Amen our neighbor hood is full of no on prop 8 sighns

I wish mine was! :C 'Course I'm in San Berdo.. erf. Not a very tolerant or open-minded city. Although I'm shocked we'll be having RENT hit the local theater next month. Woah. o_o
Anyway! Neighbors nearby have a 'yes on 8' sign up. :/ Sadness. I hope it doesn't pass - I'm a little surprised it even became a prop. I guess enough people made a stink.
Oi, thank you California democratic process. :P

yeah and if iot passes you knwo there will bea stink formthe other side
intolerance baffles me
me of the it it hatrsm no one do as thy will

It baffles me too. :C I hope together, as a society, someday we can overcome intolerance.

a freind of mine put it ina very interestign way the other night he was in the 1900s it was agianst socirtys morals to marry soemeon ofa different religion. form then till about the 1960s if you married soemoen fo a different race or thenice background it was frown apon even illegal depending on were you were. For isntance black and white marragies were illegalinthe south till liek the 1960s so its been aporgeressionof civil rights soon gay marrige wil have to evolve too

Oh, yes, it will evolve! Certainly the gay issue going on in America right now is very akin to other civil rights issues in our past. We'll eventually move past it! I was telling a friend, that the way I felt about it though, was almost impatient. I mean, OF COURSE we will evolve past it one day, but in the meantime a lot of people are getting hurt, a lot of martyrs are being made, and it's awfully sad. :C

sadness is coming to amerika, on the wings of drunken yokels...

Noooo not the drunken yokels! D:

yes, the yokels, and the god fearers... and the people who believe marriage is about god... It isn't its just a way to keep track of breeding so we don't end up with a bunch of retarded seven fingered people who ruin politics... unfortunately it failed...

but then again, i come from a pagan community :D

THANK YOU. Marriage is NOT all about god - just that it's most popular form happens to be the 'classic' wedding here in America in the church and yada yada. I always wanted an outdoor wedding myself.. ride down the isle on ponies. YES.
*cough* Anyway. You're quite right there, quite right. :/
Also, you're very lucky to have come from such a tolerant and awesome-sounding community! :D

I know this will not get me street-cred...I live in Arizona, and California feels so much like a forgien (Spelling?) nation. Anyway, if Prop 8 is a push to make marrage a union between a man and a woman, then I would have to vote for it. In fact, I think Arizona has one just like it this month too. I am a Christian and a Republican, but those factors don't play in here. Marrage is a holy union in the presence of God, thus it is a church matter. Seperation of church and state is a big stick that Dems. like to swing around, so here they stub their own toe with it. So marrage should be left alone, the government has no business stepping in on a religion that isn't killing virgins or animals and force them to change what is in the Bible.

However, if there is a prop present that gives gays and such tax emptions and other goodies that comes with a marrage, and it is instead sponsored and ran by the government (i.e. calling it something rather than marrage), then that I'm cool with. Doesn't require a church, you go down to the judge, he signs a paper, and bam.

Congrats to Sulu, by the way.

-Korkan

The problem is, and no offense at all, that so many people see Marriage as a thing having to do with the Church. And even though I agree that marriage is a union of spiritual significance, marriage exists in all belief systems outside of Christianity. :P There are many ceremonies that can be observed, having /nothing to do with church at all/.
Why deprive two people in love of what they consider to be an important, beautiful ceremony that so many people enjoy every day, and take completely for granted? Have you seen the divorce rate in the US lately? This 'holy' ceremony isn't very holy to a lot of straight couples, apparently.

I respect your opinion, I'm just asking you to see it from my point.

I would say devorce rate is high all around, and that is simply because of the breakdown of society. Much like the Roman Empire, America is starting to come apart at the seams with the media damnation of religion and all around statue of morals. Setting aside religion all together, the loss of morals will put America into an early grave. I love my country, I don't want that to happen.

