The District Weekly - Latest Comments in PROP. HATE

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:49 -0000

john b said everything i didnt have the patience to type out! huzzah john b!

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:38:26 -0000

John: Sorry: For a guy whose job is communication, I didn't make clear my point (vis-a-vis religion and American law)--which is this: Prop 8 attempts to create a legal distinction among citizens, a distinction that is based only (only) on an appeal to religion. (Or maybe religion and prejudice.) I was trying to say that THAT's what's likely to be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. There's no other reason to strip a class of U.S. citizens of their right to lawful union.

Re: PROP. HATE

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:03:25 -0000

THAT'S funny!

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:23:48 -0000

point taken john, i will now refer to xtianity as "iron age myths" instead of "bronze age"

Re: PROP. HATE

Greggory — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:02:47 -0000

YOU TALKED TO YOUR DAUGHTER ABOUT THIS?! Haven't you seen the commercial? That's the nightmare scenario! It's happening already! The Yes on 8 camp is right! The fabric of society! Ahhhhhhhhh!

Re: PROP. HATE

Nicki — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:18:38 -0000

Dear Will,

Your thoughts are interesting, and I agree that some individuals supporting PROP 8 don't understand the full implications of the Amendment, but my husband has extensively studied and written on the matter. We firmly support PROP 8 and appreciate open and respectful discourse on the matter. I think you may be interested in these excerpts from a recent blogpost that go beyond the base arguments being tossed around :

ARGUMENTS
1. Different Goals: Traditional marriage is a bestowal of rights. These rights are given in hopes of providing social good. In this instance, the social good that these rights are given are (to name a few):
a. The right of a child to be brought up and know his/her biological parents,
b. encourage the optimal situation for child rearing (social science consistently shows that this is a home with a mother and father),
c. bridge the male-female divide,
d. help children to develop the positive aspects of their respective genders, and finally,
e. providing a socially acceptable means of responsible sexuality and reproduction.

Admittedly, traditional marriage as a whole fails to live up to these ideals, despite this, it has the potential to live up to these ideals and commonly does. At its core, same-sex marriage cannot meet the same goals that traditional marriage has espoused. Specifically, it cannot encourage parentage by biological parents of different sex, nor can it bridge the male-female divide. This is not to say that same-sex marriage cannot have benefits of its own. It is merely to show that the goals must, by definition, be different.

2. Specificity: As discussed above, providing for a separate institution, such as civil unions allows for the law to seek social goods that could come from civil unions. These goals include among others:
a. fostering relationship stability,
b. when procreative powers are used, it provides for more stability in the lives of children than they would otherwise have.
c. providing a framework for more responsible sexuality
While some may agree with civil unions, and others would dispute them is a debate for another day. The point to this is that civil unions allow for a legal framework that addresses fundamentally different goals than marriage does in a more specific way.

3. Muddled Legal Framework: Family law is based on certain presumptions specific to traditional marriage. The addition of same-sex marriages into the legal framework brings with it challenges. How does the law deal with divorce issues for same-sex couples? Issues that arise more frequently would be tied to child custody issues such as biological parenting rights, surrogate parenthood, and artificial insemination. For example, in Massachusetts, gay couples are having to spend much more money to divorce because the established laws and cases are difficult to apply, causing further litigation. For example, for traditional marriage, most child custody issues are decided presumptively in favor of the mother. In a same-sex marriage between two females, the court is forced to determine who is in the role of the mother first, then apply the law as if the other partner were the man. Additionally, what about the situations where one partner gives birth, while the other provides support, but is not the biological parent; under the current law, the biological parent is at a great advantage. Having a separate institution allows greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with issues that are largely same-sex specific.

4. It Does Hurt, and it Can Hurt me in the Future: One of the strongest arguments against the protection of traditional marriage is the question “How is the marriage of Janice and Janet going to hurt the marriage of Brady and Nicki?” The reason why it is a strong argument is because in reality it won’t hurt me or my family directly. However, that is not to say that it won’t hurt us indirectly. Taken as a whole, the societal consequence is that I must view marriage in a way that I don’t believe that marriage is.

Just as most do not believe that polygamy is marriage, and most would not want it to be called marriage, I don’t believe that same-sex unions are marriage. Forcing me and my family to change that definition hurts my belief in marriage as an institution. I am not a bigot for believing that the role of a mother and the role of a father are essential in the lives of the children they create.

I recognize that many of the arguments against same sex marriage are “doomsday” or “slippery slope” arguments are not applicable now and are largely given for dramatic effect. Despite this, I do not wish to huddle with the people that agree with me and try to persuade my children that “real” marriage, as has been in effect for centuries is acceptable while “new” marriage is only acceptable to our belief system in certain circumstances. This truly does hurt how I raise my family. Whether the schools teach it, or society teaches it, same-sex marriage will be taught as marriage as long as it is legal.

5. Precedent: As an attorney, I look first to precedent. Currently, three states allow same-sex marriage (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). To my knowledge, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage and 19 have passed statutes, totaling 45 out of 50 states with some form of marriage protection. California and Connecticut both had laws protecting marriage that were overturned despite wide margins supporting those laws when passed. Additionally, federal law defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. That being said, precedent isn’t everything, so let’s go on.

6. Different Actors in the Legal Relationship: At its core, marriage is a legal union, just as a partnership, an LLC, or corporations are legal unions. The choice of which legal union is applicable depends upon the actors and the rights that are sought. Here, the actors are fundamentally different. While the rights may even be identical, the actors are different, thus a legal difference in name is appropriate—not discriminatory.

7. Rights, not Acceptance: I don’t believe that the government has the job to tell people to like me. I believe that the government is in place to give me rights. Rights to do things without government intervention, and in some cases, like marriage, the right to do things with the help of the government. Here, the same rights exist under both the civil union framework and the marriage framework. With that in mind, seeking to change the name of those rights is a play for acceptance and not a play for rights. I do not believe that the role of the government is to sanction my lifestyle or anyone else’s. If the government seeks to end all marriage benefits that is fine. Changing marriage to something different in hopes of lending credibility and acceptance extends beyond the role of government.

CONCLUSION
These are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I hope that they are received in the proper context and that they are not perceived as being bigoted. In sum, my support for Prop 8 comes down to 1) a belief that a father and a mother in a committed relationship meet the social goals of marriage, 2) same-sex marriage has different actors and goals that can be addressed more effectively under a different legal identity, and 3) seeking acceptance by changing the meaning of accepted terms is not the role of the government.

Re: PROP. HATE

What's_in_a _name? — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:23:09 -0000

Indeed, the careful reader will note that I was somewhat off topic.
For the record, I could not agree more with either of you!

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:18:50 -0000

john thanks for reminding me that the JUDEO christian law and beliefs you reference didnt start till the birth of christ. silly me thinking the jews had anything to do with it.

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:28:46 -0000

im getting tired of the right rolling this out every 4 years to ensure themselves a better turnout from the myth worshippers, i hope we can get this settled this time so we arent arguing about it again in 2012. i hear once obama gets elected we are all going to become gay anyways so it may be a moot point.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:28:45 -0000

Thanks, Gina. I think LB City Girl misunderstands your point (and mine) about money and Prop 8: passing the prop (i.e., banning gay marriage) would limit the cash gays and lesbians have been spending on their weddings. I address my problems with that calculation in the story.

And HowardX raises precisely the point I do: that American law isn't supposed to be based solely on appeal to religion. That's what the First Amendment is about. I'm all for a solution I didn't outline in the story: get the state completely out of the "marriage" game. "Marriage" becomes a purely religious term--like, say, "baptism." The state licenses only civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. You want a wedding--a "marriage" ceremony--you go to the county, get a license for a civil union and then find someone who will marry you. But marriage is no longer a legal construct; civil union is.

Re: PROP. HATE

What's_in_a _name? — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:31:30 -0000

Gina, I would think that an increase in the sale of marriage licenses actually has the potential to raise a lot of money for the government, not cost it a lot of money.

Re: PROP. HATE

GinaC — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:47:49 -0000

Will,

Thank you for this article! I loved the interview with your daughter. I also completely agree with your friend who did the bumper stickers saying Prop 8 will cost California millions. Money is all that seems to matter to most. Here's another reason why: My father is a retired minister, has a master's in theology, and is a Christian to this day. He also worked on LA's skid row with homeless people for 25 years. He has argued for decades that the reason many (certainly not all) Christians choose moral issues on which to focus (i.e., abortion, gay marriage) is because it doesn't cost them a dime. And they get to sit around and feel better than other people (my words) and feel like their work is done. But why are they focusing on these moral issues instead of actually doing what Christ asks of his followers? Well, it costs money to feed the hungry and take care of the poor and no one wants to give up their hard-earned cash. But, my father argues, it is when you escape materialism that you can live a life that's rich with God's love.

Although I no longer a Christian, I am still deeply influenced by the teachings of Christ and my parents. They taught me that the greatest commandment is love. They taught me I had a moral obligation to love my neighbor, feed the hungry, and take care of the poor. Surely Christ would not be behind the hate of Prop 8.

Respectfully,

GinaC

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:29:48 -0000

is anyone up to explaining to me why we should be basing any legal decisions in the year 2008 on a set of bronze age myths?

Re: PROP. HATE

JDL — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:35:32 -0000

This Prop 8 article was personal and illuminating . It did not professedly teach, or preach - but it made me smile and think.

Re: PROP. HATE

Melissa — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:03:45 -0000

John: I'm really a sucker for catchy slogans. BUT and with all due respect, I don't understand for instance, why laws that don't apply to your "Biblical constructionist" friends need to "suit" them. They are free to live their lives the way they always have. I mean, it's like petitioning to demolish a person's house because it just doesn't suit you.

So, I know it's your friends right to support prop 8 but in the end, why do they care about a harmless law that has no effect on them? I mean, everything else aside how could this possibly have any sort of impact on their life? Think about how your friends' moral obligations (?) could hurt gays who are married or plan to be.

And if it really does for some reason bother them, I agree that they should probably move if the law passes.

Re: PROP. HATE

br123martin — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:30:26 -0000

Ecclesiastical Proclamation
Universal Life Church Monastery:

Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation. "Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice. The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred, it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design. How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals?

Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe. It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it?

None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan. Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation; All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved: Thursday, April 12, 2007 Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse Board of Directors
http://blog.themonastery.or...

Re: PROP. HATE

ulc.org — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:24:18 -0000

Universal Life Church Monastery Homepage
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ecclesiastical Proclamation
Universal Life Church Monastery:

Adopted and Approved: Thursday, April 12, 2007 Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse Board of Directors
http://blog.themonastery.or...

Re: PROP. HATE

Melissa — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:12:05 -0000

No on 8= No on hate.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:12:48 -0000

John B: Thanks for your questions. Randy (of Randy and David) already answered a few; I’ll answer the others as best I can (limited time).

Why "radicalize North American Christian churches"? Because my parents (though conservative) come from a kind of Catholic Worker (i.e., visit the sick and those in prison, comfort the elderly and poor) perspective. So I grew up believing that faith without works is dead, and etc.

Why perform wedding ceremonies . . . that have no lawful basis?” I don’t understand the question: in California, marriage between consenting adults is legal. Even if gay marriage weren’t recognized by the state, I’d still want to help my friends (gay or straight) solemnize their relationships.

“Does not all codified law ultimately originate from one religious teaching or another?” I guess as human society evolves, sure, you could argue that much of what we call law has been expressed in religious terms. But that wouldn’t explain why Christians (for example) observe some of those laws (homosexuality is an abomination) while ignoring others (all dietary restrictions). For the explanation of that evolution, you might have to allow that, at least since the Enlightenment, we’ve begun to acknowledge that some of the laws we expressed in religious terms (Thou shalt not murder) remain reasonable for practical (and, sure, therefore spiritual) reasons, while others (e.g., the numerous places in which the Bible actually supports slavery and just appalling bloodshed and the murder of innocents) are clearly outrages to human dignity. Make sense?

Gay couples’ feelings vis-à-vis non-recognition in backward states? I can’t say. But I think you’ve got a great idea for a story.

Would Yes on 8 violate “prohibitions against the passage of ex-post-facto laws?” Another great story. What do you think?

Re: PROP. HATE

Chesney — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:26:59 -0000

OMG that interview with Emma is presh. Simply presh.

NO ON H8

Re: PROP. HATE

Andy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:25:14 -0000

OMG, you've just jeopardized my heterosexual marriage... :^)

If only you'd have done it while I was married to my first wife.

Congrats!

Re: PROP. HATE

Randy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:30:03 -0000

Regarding John B's questions - The ceremony for David and Randy was simply that, a ceremony and celebration of our love. There was no religion or ju ju involved. We asked a fabulous and gifted friend who had the ability to validate a marriage license to provide over an event that consisted of readings (Walt Whitman, of course) and music. We referred to each other simply as two men who love each other, we were pronounced, "married." To deny Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry forces us to live as second-class citizens in this country. If Prop 8 passes we will continue to fight for our rights, if it is defeated we will do our best to assist the rest of the country in acquriing full citizenship status. Vote No on 8. Randy of David and Randy.

Re: PROP. HATE

Guest — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:26:54 -0000

does any marriage performed in a church have lawful status? if you get married in a church WITHOUT a license its not legal.

Re: PROP. HATE

Kelson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:44:09 -0000

I don't recall which relgious teachings lie behind the statues that govern my car's
tail lights. Can somebody refresh my memory? It may have been covered when I
did traffic school but I must have dozed off. There are only 613 commandments
and it is true that I did not successfully memorize all of them in Hebrew school so
make my life a little easier and give me the relevant passages.