LETTERS: The Californian, Nov. 11, 2008

By Readers of The Californian | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:11 AM PST

Don't appease the spoiled children

Regarding Proposition 8, on the television news this morning they reported that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Prop. 8 would go to the court. How could that be? The majority of the people have voted twice for traditional marriage. We want our daughters to be "brides" and our sons to be "grooms." We want them to be "mother" and "father." And now you want to take it to the court.

It was four judges on the California Supreme Court who made Prop. 8 "against gay marriage" rather than its original intent ---- "for traditional marriage." Please! The ads opposing Prop. 8 stated that the gay agenda would not be taught in the schools. I know from the news that one teacher had her class of young children attend her "wedding" to her lesbian partner. Please!

The gays are acting like spoiled children who did not get their way. You do not appease spoiled children who act up in public. You discipline them. Some of the auto companies gave so much money to the gay agenda and now want to be "bailed out" with my tax dollars. Please!

Mary Brown

Sun City

It's over and right-wingers lost

The election is over. The right-wing (voters) lost. Now they are blaming everyone but themselves and their own failed philosophy. They are blaming the so-called liberal media, even though almost every major news group supported John McCain. The Californian continues to force right-wing columnists such as Oliver North and Michelle Malkin down readers' throats with no attempt at fairness. Since Democrats won Riverside County, will the Californian's editorial pages start reflecting an intelligent, balanced choice of columnists or will it continue to be a part of the Republican media parade?

More importantly, the right wingers still need a crash course in civics ---- I don't mean civility although they also need that. The laws of the U.S. are not determined by a vote of the people. The Constitution, which the right wing apparently doesn't understand, protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The primary role of our government is not to protect the people but protect the Constitution and the ideals that this country was founded on.

And it is time to look at the role of religious groups in our electoral process. Religious groups have the right to advocate any philosophy in their churches. If they advocate social goals in public it is time to take away their tax-free status, so that they are not using my money to promote their 15th-century social philosophy.

David Kolk

Murrieta

Tolerance doesn't equal acceptance

When did the definition of being tolerant change into acceptance? My trusty college dictionary published in 1978 states the definition to be, "to recognize and respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without sharing them." Also "to bear, or put up with (someone or something not especially liked)."

I have always been taught to respect others' points of view, religious beliefs or lack of morality without sharing them. I can also love and respect others without adopting their beliefs into my perspective of truth. This is the true definition of tolerance. In America, we vote what we believe in, whether that is political, religious, moral or immoral. No one should be judged or called a bigot/intolerant for voting their beliefs. Only the intolerant would do so.

Susan Kettner

Menifee

Church's shouldn't impose beliefs on others

Paul Jacobs' Sunday column got it mostly right regarding Proposition 8 ("Acceptance for some, but not for all," Nov. 9). He said, "I am all for churches instructing worshipers how to live, but I am wholly uncomfortable with the idea of tampering with government constitutions to make them resemble the Bible." The real point is that churches should not impose their values on people outside of their worshipers. Many people supporting Prop. 8 said they were OK with civil unions and other forms of protections for gay and lesbian couples, but not marriage. So what, then, is the difference to them if a church or government recognizes that relationship as marriage? Their church is free to ban same-sex marriage for its members, but should certainly not be allowed to impose that on someone else's church.

Barry Sackin

Murrieta

Feds will step into the situation

The federal government will eliminate the ban on same-sex marriage. It is inevitable, and here's why. For the moment, throw out the religious argument because you can't win that one. Our secular government is in the business of marriage and therefore must maintain a secular position.

On a federal level, the tax codes discriminate against civil union couples in Social Security, child welfare, estate, retirement savings, family medical leave and a dozen other benefits that are currently held exclusive to married couples. This costs each gay couple thousands annually, because they are gay. That's about as blatant a description of discrimination as it gets. But that's not the worst of it.

