Gay marriage debate shows no signs of letting up

Who says the debate over gay marriage in California is dying down? Fresh evidence of the emotional issue come from San Francisco, where a church was vandalized Sunday:

Vandals spray-painted swastikas on a Catholic church in San Francisco's Castro District Saturday night. It appears the vandals are upset about the Catholic church's support of Proposition 8, which made same-sex marriage illegal in California. But, the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church on Diamond Street is gay-friendly. Many parishioners voted against Prop 8 and they are upset their church was targeted.

On The Times' Travel page, there is a look at how Park City, Utah, officials are feeling about the potential for Prop. 8 protests during the Sundance Film Festival.

In the California Progress Report, Bill Cavala has an interesting take on the election results: "With half the marriages in California ending in divorce, we should remember that voters learn about the legal aspects of marriage when they or someone close to them undergoes this procedure. Issues of custody are typically resolved in favor of the mother in the household. How would those precedents apply to gay couples with children? All this is to say that our views of marriage differ, and that these differing views make the politics of gay marriage complex. I doubt, for example, that if all the laws on straight marriage were suddenly erased there would be a consensus to replace them as they are."

-- Shelby Grad

Comments

[boarderthom]

Compare and contrast: Gay rights and slave rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves were not allowed to marry either.

[Flex]

Vandalism is bad. However, your information raises many questions. Why does it appear that the vandals are upset about the passage of prop 8? Are you saying that only anti-prop 8 people would paint a swastika on a church? Have you considered that right-wing infiltrators have a greater motivation to vandalize their own houses of worship? It gives them a powerful tool to shape public opinions. Did the swastika have anything to do with prop 8? What is worse, a swastika on a few churches, or the absolute removal of gay marriage rights?

[Patrick ONeill]

Of course it hasn't "cooled down" - in Canada it has "cooled down" because it has been resolved, and that is the only way it will "cool down" in the US, too.

[Zach]

I agree with the first commenter; where is the evidence against Prop 8 oppoenents in this? People have been vandalizing churches since well before anyone even conceived of gay marriage. Whether the Church or the media is behind opportunistically linking this crime with the Prop 8 debate, it's pretty low.

[Andrew]

These are important issues. Do we have to change every single law out there pertained to marriage because of a small group of whiny people feel left out???? Custody laws?, prenuptial agreements?, domestic partnership to allow straight couples to have the same rights as gay couples?...There will be no letting up from the gay community because the fact is, that they only want what they can't have.

[MarriedMan]

Why is prop8 still debated? I don't understand this. The state voted so end of story.
If they keep doing this i am going to try to overturn the presidential election because i wanted McCain

[Zach]

These are high-school Government class issues you don't understand, MarriedMan. The popular vote is not, and never has been, the final word. We have these things called "checks and balances." Further, this is not about simply not liking an election outcome. Were Obama's election conducted improperly, as Prop 8 was passed (arguably), that might be different. If Obama's election violated the fundamental principles of this country, that might be different. But no judicial precedent says you have the right to your preferred candidate in the White House, while there is one stating that equal treatment under the law is a civil right.

No, Andrew, every law doesn't need to be changed, at least if a whiny majority would allow the change of one word in civil contracts. Apparently that one word is worth setting terrible legal precedent and disadvantaging hundreds of thousands of gay couples and their children.

[Tammie]

MarriedMan, the people voting on whether we should have a bullet train or if taxes should be raised for all of us is gravely different than pitting American against American by allowing us to vote on our neighbors' rights. No civil right should ever be up for a popular vote, less we want to degenerate into some foreign land that we ourselves snub with pride and think, "Why can't they get their acts together?"

[Thisandthat]

Hi,

I've pretty much said my peace with a particular conservative forum, but I'm dealing with people who are so terribly ignorant about gay lifestyles it's profoundly sad.

I urge you to go to:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/01/09/abortion-homosexuality-and-marriage.php#comments

and voice your opinion. I don't think you can sway anyone here, but since I seem to be the only voice who has any sense of reality and justice, there needs to be more.