skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Where Do You Stand On California’s Proposition 8?

Above: People file into the Supreme Court on Tuesday for the court's hearing on California's Proposition 8, a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

We asked KPBS sources, "What are you hoping the Supreme Court will rule on Proposition 8?" and received dozens of responses. Below are highlights from their responses, but you can see their full answers on our questionnaire.

Special Feature You Have Knowledge To Share

Are you an expert in something? It can be anything from oceanography to how to make the best nachos. Sign up to become a KPBS source, and the next time one of our reporters needs to interview someone, we may call on you. Note: We promise we won't use your information for anything except reporting our stories.

Kent Reedy, San Diego, CA

"I think the Court should strike it down. It blatantly prohibits one group of people from having something that confers a lot of state-sponsored benefits -- benefits that the state provides relating to taxes, for example. Individual churches can decide whether or not they want to let someone get married within their church based on doctrine, but the state shouldn't be able to do that."

Sam Ollinger, San Diego, CA

"I hope the Supreme Court will uphold the federal court's decisions and overturn Proposition 8 making it legal for gays and lesbians to marry."

Chris Petersen, Del Mar, CA

"The Supreme Court should uphold Proposition 8."

T B, San Diego, CA

"I have several friends that are gay. I love them and hold no ill feelings toward them for their chosen lifestyle. However, I do not feel same sex marriage should be permitted. Civil union is just as legally binding and will allow partners the same rights as straight couples."

Anita Hoban, Del Mar, CA

"Strike Down Prop 8. Strike down DOMA. Support the equal rights of every American. This is a human rights issue."

Natasha Papousek, Lemon Grove, CA

"I have a lot of LGBT friends and think they should have the same right to marry as anyone else. Love is love. Their relationships look exactly the same as my marriage so they should have the same legal rights as I do."

Walter Chambers, San Diego, CA

"I hope the Supreme Court will uphold the federal court's decisions and overturn Proposition 8 making it legal for gays and lesbians to marry."

Gregory Harris, Encinitas, CA

"I think it is shameful for some people to force their beliefs on others. No one is asking Mormons to marry gays, but why should two consenting adults be denied the right to get married to whoever they want to marry?"

Stephen McNabb, Bonita, CA

"My hope is for a decision that will provide equal rights to same sex couples across all 50 States, although it would seem a more narrow decision affecting California only is more likely."

Hillary Theakston, San Diego, CA

"I hope the Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 because it is unconstitutional. My wife Carin and I were one of the lucky couples to be married in the "Prop 8 window" and today we have two daughters...Telling our daughters that her parents are married, just like her friends’ parents are, will be a victory in the human rights movement."

Lew Mills, San Diego, CA

"I hope they give a broad approval of marriage equality by putting Prop 8 in the context of civil rights."

Daniel Bilen, Solana Beach, CA

"I would like to see Prop 8 be rejected, and see this matter cease to be deemed important news any longer, there is far more important information to spread than the social constructs of if the man-made institution of marriage is to be male/female only or otherwise."

Ron Bonn, San Diego, CA

"I hope the Court overturns Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds--an individual's civil liberties are not subject to veto by a majority, however passionate."

Arlene Van de Wetering, San Diego, CA

"While I would like to see gay marriage deemed a civil right in all states, realistically striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional in California only may be the best one can hope for."

Shauna McKellar, San Diego, CA

"I was disappointed when Prop 8 passed, but I think the state had every right to have it on the ballot and put it into law after the people voted. But I also think that it is the judicial branch's job to override the masses when they make a decision that compromises people's civil liberties, which I think this proposition does."

Kate Palese, San Diego, CA

"The ideas that these couples can't get the same rights as any heterosexual couple is absurd."

Patricia Fishtein, San Diego, CA

"For equality!"

Terry McNary, Grants Pass, OR

"I think all people should have the same legal benefits that a legal marriage provides. It's about equality for all, no matter the gender!"

Madelyn Luttgen, San Diego, CA

"I believe that those who are worried about the sanctity of marriage should be more concerned with those who get divorced or those who "live in sin" than those who want to be married."

Marcella Hammond, San Diego, CA

"I'm hoping they rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, because I believe in equality."

Kristen Koeblin, San Diego, CA

"People are people and deserve to marry who they love...I am also part of an interracial relationship, and I am well aware that 50 years ago, getting married to my boyfriend would have been illegal."

Paul Meehl, Carlsbad, CA

"I lean Libertarian, and believe that government's role should be to protect freedoms and protect citizens from harm. Without any reasonably basis for the proposition that a same-sex couple is somehow harmful to anyone else (including their children), I don't feel there is any sound argument to support such a ban."

Amanda Mascia, Oceanside, CA

"I believe that marriage is between two people that love each other (any combination) and Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Comments

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 17, 2013 at 6:55 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 17, 2013 at 10:09 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I didn't realize marriage was a right, I thought it was simply a word of which the definition is "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

So I guess the goal of prop. 8 is to redefine words or something? It doesn't make sense.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 17, 2013 at 2:53 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

There are many emotionally charged comments up there, but they contain some common language that always jumps out at me - phrases of self entitlement such as "People are people and deserve to marry...", "an individual's civil liberties", "Support the equal rights" or "This is a human rights issue". Rarely are any qualifiers, definitions or reasons given for "deserve" or "right" other than basically "just because that's their right or that's what they deserve or that’s what they want". It's like the kid who wants his college paid for because that's what he wants:


Who decides what is deserved or undeserved? If there is no absolute standard or judge, then what seems absolutely deserved to one may be offensively undeserved to another. Similarly with rights - who or what should grant the "right" of marriage, and more importantly, WHY is marriage of any type viewed as a right at all? I think what supporters of gay marriage really mean is that they want the government to set a moral standard for the people. Supporters of gay marriage may disagree, but what they are doing is pushing for the government to impose their set of morals on those who disagree with gay marriage, or really, homosexuality in general. They won't likely admit it, but they truly believe that their opinion is more valid than someone's opinion who disagrees with them, and they would aggressively trample on the rights of the "intolerant" to get their way, because of course they are right. In actuality, homosexuals are "allowed" to be gay, and there are churches that will marry them. They only lack government recognition. They are not being oppressed or enslaved, and I think it is offensive to compare the gay rights movement to the African-American civil rights movement. I believe that the government should stay out of moral issues as much as possible, otherwise, catering to one group's sense of morality will infringe upon others. This is at the heart of religious freedom.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 17, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Of course I think every American should be free to live as homosexuals, and they are free to do so. But I do not think that it is the governments job to interfere with the definition marriage as it has existed. We must examine the reason for heterosexual marriage being recognized by the government in the first place. If the reasons are no longer valid, then the government should stop formally recognizing all forms of marriage and stop offering tax incentives to married couples. But, if they go the route of redefining marriage to included same sex couples, then they better allow polygamists and several other flavors of alternative marriages to be recognized as well, otherwise, they will be hypocritically trampling on their “basic human rights”. In that scenario, people should be allowed to marry themselves, which would allow every single person in America to qualify for married status tax incentives. But then, what is the point, right? And would the government really let all those tax dollars get away? This is absolutely not about rights, liberties or freedoms at all. It is about a loud and emotional minority wanting the government and everyone else to agree with and endorse their own self created moral standard.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 18, 2013 at 9:04 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I was hoping to see what some of the regular leftists here had to say about our responses. I guess in the face of absolute logic, it is hard to present an argument that holds water.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 18, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

JM,

As someone who leans left, I believe the institution of marriage is corrupt. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the status quo has to change right away. There are lots of healthy and happy couples of all persuasions who don't need it as it's currently defined. Privileges which come with marriage, such as legal decision-making, should be given to same-sex couples until society ultimately decides what constitutes marriage via the ballot box and judicial process. A system which developed over thousands of years will take decades to change.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 18, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Apparently KPBS doesn't understand sarcasm.

It's funny how the terms of service suggest no discriminatory or hateful speech should be directed towards groups of people, yet they give coverage to an issue that has its foundation in just that.

Bra-vo.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 18, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Also, to all the defenders of the institution of marriage, here's your fair choice:

-Allow marriage to exist as a purely religious institution, with no exclusive benefits or privileges granted by the state.

-Continue to accept the benefits and privileges from the state, at the cost of exclusivity.

Which is it?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 18, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I vote to allow marriage to exist as a purely religious institution, with no exclusive benefits or privileges granted by the state. Everyone will be happier that way.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 18, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

The federal government has no mandate to force states to act either way on this issue.

What do nine undemocratic appointed bureaucrats 3,000 miles away have to do with internal affairs of California? Nothing at all.

We Californians should institute legally binding civil unions, regardless of gender, and leave "marriage" as a religious document with no privileges, rights, or legal standing.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 18, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Further, I would prefer to give up any tax or other benefits of marriage in order to disallow same-sex couples or civil unions from receiving them. The reason there are tax breaks for married couples is to encourage people to form healthy family environments for raising our next generation. I do not want those tax breaks to be extended to homosexual couples, because that would go against the purpose of encouraging healthy family environments. I would prefer to forgo my tax breaks. No tax breaks for anyone.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 18, 2013 at 9:19 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

A few points:

1. I support the idea of differentiating marriage and civil unions and granting privileges to those in civil unions. A heterosexual couple from the church can have both a marriage and a civil union, giving them religious context while granting them privileges. That's a fair compromise

2. People of the church need to put as much vigor into getting divorce outlawed as they do with gay marriage.

3. The only part of the Bible addressing homosexuality as a sin was in the book of Leviticus. The laws of Leviticus not only condemn a man lying with another man, but also:

-Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales. This means eating lobster or shrimp is as much of a sin as homosexuality.

-Mixing fabrics in clothing. That poly-cotton blend is a one way ticket to hell.

-Planting different seeds in the same field. Modern farming is a tool of the devil.

-Trimming your beard. Pretty sure all the men are guilty. Some women too.

-Getting tattoos. We need to stop tattooed people from ruining the sanctity of marriage, too, I guess.

-Working on the Sabbath. Thou shalt not receiveth overtime.

Selective enforcement is what makes the homosexuality issue seem petty and cruel. Follow your Bible fully, or stop your false crusade.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Anon11 - Find a bible, read Romans 1

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 19, 2013 at 10:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

CD,

Except for the problem of grandfathering marriages into civil unions, your idea is a better than decent starting point.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 19, 2013 at 11:01 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Cool, so God's wrath includes "...[giving] them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves..."

"Such things are worthy of death"

Yeah, that's not crazy at all. Replace "gays" with "jews" and your God is Hitler.

Here's a crazy thought: Take all the loving, non-violent parts of the bible and apply them to your life without subscribing to a mob mentality aka religion.

You don't need to believe a story to be a good person. However, blind faith in an institution that selectively (and conveniently) enforces its beliefs and morals is dangerous, and can make otherwise good people do hateful and violent things. Like segregating people because they love the wrong person.

The Bible says it's true because it is the word of God, whose existence is validated through the Bible. If this simple contradiction can be ignored by the religious, I fear for their lack of critical thinking and what damage it can do, especially in numbers.

Oh wait, we already know... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2013 at 12:37 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

So you just want to tap dance around the fact that you were wrong?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 19, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Fundamentally, a religious text has no basis as a foundation of civil law. It is pointless to argue about what any specific section says as none of it is relevant.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 19, 2013 at 1:39 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

@JeanMarc

Sure, I was wrong about it being mentioned in only one place. But the overlying contradiction still stands.

The book of Leviticus has the foundation of the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Only in Romans is it referenced again as such. This has no impact on the validity of the laws of Leviticus, because surely they are either ALL the word of God, or they are not and are subsequently irrelevant.

Please don't tap dance around this point. In fact, maybe you can even directly address it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 19, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Do the Bible's laws regarding slavery have any validity?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Leviticus again! Is this not the eternal doctrine of God?

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 2:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

No, ANITA, wrong, wrong. Marriage is NOT a "right" in and of itself.

@TB, NO it is NOT "chosen." That's the whole point. Concur with the rest.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I remember last year Tom Fudge wrote an article: Someone Has to Stand Up for Prop 8.

Is he still employed by KPBS???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

@Alex, it's the typical American bumper-sticker level sloganeering. It is common of the Left AND the Right. It fails to advance the debate, regardless of the issue at hand.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

JOHN MARK says "I was hoping to see what some of the regular leftists here had to say about our responses. I guess in the face of absolute logic, it is hard to present an argument that holds water."

I guess our JOHN MARK considers Carl De Maio, Bonnie Dumanis, Dick Cheney, Newt Gringrinch, Jerry Sanders, and an obscure Republican congressman from Ohio, all SUPPORTERS of same-sex marriage, to be Leftwing, eh???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

DLR, IF the institution of marriage is corrupt, (are you just talking USA or including Western hemisphere and Europe?), WHY on earth would a group of people want to be corrupted??? There is nothing but illogic in your statement.

Check the 2012 US Census, for the first time, non-married couples living together OUTNUMBER the married ones. So it is a contradiction for those same couples to want something for others they don't wish for themselves. And on a level of "entitlements," nothing that civil unions couldn't take care of. Again, more illogical thinking on the part of these people.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2013 at 4:15 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Mission I do agree with one thing you said - marriage is not a human rights issue. People who say this should probably just go back to facebook or something.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 19, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Marriage isn't the issue. It's the privileges that come with it. Divorce the two and you'd be correct.

Please go back and reply directly to points I made to you in prior postings. Don't tap dance around them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 19, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

No, "marriage" itself is NOT the ultimate goal for militants but it IS one huge step--it's part of a socio-cultural consolidation/legitimization. That's the ultimate goal--to claim there are NO differences EVEN though they themselves have set themselves "apart" with a subculture and specific "values." They can those privileges, AL ANON, with civl unions, but this just isn't good enough for the leadership.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 20, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Mission,

Your "socio-cultural consolidation" statement is spot-on. Regarding my idea that the institution is corrupt, one only need to look at the bridal and divorce industries. In the U.S., getting married and divorced is too easy. Therein lies the corruption.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 20, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'Real_MF_G'

Real_MF_G | June 20, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I agree with Mr. Grebenshchikov, wholeheartedly. To liken the homosexual movement to the black civil rights movement is insulting to myself, my family and all of the great men and women who lead us through the darkness. I don't see homosexuals being attacked by policy dogs, knocked down and suffocated by by fire hoses, gunned down in their homes or dragged behind trucks until decapitated. All of these things were done to African Americans, just 40 years ago. I've seen the colored windows at restaurants and colored fountains in public parks that my mother and father were forced to use, lest they be beaten, thrown in jail and likely end up behind a truck. This sort of violence was so wide spread and common that it was viewed as acceptable, even normal; condoned by local, state and most of the federal government. Those who didn't condone such acts, simply turned a blind eye.

Isolated incidents of violence, toward gays, are just that; isolated. These people aren't being dragged into the streets. They aren't fighting for their lives. They're fighting to silence those who disagree with their lifestyle and to infringe on the beliefs of the religious. I have my beliefs and you are free to tell me I'm wrong; why is it that I can't tell you, you're wrong?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Real_MF_G'

Real_MF_G | June 20, 2013 at 10:14 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Question for Anon11. You seem to be able to cherry pick from the Bible, in much the same way you claim Christians do. Have you studied the four gospels? Have you read the prophetical books, including the minor prophets? I don't believe you have; you don't seem to have an understanding of the content that Leviticus and Romans bookend. You've completely overlooked the reconciliation. Yes, that was a pun.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

Just for starters.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 20, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

RMFG, why do you think that is relevant to the way governments classify (and incentivize) the interactions of private citizens?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | June 20, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

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

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"Sorry but no one can force me to accept or legitimize their abnormal lifestyle choices. Why don't pedophiles or beast lovers also push for legitimization of the feelings they were born with and did not choose?"

Because kids and animals aren't of the age and/or mental capacity to consent. Is this not obvious?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"I don't see homosexuals being attacked by policy dogs, knocked down and suffocated by by fire hoses, gunned down in their homes or dragged behind trucks until decapitated. "

You can't see God either. Does that mean he doesn't exist?


...The More You Know

Besides, is it really necessary to reach a point of brutality and violence before a real life group of people are recognized as human beings worthy of equal rights? It would be like saying the Palestinians don't deserve a recognized state because they haven't had a holocaust. How intelligent is that logic?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"Question for Anon11. You seem to be able to cherry pick from the Bible, in much the same way you claim Christians do. Have you studied the four gospels? Have you read the prophetical books, including the minor prophets? I don't believe you have; you don't seem to have an understanding of the content that Leviticus and Romans bookend. You've completely overlooked the reconciliation. Yes, that was a pun."

I am probably not the foremost expert on the Bible, although I have encountered many people who are both more religious and less read. But I digress.

Your excuse is a common one. "You're taking it out of context", is essentially what your defense is.

But surely it holds true that if one law of Leviticus is deemed worthy enough to protest against, than the rest should be held to the same standard. It is the inconsistency of the application, and the selective nature of enforcement, that makes the crusade against homosexuality seem so hypocritical and ill-conceived.

Why are you not protesting to shut down Long John Silver's and Red Lobster? Because eating shellfish is an abomination unto God, according to the same laws that govern homosexuality.

Same with clothing of mixed fabrics, and everything else I listed above that was, YET AGAIN, ignored. Why? Because you're WRONG and you have no basis for any sort of sensible argument. It is pure selectivism and HATE driving this crusade.

Address the laws of Leviticus as a whole, and maybe you'll be taken a bit more seriously. Until you do, how can you expect anyone with any semblance of critical thought to take your side?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Real_MF_G'

Real_MF_G | June 20, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

benz72, to answer your question; nothing. Did you read all of Anon11's comments?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Real_MF_G'

Real_MF_G | June 20, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

And to Anon11... my point isn't that you take it out of context. You simply don't know what you're talking about. I took a couple physics courses, in college; I wouldn't engage a physicist, in debate of string theory, and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. Simply put... you have to understand B-Y to understand A and Z.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 20, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

It always baffles me when people who are not gay decide to vehemently defend the homosexual agenda. It is like they need some cause to latch onto and associate with, to belong to part of a great and epic struggle. Ted Kaczynski articulated this mindset perfectly in his manifesto on a section about the leftists feelings of inferiority:

By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 20, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Thank you Tarryn Mento, we would all do well to exercise a little more civility. These hot topics can easily go off course. In this case, I think the focus should be shifted off of attacks on religious beliefs, and brought back to the core issue of whether or not the government should set moral standards for the people, or grant special rights to any group based on a moral standard that group holds. It seems that by doing so, the government is essentially supporting or rejecting a moral standard, which will always result in some citizens being validated while others are simultaneously being invalidated. If the government sets moral standards for the people, then would't religious freedom essentially be threatened? Whether Christians, Humanists, Naturalists, Muslims or whatever, someone will always be oppressed in some way by the government if the government enforces moral systems. Of course, we need some minimums to preserve personal liberty, like making murder and rape illegal... but isn't it best for everyone to keep the government out of this? Shouldn't marriage be handled in the church? I don't know the historic roots of offering tax incentives for married couples, maybe it was to promote a family structure that would lead to the quickest population growth, which would strengthen our country in the end. But maybe it is time to do away tax incentives or open the tax incentives to everyone without the government being involved in the recognition and definition of marriage, which is supposed to be a religious union and commitment, not a secular tax shelter.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 6:01 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"And to Anon11... my point isn't that you take it out of context. You simply don't know what you're talking about."

Explain to me then why one law of Leviticus is given more zealous attention above all the others? You don't have to be an expert in the Bible to recognize inconsistencies and logical fallacies.

The penalty for homosexuality as per the Bible is death. Are you killing homosexuals? Should you?

You keep dancing around the grim realities of the selective hatefulness you engage in, justifying it with religious context you can't even consistently obey,

You're a hypocrite, preaching from the same book you ignore half of. The same book that says rape victims should marry their rapists, and people who take the lord's name in vain should be put to death. Why aren't you trying to make that law too?

You don't have answers to these questions. Continue to ignore them like you have been.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

JeanMarc,

Being gay is not an agenda. When did you choose to be straight? Do you have a heterosexual agenda?

I don't think you understand how the majority of us feel. We don't think homosexuals are weak, we feel they are bullied. We want them to have the same opportunities every human being is supposed to get. It's the same logic behind allowing interracial marriage, or eliminating racial segregation and slavery.

1 John 4:19-21:

"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."

(By the way, I don't think quoting the Unabomber is going to help your position.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 6:14 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"To Anon11: We do have a sense of humor, but when it comes to text, sarcasm can easily get lost in translation (http://ow.ly/meTri). Perhaps next time include a clarifying statement?"

Fair enough. I didn't think I left much room to interpret it as literal.. I was wrong.

"Also, you indicated that our coverage of debated issues gives rise to discriminatory or hateful speech. Thanks for raising this point. We do at times cover controversial topics, and the goal of doing so is to stimulate robust but civil discussion among those who have opposing – or even similar – views. That is the foundation of a public forum and we established our Community Discussion Rules to help facilitate this. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions on our pages, and we encourage you to continue doing so."

I just hope you see the irony in having ToS that state no hateful speech or discrimination towards a group of people, then having coverage of a proposed piece of law which is basically that.

If we are presented with legislation that deals with an ugly side of humanity, we should be prepared to have a very uncensored and intense debate.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 20, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Alex,

You hit the nail on the head. But we shouldn't lose sight of the root of this problem. Religious indoctrination is the head of the snake, and we need to cut it off. It has already shown it can infiltrate government and poison the discourse with its (often violent) mysticism.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 21, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Anon11, I think we kind of agree in a sense, but I'm not sure... To me, religious freedom means the citizens are free to practice any religion they choose, but they cannot force someone else to practice their religion. They can talk about it and evangelize all they want, but they should not be able to create and enforce religious governmental laws. I guess the extreme example of that would be Sharia law. Then, the other side of the same coin would be that those who are not religious at all, or even anti-religion perhaps, are also free to be anti-religious, but they cannot force someone else to not practice their religious beliefs.
But, when you write "But we shouldn't lose sight of the root of this problem. Religious indoctrination is the head of the snake, and we need to cut it off. It has already shown it can infiltrate government and poison the discourse with its (often violent) mysticism."
I see that as your, for lack of a better term, "religious" belief. Others who are religious themselves would feel quite the opposite, and would not see their beliefs as poisonous. So who is right? Well, you are probably sure that you are right, Religious people are also sure they are right, but in the end, neither side should be allowed to force the other side to believe or behave in differently.
I think that is what you are saying, but it almost sounded like you were leaning towards restriction of religious freedom, that the non-religious should actively stop the religious from exercising their freedom when you write "and we need to cut it off". To me that would be the same as Muslims enacting Sharia law and actively stopping the non-religious from exercising their freedom to not engage in Muslim practices. Non-religious, or secular people do not want to be held to a God-made moral code, and religious people do not want to be held to a man-made moral code. That is the way the two sides see it. The government should not pick sides, but should allow each to exist freely in this country.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Real_MF_G'

Real_MF_G | June 21, 2013 at 10:16 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Anon11, all of your questions are answered in the person of Jesus Christ. That probably seems like me dancing around your questions, but it's the simple truth. If you'd actually spent time studying the Jesus of the Bible, you would have the answers to these questions. But you haven't. You're like a man shouting in the street about things you know nothing about. Do you know that Jesus is the redeemer of all creation? Do you have any idea what that means? Did you know that the know universe need to be redeemed or why?

You've gone on about hate, but I don't hate anyone. Are you saying that disagreeing with someone's lifestyle, is hateful? If that's the case, is it hateful to disagree with the lifestyle of a prostitute, drug addict or Amway personal business owner? They aren't hurting anyone. What about a psychotic killers? They have a neurological condition. They were born that way. Is it right for the government to punish them for acting on their impulses? You tell me why they should be forced to conform to this society?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 21, 2013 at 11:01 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Scanning through the comments, I think this one is right on point:

"benz72 | June 19, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ― 1 day, 20 hours ago
Fundamentally, a religious text has no basis as a foundation of civil law. It is pointless to argue about what any specific section says as none of it is relevant".

Countries under Sharia Law, which many Conservative Americans purport to revile, use religion to discriminate against homosexuals, and often do so in in-humane ways (long prison sentences, even death).

If American Conservatives want to use the bible to legislate "morality" laws, I don't really see much of a difference between that and Sharia Law. The only difference is which religion is being cherry-picked and used for political purposes.

The bible spends little time on homosexuality when one looks at the totality of the literature. A few obscure, vague passages that have been over-blown by the religious right in America. We can argue back and forth about what the bible meant, but the thing that is clear is this obviously wasn't a top issue on the minds of people at the time it was written because many other topics were given far more attention.

So my point is basically that it is baseless in a secular society to use the bible or any religious text to legislate, and even for those who insist on doing so, they are doing so disingenuously by cherry-picking and over-emphasizing certain points while paying less attention to other points in the bible that they are embarrassed by (like, for example, condoning sex slavery).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 21, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Mission and Jean, I can't speak for all gay activists, but my view of it is the human rights issue is the broader issue of equality, not marriage itself.

I don't think it's a fundamental human right to have access to a drinking fountain, but when you start telling someone they can't drink out of it due to their race, it becomes a severe violation of human rights.

Same for marriage, it exists, it's prevalent, and most importantly - it's currently a government-provided right. Since being gay is not illegal, how can a government tell someone who is not doing something illegal that they can't have equal rights under said government?

People on parole for spousal abuse can get married - you probably don't agree with their lifestyle, but I don't see anyone complaining about them destroying the marriages of non-convicted spousal abuse marriages.

As long as the government is involved in marriage, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against otherwise law-abiding citizens (hence the distinction between your straw-man arguments about bestiality, pedophilia, etc. which are ILLEGAL mind you).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | June 21, 2013 at 12:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Should adult polygamist marriages be legally recognized?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 21, 2013 at 12:46 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"Should adult polygamist marriages be legally recognized?"

Yes. If there is consent among adults, then there is no problem.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 21, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

@Alex

"Then, the other side of the same coin would be that those who are not religious at all, or even anti-religion perhaps, are also free to be anti-religious, but they cannot force someone else to not practice their religious beliefs. "

If this was true, we would not forbid murder where it was appropriate in the Bible, such as when you commit adultery. The fact that murder is illegal in direct defiance to biblical orders is proof that we CAN force someone else to not practice their beliefs. (Or if not force, at least make illegal)

"But, when you write [...], I see that as your, for lack of a better term, "religious" belief. Others who are religious themselves would feel quite the opposite, and would not see their beliefs as poisonous. So who is right? Well, you are probably sure that you are right, Religious people are also sure they are right, but in the end, neither side should be allowed to force the other side to believe or behave in differently."

The thing about my position, though, is that it practices consistent logic, and follows the scientific method where applicable.

By pointing out that homosexual discrimination was based in a book of laws in the old testament, and that the other laws have been selectively ignored, you're exposing an inconsistency. When something is both simultaneously enforced by, and ignored by, its followers, you can confidently say something is wrong.

As a contrast, my position regarding homosexuality is that as long as it is among consenting adults, it should be a right. This logic remains consistent when challenged. I am not basing my position on a broad set of rules and only selectively enforcing a singular part. The rule stands alone, it stands up to scrutiny and challenge, and it can be fully justified.

Why should anyone treat religious faiths with the same respect as a consistent, logical, scientific approach?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 21, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"I think that is what you are saying, but it almost sounded like you were leaning towards restriction of religious freedom, that the non-religious should actively stop the religious from exercising their freedom when you write "and we need to cut it off". To me that would be the same as Muslims enacting Sharia law and actively stopping the non-religious from exercising their freedom to not engage in Muslim practices. Non-religious, or secular people do not want to be held to a God-made moral code, and religious people do not want to be held to a man-made moral code. That is the way the two sides see it. The government should not pick sides, but should allow each to exist freely in this country."

I do believe in restrictions on religious freedom. It should be restricted to private life and churches. I believe in restricting religion from having an influence on the direction of this country. Especially given that the dominant and/or popular religion usually enforces their beliefs, while other religions still remain voiceless. How many Hindus in congress again? Essentially, these are restrictions to religious freedom.

At the end of the day, we don't follow a lot of the teachings of the Bible. Why should we allow a group of people to be targeted based on sexuality? It's illegal in the workplace. It should be illegal in everyday life... just like murdering your cheating spouse.

" To me, religious freedom means the citizens are free to practice any religion they choose, but they cannot force someone else to practice their religion. They can talk about it and evangelize all they want, but they should not be able to create and enforce religious governmental laws."

This is ideal, but not realistic. Religion is an ongoing manipulation, especially in politics. Just like the free market needs protections against fraud, politics needs protections against religion. It's an ugly truth, but well deserved.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 21, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"Anon11, all of your questions are answered in the person of Jesus Christ. That probably seems like me dancing around your questions, but it's the simple truth."

It's a cop out. You won't explain why people are up in arms about one law of Leviticus while ignoring so many others. No matter how you try to justify the Bible through some broad, generalized context, the inconsistency of application remains the same, and you have done nothing to explain it directly.

Remind us all again what Jesus himself said about homosexuals...?

I already quoted 1 John 4:19-21. Why do you not follow this teaching of Christ?

"If you'd actually spent time studying the Jesus of the Bible, you would have the answers to these questions. But you haven't. You're like a man shouting in the street about things you know nothing about. Do you know that Jesus is the redeemer of all creation? Do you have any idea what that means? Did you know that the know universe need to be redeemed or why?"

Irrelevant. Either the laws of Leviticus are entirely valid, or entirely invalid. Which is it? If they're invalid, there should be no homosexual discrimination. If they are valid, why are most of them not being enforced? ANSWER THIS ALREADY!!

"You've gone on about hate, but I don't hate anyone. Are you saying that disagreeing with someone's lifestyle, is hateful?"

Disagreement implies personal opinion. Trying to legally suppress a lifestyle is far beyond an exercise of free speech.

"If that's the case, is it hateful to disagree with the lifestyle of a prostitute, drug addict or Amway personal business owner? They aren't hurting anyone."

If you try to suppress their lives, you are being hateful. Personal opinions are ok, but prop 8 is not just a quiet opinion.

"What about a psychotic killers? They have a neurological condition. They were born that way. Is it right for the government to punish them for acting on their impulses?"

Yes, because murder is illegal. Consensual sex is not. I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult.

"You tell me why they should be forced to conform to this society?"

Because when you do things that hurt other people, you are disrupting society. I don't know about you, but I tend to like the idea of a non-violent, free society full of different opinions. Once your opinions cause harm or suppression to others, you are not identifying a problem... you are a problem.

That's why murderers, rapists, and violent people should be punished... and why homosexuals, and racial and religious minorities should not be. Tell me what part of this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Show me where my inconsistencies lie. Address my points directly! PLEASE!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 21, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"So my point is basically that it is baseless in a secular society to use the bible or any religious text to legislate, and even for those who insist on doing so, they are doing so disingenuously by cherry-picking and over-emphasizing certain points while paying less attention to other points in the bible that they are embarrassed by (like, for example, condoning sex slavery)."

A thousand times this^^^. They can't address this grim reality directly. They dance around it constantly. It should be a sort of enlightenment for them, but it's not.

I'm just waiting for the day one of them stops and realizes that their holy book is full of heinous atrocities and rules for life that have no place in a civilized society.

When are they going to stop and think, "Holy crap, I'm supposed to kill someone who uses the Lord's name in vain as per the Ten Commandments! I obviously am not going to do this, so maybe I should question the validity of this book. I know in my heart it is wrong to kill someone over something so trivial, yet my God supposedly orders it? This is not right! Maybe I should listen to my heart and carve my own moral path. The Bible does get many things right, like loving and forgiving people. Maybe I'll just stick with what I think is helpful, but take the religion as a whole way less seriously."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 21, 2013 at 2:52 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

DLR, as to my comment the other day, I have for a long time believed getting married should be difficult (mandatory pre-marriage counseling, especially for under 21, for example) and divorce should be made easier. Sadly because of our lawyer-happy society, it is not.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 21, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Thank you, REAL M F M, I hope the Duckster is reading your post.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 21, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

JOHN MARK says: "It always baffles me when people who are not gay decide to vehemently defend the homosexual agenda. It is like they need some cause to latch onto and associate with, to belong to part of a great and epic struggle. Ted Kaczynski articulated this mindset perfectly in his manifesto on a section about the leftists feelings of inferiority:"

One of the VERY few times that you are actually congruent. It baffles ME when unmarried hetoros who are living together, come out and support gays and lesbians for "traditional marriage." Who are they kidding? I totally understand hypocrites like Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigoza who are doing it for votes, but heteros in general, why would those heteros wish something for a group of people that THEY themselves don't believe in??? You know, that old trite "it's just a little piece of paper" argument. Hmm. Wonder why we don't hear that now from GLBT???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 21, 2013 at 3:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Thank you, Ms T. Mento.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 21, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

AL ANON, you have me all confused now with an above statement. Are you pro civil union as I am but opposed to same-sex marriage??? And how can you make Nativist statements (on there posts) and now suddenly express sympathy for the Palestianians??? Will the REAL An Anon please stand up?

Duckster, read REAL M F B's first post above. His comment about comparisons to the civil RIGHTS movement is right on target. Sadly, lost on the American Left.

JOHN MARK, WHY WHY WHY do you think that only the Left is sympathetic toward gays and lesbians? Ever heard of Jerry Sanders, Dick Cheney, Newt Gringrinch or an obscure congressman in Ohio? Look at KOGO AM Hate Radio--their La Donna Harvey is pro same sex marriage yet she is as Randian as they come!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hyperpalette'

hyperpalette | June 22, 2013 at 9:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

I am sooo with California Defender. How will a government mandate "intensify" things for any couple?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'SDres'

SDres | June 22, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Years from now this will be an old, dead debate. It won't be long before same-sex marriage is legal in most states. I look forward to it. Opposition to same-sex marriage is just a subconscious (or conscious) act of discrimination against gays: people who happen to like the same sex. I'm 38, female, hetero and college educated. Same-sex marriage is not really a personal problem of mine...but I also have plenty of food in the fridge yet still care when others go hungry.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 22, 2013 at 11:42 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Mission and real MF_G I have plenty of Frican American friends who disagree with you.

Discrimination hurts regardless of who it is wing discriminated against.

I have never said the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are exactly the same, of course there are differences.

But one thing you can't argue is that bigots use the same arguments to deny gay rights as they did to discriminate against African Americans. It's there in black and white for anybody to read, the same laundry list of slippery-slope religious crap arguments.

Sorry mission, but I love my close black fiends and I value what they have to say more than what "MF_G" an Internet stranger has to say.

And my close Afican American friends, some of whom are gay and some who aren't, tell me discrimination is wrong regardless of who the target is.

I think I'll stick with them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 22, 2013 at 11:43 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

First sentence should read "African American", commenting using an iPad is not say on here :(

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LWG'

LWG | June 24, 2013 at 10:18 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

As a woman I find it offensive that the government still chooses to isolate me as a victim of gender.
Stating that marriage is between a "man and a woman" incorrectly admits that two adult citizens of the U.S. are, in fact, not equal.

I am sure that I need not go into that civil and religious recognition are separate identities and personal identification with a religious entity is a choice.
The civil identification of an adult is "regardless of race, creed or gender" and protected, I thought, by our constitution.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 24, 2013 at 10 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

SDRESS, name ONE PERSON in the history of the world who died because they couldn't marry?

You may be college educated, but I guess you missed Logic 101 from the looks of your apples and bananas argument.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 24, 2013 at 10:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

DUCKSTER, maybe you haven't personally, but there are more than enough GLBT militants and their hetero supporters, with little understanding of history, who have! And you know they have. It can neither be compared to, nor analagous to, the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s.

"It's there in black and white for anybody to read, the same laundry list of slippery-slope religious crap arguments"

(Pun intended???) Nope, I can't see it. Your personal anti-religious prejudices aside, where is this "discrimination"??? How is Ellen or Jonathan Haze being "discriminated" against??? Let me ask you this, if Ellen and myself were to commit the same exact crime, me in downtown San Diego and her up in Westwood, whom do you think would be out first???

As to your friends, I wonder how old they are. But I would certainly put more weight in what former San Diego council man and current editor/publisher of San Diego Voice & Viewpoint, John Warren, has said on the subject, even without embracing his personal ideology.

PS Duck: I worked the polls in November of 2008. An OVERWHELMING number of Obama voters ALSO voted FOR Prop 8. I saw this when counting and sorting the ballots. And that was at a precinct with many African American voters. Just an FYI

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 25, 2013 at 6:57 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

MA, the popularity of prop 8 measure does not imply that it is just, only that people are willing to impose restrictions on others. I presume you would agree that, should the people of California vote by overwhelming majority to seize the computers of all KPBS commenters, you would join me in protesting the injustice despite its clear popular appeal.

To use your style of argument, please name ONE PERSON in the history of the world who died because someone else could marry? It seems like an odd threshold in a debate about government regulation of interpersonal affairs.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 25, 2013 at 8:51 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Anne Boleyn was killed so that Henry VIII could remarry legitimately (confluence of events including, among other things, Catherine of Aragon's death and Anne's miscarriages). There were lots of funky rules for marriage imposed by the Church and monarchies back then.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 25, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"SDRESS, name ONE PERSON in the history of the world who died because they couldn't marry?"

So you should only be granted rights when you will die without them? What an ignorant notion.

Your "Logic 101" would repeal our right to vote, since no one has ever died from not voting. Great job there, Captain America.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 25, 2013 at 10:54 a.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"It can neither be compared to, nor analagous to, the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s."

Right, except the whole part about miscegenation laws, better known as interracial marriage.

If you can't acknowledge the similarities between these two movements, you have to be willfully ignorant.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 25, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

DLR, your response answers neither my question nor MA's.
You have presents a case in which someone was killed so that another COULD marry, not as a result of two other people marrying or as a result of one person not being able to marry. Also, Anne’s death in that circumstance is more appropriately attributed to political expedience than any other proximal cause. Ophelia didn’t die because she couldn’t marry Hamlet either, she drowned herself.

That being said, it is still a somewhat ridiculous argument. Can we agree that life and death stakes should not be attached to marriage laws in a civilized society?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 25, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

BENZ, responding to SDress's poor analogy of same sex marriage and the need to eat food in order to sustain life.

I argue against those who, by current GLBT dogma, call this a "human right" when in fact it is a civil matter.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 25, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

DLR, I'm afraid the monarchies made up their own rules back then! Had a commoner gone up to the local authorities and requested a "divorce" because he could not have a son (to hand over his smal plot of land some day) with his current wife--common law or not, he would have been turned back very quickly

It's interesting history, but has nothing to do with the present issue.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 25, 2013 at 2 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

AL ANON, your understand of what makes a poor in analogy (in SDress's case) is as bad as your knowledge/information on immigration, the history of immigration in this country, and labor history.

See my above response to BENZZZ.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 25, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

benzzz writes: Can we agree that life and death stakes should not be attached to marriage laws in a civilized society?"

Sure, but it is SDRESS, who is making the analogy of prohibiting same sex marriage with world hunger!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 25, 2013 at 3:26 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

Benz and Mission,

I gave one example of a human who was killed as a consequence of complex marriage laws/rules. I think a discussion about Rome's marriage laws circa 1530 and our current marriage laws would be interesting at the very least (just not on this thread). Of course, marriage should never be a life or death issue.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 25, 2013 at 7:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 4 months ago

"I argue against those who, by current GLBT dogma, call this a "human right" when in fact it is a civil matter."

OK, do you believe equal treatment under civil law is, or should be, a human right?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | June 26, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

I stand on the other side of history from it. See ya later, Prop 8.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really'

Really | June 27, 2013 at 8:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Leviticus 20:9. If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. WOW

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really'

Really | June 27, 2013 at 9:06 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

I guess this thread is MOOT now isn't it??

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 9:19 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

BENZ, does anyone NOT have equal protection under the law?

Surely you must be personally torn (if you even bothered to read it) on that story they uploaded here on gay couple immigrants lol

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 9:22 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

dLR Henry VIII didn't have his wife executed because of a law, rather out of spite.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 30, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

MA, are you talking about civil or criminal law? Do you include executive implementation of law that preferentially targets specific groups for benefits or penalties?

What make you think I would be torn? I don't dislike immigrants, I'm married to one. I dislike ILLEGAL immigrants, just like I dislike trespassers and thieves. It is not that act of crossing a boundary that angers me but rather the arrogant assumption of entitlement to do so followed by demands for forgiveness.There are legitimate ways to enter. Get in line.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 1, 2013 at 7:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

"Do you include executive implementation of law that preferentially targets specific groups for benefits or penalties?"

Give me an example, Benzzz. You mean like HIV/AIDS is curiously the ONLY "protected" STD???

You "dislike" ILLEGAL immigrants. Thanks for not beating around the bush for once. You've revealed your inner most self. At least you're most honest than those in the past that used to say, "I don't discriminate, some of my best friends are . . . "

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 1, 2013 at 7:20 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Benzzz, just what do you think that KPBS story was about??? NOT gay immigrants but gay couples physically and legally separated BECAUSE of an immigration issue where one is a citizen or legal resident and the other is in legal limbo or worse. I don't think you read it otherwise you would not have posted your predictable second paragraph.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 2, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

MA, you might want to check the z key on your computer, it seems to be stuck.

As a specific example; implementing tax law to only benefit marriages of a specific type at the exclusion of others would be unequal in my view.

I'm surprised you take issue with what ought to be a fairly common sentiment against crime. For the record, I dislike carjackers, drug dealers and child molesters as well. Do you support crime? or are you ambivalent and chose to not discriminate against criminals in favor of the lawful? That seems like an odd position to hold.

As to the content of the original story and our diversion from it, I'm not the originator of the question about immigration in a civil rights discussion.

I'm glad you can predict sensible responses though, hopefully you can generate them yourself from now on. Good Luck

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Eddie89'

Eddie89 | July 2, 2013 at 11:26 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

With Prop 8 gone, the only thing that will happen to the institution of "marriage" in California is "MORE MARRIED PEOPLE!"

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | July 3, 2013 at 8:11 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Eddie89,

More divorced people too. It's great that our LGBT friends are going to get a shot at marriage, but they won't be immune to its harsh realities. The trip is almost always better than the destination. Good luck.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 3, 2013 at 11:26 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

"I'm surprised you take issue with what ought to be a fairly common sentiment against crime. For the record, I dislike carjackers, drug dealers and child molesters as well. Do you support crime? or are you ambivalent and chose to not discriminate against criminals in favor of the lawful? That seems like an odd position to hold."

To equate clandestine border crossers or visa-overstayers is both absurd and offensive. "Not speaking to an immigration officer" (horror of horrors!) is a civil offense. Deportations themselves are civil proceedings; not criminal ones.

"As to the content of the original story and our diversion from it, I'm not the originator of the question about immigration in a civil rights discussion"

I was referring to the earlier related story:

Gay Couples Push For Inclusion In Immigration Reform Bill | KPBS.org

<p>www.kpbs.org › News › Feb 20, 2013‎

Feb 21, 2013 - That has forced many bi-national gay couples to split up. ... John McCain said including same-sex immigration benefits could doom an ...
Same-Sex Couple Seeks Immigration Relief From High Court - KPBS

<p>www.kpbs.org › News › Jun 23, 2013‎

Jun 23, 2013 - They are among an estimated 36,000 binational, same-sex couples in the U.S., says Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality; nearly half of them

Z is not stuck, just falling asleep reading your verbage (lol)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 3, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Eddie, the US Supreme Court did NOT consult the 2010 Census before their vote:
Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds - NYTimes ...

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html‎

May 26, 2011 - Married couples dropped below half of all American households for the ... Married couples represented just 48 percent of American households in 2010, according to data ... Women with college degrees are now more likely to marry than ... who tend to be single people in their 20s and 30s, and the growing

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 3, 2013 at 11:37 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Clarification above: to equate clandestine border crossers or visa-overstayers with carjackers and child molestors as the very Manichean Benzzz believes, is both absurd and offensive, not only because one group is a criminal offense and the other a civil offense, but ALSO because border-crossing or over staying your visa are not violent acts like carjacking or child abuse, again, as Benzzz believes.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 3, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

I am not comparing them to carjacker or child molesters, merely stating that I do not support their actions either. Please clarify this MA, do you support the offenses committed by illegal aliens or not? If so, why? should we also stop taking action against speeders, litterers, etc.? If you don't support their violations, why would you be surprised that others repudiate them as well?

Also, you seem to have me confused with a gnostic. I assure you that I am not.
Is there a reason you continue using multiple zs to address me? Do you think the conversation is somehow enhanced by it?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'SDres'

SDres | July 7, 2013 at 8:39 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Missionaccomplished - the analogy I'm using, "I have plenty of food to eat, but I still care if people go hungry" was used to show that even though I see inequalities or injustices in the world that don't directly affect me, I still care about changing them. Also, the Civil Rights Movement was renowned for it's non-violent civil disobedience, so a bunch of people actually did not get killed...also the right to vote, fair housing, etc. are several examples of civil rights laws that didn't involve dying.

I'm not missing any logic "logic 101" in my comments. However, your need to to try and discredit people by insulting them is very telling.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'SDres'

SDres | July 7, 2013 at 8:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

After re-reading my comment, I want to clarify my "so a bunch of people actually did not get killed" by saying people did not want to die or go to war over Civil Rights and wanted to participate in non-violent acts. Many people *did* get killed/assassinated during the Civil Rights Movement, and we should certainly honor them. My comment was not to minimize those who died for these causes by the way.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 8, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes, glad you did. Otherwise, THAT would have been very telling as to your depth of knowledge in US history.

( | suggest removal )