The Ojai Post

As a teacher, I am appalled at the argument that kids would be taught about gay marriage in school, as are many other teachers that I work with. Regardless of anyone's position on the issue, that is simply not true. (Just as I don't teach religion, sexuality, or take sides politically)

With regards to the first grade field trip in SF, two parents did opt out. Their kids spent the 90 minutes the rest of the class was gone in another 1st grade room.

Through this whole proposition, I am constantly reminded of the civil rights movement and segregation, and it saddens me to think that we are back there again.

No on 8.

It's the last acceptable form of discrimination that's masquerading as protection of marriage...hate disquised as family values. I'm voting no.

Nicholas is now Eddie?

My partner and I live in Ojai, and have been accepted, in most cases embraced, not simply tolerated since moving here a year ago. That is why it is shocking and disheartening to see "Yes on 8" signs dotting the landscape, and troubling to think that our rights are subject to debate by those who wish to chip away at them by whatever means possible. Do you have the same attitude about the governments illegal wiretapping under the guise of the "war on terror"? That we should engage in healthy debate as to whether citizens should be subjected to surveillance without court order? Then why, if I pay my taxes, social security, etc. should my rights not be equal to a straight couples'? Would anyone have the same attitude if I were permitted to pay less in taxes and straight couples more to cover the benefits I am not entitled to? As a nation, I would hope we are long past there being any issues to debate here. As far as children being taught reality exists, the truth is some of them will be gay despite efforts to limit exposure to any sense that homosexuality is normal. Make no mistake, they will sense your fear, your wish to supress who they may be in the interest of who you wish them to be instead. You aren't protecting marriage, nor children, rather your own bigotry.

I think the Fresno Bee states it best when they wrote "Should we use the state constitution to take the right to marry from a particular group of people? We believe that notion is wrong, and recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 8."

Remember, this is a conservative newspaper in a conservative town.

They also write, "The claim that schools will be forced by the state to teach "gay marriage," featured in TV ads flooding the airwaves, is a flat lie."

Read the entire editorial

Thank you, Evan, for clarifying--especially the "issue" of teachers being required to teach "gay marriage." As as teacher, I am appalled that this is has been distorted into an"issue"-- it demonstrates how ignorance of the law and of the judicial system can be manipulated by fear. Below are my arguments, in order of gravity:

1. The Supreme Court--both state and federally--brings the final judgment on what laws, both elected
propositions and codified legislatively, are constitutional
or unconstitutional. If the courts did not perform these duties, our government would be one of tyranny by the majority which elects the executive and the legislature. The duty of courts is to maintain the rights of the minority.

2. The law states that parents have the absolute right to be notified and opt-out of any curriculum involving sexuality, health and family. If a school does not notify parents, parents can legally bring suit.

3. All churches and religions enjoy their freedom to believe and practice ANYTHING, as long as it does no physical harm. Has anyone been physically harmed since gay people have been "married" in the last few months? No one had "forced" any church to perform a gay marriage--if one doesn't agree with the leaders of your church, then find another one!

"No on 8" signs are available at Ojai Democratic headquarters on Matilija & Montgomery, and will be replenished until the election. Recycle & Reuse -- they make great gift wrappers!

more from Tom Chatt, whom i find intelligent and well-grounded:
Same-sex marriage vs. public schools

thank you, alex, for reminding us that there are real human beings at the heart of this, not just abstractions, speculations, and philosophies.

As long as we're trading videos, this one will absolutely freak you out (regarding a massive religious gathering for Yes on 8 in San Diego on 11/1):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcVI0-xESCQ

h/t:

www.onelazyliberal.blogspot.com

i just called the Ojai Valley Baptist Church and left a nice message expressing my support for the No On 8 campaign and my sadness at the vandalism of their signs. i also expressed curiosity about their new sign equating Prop 8 with "religious freedom", on the grounds that churches are not now forced to marry heterosexual couples, and would therefore not be forced to marry homosexual couples, as well as a concern for the rights of the churches that do choose to marry same-sex couples. i invited them to participate here, and i hope someone does. if you want to express your support for their freedom of speech and invite them here, their number is 646-3362.

What about Prop. 2? Is that considered unimportant relative to Prop. 8? How about somebody posting a Prop. 2 thread?

How are churches, with their tax status, allowed to campaign?

Great question LS.

To answer LS's question: per federal law, a church is entitled to tax-exempt status provided they don't endorse a specific candidate or political party. They can, however, take positions on issues, such as propositions.

P.s. to Evan: thanks for the links and kind words.

thanks, Tom

the YesON8ers are out in full force this morning holding their signs on the 33 in Oak View...

Tom, thanks for weighing in! i'm honored!

The recent theft and vandalism of Yes signs has sparked a tit-for-tat (or perhaps a "do unto others") theft of No signs, i've noticed. in american sociopolitics, it will not be the most integrous and coherent position that wins...it will be whomever's signs are standing last. sad.

...although it's supposed to be "do unto others as you'd LIKE done unto you", not "do unto others what HAS been done unto you".

c'mon folks...draining each other's resources and engaging in this childish passive-aggression is a wholly unsustainable solution, and far beneath our supposed democratic and "civilized" state. please leave each other's signs alone and engage on the issues like grown-ups, in forums like this one!

Thank you, Evan for your blog site and for your kind phone call. First, let me state that I do not see this as a Gay-rights issue. To me, and to many others, it is about standing for what we believe to be God's design for marriage. For many evangelical Christians, myself included, the Bible is the sole authority for our faith and practice. We believe it to be God's Word to mankind, and to be the guidebook for life as God intended it to be. Therefore, we believe God's design for marriage to be between one man and one woman for life. Jesus Himself affirms this in Matthew 19, verses four through six, when He declared the Genesis version of God's design for man and woman in a marriage relationship as the two of them being joined by God. He stated this in the context of the religious elite of His day, the Pharisees, trying to trap Him in His words. By the way, the most scathing rebukes that Jesus had were aimed at hyper-religious folk. His most loving encounters were with people like the woman caught in adultery. It must be stated, however, that He always called them "out of" the sin with which they found themselves in bondage. Second, our focus as Christians is never to rage against the culture. We see all of mankind (ourselves included) in bondage to sin, homosexual behavior being one of those types of sin. The remedy for any and all of us is the forgiveness offered to us by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I, personally have had many people through the years who were homosexuals that I befriended. I am no man's judge, but the most unloving thing that I can do, believing that God is a holy God Who will judge mankind, would be to NOT declare what I have found to be truth, so that they can perhaps find the same love, liberty, and life that I and billions of others have found in a personal relationship with the living Christ.

By the way, the additional sign which was posted about religious freedom was placed there by someone else. I personally do not know what impact this will have on churches. I know that it will open us up for more lawsuits, and/or fines. In Canada, it is illegal to publicly declare what the Bible plainly states about homosexuality without facing stiff penalties. I am sure that we are heading for such a time as that here -- Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech are precious to our country. As for those churches that you asked about who have performed same-sex marriages: First, in my opinion, they have violated the Word of God. Second, God, throughout Scripture, has sanctioned only the marriage between a man and woman. Third, I am no man's judge. Those leaders will answer to God, just as I must for what I preach, teach and how I have led Christ's church.

that's what YOU believe anyway

thank you, R.S. for posting here in a gentle spirit of dialogue!

i think this is likely a perfect time (having heard our first Yes On 8 voice) to remind us all to breathe before we type, and to review the community standards under which we post here.

ok, i've been thinking about what you've said, R.S.

*this is an open comment, inspired by R.S. but directed at all Yes supporters.*
you're not seeing it as a gay rights issue, rather a religious freedom issue. i find myself very aware of whom will be directly impacted by this amendment, which mentions nothing about churches. here's how part of your argument sounds to me:
my religious right to NOT marry whomever i choose might possibly be threatened in ways i'm unsure of and cannot define, whereas gay peoples' right to marry or remain married will absolutely be abolished.

it certainly sounds like a gay/human rights issue to me.

another thing i'm curious about is that society and government aren't telling you how to behave inside your church (shy of not hurting anyone and no campaigning for candidates), but you think it entirely appropriate that the way you choose to behave should be the only legal norm for the rest of our society. how is that?

No Evan, what I am saying is this: At issue is whether or not we, as a culture will radically alter what has been the "norm" among the vast majority of humanity for millennia. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I must take a stand on what I see to be God's original design for marriage. God created male and female for a reason. If I took a bolt and a nut for that bolt as an example -- Both nut and bolt were designed to complement one another. One cannot serve the designed function without the other. You can use two bolts and two nuts to make a sculpture or to serve as a paper weight, but that is not what they were designed for. They may have been made from the same lump of ore and designed by the same designer, but each serves a unique purpose that complements the other. This is a crude example, I know, but the issue is one of reminding the culture the God's original design is what works, not man's attempts to remake it into something which the Original Designer never intended. It is about declaring what we believe to be God's design for the good of society.

thank you for that clarity, R.S.! i wouldnt characterize what we're doing as a "radical alteration", because the only thing expanding is the gender combination. the fundamentals of loving, committed relationships that we codify and protect via "marriage" are the same. i understand that you see it differently.

what i hear about god's original design for marriage is that man and woman are biologically designed to "multiply and replenish the earth". with some straight folks still having 5, 8, 10 kids and the world population bursting at the seams, perhaps it's safe to say that we've OVERplenished the earth and could afford to cut back a little? the world and our species certainly don't need any more reproducing in order to survive (in the world's case, quite the opposite), which leaves what i was taught growing up: to have as many kids as possible so that more souls can come to earth. gay people cannot reproduce (at least not within couples), so they cannot carry out that command, is that it? so you want everyone to be doing your god's will even if they don't know it and/or don't want to?

i'd also like you to see how overpopulation leads to strained economy, more competition for finite resources, and global warming...all of which are BAD for society.

And, RSH, by your argument, since my husband and I, of 18 years, have decided not to have children, does that mean we should not be allowed to continue to be married?

Gender, race all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does, so it’s not valid to equate homosexuals to blacks, for instance. The structure of the human body of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband and wife relationships. The design of human biology supports heterosexuality and not homosexuality. But I guess if you believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events, it would be understandable that you would say that there is no higher authority like God.

You can be homosexual or heterosexual without "doing" anything. It's not an action.

I think BC has a point, though. The issue of 'choice' or 'nature' really gets to the heart of all this. Regardless of whether or not you were simply 'born' with homosexual mindsets and tendencies, ultimately everything comes down to a choice to act on those tendencies. If you don't believe in a higher authority or an established set of absolute truths, then the issue of true right and wrong is completely null and void here. Please understand that the true Christian has a very defined sense of absolute right and wrong based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. I am a Christian, and my last name probably gives away any mystery as to my leanings on the issue. But understand, that's why calling this a 'civil rights issue' doesn't fit to me. I have plenty of gay friends, and they know where I stand and I know where they stand. Do I believe they are less than human and any worse than me and my sins? No. But what's at stake here is a fundamental issue of right or wrong that I believe we will reap the fruits of in future generations. In response to Evan's recent response: This doesn't come down to a procreation issue. There's so much more here, as you can see. I just want to better spell out the Christian's point of view. When someone says 'that's what YOU believe', I run that against the backdrop of what I know to be Truth, whether you or I choose to believe it or not. It's nice to have a civil discussion for once about this. Thanks Evan...

there are some deep and interesting ideologies afoot! BC, what of homosexuality in nature? just a thought...

J.H., former schoolmate, thanks for sharing! i hope that this continues to be a safe space for that. i'm extremely curious about people like you who have "plenty of gay friends" who "know where [you] stand". what are the dynamics involved between you and a friend when you think their sexuality is a sin or affliction and that you're willing to withhold rights from them over it? i hope that does not come off as an attack...i mean it as a sincere question.

i certainly agree with you that it's much more than a procreation issue, as i've asserted over and over that marriage is about infinitely more than sex. that's why having a sexuality qualifier for relationships seems silly at least and dangerous at most.

another thought (again, not to single out the Harrells):
i very much hear your obligation to speak your Truth, as i share that value. i'm concerned, however, about where your truth conflicts with other peoples' rights. it seems to me that your truth gets to be the law of the land inside your church building, but outside in America, we're supposed to get equal rights. forcing the rest of us to live your god's law by creating civil legislation around it is not only a gross violation of the separation of church and state, but frankly sounds precisely analogous to the original plan put forth by Satan, as i learned it as a child:
Satan proposed to God that he would be the savior of the world, that he would force everyone to obey God's will, thereby ensuring that every soul would return to heaven. (he also wanted all the glory to himself) God rejected this plan because it violated Free Will, and Jesus' plan was chosen instead.

J Harrell, I'd like to thank you for sharing. I hope you don't mind my revealing my opinion that your perspective appears both obsolete and an example of your inability to think for your self.

Here's an example of your obsolete thinking:
If you don't believe in a higher authority or an established set of absolute truths, then the issue of true right and wrong is completely null and void here.
--Apparently, scientific advancements seem to have profound impacts on language. For some of us, quantum physics has altered the way we speak and possibley allowed us to communicate more accurately. I suggest you become familiar with eprime.

Here's an example, I propose, of both obsolete thinking and not thinking for your self - (a recipe for disaster/war):
Please understand that the true Christian has a very defined sense of absolute right and wrong based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.
--Your reliance on the bible to define what is right and what is wrong in today's world is like using a map of a town from two thousand years ago from the other side of the planet. It will only make you lost - no matter how adamantly you deny it. Your use of the word truth merely seems to convey your inability to have a legitimate conversation because it makes you appear unreceptive. The illusion of absolute truth has caused more death and misery than you can possibly comprehend. Ask any tyrant.

Basically, J. Harrelly, it appears to me that you are unable to form an original thought. You seen to hide behind labels like "Christian" to give your self an identity and to compensate for feelings of inferiority you try to become superior. To those of us who actually stand alone and think and feel for ourselves, your attempts at being morally superior appear archaic and a trifle sad.

History shows us that their have been 33 wars in Jerusalem in the last 2000 years. All in the name of an Old Testament religion. Your moral pedestal is one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of man.

As a Christian, I am pleased to find a debate on this issue that does not (with a few exceptions) resort to name-calling or recourses to raw emotionalism.

My theory on gay marriage is like many other civil liberties allowed to those outside the majority rule. It's a cliche, but here goes:

If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't have one.

As far as Biblical command, the Book that forbids it, Leviticus (at 20:13), also mandates that one not wear mixed fibers in one's clothing, sew two kinds of seeds in the same field (19:19), or when you harvest that field, do not harvest to the edges of the field or go back to pick up the gleanings (19:9-10). A host of other mandates from Leviticus require one to refrain from cutting sideburns, beards, hair, or eating fruit for the first four years of the fruit tree's life. On the other hand, kindness to immigrants is mandatory.

Why should a single mandate from this Book have priority?

I am curious about this. If Christ ushered in the Age of Grace, as opposed to the Age of Law in the Old Testament, why can we not allow a measure of grace to our gay brothers and sisters? I have yet to find any word from Christ on gay people, but given His generally tolerant outlook, given that He hung out with "the least of these," and only seemed to be angry with Pharisees (the overly religious) and moneychangers in the Temple, my money's on his tolerance for gays.

Just to clarify a point. I notice that Matthew 19 is raised as evidence of Christ's position that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I recommend that anyone curious read the entire chapter. It is clearly a discussion about divorce. Specifically, a Pharisee asked Christ about the right of a man to divorce his spouse "for any reason," according to the law of Moses. But Christ said, no, that was the law when your hearts were hard. It was not always that way, and if you go back to the beginning, spouses were supposed to cleave to one another. In a chapter from any good marital advice manual, Christ agrees with his followers that this is a hard rule to follow, and one should enter marriage carefully. The whole gender thing is not the point of this chapter.

It can be found at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019

I leave it to Christ and God to examine the hearts of those who decide to enter into matrimony. Let alone examining what's beneath their underwear.

Legally, nothing will change if Prop. 8 fails

Lawyers, church leaders, politicians speak out

http://vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/legally_nothing_will_change_if_prop_8_fails/6380/

Thanks for staying civil there, Tom. I've heard that same argument put into much dirtier words. The words 'archaic', 'out-dated' and 'a 2,000 year old roadmap' would certainly apply if one is looking at Christianity as simply a religion or a way of thinking. Of course, if you read the Bible cover to cover, that's not at all what Christianity is about. It's all about a living and active God who is alive and well today and will one day judge the hearts and minds and actions of every man and woman who every walked the face of the earth. The Bible, His word and open heart to mankind, does not, and despite countless attempts, HAS not been lost to history. I am not hiding behind something to make myself feel big. My daddy hugged me enough... I don't feel some need to be bigger than myself. I truly believe in a very real and living God and as such, His word still has relevance today. In response to Frida's comment. I'd encourage you to read Matthew 19 again, and look for Jesus' confirmations and admirations of the marriage union. Also, check out Romans 1. All in all, I don't expect anybody here to change their points of view. My hope here is that we can all come to understand one another a little better. It seems that people like me are just simply labeled 'bigots' and 'hatemongers' because we believe in God and His word. Like I said before, I have many gay friends and I treat them just the same. Do I wish they would stop living that lifestyle? Yes... But it's not my job to change their hearts. Only God can change the heart. But again, I must vote and act with my conscience.

Oh...and 'standing alone' and having 'original' thoughts can be a way of compensating for feelings of inferiority as well. There's nothing original in here on either side.

If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't have one.

As far as Biblical command, the Book that forbids it, Leviticus (at 20:13), also mandates that one not wear mixed fibers in one's clothing, sew two kinds of seeds in the same field (19:19), or when you harvest that field, do not harvest to the edges of the field or go back to pick up the gleanings (19:9-10). A host of other mandates from Leviticus require one to refrain from cutting sideburns, beards, hair, or eating fruit for the first four years of the fruit tree's life. On the other hand, kindness to immigrants is mandatory.

Why should a single mandate from this Book have priority?

I am curious about this. If Christ ushered in the Age of Grace, as opposed to the Age of Law in the Old Testament, why can we not allow a measure of grace to our gay brothers and sisters? I have yet to find any word from Christ on gay people, but given His generally tolerant outlook, given that He hung out with "the least of these," and only seemed to be angry with Pharisees (the overly religious) and moneychangers in the Temple, my money's on his tolerance for gays.

Excellent post! What a fabulous way to counter the many people I know who believe in something so contrary to their basic values of compassion and charity just because it "says so in the Bible". I have saved your words on my computer and with your permission, Frida, will use them when someone sends me an email or brings up the topic in conversation and I am at a loss for words. Bravo!

Recommended reading in today's new issue of the VC Reporter

No on Prop. 8: A case for equality

http://vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/no_on_prop_8_a_case_for_equality/6373/

Just a quick comment on the argument that this isn't a civil rights issue because a person can "choose" to act straight and pretend to be committed to someone of the opposite sex. I am gay, have been in a domestic partnership for over 11 years. My social security survivorship benefits would extend to a straight spouse but not my domestic partner yet I pay the same as you and your husband or wife. If I work for the federal government, my health insurance coverage would extend to my straight spouse, but not my domestic partner or her children if she had any despite being paid the same salary as a straight person. We share a household, yet cannot claim the same tax status and exemptions as a married couple despite being taxed at the same rate. So even though my skin color may or may not be a different shade, the government sees fit to treat me differently under the law. That is a civil rights issue, and as long as you don't categorize my relationship as equal to marriage, it is subject to debate, discrimination, and budget cuts. There are roughly 1,100 rights married straight couples have that gay couples cannot under the law. There was a time a civil union would have solved the problem, but in a country so entrenched in religious overtones, the reality is if you don't give it the same name, you're fooling youself in believing it is equal. I don't need to get married in your church; you can keep it. Those scare tactics are designed to fill us with the same fear this administration has been so successful with. To all of you on the fence, the question is simple. Are you the nice man pointing to ancient biblical verses and biological nonsense in support of enacting state laws and eventually changing the constitution to legalize discrimination, or are you perhaps someone who despite their personal feelings or religious beliefs understands we are all created equal and should be treated as such under the law?

Wow, alex, wow. Words fail me while yours speak volumes.

RSH, would love to read your thoughts on my question, #24, thanks.

I am pleased to post that the LA Times is reporting that it looks like Prop 8 is going to go down to defeat. A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows 52% NO and 44% yes with 4% claiming not to know. It's still a fight, but it looks like it's starting to lean in the right direction. This is more in line with the California I know and live in.

I am impressed with the insights and tolerance this site shows, especially compared to other No on 8 blogs. Thank you.
Since I just discoved this thread, I want to make a few observations myself and perhaps a question or two.
The moderator says "I empathize with the frustration these acts were likely born of", kind of seems as though the moderator is making excuses for vandalism of free speech on private property. The church Yes on 8 sign was vandalized three nights in a row culminating with their church sign, not the Yes on 8 sign, church sign, being defaced by red spray paint. The insightful individual was kind enough to leave the spray can behind. It is now in the hands of the Sheriff. The other sign at Valley Meadow and 33 was defaced two nights in a row and then torn down by a 19 year old locally raised adult. He also went throught neighborhoods trepassing and shredding Yes on 8 lawn signs. I feel badly for him as I believe he now has several misdeameanor complaints agaist him. I know his family, good people, doubt he learned his hatred from them, then where? A friend tried to explain to him why we are for Traditional Marriage, he said they were all lies.
Second point. Somewhere in this exchange of opinions someone says the Prop 8 signs have been stolen tit-for-tat. Having put signs up from Encino to Edison Curve, there is no tit-for-tat. I have had 34 signs stolen or shredded, some left in place, and the NO on 8 have lost 4. The No on 8 signs didn't disappear till the night after the Baptist church sign was vandalized. I know there are some very upset people on the Yes on 8 side about this, they stop me all the time. Does tolerance only go one way?
In closing, I support Traditional Marriage. Not such a far out, bigotted and intolerant opinion, after all I share that expression with such luminaries as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin. They, and I believe 47 other states by Proposition or Constitutional amendment, have all said publicly that they support Traditional Marriage. Why can't I without being labeled?
Please, please stop stealing my Yes on 8 signs. If there is someone heading up the No on 8 in the Valley and they would like to join forces on protecting our free speech, just post here or contact Evan who can tell his folks who will tell me.
Last question to ponder. I believe Prop 8 is a vote on retaining Traditional Marriage or having No guidelines at all. A No vote is not solely a validation of genderless marriage, it opens marriage to all interpretations. If we vote No, how can you tell anyone else in a loving, relationship they can't be married? Would you discriminate against them? Multiple marriages, family pets, family members? If you think this is just a fear tactic, you haven't been paying attention. Check out John Stossel's report on Sex several months back and the African American Jewish man with two wives living in Chicago and wanted one more? How about the Law and Order episode where the Pedophile said, Hey, I was born this way and we have rights too. A No vote tilts the slippery slope in their favor. My Yes vote for Traditional Marriage will not allow these interpretations. What will your No vote do?
And as a background, about 16 years ago, I became a witness for a gay friend, so if anything happened to her, her partner could visit her in the hospital. She was/is my friend and helped me out also, but family comes first in my life. Positive steps have been made, but tilting the slope against Tradtional Marriage, not what I want.
Thanks you for allowing me to share my observations.
And if my spelling or references are off in some way, I apologize, trying to hurry to go out to lunch with my wife. I'll be back.

Ojai is such a friendly town. I’m on a first-name basis with most of the clerks at the bank, many of the vendors at the farmer’s market and countless people I know from around town. As we approach the November 4 election, I’ve been looking at all of these people a little differently.

Who among these friendly faces will enter the sanctity of the voting booth and declare that I have no right to marry the person I love? Will it be some of my co-workers, who I laugh with in the break room? If I brought my wife to the company picnic, would they keep their children away? Will it be my massage clients, who trust me to come to their homes and ease their sore spots? Will it be my neighbor, who greets me and my wife daily with a smile but who I know attends a conservative church?

I am tremendously, deeply SAD about Proposition 8. How can I feel safe in a community/state/country where people can be kind to me and at the same time vote to amend the Constitution to limit my civil rights? The bottom line is this: If you couldn’t look me in the eye and say “I don’t think you have the right to be married like I am,” then I ask you to consider voting No on 8, or simply abstaining from voting.

BFA, while I empathize with your situation in having to replace stolen signs, please try to understand things from my side of the table. While I'm not condoning breaking the law in any way, I have to tell you those signs are a slap in the face to those of us who are upstanding couples contributing to this society who happen to be gay. I don't know the situation for the kid who was caught defacing the signs, but imagine if he was a young man struggling to understand his sexuality in a world that includes people like you who equate our loving, caring, law abiding relationships with pedophilia, incest, and bestiality? How are you protecting that child? Incidentally, a "No" vote doesn't change the fact that two consenting unrelated adults are the only people permitted to marry. Yes, the politicans tip their hats to traditional marriage in the interest of votes, but both Obama and Biden have indicated they would extend all rights and priveleges of marriage to gay couples, and would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage unlike McCain Palin.

BFA, thanks for your post! i don't think there's any central coordinating for No On 8 here in the valley, and i don't have "people"...i know nobody who has stolen or defaced signs.

my empathy for the frustration has been used once before as an attempt to imply that i excuse the vandalism in some way, so please read my opening bold paragraph again. it's as clear as i can make it: i MOURN the vandalism, i REJECT the action, i EMPATHIZE with the frustration, AND (not but) i HOPE the damages can be repaired. would you ask me to not be considerate of the feelings or situation of someone so uncomfortable that they'd be willing to risk legal trouble and commit an act they know to be violative? seems like those persons need our empathy the most, because they lack the skills (or are making the very poor choice) to engage civilly as we are here.

Heather and alex, i'm saddened that i consider your participation brave. much like "alternative" energy and media should simply be energy and media, owning who you are should not be a courageous act. it should simply be.

I haven't really been reading this thread until now. I also haven't been out to the west side for town for a while so I haven't seen the Yes on 8 sign at the Baptist church. Vandelism and the stealing of signs is wrong. No matter who is doing it, but I was alarmed to hear that a church had a political sign on its' property. Under IRS tax code, the churches tax exemption could be pulled for engaging in political activity. I would urge everyone who is worried about this and other issues to go to the churches and record the sermons. If the pastor/priest/rabbi/etc. makes any direct references on how to vote or for whom to vote, the recording should be used as the basis of an investigation aimed at removing the tax exempt status of any of the offending churches. SImilarly, political signs on the property of churches should be photographed.

As far as I know it, churches are not allowed to endorse a specific candidate or political party. Propositions are fair game. And most churches will offer their sermons to anyone free of charge. They record them every Sunday. Thanks!

Alex, I in no way equate gay people to polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality or incest, and I'm sorry if that link was assumed, I do apologize. I was just pointing out what vantage points out there are also competing for acceptance and asking where the line could be drawn since in my opinion a No vote obiliterates the line.
Evan, how do you think I feel to give up time I would rather spend with my wife, I'm supposed to be enjoying a well deserved vacation, by replacing signs and how do you think I feel as I walk by the NO on 8 signs that remain standing while I replace Yes signs for the SIXTH time close to them? Do you not think I am tempted to pull them all out? Do you think I'm not frustrated by the intolerance to my well established first amendment rights? I know where they are and when they regrettably disappear, although I have not seen their's or mine taken. But I try to be tolerant of others viewpoints in spite of the pain a No vote brings to me. They are messing with mine and my family's traditional life.
Choices Evan choices. Right choices, wrong choices. What excuse is there for a poorly made choice?
Alex, they both have publicly said they endorse the definition of traditional marriage as only between one man and one woman. If you want to call the candidates panderers, so be it. And yes, they both pander to some degree. Alex, can you give me some citation that a No vote restricts marriage to only two unrelated consenting adults? And as for the young adult, he stated he is not gay but was angry because he felt the signs were hurtful to his gay friends. Once again, my friend tried to explain our position and how we feel we would be hurt but he wouldn't listen. She is the mother of one of his friends. I do feel empathy for the young man. High school may have been brutal to his gay friends, that is intolerable. Bullies are never right.
SPK, J. Harrell is correct. Religious organizations cannot endorse specific candidates but they can endorse non-candidate related propositions. Lyndon Baines Johnson, something to do with him long, long ago.
Again, please help me out and ask folks not to steal my signs. I am just doing what I believe is best for my family members who I love. I understand we each have strong emotions on each side of this important issue.
Thanks everyone. I'll be back.

No one is trying to obliterate traditional marriage. Can you imagine if someone tried to make a law that made hetero marriage illegal? Evan's already very clearly dealt with the sign issue. Bring your signs in every night - that might help.

BFA, a no vote changes nothing in the law. The argument that no opens the door for me to marry all of noah's ark is comical at best.

Alex, citations, not derision, please. I'm asking a serious question and would appreciate a serious answer, if you have one. I am not espousing anyone marrying their pet, but you know, for some, unfortunately that is their one companion and love. So Alex, where would you draw the line? Who would you say no to? And as for your first paragraph, I am protecting marriage, I am protecting children, grandchildren in my case,and I'm really tired of some intolerant No's calling those who believe as I bigots. So many wrongfully derisive, demeaning names for gay people, all wrong and never used by me, but calling someone with a belief different than yours a bigot, well that's pretty wrong too.
Look, take my signs in at night? Why? Why not folks obeying the law, respecting our right to free speech and allowing joint discourse? Is that too much to ask the No on 8 side? I certainly expect it and have seen it of the Yes on 8 side.
BTW, who let jezus into this stream? Good night, back tomorrow.

BFA, last time I checked, the line was drawn at 2 consenting adults. Why is allowing those adults to be of the same sex paramount to unleashing a tsunami of possibilities? Did anyone argue that if we allowed women to vote, next you'd have to let your dog vote, all hell would break loose? What WOULD you do if one of your grandchildren turned out to be gay. Don't you think it would hurt them to know as they grew up that grandpa frowns upon them living fruitful lives if it includes finding someone to love? Can you consider that those of us who have found that someone simply wish to enjoy the same quality of life that you are entitled to as a married person? A No vote changes nothing, allows people to live their lives as they see fit whether or not you agree. No one is forcing you to agree, but a yes vote is a choice to bar peoples rights, which is in my opinion a bigoted action, plain and simple.

"Do you think I'm not frustrated by the intolerance to my well established first amendment rights?"

BFA-
Your rights? YOUR RIGHTS? Are you kidding? You are complaining about loss of signs, maybe minor trespassing while you tell me that I have no right to be MARRIED? What is the American dream? Grow up, get a good job, buy a house, get married and live happily every after. So, I can grow up, I can get a job, but in your little world, I can't get married because what - because people who won't look me in the eye think it is wrong? Give me a break.

"And as a background, about 16 years ago, I became a witness for a gay friend, so if anything happened to her, her partner could visit her in the hospital. She was/is my friend and helped me out also, but family comes first in my life."

That is so nice - in your life, family comes first. In my life, if you have your way, I DON'T GET TO HAVE A FAMILY. Just someone I live with and love and cry with and laugh with who you won't recognize as my family. If I were this woman you witnessed for, I wouldn't call you "friend" anymore. You don't deserve it.

Heather,
Your posts connect me very emotionally to this issue, which is exactly what I wish every one else could do. Your description of how you are looking at everyone differently now is so interesting to me. I am VERY passionate about this and any equal rights issue, and I have been doing the exact same thing. I meet so many people I like, respect, appreciate for many reasons, but find myself wondering how they are going to vote. I have been surprised by a few people already, like my grandmother who is a lifelong democrat and was a central figure in the fight for the Americans with Disabilities Act. So many NICE people, like the Harrells, and yet they want to deny your rights. I just don't get it.

Alex, no matter, I would love my grandson, he would know he was loved, and at the appropriate age, I would explain to him how I feel and why I had made the decisions I did. We could agree to understand each other's feelings or not, but I would always love the child. Alex, I'm still waiting on who you would say No to? Let me ask you this, if the polygamists moved to California, is there a valid argument against their culture? And let's make this clear, I don't support polygamy. How can you say that only two consenting adults can be married? Seems a bit intolerant to me. And Alex, I'm not a bigot, nor do I believe I am taking a bigoted action. You may choose to define the word to your liking, but I think Webster feels differently.
Heather, I know you feel strongly, I know this is an emotional subject for people on both sides. It is for me also.
Heather and Alex, we may differ in how we choose to influence each's lives, but for me, I wish only good things in your lives, but I stand with my decision based upon how this will influence my belief structure.
Thanks for the exchanges it has helped me understand your emotions/beliefs clearer. Back later.

BFA, i'm glad you keep coming back. this might seem silly, but i'm also glad that you can spell and make sentences. there are lots of folks without the skills or patience to do so who seem to think their opinions are so incredible that we're willing to wallow through their jumbled letters to get them.

everyone keeps insisting that they love gay people and wish them only good things...

• can you describe that conversation, wherein you tell your beloved gay grandson why you think he's less than you and should not be allowed to marry because he would damage society's very foundation if he did?

• why is marriage not one of the "good things" that you wish for Heather and alex's lives? do you not believe marriage is a good thing? by saying "BUT i stand with my decision..." you negate the phrase that came before. it seems clear that you wish them not to be hit by cars, but not the very specific "good thing" they're asking for.

BFA -

I wish you the same good things you wish me. I wish that we could all vote to amend the Constitution to revoke your marriage. I wish you a grandson more understanding than I am. I didn't talk to my "loving" grandmother anymore after she told me I was a sinner. What would be the point? She didn't want me bring my love to family holidays because it made her uncomfortable.

I also wish you the courage to stand up and express your opinions and sign your name so we all know who you are. When I see you on the street, I want to know that you are one of the people who denied my right to marry the person I love.

This is not an argument about polygamy, nor has it ever been. It is not an argument about predatory pedophiles or bestiality. (Incidentally, these comparisons, the latter two, are unbelievably offenisve.) It is an argument about two consenting adults who will be together whether or not you sanction it. We're all just hoping you can see through your own religious beliefs for long enough to allow others equal rights. When was the last time the constitution was amended to deny rights - isn't it supposed to be there to protect freedom?

BFA, to be clear once again, voting "no" makes no changes in what is currently the law in the State of California. It does not introduce polygamy, it does not force schools to teach anything, it does not force churches to marry anyone they currently wish not to marry. The Yes on 8 people are spreading lies and fear with relation to what is already in the law. You asked for it, here goes (from the Ca. Penal Code Title 9):
§ 281. (a) Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries
any other person, except in the cases specified in Section 282, is
guilty of bigamy.
§ 285. Incest-
Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

To reiterate, a "no" vote allows people, gay or straight, to continue to be married in the state of California. It is the "Yes" vote which seeks to change the state constitution.

from Sergeant Joe Evans...

As we all know this valley is very unique and is populated with people having many different points of view. Having said that, respect or consideration for an opposite’s viewpoint does not seem to be a theme in our valley this year. Throughout our valley and the county, ballot measure and campagian signs continue to be stolen or vandalized. As the November 4 national, state, and local elections draw near, we expect to see a continuation of these crimes targeted at influencing one’s vote.

Your deputies have received numerous calls of this type and have made arrests. None of us should stand and watch as these signs are being damaged or stolen regardless of our political beliefs. If you know anyone who is causing damage to or stealing these signs, please let them know the deputies in this valley are very interested in meeting them.
Your deputies will continue to look for and arrest anyone found damaging or stealing these political signs.

Please report any suspicious activity (805-654-9511) as we need to stop these crimes that target how we may vote during the elections.

BFA -

I'm not terribly impressed by the slippery slope argument. It is quite simple from my perspective. Beastiality and pedophilia do not meet the minimum standard of consent. End of story. There are a number of arguments for and against polygamy between consenting adults and while I am uncomfortable with polygamy for a number of reasons I am willing to listen to the arguments of polgamists. I am willing to be persuaded because I do not fear the idea of intimacy between adults and I am sensitive to discrimination against adults for choices that do not harm others.

You say that you must stand behind Yes on 8 because of how gay marriage influences your belief structure. I am an atheist, yet I feel quite strongly that I have no right to see my belief structure reflected in our laws if it means others will be forced to conform their lives to my beliefs. That is not what this country is about, in my humble opinion.

Do I personally think we'd be better off as a culture if people believed and depending more on each other than on an otherwordly entity? You betcha. But I would oppose with all my might a proposition to amend our constitution such that you could no longer go to church on Sunday.

So when you think about writing discrimination into the Constitution, amending it to make exceptions to the principles of equality it contains - well, be careful what you wish for.

Thank you Tyler for posting the note from Sargeant Evans. Since 4:00 yesterday afternoon, I have lost another 7 signs, although this group doesn't seem to care much.
Heather, I only pointed out what other arguments are being made, they are not my arguments, if I oppose gay marriage, I even more so oppose, polygamy, incest, bestiality or pedophilia, I do not even equate them. You might re-read my apology to Alex. Heather, I am sorry about your grandmother. My name is Brian, I have and continue to be a volunteer in this Valley for the 28 years I have lived here. You can see me in the DAYLIGHT putting up my Yes on 8 signs, I am not one of the intolerants stealing them at night pr during the day. Heather, I have a very good friend, an attorney, who thoroughly researched the Supreme's 4-3 decision (4-3, not unanimous, does that say something there) and he found they made up that right. No where in the constitution does it talk about the right to gay marriage. And yes, there are discriminations written into the Constitution, because to not do so, anarchy would exist.
Alex, thank you for the citations. Now Alex, why are those two statutes fair? If loving people of proper age want to be joined together, married, how you can you deny them the goals that Heather discusses earlier? I have polygamists in my family and I have cousins who married cousins, lots of cousins did in the 1700 and 1800's as there wasn't anyone else around.
Austin, why would you think I would think of my grandson as less than me? That is not the type of love I try to share with my family members. As I shared before, I would explain to him what I think and why I have made the decisions I have. We would talk, we would understand, or not, but I would continue to love him and help him in anyway I could. I would not think less of him or love him less than my straight grandchildren. At least I hope I wouldn't.
Thanks again for your discussions. Gotta get something done this vacation week other than blog and replace stolen Yes on 8 signs.
I'll be back.

BFA & the Harrells: I respect your faith and your beliefs. What if everything in the bible were made into law? Theocracies don't work. And RSH, I'm still waiting on question #24. By your not replying, I can only assume your answer is yes. This leads to further assumptions about what other constitutional rights yours would seek to strip.

As history has shown -- and continues to show -- people will use "God" to justify anything.

YES ON 8: PROTECT RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY!

Jock

Brian,
Thank you for identifying yourself.

You seem to think the important thing is whether or not you love this hypothetical grandson. What about whether or not he feels loved?

Let's take another hypothetical: Let's pretend you have a daughter who lives nearby. Let's pretend you see her regularly. Let's pretend you disapprove of her husband for some reason, and so refuse to talk about him or acknowledge him as her husband. Let's say he is not invited to family functions, although other spouses are invited. How do you think she would feel? Would she feel loved? Would she feel respected? Would she feel she could trust you?

The constitution doesn't have to say "it is okay for lesbians to get married" the same way it doesn't have to say "it is okay for straight people to get married." The Constitution is written to permit maximum freedom and liberty for all.

You say: "And yes, there are discriminations written into the Constitution...." I'm glad to see we both agree that Proposition 8 is discriminatory.

The official YES ON 8 campaign has been blackmailing businesses, threatening to "out" at least one company with a high percentage of gay employees.

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html

A threatening letter has sparked a new controversy here in San Diego surrounding the gay marriage debate. Donors who gave money to the No on Prop 8 campaign say they received blackmail letters demanding money, and the Yes on 8 campaign now says the letters were sent by their employees.

The letter from Yes on 8 came by certified mail, demanding at least $10,000. Jim Abbot knows exactly why he's being targeted - his business gave $10,000 to a group called Equality California, which supports No on Prop 9.

Jim says nearly 25 percent of his staff is gay.

"We wanted to support their freedom to marry," he said.

The letter says if Jim doesn't give an equal donation to Yes on 8, the name of his company will be published. It reads in part, "It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage."

And more on the blackmail story from SF Gate... does the end justify the means?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

There have been a few comments I have deleted in the last hour or so. They are all from the same person who has used different aliases to attempt to post. This person has been banned for their race-baiting, inflammatory, spiteful comments - this has nothing to do with comments pro or con on either side, but rather repeated violations of the terms of participation listed below.

So again, in case anyone has any questions that I am playing favorites or censoring comments, no, there is a specific individual who is not welcome on the Post.

LS -- In response to #24, having children is but one of the blessings that come from male-female marital relationships. I feel that familial roles are designed by God for a reason and serve a special purpose within the home and society. Experiencing the shared joys and births of newborns is something that is incredible in a relationship. Some people do not choose to have children (two of our closest friends made that choice -- They did, however want to become the godparents to our two children), and some cannot have children of their own making for physical reasons. The answer is NO it does not negate your marriage. Children are a blessing that is unimaginable (Grandchildren even more so).
We all know that no one's mind is being changed here. I respect your right to disagree and post whatever signs you choose to, and vote however you choose to or not at all. I value our democracy. It is a blessing to be cherished and guarded. To be honest, I am not too thrilled about either one of our candidates. Again, I find myself choosing between two mediocre choices. I am not malicious towards anyone, and I am no man's judge. But, as a minister, I have to speak what I believe to be truth, whether or not society accepts, rejects, or is just yet unsure as to its value and truthfulness. I respect your right to do so, and I do not think it wrong to expect the same from those who disagree with me. Blessings.
These are My Final Comments.
Thanks Evan.

I wish the Yes on 8 folks would explain how allowing gay couples to marry will hurt marriage and CA. I mean specifically...not all this "it's gonna hurt my family stuff". HOW is it gonna hurt your family?

I also wonder who would be hurt if some looney decided to marry his/her dog? Why would you care? What do you have to lose?

I have a huge problem with religion making decisions about my freedoms or my fellow citizens freedoms. We need to be careful to not cross the line between the seperation of church and state.

I question the outrage over losing your freedom of speech by the sign stealers while at the same time trying to deny people the same equal rights and privliges you enjoy.

I don't get this issue. Oh,wait a minute...yes I do. This is the same tactic Republican's always use to bring out their religious base when they are losing an election.

Vote NO on 8 and throw all the other bums out(especially the ones who created this waste of time) while you're at it!

P.S. I believe Obama and Biden's actual "pandering position" on this issue was they did not believe in a Federal Amendment supporting gay marriage as they believed this was a "state's issue".

Heather, I agree that is a sad situation and I am sorry they exist, but they do. Is there a compromise that could be reached across very emotional feelings? I would try to find that compromise. When my kids were dating, they dated kids I liked and kids I didn't, we tried to include them all. I had some understanding about arranged marriages. We are fortunate as we love our kid's spouses. Do we have differing opinions, yes. But such is life. Heather, my grandson will always have my love, his choice to recognize that or not, remains his choice. If it's not too late, I hope you can reconnect with your grandmother in someway.
Tyler, what took you so long to post that article? I was dismayed that the Yes on 8 campaign stooped so low as the boycotting used by the other side. Remember, the article acknowledged the No on 8 side was doing something similar, just not by the No on 8 staff. I guess that makes it okay to some, not me. Tyler, thanks for keeping this stream civil.
Nukebuster, my best friend who I grew up with, the attorney I referenced in the comment to Heather, is a life long Democrat and will fervently vote for Obama. Shoots that stereotype down doesn't it? Nukebuster, will you agree that they have publicly said they support marriage as only being between one man and one woman?
Why can't I bring in family, do you suppose the Yes on 8 supporters have only the narrow view that this vote affects only them?
The day is young. For the most part I enjoyed these exchanges and understanding better how you each feel. Thank you that.
Out of here!

The difference between you and me, BFA, is that you can enjoy these exchanges because they don't affect you personally.

I spoke to a man named George yesterday. He also thanked me for the conversation. George says he believes that I am an equal human being. He says he believes that I have the right to equal rights, he just doesn't believe that I have a right to the word marriage. I suppose this seems like a logical position to some of you out there. To me, it feels a little like being told that I am welcome to take any seat on the bus, as long as it is in the back.

So, as I told George, today I am back to being deeply saddened by this issue. People like you, BFA and George, just can't see how deeply you are hurting people like me.

Dear BFA, please let me say I appreciate all the comments you have made on this page and your willingness to state your opinions.

Of course you have the right to consider your family in determining your own values. (What you don't have under the Federal Constitution is the right to determine MY values based on your family values and your religion). My question was how does other people's right to marriage affect your family? How will it change anything for you and your family.

No, I won't concede that Obama and Biden are "against" same sex marriage. To re-state, I believe they are using political pandering to sideskirt the issue by saying they do not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment because it is a states rights issue. They are definitely, in my opinion, taking the cowards way out.

I don't read this blog very often, in fact, my posts above at #30-31 are my first visit here. So sorry not to get back to you sooner, LTOR about #35.

Thank you for enjoying my off-the-cuff thoughts on the debate, and the Biblical notes. Feel free to use them anywhere. I don't claim to have originated the Leviticus or Matthew discussion, a lot of very wise and ethical Christians have expressed the same thing.

One sentence from BFA a ways back (#53) jumps out at me: he wishes Heather well, but will vote against her right to marriage. "I stand with my decision based upon how this will influence my belief structure."

This is the nub of it, to me. Since when do the beliefs, actions, marital status, etc. of someone else "influence [one's own]belief structure"? Isn't that a private deal between you and your conscience and/or Higher Power? Does your belief structure depend on everyone else's conforming to yours? I don't want to affect anyone's belief structure. I worked hard enough to get my own, so I respect other people's paths, on the assumption that they are working themselves. And even if they are not, if they are flagrant "sinners," how does that influence my own beliefs? I would hope that my faith is strong enough not to be bent by popular tides, even when they differ.

BFA, I would love to hear how the very safety of your personal spiritual system is threatened by gay marriage. Disagreement of others is not a spiritual danger to those with adequate faith. For those who believe in saints (I don't, but some do), that was sort of the hallmark of their sanctity -- an unshakable faith.

I've been married for 7 years. I have many gay friends who consider themselves married. The existence of their relationships in no way effects my own marriage. The argument that because a same sex couple can get married, that somehow lessens marriage itself has no merit. Further the idea that because same sex couples can get married therefore people will begin to marry pets is so ludicrous that it bares no relationship to reality and no further discussion. In fact, it is vastly insulting in its' stupidity.

In my estimation, the forced union between 17 year old Bristol Palin and her hockey-player boy friend who knocked her up(out of wedlock) is far more detrimental to the idea of marriage than are the relationships of many of the same sex couples I know.

The bottom line is that this initiative to amend the Constitution of the State of California out of fear and hatred is beneath us. We must never willfully insert discrimination into our Constitution. Vote No on Prop 8.

Thanks, Tyler, for posting the message from the sheriff's re: sign stealing. My two "NO ON 8" signs disappeared last night...for the 4th time in two weeks...I have other political signs on my property that did not. I reported to the sheriff's. I have already replaced and will continue to do so for other's who have theirs "disappeared." Let me be perfectly clear: I DO NOT STEAL OTHERS SIGNS, no matter what! Please respect everyone's right to free speech and free congregation.

Sheriff just came and took my report. Thank you!

PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT STEAL OTHERS SIGNS; beside being "bad karma," the plastic is NOT biodegradable! Save your signs after the election, and find a re-use--would make great insulation, or gift wrapping, or...?

Re: "belief structure" argument:
As far as how two people getting married would affect anyone elses "belief structure," history has shown how imposing one's ideology upon someone else who does not share it has affected society: the shambles of colonialism, "Manifest Destiny," and religious imperialism/missionaries (of all religions, not just Christianity) are but glaring examples only in the past 200 years. I don't deny that these have helped many in the world; however, my reading of historical effects have revealed much more physical harm done to many. Read more history and understand what our founding fathers and mothers (and sons and daughters) were going against -- the Inquisition, monarchy, censorship, taxation without representation, etc... "belief structures" and ideologies. The only "belief structure" in our constitution is the idea that all people are created equal!

May I remind those who feel that they would be
affected/influenced my someone elses "belief structure:" in this country, your belief is YOUR CHOICE, as my belief MY CHOICE. Haven't intolerance of others beliefs led to greatest harm in this world? Equality and tolerance is what this country was founded upon. Yes, a grand experiment...it's hard work to put aside your personal beliefs, it isn't easy, but we must make it work!

May I also remind our fellow citizens that the only way for this grand experiment of a democratic republic to truly work is to put aside your religious/spiritual "belief structure" when it comes to others constitutional rights, and practice tolerance and acceptance in the name of our democracy. "So faith, hope and love abide...but the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13, Revised Standard Version, Thomas Nelson & Sons,1946)

If your beliefs/feelings are hurt by what others do, I'm sorry; but you haven't been physically harmed. There are no "sticks and stones" here, only words. Grow up!

Do as you will, but harm none. Again, the greatest is Love, and I have a constitutional right to love whom I choose, as do all!

End of story -- and PLEASE STOP TRESPASSING AND STEALING SIGNS!

Thanks to all who have posted here; and thank you to Tyler and Evan for the great moderating job!

Thank you, Loretta, for voicing what has been obvious to gay people for eons. Back in the 70s & 80s, Gay Pride events were the source of inspiration and inclusion--witness how the labels have changed through the years: Gay to Lesbsian/Gay to LG/Bi/Trans to LGBT/Straight Alliance to...inclusion of all who are loving, tolerant and supportive. It's a Rainbow thing! Shouldn't we ALL be so? That is why Pride events are so inclusive (and some feel commercial/non-political) now. However, when faced with the homophobic dragon yet again rearing it's ugly head and attempting to politicize discrimination, as Prop 8 does now, and Prop 22 did in 2000, we are reminded that many people have not yet achieved tolerance and acceptance and that the fear of the "other" is still a potent factor. I have recently felt, as many also do, that who I love and with whom have a committed relationship no longer matters in the society to which I contribute (employment, social groups, religious/spiritual communities). Then, then to have my government (to whom I pay taxes and pledge my allegiance) give me SOME rights, but deny financial and personal rights that other citizens enjoy, I am deeply sad that "separate but equal" can still be accepted. I don't care what it's called -- domestic partnership, marriage, limited domestic partnership agreement -- I know our work is not yet done.

We do have "Gay Pride" events every year here in Ojai -- Ventura has a celebration/fair in Mission Park, Santa Brabara has two! -- we get together with friends and walk/bike around downtown Ojai saying hello to merchants and friends. Most around here haven't felt the need for a political march in a long, long, time; but, if our government continues to discriminate, and others support codifying discrimination into our constitutions, I can guarantee there will be an outpouring of dissent -- from both gay and straight people, and people of all religions/spiritualities.

Please join us in helping to maintain constitutional rights -- It's just plain wrong to take away rights once granted! Talk, email, phone your friends & family, and help get visibility -- p.u. signs at HQ on Matilija St.-- go to noon8.com. Thank YOU!

Wow! This just in. The "Yes on 8(Yes on Hate)" campaign has gotten more than 80% of its' funding from the LDS Church, that's the Mormons. Is my state really going to allow the Mormon religion headquartered in one of the most backward states in the Union to insert hate language into our Constitution?

Don't be a patsy for the Mormon church -- VOTE NO on 8(Hate)!

I know I keep bringing this up, but not everyone knows we've got a local LDS connection to all of this:

http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/08/hospital_ceo_comes_outagainst.shtml

After participating in this discussion over the past few days, some things have become patently obvious to me. First and most importantly Ojai, as a whole, is an accepting community. Second, it appears to be religious organizations that are driving this effort, and judging on the comments here, they are not representative of the community. Their large, prominently placed and numerous signs are designed to create the false feeling that they do represent the voice of the people. In speaking to friends, many of their parents are being sent home from church services with signs they don't even undertand the meaning of. And although I believe strongly they will fail, this is no doubt not the last we will see of the religious right trying to drive us into a religious state using fear, well funded propositions, whatever it takes to change laws to suit their agendas. It's ironic those whose mission is supposedly spreading peace and love are being mandated to push for a cause that boils down to hate and intolerance.

alex -- of course you are right -- it's all about religion -- but what's the surprise? the christian extremists have the whole country by the balls -- what else is sarah palin all about?

The Mormons/LDS also funded Prop 22 in 2000 that was deemed unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court this year, which is why the fundies are again trying with this one. But this time, gay people have BEEN legally married for months -- years in Massachusetts!!! No one has died horrible death, married their dog, cat parakeet, etc., and no child or adult has been physically harmed; AND, most importantly, no hetero couple's marriage has been annulled or harmed. If this patently unconstitutional prop. passes, MANY LEGAL MARRIAGES WILL BE ANNULLED! Hopefully only temporarily, because thousands in dollars and time we will spent to take it back to the courts, and it WILL be, again, declared unconstitutional. How many times does this have to happen before the State declares enough!?! I don't care how many illgotten signatures, the state should not accept an unconstitutional proposition for the ballot! What a waste of valuable time, energy and money!

LS: can you conjure up one of your fabulous video/radio ads for us? Your "One non-voter" price is BRILLIANT!

Were getting new signs this week to go with the video/radio ads all have been hopefully seeing/hearing -- we'll get a bunch to Dem. HQ ASAP. Please go to noonprop8.com and join us this week/weekend getting the message/visibility out! Call/email everyone you know in CA this week and make sure they understand that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, unfair and WRONG!

judy k, I thought Prop 8 changes the Constitution so that hate is no longer unconstitutional. Isn't that the point of it? Discrimination based on unreasoning hate and fear is unconstitutional under the current constitution. So these people want to change the constitution.

Yes, that is the point. Prop 8 changes the Constitution. The Courts will then be required to see it as the law of the land, superceding any general equality principle. There is no litigating our way around Prop. 8.

I beg to differ, Tanya. There is a way of litigating our way into/out of Prop 8 and it's most likely what this proposition is really all about. (Ok, second only to brining their base to the polls to vote for their sorry asses.) IF this prop should pass, then the US Supreme Court would most likely have to hear the issue on the grounds of discrimination.

What the right would really love is to have this far right court uphold CA's action and make it the law of the land.

It is sad that people try to make the categorical error that behavior is equal to identity.
There are people who are Hedro, Homo, mixed and celibate and those who like other funky things, none of these deserve and we must be careful not to set precedent that these actions we take are the same as who we are there are former gay people but not former black people. This sets up special status for discrimination and hate crime laws, every crime is hateful and should be looked on equally not based on personal behavior or that some one is a celibate monk. I read were a man was sued for not taking on a photography client because he did not want to shoot a gay marriage and he lost.

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.
>
>>>>> >>>>

TAKE OFF EARLY FROM WORK!

Get out the Message and Pass Along...

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.
>
>>>>> >>>>

TAKE OFF EARLY FROM WORK!

Get out the Message and Pass Along...

It is sad that people try to make the categorical error that behavior is equal to identity.
There are people who are Hedro, Homo, mixed and celibate and those who like other funky things, none of these deserve and we must be careful not to set precedent that these actions we take are the same as who we are there are former gay people but not former black people. This sets up special status for discrimination and hate crime laws, every crime is hateful and should be looked on equally not based on personal behavior or that some one is a celibate monk. I read were a man was sued for not taking on a photography client because he did not want to shoot a gay marriage and he lost.

I haven't posted on this thread as yet but it has come to my attention by being connected logically with a couple of other threads which I have posted to, namely Messiah Oblama and 8 Debate. Obama, prop 2 and prop 8 have this in common. They are all products of patriarchy and therefore not truthful about what really matters.

Same with marriage itself which is a patriarchal invention to control womem, money, property and a variety of other goods. This hidden hate is what is altogether ignored in the discussions surrounding prop 8. Typical patriarchal brainwashing. Sad commentary on how far we have separated from the femina sapiens species we were meant to be.

A particular patriarchal ploy is to divide and conquer. For example, the folks now who are thinking this is off topic. Divide me from your mind if you can.

In the pre-patriarchal love culture, love and sex were communal actions surrounding the Lover and had nothing to do with law, money, property, his-story history, power, status, prestige, security, neurotic needs and patriarchy.

Once again, we have sound and fury signifying nothing. It's all a patriarchal Weapon of Mass Distraction. Love is what matters. Laws and propositions arise in the context of lack of love. None of it makes any sense except in the minds of those who have lost their way.

If I vote at all, I'll vote no on 8 of course but voting within this corrupt system does have an unfortunate consequence: it enables the system to continue its killing, thieving and lusting by giving it legitimacy.

Right wind Christians supporting 8 have no ideas what the love of their bible means. Left wind liberals opposing 8 likewise have no idea of what the love of democrats like Oblama means, much less of what the real consequences of humane factory farms is.

Sorry to be late on the 8 Debate. Better late than never, they say. Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all, she said. Better to live in the NWO than walk with a LEG (Lover Earth Government), he said. Love has nothing to do with marriage, I said.

on the subject of infinite 'gender' and omni-cultural 'respect' (not to be confused with 'sex', or the shallow western concepts of 'love') I made two related posts, yesterday and today, in the Messiah Who? thread:

http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/10/messiah_who.shtml

for all our divine relations,

Millennium Twain