Comments on: Proposition 8: Symptom of a REAL Problem!

By: AlfaSpider

AlfaSpider — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:56:31 +0000

In a Democracy, the power of those governing derives from the governed. If you disagree with the majority in the area of social policy governing acceptance of homosexuality and marriage, it is incumbent on you and those who agree with you to persuade those who disagree until your position possesses a majority of the electorate.

I recognize the American Left likes to rule by judicial fiat so the preceding, I suspect, will pass through from ear to ear like so much air.

By the way, never toss out the name Olbermann if you’re attempting to win converts — he is a cockroach.

By: whymrhymer

whymrhymer — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:53:29 +0000

Also let me add this to my just previous comment: Our country is NOT “based on God Bless America (or) In God we Trust. Our country is based on Freedom and Liberty.

Our basic moral code may be contained in the Decalog (the Ten Commandments) but it was not created by those commandments — it is a work in progress that started back with the first community of cave dwellers.

By: whymrhymer

whymrhymer — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:33:58 +0000

Thank you all for commenting. Perhaps it appeared that this article was a condemnation of Prop 8 — if that was how it was interpreted, I apologize for not being more clear. The people of California spoke very clearly and the law now reflects their wishes.

My point is simply that there is something wrong when “affairs of the heart” become issues that can be put up for a vote. I realize that I am bucking hundreds of years of precident but common sense and logic have always meant more to me than precident.

By: soLDS

soLDS — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:49:39 +0000

Someone explain how ProtectMarriage.com misled anyone. Do schools in Massachusettes use the book “The King Who Married a King?” No on 8 always said that parents could opt out from sex ed but ignored the fact that SB 777 was signed into law and that made it so homosexual couples and families would have to be displayed as equal to traditional families in textbooks. The battle to overturn SB777 stopped when the judges took matters into their own hands on the marriage issue. That’s when prop. 8 came into play so the people could decide. That’s how our government works with its checks and balances. The only H8 I see is coming from the No on 8 supporters who wish to intimidate and use tyranny to their advantage because the system didn’t work in their favor. It’s bigotry against religion. As for the article. Count the number of exclamation marks. This article certainly is biased.

By: sharpskates

sharpskates — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:53:12 +0000

I am an adult male that first would like to marry my dad, get divorced, then marry my mom, get divorced, then marry my adult brother, then get divorced, then finally my adult sister. All in the name of love- stop the discrimination and bigotry! Definition of marriage is between two loving adults!!! We want acceptance. We have all the benefits here in California but we want marriage!!! Our love is not complete until it is called marriage! Join us all the gay couples in our civil rights!

By: Nancy Reyes

Nancy Reyes — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:22:30 +0000

Actually, heterosexual marriage predates Christianity by a couple milleneum, and is the norm in non Christian societies (albeit with an allowance for multiple wives).

The reason is because marriage is about economics: Protecting mom and kids by bribing the man with the idea that he can’t get sex unless he cares for the wife and kids.

By: Tradition

Tradition — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:36:48 +0000

People weren’t misled. Everyone knew what a Yes vote meant, and they stated their preference. That’s not fear or confusion. This is exactly this kind of denial which cost you the vote. You think you are so self-evidently right that you only have to educate enough people to win the vote. No, it couldn’t be that people don’t agree with you, now could it?!

By: Tradition

Tradition — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:30:26 +0000

Hardly an argument in all of that. The government should do this and that… Why? This is just your personal opinion, and that definition of marriage was just pulled out of your ass.

Take your civil union and like it. When you can prove in court that it’s legally discrimination in practice, then you might have something… except… well, you could always marry a woman if you want to, so you have the same rights as I do. And it’s in the CA constitution now, so that might be a problem too. Good luck.

By: fern

fern — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:32:53 +0000

Churches had the right to marry people and divorce them, so when Henri VIII couldn’t get his divorce from the pope he founded the church of England of which he became “the pope” and he got his divorce. The good friends of England, (France) being Roman Catholic England became protestant. In France the revolutionary took the right to marry people away from the church and accomplished the separation of church and state, that is more or less how the state took charge of matrimony and even though homosexuality existed nobody could foresee what it was to become today, so we have marriage one man one woman. The churches even during the French revolution still could marry people in a ceremony but it could only be validated by the state, in other words a church marriage is worthless in France and Belgium so the civil union provided by the state became to be known as marriage.
Homosexuality has always been a sin by religious people and something disgusting and shameful by society in general but this attitude started to change after 1969 and the Stonewall incident in New York, from where it spread all over the world. The GLBT grew and developed only countered by the churches and their lobbies, till the head on collision of proposition 8 and the coalition of all mainstream churches and a terrible mistake on their part. The way I see it is that the supreme court being an integral part of the State although independent has been lapsed by the will of the people but in reality it was a show of power of the churches against the State and I’m sure many politicians are aware of this I’m sure Mr. Scwarzenegger realized this when he came against proposition 8, based on the success of prop 8 the bishops want to talk to the president Obama about abortion, another dictat by the churches. By nullifying prop 8 they tell the churches to stay away from politics. To make it worse the churches misled (lied) the voters to ensure their success. And of course Keith Oberman’s performance was great but unfortunately the people who should listen to it are deaf.

By: concernedforcaylee

concernedforcaylee — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:22:52 +0000

While I think you presented your argument in a well written article, I would disagree with your idea. The Government has a right to Govern according to the people they work for. ie the voters. You say that they can’t make a law based on religion, but you forget the founding fathers of this country did use religious principles to build the frame work of the constitution. Our whole ideals as a country are based on God Bless America, In God we Trust. Roe Vs Wade, goes against Biblical teachings, but the government followed the will of the people and put into law procedures that are not based on religion. Every time the voters in California vote they always end up the same. They question that I think Mormon was going for is this: If a group of persons who do not make up the majority think something is o.k. and should be legal does the governement haave a right to outlaw it? His example is there are a small group of people who thinks that having sex with children is o.k. Do we make that legal. I will state that I do not think all homesexual relationships automatically make one a pedophile. THe majority should make the rules based on social conscience, and even still today that vote is one man one woman.

By: Emissary

Emissary — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:49:24 +0000

I think the main problem I see here is that marriage is not “simply two people falling in love and vowing to spend their lives together”. That’s never been the definition of marriage. Marriage is the “husband-wife” relationship. It’s based on biology, not behavior. To make it three relationships (husband-wife, husband-husband, wife-wife) requires that it be redefined based on behavior. That is a radical redefinition.

In fact, by the behavioral definition, a lot of arranged marriages would no longer be considered “marriage” because love is not necessarily even part of them initially.

(Here’s DOMA’s definition so you can easily see that it’s the husband-wife relationship.)

“… the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

By: miriam

miriam — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:22:05 +0000

You’re argument is very persuasive. But I have concerns. 1. Why should marriage be limited to two people? How about polygamy or other arrangements, such as marriage between a person and his dog? I’m not being sarcastic here, I really want to know what the ramifications are.

2. Marriage is a civil contract, enforced by the courts. Try getting divorced if you don’t believe me.

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:57:04 +0000

Good article - something I’ve been asking myself. Was marriage between gay people actually illegal BEFORE states starting putting the “one man, one woman” into their constitutions? Apparently not, otherwise people wouldn’t feel the need to define it in their constitutions. Conn has the right language: 2 otherwise qualified people - which takes away the polygamy, beastiality and child/adult arguments.

By: OMG

OMG — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:36:04 +0000

To mormonman
How twisted are you!!! What makes you believe marriage and molestation have anything to do with each other? Are you married is this what you did. Men who marry men love MEN not sex with children!!

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:15:58 +0000

mormonman,

Your comments are so ignorant it goes beyond the pale.

Just because someone is gay does not mean they abuse kids.

Are you a bigomist as well, talk about perversion.

By: lc

lc — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:58:43 +0000

Government didnt insitute marriage. Religion did. Timeline: In 2000 prop 22 defined marriage as between a man and a women. In May 2008 a activist court voted 4-3 to undo prop 22. In Nov 2008 voters yet again voted to define marriage as between a man and a women. This is the will of the voters people. We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the courts.

By: mormonman

mormonman — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:53:15 +0000

I wonder when the gays will start telling society it’s their RIGHT to have sex with small children?(say 9 yr. old boys)I think soon they will want to blur the definition of a penis and a vagina to say , males have vagina,s and females have penis,s. MARRIAGE IS one man & one woman it,s soo simple get over it.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:19:57 +0000

This is an inspiring piece of journalism. It is balanced, well thought out, beautifully constructed and eloquently communicated. The message may take some time to get through to the narrow minded people, but this kind of thing can really make a difference.

In the UK, we are missing this kind of journalism – with comments from the heart. Although we have some brilliant TV and radio presenters, it often comes down to a straightforward “piece to camera” or an argumentative interview that is supposedly coming up with the “truth”.

http://thestateofthenationuk.blogspot.com/