Getting off topic, sorry. And no, I see what you're saying...this gay realm, I deal with it pretty much everyday, some of my closest friends are gay. So I can see both sides of the matter. When you talk about marrage in the U.S., you are usually refering to a Christian or Catholic cereomy (Spelling? Brain dead tonight); these should not be touched. Especially with the Catholic church and the Vatican so willing to change meanings of the Bible around to try to attract the current youth. These unions should be left alone, government has no business tampering with 'em. All I'm saying is that have the government make their own union, let them regulate that, which it would/should esentally be the same thing.

Thank you for not just flamming me too.

-Korkan

I think the problem lies in the fact that the US, in contrast to a number of European nations, have assigned legal privileges to the status of marriage. Because homosexuals are prohibited in most states from marrying, they are prohibited from obtaining those legal rights - a denial of 5th and 14th amendment due process rights. Creating a unique distinction for civil unions apart from marriage generates the same sort of 'seperate-but-equal' nonsense that was the basis for the Jim Crow laws of the Deep South and Old Dominion for so many decades.

There are only two viable solutions here. Either grant the right to marry to homosexuals or abolish legal privilege from what is essentially a religious ceremony - something neither the federal nor state and municipal governments should have anything to do with.

Just so you know, AZ is the only state to the nation to vote NO to an consitutional gay marriage ban.

So AZ is still mostly open minded people

You know, there was system that, in principle, was very similar to what you just proposed.
It was called, "Separate But Equal".

Do you know just how many people have died, because some F*cker thought it'd be fun to beat the Homo Faggot and tie them to a fence? Try thinking about that before you give me the Morality Argument.

I'm sorry. I'm very, very sorry I just blew up like that. But, as a gay man, your argument holds no validity, not on a legal basis, and certainly not on a moral basis. People have died because of this, and people will continue to die if this continues. Have you ever seen homophobia? I have, I have seen it in it's most hateful form, and what's more, I have heard it from my own family. From the people I love the most; can you even BEGIN to imagine how that feels?

Oh my :C *hugs and ponies* Hate is so very frightening no matter who it's targetting! Homophobia scares me though, bad. I really hope this prop passes on no.
You made a good point, though. People /have/ died because of this - it's as an important issue as civil rights, as women's rights. It's not /just/ about letting everyone marry - it's about abolishing hate and upholding equality and tolerance.

Ponies...*sniffle*

I wanted to say, thank you for posting this, I cannot even begin to express just how much this means...

*hughughug* Aww, I can't stand to see a commie sniffle. ;3

Chin up, friend! Though these are scary times, there are still many wonderful things to be had in this life. Love, laughter, and of course ponies.

I know people have died over all of this, but do you think that because there is a law enforcing churches to perform marriages for gays, that the killing and fear-driven hatred from phobes will stop? I am from the south, and you still hear about some poor black man being linched in Alabama. Not quite so often as it use to, but its there. Just because there is a law, doesn't mean the homophobia will just vanish...and things might actually get more violent for awhile right after.

My father is pretty homophobic, I think if he ever imagined that me or my younger brother were turning gay, he would beat us within an inch of our lives, trying to force us straight. He can't stand anywhere near to a gay man, he is so afraid of not only being jumped and raped, but he is afraid of turning gay himself. In high school, I have seen three jocks band together to throw a gay kid out of the locker room...well, they weren't going to throw him out first, they wanted to rough him up. They walked by me, knocked the kid onto the ground, then there was this flood of people that crowded and surounded him so no one could come to his rescue...thankfully though, the coach was a seven-foot, former NFL player. No one threw a punch, he got in there and busted it up before anything got too serious.

I can't say I know how it feels to be gay...I do have my own issues to worry about considering who I love, but that isn't here or now. All I have is the experience that was about me...my neighbor's older brother, fought for years with himself before he came out of the closet. My neighbors were lesbians who, around Christmas each year, were heart-broken that one side of their family refused to even acknowledge they existed. Have I lived it? No, but that doesn't mean I don't know what's going on.

And I am sorry if I offended, but all my argument really was seperation of church and state.

-Korkan

"because there is a law enforcing churches to perform marriages for gays"

I've heard this from more than one conservative, I'm curious as to which law, AZ or CA does or would require a church to marry whomever walked in the door? Looking at the current laws I don't see anything that says this any more than a Catholic church must marry a Jew or a Muslim.

I'm quite in favour of institutional separation, at the very least it should be equal. As I read things it isn't so much a religious issue (Though that is the 'rights' attempt to make it so) is a equal treatment issue, i.e. Federal taxes, partners rights, healthcare and inheritance.

I know a few Catholic churches will perform a marrage like that, though where they are, I don't know. But you get a bill like this passed, a gay couple goes down to the chapel to get married, the preist tells them that the church will not perform such a union...and then you have the church burned to the ground, and the preist and the congragtion are pelted with tomatos and called bigots. I would like to avoid this if possible. Because if something like this were to happen, it wouldn't be long before the government stuck its nose through the doors of the church, and suddenly you'll have senators and congressmen, deciding what can be done in the House of the Lord.

Something else I would like to avoid.

But what you mentioned, the partner rights, healthcare...all that good jazz that comes with a marrage. That should be made obtainable to same-sex couples, just leave the church out of it, and government makes its own system for those types of unions.

-Korkan

"I know a few Catholic churches will perform a marrage like that, though where they are, I don't know."

I'm sure there are as well, as there are also ones who do so willingly. I still don't see where in the laws it REQUIRES them to marry couples they don't wish to.

Here's the extract wording that will be on the ballot:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.


"But you get a bill like this passed, a gay couple goes down to the chapel to get married, the preist tells them that the church will not perform such a union...and then you have the church burned to the ground, and the preist and the congragtion are pelted with tomatos and called bigots."

I think you misunderstand what this amendment is in CA. This is a Constitutional amendment to the California Constitution that would _only_ allow male-female combinations. It states nothing about about forcing any additional laws because it's a Constitutional amendment to ban male-male/female-female combinations. As for burning churches down, I can't find any evidence that any gay rights group has ever burned down a church (protested in front of perhaps? Parked cars in front of signs with writing on the side 'bigots worship here' maybe?). Looking through the past 50 years of US history it's typically people on the far right that burn down churches. I do find evidence of churches 'who are gay friendly' getting vandalized however.



"I would like to avoid this if possible. Because if something like this were to happen, it wouldn't be long before the government stuck its nose through the doors of the church, and suddenly you'll have senators and congressmen, deciding what can be done in the House of the Lord."

Well, they sorta do already. You have to get a Marriage License, a certificate FROM the State, i.e. government.



"But what you mentioned, the partner rights, healthcare...all that good jazz that comes with a marrage. That should be made obtainable to same-sex couples, just leave the church out of it, and government makes its own system for those types of unions."

I still think there is a central misunderstanding here. I think 'the church' shouldn't be making these distinctions as to who marries and who doesn't. Prop 8 is specifically sponsored by religious groups to prevent same gender unions, i.e. the church is quite deliberately getting involved, and as such would be governmentally sanctioned to NOT marry these groups. Do you see what I'm saying here. You state that the government should not impose, yet the religious groups are sponsoring Prop 8 to to force the government to impose male/female unions only. Churches should stay out of politics, and yet they are doing so very publicly. :)

In terms of church burning...mostly that has been a crazed-right type of thing. Going back to the church bombings in the south, to the recent group of college retards, going around and burning down churches in Alabama. I was just giving an over the top type of example. The only time I have heard of true friction between straight and gay, where the gays are one that are the antagonists, was just a year ago in a northern town. They had broadcasted that gays could marry there, and thus there was a flock...shortly there after, there were reports of straight couples being harassed by the same sex couples in the town. Verbally...I think that's as far as it went.

The marrage licence is pretty much the government keeping track on people, that never bothered me...if you're going to have these kinds of things, it might help out congress to know whom is married to who.

There is certainly a move by churches in the U.S. to make only one type of bonding union avalible in this country. I think the misunderstanding is mutal at this point, as I'm not for such a law. If the bill were to preserve "marrage", fine and dandy. But it shouldn't be imposing on saying that the country can only recongize one type of particular union. Though they should have say on how many you can marry. Being in love with two beings is tough, I can't imagine the nightmare it would be trying to be married to them both, heh.

Churches can avocate and preech, they can ask their congragation to vote a certain way. Sure, that is fine with me. What I don't accept is ministers and priests handing out gold coins to any politician to get them to sing their song. I don't like, nor trust politicians, and if there were a way to make them pure beings...and have them explode into a million tiny chunks if they so much as thought of taking a bribe, I would have more faith in them.

-Korkan

"just a year ago in a northern town. They had broadcasted that gays could marry there, and thus there was a flock...shortly there after, there were reports of straight couples being harassed by the same sex couples in the town. Verbally...I think that's as far as it went."

Do you recall where? By northern town do you mean like Massachusetts? If true this is not right and the 'same sex' harassers should get flogged. :/


"Churches can avocate and preech, they can ask their congragation to vote a certain way. "

Actually, they really ought not do so, there's a long, long, long history that it's a bad idea. Not to mention if a church in the US does start advocating how to vote they really don't deserve to keep their tax status.

I think it was in Mass., though honestly, I can't remember. I don't take kindly to any kind of harassing...but it was about a year ago, I'll try to do a Google search on it.

And I do feel that a church can *ask* its followers to vote a certain way, especially if the government is about to take something that is indeed a part of the church, and change it. The church can have a voice, I just don't believe its voice should come in the form of dollar bills.

-Korkan

Thanks for researching, I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to match it when I tried myself.

"And I do feel that a church can *ask* its followers to vote a certain way, especially if the government is about to take something that is indeed a part of the church, and change it. The church can have a voice, I just don't believe its voice should come in the form of dollar bills."

I suppose, if it was something material like lets say new zoning laws that are detrimental to keeping or creating a church or enacting a noise ordinance that says no gleeful singing before 10am or to pay for the road that leads to the church the city has to garnish the tithes and gifts. But to tell parishioners _from the pulpit_ that they should vote for such and such candidate is very close to using the church to influence an election, and it starts to get the bitter taste of 'racketeering'. Churches already have quite a few protections that are heavily built-in to the fabric of the US, and in having that added protection they need to show some restraint and good sense to steer clear of things that take the church into realms that historically are known to be bad :)

And if I may preach a bit, and this isn't directed at you KorKan but is more general audience. When looking at religion, specifically Christianity, people REALLY need to focus on what JESUS said. If one has a somewhat modern Bible handy, one printed in the past 30+ years it likely will have Jesus' words in Red, a very handy reference. (Hmm, where on earth did my Confirmation Bible run off to? Gotta find it!)

And to add one more thing, here's an mp3 of the Rev. Jeff Miner of Indianapolis, Indiana touching on the subject of relationships and families in the Bible that don't conform to the male/female setup.

http://www.jesusmcc.org/audio/2006/.....2006-06-18.mp3

Thank you SO MUCH for your extremely eloquent comments. I think you covered everything I wanted to say, much better than I ever could have.

I also have to wonder - Kovu/Korkan - WHY is it that you think the Church is going to be forced into marrying gays? That's simply not true. :/ I'm sure there are already a number of offices and individuals already set up for that job, leaving the church out of it entirely - as a matter of fact, I'm sure it was a lucrative business back in July when the first amendment passed, allowing same sex marriage in california.
I mean, I do understand what you're saying - but it's /not going to happen./ As for the 'hateful' things that could be done to the church well... all one has to do is think about how many gay people were beaten, half to death or otherwise, for being gay. And then ask yourself - would you rather have people getting beaten to DEATH, or some vandalized sign in front of Church? I think it's an obvious choice, and certainly a less destructful one.

And although I'm not religious, I will remind that Jesus taught love, tolerance, and forgiveness. So why does the Church hate gays so much? Doesn't it go against their very foundation to hate so blindly?

I'm going to have to check out that mp3, and thanks for sharing, MTI!

Just find a ULC minister. I'm sure there are boatloads in California that will happily perform a same-sex marriage for you.

more important big picture wise is an interesting thing called separation of church and state...
kill laws that attempt to dictate church related things. marriage is church related thing. if church a b or c is willing to marry two guys or two women or a women and a dog that is that particular church/congregations business. and not the bloody judicial system. so long as a church sanctions it, then the legally binding and privilege granting thing that is a marriage cert issued by a judge/court clerk should follow in tow.
these are the slow erosions of our system that will ultimately destroy this nation.
I live in oregon thereby all i can voice is an opinion here.

Well what kills anything in America? The government.
Social security was always a scam...but now its an even bigger one. Government screwed with the economy, now they're trying to fix it, but they're only making it worse. Public edcation is protected by the government from having any competition, and now it sucks so badly, I feel as though the thirteen years I was in public school, that I was robed of my time and intelligence.

Not sure how things are in Oregon, but in Arizona, if you don't keep a short leash on the politicians, they'll go wild. They almost did during the last election...trying to raise taxes and lower freedoms...sadly though, where I am, its just a small town. Its voice is different than what you have in Pheonix, and we're usually ignored.

-Korkan

eugene and portland are like liberal hippy heaven (to varying degrees often greater)
oddly this state has some reaaaaaaaaaaaly fucked laws

Again, I'm really sorry. It was late last night, and I was really tired and depressed...

Anyway, I think there's been slight a misunderstanding on both our parts. Gay marriage, as it currently stands in California, is a purely legal term, not religious. If a church does not want to recognize or perform a same-sex marriage, then they are not obligated to. If a gay couple wanted to get married, all they'd need to do is go down to a courthouse and obtain a license; If they want a religious ceremony, that is between them and any willing church of their choosing.

Prop 8, if passed, would not only infringe on my rights as a citizen, but it would also establish a legal basis that says that I am not an equal citizen, and that my rights are not as important as everyone else's.

And again, I'm really sorry...

I still say we should just ban marriage completely. :3

Let us all live in delicious, delicious sin. :D

You're in San Berdoo? My sis lives out there, that's awesome heh
The only reason I wanted to even register to vote was so I could vote no on 8... I went around my neighborhood taking down "yes on 8" signs... it's total bullshit... unfortunately family is all yes people... *sigh* v.v
I don't like how they're trying to drag childrens schools into it all... I'm sorry but that should have nothing to do with school or children, it's disgusting...

Yepyep! :3 That is awesome, hehe, small world!

I registered to vote this year to actually vote for a presidential candidate, but of course when Prop 8 cropped up it gave me another reason to vote.

I agree - and prop 8 /won't have anything to do with schools - beyond perhaps mentioning this as along the same veins as the battle for civil rights. Even then, what's the harm? I think parents are afraid their kids are gonna go to school and take part in some rainbow-fest forced embracing of the culture. Erk. :/ Propaganda and fear mongering are hard at work right now.

Ideological mess.

Boy, isn't it? :C

ALSO HIIIIII <333

Hola~

it's against the freedom of speech! seriously!!!

It's more like 5th 14th Amendment, due process of the law.

If you're going to assign legal privileges to the status of marriage, then you can't constitutionally deny same-sex couples the right to marry because that would be depriving them of 5th amendment due process rights.

No on prop 8. completely agree

Given that a major influence in my life is Ellen Degeneres, I would be voting "NO" if I were in CA <3

Agreed whole heartedly sis. I can't put it as eloquently as the others here, but I can't even begin to understand why this is even an issue.