- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
On the flip side, where does freedom of thought, speach and belief factor into this? Just like people who voted against prop 8 have every right to believe that gay couples should be married, people who voted for prop 8 have every right to believe that gay couples should not be married. So yes, it is discrimination for someone to refuse someone based on their gender, sexual preferences, race, etc. But is it also discrimination against the refusing person to disregard their beliefs and force them to do something that they believe is morally wrong?
I think we should end this thread- The original poster just asked if anyone was sad or disappointed. There isn't a need to try to convince anyone of their personal convictions. We won't get anywhere.
I think the last message should simply be- we need to be respectful and good to one another in our communities. By trying to impose something on someone else we open the door for them to impose on us as well. And that is what I fear- because it starts a viscous circle.
I just wanted to say I have met incredible people. I think what makes these people, in my book, so amazing is how there were no barriers in their heart. They embraced everyone no matter what color, race, denomination & sexuality/gender.
My hope is that we maintain respect for everyone in our communities. Please allow for people to live dignified lives the way they choose.
I think this one is tricky. Freedom of speech, yes. I do agree people can feel any way they want, and December has a right to her opinion as much as I disagree with it, but I think saying people like December are being discriminated against is a bit of a stretch.
If you were rephrase this as "people have the right to believe blacks shouldn't have the right to vote" would you say that white people who felt this way were being discriminated against because we were "forcing" the right to vote for blacks upon them?
Discrimination against gays, is, I hope, going to be seen the same way in the future that other types of discrimination are seen by us now. It was only until recently that women were seen as equals (and in many places, we are still working on it). So I hope that my kids, or grandkids if it takes that long, will look back and be shocked that people felt ok to look down upon others using their religion as a rationale.
I live in Virginia and we unfortunately passed a bill last year defining marraige as between a man and woman. I am adamently against this as it is blatant discrimination. The government has no place to decide who can and cannot get married. They should be celebrating the unions between any couple in love. If they are protecting the sanctity of marriage then perhaps they should conside that homosexual life partners are much more likely to stay together forever than a heterosexual marriage, perhaps our divorce rate would go down if we had gay marriages to pad our statistics. If you oppose gay marriage, don't go out and marry someone of your same gender, otherwise, just let people be who they are and marry who they love.
Sparkles, I disagree. We might be banging our heads against the wall in this particular instance, but being silent when others put forth a rationale to discriminate is not OK in my book. Not to be trite, but if Rosa Parks and other people who were part of the civil rights movement had been silent in the face of those people who believed segegration was ok, we might still be "separate but equal". All those who believe in equality need to give a voice to the cause. If we don't talk about it, we will never move forward. Threads veer around, they don't HAVE to stay on the OP topic 100%. People who don't like the discussion are more than welcome not to read the thread.
I agree with you Janna19- I was fearing the tone the thread was veering towards.
dress_1.jpg (30.5 KB, 48 downloads) 2 years old
December - I'm not sure what church you belong to - maybe you said and I missed it. But I have to say that your apparent desire to insulate yourself from ANYBODY whose lifestyle is different from yours in this particular way is interesting. I am left to assume that you would be happy to financially advise/photograph/hold parent-teacher conferences with pedophiles, adulterers, drug addicts, and child abusers, but not with homosexuals? That's an interesting morality. And apparently it's just married homosexuals that bother you - how would you actually know if you were financially advising, or holding a parent-teacher conference with a gay man, or whether you were just interacting with a single father?
And by the way, you are pretty much welcome as, say, a wedding photographer or a financial advisor, or any other small business owner, to turn away any business you like, as long as you're not obvious about the reasons. If you tell people that you won't manage their retirement accounts because they're gay you going to get sued eventually - if you turn them away because you're just too busy at this time, who would be the wiser?
The whole issue of justifying bigotry with religeon just makes me sad because, honestly, it's not very Christ-like. I would encourage anybody who thinks it is acceptable to go back and read the New Testament again, and put some thought into it this time around.
More claps for Suzanno, doctorgirl, RyanT and other similar sentiments.
Current laws that discriminate against homosexual couples are as repugnant as the racial discrimination that has plagued this country for years. It's no different.
These discussions can be upsetting and uncomfortable for some, but we will never make progress towards real equality without having them.
As the LDS bee I would like to say that the LDS church DID not contribute, IN ANY WAY to the propoistion 8 fund. Those who claim to have memos, where did you get them? An anti-LDS site maybe? You can be angry, and you can be hurt, but don't spread lies about my church.
The money came from the members. Yes, the leaders encouraged it, but not one penny of my tithing funds went into the fund. That tithing paid for my tuition at BYU, and for my friends missions, and to build meetinghouses and temples around the world, but it did not fund this proposition. People, good people, doctors, and lawyers, and students, and mothers and fathers donated their time and money to a cause that they believe in. You may call them bigots, and you may hate them, but the minute you start throwing lies around and hating them for standing up for their belief, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that you step into the territory of bigotry yourself.
If these so called "truthful memos" are indeed truth, I say bring them out into the open, take away the tax-exempt status of the church with them, becaue if the church is indeed violating it's contract with the govenant it should be taken down. This, however, will never happen because it did do no such thing. You will attack me for this. I will be attacked many many times over for this statement, but I cannot stand by and watch you tear my belief system, and all of the good members who believe the same way to pieces.
If you would like to engage in civilized conversation about these "memos" that prove what an evil empire the church is, please PM me. Attacks will not be responded to or appreciated.
i just want to add that i think suzanno's assumptions are appalling. how on earth would you come to the conclusion that she supports pedophilia and adultery? she neither said or implied any of that.
i accept that you disagree with me, why can you not accept that we have a different point of view? we disagree with your beliefs just as firmly as you disagree with ours.
and for the record, suzanno: i strive daily to be Christ-like, and with that comes applying Biblical standards to my life. Christ absolutely did not approve of homosexuality, and that is quite certain. THAT BEING SAID, just as Christ did, i LOVE EVERYONE. Christ was endless in his love for sinners (yes, i believe homosexuality is a sin - you don't have to agree), and that is the example we are supposed to follow. i have had quite a few homosexual friends. i may not agree with their lifestyle, but i will love them forever. there is a big difference between loving and respecting homosexuals and accepting their lifestyle.
There are parables somewhere about throwing stones and removing logs from your own eye that I want to point to here. There is nothing in the Bible that says Christ dislikes homosexuals, rather his testament said that all people are sinners and should be forgiven for their sins. Leviticus in the Old Testament is anti-homosexual though, but also says something about allowing people to take slaves from neighboring tribes (I could use a Canadian washing my dishes) or me being banished if I lie in the same bed as my fiancé when she is menstruating, or being put to death for having a ham sandwich or a lobster roll. (I have had some worth dying for) or not being allowed to plant more than one crop in my field. So let's just take your interpretation of what the Bible has to say out of this, because this is about how legislation affects real people.
As for, "It wasn't the church it was its members who supported prop 8," argument I guess you may be able to wiggle out of the monetary support, but that has little to do with the actual statute in California law rescinding religious status. Money is not speech even if 4 out of every 5 dollars spent on "Yes on Prop 8" was from a Mormon donor, as long as, as you have stated the council of twelve leaders advocated for it in any broadcast that is an "attempt to influence legislation." For that the letter of the law can be applied, but I wish didn't have to.
If I were against the Mormon church, I may oppose any government dollars going to ressearch studies undertaken at BYU. But this assault on your neighbors' rights is isunconscionable and not Christ-like. So if you won't act like a church, then just be an organization without tax exempt status. Pay more money, your members seem to be willing to spend it on this cause.
JanieLeigh, I don't think suzanno's statement implied that December supports pedophilia or adultery. I believe it was meant to underscore her point that December's rationale for why gay marriages would affect her and other individuals opposed to gay marriage - i.e., that she/they may have to provide services to married gay couples - is flawed in its assumption that service providers do not already provide services to individuals engaged in behavior they find morally objectionable. As most services providers do not ask their clients whether or not they engage in adultery/pedophilia/etc., there’s always a possibility that they are providing services to individuals who engage in activities they find highly objectionable/abhorrent. Accordingly, that justification does not really support an argument against gay marriage.
bridesmaids-dresses.jpg (65.9 KB, 42 downloads) 2 years old 
For the record, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
A number of misconceptions I'd like to address --
The gay marriage controversy equals interracial marriage controversy strawman: This is, as I said, a strawman. There is NO parallel here, other than the unfornuate fact that interracial marriage was once illegal. I deplore that that was once the case, and I fully support interracial marriage now. And this is comparing apples to oranges -- interracial marriage is still a marriage between a man and a woman.
Statements that I want to discriminate against gays or that I want to "insulate" myself from them (???): No. I do not. I believe that gays should had full access to all the civil rights that our country provides. Marriage is not a civil right. I don't really want to get into that right now, because it's 1 am CST and I just don't have the power for that after a week's worth of school. As for insulating myself, no, I fully expect to interact with all sorts of people in my day to day life and I look forward to it. I have yet to have prolonged interaction with a homosexual person (to my knowledge), but I certainly don't fear or abhor the thought.
Something I feel I should make clear -- if gay couples want to be couples who make a life-long commitment to eachother, and hold to it publically, that's fine. I will support that. If they want me to treat them as a unit, ok. I can respect that. If they are raising a child and I am that child's teacher, then I will meet with them both and attempt to treat them no differently than any other set of parents. BUT -- marriage has been defined since prehistoric times as between men and women -- sometimes more than one man and woman, yes, but always men and women. What I object to is the government redefining a pillar of communal life that is thousands and thousands of years old to include something that was never supposed to be a part of that, and then forcing me to treat it as if this was how it was all along. It's telling me that I have to believe in something that I believe cannot exist.
And NO, I would not be happy to interact with all those people that Suzanno listed. My morality is that 1. I am an honest person, and if I'm going to refuse someone my business on ethical grounds, I'm going to be honest about it. 2. I believe that gay marriage is an oxymoron, and therefore, I'm not going to act in my professional life (I am none of those things, by the way) that it can exist.
As to the example of Christ. Christ IS my example. I would encourage any of you who mentioned that I should reread the New Testament, do so as well. I do, on a daily basis. This is what I find: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17, if you're interested. The Law and the Prophets = the Old Testament, in case you were unaware. And most Christians I know draw a distinction between ancient Israel's political and ceremonial law, which set them apart as a special people and governed their specific nation, and the moral law, which is given as a standard for all followers of God throughout time. The prohibition of homosexuality falls under the moral law. If you'd like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, however, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is pretty succint.
It has been really difficult to pursue this topic in the face of allegations that I am a bigot, not being Christ-like, afraid of/wanting no association with gay people, etc. I have shed tears and said prayers over my participation in this thread. I have tried my best to be as honest and loving as I can be, but I simply could not let these things pass by without letting you all know what I really meant. I really try to live by 1 Peter 3:15-16 "...always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." I truly do apologize and ask for forgiveness of anyone on this thread that I have not treated with gentleness and respect.
I do hope that I have answered your questions, and I would ask that if you have further ones, to address them as questions and not as assualts on my character.
Avocado,
I definitely was thinking of you because I did not want you to think that I was attacking your church. I do have a memo, which I will forward to you by PM. The last thing I wanted was there to be any bashing of a religious organization, just the same as I wouldn't want a particular religious organization to be involved in my state's legislation...
My information comes from a news blog, and though I asked the person who obtained the memo where he got it, he did not reveal his source... so all I can do is present the memo to you.
Again, I believe in traditional marriage very strongly. I believe that extending marriage rights to all couples in the form of "marriage" will continue to strengthen marriage as an institution. I'm also not a big fan of seperate but equal (which is what I think having civil unions for homosexual couples is equivalent to), which is why I prefer the idea of marriage to civil unions, but I would be willing to support civil unions if it was the same for all couples.
Anyway, I sense that people are getting more heated, and I do not want to get heated myself... so unless anyone has a particular question for me, I think I'll be stepping away from the thread. I really can feel this issue from both sides, since my family is very conservative and I've grown up in that environment. I hope we all have enough respect for each other to transcend our differences of opinion! All in all, I appreciate hearing the different viewpoints.
I once heard (maybe on a different thread here) the idea of instead of the government recognizing marriages they only recognize civil unions for <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">everyone. The term marriage would be left to religious entities to recognize.
I haven't heard or been able to think of any reasons why this would not be a logical way to go about it. Has anyone else?
Arguing on the internet is about as useless as it gets. I will never convince the person I am arguing with, but hopefully others reading the thread will read the comments and be swayed one way or another. Speaking truth to power as Elie Weisel put it, is the mark of courage. I applaud anyone willing to talk about what they believe is truth here in the face of a passionate opposition.
inter-racial marriage like gay marriage is a marriage between a commited couple in love. Instead of man and man or woman and woman people used to say, one race and another race. It is not a straw man, but rather an analogous structure of discrimination. Like comparing oranges to grapefruits.
Jesus had NOTHING to say about homosexuality and while he may have said he wanted to uphold the law of the prophets, that means that if you read it with Leviticus then you believe that Jesus condoned slavery. It means that he believed I should be put to death for eating shellfish. That is not Jesus, he is about forgiveness and love of everyone.
As I blend my finances and my insurance and will and investments with my fiancé's I am thankful that we will be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the law. We need at least civil unions to make sure that when my partner is sick, I can visit them in the hospital. That she can take care of our children should anything, God forbid, happen to me. That she can be taken care of if my insurance is better than hers, or if my family for whatever reason decided they had more claim over my finances should I pass on or become unable to manage them. Gay couples need these things just like you and I do and I do not care if it is against your sensibilities. They are people who we need to treat with basic human compassion.
In the end I will defend to my dying day your right to hold your religious and personal beliefs. Just like I will be trying my hardest to support the rights of gay couples. I do not label anyone a bigot but simply point out that I believe their views might be viewed differently when the dust settles years from now. I come from a state with gay civil unions and a vocal openly gay representative in the Congress. One day we may see our first openly gay president and first partner, look how far we've come with this election.
God bless and keep you and all who you love. No matter how we argue, Jesus has led the way and I DO love you even while I disagree with you. Please remember that.
If marriage were only a religeous institution, and there were no civil aspects, then there would be no laws governing it, and you would not need a marriage license. Any church is welcome to refuse to grant their sacrament of marriage to any type of couple - as an example, the Catholic church has fairly strict rules about who they will and will not marry, and under what circumstances, and where. Nobody argues with their right to impose these restrictions. The question is whether the religeous viewpoint of a particular church should be imposed on people who don't practice that religeon, via the laws of this country. And the laws of this country absolutely don't track with historical definitions of marriage. Otherwise polygamy would be legal, and you would essentially be your husband's property once married. Obviously the legal definition of marriage evolves over time - allowing marriages once illegal (e.g., inter-racial marriage) and disallowing marriages once common practice (e.g., a man marrying his wife's sister upon the death of her husband, resulting in a polygamous union).
If the point of marriage to you is only the religeous aspects, and not the associated civil rights, I absolutely encourage you to forego the marriage license. However, I'm sure that's not your intent.
Ryan, I agree that arguing on the internet is fairly useless. However, as you pointed out before, we have a moral obligation to speak up for those who are persecuted and who are victims of discrimination. I don't particularly believe there is any way to convince a bigot to change, but I also believe that blatantly prejudiced statements, as well as clearly flawed logic, shouldn't be allowed to stand without response. The best response, I'm sure, has already been made:
Matthew 7:5 - Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Just one more thing, and then I think I am done with this -- I may not have convinced anyone, but I have attempted to speak the truth:
Ryan, I should have been more specific in my earlier post about Jesus saying that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. I mentioned the distinction between moral law, and social/ceremonial law. I believe that things like the slavery lawa and the food prohibitions would fall under the social/ceremonial law, and are no longer vaild today (not to mention Peter's dream recorded in Acts, making all foods clean). However, the laws governing human sexuality are in the moral category. Therefore, I believe that Jesus would uphold them, and Paul (a man who Jesus allowed to visit heaven before death) says several times that homosexual practice is a sin.
And yes, I believe that Jesus is forgiving. But I believe that the forgiveness of God means nothing without His justice as well, and that those who do not repent do not receive the forgiveness. Those who live in an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle are, in fact, in sin.
Thanks for the fairmindedness, everyone. I appreciate the fact that you all (attempted) to criticize my statements and not my character or my faith. I pray that we will all become more enlightened and more in line with the character of Christ.
EDIT: Suzanno and I posted at the same time.. just curious as how I am a hypocrite? Thanks.
Elizzard points out that the memo I showed her only involves putting money and resources to the general cause, not prop 8 specifically. Regardless, I stand by the idea that church and state should be seperate and that this involvement with memos and coalitions blurs that line.
Thank you Doctorgirl, however that is still partly incorrect. The yet-to-be verified "memo" shows the Church putting thought and energy into the general cause against same-sex marriage, not money.
NO MONEY was donated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the Yes on 8 campaign, or to any political campaign preserving traditional marriage that I know of.
I'm not here to debate whether or not the Church's involvement with Proposition 8 is cause for it's tex empetion status to be repealed. I'm no legal expert! However I do not appreciate unverified and false claims against my Church.
I am a hypocrite, as are you, as is everyone who speaks against their neighbor's sin while they themselves are sinners. And we are all sinners. Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone. We are all hypocrites.
I do not accept that slavery was not a moral sin.How is it not a moral judgement whether you consider another human being inferior or property? Chattel slavery is a moral issue just as removing homosexual rights.
I voted no -- and I must say that I do not understand how we can change our CA Constitution by a simple majority vote. It should have been a 2/3 vote to begin with.
I was raised mormon, and I remember when the Morman church said that Blacks had dark skin because they were "evil" (not the exact words) -- and then in the 1980's retracted this belief to control public relations. Beliefs can be wrong.
A simple majority should not have control over others. The "moral majority" has no right to place their laws on who I love, my body, or my mind. Believe what you want to believe -- as long as you don't impose them on others.
I am apalled, ashamed, and dissapointed in California right now.
To get back to the original question, yes I am very sad about what happened in California, Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona. I will be donating money and intellectual resources to the challenge against Prop. 8 -- efforts are already underway to mount legal challenges against it, under both the CA and the federal Constitution. The legal challenge that seems to have most traction right now is the one mounted by the Nat'l Coalition for Lesbian Rights. In a nutshell, their argument is that Prop. 8 is not an amendment to the CA constitution, but rather a revision, and therefore could not have been approved in a simple ballot initiative. According to the CA constitution, an amendment may be accomplished by a simple majority vote, but a revision must begin in the legislature and then go to the voters. I'm not an expert on the CA Constitution, though I do teach constitutional law, and I do think this is a reasonable argument to make. Until this gets resolved, my hope is that the court hearing the case will issue a stay on the amendment taking effect.
I don't want to take part in any ad hominem attacks, and I hope those of us who support marriage equality will take the passion and sadness we have and channel it toward helping an organization like NCLR. You can donate here: http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=donor_giftcontactinfo
augusta_jones2.jpg (19.6 KB, 59 downloads) 2 years old augusta_jones.jpg (19.8 KB, 29 downloads) 2 years old
Two arguments I really don't think hold water:
1) I don't see how what Jesus believed or didn't believe should have any impact on the laws of this country. That should only impact the religious discourse, which should be separate.
2) Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery, women being seen as property, Jews not being allowed to own property, etc. etc.
Now let's repeal Prop 8!!
TabletopClassics_TRG-6660-12.25x12.25..jpg (10.2 KB, 28 downloads) 2 years old
I saw an interview with a person who voted yes on Prop 8 on the local news... the voter said he was ok with gays being married but drew the line at having his kids being taught that it was ok for gays to marry. What a hypocrit. There are few things more disgusting than false tolerance.
I voted no on 8 and do believe one day it will be overturned.
I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not religion-based. Maybe there is one in this thread... I haven't read all the posts yet, but will. I would really be interested in such an argument that is logical and well thought out.
@ tbitties: There is a left argument against same-sex marriage. A number of queer theorists, i.e. Janet Halley (a law professor at Harvard), argue that gays and lesbians ought not expend their political capital fighting for same-sex marriage for a few reasons: 1) Same-sex marriage is an invitation for the state to regulate GLBT relationships, and we ought to be trying to get the state to get out of the business of regulating private relationships, not the other way around. 2) Relatedly, we shouldn't try to get recognition and equal access to benefits, etc., via the vehicle of marriage. Instead, we should focus our efforts on disentangling benefits from marriage altogether. This would help all types of relationships and people, not just those who want to (or have the resources) to get married. 3) On a more theoretical level, marriage is an inherently heteronormative institution, and our ability to challenge heteronormativity in all its forms will be undermined if we get co-opted into wanting what straights have.
I actually find the first two rationales to be very compelling. But at the same time, I don't think the government is going to get out of the marriage business anytime soon. Until that day comes, I believe in equal access to marriage by all.
Boxes.JPG (10.2 KB, 47 downloads) 2 years old 
@hotcocoa: I sat here last night trying to come up with a post that eloquently explained some of the legal/theoretical issues at stake here (my fiance is a lawyer and taught me, among other things, about the consitutional revision distinction)...and gave up. So thank you, THANK YOU for doing it for me! I think that the most productive way to discuss gay marriage is by doing so from a theoretical, informed perspective that is based in an in-depth understanding of the law. Sadly, uninformed opinions - no matter how fervently stated - hardly ever sway anyone.
@ hotcocoa:
As per usual, I am beyond envious of your hot style AND your ability to make complex theoretical concepts palatable for all. You are in the right field, sister.
@ December:
I have a few honest questions for December but am writing them on the board (vs. PM) because I would love for anyone else to chime in. I would really like to be open-minded about your view(s). I am genuinely seeking answers and absolutely DO NOT mean for these to come off as snarky, rhetorical questions.
1. If there were a law banning a child back-talking or disrespecting its parents, would you vote to pass it? What if there was a proposition to outlaw the act of openly coveting? (Which my comment to hotcocoa would directly violate- haha.)
2. What do you think about marriage ceremonies which are entirely secular and make no mention of God? Should they be allowed?
3. As per the book of Malachi, God "hates divorce." Is divorce something that you would vote to ban?
4. Would you feel differently if the same rights (in regard to taxes, visitation and estate rights, etc.) were give to same sex couples but it was not called "marriage"?
5. If you were a financial advisor (or a teacher or a business owner) and your services were needed for someone who was an alcoholic? an atheist? an unwed mother? a user of foul language?, would you want to withhold your services because they practice things with which you "fundamentally disagree"?
Again, I am not looking to be obnoxious or leading. You are obviously in no way compelled to respond, but I would love your insight. And in the name of not fueling the fire of snarkiness or deviating from the expressed thread topic, please feel free to send me a personal message if you feel more comfortable.
I did a little bit more research and found the following "fact vs. fiction" list. A number of sources have this information, and it's true that most of them are against Prop 8. Still, these are facts as stated in California State law, and are intended to debunk some of the myths that have come out of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign (and that have popped up on this very thread, unfortunately). Nothing on this list is an opinion statement - the law backs up every assertion made. The original version of this list is longer and more biased, but I tried to edit it down to the topics that have come up on this thread. I underlined the two statements that pertain most directly to the discussion we've been having.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
California’s top educators including Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell and California Teachers all agree: Prop 8 has nothing to do with education.
Fiction: If Prop 8 isn’t passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, California parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
Since this was a pretty hot topic, thought I'd just add that there is a good article in the New York Times today about the mormon effort to pass prop 8, for those who are interested
The Church of Latter-Day Saints is on record with the SF Gate as contributing $2864.21 in favor of proposition 8. http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=98349467568358
While it is entirely possible that this was donations specifically made by churchgoers and not taken out of the funds in any way, or it is entirely possible that the SFGate is just another liberal news rag and they are faking contributions to drum up hatred for the Mormon church, its there, on the record, that yes, the church itself, not just its members, gave money.
For any more information on specific churches which supported or opposed Prop 8, check out http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search.
I did not vote 1 because I am not registered and I don't know how to register and 2 I know nothing about politics really to feel that it's safe for me to vote LOL, but If I had I would have for sure voted no on prop 8. I was talking to my Future Father in-law and he brought up something cause he voted yes on prop 8 he said If it's okay for a guy to marry a guy or a girl to marry a girl than what next a man can marry his sister or mother marry her son? Now I think thats stupid because from a health prospective I believe that the reasoning for the government not allowing that is for health reasons. Not sure, but that was his point on it all. Retarded if you ask me, but this is what I blogged about on my blog so I'ma share
"I'm so upset over prop 8 I can not believe that it passed! I really
thought that california would say no. We were talking about it in my
psych class and it really hit me hard because I started crying and
really didn't want to listen to people ignorant comments about it
all. I heard that they are going to void out all the marriages that
have happened as well. So all the gay and lesbians out there that
have gotten married already will now no longer be married. How can
you do that? How can you tell someone yes it okay do get married and
than 6 months later turn around a void it out like it never happened.
Prop 8's arguement was that it would be taught in schools and to save
traditional marriage....Well last I checked they didn't teach
anything about marriage in school only sex ed and secondly "save
traditional marriage" what? I didn't know it was going anywhere. Also
argueing on a religious view is pointless....There is a seperation
between church and state for a damn reason. If religion is going to
have to play a part in voting than perhaps the damn churches should
start paying taxs. Also another thing that people had said was that
churches would be getting sued because they would refuse to marry gay
people....Um sorry everyone knows already that churchs are their own
organization they can refuse to marry heterosexuals just as they can
anyone else. For my last pissed off vent about this prop 8 thing,
regardless of religious belief or anything else....how in the world
does it affect anyone? It doesn't! It doesn't affect how we live our
day to day lives or anything just like when Billy Bob and Betty Sue
get married it has no effect on us so why deny Jack and Jake or Suzy
Q and Suzy Ann that right? Ugh I'm so so dissipointed in california.
On a happier note however Prop 2 passed (aniaml cruelty/stricter
rules for farm animal treatment) So thats good! "
I can understand people wanting a seperating of church and state, but I also think prop. 8 passed because of non religious families too who didn't want their kids to learn about homosexual marriages unnecessarily. And IT IS TRUE that it was and is taught in some schools. There was a teacher in SF who took her class on a field trip to her gay wedding!!! If that's not considered a misuse of school time, then I don't know what is. It was in the San Francisco Chronicle, you can look it up. So despite being a liberal state, families can still be tradition religious or not.
Than punish the teacher for not sending out permission slips and letting the parents in on her field trip not gays and lesbians. Parents have a say in what their children can be taught in school. Also being gay is biological there are studies out there to prove it and so just because if there was a teacher that taught about gay marriage does not mean a child is going to be gay. One of my mothers best friends is a lesbian who has 2 brothers and an uncle that is gay. Do you think people would really choose to be something that is so discriminated against?
Like many here, I was loathe to get involved in this. However, as someone who didn't want to be married until all could have recognized marriages, I felt I had to. Especially because I am now getting married next August.
I went the hypocritical route and chose to get married because my future husband and I could not be together otherwise.This person that I love so deeply and share every aspect of my life with would have to live on the other side of an ocean from me.
Simply because he is of British nationality and I am a United States Citizen. We looked into civil unions, but we wouldn’t be recognized by the government and he would not be able to live in America with me. This is about Civil Rights, it’s about EQUALITY, it’s about what is fair. I don’t think the government should be legislating discrimination, it’s that simple.
While I can’t tell you the statistics on the number of inter-national (?) same sex couples this happens to, I can only tell you how upset I would be if the government and people I had never met told me that I couldn’t be with the person I loved.
I voted no on Florida’s 2 and would do so many times over.
Oh! Props to wiglet for getting the truth out there, there have been so many misleading statements, with the large sums of money yes on 8 had to work with, it isn't suprising so many lies are made to look like truth.
bevfabriccrafts_2085_1812039301.jpg (117 KB, 214 downloads) 2 years old AHD-HUA-H-1032-PS-zoom.jpg (86.9 KB, 153 downloads) 2 years old sugar_front_cat.jpg (47 KB, 128 downloads) 2 years old
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD94LNA7G0
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.
Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.
Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.
A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| Brielle | 42 |
 vorpalette |
29 |
| caseyleigh10 | 26 |
| les105 | 24 |
| ellisrobertson | 24 |
| mypinkshoes | 23 |
| fishbone | 23 |
| lionskitty | 22 |
| SouthernGirl | 21 |
| kat2014 | 19 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| Katherine27 | 10 |
| ellisrobertson | 9 |
| KimKimmieKim |
7 |
| Brielle | 6 |
| vorpalette |
6 |
| MissCT | 5 |
| j_jaye | 4 |
| redheadem | 4 |
| mypinkshoes | 4 |
| his chippymunk | 4 |
