Town Square

Post a New Topic

Downtown march celebrates Proposition 8 ruling

Original post made on Aug 5, 2010

Gay rights advocates gathered at the Mountain View Caltrain station this evening to celebrate the decision delivered by a federal judge today to overturn Proposition 8, the controversial initiative approved by California voters in 2008, which banned same-sex marriages.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 10:05 PM

Comments (25)

Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

Mountain View, you're a wonderful town filled with great people from all walks of life. While other places were still segregated, folks of different races were falling in love at Mountain View High and starting families like the one I grew up in. While other parts of the country are still trying to understand and accept love between gay couples, folks in Mountain View were marching for their equality.

I've always been proud to call Mountain View my hometown, and it brings me a lot of happiness to see this celebration on our own Castro Street.

Posted by whaaaaaat, a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:07 pm

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Also why do the gays have to have a parade for everything? remember that gay parade when subway announced they had $5 footlongs? They have a parade for everything. That in it self is GAY.

Posted by Andy, a resident of Shoreline West
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm

This is truly a great step forward, but only a step. No doubt that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose.

However, isn't it equally prejudiced to limit marriage to being just between two consenting adults. If three or more wish to form a marital union then why should it not be permitted, as long as it is consensual among all parties involved?

Moreover, isn't barring marriage between related individuals also equally outmoded and outdated? What is truly wrong with two brothers, a mother and a daughter, or a brother and a father entering into a marriage as long as all parties are consenting adults?

If you say no to any of the above, then aren't you imposing your moral and value framework onto free thinking and free willed adults. Isn't this the very same behavior that those opposed to gay marriage are accused of indulging in?

Posted by The Dad, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm

I'm a straight, married man with children.My entire family and I fully support EQUAL RIGHTS for EVERYONE! If we can expect the same "justification" for Prop 8 at the Supreme Court level as we saw for this case, I welcome it going there. We can finish this thing once and for all on a national level. When its facts against personal beliefs and mob rule, facts will win in the Supreme Court.

Posted by Hillbilly, a resident of Waverly Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

That's great, since I'm interested one day in marrying my two sisters.

Posted by Thom, a resident of Jackson Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Morals anyone?

Posted by MVManMarriedFor29or2years, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Aug 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm

As a gay Mountain View resident, who married my partner of 27 years just two years ago in a ceremony conducted by Ken Yeager, President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors - I was thrilled at the support that the people at the train station and along Castro street gave us while marching on Wednesday.

It has wonderful to see people getting up from their tables to applaud the marchers as we walked past, and the cheers and honks from supportive people driving past.

Mountain View is a wonderful place, where the huge majority of people are tolerant of others' races, religions, beliefs and orientations. I love it here.

Re: Morals anyone?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that "moral" issues are not the interest of the state unless there is a clear secular benefit.

"The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947)." (a US Supreme Court reference from the text of yesterday's ruling)

So, I embrace your freedom to follow your moral beliefs as long as they have no negative impact on society - but please give me the same respect. Believe what you like, but don't put religious edicts into the Constitution (CA and US) that we all share.

Posted by Californian mom, a resident of Cuernavaca
on Aug 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm


Excellent point! For what I see no one replied to your comment because they know that it is impossible to justify the unjustifiable.

Posted by Ray Hixson, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:51 pm

The morals I believe in include love, fairness, equality, and appreciating the amazing diversity of others. Sometimes dogmas are confused with morals. They are not the same thing. You can tell the difference pretty easily. Dogmas tend to divide, rather than unite. Dogmas are often long-held beliefs that are later clearly revealed to have been true. That does include many things in the Bible. The Bible has many wonderful and inspiring passages. But it was written by humans and is a very human document. The inconsistences in the Bible are pointed out and accepted without fear at most seminaries. And it is ok that many things in the Bible were simply not correct in light of what we've learned in the last 2000+ years.

Posted by Ray Hixson, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm

My sentence above has a typo, and should have said: Dogmas are often long-held beliefs that are later clearly revealed to have been untrue.

Posted by arnie, a resident of Castro City
on Aug 6, 2010 at 6:04 am

Wow, Ray. Thanks for clearing that up. I doubt any of us were capable of arriving at such a complex conclusion. But I am a little tired of this whole "appreciating the amazing diversity of others". Humans, in the evolutional spread of things are hardly diverse as a species. The diversity you speak of is just some mumbo jumbo fluff. Biologically speaking, humans are a pretty ordinary and alike. And the only way they can procreate is when a man and a woman get together (or these days, when some of their fluids get together). No diversity required. Doesn't matter what race they are, or their political, religious views, or what they consider the differences between morale and dogma. However, deeply rooted morals are, admittedly, in place (for example, some pretty strong morals forbid incest, although it does occur at times). HOWEVER, it just don't happen when two men, or two women get together. All that happens is that gays and lesbians run around trying to convince others that it just ain't so. And I beg to differ that we've learned anything in 2000+ years as you put it. Mostly, because our life spans are so much shorter. But if you want to cling to that ridiculous notion, then you might want to go back several tens of thousands of years more while you are at it.

Posted by Ned, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 6, 2010 at 7:12 am

Ray. So the Bible doesn't teach us anything about morals. Thou shall not kill, steal, etc? You missed out on about 2000+ years of education Ray. Many aspects of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc are based on the morals and dogma of the Bible. It's been proven time and again. It's indisputable. Try again.

Posted by Observer, a resident of Waverly Park
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:05 am

The Bible also tells you to that it's better to give your daughter over to some guy to be raped rather than have that guy sleep with another guy. Great moral values there. Jacob had several wives -- so I wouldn't worry about gay marriage eventually leading to plural marriage -- we'll only be going back to the Bible's origial morals. And let's keep those women's heads covered, and make sure they stay quiet in church!

Posted by Observer, a resident of Waverly Park
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:12 am

Arnie -- reference your comment about "unless their fluids get together." "It just don't happen" for a lot of hetero couples, either -- either by choice or nature. If it's not OK to procreate using donor sperm or eggs, then lots of nice, heterosexual, infertile couples will be sad to learn that they are being morally reprehensible by undergoing fertility treatments and having a baby. If it's only OK to procreate naturally, then it's not OK for those people to have babies "unnaturally." But if procreation by any means is OK, then the stigma about gays not being able to procreate naturally, hence are not eligible for the social and legal contract we call marriage, sort of falls apart.

Posted by Seer, a resident of Castro City
on Aug 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm

Ned, if the Bible is the source of the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees that "all men are created equal" and ensures 1) equality; 2) Freedom of and from religion; 3) Equal protection under the law for all citizens, then HOW CAN THE BIBLE BE USED TO JUSTIFY PROP 8, since prop 8 violates all of those Constitutional requirements?

Posted by Ned, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 6, 2010 at 5:11 pm

I was addressing Ray's logic and not Prop 8. And your last sentence is not consequential to my argument anyway.

Posted by Ray Hixson, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm

I agree there are many wonderful, inspiring, and true parts of the Bible. It also has parts that we know are not true. It was written by humans, and not surpisingly is not perfect. The history of the Bible is a very interesting subject, and there are some great books out there that go into great detail about the subject including some by Karen Armstrong, and one I recently read called Jesus Interupted.

On biology, there's no real question that people don't choose to be gay. Given the dsicrimination we face, that should be a matter of common sense. I was verbally and physically assaulted on a pretty regualar basis at school for seven years growing up. Also, nobody decides whether or not to be attracted to someone. It just doesn't work like that. There is no serious scientific dispute about the matter either. Not surprisingly, homosexuality has been found across nature. It is completely natural.

The purpose of attraction is not just to procreate. Otherwise, why would people who cannot pro-create still be attracted to each other? Attraction is a wonderful part of sharing your life with someone.

For me, morals are not about someone's status or who they are. They are about how we live. For me, morals are things like love, kindness, compassion, honesty, integrity, authenticity, and generosity.

I respect someone's right to view moral's differently, and having separation of church and state is meant to give us all the space to enjoy our freedoms and liberties despite our different views.

Posted by Veteran, a resident of Waverly Park
on Aug 7, 2010 at 4:43 pm

I'm getting tired of these prima donas. Next time empty out the Palo Alto VA hospital, hospital, wheelchairs and walkers, and give them a parade down Castro street.

Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community
on Aug 7, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Morals should be private, i knew and know gay and lesbians that have more morals then some straight people. I am Christian, i know in the eyes of god it is wrong but then i am not to judge, I support same sex marraige, and would attend and be part of for friends and family

Posted by Rene, a resident of Whisman Station
on Aug 7, 2010 at 9:39 pm

Morals are the product of a collective group, not an individual. Basic sociology. Stop trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Posted by mom"s, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm

twice we voted prop 8 down. California votes said NO

Posted by dad, a resident of Gemello
on Aug 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

Wow, no wonder Prop 8 didn't win by a landslide. California twice voted Yes on the issue, not NO.

Posted by Russ, a resident of Castro City
on Aug 8, 2010 at 3:08 pm

We voted and Californians don't want marriage to stat between man and woman. We voted to keep it that way.

Posted by GayAndMarried, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

You missed the point, Russ. You don't get to vote on MY rights. It's unconstitutional, that was the ruling. Just like you don't get to vote on whether women get to vote or whether slavery is legal. We have the RIGHT to the same rights you do. It's called equality.

Posted by Russ, a resident of Castro City
on Aug 9, 2010 at 7:47 pm

You don't have it right prop 8 is not about slavery or woman's rights.
and our constitution was based on religion. besides as gays you can have all the benefits from life insurance, health benefits. Marriage is between a man and a woman. We voted on it twice and the people have spoken. and that is equality.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,887 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,062 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,228 views

Just say no
By Jessica T | 5 comments | 1,109 views

Questions for Council Candidates--Housing
By Steve Levy | 7 comments | 277 views