The Ojai Post

In case any readers happen to see this thread before evan has a chance to correct it, I am sure what he really means is YES on Proposition 2!!

Hi evan,

I looked at your OPC voting guide and see that it correctly states YES on prop. 2 there. That's a relief!

I also noted your endorsement of Suza for City Council. Good call!

thanks for catching that, david!!
i've made the corrections.

Thank you to the Ojai Peace Coalition for endorsing me
for Ojai City Council. It's nice to wake up and see this!

I'm up early studying for my final exam --the fourth and last Forum sponsored by the Ojai Post and Ojai Valley Green Coalition. Tyler will be one of the moderators. I hope all you faithful Ojai Post readers will attend and ask questions.

7 pm tonight, Chaparral Auditorium. Details on the Home Page.

Evan,

I agree with most of the OPC voting guide, however, Prop 11 & 12 should be NO and there are two seats open for City Council.

Prop 11 gives the redistricting right to a 14 member commission that effectively gives equal say to both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Usually the redistricting right is reserved and acted upon every 10 years by the State Legislature. The State Legislature is the most democratic(small d) body in the state as each individual member is voted in by their various districts. By taking the redistricting right away from the legislature and instead giving it to a commission of appointees, we are effectively limiting democracy and creating a brand new bottle-neck of power that could easily be dominated by whomever the governor happens to be. This is a brazen move by the national Republican party to attempt to take over our state. Once they set the districts they can gerrymander them in such a way that more Republicans win and go to the legislature. They may even be able to tip the scales to the right and take over the State Legislature to our detriment. Frankly, I'm surprised that the OPC would endorse this anti-democratic initiative. Vote NO on Prop. 11.

Prop. 12 is another bond measure. I realize that people would like to help veterans, but using a giant credit card to do it is not appropriate, especially during this economic collapse. Assuming it were even possible for the State of California to issue and sell 900 million dollars in bonds when the state is basically bankrupt and the economy overall is in full melt down, it would cost the state upwards of 1.8 billion dollars to redeem the bonds. Not good policy. If we would like to do something for Veterans, let the State Legislature put it in the budget and fund it in the normal way. Not with a credit card. Vote NO on Prop. 12.

Suza is an excellent choice for one of the seats on the City Council of Ojai. The other seat should be reserved for Betsy Clapp in my opinion. Perhaps the OPC didn't wish to endorse more than one candidate, but if you didn't realize that you are supposed to vote for two, let me nominate Betsy as the second choice now.

One more thing about Prop. 8(hate)

Here's an interesting thing I found on the web. As we all know, more than 80% of all funding for the Yes on Hate(8) campaign is coming from the mormons. Here is a list of donors to the Yes on Hate(8) campaign. There are two people from Ojai who gave $3,000 dollars for the campaign. Many people don't realize that when you donate to a political campaign, it is public record.

And Lassens in Ventura gave $27,500.

Food for thought....

We've heard repeatedly about the big bucks coming from Lassens, but I see that Ventura Pest Control is also on the list.

Sorry, LTOR, we were posting at the same time!

spk, thanks for your dissenting (and, as usual, superbly intelligent) voice!

i'm not sitting in front of a list of the trusted sources i used to determine our NO on 11 and 12, but i'll try to post 'em just as an FYI. also, i am aware that there are two seats on the City Council...you are also correct that i only wished to recommend one (the obvious choice) and leave the other open for folks to decide on their own. Betsy seems like a very fine choice indeed, and Rae has been historically very friendly to peace activities.

For what it is worth I generally agree with spk's take on Prop. 11

It allows the two major parties to make themselves much more important than independents in the process of redistricting.

spk and Tanya, my own personal read of Prop 11 was that the new districting commission would be comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and what seemed a fair number of "Independents" (whatever that means, frankly). so i do not see the clear favor to either the dominant parties nor to the Republican party specifically.

personally i favor a multi-party system, so if you-all think this restricts that even further, then i'm very open to publicly changing my mind.

As I recall 10 of 14 are Dems or Repubs. And if there is one thing you can bet the two parties can agree on, it's maintaining their strangehold on our politics.

I know the current system is not perfect but I like the idea that our elected representatives can be held directly accountable for their redistricting actions. I think Prop. 11 has the potential to be a way to lend legitimacy to results that will look an awful lot like the ones we're getting now (but somewhat more favorable to Republicans).

Evan,

While I may agree with you that we should break the strangle-hold of democracy by our duopolistic system, Prop. 11 does nothing about that. There are other measures we need to be looking into to stop the two party rule--like instant run-off voting and fusion voting. If you want to read a good book on how fusion voting and the Working Families Party is changing politics in the state of New York I would reccomend David Sirota's book, The Uprising. However, Prop. 11 does not help with that problem at all. In fact, it may exacerbate the problem by concentrating the power of redistricting into fewer hands.

From Wikipedia about the makeup of our State Legislature:

The California State Legislature currently has a Democratic majority, with the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans; and the Assembly having 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans. Except for a brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.

By taking the power to redistrict away from the legislature and giving it to this commission which would be comprised of equal numbers from each party, Prop. 11 would already be weakening the Democratic Party who have the majority in the legislature. It is a long way from equal power in the legislature and that is because people in their districts all over California have chosen Democrats to represent them. It is not an evil trick or an accident that the Democratic Party is in the majority, it is the current and long standing will of the people of California.

Now I realize that many people are not Democrats. As I was mentioning above, a lot of people identify with third parties like the Greens or Libertarians. I would love to see the iron grip of the two-party system broken, but Prop. 11 has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue, and it would help in no way to loosen that grip. All it would do is perhaps weaken the Democrats in favor of the Republicans.

awesome food for thought, brother...thanks!!

Ugh, the YES gang is out in full force again this morning by Dahl's. Today is Write to Marry Day:

http://www.mombian.com/2008/10/24/join-us-for-write-to-marry-day/

Lisa, thanks for letting us know about Write to Marry Day. i'm tempted, of course, to have our community participate by starting a new thread, but i think we've probably beaten that issue to near-death. what do you think?

A new thread isn't necessary, you can post this one if you want, or the other one you did, or both!

great solution, Lisa...i've updated the original post with the Write To Marry Day graphic, and submitted our participation at the link you provided! (it's also been posted on the OPC Action Blog)

Awesome, and thanks to both you and Heather for your words in today's OVN!

thanks for reminding me to pick up a copy! (my online subscription JUST expired, so i'll have to invest in a pile of paper this once)

what a vibrant town!
there are 23 Letters to the Editor in today's OVN, dealing with topics as current and diverse as gravel trucks and our host of Propositions.

kudos to the heartfelt, articulate, and timely words from those who support marriage equality, in sharp contrast with the same tired misinformation by (City Engineer) Glenn Hawks. all of his "points" are refuted four separate times in one paper!

Tomorrow, folks! BE THERE and bring family, friends, supporters and ALL who respect and love our Constitution!

To my dear Ojai Friends,
PLEASE JOIN US!!!
I’ll have extra No on 8 signs, more are at Obama HQ on Matilija & Montgomery
St & it helps to make your own, as suggested below:

Begin forwarded message:

> The Unitarian Universalist Churches of Santa Paula and Ventura are calling
> for volunteers to bring No on 8 signs and banners to the Y in Ojai on Thursday
> evening.
>
> Let's join them in support! We expect a new supply of No on 8 signs in the
> office by Thursday.
>
> The following message is from Rev Carolyn Price of Santa Paula.
>
> This is an invitation to join in a peaceful protest against Prop. 8 this
> Thursday Oct. 30, from 5 - 6:30 at the Y in Ojai . Because we believe in
> marriage equality and we stand on the side of love we are gathering to
> encourage folks to vote no on this proposition that would change the
> California constitution and limit marriage as between a man and a woman.
> Proponents of Prop 8 have used this corner to spread lies about what Prop 8
> would "really" do - including having about 25 people there this last Saturday
> with - I nearly drove off the road I was so upset - some signs that said
> "Protect Freedom of Religion". We want, dare I say need, to counter their
> discriminatory tactics. If you can, my friend Percy, a UU from the Santa
> Barbara church who lives in Ojai and is organizing the event, suggests making
> the following signs to help put a face on this Prop: 1) Hi I'm Your Neighbor,
> Protect My Right To Marriage, Vote No on Prop 8
> 2) Hi I'm Your Neighbor, Protect My Son's Right To Marriage, Vote No on Prop 8
> 3) Hi I'm Your Neighbor, Protect My Daughter's Right To Marriage, Vote No on
> Prop 8
> 4) Hi I'm Your Neighbor, Protect All Californian's Right To Marriage, Vote No
> on Prop 8
> 5) or simply bring your Vote No on 8 posters. Bring extras if you have them.
> Anyone interested can join us for pizza at Ojai Pizza afterwards.
>
>>>>> >>>>
Wanna March From My House on Aliso St. & Rincon (Cottages Among the Flowers)? Meet at 4:30 and we'll march together to the Y!
TAKE OFF EARLY FROM WORK!

Get out the Message and Pass Along..............

here's the public record of contributions made from the 93023 zip code, both in support and opposition:
CLICK HERE FOR CONTRIBUTION RECORDS.

as of right now the contributions from our community are exactly 50% support and oppose (in number, not dollars contributed). Supporters have contributed $8,114, and the opposition has sent $3,450. [it seems that $50 is the minimum donation recorded]

Man, my dentist gave $300 to support Proposition 8. That means my money helped fund something I feel very strongly about. I mean, who would want to pass a proposition that starts out in the ballot summary as eliminates right...

It's eliminating the right to destroy the fabric of our society, to disenfranchise traditional families, to brainwash our children and to change the meaning of words.

I'm not sure how it would "disenfranchise traditional families" or "brainwash our children" - BC, you sound like misinformed individual. This would imply, because same-sex couples already have the right to marry, that we are currently doing this. Sorry, I don't see it. All I see is hatred, bigotry, and homophobia coming from our religious-right community. So sad.

OH...MY...GOD, Brian! they said the same thing about treating africans as humans, letting women vote and work, and allowing biracial marriages.

when you're done with the Stone Age, we'd like to put it back in the history books, where it belongs.

I have to believe that you are just trying to stir shit up, Brian, because if I believe anything else, I will be inconsolable and, well, just plain grossed out. It's bad enough that my next-door neighbors gave a whopping thousand bucks to YES on 8 (paying to hate, nice).

The hate is coming from the gay and lesbian supporters who are trying to take something that is precious, the union of a man and a woman, and trying to reduce it's value to equate to that of a relationship between two same sex individuals.

Brian,

You are just wrong. Are you a mormon of just their tool?

Vote No on Hate(8)

I don't hate anybody. Labeling someone as a "tool" implies that that person has no mind of their own, when you engage in that type of retoric you are no longer having a conversation, you have reduced the exchange to name calling, which is fine, but you're not advancing your argument.

Brian, you're seriously lecturing us on the definition of "tool"???? i have never seen one original thought by you on all these pages!

but that's almost beside the point. you're trying to tell us that you love gay people so much that all you want them to do is accept a second-class status and change who they are?

No, I just don't think it is right for them to change the meaning of a word.

Similar arguments were used by bigots who said they weren't bigots (when, for example, they made people of color sit at the back of the bus).

Interracial marriage used to be illegal too Brain. The people who wished to keep it illegal used to make the exact same arguments that have been fed to the Yes on Hate(8) campaign by the Mormons and the Knights of Columbus. You and the Yes on Hate(8) campaign are parroting these same hack-kneed arguments, therefore you are a tool. Sorry. Think I'm lying about the money behind this disgusting assault on our state Constitution, have a look at this internal memo from the LDS church.

The people with the money that have misused our initiative system here in California to get Prop. 8 on the ballot are the people in charge of that campaign, the Mormons and parts of the Catholic church. According to the memo, the Mormons bankrolled the effort and enlisted the support of the Catholics because they have a better public "face" than does the LDS. Anyone actively campaigning for this initiative are tools of these out-of-state interests.

If you really think it's okay to deny people their rights and hurt people by changing the Constitution to deny their rights, then go vote yes. But if you go on blogs and write in favor of this proposition, you are a tool.

Black people didn't make a choice to become black so your argument doesn't hold water. According to your standards I guess two sisters could get married or brothers could as well. Correct?

homosexuality isn't a choice, Brian, but bigotry is

- LS

I am shocked, apalled, & awakened! First of all, I am black and proud of it. Obama was equally elected for president of the USA by the will of the people. Now, there are only few folks who want to overturn the legal passaged of proposition 8 by an illegal act of force! Proposition was legally passed by the will of the people, for the people, & by the people! Why don't they also just overturn OBAMA'S legal election that was won by the will of the people? In addition, being gay is fully 100% free CHOICE that they are making for themselves. They are crying to the world for more special rights and treatments for their act of choice. They are NOT born gay or lesbians. They are choosing to live a UNnatural sexual lifestyle. Yet, they want us to give them more special rights. They are already have millions of dollars in their bank accounts! Gays drive the most LUXURIOUS cars. They are actors, singers, movie stars and they want more special treatments! Give us a break! We had enough of their rich spoiled life. We around the world are struggling to make ends meat while they are spending over 70 MILLION dollars in no prop 8 for more special protection of a free CHOICE of sexual living that they are making for themselves! Why don't they give some of their $$$ millions of dollars by helping the poor? Why don't they help homeowners pay off their mortgages? Why don't they help create more jobs? Why don't they donate millions to childrens hospitals? Why don't gays come out to donate more of their money to inner citys? Instead, they keep buying more toys, more gold, more mansions & more mercedes while we americans are suffering in these hard economic times! I say we had enough of their tricks, manupilation, & perverted lifestyle and special treatments! They never had fallen under the discrimanatory act because they werre not BORN that way. They made a choice of being gay! Therefore, we shouldn't pay, and support their choice of unnatural lifestyle. We should start a new proposition that prohibits gays from adopting babys too! And we are tired of their nonsense! They must stop comparing themselves with black americans. And start waking up to their foolishness! We want a better economy! we want common sense! We want truth! We want purity for America!

It is time for America to wakes up! & Defends her little childrens!

Right on Richard. It is ironic also that the majority of blacks in California voted for prop 8 since they know better than any group the importance of having a mother and a father in the household.

Hard for me to see through all the hate speech. All gays are rich? And they chose it? And don't get me started on how much the LDS church chose to spend to strip others' rights (my own neighbor gave a grand, which is how much I give in a whole year in dribs and drabs to charity). Interesting that someone who has been discriminated against would turn around and discriminate against others. But then again, this is the last acceptable form of discrimination. I voted for Obama and listened to his speech, and was proud to hear him say:

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference .

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, GAY, STRAIGHT, disabled and not disabled.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America."

Anyway, I have been happily married to my husband for 18 years and will do whatever I can to support Prop 8 being overturned. Equality California is a good place to start:

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

Lisa, They already have the right to be gay, no one is disputing that, when they transgress on other peoples rights and demand that others conform to their will, that's not equal rights.

Richard,

You aren't by any chance one of the guys who run those scam emails from Nigeria? Your syntax is vaguely familiar.

demand that others conform to their will, Brian? can you please cite a source claiming that someone has been forced into a same-sex marriage?

hey, how come we never hear from all the people who were forced into sex changes when women got the right to vote!

same thing, verbatim, here:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/opinion/TTM360R408L00DA6V/p2

and brian, i'd rather spit into the wind than continue to engage you on this

LS

Lisa, can I ask you a question?

Although many people will claim otherwise, I feel that since I am both black and bisexual I am sufficiently qualified to determine what I did and did not choose.

I didn't choose either. Not many people would choose to live their lives as a reviled minority. But you know what, even if I had chosen, I ought not to be discriminated against for a choice that doesn't harm anyone else in the U.S. of A. Yes, yes, I know you think you're being harmed but the most civil thing I can think of in response to that is - it's all in your head.

Maybe we should poll those lesbian seagulls, pigeons, penguins, etc. to find out when and how they made their choice.

Give me a break.

Richard, you speak as if gay and lesbian people are aliens. We aren't. We are your people too. I am black and and working class - baby, I am never going to be able to purchase a Mercedes. Your ideas about gay people are farcical and your tone is so fanatic that I am not completely sure whether your post was serious or satirical. I am frankly appalled that so many of my own would deny rights to others based on the Christianity you learned from white society and/or some gut feeling of disgust. I am just as ashamed of you as you likely are of me, Richard.

Brian,

Over the years, you and I have had some heated conversations on the Post. However, I have always found your stand to be a pleasant stop at the Farmers Market. I have supported your business because I believe in family business and in shopping locally.

However, your recent comments that people like me "destroy the fabric of our society," and "disenfranchise traditional families," has led me to reconsider.

I will no longer be buying honey from you, or even smiling at you. Your beliefs affect my life in ways you can't or won't imagine. I can't just pretend that you are a nice guy.

Heather McKenzie

I'm sorry to hear that, I would rather you know my beliefs and my feelings on the matter rather than me lying to you. I don't like putting on a facade. I can hardly be true to my beliefs and think any other way. I don't have anything against you and you can chose to live how you want, just call it a civil union and not marrage.

People, this is a wake up call. It wasn't just the mormons, the baptists, the fringe religious element that entered the voting booth and voted yes on discrimination. Our neighbors, relatives, "friends", polite acquaintances and total strangers chose to cast judgement on who we are. When you peel the layers back, I'm afraid you'll find the ugly core BC has exposed here. He calls what he has "precious" and what I have something lowly he doesn't want his holy matrimony equated to. I don't know how you can look in the mirror after speaking down to another human being that way. It's really bizarre that all of you who share these "beliefs" go out of your way to explain how you're not bigots, have nothing against us, when the most honest thing would be to say "Sorry, you don't count and we do, and since there's more of us than you, screw you". That's what you really believe isn't it?

Greetings,
Now that the religious right has scared the population by equating homosexual marriage with being denied religious freedom, an increase in government, an attack on free speech (when, obviously, heterosexuals are actually the people 99.99999% of the time who infringe on peoples rights), surely the religious right will be embracing a more traditional biblical marriages. What is a biblical marriage? On the internet I found:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

CONGRATULATIONS ON PASSING PROP.8. FROM THE LOOK OF THE ABOVE BIBLICAL QUOTES, YOU HAVE MUCH WORK AHEAD OF YOU. DO NOT WORRY WHEN PEOPLE ATTACK YOU FOR BEING PERVERTED, ITS IN THE BIBLE, AND THE BIBLE IS ALWAYS RIGHT. AMEN

Brian,

I want you to go back and re-read Richard's rant, which includes a lot of language about how unnatural we are and a proposal to restrict our rights even more. Your response to his post was - "Right on, Richard." That, coupled with the comments Heather has quoted and a number of other things you've said about this issue makes it clear that you do indeed "have something against us." Claiming you don't when everything else you say makes it so clear that you do adds insult to injury.

I'd actually respect you a tiny bit if you would be true to what you are really saying and doing rather than talking out of both sides of your mouth. I suspect my wife feels the same way.

Tanya, I do feel that the gay lifestyle is wrong. I'm not going to pretend I don't think so. Sorry. But I'm not going to stop you from living your lifestyle, I'm just going to point out that I don't agree with it. I don't think that Richard going on about rich gay people has anything to do with anything, but I agree with some of his other points. And if Heather is not going to buy my honey, fine, but she might not want to buy gas for her car either, because the Muslims in Iran would like to execute her.

saunied -

Thank you for that Biblical rundown. I have yet to hear any religious defense of homophobia that addresses the ALL of the Biblical pronouncements on marriage. How can these self-proclaimed Christians pick just one rule and not all? I posted a similar comment about the rules of conduct in the Book of Leviticus and asked the same question. Not one of the defenders of Prop. 8 even responded.

So how about it, BC, Richard, or any other Prop. 8 supporter? How are your beliefs compromised by this single infringement on Biblical tradition (the accuracy of translation notwithstanding) and not, say, wearing mixed fibers or refusing to marry your brother's widow? Inquiring minds want to know.

Brian,

I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to do just the opposite - stop pretending that you don't, in your words, "have anything against" us when you do. Be who you are, be true to your hurtful beliefs if you must, but stop trying to make it sound like you don't think we are inferior to you.

Yes on 8 people,

Our society has grown in leaps and bounds over the past couple of decades in terms of tolerance and acceptance of gay people. As gay, lesbian, and bisexual people we're far enough removed from the violence and shame of the Stonewall era that we've come to think of ourselves as your neighbor, or a student, a firefighter or a doctor, someone's mom or a son before we think of ourselves as gay. Now we are reminded that we can't afford that luxury. Discrimination has always moved people to radicalize, identifying more strongly with the label that others use to tear them down. It has happened before and it will happen again now.

It's quite ironic that so many of you would like nothing better than to never see or hear anything about that icky, sinful gayness and yet by knocking us down where you think we belong you'll bring about just the opposite. Remember this when you're scratching your head trying to figure out why those damn queers have to be so in your face about their sexuality.

I'm putting all you homophobes (or "life-style disagree-ers, if you'd prefer to be called that) on notice - we are not going back into the closet. We will not slink off into the night. You can call it the gay agenda, the queer lifestyle, special rights or whatever other misleading label you can think of. You can put us on a continuum with child molesters or people who want to marry their dogs or their sisters but that will not silence us. We will not accept second-class citizenship. Not now. Not ever. You will fight this battle for the rest of your lives and you will lose. As a student of history I've seen time and again that love, decency, and unyielding resolve can overcome fear, ignorance and hate. As a patriot I know that the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence are on my side. I know that our Union is perfectable. It may take 100 years or only 10, but our equality under the law will happen unless we manage to destroy ourselves as a species first.

I hope if you're around when it comes you'll understand that you haven't really lost anything. My wish is that you'll have learned that you can think I am going to hell but that doesn't give you the right to enshrine your beliefs in our laws. On my optimistic days I think someday you'll understand that you have to allow me the same rights that you have in order protect your own and be true to the principles of our nation - even if you never understand why I love who I love. Maybe you'll even be a part of the movement that gets us one step closer to becoming America. Or maybe we will have to pry equality from your fearful, angry grasp.

Either way, I'm done supporting or tolerating people who want to make sure I don't have the same rights they do just because the love of my life is another woman.

Hey, this may eventually go to the Supreme Court. And they may decide in your favor, or maybe not. In anycase I will still have my present view. That's what is great about America, we can have different beliefs. I hope I will not be prevented from having my relgious beliefs in the future.

Richard,

Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not a choice. As the only one of the two of us who claims one of those identities, I dare say I have authority on the subject.

However, to humor you, let's say that being gay is a choice. One could argue that being Jewish is a choice. Should all the Jews in Europe have renounced their "lifestyle" so that the SS wouldn't have to be so mean?

Brian, HAVING your religious beliefs is not the same as REQUIRING others to live by them.

Our country was founded by deeply religious men who took great pains to create a system whereby no one had to follow another's creed. I am not asking you to marry a man. Your beliefs should have just as little impact on my life.

Do you have any idea how painful it is to hear over and over and over, from fully half the members of your community, that your "lifestyle" is wrong, an abomination, destroying the fabric of civilization? Where is your compassion, your empathy? Legislating your beliefs hurts people. Is that really who you want to be?

Your beliefs are hurting me as well.

Brian, how can you be on the same blog as Heather? I firmly support Heather's beliefs. She is in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship that is absolutely none of your business. In my belief system, her rights are exactly that: rights.

If my beliefs cause so much pain for you, maybe The Ojai Post isn't the place for you. Please let me know what you decide.

Boy how we are cavalier with words these days! Hurt, Brian? If you had said “annoy”, “offend”, “disturb my sensibilities”, “ruffle my feathers”, "expose my inner demons", “make me question my own sexuality”, …that would be one thing. And we are all entitled to our own feelings. BUT, these feelings are YOUR problems – not your gay and lesbian neighbors. They are more of an indictment of your level of tolerance, compassion, empathy and intelligence, not any imaginary “danger” the gay and lesbian community poses.

But hurt? Really? HURT?!? Did someone who happens to be gay take food off your table in the way of escalating prices? Did he or she cut funding for insurance for vulnerable children? Did he or she deregulate an industry that caused you to be literally forced out of our home? Did he or she send gas prices through the roof a while back? Did he or she wire tap your phones or lock you up in a cell without due process or in any other way violate your civil rights? Did he or she help tank this economy? Did he or she aid in the pollution of the air you breathe and water you drink? Did he or she send thousands of your fellow country men and women to their deaths?

No, you say? That was YOUR President (and by extension those who were blind enough to vote for him – TWICE)??? The same unconvicted criminal that you still defend and support???

Hey Brian - Got HYPOCRISY?

Tyler,

Did Brian violate the stated standards for commenters? If so, in what respect?

While LTOR's comment 61 happens to express my own outlook very succinctly, at the same time I feel Brian is performing a service here by exposing a viewpoint that is evidently shared by roughly half the voting population of California.

If we are going to start showing people the door -- which is certainly your perogative, I don't question that -- I have a couple of suggestions for other characters who haunt these premises on a regular basis, whose views are far more extreme and offensive (albeit in another direction) than Brian's.

Comments #51 and 54 are still waiting for a response.

To BC and other supporters of Prop. 8, expressing your subjective feelings is all very well, but it does not constitute a defense of your position. In matters of public policy, it is always best to at least attempt a cogent rationale above and beyond emotionalism.

Please address the points raised in #51 and 54. If you don't, we who have a different opinion (and a cogent argument in our defense) will have to conclude that you cannot address these points.

And I agree with David -- we need a forum to explore these differences of opinion, so unless there are blatant violations of standards, please do not bar dissenting voices. These discussions enlighten us all.

"And if Heather is not going to buy my honey, fine, but she might not want to buy gas for her car either, because the Muslims in Iran would like to execute her."

Geeze! I just now read this! Brian, are you out of your MIND?!?! Do you know ANYTHING about the people of Iran? A small faction of people in the Muslim world have ill will towards us. To include every muslim and every middle eastern country into your bigotry is precisely what has made this world so dangerous.

Your comment exudes sheer ingnorance, lack of understanding about the world and mind boggling demagoguery! I'm embarrassed for you.

david - I was just exploring the issue a little deeper - I didn't mean to imply a threat.

This whole discussion feels segregationist, like arguing over who can use a drinking fountain.

I have given this a lot of thought as I work out my grief, and have considered what it means to be faced with this decision in the voting booth. In looking over the legal opposition now moving forward, I agree that the crux of the problem is that a fundamental human right was put before voters. That should never, ever, be the case. The fact that the question appeared on the ballot legitimizes a yes or no response, when in reality the question shouldn't be there in the first place as it isn't ours to decide regardless of beliefs. If you believe every person is created equal, man or woman, why is it that any given man and any given woman constitute a relationship worthy of marriage, yet the same man or woman with another of the same sex take a step down should they be living equally committed lives together? That's the question put before the courts, and the answer was, the state constitution doesn't distinguish so the rights are equally bestowed on couples gay or straight. Can any of you on the opposition honestly answer this question without reference to a bible or procreation bs? Is it because our patriarchal society is afraid it could weaken their straight male dominance (sorry BC, a lot of your statements really lead me to believe that's the case with you)? My conclusion is that I can't fault the voters entirely for choosing to answer a question they should not have been asked; they merely became willing tools of the right wing forces that schemed to put together the prop in the first place. That's the part that bugs me, that perfectly reasonable people agreed to stand behind those little signs with a skirt, a strong man, and a child and let the bible verses fly at those of us just trying to lead our lives the same as the rest of you.

Grieve later, if at all. Fight. The Yes on Hate(8) campaign was the second most expensive political campaign in the United States after the race for the Presidency. That's unbelievable. The primary financier behind the Yes on Hate(8) campaign was the Mormon church, headquartered in Utah. This "religion" has successfully changed the constitution of California by pouring millions of dollars and producing hundreds of radio and television commercials that lied to the voters. That is not up for debate.

In 2012 a mormon named Mitt Romney will likely be the Republican candidate for President. He is very nearly a billionaire in his own right, but you can be sure that the LDS will be covertly funding his campaign. Steps need to be taken to neutralize the power of this "religious" organization.

If you are angry about Prop 8, realize that the fault lies with the Church of Latter Day Saints. Further realize that this "quasi-christian" "faith" has serious ambitions politically in this country.

I so hope the RNC decides to divorce themselves once and for all from the Christian Right. Indicating things to come, they are already ruthlessly throwing Palin under a bus - I think this coalition is toast.

Do the Mormons qualify for the term Christian Right? Just asking. I know they have been considered a cult in the past. And I know they have different religious texts supposedly found is some guys back yard back East in the 1800's. Are the a branch of Christianity?

very good question, spk...

if you look into it, the origins of Mormonism are truly bizarre...

but i think they consider themselves Christians.... full name is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, if I am not mistaken...

of course they are also polygamists, which puts an interesting twist on the whole definition-of-marriage thing...

No, you're right. Very far removed from traditional Christianity, religiously speaking. At least that’s how I see it. However, not such a huge disconnect when considering their wish to politicize and impose via legislation their cultural/religious views onto the country.

But my point is that the RNC is going to dissolve their partnership with the Christian Right because of their unyielding religious zealotry, unpopular demagoguery and the fact that the country as a whole seems to be leaning more and more liberal as time goes on. Their brand as it stands now is dead. Is it even feasible that Mitt Romney would stand a chance in the Republican Party if he is anyway associated with the Morman leadership? I'm very naive on this issue, but it appears to me that the RNC would want no part in jumping into bed again with this type of faction. Am I wrong? Or does Romney not come with this “excess baggage” in the RNC’s eyes?