CA Prop 8

[TheCalvinator24]

How is that pulling it out of context? It's what you said, "I believe (homosexual behavior) is detrimental to our country." I asked you to explain how. I'm genuinely curious. I won't respond negatively if you answer.

I didn't say what you "quote" me as saying, as even the immediate context illustrates.

That's exactly what you said, as even the quote above illustrates. I must conclude you are either delusional, or unable (or unwilling) to defend your belief.

No, it is most certainly NOT what I said. I will not parse it for you. I did NOT say that homosexual behavior is detrimental to our country. If you can't figure out what I actually said from the very clear context of not just the lifted section, but the entire post it came from, then the problem is yours and not mine.

[Jeemie]

Thousand:

I think you need to ask Cal why he thinks same-sex marriage is detrimental to the country, since that is the "behavior" that's being sanctioned by the government.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I don't expect many of you to agree with my position, but I will not let anybody put words in my mouth that I didn't say or ascribe motives to me that I don't hold.

So far, the anti-Prop 8 crowd's argument has been "If you don't agree with us, you must be a bigot." That is pathetically weak.

I'm not sure that I agree that's what people have been saying. I suspect that's what some people are trying to say without coming out and using that word.

I am willing to grant that there are a very few people who support Prop 8 on the grounds that they think a court decision is not the proper venue to decide this type of public policy.

But the overwhelming majority of the people who support it, do so because they don't want gay people to be able to marry who they want to marry.

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

[Thousandaire]

I didn't say what you "quote" me as saying, as even the immediate context illustrates.

That's exactly what you said, as even the quote above illustrates. I must conclude you are either delusional, or unable (or unwilling) to defend your belief.

No, it is most certainly NOT what I said. I will not parse it for you. I did NOT say that homosexual behavior is detrimental to our country. If you can't figure out what I actually said from the very clear context of not just the lifted section, but the entire post it came from, then the problem is yours and not mine.

Well then, what behavior were you referring to when you said, "... behavior that I believe is detrimental to our country"?

[VAdame]

Someone asked a few pages back whether Civil Unions carried the same benefits/responsibilities as Marriage (ha, shades of "Separate but Equal"!)

Some answers here (long, but good):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

[Bob78164]

Do you really believe that, if the vote had gone the other way, the opponents of gay marriage would have just said, "Oh, well, the people have spoken?" Or do you think they would have defiantly said, "This fight is not over!"

If you believe the former, you underestimate the passions involved.

No, I don't believe they would have 'gone quietly into the night.' However, the supporters of the proposition followed the rules, got the measure on the ballot, and achieved a, to them, successful outcome.

You don't know that they followed the rules. Not having researched the issue, neither do I. But I do know that there are limits on the changes that can be made to the California Constitution via the initiative process. What I don't know is whether this one is within those limits.

So are you saying we should ignore the rules, or not ask the courts to make a decision, because you happen to like the result? (I note, by the way, that this was not a partisan decision. Six of the seven members of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors.)

By the way, as to your fundamental point, it seems to me you're saying that any law passed by the democratic process should never be disturbed by the courts. But removing issues from the democratic process is precisely the point of, say, the Bill of Rights. So what do you have against the Bill of Rights? --Bob

[BigDrawMan]

i hear the measure was passed overwhelmingly by those under 30.
I intuit it will pass in california in 10 years.

140 years in West Virginia

200 years in alabama

[BigDrawMan]

i hear the measure was passed overwhelmingly by those under 30.
I intuit it will pass in california in 10 years.

140 years in West Virginia

200 years in alabama

[Timsterino]

LA Times has declared the Prop 8 has passed.

Proposition 8 in California and ammendment 2 in Florida are crap on a stick.

[Timsterino]

Yes, I am proud to live in a state where the citizens have voted to protect the rights of our chickens, but not our gays.

This is not a measure of what I think of gay marriage or this resolution, but I feel I must correct an error in this statement.

Marriage is not a right, PSM.

Marriage is not a right? What a crock.

[Appa23]

Do you really believe that, if the vote had gone the other way, the opponents of gay marriage would have just said, "Oh, well, the people have spoken?" Or do you think they would have defiantly said, "This fight is not over!"

If you believe the former, you underestimate the passions involved.

No, I don't believe they would have 'gone quietly into the night.' However, the supporters of the proposition followed the rules, got the measure on the ballot, and achieved a, to them, successful outcome.

You don't know that they followed the rules. Not having researched the issue, neither do I. But I do know that there are limits on the changes that can be made to the California Constitution via the initiative process. What I don't know is whether this one is within those limits.

--Bob

Hey, I don't even practice in California, but nearly every article on Prop 8 has noted that the remaining issue left to litigate is whether the initiative was an amendment or a revision. Prop 8 had been challenged prior to the vote, and it passed all legal scrutiny.

BTW, even rational, thinking opponents of Prop 8 have noted that the argument that it was a "revision that fundamentally changed the California Constitution" is beyond a Hail Mary attempt. Such an argument has never worked in previous cases. It clearly was limited in scope and really just addressed one bad decision.

Prop 8 is the law. The only remaining issue is whether it is applied retroactively. I would say that it should not be. However, I could see the argument that the California Supreme Court knew that they were going against an already expressed public opinion (via an earlier law via initiative), and hence its "legal" decision was a nullity. (Nice try but marriages stand.)

Although I suppose that I could just look it up, I am wondering about retention elections for the judges in California. How often do they occur? I wonder if the judges who were behind the earlier decision are worried.

[Bob78164]

Just to correct the oft-stated but nonetheless incorrect idea that states have to recognize all marriages from other states -- there is a common law exception that no state is required to recognize a marriage that violates a "strong public policy." Many states have included this in their state constitutions, especially recently after the idea of same-sex marriages began being discussed.

So, in order to determine if the marriage of first cousins must be recognized, a court would look at whether the state has a "strong public policy" against such marriages. There was a case out of Louisiana that addressed this issue (interestingly, the lower court also refused to recognize the marriage because the couple were married in Iran, and the court essentially went off on a Pro-America rant.)

If the original marriage occurred in the United States, it's hard for me to see how such a ruling would be consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And if I'm right about that, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't change the outcome. --Bob

The federal DOMA has little to nothing to do with this issue. I accurately stated the law on recognition of marriage between states. I do not know if you took a Marriage and Family Law course in law school, or if you had to know this area for a bar exam, but you sthen would have learned that a state does not have to recognize a marriage from another jurisdcition that violate a strong public policy. State DOMAs and state constitutional amendments are proof of a state's "strong public policy" on the issue of same sex marriages.

I did take such a course. From Dean Kay, who wrote or heavily contributed to California's first-in-the-nation no-fault bill. I'm not aware of any federal case addressing the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in this context. Are you? --Bob

[Flybrick]

I did not know that California was infested with hyenas.*

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned Wednesday, after gay and lesbian artists threatened a boycott for his support of a ban on same-sex marriage.

"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community," Scott Eckern said in a statement.

Campaign records show Eckern contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting Proposition 8, which wrote a ban on same-sex marriages into the California state Constitution.

California Musical Theatre is the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company and Sacramento's oldest performing arts company.

In a statement, Eckern said one of his family members is in a same-sex relationship and that he is sad that his personal beliefs were taken with offense:

"I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation."

The organization has produced Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Eckern, who spent 25 years with the company, has served as its chief operating officer and was its artistic director since 2002.

Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member "in very good standing" and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.

"I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well," Eckern said in a statement.

Eckern said he will be making a $1,000 comparable donation to the Human Rights Campaign.

Several high-profile artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, were among those leading the boycott effort.

Local playwright Gregg Coffin told KCRA 3 that he does not support the boycott. Coffin, however, did say that Eckern owes the people he works with an explanation.

"He works in an environment that is so inclusive and diverse," Coffin said. "He works with gay actors, singers, dancers and choreographers."

In his statement, Eckern expressed his gratitude for his time with the company.

"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best -- to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community."

The company's executive producer, Richard Lewis, said Tuesday that the company doesn't share Eckern's views.

However, Lewis said Wednesday that in no way was he forced to resign.

Other managers will take over the artistic director duties, Lewis said, but they're not sure if they will replace that position.

Supporters of Eckern said they will gather at the venue at 12:15 p.m. and protest what they think is a forced resignation.

California Musical Theatre released this statement Tuesday:

"Any political action or opinion of Scott Eckern does not represent the views or opinions of California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long-standing support. We acknowledge the dedication, patronage and hard work of the many members of the LGBT community who have played a crucial role in our success. Our only mission is to present quality theatrical productions to enrich the cultural life of the community."

The theatre had scheduled an emergency meeting to take place on Tuesday but the meeting was canceled.

*with apologies to the African version

[Bob Juch]

Some people just don't know when to keep their mouth shut.

[Flybrick]

Do tell.

[BackInTex]

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

I am willing to come out and say it. I think you are a bigot. You know nothing of what you speak of. Nor do you care. You are full of hate. Just like the gays that pulled the cross out of the peaceful lady's hand and started stomping on it. Just like the gays that disrupted a peaceful church service. You don't think people can legitimately have an opinion other than those they share with you. If not, then they must be bigots!. No, it is YOU who are the bigot.

[danielh41]

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

I am willing to come out and say it. I think you are a bigot. You know nothing of what you speak of. Nor do you care. You are full of hate. Just like the gays that pulled the cross out of the peaceful lady's hand and started stomping on it. Just like the gays that disrupted a peaceful church service. You don't think people can legitimately have an opinion other than those they share with you. If not, then they must be bigots!. No, it is YOU who are the bigot.

I definitely would have voted yes on Prop 8 had I been voting in California. And I would have viewed my vote as being for the traditional marriage as created by God way back in Genesis and practiced throughout all of American history, and not as being a vote against gay rights. I look at the gay movement now, and then I look at what Paul wrote in Romans chapter one, and I see the parallels.

My nephew, who just graduated from high school, has come out of the closet, saying that he is gay. I love him dearly; our whole family does. But we don't have to love the fact that he is entering the gay lifestyle. Does the fact that I believe what the Bible actually says make me a bigot?

Would I have donated to the Prop 8 campaign? I doubt it. The issue of granting or denying a piece of paper to gay people people seems rather small compared to the genocide occurring in abortion clinics around the country. One has to pick one's battles, I guess.

[Flybrick]

I have not given my opinion on the matter, but I agree with, and my point in posting the AP article was, it's ironic, as well as scary, that the tactics of attack, violence, exclusion, and bigotry demonstrated by the losing side of this issue.

Aren't they the ones that espouse "do your own thing?" Aren't they the ones who want everyone to have and express an opinion?

Apparently, however, the only opinion allowed is the one they agree with.

So, if an election goes against you, the remedy is savagery and 'outing' anyone who disagreed with you?

Nice.

At what point does this become unacceptable?

[The Carp]

My nephew, who just graduated from high school, has come out of the closet, saying that he is gay. I love him dearly; our whole family does. But we don't have to love the fact that he is entering the gay lifestyle. Does the fact that I believe what the Bible actually says make me a bigot?

The "gay lifestyle"? WTF? Gays want to marry and have a stable family. They are told no. Most want the "gay lifestyle" to be just the typical American lifestyle, believe me.

[VAdame]

I have to expand a little on what The Carp is asking. Serious questions here, please treat as such, ok?

Does the fact that I believe what the Bible actually says make me a bigot?

I don't know, since I'm not sure exactly what you believe, or how much you take literally. Are you a Young Earth creationist? In that case, IMO it makes you misguided and wrong -- but not necessarily a bigot. Do you claim the right to impose customs dictated by your Creation Myth on all of us? Now, that's a little closer to bigotry. Do my current department chief (a Hindu), or the service line chief (I think she's a Sikh) or the chief radiologist (Jewish) have any business expecting everyone to live by the practices of their Holy Books? Particularly the ancient, mostly symbolic and allegorical texts? And just whose Holy Books and Creation Myths are we to live by anyway??

And lets look at "Marriage as created by God in Genesis." Marriage as practiced by Jacob (in Genesis!) ....and Leah...and Rachel.....and Bilhah....and Zilpah? (The latter 2 may have been concubines, not wives.) Marriage as practiced by Solomon and Sheba and the other 299 or so wives....and don't forget the 700 concubines! Or marriage as it was described by St. Augustine in the 4th or 5th Century AD, when asked about the polygynous customs of the above-named Biblical folks: "Although plural marriage was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was....." In fact, the later idea of having only one wife at a time was in keeping with Roman custom of the day!

So obviously the ideas of what comprises "marriage" have gone through some major changes throughout the history of the world, even among the People of the Bible! Could it be that it's changing yet again? After all, God put you, and me, and your nephew, and all of us here on this earth now, in the 20th-21st Centuries! Not back in Jacob's or Solomon's or Augustine's day, not in the Middle Ages or the 17th Century, not in prehistoric times -- now! When we know a little more about the workings of the human mind and body, and due to advances in science and medicine, we mostly live long enough to enjoy it a little. And I don't know about you, Dan -- but I believe God gave us our brains to use, and that includes learning how to make life better for our fellow humans. Could it be that the time, now, is right for acceptance of same-sex love and marriage? Because we know better now? And even , as Augustine pointed out, "there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was...."

Now, to the rest of it:

My nephew, who just graduated from high school, has come out of the closet, saying that he is gay. I love him dearly; our whole family does. But we don't have to love the fact that he is entering the gay lifestyle.

Gay Lifestyle? As opposed to what, precisely?! Seriously, Dan -- what exactly would you have this young man do?

Hmmmm....I guess he could date girls anyway. Maybe even marry one. And keep his eyes closed and fantasize like crazy in order to make things work. Oh, yeah -- we all know how well that usually works! (Read today's Dear Margo (Ann Landers' daughter, Margo Howard) advice column for one such wife's experience..... Yeah, lets not even think how fair this is to any women he might get involved with... maybe an occasional airport men's room encounter, fleeting and anonymous, unless he happens to run into any closeted Senators! Sounds like a great life there for the kid -- but hey, at least it's not The Gay Lifestyle!

Or would you rather consign him to a life of lonely chastity? Because, you know....his aunties and uncles just luuuuuvvvvvv him.....as long as they don't have to think about any of that icky Gay Sex stuff! Sure, he can just be the "confirmed bachelor" of the family, favorite uncle to all the little kids his more, er, heterosexual siblings and cousins and friends will be having in the coming years. But at least he won't be bring any boyfriends home to meet the family, cause that might lead to his family being uncomfortable (families thinking about icky Gay Sex can do that, y'know....!) And in desperate times there's always the occasional, anonymous airport men's room, the bushes in the park, that certain highway rest stop.....as long as Uncle Dan, et al, don't have to know about it, it doesn't exist (la la la la ......{fingers in ears}!) Yep, nice life there too.

All that -- as opposed to maybe finding someone he can love, who just might love him back? And be allowed to build a life together?

No, we certainly can't have THAT, can we?! Sarcafont (tm) absolutely intentional.

[Flybrick]

Rioting, violence, forcing dissenters from their jobs, picketing private citizens' homes, yelling at their children, because your side lost is not acceptable.

It does not help the cause you support.

Or if it does, our society has bigger worries.

Again, so much for 'tolerance' by the losing side.

[minimetoo26]

I actually know a couple guys who married women under pressure from their families--one to inherit the family business and the other to inherit from Grandma. The women were both agreeable to the charade and lived discreet separate lives. One guy was quite sweet and docile and kept up the game easily, but the other was more flamboyant and one day just started walking into the ocean and kept going until someone pulled him out and he was put into residential psychiatric treatment. He just couldn't be who he wasn't any longer but didn't want to let his family down.

Then there were the lesbians in the Navy who married civilian gays so the men could get health insurance and the women got extra housing allowance and less hassle from the Navy because they were married women. Which was a fraud all the way around, but they were allowed to get a license and get hitched because they weren't same-sex couples...

[danielh41]

There are many of us who view homosexuality as a behavior and not as something innate. Gay rights advocates have been quite successful in recent years in getting sexual orientation on a par with race, ethnicity, and gender in matters concerning equality, discrimination, etc. I reject the notion that being gay is like being white or black, or male or female. Science has never proven that homosexuality is genetically based. And yet, anyone who disagrees with the stance that people are born gay is labeled as a bigot or intolerant. The violent reaction to the Prop 8 vote shows how militant the gay movement has become.

My reference to marriage in Genesis was a reference to the very beginning in Eden. Most Christians believe that God created a perfect world and that he made marriage between one man and one woman as it was in the garden of Eden. In fact, my wife and I have begun to use that as a model--husband and wife in communion with God. It was when humankind turned away from God that his perfect creation became corrupted.

Many people view marriage as something faith based and not state based. That's why we get married in a church with a preacher. I can see how many people would view gay marriage as an affront to those Biblical beliefs, as if it were an insult to God. Apparently, there were enough people in California who felt this way that Prop 8 passed. And why should people vote for anything that is against their beliefs just because a very loud minority is calling them names?

As for my nephew, I will say that I don't agree with the way my brother has handled things with him, both with the drugs and the lying that has gone on and the admission of being gay. The best thing I can do in the situation is pray for everyone involved, to give my advice when asked, and to stand firm in my beliefs. The only reason I brought him up was to illustrate the concept of loving the sinner and not the sin.

[franktangredi]

Rioting, violence, forcing dissenters from their jobs, picketing private citizens' homes, yelling at their children, because your side lost is not acceptable.

It does not help the cause you support.

Or if it does, our society has bigger worries.

Again, so much for 'tolerance' by the losing side.

I agree with everything you said in your first three paragraphs. My only quarrel is with your final line, which implies that these fringies represent everyone on the losing side.

Do you think the people described in this article http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1003890511 represent everybody who voted against Obama? I don't.

[Flybrick]

frank, my comments were directed specifically at those on the losing side of this issue who are doing the vile things because they lost.

Not at those who are on the losing side of the topic who do not do those illegal things. I have no issue or complaint with them.

The acceptable way to deal with this is to try again at the next election and run a better campaign.

Lesson there for many.