history and predates any known religion. In addition to our one-on-one version, plural marriages and arranged ones have been and still are common in many societies. Homosexual relationships have also been and are now widely accepted as within society's norms. However, no enduring society, as a whole, has ever considered same-sex commitments as the identical equivalent of opposite gender marriage. I'm confident that none ever will regardless of the outcome of next Tuesday's election. "Yes" on Proposition 8.

Yes on Prop 8. The way I see it, if freedom is what proposition 8 opposers are out for, why aren't they arguing against laws against serial killers, or shoplifters. If folks can be born with homosexual instincts, then its just as possible that people may be born with killing, or stealing instincts. Why aren't we allowing those people to have their "natural" desires met by the law? Its because that is just naturally wrong, just like homosexuality. We all have temptations, but we can't give in to them just because they're a part of us. We fight it, and that's why I'm voting YES on Proposition 8. We can uphold correct morals and fight temptation together.

it really saddens me to think that religion has forced its way into the laws in which we are governed by. People from the so called Christianity say that its gay men and women are forcing our views on to society? I cant help but wonder who's really forcing who's view's here. saying that its GOD's will and that GOD wants marriage between man and a woman. this is about rights not religion. Leave religion to your own faith and go by the letter of the law. there will be a huge backlash against religion if this passes; we are now turning a corner were people are getting fed up with religion telling us how we should live. Dont you think your GOD is getting tired of you using him for everything so you can sleep better at night?

Unfortunately I live in AZ were we have nothing on civil rights nothing that comes close to what California has and yet they want to rewrite our constitution because they seem to think that we have so called activists judges sitting on the bench. these are the same judges that the PEOPLE of this state elected. Majority rules in the United states Judges are there to help the minorities in this country.

to treat someone as a second class citizen is wrong VOTE NO ON 8 and NO on 102
Religion has no place in politics or the LAW. if that were the case we should start taxing the churches.

"No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.", latimes editorial, Sun., 11/02/08

Will you be using the same 'reasoning' to oppose the ban on interspecies
marriage surely in the offing should your crazy opposition to traditional marriage
somehow succeed?
Give me a break. In addition to being thoroughgoingly evil, you people are nuts,
though that'll present no obstacle for you (all) in enlisting the ACLU and their
lawyer/'judge' allies in your support in future attempted depravities.
You clowns in the libmedia can't go broke soon enough.

Same-gender sexual behavior is not only aberrant behavior, it is debasing and ignoble, and both the behavior and its consequences are intolerable in any decent, god-fearing society. Although it is a good thing to be tolerant of people, bad behavior should not be tolerated or in any way encouraged, let alone rewarded with legal status. And that is why I have already voted "Yes" on Proposition 8.

I'm voting NO on H8TE. To amend the constitution to exclude equal rights will be a moment of historical embarrassment. You will be rightfully remembered as bigots. I'm not gay. I am happily married. Gay marriage won't change my marriage in any way. IT'S NOT ABOUT CHILDREN. The children of gay marriage DON'T EXIST until they are born. They are not stolen away from straight couples. Meanwhile, the children of straight couples are in no way affected by gay marriage. As to the slippery slope that leads to other types of marriage, it doesn't exist. Only if you demonize homosexuals can you believe that this is the first step towards men marrying chicken and such. You need to get outside your congregations a little . Meet some different folks. People in love want their love to be treated equally. That's it. Not so scary, really. As to the low marriage rate in Finland. Really, you think that knowing that a man can marry a man somehow spoils marriage for the rest of us? How? The low marriage rate in Finland is the result of other trends. I mean, I like to snowboard. If a gay guy snowboards, it doesn't change anything for me. But I guess I'll never understand your fear based theocratic world view.

Prop. 8 Supporters Have Blood On their Hands
Cover or TIME Magazine Feb 18, 2008 "Prosecuting the Gay Teen Murder"

Bottom line is that my Family is hurt by Prop 8. Its unnecessary. I want to know WHO IN YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE AS A RESULT OF PROP 8?

"Domestic Partnership" is "seperate but equal", BUT ITS NOT equal. Unless you are considered "married", one still has to wait to for "enrollment periods" to get healthcare for domestic partners.

And I have a family member with cancer. Thats NOT FAIR.

Prop. 8 condones the Fed. Tax requirement that causes me to file 5 tax returns every year. Thats extra accounting fees, and thousands in extra taxes. Why do you get save that for your kids or sick family members and I can't?






If the sole discriminating factor of marriage is procreation then change the civil laws of marriage to enforce this. Marriage is only permissable between two fertile persons of opposite gender and any rights, benefits and privligages thereof including but not limited to tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, rights of successorship, insurance rights, etc shall only be conferred for the duration of procreation activity and for a period of not more than 21 years after childbirth. After your youngest child reaches the age of 21 you may continue to live together, but solely as roomates and without any legal status. Non-fertile couples cannot be married. Otherwise fertile couples who are unwilling or unable to conceive for any reason within 12 months of the issuance of the marriage license will be issued a mandatory divorce and cessation of all legal relationships conferred by a civil marriage.

