Antonio Villaraigosa puts his money into the campaign against Proposition 8

Antonio Villaraigosa is no Gavin Newsom when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Newsom, after all, spearheaded the effort to legalize gay marriage by officiating over same-sex couples’ ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall shortly after he took office in 2004. That led to this year’s California Supreme Court ruling striking down the state’s ban on such nuptials.

It also led to Proposition 8, the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and woman -- and to the promoters' ad airing statewide featuring Newsom in a rather unflattering light declaring same-sex marriage is a reality “whether you like it or not.”

Like Newsom, Villaraigosa is seriously toying with the idea of running for governor in 2010. He too has officiated over same-sex marriage.

Now he is putting his campaign money where his politics are. The Los Angeles mayor announced today that he is giving $25,000 to defeat Proposition 8.

"We need to redouble our efforts now to match the flood of money raised by supporters of Prop 8," Villaraigosa said in a statement.

Rick Jacobs, chair of the liberal activist group Courage Campaign Issues Committee, is using the announcement in an e-mail pitch to raise more money to defeat Proposition 8. Courage Campaign is working with the on-line ActBlue site to raise money. Jacobs said today that within five hours, the appeal had netted $13,000.

Recent polls show Proposition 8 is leading. Its backers are out-raising foes, $25.4 million to $15.7 million for the opponents by the end of September.

Strategists for No-on-8 to held a news conference last week to sound an alarm that they were being heavily outspent.

That seems to have jolted gay marriage supporters. In the first two weeks of October, the No-on-8 campaign had raised $2.7 million in donations of $1,000 or more.

Backers of the measure raised $706,000 in that period, according to the California Secretary of State. However, proponents raise much of their money in increments of less than $1,000 -- and small donations won’t be disclosed until next week.

-- Dan Morain

Comments

[Andrew]

I'm really hoping the No on 8 campaigners don't blow it on this one. Some of their commercials have been a little sappy, and I'm not sure how convincing they'll be next to the scare-mongering ads for Yes on 8, which suggest that the state treating everyone fairly will somehow affect how churches are allowed to treat them, or that straight couples will for some reason have to get divorced because gays are marrying, or that marriage of any kind is going to be taught in schools.

The last in particular offends me. I agree that marriage is sacred and personal. That's why it shouldn't be taught--gay OR straight--in public schools. And I'm happy to say I've met no one yet who was taught about marriage in a public school in California.

[Roy]

I am really curious and would love an honest answer from a progressive liberal.

In anthropological terms, we know the world we live in is chaos. People do not like chaos, so they gravitate around ideas, philosophies, and religions that help them make sense in the world.

For me, I have read many ancient text and have communed with diety and have found a moral foundatin in God. This moral foundation provides a basis for my outlook on life and the way I behave and interact with people. Part of that moral reasoning is the sanctity of sexual relationships to be used for the divine purpose for which they were created. I also know that it is in, and only within, a loving marriage between a man and a woman that a child of God can find ultimate joy and happiness in this world and the world to come. It also provides the "best" environment for raising children. Unfortunately, our society is plagued with deterioration of marriage through divorce, hate, abuse, out-of-wedlock births, single parent families, all of which has been proven to have a negative impact on children. Now, same-gender marriage has come to be an issue, which I trully feel will also have a negative impact on traditional marriages, families, and on children.

As for me and my fellow Christians we hold that as we come to know Christ, we are "no more...tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14)."

But what about you? Where is your moral reasoning? What moral principles anchor you into reality? What is ultimate truth?

For me, I see this marriage issue as a slipper slope. Yes, there is divorce, there is abusive marriages, but do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? To me, signing on to same-gender marriage is just another piece of evidence that a vast number of people are being "blown around" by any type of touchy-feely doctrine. Where does it end? Where does the slope stop slipping?

Does our society start embracing polyandry? poligny? What about the bonobo society where multiple men marry multiple women? Should we stop there? How about lowering the age of consent? Children are starting to explore sexual behavior at 11, 12, and 13! If we lower the age of consent, some pediophiles would be happy and even feel accepted by society. Perhaps you think this last one is a stretch, but many of us do not feel that it is. We fear that our society and its morals will continue to be erroded. And as the societies morals are erroded, I fear that continue with many of the social ills that we have.

For me and my house, it is time to set a good example for our children, our society to stand up for moral values, and to protect our heritage.

I would love to hear an honest, non-mocking reply if that is even possible.

Please Vote Yes on 8! I did.

[Tim Hoopes]

If you think that it will not be taught in schools, then you are ignorant, or just can't believe what is coming. On Oct 11, 2008, a first grade school teacher took her students on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall and had them watch her and her same sex partner get married. So much for keeping the students parents in control of their families teaching ideals. I choose to keep this instruction in my home. Vote Yes on Prop 8.

[Andrew]

Hey Roy,

Here goes my best, free of snark. First of all, I appreciate your frank, intelligent and well written post. That's hard to find anywhere on the internet, and I'm hoping others who are voting no on 8 will have the courtesy to reply in the same tone. It upsets me when other liberal/progressives jump straight to drowning people out by screaming "bigot" rather than actually entering into discussion.

I agree that the ideal environment for rearing any child is a loving two-parent home. But for me, the key thing in all this is "loving" -- not the ability for two people to procreate. I've met gay couples who love one another just as much as any straight couple. They dress business casual just like you, go to jobs just like you, then come home and spend time with their families the same way you do. So I've seen gays who are able to provide love in families that are just as traditional as yours, with the only major difference being what happens in the bedroom.

You say your foundation is God, and not just God, but the word of God. For me, the moral compass is the tangible love I see when a gay parent helps their child with their homework, instills moral values in them and kisses them good night. That's what matters to me. A major division between us seems to be that I don't believe the Bible can be taken literally word for word. I think it's filled with infinite wisdom collected over countless generations, but I believe it's also filled with the prejudices, superstitions and cultural mores of long-dead civilizations that vilified homosexuality in one breath and encouraged slavery in the next. Again: That doesn't mean I discount the Bible. But I don't believe in it word for word.

Now, here's the important bit for me. I'm not alone in the way I feel about the Bible and what role it should play in my life. There's a lot of people like me, in fact, and the best way for the state to recognize our rights as well as yours is for the state not to legislate based on any individual religion--not Christian, not Muslim, not Buddhist or Jewish, but neutral. That means the state has no business telling you what *you* can believe, of course, or conducting services the way you see fit. If you believe homosexuality is immoral, than you should definitely not marry homosexuals in your church. But the state is obligated to respect the rights of both the non-religious as well as the religious.

This post is getting really long, but if I haven't lost you in my pontificating yet, I'd like to add that, again, I agree that liberals/progressives *are* too touchy-feely. I can understand that gay marriage for you is a major break in tradition, and that's disturbing. But extend the same courtesy in conversation you did me to a gay person and ask them, seriously, what they think about accepting pedophilia. You'll find more similarities between the two of you in the repulsion you share.

I hope this thread isn't getting cluttered with invective as I'm typing this, and will check back to see if there's a response. I appreciate the dialogue.

[Andrew]

Tim Hoopes: Link, please? I agree with you; I would keep that instruction in my home as well. But I don't believe that the actions of one teacher speak for those of the thousands upon thousands in our state who spend their days actually teaching academics. If I was a parent at the school, I'd be upset, but mostly because I'd rather that teacher be in class teaching math, English, etc.

[Plib]

Roy,
Progressives typically do not cling to "any touchy-feely doctrine" but have, as you, searched for a moral compass in a world of chaos. If anyone hasn't dealt on such issues, they simply aren't paying attention.

For progressive liberals, moral consistency is usually a strong criteria by which we judge laws. Liberals, like Jesus, have a thing for the intrinsic equality and worth of human beings, either as expression of the divine or for more rational, secular reasons (i.e. the difficulty of making a moral argument for inequality). With this in mind I'll try to answer your questions...

The question about "where do we stop?" really gets at the heart of the matter. Who deserves the right to marry? The slippery slope metaphor, is, however a horrible one from a Biblical perspective. The "traditional" view of marriage in the Bible, is, of course, polygamy, so how far do you want to go back up the slope?
For liberals, the question as to who should we discriminate against with marriage rights typically comes down to whether or not such discrimination is necessary to better protect political equality. As a result, we typically would say that because polygamy has traditionally been an institution that violates the equality of women, we discriminate against polygamists as a means of protecting the rights of women. Similarly, we discriminate against pedophiles in order to protect the right of children. Now of course, our standards change over time. Once we considered women to be property, to be exchanged for goods in marriage like commodities. Once we justified discriminating against interracial couples on grounds of white supremacy. Now many want to continue discriminating against gays on grounds of their moral inferiority. So the question becomes, how do you justify that discrimination? Personally, I am not convinced by the arguments in favor of continued discrimination; Many argue that gays are perverted, and to that I argue if we want to outlaw perversion we ought to start with straight people, as there are so many more of them. Many argue that gays can't procreate, and to that I say we'd then need to prohibit marriage for old people. You see where I'm going with this? Moral consistency becomes the rule, and if we are going to ban gays from marrying, we ought to really consider banning people who masturbate, people who are adulterers and a whole host of others called out in the Bible before we start worrying about this tiny minority who are good, loving people for the most part. The more you start thinking about who we allow to marry, the more you realize that our culture greatly values individual freedom, and that is a good thing, and something that reflects the Christian values of the intrinsic worth of every human being, whether we like what they do or not. I hate broccoli, but it would be hard for me to justify banning marriage for broccoli eaters because it would be morally inconsistent with a host of other rules. I hope this helps.

