California's gay marriage foes show signs of division

The campaign that led the effort to ban gay marriage in California has received kudos for its smart tactics. But there now are signs of division in the camp, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The divide? Sounds like it's between moderates who saw Prop. 8 as about marriage and what children are taught and more outspoken activists who have problems with the "homosexual agenda." From John Wildermuth's report:

Other conservative groups that loudly backed Prop. 8 are being targeted as too extreme and off-putting by ProtectMarriage.com, which put the constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot and hopes to help persuade the state Supreme Court to uphold the measure. "We represent the people who got things done, who got Prop. 8 passed," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. "An important part of defending Prop. 8 is eliminating arguments not helpful to our concerns." Pugno, for example, persuaded the Supreme Court last week to bar the Campaign for California Families from intervening in the court case over the validity of Prop. 8 and the same-sex marriage ban.

Meanwhile, the boycotts targeting businesses who contributed to Yes on 8 continued. LB Reports has an extensive report on protests over the weekend at an El Polo Loco whose franchise owner gave $6,000 to the campaign. El Polo Loco issued a statement making it clear the corporation itself in neutral: "No donations in support of California's Proposition 8 have been made by El Pollo Loco or on behalf of our franchise organizations. American citizens, however, are entitled to support or oppose issues that are important to them, including individuals in our company and every other organization in America."

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Jim]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you truly believe that civil unions provide equal protection and gays and lesbians have not lost any rights, then you should be out campaigning to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, and you should also be happy with a civil union instead of a marriage.

[Jiles Samson]

re: giles

Please read my post closer. I never said that there was a connection between homosexuality and beastiality. I said they were both perversions from the norm.
That still stands. I do not accept your premise of sliding scale of sexuality. People are either male or female (yes there a handful of biological mutant sexually undefined people - birth defects, but that is not the point).

If the courts redefine marriage as between a man and a woman then my point is that anyone that can come along and say, "why not redefine it for me and my 3 wives to be recognized as marriage" - ala Warren Jeffs", or "why can't I be married to my 14 year old consenting lover" or "why can't I marry my sheep" Really then marriage means whatever you want it to mean. THAT is the issue because it ONLY ever has and ONLY ever will mean 1 man and women.

It affects me because I am forced to recognize these marriages as real, in my business, in my church, in my school. I will not. I will go to jail first, because it is false.

By the way, I am an M.D. and an oncologist, so please don't brush me with being uneducated, etc. I just happen to know biology and history as well.

Wishing just doesn't make it so.

[giles]

Re: Jiles Samson

Ok, first of all, you obviously have a severely skewed image of what being gay is all about. To enlighten you, it is quite similar to being "straight", in fact most people don't fit into either of these categories. Instead of sexuality being defined as "cut and dry" as gay and straight, many people actually lie somewhere in the middle (read something by Alfred Kinsey). It is not a psychological problem that people need to deal with; on the contrary, gay people tend to have to deal with the psychological problems associated with being persecuted by society for their sexual preferences (likely the problems of your friends). It has no more to do with incest or polygamy than does heterosexuality! I can't think of a single connection between homosexuality and beastiality... let me repeat that, there is no connection between homosexuality and beastiality.
Second, homosexuality is not a "perversion of the norm". Take a biology course and you may learn that homosexuality has been observed in thousands of animals and in many it is regularly observed... and we're talking everything from damselflies to penguins. Yes, penguins. And the other penguins don't exile or talk behind the backs of the "gay" penguin couple that has formed a life-long partnership. Or simply look at our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps for whom sexuality knows no boundaries. Or maybe all of these animals are just "messed up" as you say.
Lastly, I know arguing with you is futile as you will likely just hide behind the veil of your own ignorance but please stop oppressing your "friends" before they become so seriously psychologically damaged that they lose the will to survive because guess what, they are not going to change. I mean, seriously, why do you care so much? How does it affect you?

[giles]

As far as I'm concerned, the churches can keep their "marriage's" between a man and a woman but if this country is going to follow its own constitution , then it should remove the legalities of this religious contract (Remember "Separation of church and state", the 1st amendment of the constitution?). Civil Union's for everybody!! (Even heterosexuals).

[Jiles Samson]

interesting the that pro-homo groups call the passage percentage of Prop 8 "slim", yet it is very similar to the margin of victory that Obama got that the press is calling a landslide and a mandate.

It is not a civil rights issue. Gays have the same rights now. They can marry a person of the opposite sex. Since they are psychologically messed up (regardless of what the liberal APA says) they want to redefine marriage for everyone else. No...you can't have more rights than everyone else.

My child will NEVER be taught that being Gay is normal, because it is not normal, ever...neither is polygamy nor incest nor beastiality. They are all perversions of the norm. I know people who are struggling in this area of their lives. Some give in to it and they are SO unhappy. Then I know others who work through it and still struggle from time to time, but they are so happy to be out of the ugly, rotten, yucky, gay bar scene and they cry when they think about what that bondage was like.

[jazz]

As a straight man who voted against Prop 8, I am saddened by the makeup of the opposition. As Prana wrote above, I fully support and respect deeply held religious beliefs, but this isn't about religion, it's about a simple majority eliminating existing rights and we should all be nervous about that.

Also, once states began to issue marriage licenses all religious arguments about marriage became moot. MARRIAGE IS NO LONGER A RELIGIOUS CONSTRUCT, IT IS A CIVIC CONSTRUCT. Now that it is a civic construct, bringing religion into the debate is disingenuous at best. And since it is a civic construct, there can be no discrimination, no violation of civil rights.

Proposition 8 will be overturned, not necessarily because of its specific argument but because a door has been opened to discrimination and it's very easy to push that door open wider.

[richard sennet]

Prop 8 did not go far enough. We must eliminate the incentives to divorce. Civil unions exist so let's use them instead of marriage to replace-revolving door marriages and tax breaks.

http://sharedvaluescoalition.blogspot.com/

[Zach]

I'm glad our FOUNDING FATHERS had the wisdom to establish the courts for things like this. A slim, ignorant majority can pass something like Prop 8, but learned and impartial men determine if it's legal. Civil rights like fairness under the law and protection from discrimination are no trivial matter, unlike childish complaints of who called their relationship what first. If you want to live in a land where holy books set the rules, there are plenty of other countries for that. I'm not sure where you'll find that magical land of dogs that can sign marriage contracts, though...

[Prana]

I feel it necessary to respond to a few of the comments above: -

NS...what exactly is the homosexual "lifestyle" that opponents of Prop 8 harp on about. Gay people are biologically predisposed to be attracted to members of the same-sex....fact. It is not a "lifestyle" choice...you will be policed by gay police officers, have fires put out by gay firefighters, have your teeth maintained by gay dentists, and students will be lectured by gay teachers...fact...gay people exist in all walks of life and live their lives much the same way as heterosexual people. Stop stereotyping and generalising.

Jay....gay men and women wanted no special rights. They wanted exactly the same right that everyone has to marry a single, consenting, non-related adult of their choice. However the problem is their choice would be a person of the same sex, and that currently is not allowed. They want no more or less than a heterosexual person has.

To all of you who talk of marrying brothers, inanimate objects, animals or multiple partners...please stop with the tired and downright silly arguements and see my comment above.....gay men and women want no more or less than heterosexual people have, and as far as I am aware straight people don't marry their dogs, who of course can not form a legally binding contract. It is a poor argument not worthy of any intellectual debate.

You must also understand that civil partnerships / unions do not come close to conferring the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It is for this reason that the issue is being fought....you are saying to gay people that because of a fundamental part of who they are, i.e. their sexuality, you can not have what everyone else has in terms of the same legal recognition, rights and responsibilities that come with a committed marriage.

And for thsoe who wish to factor religious ideas into the debate, I fully support your right to express your deeply held beliefs, and to completely disagree with or disapprove of either homosexuals, or homosexual activity. However religious views, which are a choice, have no place in denying others their fundamental human rights. Fundamental human rights should be beyond politics and religion.

[v racer]

Issues such as these should be decided state by state. You don't like the outcome. Move.

[Harrison]

You can't take away these so called "rights" the gay minority has never had. This is simply a label issue. Gays have all the rights they need to live together just like married couples do but with out the label. You can't lose something you never had in the first place. So I suggest that you go live in peace with the rights you do have.

[Greg]

What's wrong with gay people? They have the same rights as anyone else. They can marry people of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. That's what marriage is defined as in the Bible. Deal with it. And the media claiming that Prop 8 opens the door for racial discrimination, is just typical inflammatory rhetoric. I don't understand why people that don't believe in God or the tenants of Christian theology would want to get married in the first place, unless it was just to slap the faces of believers, and FORCE others to accept them. So goes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. What's next? Some idiot claiming they have a RIGHT to marry their dog?

[Hank]

The effect of referendums and majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights. That is, in fact, a side effect of how they work.

That power is broad and deep and, by nature, populist. It has often been used to be make significant changes in state government and to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree -- including interpretations involving basic constitutional rights. If you want the right to initiate a ballot referendum, you then have to stand by it's decision. Next case....

[Susan R]

Oh Please...everyone has to live by the laws of marriage. I cannot marry my father, mother,brother, sister, a married man or a married woman. I should sue since I am in the minority and my right to marry whom I choose or multiples of partners is being violated???

I have no problem with civil unions. It gives them rights of partnership, but to call it marriage is wrong. It is unlike marriage, and an abnormality of nature. There is no purpose to homosexuality biologically. The religious have a right not to be forced to recognize homosexuality as "equal" to heterosexuality.

Marriage is not a right. Rights are for individuals. Rights do not and should not effect others. Homosexual marriage inflicts itself on children who have a right to mothers and a fathers. Heterosexuals do a rotten job of keeping mom and dad together for children but the homosexual relationship denies the need for one or the other. Which one do you think is not needed to raise a child? Which of you from a loving heterosexual marriage feel one or the other parent was not necessary and you would have liked two moms or two dads and was the product of a turkey syringe?

[Jay]

Gays still have the same rights as everyone else to marry in CA. No rights were removed. They did not get their 'special privileges' to marry whoever they wish, but neither does anyone else (cannot marry more than one person, cannot marry siblings, etc.).

The campaign stating that the rigths of gays are violated is a lie.

[Common Tator]

"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoeller (Germany, WWII)

"Divide et impera" - Latin Maxim on how the few can dominate the many.

civil rights are YOUR rights. There is no "safe out-group".

[Michael H. H Charles]

The nuts have had a taste of victory and they won't stop with that. Now that Califorinia has told the world that all you need to is have a simple majority of the vote to remove a minorities rights, the ultra-right, fascists will be looking to remove any and all rights for anyone that they want. Heaven help women, gays, pro-choice and most minorities. No one seems to see just how frightening Proposition 8 truly is for American Freedom and Justice. With Supreme Courts being over ruled by voters, there can be NO justice and, in California's case, they are subject now to mob rule.

[Mott]

We are boycotting businesses who supported the No on 8 compaign nationwide and supporting businesses who gave to the Yes on 8 campaign nationwide. So, the adds up to 297 million customers for Yes and 3 million customers for No.

[allaire]

These boycotts are those of a few and do not represent the 4,883,460 opponents of Proposition 8 or the homosexual community as a whole. There are better ways of addressing the issues. If you individually don’t like a product because of what it represents, than choose another product. If you object to your dentist because of their actions or views, choose another dentist, but don’t set out to campaign for everyone to do the same. Some people will always be prejudice. Others with proper and honest examples and discussion change. Make more friends than enemies.

[pitbullstew]

re :the El Pollo Loco remark from corporate?
as MSNBC's Chris Matthews say's ..........'tell me something I dont know'

[NS]

Another dead beat try by a pro homosexual or lesbian "lifestyle" allied that wishes to find some other silly and not related aspect regarding the passage of Prop. 8 by the people and for the people that over ruled that 1% or 3% of the total US Population of about 300 million in the United States. Time and Time again they come up with these silly issues and issues that have nothing to do with the the facts. Here is the fact: Marriage is between a MAN and a Woman NOT a homosexual and another homosexual, or a lesbian and another lesbian. As the mayor of San Fransisco said, Mr. Newsom "w-e-a-ther you like it or not" and really the best thing is that children will never be indoctronated with the Homo-Les "Lifestyle"..........Get over it! The Pro Homo-Les "lifestyle" lost big..........and talk about the facts not silly issues................

[Marco Luxe]

Is it true that the FL reich that passed a constitutional amendment now wants to constitutionally eliminate civil unions and domestic partnerships? Give a bigot an inch....
Boycott Utah! Let the LDS tithing auditors see the results and let the LDS hierarchy feel the pain.

[flex]

pugno persuaded the supreme court to not stay the ban on gay marriage? Wrong! Gerry Brown did. Then Pugno filed his petition on the heels of the AG. This is unfolding just as the govoner suggested that it would, in his interview on ABC. One fact that the zealot pigs are in denial of is the fact that they voted away a constitutional right. The court will strike down prop 8! You'll see!