Town Square

Post a New Topic

Our position on Props. 5 to 8

Original post made on Oct 26, 2008

Last week the Voice offered recommendations on the first four propositions on the Nov. 4 ballot. This week we continue our analysis with Propositions 5 to 8, and will complete the series next week with Propositions 9 to 12.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 24, 2008, 12:00 AM

Comments (90)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Burford Furman
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 26, 2008 at 9:35 pm

I disagree with your recommendation to vote NO on Proposition 8. Up until the recent California Supreme Court ruling, all Californians shared *equally* the same rights and restrictions with regard to marriage: "An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage." (Family Code section 301). Marriage law in this state and in most parts of the world has codified what should be self-evident: that man and woman are designed for each other sexually. No judicial decision at any level, legislative action, or majority vote can change this fact of life. We need to pay attention to human physiology, medical research, and human history and not be deceived by emotional appeals on the matter of marriage.

I do agree with your statement, "that society as a whole benefits when more individuals, of whatever sexual preference, commit to love and support each other." And it is true that many in our state form alternative family relationships. The state has recognized this with domestic partnership law, but it does not follow that the state is thereby obligated to change the definition of marriage to accommodate the desire of a few who are involved in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender.

History and biology show that the model of marriage between a man and a woman is what is best for society. What is best for society is therefore what ought to be sanctioned by the government. I urge a YES vote on Proposition 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brad
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2008 at 11:34 am

The courts were correct in overturning "separate but equal" status more than 40 years ago, and they are again correct in rejecting "separate but equal" domestic partnerships as an equivalent to marriage. Californians will someday look back and shake our heads in wonder that there was even a debate about whether or not gay people should be issued marriage licenses by our government, just as we look back in wonderment at the prohibition of interracial marriages. I sincerely and profoundly hope this new era of equality can ushered in on November 5th, the day after voters have soundly rejected Proposition 8 as the discriminative, divisive, and unjust measure that it is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Eric
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Mr. Furman's comment repeats the same illogical arguments from those proposing this piece of discriminatory law. Regardless of your beliefs, it should be clear that Proposition 8 is a knee-jerk reaction from people who have yet to put forth a real argument as to how same-sex couples in a legal marriage are harming anything. Passage of proposition 8 will, however, result in tangible negative effects thanks to sanctioned discrimination that will affect Californians for a long time. Vote No on Prop 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Eav
a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 28, 2008 at 10:11 am

VOTE YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2008 at 10:39 am

Pro drugs and homosexuality and soft on crime ... didn't see that coming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Everyone
a resident of Rex Manor
on Oct 28, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I love listening to the Prop 8 commercial. "We don't believe people should be treated differently." . LOL. What a joke.

As a Pro-2A I find this funny that the folks who support prop 8 are nothing more then flip-floppers. What do you expect out of people who have there own agenda? They become the victim when they want something. But they got no problem going against my civil libertys. Get real.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by AlanL
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2008 at 9:03 pm

To those voting Yes on 8, I'd like to ask you respectfully, how would you feel if you had to ask every Californian how they felt about your right to marry your husband/wife, who I'm sure you love dearly. How would you feel if your right to marry your husband/wife, who I'm sure you love dearly, was taken away from you? I have been with my partner for 11 years - we pay our taxes, we contribute to our communities, we are both professionals. No-one who knows us questions our right to marry because they know we are decent law-abiding citizens like everyone else. Yet thousands of you in favor of Prop 8 spend endless time and energy trying to legislate over the lives of millions of Californians who you don't know and you don't understand. Is it not somehow convenient that you reject the court decision? Why not just reject all court decisions you don't agree with? It was decided by four Republican justices might I remind you, who are hardly activist judges. They realized when coming to know many of the gay couples represented in the case, that it was amoral and illegitimate to deny marriage rights to people who exhibited commitment and love beyond many heterosexual couples. Courts are there to protect minorities and uphold justice, and are a key feature of American democracy. Yet you feel obliged to overturn this decision because you don't personally agree with it. Your idea of 'traditional marriage' is so hypocritical. Marriage as we know it has not been around in virtually all societies. If we were to use historical marriage as a benchmark, we should be supporting arranged marriage and polygamy which have been dominant in many historical societies. We would also support a system where women were subservient to men as has been the case in most historical versions of marriage. Divorce was also illegal in many societies - why aren't you trying to ban divorce in the California constitution? I suspect you, like many others supporting Prop 8, root your support in religion. Don't you think Jesus would have wanted you to spend your time doing things like spreading peace and love, helping the poor, helping the sick, upholding justice for all? Instead you waste your time infringing on the rights of people who love one another and want nothing more than to be left in peace. If, as many proponents of Prop 8 argue, marriage is an institution for children, then why not legislate against straight couples who choose not to have children? Why don't you take away the rights of infertile couples to marry? Why don't you ban divorce as it affects children? Yet instead you just pick on gay people. And the answer is at your core all of you are a bunch of hypocrites and bigots. Why don't you just come out in the open about it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON 8
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 28, 2008 at 11:53 pm

YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MICHAEL GARGANZA
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 28, 2008 at 11:54 pm

YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8 YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:59 am

Thank You Burford Furman VOTE YES ON 8 ;)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 29, 2008 at 10:59 am

Thank You Burford Furman VOTE YES ON 8 ;)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2008 at 3:32 pm

My vote is NO on 8 and I applaud The Voice's recommendation. I feel that Burford's arguments of history and biology are weak. How can history prove that the best model for society is between a man and a woman? It's been the only model until recently. As for his biology argument, how I choose to consummate my marriage is up to me and my partner. It doesn't specify how Betty, Brad, or Burford should consummate their marriages, and frankly it's none of my (or the government's) business.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ned
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2008 at 7:54 pm

History and civilizations have defined marriage between man and a woman for thousands of years. Why don't the opponents of Prop 8 invent their own all-inclusive term with all the same protections and be done with it? Biology teaches us that only a man and a woman can have a child. Every child deserves a stable family, hopefully with their biological mother and father and bound by marriage.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ned
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm

History and civilizations have defined marriage between man and a woman for thousands of years. Why don't the opponents of Prop 8 invent their own all-inclusive term with all the same protections and be done with it? Biology teaches us that only a man and a woman can have a child. Every child deserves a stable family, hopefully with their biological mother and father and bound by marriage.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:42 am

History and civilizations *defined* marriage as being between an often unwilling woman who was betrothed to a man by her family, she was treated like a piece of property to be exchanged.

Then history and civilizations often *defined* marriage as something to be pre-arranged without the consent of the two people getting married.

History and our OWN country once *defined* marriage as being between only members of the same race just a generation ago.

Just because it's the way we did something in the past does not mean it is right.

The definition of marriage has evolved over time, and thankfully, today, marriage is seen by most people as a bond of love and commitment between two adults, whether they are straight or gay. If certain churches want to continue to only define it as between a man and woman, so be it. Prop 8 has nothing to do with their ability to chose who to marry. But DO NOT write discrimination into our State's Constitution. Do not prevent those churches who support same-sex marriage to practice THEIR beliefs. Most importantly, do not let one group of people take Constitutional rights away from another group of people. It would be an unprecedented and dangerous step backwards in our nation's long march toward equal rights.

Please, Vote NO on Prop 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:55 am

Hey Ned - neat idea! What if we were to call it Garried instead of Married. Then everyone will know that the two guys down the street are Garried and not Married. Plus, that will save you and your wife the countless hours of explaining to people that you are straight-Married and not gay-Married. As for Marriage history, you are wrong, unless you are discounting the entire Roman Empire. The Roman Empire acknowledged same-sex couples as being married until the Christians deemed it to be illegal in the year 342. And lastly, we are talking about Marriage here, not having kids. I think these are two completely different topics unless your argument is that a man and woman have to bear a child to be considered married. NO ON 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by close reader
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Actually, Steve unintentionally touched on the real heart of this debate: It's not so much about specific legal rights (civil unions already offered those) but about the term "married." This makes it a semantic debate, not a human rights debate.

What if gays were allowed to get "civil union" licenses, and straights were given "marriage" licenses, which were exactly the same except for the name? Well in many states we had that. But it wasn't enough: gays wondered, why can't we be "married" too? And they were right -- the state was defining marriage to be a certain thing that excluded them.

But here's the rub: granting gays "marriage" licenses is still a case of the state defining marriage -- only now it's defining it in a way that goes against the very long-held beliefs of a whole other group of Americans. This is still wrong.

The solution is simple. The state needs to not hand out "marriage" licenses at all. Instead, grant civil union licenses, which accord all those important legal rights. Then you, me, Steve, Ned, my gay neighbor and everybody else can commit ourselves to whoever we see fit and if I don't want to recognize the gay neighbor's "marriage" because I'm a devout Catholic or whatever, well I don't have to. And he doesn't have to care. The state -- and this is the important part -- is out of this dumb argument altogether.

For these reasons I don't care about Prop. 8 one way or the other. I think the whole debate is way off base.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 30, 2008 at 2:45 pm

VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I can understand Close's viewpoint on this, but must disagree. At the end of the day, that really looks too much like a 'seperate but equal' scenario.

"Biology Teaches us..."-- OK, fine. Only a man and a woman can reproduce. Your arguement, if truly carried out, invalidates the legitimacy of every childless marriage, every adoptive family, and if one reads between the lines just a tiny bit, every marriage between atheists, too.

The level of discourse on this initiative is pathetic-- the entire 'Yes' campaign has centered around an utter lie-- that, somehow, gay marriage would be "taught" in the schools. Again, do you also wish to deny any discussion of other non-Beaver Cleaver families? For that matter, show me the public school that "teaches" about heterosexual marriage! The State superintendent of schools squashed this notion, but the false 'Yes' campaign remains unchanged. And the level of the "debate" waged by the Yes folks on this thread speaks for itself (I'm not referring to the few that actually made a case that I happen to disagree with).

Here is my question-- I have yet to hear anyone answer this-- How does a gay marriage in any way diminish my marriage? Will I suddenly start cheating on my wife if a married lesbien couple moves on my block? Will I start leaving the toilet seat up? Will my wife start to get curious about alternate lifestyles? Will she stop folding laundry? If my kids play with their kids, will they catch "the gay"?

Live and Let Live. If you can take away someone else's rights, then someone can take away yours. If someone else's right seems trivial to you, then your rights can seem trivial to someone else. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"- ever hear of that?

Bravo, Voice. No on 8!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Long Time MV Resident
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Please preserve traditional marriage and VOTE YES on 8. Civil unions between same sex partners is ok but don't confuse it with "marriage."

VOTE YES on 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by close reader
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Great comments, Eric. And yes the level of discourse has been pathetic, mostly.

You ask a central question: "How does a gay marriage in any way diminish my marriage?"

Only in one way, which is self-perception. People want to *believe* that marriage is a certain thing and that it's special (even though they don't act like it is), and it galls them that the state would dare to *define* marriage -- this part is important -- in any way other than the "traditional" way they regard it.

In other words, they always thought gay marriage was a certain thing, and now the state is telling them it is that thing, AND something else they disagree with. They wonder: why should they state tell me what marriage is or isn't? And I believe they're right: the state shouldn't. Just like it shouldn't tell gays what marriage is or isn't. There should be no Prop. 8, because there should be no state-sanctioned "marriage" of any sort. That's not separate but equal, it's just ... live and let live.

So to answer your question, gay marriage diminishes nothing but the traditionalists' self-perception. After all, "marriage" just a word. (See comment by Long Time MV Resident.) But self-perception is important, and not to be dismissed or treated lightly. Like I said, this is a semantic debate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Close, I found your liertarian take on it worthwhile, too- I would argue that all marriages are essentially civil unions by your description. By your definition (I agree, largely semantic), would it be appropriate to call a union of two heterosexual athiests a 'marriage'? One between a Jewish man and a Catholic woman? If "marriage" is, as you imply, just a religious construct, I think you'd have to say no-- in light of that, I suggest that 'marriage' has to be the catch-all.

I was more or less in your camp at one point. Consider this, though-- at one point in our not-too-distant history, it offended the self-perception of many that african-americans were granted equal treatment-- shoot, that a black man and a white woman would be "allowed" to marry for that matter!

I agree that this is largely semantics. I dont think that Prop 8 supporters do, though. That's why I'm voting No.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SkepticAl
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:43 am

Well said, Eric. Those who oppose gay marriage consistently fall back on arguments that the court rightly rejected, and that more and more courts are rejecting.

Tradition - a tradition of discrimination has no legal basis for continuing.
"Will of the voters" - voters have approved many ideas that don't pass Constitutional muster.
"The children!" - this standard is not applied to straight couples. (Heck - two convicted child abusers are allowed to marry each other). You can't apply separate standards and claim it's equal.
Biology of sex - well, your view of it - and again, no similar test applied to hetero couples whose sexual practices may deviate from your view of normal.
The Bible - oh wow - let's legalize slavery and execute people for all sorts of sins!
Slipper slope - "we'll have incest and polygamy next" - first of all, no one is clamoring for those, and secondly, there's no legal basis to deny someone equal rights now because you hypothesize that it will open the door for different people with different legal status might someday attempt something you don't like.

----Get over it. Gay marriage is no threat to anyone or anything. And folks, this is a one-way civil rights shift. There may be setbacks (like prop. 8 could pass), but look at where this issues is compared to ten years ago. Polling on this issue shows the younger generations don't see a problem here, and in 20, or 30, or 40 years, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. And while you're at it, check out the Constitution. It's "full faith and credit" clause will eventually be tested in federal court; just like a straight couple married in any state is legally married in every state, we'll soon have to face the CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT to recognize gay marriages from other states, or throw that clause of the Constitution out the window and enter total legal chaos. The only solution for the opposing view is to have states give up on "marriage" entirely. If all state unions are "civil unions" then there's equality in state law. You might be happy to have "marriage" limited to church. Of course, there are churches that perform same sex marriages - but you don't have to go to one.

Take a deep breath, read the LOGIC in the arguments (the legal arguments, not the biblical ones), and VOTE NO ON 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

A teacher took her students in SF to witness her marriage to a woman. Who said that marriage is not taught in school? The definition of marriage should not be perverted to mean anything but one man and one woman. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. If Same-Sex marriage is included it is a special right. What next polygamy, bestiality? What was our body designed to do and can we act outside of the designed purpose? Christians forced into the closet, because of so-called tolerant liberal people who can't face disagreement? I voted Yes on 8!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Why is same-sex marriage a "special right", Fred? What makes it one? Because it didnt used to be treated as a right? There are women alive today who would not have had the right to vote when they were born. You have neighbors that are directly descended from slaves. Do these people now hold "special rights"?

"Forced into a closet"-- Huh? That just makes no sense at all. Please explain

"What was our body designed to do and CAN WE ACT OUT OF THE DESIGNATED PURPOSE"-- wow, Fred. That implies regulating heterosexual consentual activity. Will you be turning your neighbors into the nooky police?