Imagine a society where 51 percent of the population decides to send a message to 5.2 percent of the population that "their kind" will not be tolerated. And then sitting back in your armchair, patting yourself on the back and saying "I did it for the children."

As for religion, well I might respect the whole "two men lying together abomination" thing, but in the same biblical paragraph it says women must be covered head to toe and we must kill the adulteress. I'm sorry but this is about human rights, it's about equality, it's about understanding what it's like to walk in another's shoes. Unfortunately, ignorance and intolerance does not die quickly, but it will surely die with this generation. And as all things, the newer generations will embrace a change of acceptance, tolerance and equality for all.

Ron Parent

Temecula

How can democracy be wrong?

Now I've heard it all. The opponents of Proposition 8 just don't get it, do they? Evan Wolfson, a gay-rights lawyer who heads a group called "Freedom to Marry" whines: "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote" ("Gay activists jarred by California marriage defeat," Nov. 6). Well, sorry, Mr. Wolfson, that process is called democracy. Where did he go to school?

Les Nursey

Menifee

Next

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

kevin wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:12 AM:It is clear from the last few days of letters that folks that voted yes on 8 will never understand that they've trampled on the legal rights of a minority. The shameful thing is that they are very satisfied with themselves about it. There is likely no way to change their minds. It is something that one must think about themselves. When I was younger I might have voted yes on 8. Perhaps it was seeing the Tom Hanks movie about the aids sticken lawyer or perhaps it was just meeting a few couples over the years that are gay. I came around to understand that they are just like me - only gay. Who cares! They deserve their rights just like any human being does!

Andy wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:41 AM:To Les:

I disagree with your authoritative approach to Democracy. As quoted by the US Department of State:

"All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens."

Your thoughts?

to Mary Brown wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:10 AM:You want YOUR daughters, YOUR sons to marry as YOU chose. Why not keep your nose out of other peoples lives. If MY sons, MY daughters chose to marry the same sex and enjoy the same benifits as other human beings in this country, it should be their choice. Please keep your god out of other people's bedrooms, and you nosiness to yourself.

To Mary Brown wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:58 AM:You state "gays are acting like spoiled children." Do the math and you'll discover the majority voting no on Prop 8 and protesting its passage are not themselves gay. I am not gay but it disgusts me that that you and your kind have nothing better to do than to destroy a little happiness in others, in a world already filled with hate. Is this the message of your God? How does a gay marriage affect you, why would try to minimize happiness as opposed to encourage it and how can you justify the removal of rights within a country that prides itself on equal rights? Get use to the protesting Mary, it's not going away until your intolerance is cast into a garbage can where it belongs. The majority once supported slavery, but that majority was rightfully challenged and that horrible injustice was rightly destroyed. This isn't about spoiled brats, its about fighting for decency and equal rights. This isn't a game that Mary wins or loses. History shows what eventually becomes of the intolerance and injustice you are trying to sale.

Les Nursey wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:06 AM:The question is Les, where did you go to school. Think of Evan Wolfson's comment ("There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote") and then think of the Bill of Rights. With your superior schooling please tell us where it says that the rights of an American citizen can be taken away by the majority of the citizens. I'm sure if your neighors decided by majority rule that you can't get married (or whatever) that you'd remember about them good old rights that protect individuals from the majority. You can noe appologize to Mr. Wolfson.

Jill wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:47 AM:Unfortunately Mary Brown does not have a good grasp on the history of minority rights in this county. It was a single man, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican I might add, who ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclimation. Until then, owning other people was legal and fair, according to the majority. It was in 1954, nine judges, the Supreme Court, decided that segregation was illegal with the decision in Brown v Board of Education. The majority was still in favor of it. In 1967, anti-miscegenation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The majority was still in favor of the laws. The People are consistantly behind when it comes to civil rights, even in 2008. Just because the majority says so, does not make it right.

Dave wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:39 AM:RE:Mary Brown. Homosexaulism is a lifestyle. The voters realized that and the gays don't. They claim it is their civil right to marry. Get over it. The lifestyle you choose has no civil rights. Ask any medical marijuana patient!

Theresa wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:44 AM:Hey Dave ... when did you choose to be heterosexual? You're a real constitutional law wizard.

Mary Mary Mary wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM:When will people like you stop bringing up the "will of the people" to justify your agendas and biases. Don't you know that the will of the people often times tramples on civil rights. Why do you think the Constitution’s founders created three branches of government as a checks and balances system. So the “will of the people” would NOT dominate public opinion by coercion and corruption, thereby acting as tyrants to those with different beliefs. Yes, the people voted, but they voted on an ignorant proposition that clearly discriminates against a segment of American citizens. It will now be the job of the Supreme Court majority to determine the legality of this issue. Meanwhile, stop ranting about the “will of the people”, which does not entitle your “will” to supersede mine. BTW, I am not gay or lesbian, but the very implication that a “will of the people” overriding a just and legal system is beyond scary.

To Dave wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:17 PM:I agree. Dave, please tell us about the day you decided which sex to be attracted to. I'm interested because for me there was never a choice. It would help me if I heard from a person like you who was attracted to both sexes and had to make a choice. Thanks.

Dave wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:14 PM:That's funny Dave. You (and the voters) know what it's like to be homosexual but homosexuals don't know. Gee, I wish I was a conservative nut case so I would know everything without even having to know anything. It's like talking in tongues, you just make it up as you go. By the way, what about the questions in other posts asking you to explain how you dealt with being attracted to both sexes? Which did you eventually end up going with? Was it a difficult decision? Was your decision based on your predicting the outcome of Prop 8, or was it based solely on the bible? And if the bible was your guide did you end up with multiple wifes as the good book asks of you.

One last time Mary wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:24 PM:The "will" of the people does not out trump constitutional law.

It could be the people's "will" to jail all non-Christian believers. But, just because the majority votes in favor, does not make such a proposal legal.

Explaining this to you guys is like banging your head into a wall!

Hey Les wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:26 PM:In my last post where I commented how hard it is to explain law versus popular vote, I failed to give you the same credit (or discredit) I gave Mary.

Congratulations!

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:42 AM:What would people like Mary think if the Majority of Californians passed a law making gun ownership illegal? Stay with the majority and suck it up? I think not. I'm guessing she (and I) would be supporting the NRA and their lawyers bringing such a law to the courts to be struck down as unConstitutional....as it should be.

Majorities DO NOT trump Civil Rights in this country....maybe in some other country, but not this one.

Lady wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:59 AM:ENOUGH already!!! Prop 8 passed... WE the people voted. Does IT look like everyone has the $$ to keep this going.
IF "they" want to marry MOVE. The Governor has NO right talking about this,it WAS OUR vote,our right ( oh geez,imgane that)WE have RIGHTS too.
Let It go!!! Other states WILL marry you,IF you have to have THAT one and only paper!!

Jojo wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:19 AM:Lady...it isnt over just because you say it is. If you remember prop 22 which said the samething as prop 8 that it past with over 60%. Now some years later it past with only 52%. You majority are shifting in our favor. So this wont last either way you look at it. Now as for the majority voting for prop 8 there are rules for this very reason because you'll have the majority walking all over the minority. And the minority is certainly not small considering it is 48% percent of us. Thats called mob rule. You should do a little research on our laws and history. Seperate but equal is not equal. Maybe in other countries but not in America.

Regina wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:20 PM:Homosexuality is a choice. The people have spoken, everyone needs to accept it and get over it.

To Regina wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:45 AM:How do you know homosexuality is a choice? I believe a person is born that way. Being homosexual is a hard way to live. For years people stayed in the "closet", afraid to let anyone know. It is difficult for me to believe that anyone would choose to be homosexual with all the negatives imposed on them. It is only the last few years that the gay community has been so open and vocal. Just so you know I am not gay but I do know and have worked with several and I find them no different than anyone else. What they do behind closed doors is none of my business or yours.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos