To Myrl wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:13 AM:Are you suggesting that Sarah Palin should have had an abortion when she found out her child was going to be a special needs child? If life does not begin at conception and the child is not human prior to being born, then why are peopl against making it a law for the woman prior to an abortion to have a 3D ultrsound, to see the child in her womb, with arms,legs, hands, feet, eyes, and then say that it is not human yet.

If life begins outside the womb, then why are we allowing partial birth abortions? Or even preparing to elect a man who supports not providing medical care to a child who survives a partial birth abortion, and once outside the womb is ok with letting that child die because, "bringing in a seperate Dr to care for the surviving child would not be convienent".

To 3D wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:21 AM:Your comment is somewhat true "The court can only interpret laws, not make them". It is true until the law goes against the courts beliefs. There has been many times that the Supreme Court has taken a law and made it fit into their belief system. A perfect example is prayer in school, it was the Supreme Court who ruled against it. I know people are going to cry seperation of church and state, but where is that written in the Constitution? or any other official document other than a letter written by Jefferson? The freedom of religion simply means that the government can not come in a say "the United States will be a Catholic nation and nothing else" such was the case in England at the time. It does not mean the government should be free from religion, nor does it mean that prayer is not allowed in school. It gives everyone the right to worship the god of their choice where the wish and when they wish, not just behind four walls of our churches or homes.

It was the supreme court who "made" that law.

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:57 AM:Maintain the traditional definition of marriage: between a man and a woman.

3D wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:04 AM:Howard Killion's letter continues to beat a very dead horse. Again, since the verse in question from Isaiah 53 has been clearly shown to not be a reference to Jesus, which even Killion has conceded, the point is moot. And punishing one person for the sins of others does not necessarily require that the poor victim of this injustice actually assume those sins himself, which is not stated in this verse!
More important, Killion continues to avoid the real issue here: how does killing an innocent man atone for or in any way ameliorate sin? It adds to it!
To repeat the real issues that Killion evades:
If the wages of sin is DEATH but "Jesus lives," then he didn't "pay the price."
And if he did pay the price, who did he pay it to?
Does Jesus, who is supposed to be God, pay a ransom to the devil, the ultimate terrorist?
Does Jesus pay the ransom to God? He IS God, remember! So he pays the ransom to himself?
Why does God, who is supposed to be all-powerful, have to KILL someone, especially someone INNOCENT, in order to forgive sin? Why can't he just forgive? Why the bloodthirstiness?

And the comment addressed "To Myrl" at 9:13 a.m. is another example of dishonest misrepresentations of others' views.
I did not see any indication in Myrl MacKenzie's letter that said Sarah Palin SHOULD have an abortion, only that it should be an option for her to choose. No one has criticized her choice to have a child, only that she would force the same choice she made onto everyone else.
And the comment about "partial birth abortions" being life "outside the womb" is inaccurate. The correct term is D&X for "dilation and extraction" - the epithet "partial birth abortion" was made up by propagandists to try to make an appropriate medical procedure sound gruesome. Well, medical procedures are gruesome, but I have never heard anyone refer to a heart transplant as "ripping the heart out of a person while it's still beating."
In the D&X, the head is not out of the woman's body. And neither major party candidate for president has advocated denying medical care to a child who survives any failed abortion. Senator Obama, in the Illinois legislature, voted against a bill that mentioned that, but it was because of other provisions in the bill. And since Illinois law already provided for the needs of any child who survives a failed abortion, there was no need to vote for a lousy law just because of that one provision, which was redundant with existing law.
The smears and distortions and outright bearing of false witnesses by so-called "Christians" in the current campaign demonstrates conclusively how far they have gone in being corrupted by the teachings of the renegade "apostle" Paul, who so completely opposes everything Jesus taught, stood for and died for.
Blessings,
3D

To NCT wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:32 AM:Where is my post in response to 3D's letter "will of the people".

Apollo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:11 PM:Re: Davis D. Danizier (letter) and To 3D (9:21 a.m.)
Danizier's letter is 100% correct, and reitrates a point I have often made. The reply addressed to 3D is wrong.
The term "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson to explain his understanding of the First Amendment.
Reference to a "freedom of religion" is also not in the Amendment. What the Amendment does say is to prohibit "the establishment of religion" OR to restrict "the free exercise thereof."
When the government writes a prayer to be recited in schools, or uses public resources in religious observances, that is an establishment of religion and, yes, the Amendment clearly means that we can be free FROM religion, while also being left to make our own personal choices about religion. And any law that violates that is unconstitutional, and the Court rightly thus decides.

In the case that Danizier is referring to, there is a clear statement in the State Constitution, repeated several times, which prohibts any mandatory discrimination based on gender. Since requirements mandating that a male MUST select a female, or a female a male, for their spouse, that mandate clearly violates the State Constitution and the Court did not make law, they interpreted it.

Prop 8 Challenge wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:26 PM:I have read a lot of pro-prop 8 posts in these pages based on religious grounds. I am not a person of faith, but I will give you a shot at my vote on the matter if you will accept my challenge:

Please describe how your personal marriage has declined in value since May 15, 2008 (that's the date that the court declared Prop. 22 to be in conflict with our state constitution.

Don't change the subject; I want to hear how your marriage has been affected negatively.

To 3D wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:33 PM:If you read the statement"Sarah Palin is not pro-life. She is simply anti-abortion. A pro-life woman who chooses to keep a severely handicapped child makes a commitment to be there for that child as long as she lives. Gov. Palin knew in the first trimester that it would be a special-needs individual". It seems to refer that the writer is implying that if Sarah Palin was not against abortion she would have ended the life of her child. And also the writer is implying that Sarah Palin will not be able to care for her child while being vice-president (if we are that blessed). What does that say of any other working mother who has special needs children? My neighbor has a down syndrom child and she has a full time job, and so do millions of other moms, but of course since Sarah Palin is a conservative,pro-life, Christian she is in the wrong.

I must correct you on Mr. Hussein I mean Obama, he did say that we should not provide health care to a child who survives an abortion, it is public record.

To Prop 8 Challenge wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:48 PM:I am not changing the subject here but let me shine a little light from another perspective. If Prop 8 fails it opens the door for other changes to be made to marriage. Soon the "Man Boy" groups will be pushing for the right for men to marry underage boys because "they love them, and who can say they don't" or even people marrying animals. Prop 8 is trying to protect marriage by keeping it between a MAN and a WOMAN. Why do the same-sexers even need to call it marriage, what is wrong with civil-union, does it make THEIR relationship any less? Ask them that question.

To Apollo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:00 PM:Thank you for pointing out something that many left-wing liberal, anti-religion folks make. You said the constitution says"Reference to a "freedom of religion" is also not in the Amendment. What the Amendment does say is to prohibit "the establishment of religion" OR to restrict "the free exercise thereof." If this is the case why are so many against Christians expressing themselves in public places or anywhere else? The government cannot tell my children they cannot carry a Bible to school, or pray during a graduation ceremony. The point that gets missed is if you do not believe in God, or prayer or other religious activities don't participate. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of right-wing over the top folks out there, ruining the name of Jesus and giving Christianity a bad name, but there are plenty of us who do things in the right way and we should not be told we can't, or when we attempt we are looked at as intolorrent. That door swings both ways.

Apollo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:35 PM:Re: To Apollo (1:00 p.m.)
You are correct that "The government cannot tell my children they cannot carry a Bible to school, or pray during a graduation ceremony."
In the rare instances where over-zealous educators have tried to interfere with PRIVATE, PERSONAL observations of religion, the courts have ALWAYS sided with the right of students' religious freedom.
A student can pray before a test, bless their food, or during a graduation.
They can "rally round the flagpole."
BUT, where it crosses the line is when it is officially hosted or sponsored by a government organization, such as a public school.
In other words, if you want to quietly read your Bible during a graduation, or say a silent prayer that does not intrude on others, your right cannot be infringed. But if you try to make it an official part of the graduation itself, at a public school, this would be prohibited.

3D wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:21 PM:The comment responding to me at 12:33 p.m. is in error.
I don't believe this is likely an intentional lie, but the result of listening to too much propaganda from hate-filled "Christians" on right-wing radio. Very sad.

You say that the writer of a letter today "is implying that if Sarah Palin was not against abortion she would have ended the life of her child."
Why? What possible connection is there between supporting her right to CHOOSE (whether to carry to term and keep a child, carry and put up for adoption, or abort), and dictating what that choice should be? You are simply putting words into someone's mouth.

You say "it is public record" that Obama, who you ridicule, "did say that we should not provide health care to a child who survives an abortion."
I gave you the correct factual context: this is an exaggeration and a distortion of one vote in the Illinois legislature against a bill which had other provisions he objected to, not that one, and which was an unnecessary redundancy of existing law on the subject.

If you say "it is public record" then you should have no trouble finding a source to back up your claim.
I routinely cite "chapter and verse" for my claims.
If you are going to accuse a man, you are the one who has the burden of proof.
Blessings,
3D

Apollo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:16 PM:Resubmission of blog posted earlier (1:36 p.m.) and skipped

Re: To Apollo (1:00 p.m.)
You are correct that "The government cannot tell my children they cannot carry a Bible to school, or pray during a graduation ceremony."
In the rare instances where over-zealous educators have tried to interfere with PRIVATE, PERSONAL observations of religion, the courts have ALWAYS sided with the right of students' religious freedom.
A student can pray before a test, bless their food, or during a graduation.
They can "rally round the flagpole."
BUT, where it crosses the line is when it is officially hosted or sponsored by a government organization, such as a public school.
In other words, if you want to quietly read your Bible during a graduation, or say a silent prayer that does not intrude on others, your right cannot be infringed. But if you try to make it an official part of the graduation itself, at a public school, this would be prohibited.

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:34 PM:to "To Prop 8 Challenge" regarding your post of 10/17, 12:48 PM: You're really grasping at straws when you say: "Soon the 'Man Boy' groups will be pushing for the right for men to marry underage boys because "they love them, and who can say they don't" or even people marrying animals." Minors and animals cannot enter into a legal contract and marriage is a legal contract. Case closed.

You say: "Prop 8 is trying to protect marriage" Wrong. It's only purpose is to prevent same-sex marriage. Whether Prop 8 passes or fails, heterosexual couples will continue to be freely able to marry.

You say: "Why do the same-sexers even need to call it marriage, what is wrong with civil-union, does it make THEIR relationship any less?" Your statement answers your own question. Obviously, you want their union to be less.

If you're concerned about "saving" marriage, why not get the real problem: divorce?
Regards

Apollo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 4:13 PM:Re: To Prop 8 Challenge (12:48 p.m.)
Once again we see the desperation of those who cannot discuss the actual issue on the table, which is a mandate requiring discrimination based on gender.
This has nothing to do with marrying children, animals or polygamy - statused that do not carry Constitutional protections.
Moreover, as John the Baptist so correctly notes at 3:34 p.m., children and animals cannot consent to contracts; no marriage would be possible.

This argument is nothing more than a distraction thrown up by those who can't address the actual issue.

Prop 8 Challenge wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:30 AM:Nice try, but you did change the subject. Even so, I'll engage.

You chose the most tired rhetorical trope in the book: the slippery-slope theory. Are you aware that the identical argument (marriage with animals) was used a generation ago to oppose inter-racial marriage?

The fact is that any idea can be made to look bad if taken to an absurd end with a slippery slope: A sip of water can lead to a gulp, which can lead to guzzling, and then to drowning--therefore, drinking water is dangerous, and will kill you. Of course, the flaw is that rational human beings are not bound to follow a path to its absurd end point. We drink water every day, and most of us don't drown.

In retrospect, most people would agree that legalization of inter-racial marriage was a moral, positive step for our society. And it did not lead to bestial marriage.

I posed the challenge the way I did because most of the argument for 8 seems to center on slippery slope fears, not the present reality of the proposition itself. So think about it again: gays have been marrying in CA since May 15. Marriage, as an institution, is a collective of all of our individual marriages. Surely, if gay people getting married caused some adverse affect on the institution, then it should be happening now--starting on May 15, 2008.

So again, where are the anecdotal stories of how your personal marriage has suffered damage as a direct consequence of same-sex people getting married since May 15?

CAVEL wrote on Oct 18, 2008 10:41 AM:At the risk of redundancy I will mention that "...Catholic marriage, also called matrimony, is an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman..." (From Wikipedia) Matrimony is one of the 7 sacraments of the Catholic Church and as defined is considered sacred and beyond change. This type of RELIGIOUS BELIEF certainly must be the nexus of the support for Proposition 8. This unrelenting drive to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE law is not only shown by Proposition 8 but by the Federal Marriage Amendment. That attempt to amend the United States Constitution failed and was really political grandstanding by those catering to the religious right for votes. Those sponsoring that proposal knew it would fail because fortunately amending the Federal constitution is very difficult. All of this is part and parcel of the continual attempt to force religion down the throats of us all, whether we like it or not. It goes with attempts to teach creationism in public schools and to have religious services and prayer in those schools as well. It goes with "faith based" programs instilled by the likes of George Bush, who by the way, thinks it appropriate to teach creationism in the public schools. Someone said that the "price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Indeed. Vote NO on Prop 8!

CAVEL wrote on Oct 18, 2008 2:01 PM:"This is a moral, biblical issue, not a political issue at all to me," said Pastor Jim Garlow, whose Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa is hosting the program for the simulcast. "This kind of activism in our life in written into our spiritual DNA."..."Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent ---- some $8.4 million ---- to the Proposition 8 campaign..." Quotes from today's NCT.
Again, SOME churches are fanning the flames of hate and discrimination. These sects, these cults, these narrow subcultures will, if they can get by with it, make their religious doctrines into law. Their relentless campaigns have apparently narrowed the gap so that recent polls show that the approval rating of Prop 8 is increasing. Oh well, as I have said before: same-sex marriage in Massachusets and Connecticut is legal and it would seem to me that even if Prop 8 is approved, same-sex couples could marry in one of those states and California would have to recognize it as valid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U. S. Constitution. Further note: Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County District Attorney, recently married her same-sex partner. Also, those who favor Prop 8 may change if some of their own offspring turn out to be gay. Or they may disown them! I am not gay, but my wife and I will vote NO on Prop 8 and we urge others to do the same in defense of liberty and justice.

Thanks wrote on Oct 18, 2008 3:24 PM:For making it easy to decide to vote YES on 8. And why should kids be taught that they come from monkeys?? Evolution is harder to believe than creationism.

Apollo wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:44 PM:Re: Thanks (3:24 p.m.)
Thanks but NO THANKS!
Evolution is harder to believe than creationism?
So are physics, calculus, trigonometry and biochemistry.

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:47 PM:to "Thanks", regarding your post of 10/18, 3:24 PM: I don't know who you're thanking, but do you really perceive some connection between same-sex marriage and evolution? I do agree evolution is harder to believe than creationism -- unless, of course, you think.
Regards

tjefferson wrote on Oct 18, 2008 8:51 PM:My wife and I own a condo in Vancouver, BC and we spend about 3 months a year there. Canada legalized same sex marriage in 2005. Since then I can't tell you how attracted I am to men, and how much my wife flirts with women once we cross the Canadian border. When we return to San Diego it is a relief to be 100% heterosexual again. There is no doubt the California Supreme Court wants to turn all heterosexuals into homosexuals just like the Canadian high court did in 2005. It's obviously a liberal plot. If you are insecure about your sexuality be sure to vote against same-sex marriage.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:05 PM:I was blessed with parents who believed in science, not superstition. I don't understand the Christian preoccupation with homosexuality. Please, ye of faith, tell me what Jesus had to say about homosexuals.

Thank you Stanley Peterson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:08 AM:For months I have been waiting for a letter in this section, even a post on this comment section, that realy represented "Faith and Values", and not the pompous ramblings of so many, so often, so full of themselves.

And, sadly, until now, you letter gets scant attention.

Good luck in your endeavors. Even though I am not a Christian I am a fan of human rights, and will contact the website you suggest to attempt some relief the suffering of a few that share this planet with us.

To all anti Prop8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:18 AM:Here are some interesting facts:

1. Alot of you say that gay marriage will not be taught to our children. WRONG- In MA same sex marriage was legalized and now it is being taught to their students, and when parents request to be notified the school says that it is not their right to know.

2. For years people have been putting out statistics about children without a father, or a mother in their lives and the negative effects. What do you think will happen if same sex marriage is legalized?

3. You scream tolorence and freedom of choice, but soon if same sex marriage is legalized then pastors will be required to perform same sex marriages even if it is against their religious beliefs, because if they refuse to do it they will be dragged into the courts for discrimination, where is religious tolorence?

4. The traditional idea of marriage will be no longer in existence, the title groom or bride will no longer be allowed.

Here is a little extra to think about: For those who think that people are born gay then explain this? Why are there thousands of people living that once lived a gay lifestyle, but are now in a heterosexual lifestyle?

There is no comparing sexual preference to race. You cannot be born hispanic or black, or asian and then not be. When was the last time you saw a former asian, or hispanic or black? But you see plenty of former homosexuals? Choice or born that way?HMMMMM!!!

Apollo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:27 AM:Re: To All Anti Prop 8 (9:18 a.m.)
Perhaps you are confused as to which newspaper hosts this page.
When it says, "North County Times," the "North County" part refers to SAN DIEGO County which is in CALIFORNIA.
It does not refer to North GLOUCESTER County in MASSACHUSSETS.
The CALIFORNIA decision specifically exempted legal action against Churches, and the California Ballot Proposition contains NO REFERENCE to education.
So send your comment to the Boston Herald, not the North County Times.

Your entire campaign is based on factual misrepresentations.

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:34 AM:to "To all anti Prop8" You say: “Here are some interesting facts.” The fact is, they are NOT facts at all. Here is a point by point rebuttal:

1. Gay marriage will not be “taught” to our children. Gay marriage, if mentioned, will be done so without discrimination. Beyond that, here's a direct quote from the current California Education Code 51240: "(a) If any part of a school's instruction in health
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs. (b) For purposes of this section, "religious training and beliefs" includes personal moral convictions."

2. Same-sex marriage will have no effect on single parent families. There’s no indication that same-sex marriages are any more fragile than heterosexual marriages. Beyond that, same-sex couples in domestic partnerships are already becoming parents.

3. You say if same-sex marriage is legalized then pastors can be sued for discrimination. Whether Prop 8 passes or fails, freedom of religion prevails. Churches, their pastors and congregations cannot be sued for discrimination because of their religious beliefs. Church businesses, such as marriage chapels serving the public, can be sued for discrimination for being denied access, but in no case would a pastor be sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.

4. You say: “The traditional idea of marriage will be no longer in existence, the title groom or bride will no longer be allowed.” Many traditions have outlived their usefulness: “traditional marriage is one of them. It does not follow that the title groom or bride will no longer be allowed.

You ask: “Why are there thousands of people living that once lived a gay lifestyle, but are now in a heterosexual lifestyle?" Appearance and substance can be entirely different things. Consider evangelist Ted Haggard, who was living the "heterosexual lifestyle” as you call it, until he was outed. People solve the clash between culture and biology in many different ways. But to my way of thinking, the most aberrant “lifestyle” is celibacy.

Please, take some time to get some objective information rather than relying on the “Yes on Prop 8” mailers

Regards

to tjefferson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:53 AM:Matthew 19:4-6

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In this context he was responding to a question about divorce from the pharisees who were trying to trap him.

Notice, however, that he didn't use the words "party 1" or "party 2" to make his case? He didn't say "person" or "persons." He quoted Genesis 1 & 2. He used "male" and "female" and "a man" and "a woman." He understood the law.

To Apollo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:10 PM:Here is a sub paragraph from the CA Education Code Section 51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:

(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

Now you mean to tell me that this does not allow for the school system to teach our children about gay marriage?

And do you actually think that if gay marriage is legalized that our children will not be subjected to the teaching of it? Give me a break!

As far as churches being exempt from legal action, do you honestly think that will stand? The liberal left love nothing more than to jump at the opportunity to bring a lawsuit against churches for not doing gay marriages.

To: to tjefferson: Well said!

To John the Baptist wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:52 PM:Here are some rebuttals to yours:

1. There of course are loopholes in everything. the CA Education Code Section 51890. (D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Here it states that it will be taught to children.

2. You missed the point, family's need a mom and dad, not a mom and mom.

3. What country do you live in? If freedom of religion prevailes, then pastors would be able to speak about any subject openly based on religious beliefs.

4. Perfect example of why our country is going down the tubes. Traditions should always be carried on, that is like a parent telling their child not to expect a birthday present because that is old tradition.

5. As far as your Ted Haggard example, it is a perfect example of a person falling into SIN, he is still with his wife and recognized his sin, not to say there is no penalty because he lost everything. You did not reply to the rest of my point on that you do not see former hispanics,asians or black but you do see former homosexuals. People choose to be gay, not born that way.

Apollo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:55 PM:Re: To Apollo (12:10 p.m.)
and To John the Baptist (12:52 p.m.)
So what is your point?
Nothing in what you cited from the Education code is amended by Prop. 8.
If it is in the code today, it will remain in the code after Nov 5 no matter what happens to Prop 8, since Prop 8 makes NO CHANGES TO THE EDUCATION CODE.
Gay marriage is a fact.
It is a fact in California today.
It will remain a fact in other states after the elction NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO PROP 8.
And what do you mean "if gay marriage is legalized"? IT IS ALREADY LEGAL.
In California and other states.
Gay marriage should be taught, because it is the reality and it is a fact and since Prop 8 does not address this, prop 8 will not change it!

And kids need loving families. Some have a Mom and Dad. Some have two Moms or two Dads. Some have one parent. For you to decide for anyone else, contrary to all psychological science, is arrogant, presumptious and tyrannical.

And your comment about churches is IRRELEVANT since the Court specifically exempted churches, as have all Civil Rights laws.
Your statement about "traditions should always be carried on" is absurd and perverse. Does this also apply to the long traditions of polygamy and slavery?

Apollo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:56 PM:Submitted 1:56 p.m. and skipped
Resubmitted 2:56 p.m.

Re: To Apollo (12:10 p.m.)
and To John the Baptist (12:52 p.m.)
So what is your point?
Nothing in what you cited from the Education code is amended by Prop. 8.
If it is in the code today, it will remain in the code after Nov 5 no matter what happens to Prop 8, since Prop 8 makes NO CHANGES TO THE EDUCATION CODE.
Gay marriage is a fact.
It is a fact in California today.
It will remain a fact in other states after the elction NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO PROP 8.
And what do you mean "if gay marriage is legalized"? IT IS ALREADY LEGAL.
In California and other states.
Gay marriage should be taught, because it is the reality and it is a fact and since Prop 8 does not address this, prop 8 will not change it!

And kids need loving families. Some have a Mom and Dad. Some have two Moms or two Dads. Some have one parent. For you to decide for anyone else, contrary to all psychological science, is arrogant, presumptious and tyrannical.

And your comment about churches is IRRELEVANT since the Court specifically exempted churches, as have all Civil Rights laws.
Your statement about "traditions should always be carried on" is absurd and perverse. Does this also apply to the long traditions of polygamy and slavery?

CAVEL wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:20 PM:According to page 128 of the Official Voter Information Guide Proposition 8 IN ITS ENTIRETY says as follows, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Voting no on that proposition will leave the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding same-sex marriage as valid in effect. Whether people are "born gay" or they become gay after birth and whether or not information is given to students at some level in the public schools about same-sex marriage are the talking points of those who urge a Yes vote on the proposition. Those assertions are merely a reflection of the position that homosexuality is evil and a disease and a mortal sin. My goodness, to teach in any positive way that same-sex marriage exists is in and of itself sinful. But wait, do you not know that if you repent of your evil ways, you will be SAVED. Yes, saved so that your soul may enter into Heaven and be with the Lord forever and ever. Thus, the sinful homosexual can repent and become heterosexual and be in good stead with God! All of these preposterous arguments identify the true motives of those who use them. They ultimately fall back to a religious position that homosexuality is sinful. At one time in our history the Bible was used to justify slavery, to justify Jim Crow laws and to condemn miscegenation. Now the religious right, the Bible thumpers and the intolerant target same-sex marriage in the same way. Arguing with people like that is like arguing with the side of a barn. Hopefully, there are those who have not thought much about the issue and they will see that voting NO on Proposition 8 is the right thing to do.

to Apollo et al wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:10 PM:The people will vote. One side will win and the other will lose. All the ranting on the topic will not change that. Get over yourselves already.

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:33 PM:to "To John the Baptist" regarding your post of 10/20, 12:52 PM:

I concur with Apollo's rebuttal of 10/20, 1:55 PM, and wish to add:

You say: “You do not see former hispanics, asians or black but you do see former homosexuals.” Actually, in times past, some blacks were light-skinned enough to pass as white – and they did. Would that make them former blacks? Of course not, and the same thing goes for so-called former homosexuals.

You say: “People choose to be gay, not born that way.” The American Psychological Association and I disagree with you: “…human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.“

Perhaps you could cite the research you've done on this subject.
Regards.

Apollo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:17 PM:Re: to Apollo et al (4:10 p.m.)
You say regarding Prop 8: "The people will vote."
So tell us plain and simple: if the VOTE OF THE PEOPLE is to reject Prop 8, will you accept that vote and the wil of the people?

To John the Baptist wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:13 AM:The only way someone can be born gay is there to be a "gay gene", which many of pro-gay peopple say is in those who are.

Funny, the same people who believe that also believe in natural selection. And if natural selection were to occur the "gay gene" would have died a long time ago due to the fact that it could not reproduce, because 2 men cannot make a baby together!! and the gene would not carry on.

You should have used a better example than the light skinned blacks PRETENDING to be white. They did it for their protection and it did not change the fact that they were black, no matter the shade of their skin. And there are former-homosexuals even those who support gay marriage deny the fact to support their cause, and I have met people who once lived that life style but have left that and now lead a heterosexual life, married with children with no attraction to the opposite sex at all.

As far as the APA quote, people can be murders without any previous murder experience also.

Enough with the CR lies wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:18 AM:This is not about civil rights. Please see section 297.5 of the California Family Code:

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Plain and simple. There are no CR issues. The discrimination is made up to win the emotions of those who don't know better.

To Apollo wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:29 AM:RE:Apollo et al response: Apollo reread the post. There is nothing stating this posters stance on the issue, they simply stated the people will vote a decision will be made and nothing that any of us say can change that! Stop being so defensive and stop being a christian-phobe.

CAVEL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:11 PM:For those who argue that churches will be required to marry same sex couples if Prop 8 fails, the following quote from the 5-15-08 California Supreme Court decision may be instructive: "...affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any
religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to
change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no
religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his
or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72"

CAVEL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:06 PM:To "Enough with the CR lies:" So that settles the issue, huh? Did it ever occur to you that the civil rights of same-sex couples would be violated by denying them the right to marry? The Constituion and its Bill of Rights guarantees EQUALITY and EQUAL PROTECTION, e.g., the 14th Amendment. To allow opposite-sex couples to marry and call it marriage but to deny it to same-sex couples is in and of itself discriminatory. To allow one class of people a privilege that is denied another class is inherently unequal and a denial of a civil rights. Merely listing some of the rights that are granted both classes but ignoring the central issue of the right to marriage is sophistry. When you get down to it, if a same-sex couple wants to use the term MARRIAGE to describe their union, it doesn't harm you and beyond that and basically it's none of your meddling business.

to CAVEL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:37 PM:See the DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE in California. It doesn't apply to same sex couples. You don't seem to get the simple fact that the definition is what it is. No judge can change that.

The gay people were included in the benefits aspect of marriage with the domestic partnerships. Was that good enough for them? No. They had to push harder, through their like-minded representatives in the legislature, using back room deals and meddling, to change the laws to include gays as "protected" like they are little children. They want to change how people, that happen to disagree with them, are allowed to think and speak, as if all want to harm them. Meanwhile they continue to flaunt the lifestyle in the parks and parades, with little or no regard for anyone else.

So it will now, due to all that and the likes of Newsome and his entourage, with their total disregard for California law, become a constitutional amendment. Why, you say? Because they flaunted it in the faces of the 97% of people who are not gay. Because they pushed the envelope past what is deemed acceptable by the general population and arrogantly stated "It's here now!!! Whether you like it or not!"

Well, guess what Mr. Newsome, et al. It isn't here for long. Call people who disagree with you anything you want. The simple truth is, marriage is, and will continue to be protected in California with a Yes on 8.

Apollo wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:49 PM:Re: Enough with the CR lies (10:18 a.m.)
Southerners in the Deep South could also point to their separate "colored" schools for citizens of African-American descent and claim they provided equivalency.
The Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas ruled UNANIMOUSLY that separate is inherenetly unequal
"Domestic Partnerships" are to "Marriage" what separate schools and plumbing facilites were to equal access under the law.
As Cavel pointed out, this is very much a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Okay CAVEL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:49 PM:You call call the above argument sophistry.

The pro-gay crowd isn't even that subtle. They simply lie about what is afforded them under the current laws in order to get their way.

At least the sophistic argument is based on the facts.

Apollo wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:04 PM:Re: to CAVEL (4:37 p.m.)
You are half right.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The LAW defines marriage as one man and one woman. That was done by STATUTE.
The State Constitution prohibits, in multiple places, any requirement for discrimination based on gender, which the requirement that a man MUST choose a female spouse and a woman MUST choose a male spouse, directly violates.
A LAW (a STATUTE) cannot violate the state Constitution!
When the Court has a case where is a provision in a statute and a provision in the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
No judge can change that.
A majority of the judges ruled that the Constitution takes precedence over statutes.
That is the current state of the law, unless and/or until the Constitution itself is changed, which is what Prop 8 attempts to do.

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:46 PM:to "To John the Baptist: re your post of 10/21, 9:13 AM:
You are correct that if there were a gene that insured 100% homosexual behavior, natural selection would have eliminated the trait long ago. But genetics and hormonal processes are much ore complicated than that. “A given gene will have many different effects on quite different parts of the body. A given part of the body will be influenced by many genes.” (from Dawkins’s “The Selfish Gene”)

A small percentage of babies are born with full sets of both male and female organs. In those who were not surgically altered, both sets became fully functional at puberty. You can find out more by Googling “intersex”. A larger percentage presents a spectrum from full female to full male. Now given that that kind of physical variation presents itself, it would seem reasonable to believe that comparable variation should appear in mental development as well.

You say: “You should have used a better example than the light skinned blacks PRETENDING to be white.” No, that represents exactly what homosexuals do, trying to pass as heterosexual.

I can’t get the intent of this sentence: “And there are former-homosexuals even those who support gay marriage deny the fact to support their cause… “

You say: “…and I have met people who once lived that life style but have left that and now lead a heterosexual life, married with children with no attraction to the opposite sex at all.” And how do you know that they have “no attraction to the opposite sex at all“? Because they said so. That’s one of the problems in addressing sexual orientation versus homosexual behavior. As I alluded to earlier, if some people can choose to remain celibate, I presume some people can modify their behavior to conform to other standards as well – it just doesn’t change their sexual orientation.

You say: “As far as the APA quote, people can be murders without any previous murder experience.” Few become murderers, but everyone develops a sexual orientation.

Regards

To John the Baptist wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:00 AM:You are sort of correct, everyone has a sexual orientation. Some CHOOSE the right one, and some CHOOSE the left, I mean the wrong one. If they are born gay there is no choosing or developing like you say. They would know from day one, so you just killed your own argument!! I know what your response is going to be,"then if people aren't born gay why do they become gay" answer- SIN the temptation of the adversary Gavin Newsom I mean the devil (see if that makes it through the editors), to lead people away from the way GOD wanted men and women to live, if we were supposed to be gay then why even have opposite sexes?

To Cavel wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:06 AM:This is in response to your post on Oct 20 @ 3:20.

You say the Bible was written to support Jim Crowe laws? Where was Jim Crowe when the Bible was written?

As far as the Bible supporting slavery, where is that stated? Yes there were slaves in those days, but god did not support it, why do you think there was that thing called the Exodus? Just as in our countries history of slavery it was wrong. Yes the bible does say "slave obey your masters, but that is to show that we are to show respect to those who have authority over us, whether we like them or not, such as the Presidency, we respect the office not the person.

To John the baptist wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:08 AM:Re: 7:46 post. You say: “As far as the APA quote, people can be murders without any previous murder experience.” Few become murderers, but everyone develops a sexual orientation.

Response- Few become gay also, everyone of us is capable of murder, just as everyone of us is capable of being gay, it is SIN!!!!!!!!

John Terrell wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:48 AM:To “To John the Baptist” re posts of 10/22, 9:00 AM & 9:08 AM:

You say: “…everyone has a sexual orientation. Some CHOOSE the right one.” When did you choose yours?

You say: “If they are born gay there is no choosing or developing like you say. They would know from day one,” You are ignoring the developmental process. With your line of thinking, a child’s first words rather than being “Ma Ma” could be “I’m a homosexual”. By age six or eight, a child might suspect he or she is “different”, but not until puberty and development of a sex drive can they have any real assurance of their sexual orientation.

You say: “…everyone of us is capable of being gay.” There is ample research showing that your statement is categorically incorrect.

Regards

No Apollo wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:15 PM:Just because it's convenient for you (and CAVEL) to call it a CR issue doesn't make it one. The laws are clear. They have the same rights. It is documented.

The gay crowd pushed for these laws and got them. The only problem is that the current laws were meant to be only a stepping stone to change public opinion (or so they thought). This has worked before, so why not try it again, right?

Stop making up your own truths and passing them off as fact. This is about protecting the constitution of marriage, nothing more.

To John Terrell wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:12 PM:Maybe I did not state what I meant the best way, but let me clear it up.

No one is ever born gay. It has never been proven. And for scientists to say they have proven it is wrong. God created male and female and they had kids. He did not create male and female and the male asked God for another male! How can a scientist say "this is the gay gene"? What shows that a gene is a "gay gene"? Does it have a sign that says "I am a gay gene"? Of course I am being a little sarcastic, but you have to be when dealing with such nonsense.

But there is plenty of proof that we are born to have a heterosexual life. By the billions of men and women that walk the earth!! Having babies, which is required for civilization to exist.

I know lets do a little test. Take all the gay men from the earth put them on a island in the middle of the ocean. Give the food and water they need to live and in 100 years lets see how many people are on the island! There would be NONE, because they could not do the natural thing like reproduce.

3D wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:34 PM:The comment addressed To Cavel at 9:06 a.m. asks, "As far as the Bible supporting slavery, where is that stated? Yes there were slaves in those days, but god did not support it."
You are in error.
According to the Bible, God did not support when others enslaved Hebrews, or when Hebrews enslaved each other, but it did support Hebrews enslaving others.
Right there in the Law of Moses are specific rules and guidelines for acceptable ownership of (non-Jewish) slaves in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament even COMMANDS that captives in war be taken as slaves, in Numbers chapter 31 and Joshua 9:23. In the Law of Moses, the "do's and don'ts" of permissible slavery are outlined in Leviticus 25:44-46.
In the kinder, gentler New Testament, the renegade "apostle" Paul endorsed slavery in Eph 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, in direct contradiction of Jesus who said that those who were least would become greatest and those who were servants would become masters.
So you have once again guessed wrong about what is and is not in the Bible.
Blessings,
3D

To 3D wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:07 PM:Actually Paul calls them bondservants, which also can be translated to an employer employee relationship. Wait didn't James call himself a bondservant to Christ? James 1:1, right before he says that their FAITH would be tested?

This weeks post was getting so good and actually had some very good points being made until the party crasher had to drag Paul into the mix, really 3D get over the Paul complex.

Also 3D wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:14 PM:in Joshua if you read the whole text, the people who were taken as "slaves" were thankful. Since they were supposed to have been killed. Joshua 9:23-27.

3D wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:52 PM:The person addressing me at 3:07 and 3:14 p.m. again errs on two points.

Most translations of the passages I cited from Paul use the word SLAVES. In any case, when using the reference to those who VOLUNTARILY follow Jesus, the choice to accept him and become his "bondservant" or even slave is clearly metaphorical, since it is freely chosen through free will.

As for the slaves of Joshua being so grateful, that reminds me of how the plantation owners spoke of how much better off their slaves were. The masters always try to rationalize their oppression.
You don't address the point in the Law of Moses that prescribes the rules for permissible slavery.

And if you really want to claim that the slaves were so much better off, read the account in Numbers chapter 31 where the Hebrews are COMMANDED to take slaves, kill off most, but keep the VIRGIN girls "for themselves." The word used in reference to both the slaves and the girls is PLUNDER.
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:12 PM:to the person who posted on 10/22, 2:12 PM:
You say: “No one is ever born gay. It has never been proven.” You are correct that it has not yet been proven, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence that it is not a choice.

Of course heterosexuality is strongly favored by nature: there wouldn’t be any life on earth without. it.

But the crux of the matter is who is permitted to marry. The objections seem to be:
Homosexuals: are sinners (a religious assertion, irrelevant to law), can’t procreate (neither can infertile couples and those past child-bearing age), can’t be good parents: (APA and AAA studies say otherwise)

Regards

To JTB wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:47 AM:According to your logic "You are correct that it has not yet been proven, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence that it is not a choice", means that creation is also true, because there is VERY compelling circumstantial evidence of that!

To 3D wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:50 AM:Why is it that when someone points out an error in your statements you say they are using the wrong translation? Just admit that you are wrong in your thinking on this. Besides you have to remember, this was a different culture back then, and I am not in a position to challenge God.

3D wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:07 AM:3D (Gen'l): 10/23 -
To the person replying to me at 8:50 a.m.
I did not say you used the wrong translation.
You didn't even say which translation you used, so I couldn't verify it.
I justified the fact that I used a specific term based on the fact that various translations which I have used the same term. I did not say you were wrong, but you corrected me.
Wouldn't you say that is just a teensy-weensy bit hypocritical?

You say it was a "different culture" back then.
So God changes based on the whims of popular culture?
So if homosexuality becomes the accepted norm, that's OK with you?

You say you are "not in a position to challenge God."
My point is that God is not saying these terrible things.
Corrupted followers of charlatans are say those things.
Blessings,
3D

Observation wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:54 AM:You don't have to be a Christian to believe that homosexuality is wrong. I know many people who are of no faith or religious belief, that believe it is wrong, not right etc. But look at what this is doing for most all the different faiths, they are actually agreeing on somthing. Who'd a thunk.
You have to admit, men and women were designed to fit together, if you get my drift. Homosexuality is like trying to fit a square peg in to a round hole. I don't know what the out come will be. I just know it is my duty and my choice to teach my kids about family life and sex ed in my home and religion in my home and my church . I do not want them learning anything but three R's at school. To me, marriage will always be between a man and a women.That's not to say someday I may have to teach my kids an aternative to a traditional marriage defintion. Ok start your engines and pick my post to pieces.

3D wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:59 AM:To the person replying to me at 8:50 a.m.
I did not say you used the wrong translation.
You didn't even say which translation you used, so I couldn't verify it.
I justified the fact that I used a specific term based on the fact that various translations which I have used the same term. I did not say you were wrong, but you corrected me.
Wouldn't you say that is just a teensy-weensy bit hypocritical?

You say it was a "different culture" back then.
So God changes based on the whims of popular culture?
So if homosexuality becomes the accepted norm, that's OK with you?

You say you are "not in a position to challenge God."
My point is that God is not saying these terrible things.
Corrupted followers of charlatans are say those things.
Blessings,
3D

Apollo wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:46 PM:Re: Observation (11:54 a.m.)
Observation is way off the point of the topic.
This is not about who believes same-sex marriage is good or bad or why. It is about whether those who believe same-sex marriage is wrong, or just not for them, have the right to force their beliefs on others who believe differently.

And as for the comment that "You don't have to be a Christian to believe homosexuality is wrong" - this is true.
You just have to be prejudiced.

Observation wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:03 PM:No, you don't have to be prejudice to believe somthing is wrong.

Apollo wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:08 PM:Re: Observation (6:03 p.m.)
Observation says you don't have to be prejudiced to believe something is wrong.
Generally that is true.
But not when what you believe is the legitimacy of other human beings, whose existence and relationships do not harm you in any way.

Prop 8 Challenge wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:46 AM:Tick. Tick. Tick.

Still not a single serious posting about how same-sex marriage since May has affected your marriage.

Time is running out.

to Prop 8 Challenge wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:28 AM:You would make a very poor strategist.

Think About It wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:44 PM:To John the Baptist[-] wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:13 AM: All hetrosecual and homosexaul human beings are born from a hetrosexual couple. The gay gene has nothing to do with reproduction. It is strong and evident since over 10% of the population is gay.

Think About It wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:47 PM:To John Terrell[-] wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:12 PM: And look around and see all the gay men who have been reproduced again from hetrosexual couples. Gay people have been born into this life for thousands of years from hetrosexual couples. Every single gay person has had a mother and a father.