I live in a country founded on placing individual liberties ahead of the will of the state and the mob. What country do you live in, Fred?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mh
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 2, 2008 at 1:31 am

YES ON 8

The word "marriage" should not be used. Don't steal our word. You stole the rainbow and got away with it. Why not use your clever imaginations and create a different word? People might then consider voting NO on 8.

UNTIL THEN. . . . .

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN

YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rainbow thief ? really?
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2008 at 11:07 am

The YES on 8 logic, circa 1958 (these were all real arguments):

Allowing interracial marriage will harm the foundation of traditional marriage!

The 1958 Gallup poll just showed that 96% of white Americans are opposed to marriage between races: let the will of the people be heard!

It's against God's will and is unnatural, read Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Phinehas!

And think of the children, and the ENVIRONMENT of confusion they will be raised in!

Say NO to interracial marriage!

------------------------------

If you look back to 1948, you see a very similar situation here in California. That's the year the California State Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Sharp that banning inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional. It wasn't until 1960 that the US Supreme Court followed suit. As the Gallup poll illustrated, the majority of people in the country, at that time, still believed inter-racial unions were wrong, many used the story of Phinehas from the Bible to support their claims.

If conservative religious groups had been as politically organized then as they are today - they probably would have tried to overturn the California court ruling and succeeded in banning inter-racial marriage for decades more. It'd be one thing if marriage was strictly a religious practice, but the reality we live in is that it's also a governmental right and status. Since the Civil Rights movement, our society has moved towards interpretations of the Constitution that grant minority groups the governmental rights they've long been denied, like inter-racial marriage, and now same-sex marriage. Prop 8 seeks to reverse that legacy and sets a frightening precedent for ballot-box determination of civil rights.

One day, most rational people will see that the arguments against same-sex marriage carry the same weight as the ones used against interracial marriage 50 years ago. Hopefully that day is Tuesday.

Please vote No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Alternative lifestyles need an alternative name.

Sexual intercourse is a phrase that means penile/vaginal penetration and anything else goes by another name. Gay union either by legal contract or sexual act need other names.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by yes on 8
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 2, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Hey everyone! Someone needs speak up and set up a rally to show that a majority of us in Mountain View believe in traditional marriages! We cannot let our beliefs be mislead by a bunch of morons that have no morality.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 8
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 3, 2008 at 1:18 am

The Mountain View Voice says NO on 8

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says NO on 8

The San Jose Mercury News says No on 8

US Senator and former CA Governor Diane Feinstein says No on 8

The San Francisco Chronicle says No on 8

US Senator Barbara Boxer says No on 8

The Los Angeles Times says No on 8

The California Federation of Teachers says No on 8

The San Diego Union Tribune says No on 8

The League of Women Voters says No on 8

The Orange County Register says No on 8

Google says No on 8

The Sacramento Bee says No on 8

Apple Computer says No on 8

The Contra Costa Times says No on 8

The New York Times says No on 8

....and many, many, many more newspapers (all major papers in California), organizations, businesses and elected leaders Say NO on 8: Web Link

Meanwhile, a guy from the Shoreline West neighborhood calls gay people "morons that have no morality" and says to vote yes on 8.

Heck, I would Vote No on 8 just so I wouldn't be in the same side as someone who makes a statement as ignorant as that.

I refused to vote to write discrimination into the State Constitution.

I voted No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Yes on Prop. 8 Californians should move to another state because California is not the place for you. There are PLENTY of states that will agree with your stance but this is not one of them. Happy travels! NO ON 8!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by love it and staying
a resident of The Crossings
on Nov 3, 2008 at 1:32 pm

The old "love it or leave it" argument. Surprised it took so long for somebody to type that one in.

It's almost as good as USA's embittered hyperbole or Ned's ghostly invocation of "history," "civilization" and "biology." But who can forget the all-time classic: "YES ON 8" cut-and-pasted over and over until it fills the screen.

Looking at the caliber of the arguments on this thread alone, anybody with the ability to think using REASON has to be leaning towards a NO vote on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 3, 2008 at 3:31 pm

love it -- So, you don't have a problem with No on 8's list of only left-leaning organizations?

(Yeah, the cut/past Yes on 8 was pointless.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I didnt know Schwartzenegger was left-leaning. Or the OC Register.

Funny that the only two organizations I can think of that have made an endorsement one way or another, and that could suffer an actual negative impact from the failure of 8 have both lined up against it, putting morality and fairness ahead of fiscal concerns. Bravo Apple, bravo Google!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA Resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Sorry, but life isn't fair.

It isn't fair that I wasn't born looking like a beauty queen. It isn't fair that I didn't get into Stanford when I thought I was bright enough. It isn't fair that I didn't make it onto the high school baseball team, even though I practised so hard. It isn't fair that blind people aren't allowed to drive. It isn't fair that only those born in this country can become president. If someone happens to be born gay, then they are different from the majorty. You just can't argue otherwise.

And, even if the law is changed, we will still know that it is just a pc feel good law. They may call themselves married, but we know that it's just a feel good ceremony and certificate. They can call themselves anything they like, but the true meaning of marriage will always be that of a union between one man and one woman. Anything else will always be something else even if the law calls it marriage.