Parents of adopted children are not permitted to marry except in cases when those same parents are fertile and have produced a biological child within the past 21 years.

If its not about love, its not about family, its not about equal treatment under the law, its only about the procreation of children then put the cards on the table and enact the restrictions that cement marriage solely as a legal contract between parents of minor children.

Ludicrous isnt it?

I am opposed to prop 8. I married my husband Charley at the Beverly Hills courthouse on June 17. We have been together for 15 years.

In my neighborhood, people often park cars on Los Feliz Boulevard with for-sale signs because of the high traffic on the street. Since we live in an apartment, we don't have a yard to put a sign in. This gave me the idea of papering the inside of my car with "No on Prop 8" messages and parking it on Loz Feliz for the weekend.

Obeying all traffic and parking laws, I parked my car on the north side Los Feliz just west of Observatory Avenue. I posted the "No on Prop 8" sign in my car. (See photos)

I checked on my car several times over the weekend. This morning when I went to move my car before the no-parking times went into effect.

My car has been vandalized. Someone spray-painted the rear window and hatchback of my car. They painted the word "yes" twice, once in black and once in white.

People who support "Yes on 8" will apparently commit crimes to promote their intolerance.

Being a Mormon from California I am dumbfounded that so much power would be ascribed to such a small minority in a state of 36 million. Yes, the Mormons believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and that is what Prop 8 says. So, the majority of Mormons support it. But really, do 750 thousand Mormons really have that kind of pull in a liberal state of 36 million? The answer is HELL NO!

Lets look at what is really happening. Liberals and pro-gay groups are vilifying Mormons through TV and print media. We really don't have that much influence but I suppose that the liberals and pro gay groups needed a face to put on their attacks and Mormons, as a relatively defenseless and misunderstood minority, make a good punching bag. Liberals in California have made Mormons the "Willy Horton" of the Prop 8 battle. I believe this is bigotry in its most blatant manifestation. Liberals guilty of bigotry? How could that possibly be?

Frankly, I don't really care what one's sexual orientation is. And I don't care if gays are given the same legal rights as hetro couples. What I do care is that I am being told that I have to except homosexuality as normal behavior and that through public schools I have to allow my kids to be taught that as well. Have sex with who you will. But it is my right to believe that it is a perversion and also my right to teach my children such. It is also my right to teach my children to be tolerant of all people which I do. One can certainly be tolerant and accepting without agreeing.

For those who use religions--and in this case, the Abrahamic traditions--as weapons, let's do some back-to-basics recap:

---- "Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." ~ Christianity - New Testament, Matthew 7:12

---- "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah. All the rest of it is commentary." ~ Judaism - Talmud, Shabbat 31a

---- "Not one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself." ~ Islam - 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13

Live and let live. NO on 8.


That is why I am voting to protect traditional marriage.

When a religion steps in against an issue it is using its right to support an issue that it feels is in the best interest for the nation the same as individuals do.


Use your right to vote and VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!

To the Yes on 8 people who say this proposition is about children:

- There is no scientific, peer-reviewed literature in major journals like Nature that even comes close to suggesting that homosexual parents are unfit to raise children. The only "studies" are coming from special religious interest groups and think tanks like Focus on the Family, which do not use the scientific method to avoid biased results, nor do they have their findings reviewed and replicated by others to support their conclusions

- The CA Superintendent of schools himself has said there's no way this proposition would change sex ed in schools. It's not in the proposition language, and existing law says that sex ed must "show respect for committed partnerships and marriage" meaning that we would only tell our kids that committed partnership benefits society; specific endorsement of gay marriage would not be part of the curriculum

- CA sex education ALREADY has the option for parental opt-out, so if you think your kid is in danger of being taught that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage, you can remove your child from that class

The push back against interracial marriage, school integration, and women's sufferage all used similar arguments to the Yes on 8 people, and they all fell to the tide of public opinion that slowly but surely recognized injustice when it was pointed out. Integrated schools didn't hurt white children, neither will gay marriage.

The imagined social harms of gay marriage are nothing compared to the very real struggles that committed gay couples must go through to get the same benefits as marriage. The Supreme Court said it first- separate is not equal.

Vote Yes on Prop 8!!!

Voting Yes on Prop 8 is Freedom of Rights and Religion. Prop 8 does not take away the rights of gays. Check out the California Family Code Section 297.5.

Restore traditional marriage! It's not about hate or inequality, it's about reserving the right for heterosexual couples to define themselves as a family unit capable of naturally creating children.

Find out how Prop 8 will impact your world at www.WhatIsProp8.com.

Marriage is between a man and a women! We need to protect the family. Vote YES on Proposition 8!

I think people are failing to realize that this is NOT a civil rights issue. Look at the CA family code: "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits...as are granted to spouses." If gays aren't receiving these rights, then by all means it is their constitutional right to use the law against that entity. They ALREADY have the rights of a married couple. Don't you think that if homosexual relationships were 100% the same as heterosexual relationships that nature would have allowed for that? Homosexuals are biologically incapable of procreating with one another whether or not they are sterile. If homosexuality were supposed to be the same, nature would have accounted for that, and it does not. Prop 8 is about protecting families and children and the rights of parents, not about rights that already exist.

Proposition 8 does not protect marriage or children. Heterosexual couples will be allowed to marry with or without proposition 8. Proposition 8 does nothing to make certain that children will be raised with a mother and father. It merely assures that gays and lesbians can't marry the person they love and tells all your gay and lesbian children that their rights won't matter as much as those of straights.

I admit I'm not a big fan of politics, or rather the absolute hate and contention that comes with it but I thought I'd post my thoughts on this matter. My family has always encouraged learning pursuing new ideas and fully researching both sides of arguments to make decisions for ourselves based on more than what's on the surface. With that in mind - I'm voting Yes on 8.

No I'm not brainwashed, I'm not homophobic and I believe that everyone deserves the right to be happy but heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different than homosexual marriage, why is it bad to differentiate?
Laws like this are not created to discriminate as much as differentiate how our society approaches various other aspects of our lives. Adoption for example, it's not as if Homosexuals don't have the talent to raise children but statistically it's better for children to be raised in a home with a mother and father. It is sad that less than capable couples still slip through the system but I don't think we should deny any possible advantage we can give to children.

I also don't think it's fair that religions would be accused of "hate speech" if they continued to preach the morals that they were built upon. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." (UDHR)

So anyway, I just don't see a need to categorize such different ideas into the same box. This law isn't so much about who has the right to be happy (EVERYONE DESERVES THAT!), it's about the definition of a category. A category which seemed to me to be pretty obvious and clear-cut. Why feel the need to force two completely different ideas into the same small box? Make a new one, one that can benefit our society and country in the best way possible without encroaching on the rights of the original. I may be wrong but I thought it was ok to be different, maybe that's just the artist in me...

"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..."

Oh really? According to the Protect Marriage archived site, the ORIGINAL wording of the constitutional amendment attempted to invalidate all domestic partnerships:


"6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?

Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”

If this has nothing to do with trying to take rights away from a group of people and discrimination, then I don't know what is. Also, the right to marry was already upheld as a civil right in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. Too bad people don't study government like they used too.

But of course, living and let-living is precisely what so many YES voters want to do.

A large number of people in this country (and yes, most of them are religious) understand marriage in a way that simply excludes the possibility of same-sex marriage. This isn't because there's a "bigotry clause" built into the view. It has to do with a rich and complicated understanding of masculinity and femininity and their complimentary nature, and the proper role of sexuality in human life. Most opponents of Prop 8 are simply ignorant of the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the traditional view of marriage, and so they foolishly attribute any reluctance to accept same-sex marriage to irrational bigotry. In fact, it simply follows logically from this view that marriage can only involve one man and one woman.

The "No on 8" group argues that traditional/religious people will be unaffected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. No one, obviously, will be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex. But marriage is an institution that affects far more than just the couple involved, and particularly in a society like ours with powerful anti-discrimination laws, there is no question that people with traditional views of marriage WILL suffer real consequences if Proposition 8 doesn't pass.

School curricula are only one of the ramifications. What if I am in a profession that involves marriage in some way (and there are many -- marriage counsellor, anyone in the wedding industry, etc.) and I don't want to be involved in celebrating or reinforcing unions that I don't believe to be right? Can I be sued now? What if I want to run an adoption agency and my religious beliefs prohibit me from placing children with gay parents? Oh wait, that already happened in Massachusetts, and the institution had to close. Mark my words, we will see many, many incidents like this in California if Proposition 8 doesn't pass.

Prop 8 IS about tolerance, but not about tolerance of homosexuality. Homosexuals can be tolerated without being legally married. In fact, there is really nothing substantial that gays will gain from the legal right to marry, except the ability to take legal action against religious people who don't accept their unions as real marriages. California is already very tolerant of gays. The question today is whether religious people, too, should be tolerated.

When asked why they were voting YES, all those walking the street corners last night could only say that "they were protecting the family". They sounded like a bunch of drones who drank too much Kool-Aid and were just repeating what their church told them to say.

How have we reached the point where a bunch of brain-washed zombies are deciding the civil rights of this country? And where are these people when there's GOOD to be done... you never see them out en masse supporting anything that would be helping others, only taking away rights.

SAD state of affairs for today's churches. Bet they'll see their memberships and contributions decline after this election.

« | 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: