The Ojai Post

Hope to see ALL Ojai Valley No on 8 supporters there to protest this tyranny of the majority! Thank you ALL!

The state supreme court will overturn the proposition, don't worry. It's dead on arrival.

I'm not convinced, spk but I hope you are right.

Complacency is what got us into this mess. Now is a time for action.

i just sent out an email to the Ojai Peace Coalition (398 mostly-local addresses) with tomorrow's march featured first! the info is also available at our Action Blog.

Listen, this thing is totally unconstitutional. Further, to re-write the constitution takes a 3/4 majority of the state legislature. The Supreme Court of California is going to look at the margin of "victory" for the yes on hate people and rule that it is illegal to change the constitution with less than 75% of the legislature or the electorate. We shall see.

Meanwhile, if people want to protest I'm all for it; but let's try to be strategic rather than just annoying. How about a list of business that are owned by mormons, members of the Knights of Columbus, and other religious organizations that supported the Yes on Hate campaign. Make a list of these businesses, and then protest them and initiate boycotts of them. Interrupt their cash flow, because that is what they used to harm our constitution. I don't know, call it something like the The No on 8 / Mountain Meadows Massacre Memorial Black List. I like the alliteration.

The "Fight for Equal Rights" is a red herring. Fighting each other is exactly what the patriarchal "red shields" want us to do as part of their weapons of mass distraction shock and awe manipulation. Constitutions are another one of their weapons. See Millenium and Jock, and my latest blog at "loverearth aeonity blog." You'll have to search for it. I say that to the one person out there who might be interested.

If we want to fight effectively, we have to know who the real enemy is and what he's up to. Otherwise, he just feeds off our energy and laughs all the way to the bank. Don't march off to war without knowing who's leading and where you're going. You could end up deep in Russia with Napoleon or Hitler.

From this morning's LA Times: "But backers of Proposition 8 said the online activism is, in the words of Schubert, "a wildfire of hate going out of control." Proposition 8 opponents have the right to protest and file lawsuits, "but what they don't have the right to do is harass and intimidate people. They don't have a right to blacklist and boycott our supporters," he added.

And that is where they are wrong - they didn't take away our right to free speech! Call these people out - they have rallied for and voted for their opinions that gay and lesbian partnerships don't deserve equal rights. Now, we rally and vote with our dollars. Locally, we know that:

Brian Cox, who sells honey at the Ojai Farmers Market, has been extremely vocal on the Post, talking about how gay marriage destroys the foundation of our society. Jim Churchill, who sells fruit at the Ojai Farmer's Market, gave $100 to the No on 8 effort. Now you know where to buy avocados!

Dr. Watson, Ojai dentist, gave $300 to the Yes on 8 effort. Dr. Wong, Ojai dentist, gave $250 to the No on 8 effort. Consider switching dentists!

Lassen's gave thousands (I've heard upwards of $20,000) to the Yes on 8 effort. Find a healthier source for you healthfood!

The owner (or perhaps a long-term employee of) A&M Plumbing was at every Yes on 8 rally in Ojai. I found him to be particularly unkind. Anybody know a kinder, gentler plumber?

Please feel free to add your own to this list. These people have chosen to put their faces on a campaign to deny equal rights to a certain segment of the population. Let them see what the consequences are.

To be clear: I do not support harassment or intimidation. In the immediate aftermath of the vote, there were reports of racial slurs being flung at African-Americans. That is unacceptable behavior from white supremacists and it is unacceptable behavior from angry, disappointed gays or lesbians. You cannot fight bigotry with bigotry. I simply don't see peaceful rallies in front of churches or choosing not to support a business run by bigots as harassment.

OK. I am far from a supporter of Prop 8. I believe that love is love and everyone should be allowed to marry whom they love. But please, lets step back a minute from all this. Where Prop 8 is going wrong, is it's directed at the result not the cause.

If you belong to a church and the church is telling you that being gay is a choice and that gay marriage is then wrong...if you were raised by people who believe that being gay is a choice to live a defiant, alternative, lifestyle...if in school you were never taught that being gay is not a lifestyle choice but simply who you are, then why is everyone so surprised that 1/2 the population is freaked out over gay marriage. Religious organizations teach that being gay is wrong, dirty, a choice - geez and people wonder why gay marriage is scary to some?

What should have been fought is a new level of understanding. Educating churches to support tolerance. Putting names to faces. In a perfect society we would have been teaching about homosexuality and the science behind how we are all different and the same.

My sister is a college professor she recently told me a great story. She has a young, gay student and he was upset that another student, a christian, black girl was supporting Prop 8. She told him that's what her church told her to do. Instead of being angry, he sat down with her and talked to her about his life. She asked him when he knew he was gay. He said for as long as he could remember. He remembers only wanting to play with dolls and having crushes on boys in preschool. She was shocked. This was wild to her that he knew at such a young age. The next day she came to class and told the student that she voted no on prop 8. She said she stood there looking at the choice and couldn't vote against something that would make it so he couldn't marry the one he loved.

Teaching tolerance is not just a buzz phrase. Once again education is everything. If we could someone use all of these amazing resources of people who are coming out against prop 8 and direct it towards tolerance, education and respect - time and money would be spent better. If Prop 8 does get overturned (which we can only hope), it's not going to change the minds of 1/2 the people in this state that thinks it's wrong and a lifestyle choice. But if we could work on educating people, even one at a time like in my little story, then that's when the real change will happen.

If everyone understood that being gay wasn't a lifestyle choice to go against society, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

i, too, was going to gently draw attention to the use of "fight" language, particularly with sensitivity toward the violence and vandalism that's marking some of the rallies.

i was at the PEACEFUL protest rally and march today in Ventura, and you can see some of my photos HERE.

"fight" makes my nipples hard, evan...

Thank you for putting me on your black list ! As a Christian I consider homosexuality to be immoral, so it is impossible for me to encourage the behavior. It's possible to hate the sin without hating the sinner though. This is from the Old Testiment as well as from the New Testiment of the bible. Since the last I checked we still have religious freedom in America. Marrying two people of the same sex makes a mockery of religious marrage, that is why it is so upsetting to many people. It is not the same as a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex is not the same as two people of different sex. There is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same sex in a non sexual way as far as the bible is concerned. This is what I beleive and so that is why I voted for prop 8. There were many homosexuals during the time of Jesus, if fact many of the Roman Emperors were quite open about it, also many of the Greek philosophers were as well, so this is nothing new and it will alway be present in society. God allows us to experience the full effects of our attempts to satisfy our hungers and our cravings and our desires without him. He allows us to discover that we don't have the answer

Hey Honey Man Brian Cox aka BC,
And all other Prop 8 supporters:

If you don't support the marriage, don't go to the wedding;
If you were not invited to the wedding,
then it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

And, I'm still trying to figure out why traditional marriage needs "protection"...?

Today I went shopping at Lassen's and was very disappointed to see a couple of protesters outside. I do not support the ban on gay marriage. I was saddened to find out the Lassen's owner, Peter Lassen donated a lot of money to support the ban. So I started asking a lot of questions. The Lassen family is Mormon. Where it becomes tricky is that Mr. Lassen made this donation personally, not thru the store. Because he is a small business owner, it listed his business along with his donation.

The problem I have with all of this, is I have shopped at Lassen's for many, many years and I don't think I've ever even seen Mr. Lassen in the store. Who I do see is a lot of Lassen employees. So far I have yet to find an employee that supports the ban. Many of these folks have chosen to work at Lassen's because they believe in a healthy lifestyle, promoting green companies, etc.

I am not sure what we expect of these folks. Do we expect them to leave? Some who have been there for well over a decade? Do we expect them to find other work? More than likely with a company who supports some other negative cause. Maybe they can work at the Gap or Old Navy and support Child Labor. Some say they should all get up and leave when Whole Foods comes in and work for them. But then again how great is Whole Foods? Founder, John Mackey, used a fake name to write misleading financial information about Wild Oats right as he was about to purchase it. He's also known in Washington for lobbying to lower the organic standard. Ahh. Who shall they work for?

These folks have mortgages or rents to pay. They have the holidays coming up, and I for one would never DISCRIMINATE against these employees who have nothing to do with Mr. Lassen's personal decision. Doing that would go against the very thing that we are all working to achieve, EQUAL RIGHTS.

So I will support the employees at Lassen's who count on me to help them maintain their quality of life. In the meantime I hope that everyone will take a moment, go thru their own home, their belongings, their choices, their places of employment and realize there's little out there squeaks clean and learn a little tolerance of their own and direct the frustration in a more constructive way. I know I'm going to.

Good point Diana. And I'm sure BC supports and lives by every other word of the Bible literaly interpreted. I'm sure there is nothing hipocriticle in his beliefs.

As far as your question about why “traditional marriage” needs protection, maybe because 50% of them end in divorce. That is why I am supporting the petition to “Protect Marriage, Protect Children and Prohibit Divorce” among heterosexual couples. Won’t you join me and sign the petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce

For more information, please watch this video.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith

As for maddie’s support of the quality of life of the employee’s of Lassen’s, how are you supporting the gay employees? By giving money to (by your account) the absentee owner to turn around and fund a proposition that stripes them of their Constitutional Rights?

BC, by your reasoning, there were women and blacks during "the time of jesus" and throughout history too; women were subserviant to men and blacks often slaves. Does that mean we should enact laws to make sure women never become presidents, since they were depicted in the bible not as priests or leaders but sidekicks to the men who ruled them? Slavery is condoned in the bible, shall we then make sure our laws follow suit? A little thing called progress in modern day civilization places the role of ensuring equity in the rights of its citizens on government, not majority rule. It is not the role of our government to legislate YOUR bible no matter what majority vote you are able to conjure up. And aside from the mockery you have made of the english language, sir, your diatribe offers little intellectual thought or insight. Who exactly made you the referree on what is and isn't allowed in human relations? I can assure you that I love and respect my partner as much or probably more than you do yours. You can choose to accept or not accept gays, but casting judgement on our relationships time after time is not a religious freedom. I for one have had enough of your "opinions". How about you refrain from proclaiming that "two people of the same sex is not the same as two people of the opposite sex" until you have walked a mile in the shoes of one who has experienced both and knows full well that love between consenting adults is the same love no matter what sex, shade of skin, etc.?

and the other local businesses listed by Comment #8, the following list is of companies with heavy Mormon ownership. These companies need to be vetted and boycotted on an individual basis. All this talk about boycotts has really got people worried. Obviously this is the most effective way to protest the people who poured money into the Yes on 8 campaign.

Partial List(These companies still need full vetting):

1-800-Contacts
AES Corp.
Affiliated Computer Services
AgReserves
Albertsons
American Express Company
Avista Corp.
Azul
Bain Capital
Beneficial Financial Group
Black & Decker
Bonneville International Corporation
Brigham Young University
Cadence Design
Central Pacific Bank
Cinemark movie chain
Cornerstone Realty Income Trust Inc
Corvis
Cygnus Inc.
Dell Computer
Deseret Management Corporation
Diebold
Dionex
Downey Savings and Loan
Earth Shell
El Coyote Restaurant in Los Angeles
Fisher-Price,Inc
FiveStar Quality Care,Inc.
Franklin-Covey
Headwaters,Inc.
Heinz Asia/Pacific
Hillenbrand Industries
Hollywood Entertainment(HollywoodVideo)
HostMarriott
Hunstsman Chemical
Iomega
JetBlue
JP Realty
Key Corp
Knight Transportation
Krogerfoods(Ralph’sandAlbertsons)
K-Swiss,Inc.
LaQuinta Properties,Inc.
Marriot
Merit Medical Systems
Micrel Semiconductor
Micro General
Microsemi Corp.
Monaco Coach
Myriad Genetics
Novell
NPS Pharmaceuticals,Inc.
NuSkin
Oakley
Oil States International
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Priceline.com Inc.
Ryder Systems
SkyWest Airlines
Specta
Sunrider International
Swift Transportation
Tropical Sportswear
Williams Companies,Inc.
Zions Bancorp

In comment #8 there was a list a individuals who supported Prop 8. I think that it seems more than fair to single out individuals. It's cut and dry, this person supported this thing. Same with churches, like the mormon church. Everyone gathered would be coming from the same point of view. I'm just not sure it's as clear when it's a owner of a company. Although I'd like to see the owner feeling the pinch, in this economy, I would hate to see employees that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time be blamed for something they had nothing to do with.

An initiative to change the constitution of a state to exclude some of its' citizens is a blunt instrument. Similarly, a boycott is also a blunt instrument. However, the most constructive and forceful approach to the huge amounts of capital that flowed into our state is the boycott. At this point, post election and post any type of democratic approach, demonstrations in the street are pointless. Doubly so when one considers the fact that a Yes vote on Prop. 8 was essentially a backlash vote by a mostly frightened, ignorant group of voters against what is often seen as a flamboyant minority. Rainbow flags and chants and marches may be cathartic, but they are potentially worse than useless at this stage. If they are to be used at this stage, they should be used to rally around a coordinated economic response against those responsible for funding Prop 8.

I believe the State Supreme Court will not allow Prop. 8 to re-write the constitution because any changes like that usually require at least a 2/3 majority of the state legislature. The narrow victory of Prop. 8 would seem not to fulfill this requirement. The State Supreme Court will have the final say on this unfortunate chapter, but they are not immune to public sentiment. If a coordinated boycott with real economic consequences were being exercised against the perpetrators of Prop 8, it is likely that the judges would be aware of it. Further, if the boycott were sufficiently punitive, it is likely that the court would be hearing from those same perpetrators, and their expensive lawyers, that they would just as soon see the whole thing die in court.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Prop. 8 was meant to do the same thing that most of the other anti-equal rights legislation against gays was meant to do over the last 8 years. It's classic Republican division politics. Prop. 8 will be defeated, sooner rather than later, and there will be some 50% of voters who will feel that their will was thwarted. Of this 50%, perhaps 25% will be seriously upset and they will be constantly told by the same powers that brought Prop. 8 that their rights under a democracy have been taken. A lot of noise has been made about Prop. 8, but the more damaging proposition on the ballot this time around was Prop. 11. Using the inevitable backlash from the reversal of Prop. 8 and the new rules for redistricting under Prop. 11, the Republican Party is poised to make a dramatic comeback here in California, potentially turning our largest blue state red for 2012. It's not an odds on bet yet, but if the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, it will be. Just like the confusion surrounding Prop 8 on election day: did yes mean no for gay marriage or the other way around? Those that voted No on Prop 8 but Yes on Prop 11 may have seriously damaged progressive prospects in our state.

“It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert A. Heinlein

Millennium Twain
father of the US/Intl Space Station Program,
publisher of the Structure of the Atomic Nucleus

I've been out of town. I'm glad to see some forward momentum on this issue, as I, too feel that complacency on the NO side was a big reason why 8 passed. Never again.

I was at yesterday's protest in Ventura, and I was extremely heartened by the turnout, the peaceful, non-combative mood of the demonstrators, and the number of straight residents lending their support. I was encouraged by the vast majority of positive expressions from passers-by of all sorts. It was a rare driver who would signal a thumbs-down or flip the bird. I saw maybe eight or ten of these incidents over a 5-hour span. (And the protest's response was, at most, a few cries of "Shame.") What moved us to cheers were the literally hundreds of people who honked, waved and cheered us on from the sidelines: a nun, several police patrol cars, several city bus drivers,black(yes! let's forget ALL stereotypes), white, hispanic, asian, young and a car full of very senior citizens.

If there is a positive result from the passage of prop. H8, it is that the straight voters in opposition to discrimination(who, we must remember, by the law of percentages constituted the majority of the "No" vote) are moved to greater and more visible support of civil rights. The specter of discrimination prompts the question, "Who is next?" I believe the education called for by wfmama here has already begun. We will not convince the diehard bigots, and we should not engage with them here. Visibility HELPS the cause -- once good but uninformed people see that their friends, their postal carrier, the cop they trust, their neighborhood druggist, etc. etc. happen to be gay, and out, and not scary, people learn. When good AND informed people support the rights of ALL, hate dies. Let's not engage with bigots. The dogs bark, but the parade moves on.

PS -- I also support the boycott. History shows that voting with your dollar works. Harvey Milk showed the power of the gay dollar in the 70's when he organized a boycott in the Castro District against Coors Beer and their virulent anti-unionism. Suddenly, the SF Unions were friends of the gay community.

Now we can use that power for our own rights. I'm sorry for the Lassen's employees, but why should the money I spend on overpriced organic fruit be used against me?

i'm confused about the contribution record...the public records i saw didn't list Mr. Lassen as the contributor by name...they listed his business as the contributor. i know that i had to list my employer when i donated (to the NO campaign, for the record), so i know he'd have to list his too. but as the business owner, is he an employee? or is that really the rule, that since he's the owner it's listed as a donation by the business itself? if so, that's misleading...because it does implicate all of his employees.

I declare the end of all Class Rule -- the end of all institutions (police, courts, medicine, industry, media, government, corporations, church, schools, universities) all which exist to prey upon the poor who have no power or money -- who steal the power and wealth of the poor.

no individual anywhere, at anytime, may be victimized by any institution, or any body or any individual.

I declare the end of secret government, and the end of privilege and power over others. the end of all violence.

I hereby declare a new bill of rights, for all peoples, all cultures, which includes:

1) individual sovereignty,
2) the right to speak, or not to speak.
3) the right to all information, truth from all institutions.
4) the right to meet, or assemble, freely.
5) the right to form free families or associations, and the obligation to care for every child until adulthood.
6) the right to live, to grow, to be self-determined.
7) the right to be free, to travel, to experience.
8) the right never to be touched, never to be violated or abused.
9) the right to be a personality, to evolve, to enlighten.
10) the right to be equally involved in all decisionmaking, at all levels, of all associations of which you are a part.
11) the right to opt out of any decisions or decisionmaking, to have no decisions affect you unless you chose to be a part of them.
12) the obligation and responsibility to live by the 42 Judgements of Maat, as best you may, and never do violence upon another, or upon all our sacred relations, or upon our Mother Earth.
13) the obligation to reforest, re-ocean, re-atmosphere our planet -- returning the divine life tenfold -- to heal our Mother Earth.

I can give you folks some more names for your extortion scheme if you like !

Here is another great site to help us stay informed and in touch:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

Brian, I'm not sure if you're unaware of what the word extortion means or if you're just tossing something inflammatory out there in the hopes of irritating someone you disagree with.

When you force someone to give you money through coersion or blackmail, that's extortion. When you decide where to spend *your* money (based on the price of goods, ethics, or anything else) that's called choice. It's kind of a key part of the free market system.

I've tried to engage you in discussion on a number occassions. I've even called on others to lay off you a time or two. But it's increasingly clear that your capacity for conversing with people coming from a different ethical framework is very limited.

I think it is important to talk to people that disagree with you and there are plenty of reasonable people out there who differ from me, but you're not one of them. It seems to me that you're infinitely more interested in being a self-righteous shit stirrer than anything else.

That's your choice, of course. Mine is to boycott your business and henceforth pretend that you don't exist on the Post either.

i continue to be perplexed and unsure of the application of a boycott in this case. in other instances of boycotts that i can think of (for instance, the bus boycott that started off the MLK-era of the civil rights movement), the institution and the individual persons' livelihoods were the same thing. in this case, the institution is "marriage", and the individual persons' livelihoods have nothing to do with it directly. so how do we boycott marriage? stop attending weddings? organize mass divorce? it does bother me that boycotting individual businesses will hurt people who may not necessarily agree, or who haven't a say anyway (such as children). is that simply the price of bigotry, or is there a more direct way to affect change?

I think you might be seriously misunderstanding the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I say this as someone who has gone over hundreds of hours of footage and audio from the civil rights era with specific emphasis on MLK.

help me out? i'm trying to say that the institution doing the discriminating was the bus companies, and some of the persons supporting the discrimination were the bus drivers. so boycotting the buses got 'em both. in this case, the institution is "marriage" and the persons are just any Joe, doing any variety of non-related jobs.

It seems that your conception of the MBB was that black people were merely tired of riding in the back of the bus; that the much larger context of the civil rights movement had no weight. The MBB was a strategic step among many. Sure there were racist bus drivers, but there were also other people in the company that were not racist and there were even some black people working for the company. The point was that the decision makers, the owners of the company who set the policies had to be enlightened in the only way available. Financially.

Similarly, the boycott of the capital that facilitated Prop 8 is the most effective way to eliminate out-of-state influence through finance. The boycott represents a cost to the companies, organizations and individuals who chose to spend money to enshrine hatred in the California Constitution. This election cycle was the most expensive in history. Obviously the presidential race cost the most ever, but the second most expensive campaign in the country was actually the Prop. 8 campaign with the Yes on Hate side comprising most of the money. An effective boycott against the companies, organizations and individuals who funded the lies and disinformation in the Yes on Hate campaign is really the only way to ensure that these entities and people will think twice before they attempt to buy legislation that promotes their morality in our state in the future. Demonstrations are nice, but they have little effect on these people. In fact, as I've written above it may actually give them fuel for a backlash style of politics.

The misuse of initiative by the Yes on Hate campaign here in California is a very dangerous thing. They cynically struck at a minority group to try and legislate their religion. I think this is only the beginning. They also tried to limit a woman's right to choose with their Prop. 4. What's next? They have a lot of money and despite the victory at the national executive level, people are still very malleable via television and radio propaganda(lies). Can we expect an initiative making it illegal to teach evolution and other science that contradicts their religions. Sounds ridiculous, but is it really? If they do go in that direction, I can assure you that they will harness the coming backlash once Prop. 8 is overturned. They will spend great gobs of capital on glossy television commercials with heaping helpings of imagery from the many demonstrations going on against Prop 8 now.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas K Gandhi

I see the concern in affecting presumably innocent bystanders by targeting staunch opponents, but I agree it is necessary. It isn't as if overnight Lassens would close, for instance, but over time those who associate themselves with the company, including employees, would tend to move away or move toward supporting them if they agree with the cause. At some point you have to accept that if you work for a company that continues to invest significant dollars in negative causes, you become part of the problem. In a perfect world, our economy would improve such that people would have more employment options, in the meantime we can only hope that our dollars would sway businesses like Lassens towards mitigating the damage they have done rather than promoting hatred at their own expense.

Former gays tell their stories:

http://www.anotherway.com/menus/pages.html

it's from brian, therefore I won't click on it

BC, are you kidding me? You've come a long way since your phoney 'I don't care how you want to live your life' charade. Now you're suggesting we need to be repaired? Heather, Evan, Tyler, I don't see how this guy can continue to post here, much less be listed as an author. I'm all for opposing views, but this is our of hand.

thank you, spk...that's perfectly helpful!

if i boycott - or incite to boycott - all businesses whose owners supported Prop 8, then i have siblings who will go hungry. that's difficult. but like i said, maybe that's the price of bigotry.

same here, don't bother...when you find "formerly bigoted beekeepers tell their stories" i'll click it.

Haha, Evan. I actually googled "former a-holes tell their stories," in the hopes of providing some inspiration, but alas nothing good came up.

FYI, my post #29 just showed up today. It's my final lesbian love note to BC.

Here's another one (pretty funny):

http://daywithoutagay.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

h/t:
http://blog.scottpatrickwagner.com/

damn, we were so close.

great final word, Tanya. they don't make a hallmark card for that...yet.

Actually the MBB was a way to show a city/state the dollars generated by a class of people and the effect the loss of those dollars would have on that community.

It didn't really matter which organization it was...the intent was to show the economic power.

They could have just as easily targeted restaurants, public swimming pools, or any other business that discriminated against black people.

The same is true with the No on 8 folks. As was mentioned above, Harvey Milk proved the power of the discriminatory purse and now "No on 8" will flex it's muscle once again.

Hopefully, the state will loose MILLIONS (that we certainly cannot afford to lose at this time)and show these idiots what a huge mistake they all just made.

Boycotts are good and effective!

(I've been waiting for this--someone always brings it up in desperation...)

Brain,

Out of curiosity, I did click on your link, and found--surprise, surprise--an "ex-gay" site featuring an "ex-gay" couple, 1/2 of which was caught red-handed at a gay bar! Big story a couple of years ago. WIKI "ex-gay" "Exodus", and continue with the links, and you will find, ad nauseum, so many, uh, controversies.....UGG!
"We pass no judgment on people in the world (1 Cor. 5:12)" -- such hypocrisy! Again: YOURS IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION!

While you're at it, look at the WIKI page on marriage history, as you will see that "the state" did not get into the marriage game until 1753 (England, from which our family laws derive). Fascinating history of "marriage".

Which further proves that marriage rights are NOT a sexual issue -- it's civil rights/family law/property law/taxation law issues, and those are hardly a "traditions", thank you very much.

Let's see what the Libertarians, who want NO state interference in anything, have to say...

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5483.html
Hmmm...interesting.

P.S.: I haven't bought ANYTHING Ojai Vally Bee products in a long, long time, which is a shame because I fell in love with your products when I first moved here and I faithfully (!!)support local merchants and products. Oh, well!

And now for some news from the front:

http://www.revoke8.com/

Onward Through The Fog!

Oops...that last post was me.

Judy K.

From the libertarian site:

"I realize that marriage and the state aren't divorcing anytime soon, but as far as this entire debate of legal semantics is concerned, I'm not even sure the two sides are even arguing over the same thing. One side thinks marriage is sacred and holy, and that the state recognizing gay marriage will devalue their own personal beliefs. The other side hopes the state will somehow make their marriage more meaningful, and somehow force its acceptance onto those who oppose Either way, no state ruling is going to instantly make individuals more or less accepting of homosexuality. Ultimately, my objection to what happened in California is not the verdict, it is the argument itself. It bothers me that people pay so much respect to the state, that they receive vindication for the state defining the meaning of words for things it need not be involved."

This is a good assesment of the situation. The main reason we have a problem is when the state gets involved. If marrage was still only a religious institution this issue would be different.

Brian, i am also exploring the idea that church and state are far too entangled within the institution of "marriage" and may need to be teased away from each other for the health of all. i'm beginning to think that the state should issue civil unions to anyone who wants one, allowing two persons to enter into a legal-social contract with one another, and that includes all of the rights, responsibilities, and protections currently offered under "marriage". then, if it is within a couple's beliefs or needs to have an additional spiritual contract, they go to church and have whatever ceremony they want, which grants them nothing legally.

equality, yes? for the record, i'd be willing to forfeit my marriage for a civil union under those terms.

Yes, Brian, I agree (!) Personally, I have have never thought that the state, the king, or whatever one calls the head of the tribe has any right to dictate whom I wish to choose as family. Unfortunately, in any non-egalitarian society, there are those who want all the resources for their own family's survival; hence the "invention" of religion--that which cannot be "proven" and must rely on blind faith--to dictate the laws of that society. This is a philosophical debate.

That being said, this is the political debate: we are governed by a state constitution of which one amendment has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC. The initiative process as it stands now (x number of voter signatures, simple majority) is inherently contradictory to the equal protection clause of the constitution because it forces the rule of the majority upon the rights of the minority, much less those citizens who didn't, don't, or couldn't vote or register to vote (or those whose votes weren't counted!) Society HAS changed since the Progressive Era's reforms of the early 20th C, and the electoral system has been usurped yet again. We need to change the initiative process so that minority rights are protected. This is the basis of the lawsuits filed.

Let's keep religion out of it; let's fix the initiative process so that it does not usurp the rights of any minority--YOUR rights just may be next.

In constant evolution,

Judy K.

Evan and all,
You may be interested in this site:
www.unmarried.org
I found it when I Googled "Prop 8 watch."
My sentiments exactly--even before I "came out!"

Evan,

Civil union/marriage?
_______________________
" 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself." -Romeo and Juliet -The Bard
_______________________
If you change the name, you don't change the thing. But it is for precisely this reason that I don't understand why such a delineation should be made. What is the point of this delineation. Needless complexity? Yet another classification that Brian's loathed State can use to charge licensing fees. Changing the name to me seems ridiculous and vaguely simpering.

Judy,

I agree that Prop. 8 was a gross misuse of the initiative, and I believe that the Supreme Court will rule that the Constitution cannot be re-written in this fashion by the initiative process. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. California's direct democracy provisions should be strengthened and protected, not eliminated.

spk, you're right of course that simple semantics need not be this confusing or complex...but at its heart there seems to be a sub-rational, overly emotional death grip on this word "marriage" that i don't envision being released or even relaxed. so perhaps if we change the name, we can still get the thing, which you admit remains unchanged.

i'm just exploring here...i don't have a particular attachment to any one idea yet...just thinking out loud.

aho Sean/SPK, Evan, all ...

the Supreme Court will say whatever it is told to say. it is/was trivial to buy, like the SEC, only a few members and not selected by or beholden to the public.

and, certainly, if the Bill of Rights can be erased by the Congress, by the Intelligence Agencies, by the White House, by essentially every agency of the US government, including the Supreme Court -- well certainly, again, the Supreme Court will have no reluctance to do so again, and continuously.

unless, of course, the Obama-election is a reflection of peoples' will, strength, returned -- and that new course, people's will and participation, remains and increases ...

ecqa.org "Latest News

November 19, 2008
California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges...read more"

spk: I agree, our direct democracy processes need to be revised as our democracy evolves.

evan: Unfortunately, semantics are at the heart of judicial, and legislative, review. Thanks for thinking aloud!

Etymologically speaking: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

Perhaps two men committing together could retain the term "married," while two women could be "merried." Merry Meet!

"Either way, no state ruling is going to instantly make individuals more or less accepting of homosexuality."

Of homosexuality, probably not. However, it would instantly make the officials a hospital more accepting of my right to make decisions for my loved one. It would instantly make the officials at the IRS instantly more accepting of my jointly filed return. These are the simple acceptances that would make my life feel safer and more equal.

haha, great catch judy..."merried" indeed!

heather, thanks for keeping me grounded in the practical, survival matters that are at stake here. the opposite of Peace is Fear...if you're unsafe, you're afraid. the War Culture strikes again.

California high court will hear appeal of gay marriage measure as early as March. (from CNN.com)

To read the all the legal stuff: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

Interesting: 6 of the Justices voted to review except Joyce Kennard!

Interesting summary: "Marriage as an Institution"

http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/hist.html

OK,now, let's all wait, yet again, for the SC decision--and pray, support and love!

Now hold on, this is an interesting idea: Perhaps the solution is that the state should not sanctify or have any hand in "marriage" at all.

Why not have only "civil unions", as far as the state is concerned? One status, one license, applies to everyone who chooses it.

The feds would have to treat it like marriage, or the tax system would blow up. Other states would have to deal with it similarly, just as community property states and non community property states, no fault divorce and fault divorce states somehow seem to be able to deal with each other now.

"Marriage" stays in your religious or community tradition, defined as you wish, free from state interference.

How would the pro and anti-Prop Haters feel about that?

For the pro-hate crew, methinks if they protest too much, that goes to prove their real agenda is indeed to impose their religious values on the rest of us.

For the no hate crew, a similar argument might apply.