[citybythebay]

Roy, here's an answer to your question.

First, I do not believe that the Bible is a book with no errors in it. It was written down by men over a thousand year period ending almost 2,000 years ago. It comes from times and cultures that are long gone and it was written in languages that, while not dead at preseent, have no doubt greatly changed since the time these writings occurred. It has also been picked over by the councils of the church with some books that were in, tossed out or chopped apart, and some books that existed excluded. I simply cannot except that it is unquestionably reliable. I also do not have to use it as a foundation or sole foundation of morality.

Second, as to my moral foundation, it's a fair question, though most people who are atheists or agnostics would find it offensive. I think the answer is that it comes from a set of principles on which we have general agreement in society, including the dignity of the individual: killing people born alive is generally wrong; lying is wrong; stealing is wrong; adultry and child molestation are wrong.

The list of things on which we have general moral is probably very long, and it changes over time. I know that claim makes some Christians profoundly uncomfortable, but those who are honest with themselves can look through OT and even NT scriptures and find things which were once condemned that we now accept. It is an undisputable historical fact that morals change to some extent over time, and that can be a good thing. Look at slavery, for example. You cannot read the ordinances of Moses and deny that slavery in some form was acceptable to the ancient Jews. Now it is a nearly universal moral evil. Experience calls us in some cases to actually do better than we did in the past.

Another thing that your post does not mention is the fundamental legal framework we have adopted in our society. The concept of equal protection is not some nice liberal idea dreamed up by courts. It's embedded in the U.S. Constitution and has been for more than half our history. It's also embedded in the California Constitution. This provision should be sacred to us because it restrains one of the worst evils in the human soul: the habit of looking at those who are different from us with distrust and sometimes worse. For here we ostracize minorities, sometimes take away rights, property, liberty and even lives. A list of words and phrases from the 20th century will suffice to prove the extremes of this danger: the Holocaust; Bosnia; Darfur; Rwanda; Cambodia. And it does not have to be genocide before we've violated the human dignity of others in our demand for our own superiority and the demand to impose our values on others: Apartheid, Jim Crowe and Manzinar come to mind as proof. Abandoing this principle to discriminate against a minority group should warn us that we may be giving in to this ancient, horrible evil. Likewise, taking away others' rights to participate fully in society, even those with whom we disagree, should sound a warning.

I believe that gay and lesbian people are children of God just like everyone else. I also think sexuality, including homosexuality for gay people, is part of God's plan which I don't pretend to understand fully. No human can, even the writers of the Bible. I am not prepared to change the law to attack other adults and their consensual, private sexual expressions even if I disapprove. Who am I to judge them so much as to interfere with their lives? Certainly not God or anyone with that much wisdom to know I'm doing right.

Then there's the function of marriage in society. It exists to signal to the society (and particularly to the legal system) that the relationship between the couple is a familial relationship because of their obligations and commitments. Same-sex couples make the same commitments and should be recognized for them, whether their neighbors approve or not. They should be treated by the law as equals.

For me, individuals may disapprove on religious or other grounds of same-sex marriage. But we should not let ourselves go to the ballot box and force our religious beliefs on our neighbors to tell them they cannot get married. We cannot do that for disapproval of interracial or interreligious marriage, and should not do it here. You also would not want your neighbors taking your marriage away. Try to imagine how you'd feel if they really could. "Love your neighbor as yourself" would seem to call for that kind of self-examination and restraint.

Fnially, there is no slippery slope here. Same-sex couples have been around for many, many years. It's nothing new. Same-sex marriage has been legal for a while in MA and also in other countries. All the ills people sometimes raise, including the ones you raise, have not come to pass. I think in the hands of some, they are merely cruel condescensions designed to denegrate the requests of gay folks to get married. Everyone with any sense knows that animals, for example, are not capable of performing the obligations of marriage. Children are protected because they are not ready for sexuality and the responsibilities of marriage, something that we presume adults in fact are.

As for polygamy and polyandry, show me the Army requesting it. That's a serious comment. We should not take marriage away from other people in society on fears of things unlikely to happen. The sexual revolution, whatever you may think of it, started over 40 years ago. Likewise the demands of blacks and other minorities for civil rights accelerated strongly in that era. Women also became much more vocal in demanding full equality. We should suppose that any significant group which felt it had been excluded from society would have been demanding full inclusion along with the prior groups. Gays certainly did. And yet, no demand for polygamy from consenting adults. So I'm not worried. And in an age where women are no longer the property of their husbands but can make their own ways in the world without marriage if they choose, I cannot see polygamy taking hold in our society. Women don't have to share, and most people who don't have to share are not wiling to do so when it comes to their primary partners. If you don't believe me, imagine how many of your married maile friends would get a yes to a request to their wives to take a second wife. I'm guessing none.

So at the end of the day, this is in fact a contest of values among citizens of this State. Christians disapprove of homsexuality and of same-sex marriage. Gay people want equal treatment under the law and equal recognition of their long-term relationships Who should get to choose who you can marry? Your disapproving neighbors or you? I vote for personal choice, and that is why I'm voting no on Proposition 8.

[Nancy]

Tim Hoopes: YOU are the ignorant here. Those parents ALLOWED their children to watch the wedding. Some parents didn't allow it and the school had no problem with it. Be honest if you want others to respect your beliefs.

[Anthony Keller]

Each and every statement displayed on the TV and Radio ads in favor of Prop. 8 is a falsehood clouded in bigotry. Civil Marriage is just that, a contract between parties with the state. Even when couples are married in a church standing in front of a person in vestments, when they are divorced, they stand in front of a person wearing judge robes. This issue has nothing to do with faith traditions, unless a particular faith tradition rests in bigotry, stating that the heterosexual should be grated more power by the state than others.

If people want to protect marriage, focus on divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, physical violence, broken homes, and various other issues plaguing society.

Legislating bigotry is not the answer.

[TakeFive]

Here’s my problem with prop 8:

If we allow the standard for marriage to be redefined as between two consenting adults, rather than between a man and a woman, what prevents it from being further redefined.

Why not allow brother and sister to marry if both are consenting adults. Deformed children is really not an issue since genetic screening and abortion are both available. Ok, then how about two brothers marrying? What about father / daughter relationships if both are over 18?

See, I don’t like the road this is taking us down. Some things need to remain static for the good of society. We already have enough problems with the breakdown of the traditional family structure.

[Ann]

Roy, I won't be snarky.

I'm a progressive liberal and it's very simple to me. First off, I'm agnostic, so I don't have religious dogma to keep me from thinking clearly, rationally, and without bias.

Secondly, I think if two people love each other and want to marry, then let them. You can't help who you love, that's the bottom line. I am a heterosexual female and can't help the fact that I love a man; who am I to tell someone else who they can or cannot love and marry?

By the way, I think this is the Christ-like thing to do. Yes, I'm agnostic, but I do believe Jesus walked the earth 2,000 years ago and I'd bet he was a very tolerant human being.

[Mike O'Brien]

I'm part of a straight couple who has been together thirteen years, plans on having children soon, and plans on being together the rest of our lives. What we do not plan to do is get married, or at least not until gay couples can marry everywhere in the country. I would rather not sound high-and-mighty or holier-than-thou, but forty-odd years ago black people could not drink out of the same drinking fountains as white people could across the South. I would like to think I would not have drunk from a "whites-only" drinking fountain, and believe that in forty more years it will seem just as incredible and appalling that at one time gay couples couldn't marry as legalized racial prejudice seems to us now. I am hoping that voters in California will get on the right side of history.

[Paul]

Roy,

My simple answer, and I learned this from my time in Sunday School as a Catholic, is that God is a creator of love. Not once during Sunday School did I hear that God or Jesus hated anyone. Not once did I hear any of my teachers single out a specific demographic as immoral or evil.

I also learned from my parents that God was a loving creator. I learned that my parents had been oppressed at times, my mother for being a woman and my father for being latino. I learned the moral that no decent, harmless person should be oppressed. I learned to do unto others as you would have done to you.

I also learned from school to treat my peers with dignity and respect. I learned to work hard and I would be rewarded with equality and prosperity. I learned to stand up for others whom were being bullied and I learned what it was like to be bullied with no one standing up for you.

These are the roots of my morality, some of it religious education from my childhood, some lessons handed down to me from my parents, some from my schools, but all of these were lessons taught to me by my life experiences, and I consider my life experiences to be messages directly from God.

As for same-sex marriages, I think that the church should be deciding who can and can not get married.

But, as long as marriage is a government institution in addition to being a religious institution, morally I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed the equal opportunity to be married in the eyes of the government. Mind you that being married in the government does not mean you are married in the Church.

The real solution to this would have been to get the government out of the business of marriage and leave it up to the church.

[Fransisco Orange]

Antonio Villaraigosa gives $25,000? I wish I had that kind of money to give pro-8. Even anti-8 groups admit they need more than celebrity money to win. It's a good thing people with modest incomes are giving to pro-8 in droves. Grassroots movements live on!

Yes on 8

www.protectmarriage.com

[jess]

I agree with Fransisco...I want $25,000 to donate to support the Prop 8 campaign! YES on proposition 8!

www.protectmarriage.com
www.whatisprop8.com

[Rick]

I just finished reading the trail of posts and have to say this is a very reasonable group of people. Both sides have made some very good arguments for and against Prop 8. This issue, like many our country faces, is deeply rooted in one's personal beliefs. Our nation was founded because men and women felt so passionately about things like religious freedom. Because of this our original founding fathers made comments and adopted language like "One nation, under God..." and "In God we trust" We all know this is a battle that has been going on since the beginning of time. Most people will vote for or against Prop 8 based on where their personal beliefs lie, myself included.

Over the past several decades there has been a lot of progress made toward equality, upon which our nation was founded. I must admit however, this swing toward equality is undermining the very religious beliefs and rights that the founding fathers were fighting for in the beginning. Paradox in a way. Its a tough balance. There is no perfect way, no real solution, but what IS perfect about all of this is that "We the People" get to exercise our right to vote. I think that is great!

If you're wondering I'm voting YES on Prop 8 because of my core beliefs about the institution of marriage. (It also really irritates me that our supreme court justices overturned a previous decision by the "people"...funny how many others I know are voting yes just on that principal alone) I did my research at www.whatisprop8.com that steered me towards my "Yes" vote.

[Andrew]

Take Five:

Here's my problem with your reasoning. Let's go back to California's definition of marriage before this spring--the definition set by Prop. 22. That defined marriage as a union between a man and woman who are both consenting adults.

By that definition, many of the incestuous scenarios you fear appear to already have been condoned by the state. The only thing that prevents them is the taboo against it and obvious health defects that arise from it. We don't appear to need a slippery slope of any kind for this kind of situation to arise, and we don't appear to have a rash of incest marriages to deal with right now. If that's the case, then why will legalizing gay marriage change anything?

[Jerry]

The "No On 8" remarks submitted in this blog have already said it so well......there's really nothing more I can add. OK, I'll just add that, quite frankly, those who support Prop 8 on religious grounds discredit the very religion that they claim to stand for. Prop 8 is discriminatory, hateful, and breeds of a "holier-than-thou" mindset coming from supporters who THINK they've got it all figured out (the Bible, God, etc...) and that anyone who acts in a way contrary to their mindset is wrong. That, my friends, is arrogance. Arrogance is a sin, at least as much of a sin as what the Prop 8 supporters THINK they're fighting to stamp out. Remember, not every word in the Bible can be taken literally.

Vote NO WAY on Prop 8

[Henry]

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL????

whatisprop8.com
whatisprop8.com
whatisprop8.com
whatisprop8.com

[scott]

I find it amazing that so much money has been donated, "from out of state by the mormons," to have prop 8 pass. Hmmm, people who want to marry their relatives...that is a family values group isn't it? I guess ignorance is really prevalent amongst those who like to discriminate because they think they have the right to tell someone else what to do and how to do it. It should be a requirement for everyone to read the bill of rights again and again after the age of 30. And be reminded that when they speak of religion opposing same sex marriage, both religion and marriage were created by MAN not GOD. Man has always been the one to breed discrimination and hate.

One last note, 'A COMMITMENT IS A FAMILY VALUE TOO!" VOTE "NO" ON PROP 8!!!

[Hunter Swift]

Please VOTE YES on PROP 8 This is not about Homosexuals and their rights (since this will not affect any of the their rights or priviledges they already receive under the Domestic Parternship Laws. This is about our children! If you don't vote Yes on Prop 8, our kids will be required to learn that same sex marriage is the same as regular marriage in schools. They will have to be taught in sexual education both hetrosexual and homsexual practices, otherwise the schools will be discrimatory for not treating them equally. It also affects our freedom of religion. If the church I belong to doesnt believe in same sex marriage, and denies a gay couple to marry they can sue the church for being discriminating, and even be accused of "Hate Speeches" if they speak against same sex marriage. We let homosexuals do what they want with their feelings, their lifestyle, their love, and in the confines of their home. Don't force us to treat same sex marriage as equal and force it to our kids. Please Please Vote Yes on Prop 8.

[Roy]

I wanted to thank each of you who took the time to write a true, open, honest answer according to your views without being snide about it. It is nice to know that we can discuss these issues without letting rhetoric get in the way. I think we all too often take the rhetoric at face value and fail to understand the deep-seeded feelings that are underneath.

I do not know if I received an answer to the question I am truly seeking, which is, where are your core values grounded. Most Christians have the 10 Commandments or Sermon on the Mount. Hindus have the Vedas. Buddhism has the 4 noble truths. What do agnostics have? What do athiests have? What do secularist have?

There were several responses that talked about love. I applaud your hearts and appreciate your sincere approach to accepting and loving all people (this world definitely needs that). Sometimes I feel we (religious and non-religious alike) hold so dear to doctrines that we forget to love. Having said that, and knowing some answers were based on teachings at a Catholic/Christian church, I have to say that while Christ did love everyone...he did not condone sin. Love the sinner hate the sin. Sometimes as impefect people I think we get those confused or blur the two.

If I can explain my view. We live in a time and an age where religious people are marginalized for their views of what "progressives" see as archaic and out of touch with todays reality. To me, everything is faith-based. People no more know that the world was formed by primordial aminoacids than it was formed by the hand of a more intelligent creator. Both are taken on Faith based on the results that we see. Although the principles of physics are explainable, they still require faith that those who taught it are correct in their explanations. Teachers, then, are similar to preachers. Each are just using a different set of skills to process, validate, and explain the universe.

Why this loquacious philosophical rambling? Simply, many of you view the world as "religious" vs "non-religious." I do not see that. I see religions vs religions (and secularism, angostic, and athiests are equally religious doctrines on a different plane). Many of you feel that religion is trying to push their views on the secular. Whereas I, and most of my friends and family, feel that the state/secularist are trying to push their "beliefs" on us. There's the rub.

I wish there was a way that each side could come to the table to get what they are seeking. I believe that many same-gender couples fear that passing of prop 8 also threatens other rights that they have fought hard for. I know many in favor of prop 8 fear that the failure of the prop means the pervasiveness of the lifestyle even to the eradication of vocalizing their views. Again, there's the rub.

Is there no way to preserve in our society of traditional marriage while expanding rights under domestic partnership? I realize the later is not a "romantic" term, but that term doesn't have to stick.

One responder talked of the sexual revolution that happened 40 years ago. I never lived through it, but I can see the impact of it. There were some good things that have come out of it, but for the most part I fear that our society has become oversexualized. It is apparent on television, billboards, classroom discussions, and practically everywhere. We've cancelled our cable subscription, we do not need that stuff. My children do not need to be sexualized so young.

I fear the reverberations that will impact our society decades down the road if we allow this pervasiveness to permiate every aspect of our society. My belief, simply.

Again, I apprecaite each of your views on this matter, but I hope you can respect me for not agreeing with you whole heartedly. I wish we could compromise somewhere, I do not know if that is at all possible. As much as I appreciate, respect, and attempt to love each of you, I cannot condone that which I fundamentally believe to be wrong. By voting to uphold same-gender marriages, I feel that I would be giving it my blessing and thus accountable to my God.

Good luck to all of you.
Sincerely,
Roy

[Ann]

My 9-year-old daughter has seen the commercials for and against Prop 8, and of course she asked me what they meant.

Well, last night we saw that commecial with the little girl coming home from school with a book (I think it says something like the King and King, instead of King and Queen) and her mom disapproves because she doesn't want same-sex marriage taught in school. (I didn't even know marriage was taught in school, but that's a whole different issue.)

Anyway, when the commercial was over, my daughter said, "C'mon, this is America! It's a free country!"

I wish things were that simple and I wish we really were a free country. Prop 8 is discrimination, pure and simple.

[Michael]

"This moral foundation provides a basis for my outlook on life and the way I behave and interact with people. Part of that moral reasoning is the sanctity of sexual relationships to be used for the divine purpose for which they were created. I also know that it is in, and only within, a loving marriage between a man and a woman that a child of God can find ultimate joy and happiness in this world and the world to come."

Roy, you answer your own question here. You have found a way of life that emerges from your personal experience of relationship with the divine. My own relationship with God is completely different than yours because you and I are completely different people. I enjoy a rich and meaningful relationship with another man whom I have loved for over 15 years. There are three participants in that relatinhsip - me, him and God. We believe that the same grace that is poured out for you is also poured out for us. Unconditional love means exactly that - UNCONDITIONAL love. Simply because our relationship with God differs from your own doesn't negate the sanctity of that experience. Prop 8 really isn't about who gets to marry in this state, it is an attempt to legislate theology that will then be forced upon every citizen of the state, regardless of their own beliefs.

[Ann]

"Prop 8 really isn't about who gets to marry in this state, it is an attempt to legislate theology that will then be forced upon every citizen of the state, regardless of their own beliefs."

I think you hit the nail on the head and that's why I'm so against Prop 8. I may be straight, but I don't want religious beliefs amended in the state's constitution.

California is supposed to be a progressive and forward-thinking state; this amendment would only set it back.

[Roy]

Michael,

Thank you for your comments.

You said, "it is an attempt to legislate theology that will then be forced upon every citizen of the state, regardless of their own beliefs."

This was a major point of my previous post. Whether you are pro same-gender marriage or against sam-gender marraige, Theology is stuck in the middle. Your Theology says it is sanctioned My Theology says it is not. You fear that prop 8 will push my theology and theologies like mine upon all the citiziens. My family, friends, and myself fear that if prop 8 does not pass, your theology will be pushed upon me and the rest of society. We're at odds.

Again, I appeal for us to find common ground, but I do not have that solution, nor do I feel either side would seriously consider it. Its seems in our political arena today, it is all or nothing.

[Concerned in California]

Undecided on Prop 8??? Consider that to tolerate is not the same thing as to condone. Tolerance is a lens through which we should view all people, including gay and lesbian people. We cannot and should not condone all actions. You can love people without loving what they do.

Voting Yes on Prop 8 is a vote for tolerance. Voting Yes on 8 guarantees that rights will be preserved for traditional marriages and for domestic partnerships. Voting Yes on Prop 8 is NOT intolerant, bigoted, or discriminatory. Please vote YES on Prop 8!

http://www.protectmarriage.com
www.whatisprop8.com
http://concernedincalifornia.blogspot.com

[rc]

Those who are proponents of Prop 8 supports hatred, discrimination and unequal treatment. How can we as a society do this? Equal but separate...sounds familiar?

The biggest supporters of prop 8 are religious groups. Why don't we ban divorces if prop 8 pases. Fair is fair.

NO to HATE. NO on 8
DONATE: www.NoOnProp8.com

[Katie]

I am deeply saddened by the current poll numbers. In all of this, reading through all of the posts, there is not a single person that can convince me that letting gay people get married will in any way infringe on the rights of straight couples. The things that people say "when will it stop? slippery slope, what's next brother and sister and people marrying goats?" are you serious? You know not so long ago during the civil rights movement people said "equal rights for blacks? what next, letting them vote, a black president!!"

You want to bring up the founding fathers? I don't think they could have ever imagined that over 200 years later we are one of the most intolerant, uneducated societes in the world. That was not their dream.

Injustice to anyone is unjustice to everyone, Prop 8 is an injustice whether your are gay or straight. Slippery slopes you want to bring up? What next, denying the rights of latinos to marry blacks? Or how about someone who has already been married? That's not cool in YOUR bible either is it. Oh I know, if you have had sex before marriage you cannot get married. In fact I don't think Christians should be allowed to marry, they don't hold my beliefs and I don't understand they're religion based on intolerance and hate, we shall make it illegal.

I could slippery slope you all day but it only gets more ridiculous. The thing is I know it's ridiculous, I wish intolerant folks would see how ridiculous they are being.

If I can't get married and be afforded equal rights then I don't think I should have to pay the same amount of taxes as people that are afforded equal rights. It's only fair no? Life isn't fair though, the older I get and the longer I live here the more I realize it. No on Prop 8

[rc]

Proponents of Prop 8 continue to lie in their television ads.
Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:

LIE: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

TRUTH: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

LIE: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

TRUTH: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

LIE: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

TRUTH: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

LIE Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
TRUTH: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

LIE: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
TRUTH: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

LIE: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
TRUTH: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

LIE: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
TRUTH: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8

NO to HATE. NO on 8
DONATE: www.NoOnProp8.com

[Martin]

I must say this is the first and only thoughtful, kind and intelligent discussion of Proposition 8 I have seen anywhere. Thank you, Roy, for starting the thread, and thanks to everyone who contributed to it.

Roy, I appreciate your position. It is not an easy one. It is a position that my father, a southern Baptist minister in North Carolina, and my mother hold. I have been out to them for ten years and we have done the best we can with our relationship, loving each other, trying to convince each other, respecting each other and in the end loving each other again. They do not recognize my husband of seven years or the two children we have adopted, but they do love me. It’s not easy.

I have to disagree with your position that this is a religion vs. religion world. I am indeed a religious person, active in the United Methodist Church, but I recognize how important it is for the State to remain separate from the Church. When these lines blur, it is a recipe for misery. We can only have a just and equitable society when the state is not tied to religion. The diversity of religions is too great for any one of them to serve as an effective compass for a government. Furthermore, religions depend on faith and are nourished by passion. The law, as Aristotle said, is reason, free from passion.

I maintain that we need a state that is governed by law, free from passion. We may indeed borrow from religious texts and dogma when we set up societies, but we can borrow the parts we all agree on. Fairness, honesty, respect for human life and other common themes of the world’s religions make for a fine society. Roy, when you asked for a common ground for all sides, a place where we can all come to the table to get what we are seeking, I think we have to look to government as that common ground.

What I appreciate most about your post, Roy, is that you make it clear what “protecting marriage” means to you.

I am sure you have all heard this before, but I like the solution of leaving the term “marriage” for church based ceremonies, but having civil unions (or some more romantic term) be the only relationships recognized by the government. So the system in place would remain the same: Straight couples wouldn’t have to get married in courthouses to be recognized by the state – they could get married in churches if they want, and as long as they fill out the paperwork correctly they will also be united in the eyes of the law.

It seems to me that this protects “marriage”, but it also doesn’t treat my relationship any differently than yours IN THE EYES OF THE STATE. We must be equal in our privileges and responsibilities in the eyes of the State. If you or your church do not consider us to be married, that is fine. But we must have the same rights as you and your wife, must have the same responsibilities, must have the same worth as couple, in the eyes of the law. Separate is not equal in the eyes of the State.

One day, I hope we can let the disagreement over the term marriage lie with the Church, and have a new, equitable arrangement for the State. In the meantime, I am voting against Proposition 8, to preserve equity and justice for everyone in the State.

[hst in LA]

the unemployment rate in CA is 7.7%. Wanna raise it and get less tourism? then support prop 8

[Nancy]

Consequences of Prop. 8 passing:

* A state constitution will now have language in it that says that everyone is equal except one group of people.
* Fundies will be emboldened to try to change the constitution to remove more civil rights from gay people.
* Other hate groups will get the idea that discrimination can be written into the constitution, including against women and minorities
* Children of existing gay families will lose the right to health care
* Existing gay families will lose the legal protections afforded married couples, including the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to take over the legal affairs of your spouse if they become incapacitated, etc.
* Long legal battles that will waste the state's money will ensue as civil rights groups move to reverse Prop. 8 and have it declared illegal.
* The State of California will lose millions in revenue from hosting gay weddings (read the legislative analyst report)
* Churches and religious institutions will not have any protection from legal restrictions or requirements, unless they are state-funded.
* Schools will not be stopped from "teaching" homosexuality since educational curriculums are decided by local authorities and have nothing to do with the state constitution
* California will have made a strong statement saying that Hate is OK - this may be the worst effect of all. We will reap the rewards of encouraging hate, which are societal dischord and unrest, and breaking the contract people expect with our country which is that we are all treated equally with respect under the law.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Hate is not a family value.

[DSR]

Proposition 8 does not take away the rights of those with same-sex attraction. California Law grants the same rights and priviledges to Domestic Partners as to Married Couples. If you do not believe it, here is the code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

[Harry R. Sohl]

"Proposition 8 does not take away the rights of those with same-sex attraction. California Law grants the same rights and priviledges to Domestic Partners as to Married Couples."

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. There are more than 1,000 federal laws that protect married people - none of those are afforded to domestic partners.

Examples:
1) Not being forced to testify against your spouse in a court of law, as Rosie O'Donnell's domestic partner was required to recently.

2) Having indisputable final say in medical decisions, as Terri Shaivo's husband did.

3) Being guaranteed to decide where your spouse is buried (should you want to be buried next to them or not) as Terri Shaivio's husband did.

4) Receiving Social Security benefits and rights-of -survivorship in federal courts/matters.

5) Access to divorce to allow the state to help maintain an equitable balance of disbursements of common properties/incomes - alimony, child-support, community-property rules, etc.

There are at least 996 more.

[DSR]

If you have a problem with Federal Law, then that is a Federal Issue. This is an issue with California State Law.