We have to be pc, but marriage will always be what we know it to be and you can pass as many laws as you like, but nothing will change it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2008 at 8:40 pm

How to tell an empty Yes on 8 arguement: It will contain a variation on: marriage is between a man and a woman because it is.

How to tell a slightly scary yes on 8 arguement: you can substitute the word 'black' for 'gay' and it makes just as much sense. as in, "some people were born (fill in your favorite here), then they are different from the majority" and, as a logical extension I guess, can be treated differently. On a different thread, someone extolled the virtue of mob rule in the same basic context.

8 is Un-American. Vote NO!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 pm

This is not a race, homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. What could we see next polygamy because it is an alternative lifestyle? Why not, wouldn't that be equality too? What's stopping NAMBLA? How far are we going to go Eric? Eric, please, gay is not a race. Is it easier to hide someone's behavior, as one could act not gay to avoid harassment, compared to the skin and features of a race. I can't walk into a room and be anything other than someone who is not white. It is insane to equate them as the same thing because this isn't! Proposition 8, like Proposition 22 which passed with 61% of the vote, will pass.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 8
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:31 pm

There it is folks. A Yes on 8 supporter finally equated same-sex marriage and gay relationships with something as ridiculous as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association...thank you South Park).

Someone equated the loving committed relationship of two adults with that of a pedophile and their victim. An argument straight out of the 1950s.

This is where the discourse of the "Yes on 8" campaign is taking us. Scratch the surface on their arguments about "traditional marriage" or doing it "for the children" and you'll find a filthy layer of discrimination, fear, and hate.

Regardless on how you feel about same-sex marriage, a smart voter will chose to oppose Prop 8. Let your choice of church and religion speak to your feelings on marriage. Prop 8 passing or failing will not change your freedom to chose a church which does not condone gay marriage. It will on the other hand, prevent your neighbors, your friends, perhaps even your sons and daughters, from practicing their beliefs in their own churches, and marrying the person they love. And that is what makes Prop 8 a civil rights issue, that's what makes Prop 8 unfair and wrong.

Say No to hate and discrimination, Vote No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:00 am

I wasnt talking about race, Fred, but about hate and fear


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mrs. family wife
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:05 am

I am proud to say I voted YES ON 8. WHY? BECAUSE I AM NOT GAY AND I AM PROUD OF IT. I am so proud that I have a family. I am so thankful I gave birth 3 times, and my children will be raised knowing a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

YES ON 8 YES ON 8 - THE ONLY WAY - YES ON 8 YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by <3
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:38 am

Those who vote Yes on 8 are just plain ignorant. NO NO NO NO NO on prop 8. Why should you even care who someone else choses to marry, you make me sick. I am straight but i say GAY MARRIAGE ALL THE WAY!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:45 am

It makes me sick to my stomach to imagine two men or two women engaging in intimate sex. It takes an ignorant man to be attracted to their own sex. And same for women.

I think this world has evolved a "third sex".

Man Woman and "Freak"

YES ON 8


 +   Like this comment
Posted by so proud of myself
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:02 am

Hey Mrs. Family Wife,

You're proud you're not gay? You're proud you gave birth to kids? Wow, congratulations. I took a crap this morning -- somebody get me a cigar.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:06 am

The more comments like Steve's come spewing out, the more ridiculous, ignorant, and hateful the Yes on 8 campaign appears.

Vote NO on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by I AM SO PROUD
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 11:23 am

I hope somebody out there gets you a cigar and with that cigar you desperately need some pride.

What IS your purpose in life? Where did YOU get YOUR education? YOU belong on a deserted island with no civilization what-so-ever.

MY FAMILY, EXTENDED FAMILY, NEIGHBORS, CO-WORKER'S, FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCE'S ARE ALL VOTING YES ON 8 AND I AM VERY PROUD!!!!!!!!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Calvin
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

Don't give him a cigar. I am afraid where he will put it.

Calvin


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

My Mountain View relatives, extended family, neighbors, friends, and co-workers, are voting against discrimination and hate, they're voting No on 8, and I'm very proud of them. So I guess we have that in common, "I AM SO PROUD".

Oh, and, ya, I'm a product of Los Altos and Mountain View Catholic schools and a graduate of one of the best University's in the world. I was taught to reject hate in school and embrace understanding and compassion. During 14 years of religion class, I was taught to see the Bible as an historic holy document that has been interpreted many different ways over the past 2000 years. Most importantly, I was taught to live as Jesus did, to follow the golden rule and treat others as you would like to be treated, with respect and love. Sounds like some people here could benefit from that kind of education.

So, thanks for the drivel. It's been...really..enlightening.

Vote No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No to Prop Hate
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Mrs. Family Wife, you may change your tune when one or all of your kids turn out to be gay. Every gay person is someone's child, and as a parent, your primary wish is that your child be healthy and happy.

It wasn't that long ago that our society discriminated against all kinds of people, not just because of their race or religion but because of their health. In the 1950s, parents of physically handicapped children were sometimes accused of being filthy perverts. There were also efforts to pass laws to prevent physically challenged people from marrying. The rhetoric is familiar, isn't it?

