Santa Barbara’s Clergy on Proposition 8

When considering which way to vote on proposition 8 you may want to consider this question? Which parent - the father or the mother - should a child be without? If you think a father is not important or a mother is not important then you've concluded that two men can raise a child the same way a mother and a father can. Yes on 8. Protect children.

As you consider the readers question above (from ellaporter), also consider the following question: Do you think all married couples without children should have their right to be married eliminated?

Good parenting is crucial, but claiming marriage is only about children is insulting to the millions of heterosexual married couples here in California who do not have children. If you suggest gay marriage elimination will protect children, then you must think that childless heterosexual couples need to have their rights eliminated too, because of the dangers they pose to children? Cmon now - you are fighting to find a logic to something that has none! It is plain and simple - you don't like gays! You clearly haven't been offered the opportunity to know a healthy gay couple who has in fact raised a healthy child. Perhaps someday you will see firsthand and realize that hetero or homosexual couples face the same challenges as any parent. That doesn't require signing a proposition to eliminate rights for anyone that doesn't fit the mold of what some religions interpret as "family".

As a reminder, marriage certainly isn't only for parents. If you voted yes on Prop 8, it would do nothing to stop the thousands of gay and lesbians who are already parents, or wish to become so. Existing laws allow for this that have NOTHING to do with Prop 8. If you wish to "protect children", don't be misled into thinking your vote for Prop 8 is directly related to children's rights. Avoid the confusion and just vote NO on 8!

When considering which way to vote on proposition 8 you may want to consider this question: Is a child better off growing up with two people who are in a positive, supportive relationship? A child who is loved by an adult grows up healthy. The gender of the loving adult is irrelevant.

Grow up, ellaporter.

If a Prop 8 supporter could present to me a logical argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed, I'd sit down and listen to them. But by logical, I mean an argument that isn't based on religion (because religion has no place in our State Constitution), or opinion. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong. No on Prop 8, Equal rights for ALL!!!

The question is asked. If a Prop 8 supporter could present to me a logical argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed, I'd sit down and listen to them.

This is not about if homosexual unions are aloud, they are. It is only about changing the meaning of the word marriage.

Lets change the word "boat" to mean skate board. Why? becuse I want to. How selfish of me. What is my intent?
These are the questions I have been asking the gay community. There is a provision for homosexuals to be in a union, a joint agreement that is honored by the law.

So why change the meaning of the word Marriage?

"It is only about changing the meaning of the word marriage."

Agreed. And since 'yes on 8' is for the Constitution to be changed, and 'no on 8' is to leave things as they are, then I take that as an argument to 'leave things as they are'.

Sounds good to me. I see it as an uneccessary change to the constitution to change the definition of 'marriage' to be 'between a man and a woman'. What we have right now is working fine. Too bad we had to waste so much money on trying to push an uneccessary change.

Yes the Calif. Constitution has to be changed when voter's choices are not validated. Going to the poll making thier choice only to be changed by a few that could not get thier way. Let me take my ball home becuse I lost. The 8 year old would say.

This is about validating the voting public and thier choices and then keeping intact what was chosen by the masses.

If this passes why would I care to vote in the future. My vote will not count. Socializm? Is this the direction you want?

Take a stand and be counted! Why? my vote did not count last time. Why? Becuase I'am an American and know that the founding fathers would turn in thier grave if they could see what we are voting for.

Words and thier meanings were very inmportant to them, so much they died for the meaning of freedom.

"This is about validating the voting public and thier choices and then keeping intact what was chosen by the masses.

If this passes why would I care to vote in the future. My vote will not count. Socializm? Is this the direction you want?"

Your vote counts, but to elect people who should be able to represent your interest, for a lack of 'reasonable conflict' with others. Voting is not truly about "democracy", because that leads to a "tyranny of the majority"--this is why America is supposed to be a *represented democracy*, where we vote for said representatives. We are also a REPUBLIC, which means individuals influence the government, and we exist under a "rule of law". The end results of this, should be that we have officials who can successfully compromise with others who hold opposing views, and balance the impacts of legislation, in order foster equality among as many differing groups as possible. Representatives should never be expected to simply beat the wardrum louder, because they may share similar opinions. Elections should exist to promote LEADERS, not blind followers of dogma. (Sadly, this is not how it really works--it's much too hard to escape our own self-interests.)

To confuse things, however, certain "majority" movements are heeded over those of dissenting minorities, but others are not. For the most part, an attempt is made to see that ALL types of parties and views are seen and heard, so that there is equal representation within the system. Minority-view groups also live within the U.S., and if they were not duly given a voice, it would amount to "taxation without representation", which is how this country started towards becoming a Nation.

"If this passes why would I care to vote in the future. My vote will not count. Socializm? Is this the direction you want?"

I've never heard of Socializm, but "your vote will not count" has nothing to do with Socialism.

In 2000 people voted on something that was invalid because it violated the state constitution. Or should we just ignore the state constitution? The one you want to change?

"Yes the Calif. Constitution has to be changed when voter's choices are not validated. Going to the poll making thier (sic) choice only to be changed by a few that could not get thier (sic) way. Let me take my ball home becuse (sic) I lost. The 8 year old would say."

The problem here, and one that I think has been grossly overlooked in this whole proposition's campaign, is that the "activist" (new code word for "conservative?") judges who overturned the original vote did so on the grounds that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This means that what we are voting on here is to make it LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Few amendments have ever been passed that have stripped rights. One that did? Prohibition. I think we saw how that worked out.

Also, if you are upset that your vote was overturned, I understand, but it was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. So now we're going to change the constitution just so you can get your way? Talk about taking your ball and going home.

Even if you are against gay marriage based on religion or "morality" (I put that in quotes as I don't believe it is moral to discriminate based on biological differences), you should still understand why it is oh so dangerous to take away a whole group's right to marry. If you replace the fact that the discrimination of marriage is based on homosexuality, and change it to "Jewish people can't marry" (it's Ok to say, I'm Jewish) or "white people can't marry," (it's OK again, I'm white, too lol) I have a feeling it would garner much less support.

I urge everyone to vote NO on PROPOSITION 8, as it is a veiled attempt to strip the rights that people are already married to (pun obviously intended), and a right that is a basic expression of love between two people. NO ON 8!

Please forgive me for spelling socialism wrong. However I once read that Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

About the same time Friedrich Nietzsche's influence of the German language made radical changes to the meaning of words. Hitler reading both of these authors decided that the Jew was evil and so on...Nietzsche's influence still remains substantial

Guys you still don’t get it. This is about changing the meaning of the word marriage nothing else. Call it what you will, the word marriage means between Man and Woman.

A nation is always judged by how it treats its’ children. Search you heart. Do you really think children will understand why they are different when at an elementary school open house they introduce Dad and Dad?

Quit trying to make what is unnormal normal. The first law of nature is procreation the second is gravity.

howardwater, thanks for demonstrating the meaning of "non sequitur."

Next time you try to cut & paste, take the extra time to fully comprehend what you are borrowing.

I would usually suggest just clearly expressing your own ideas, but I can see those are muddled as well ["The first law of nature is procreation the second is gravity."]

Call me an elitist (pleeeze!) but I think you've drifted a little too far from shore.

What you do not believe in the laws of nature?

CS Lewis said it best in his book Mere Christianity ”when a nations words do not mean what they meant the generation before morality is going to be tested.” He said this during a radio broadcast in WW2 when the British were getting bombed 24 hours a day. Citizens were giving up hope. The Germans were trying to convince the British population that Jews were evil and the question of good and evil was being challenged. Lewis uses the example of the word “Gentleman.” Today we think of a gentleman as being a good man however we already have the word good. He explains that the meaning of Gentleman in his and Churchill’s generation meant a man of cast, a lord, land owner or elitist. All of these men could be cheats, liars, and crooks and so on. The word just meant a man of some power.

Churchill in the mid thirties was also trying to pontificate to the British that Hitler was changing the meaning of Natural Law. I sure you understand Jews were sub human.

Even Hitler new that when a stone falls it does not think about it. There are Laws of Nature whether or not you agree does not change the fact.

Say good night Gracy, unlike elitist I have to get up early and work. You see I’m just a working class uneducated guy that when he cut and pasts the truth it does not change the fact that it true.

Thank you for the motivation

O' by the way my parents told me these stories about WW2 becuase they lived it. They lost all they had in London to the blitz.

"Do you really think children will understand why they are different when at an elementary school open house they introduce Dad and Dad?"

Prop 8 won't stop children from introducing Dad and Dad, so why bring that up? But since you brought it up, all kids are different. Some kids only have Mom. Some only Dad. Some have an extra Dad who doesn't live with their Mom, or extra Mom who doesn't live with their Dad. Some have a Mom and Dad who are actually their Grandparents. Some have a White Mom and Black Dad, or vice versa. The point is, real families come in all shapes and sizes. Why make some of those kids feel like theirs isn't a 'real' family? If Prop 8 passes, will you next want to define 'family' as being only a man and a woman and their natural biological offspring?

...will you next want to define 'family' as being only a man and a woman and their natural biological offspring?

Of course not I'm adopted and I can not question the complexities on a so called normal family. I have 2 sons that I would give my life for.

My favorite family story is about a king who was going through a taught time with his people. There had been a famine for 3 years and his people were starving. It hearts him deeply through his sole. His family was always fed last and always hungry.
Then the story turns to a problem of stealing food from the tribe. Someone had been stealing stores of grain and the king made an announcement that this person will be found and killed at the switching post.

A while later the King was informed that the thief had been found. The King orders them to bring the thief to the pole in the central part of the tribe. The thief was to be readied for death by beating. The King now was in the center ready to beat this person to death. He asked only one question. Why? The thief turned around and answered to her son that she wanted her son the King to be strong and healthy. The son King put his arms around his mother and said that He will take her punishment. So the King ordered the head of the guard to whip him to death in order to save his mother.

Love of family, love of life that is the question. Where do we parents draw the line? We must stay the course and hold firm the values of the builders of this nation. If we do not my generation will be that of shame.

That's a nice story, and shows your conviction. I hope you then understand that my conviction is equally as strong that prop 8 is very very wrong.

That understanding on both sides will be critical on Nov 5th.

howardwater, I think the point is missed on both sides then. Would you honestly tell someone they cannot do something solely because of the way they were born? I would not purport to tell you that because you have brown hair (let's just suppose for the case of example) that you are not allowed to marry because people with brown hair are sinful and an abomination to god. I guess you could dye your hair, but underneath, it's still brown (Kinda like when gay people "convert" to being straight because they can't find acceptance within their religious faith for their homosexuality...and to be clear, no, I do not believe all religions or all churches are anti-gay). I would posit that you're focusing on the lesser of the points about proposition 8: the word. Are you really so tied to a word that you're willing to try a re-hashing of separate but equal? So tied to a word you would take away others' rights? So tied to a word that you would amend our constitution to have your way? Forgive me for believing our constitution is better than that.

And lest I forget: "We must stay the course and hold firm the values of the builders of this nation."

I honestly believe, sir, that our founders would not support the stripping away of anyone's rights. They fought and died to found this country on the principles of all men created equal (though it should have been all people), and I don't believe either of us should speak on their behalf. It's far too common an argument to fall back on, and they aren't here to clarify their positions, so it's moot. Let's stick on point: all people should be considered equal, and have equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of which sex they find attractive. Period.

NO on Proposition 8.

This isn't about "rights" it's about changing the definition of a word for the selfish thrill of a minority.

Joshanders_84

..and I don't believe either of us should speak on their behalf. It's far too common an argument to fall back on, and they aren't here to clarify their positions, so it's moot.

I suggest you read the founding fathers books. Lets not revise history too.

AShaw:

I would posit that this is completely about rights. While in its most simplistic term it's a discrepancy over a word, ultimately you're drawing a line and saying people on this side are legally allowed to do x, while people on the other side can do y, and though y and x have different names, they're the same. Then why not just call them both x, if they are truly equal? And I personally do not believe it is selfish to desire true equality under the eyes of the law.

howardwater:

What specifically about the founding fathers or any of their writings are you saying is relevant here? Are you saying because the original vote was overturned? The vote was creating a law that was unconstitutional. It was the duty of the judges to overturn a law that was disallowed by our state's constitution. If anything, this is praise for the fundamentals of our democracy. The law was interpreted based on our state's constitution, and was found to go against it. Now there is a bill that will amend the constitution to allow the original law to be enacted. While I think this is errant, and fundamentally flawed, it is most certainly a right of our democracy to change that which we as a society deem incorrect. I just hope society falls on my side of the proposition 8 fence (as you hope it falls on your side). We will see next week.

The ancient Greeks defined a democracy as 'one man, one vote'. We changed that (and yes I know we're a Rebpulic, not a Democracy, but stick with me on the whole 'people voting' part) to be 'one person, one vote'.

I think we'd generally agree that the original (and what the founding fathers agreed upon) was unjust.

AShaw- one person's 'sellfish thrill' is another person's 'fundemental human right'. Each side can pooh pooh the other, but the fact is, this is obviously pretty important to people- on both sides.

joshanders_84

You said. “Would you honestly tell someone they cannot do something solely because of the way they were born?”

Yes. We are all born with certain propensities toward actions society disallows. It is how I control my natural inclination of my sex drive that makes a difference in my community. I have an inclination to drink and drive—I have had to learn not to drink if I have a car availble.

You said. Are you really so tied to a word that you're willing to try a re-hashing of separate but equal? So tied to a word you would take away others' rights? So tied to a word that you would amend our constitution to have your way? Forgive me for believing our constitution is better than that.

No one had the right to change the meaning of a word.
And Yes we the people do have the right to amend the Constitution. It allows for Amendments

Amendment I (December 15, 1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances

After blowing away all of the smoke, the embers of this burning issue show that this is about people who have chosen an alternate lifestyle, then look back over the fence, see something the mainstream lifestyle has that they chose to leave with envy and covet it for themselves, redefine it as a "right" and selfishly demand that it be redefined to fit them. Your choice was for an alternate lifestyle, not to adapt the mainstream lifestyle to fit your choice. Why should traditionalists and the majority adapt to YOU just because YOU made a choice for something different? Freedom of choice. You have the choice to live a different lifestyle. Don't FORCE others to change their culture to suit your selfish whims!

Being gay is not a choice. Period.

"The fact is: Homosexuality is not a choice any more than being left-handed or having blue eyes or being heterosexual is a choice. It's an orientation, a part of who you are...There is no scientifically valid evidence that people can change their sexual orientations, although some people do repress it. But because being gay is not a disorder, there is really no reason to try to change yourself."
-- http://www.yffn.org/admin/ncod/facts.htm...

"New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological...The cell cluster [in the brain is] reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men...It should not surprise us that brains differ with sexual orientation... Although we find it convenient to talk separately of psychological and biological explanations, everything psychological is simultaneously biological."
-- http://www.soulforce.org/article/644

And what about gay animals, which we don't consider to have the brain capacity to make a "choice" about being gay?

Penguins: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg... .

Or any of these birds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bir...

Or any of these mammals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mam...

Drinking and driving is a choice. Being gay is not.