The arguments I have seen in favor of 8 fall into two categories:

- Those that play upon fears about "people who aren't like us"

- Those that focus on the definition of marriage, apparently because the proponent is unaware that the definition of marriage has been very fluid throughout history and across cultures. Not only has gay marriage been accepted (as previously noted) but in some societies, adults marry infants or permit polygamy.

I am also appalled at the tactics used by the 8 camp, especially their efforts to twist Obama's words to make it appear that he supports the proposition when he has publicly stated otherwise.

I sent in my vote weeks ago, and can't wait to see 8 go down to resounding defeat, and good riddance.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by proud parent
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Nicky,

I find it rather interesting how many times you bring up the word "hate". I believe somewhere in your childhood you were subjected to someone hating you. And you now are that result. All mentally screwed up, voting no on 8 and HATING anyone voting YES ON 8.

Please, let me believe in what I was raised to believe. I have no "hate" in my life, in fact I would not trade my childhood and adulthood for anything. I was blessed to grow up in a positive, healthy, happy, loving, respectable environment. I am now passing that on to my children. Maybe that is why I am so proud. Something you can and will never relate to. I am sorry for you.

P.S. If you were taught to reject hate in school, then "hate" should not be part of your vocabulary and it seems to be. WOW. I am not going to waste anymore time with you. YES ON 8 ! ! !

A very proud parent


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mfw
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

No to Prop Hate

You are so negative and vicious. WHY?

Mrs. Family Wife


 +   Like this comment
Posted by no on 8
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm

God, it's like arguing with starry-eyed 12-year-olds.

"If you were taught to reject hate in school, then "hate" should not be part of your vocabulary and it seems to be. WOW."

Oooo yeah, WOW, tee hee, bla bla, dippy dippy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm

I would like to thank all the "contributors" to this thread for reinforcing my beliefs. Not a SINGLE Prop 8 supporter has even tried to raise an argument based on anything other than bigotry and intolerance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Prop 8 is not going to pass. I am sadly disappointed by my fellow Californians and those who have posted here. NO on 8 will triumph in California.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 8
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm

It's really too humorous to see all of these Yes on 8 comments believing that it will pass. Is this for real?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

"Proud parent" you are being hypocritical.

You ask that people just let you "believe what you were raised to believe" and then you turn around and vote for a proposition that rewrites the Constitution to prevent about half of the state (hopefully more) from believing what *they* were raised to believe. No one is forcing you, your family, your religion, or your church to accept same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruling simply allowed those who support it to practice their beliefs. And yet, you are forcing your personal beliefs on people, families, and churches that disagree with it.

You do not know me. You do not know the loving family I was raised in or the wonderful childhood I had in Mountain View. You do not know my parents, and how intensely proud they are of their children, including me. You have no clue about any of that, you do not understand it all, and yet you think you have the right to impose your personal beliefs on all of us...AND hide behind the internet directing very personal insults at a stranger.

Kudos to you. You are the poster-mom of Yes on Prop 8.

Vote No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Enough!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Vote Yes on 8. There is no sense for opponents to argue that supporters of Prop. 8 must argue for a logical or well thought out reason to vote Yes on 8. Their cultural and religous beliefs should be good enough on face value. Since when was logic or an ability to defend any argument required of participants in a democracy anyway? Since when has it been applied across the board in our justice system? Answer, never. My guess is that all the well-articulated opponents of Prop. 8 would rather see this country ruled by an enlightened despot. They are afraid of the masses wrapped up in their culture and relgion and resultant definitions of marriage and would much rather logically strip them bare by one "logical" argument after another.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA Resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm

There are too many people here acting like spoilt kids trying to get their own way. Actually, many of them are not gay people who want to get married, but think they are doing good for others by being so "open minded" when many gay people are happy with things the way they have been (the gay person I know falls into that category).

Anyway, the dialog is like this ......

"Daddy, sob, I wasn't chosen to be prom queen, life is so unfair, sob, sob."

"Oh never mind honey, don't cry. Let's have our own prom and you can be queen. I'll just make a few phone calls, you ask your friends, and our prom will be just the same, no one will be able to tell the difference. It will be just the same, I promise."

ugh, spoilt kids.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm

"There is no sense for opponents to argue that supporters of Prop. 8 must argue for a logical or well thought out reason to vote Yes on 8. Their cultural and religous beliefs should be good enough on face value. Since when was logic or an ability to defend any argument required of participants in a democracy anyway?"

Awesome. Let's throw out logic and reason. Who needs it, anyway! Let's just do everything based on how we feel.

Oh, wait? What? We don't all feel the same way? We don't all agree on things? We're not all the same religion or culture? We don't all share the exact same belief system?

...hmmm, what to do?

How about we have a Constitution that tries its best to treat everyone equally; that says something like all men are created equal. Or how about a government that guarantees religious freedom and separates church and state. Oh wait, that's what we already have, at least in theory. And that's what the Yes on 8 folks are trying to take away. They're trying to rewrite the Constitution so that our government is forced to treat one group different than another.

It's wrong. It's Un-American.

I'm off to go canvas. Have fun in this sandbox.

Vote No on 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Proud Mom
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Nicky,

I have the right to my opinion and who cares if you don't want to hear it. Get over it. It's a two-way street in this world.

Why are you so defensive? It certainly sounds like you have serious issues and I am thankful I don't know you.

P.S. I stopped playing 'hide and seek' in kindergarten and you can keep the Kudos for yourself. You need them.

Vote YES ON 8! ! ! YES ON 8 ! ! !YES ON 8 ! ! !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what?
a resident of The Crossings
on Nov 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Proud Mom:

Do you realize that you make no sense at all?

* His name's not "Nicky."
* He didn't say you don't have a right to your opinion.
* He didn't say he didn't want to hear it, in fact he did hear it, then he responded.
* "It's a two-way street in this world" is the most ridiculous phrase I ever heard.
* He doesn't sound any more defensive than you do, I would say less so.
* What are you talking about "hide and seek" and "kudos," he never used any of those words. Did you even read his post?
* Typing something over and over doesn't make it more true.
* How could you be such an ass?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by proud mom
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Like I said. YES ON 8 ! ! !

California will always be a beautiful state.


I AM SO HAPPY! ! !WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Civil rights for all
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Proud Mom, I understand one of your children is gay. Oops!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Anyone who thinks that an Obama election means that bigotry is dead need look no further than prop 8. I am disgusted.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Eric,

I really feel that if one disagrees with certain gay rights, something that another may feel is extreme, that individual is labeled a "bigot" or "hater." Why so? I just do feel the tolerance?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Fred-

60 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable and normal to treat groups of people as second class citizens. Seperate but Equal and all that. Many justified this treatment on the guidance of their so-called moral and religious beliefs. Prop 8- which looks destined to pass- will restrict-- even take away-- rights from a certain group. The only justification that you and your ilk give is some sort of "moral" circular logic about how marriage is such-and-such, because... marriage is such-and-such. Debates that thin are generally a smoke screen covering up, in this case, fear and hatred.

I have yet to hear anyone even attempt to explain how a gay marriage impacts your marriage or mine. I know very good gay parents and many, many lousy straight parents, so that arguement is a straw man, too.

You want to restict the rights of others because there is something about them you dont like, and when their rights cost you absolutely nothing. That, sir, is bigotry. It is Unamerican, and it disgusts me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by here's to a bigot-free world
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Maybe because that person IS a bigot! I don't believe all bigots are hateful, but they are typically close-minded and afraid of people who are different from them.

Most of us who oppose 8 are not gay, but rather, open-minded, tolerant people who accept the fact that minorities deserve the same rights and freedoms that the rest of us enjoy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PROUD MOM
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2008 at 11:22 pm

civil rights,

My children are not old enough. You are whacked.

Proud mom


 +   Like this comment
Posted by aVERY VERY VERY PROUD MOM THAT AS MARRIED TRADITIONALLY!!!!!!!!!!!
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:31 am

Just as I thought. I AM SO HAPPY!

California has voted. "YES ON 8 HAS WON! ! ! !

BEAUTIFUL CALIFORNIA IS THE STATE TO HAVE A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, THE WAY IS IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

THANK YOU EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA FOR VOTING.

CALIFORNIA IS FOR REAL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RAISE A TRADITIONAL FAMILY.

WE THE PEOPLE, HAVE VOTED.

WE KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT.

WE KNOW WHAT GOD BELIEVES IN

A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

CONSISTING OF A MAN AND A WOMAN

THANK YOU CALIFORNIA FOR VOTING WHAT WE BELIEVE IN

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING CALIFORNIA PURE

A very very proud mom that is happily married to a beautiful MAN




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Enough!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

Eric's liberal solution is obviously a liberal dictator. Who cares what everyone else believes in or doesn't be it based on their religion or cultural values, Eric will still condemn us all as bigots.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Whisman Station
on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm

it will be very interesting to see what they do when the "Proud Moms" and manly husbands end up with a gay child.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by liken
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

california is not a beautiful, pure state. most of you should open up your eyes and step into reality.

i say, let the same-sexers marry and be unhappy just like the rest of the married folks in CA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by heteros no better
a resident of Jackson Park
on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:18 pm

preserve traditional marriage? give me a break, all of us heteros have messed up traditional marriage with divorces, cheating, step-kids, half-siblings... we are not above anyone else.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Funny, enough! I'm not trying to dictate anything-- your side is. I thought that the most important conservative principles were individual rights and minimal government. You have voted for the opposite.

Very Very Psycho Mom-- thank you for making all of my points for me, especially with your comment "THANK YOU FOR KEEPING CALIFORNIA PURE". Calls for 'purity'. Who does that remind me of? Hmmm...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stay tuned . . .
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 am

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ignorance around the Bay
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:26 am

The Monta Loma neighborhood has A LOT to learn . . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yes we can!
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:31 am

Yes we can have marriage equality in California. It will happen! The wording on the ballot was confusing to some and the newly registered voters to vote in CHANGE need to be correctly (not skwewed per the Yes on 8 commercials) informed of the rights of Californians. It's all a matter of education and time! We will win back California!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm

WE WON!!!!!
Let it go!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of another community
on Nov 8, 2008 at 7:43 am

I'm a huge supporter of gay rights (mostly from the position of "who cares what you do in your bedroom"), but I find the premise outlined in this debate hard to support. Prop 8 and its aftermath reveals an opportunity for the Gay Community and its supporters to show greater magnaminity and compromise. If your objectives are equal treatement under the law, I fail to see why opting for a different name for a same-sex union would not allow you to meet your objectives. If I am "garried" and the legal definition of "garried" is equivilent in every other way to "married", then what is the harm? In fact, the semantic equivalency is already there. Nobody in their right mind in the gay movement wants to be known as a "heterosexual", but if a movement of that sort were to arise, people who might otherwise be diffident or supportive of the gay rights movement would no doubt react negatively. (Personally, I believe that if garried and married became accepted parts of the lexicon, eventually the two words would merge, but minus the acromony.) Prop 8 and the debate surrounding it is an example of an otherwise well-intentioned group losing site of the primary objectives and needling another group without trying to understand and find compromise with their core objection. This is turn leads to outlandish, emotional defenses that just make things worse. No wonder this country is screwed up at the moment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Nov 8, 2008 at 10:33 am

So, Tom-- seperate but equal? Keep the uppity gays in their own little place? Ridiculous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA Resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 8, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Garried sounds fine to me, although what is wrong with spousal coupling, domestic partnership or civil union? But, I do like the idea of garried and subsequently garriage, garrying, garwedding, followed by gardivorce.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Ok, we went to the polls for the second time now let it go you lost.
Thats why nobody likes you. Your always putting your agenda in everybodys face. You took the rainbow and turned the pyramid upside down. There is gold at the end of this last rainbow and now the pyramid has been turned back to its right position. YES ON 8 WON.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Ok, we went to the polls for the second time now let it go you lost.
Thats why nobody likes you. Your always putting your agenda in everybodys face. You took the rainbow and turned the pyramid upside down. There is gold at the end of this last rainbow and now the pyramid has been turned back to its right position. YES ON 8 WON.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam equals arse
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm

it's not even close to over sam, no matter how many times some idiot repeats himself about it on some web site.

But when the table turns and it's you who lost, all I can say is: get over it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Student
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2008 at 7:39 am

I am not gay, and I do not have any gay friends. Even so, I voted a DEFINITE No on Prop 8.

Here is why:

*All of you uneducated people that voted yes on prop 8 probably don't know why the 2000 ruling on gay marriage was overturned, to make it legal:

The Supreme Court found that being "gay" is an un-changeable, innate characteristic that is a part of a person whether they like or not. They compared it to the color of one's skin. How the heck can you say that just because someone was born a certain way that they can't have the same rights? HOW? If so, you are racist. You should be against black people marrying white people. Same thing. Color of one's skin (outward appearance) vs. sexual orientation (inner hormonal balance or other physiological properties).

*If you believe in God, believe in this: god is not an idiot. He created gay people too. They were BORN GAY. Look at any research study and you will see that. Therefore, God greated them for a REASON. So get over yourself and your elitist tendencies.

*Although Gay people can't reproduce naturally, who says they can't adopt children? This will help abandoned children and improve society in different ways.

*Separation of church and state. Why in the world do you impose your stupid beliefs on everyone else?!!!!!!! KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. I will say this again, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. Live the way you want. God and politics are two separate things. Go do some research into prior supreme court hearings and you will see that what you are doing is unconstitutional and ridiculous.

All of you idiots that voted yes on prop 8 are causing gay people to commit suicide and feel depressed and you are causing harm to people. You are indirect murderers. You are bullies. You are uneducated and intolerant, discriminatory elitists.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rita
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2008 at 7:42 am

LET IT GO the people have voted twice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Student
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2008 at 7:44 am

Oh, and one last thing. You CANNOT suggest that gay people get married and call it something else like a "union". I was listening to a news program recently where they brought this up:

Separate is NOT equal according to the constitution. You can't say that a union and a marriage is equal. An example is during our days of racism in the US. There were black schools, and white schools. Each race had their OWN school. Ok, so do you think that is right? Black people could not use a white persons water fountain, but they had their own. Is this right? NO! Separate is NOT equal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Student
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2008 at 7:46 am

Rita:

LET IT GO? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This will not be let go, and you better get used to it.

Gay people WILL get the right to marry. I'm assuming you voted Yes on Prop 8, and your racist/elitist/discriminatory self will have to get used to the fact that people have the right in our "free" country to live however they want. Not how YOU want them to live. Get over yourself. This issue will never be let go.

This is only the beginning.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of The Crossings
on Nov 10, 2008 at 8:03 am

Student you have a lot to learn stay in school. The people have voted. Get over the blacks water fountains and separation soap box. Blacks voted YES ON 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NEd
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

Student: Strecth your mind a little bit with this. The Constitution protects the rights of property owners. The Native Americans had and continue to have a problem with the that, since the reservations don't quit cut it for them. So their are a lot of travesties in our system of Constitutional government. Gays are basically going to have to lump it or love it or leave it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rita
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2008 at 8:19 am

You idiot i am black and mexican. You would say anything so long as it sticks.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 2,849 views

WUE makes out-of-state tuition more affordable
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,751 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,334 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,777 views