Yes on Proposition 8: Gay Marriage Deprives Some Children of a Mom or a Dad

This author has no idea how many kids go unadopted.

Do they also suppose that no parent is better than two moms?

This is the same reasoning that disallowed blacks from marrying whites a few decades ago.

Not too long ago this author would be ranting about how if this if prop 8 is defeated then, adoption agencies will no longer be able to favor the white couple!

Heaven forbid.

No signature? The writer claims not to be a bigot but doesn't take ownership of his/her biggotry.

bigot ... and a coward.

Here we go with the bigot name calling - guess what ? It doesn't work anymore get a new act. People are sick of the intimidation tactics of name calling to suppress their political views. HUGE kudos to the Independent for presenting the other side of the debate. I am shocked and impressed.

Are we supposed to run cowering when we are called names?
What is more scary than being falsely labeled is the intimidation of freedom of expression. There is a huge backlash coming against you slanderers get ready for it.

Why would someone want to put their name on this? So they can be abused and attacked by hatred like gays once were ?

Those who believe so strongly in the advantages of diversity might also consider the advantages to a child of diversity in parenthood - a man and a woman - two different viewpoints not just the one of a ga couple. A girl can go to her mom who might better understand her. A boy can go to his dad who might better understand him. A boy might go to his mother for comfort, his dad for activity. Its nice to have a choice. Children can get a diversity of viewpoints. Why is that not an advantage? Familys were designed this way , that is why a man and a woman are both necessary for reproduction. Anything else is unnatural. Saying that does not make me a bigot, it makes me an observer of nature. But I will gladly wear the label you wish to apply if it helps save the family and the emotional health of children. Of course all families are not perfect and many much less than desirable, but we need a standard to emulate. A marriage of two gays is not the ideal and should not be put on par with ideal and considered equal. You can have your rights but do NOT redefine what has been an intitution since the beginning of civilized humanity. Yes on 8! Heterosexual pride!

if you support a position as flawed and fundamentally unfair as prop 8, at least have the courage to attach your name to it.

There is a beautiful, progressive America out there, and it's being strangled by redneck America. you can't stop progress and the future, and holding it back only makes one look foolish in the pages of history

I really am shocked by this. To think that a child would automatically be better cared for by heterosexual parents rather than homosexual is just sad. I think any child up for adoption would be happy to have loving parents, regardless of gender. I saw a documentary on this issue within the last few years and each child who had been adopted by a homosexual couple simply seemed appreciative to simply be loved by two people - the fact that they were the same sex didn't matter.

I agree that it's positive to show two sides of an argument like this, but I don't agree with this particular point. Echoing what troy said earlier about inter-racial marriages, I guess it will simply take time for equality to be granted to same sex couples.

Thats funny I saw a documentary demonstrating the opposite. I guess it just depends on which documentary you watch and the agenda of the filmmaker. That's the problem, we put too much faith in propaganda instead of independent research and thought. (Al Gore, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone) "I saw a documentary" proves nothing other than what the filmmaker wants to persuade you of.

Isn't calling someone a redneck who disagrees with you just as much a generalization and bigotry as you want to appear to be so much above poedag? By the way many don't see this as progress they see it as moral regression when families degrade. And I do not blame homosexuals I blame immoral heteros as well - single parenting is also a far less than ideal envorinment for child rearing. But we do need an ideal, a standard, something to aspire to. Single parenthood and gay marriage are not it.

Hi my name is Paul Sorensen and I wrote this article. I did not ask the Independent to withhold my name when I submitted it. You can see the same editorial published at noozhawk.com. I know this is an emotional issue and I appreciate your comments and passion. It's important that everyone study the issue carefully and vote their conscience. Best, Paul

This type of thinking keeps other from happiness, including those children this author claims would suffer in a same sex family. I am not gay and was raised by a single mother. I would have given almost anything for my mom to be happy with another man OR woman. For someone to write such a hate filled message and then not sign their article, is a coward. Provide everyone a path to happiness, don't discriminate for any reason.

Well I don't think the author knows too many divorced parents. 50% of children will see their parents divorce and they will be raised mostly by one parent or the other- mostly. You can idealize all you want (moms and dads are important influences) but the reality is different. So why not face it and get the kid a parent- even a gay parent?

Happiness? Wait til we see the gay divorce rate. And what happens to the adopted kids then? Thanks for "coming out" Paul you are a brave man. And thanks for the article.

"The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples."

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

Imagine a Catholic heterosexual couple who despise each other but don't divorce because of church law and they want to adopt a child. Imagine two exceptional men in a committed relationship who respect each other and love each other and they want to adopt a child.

Which would be a safer and more nuturing environment for this child? Not the former. Why should a heterosexual couple be given preference in adoption over a gay couple with sexual preference being the sole criterion? That's what the Catholic Charities wanted to do and the state wouldn't allow them to discriminate.

Author, you're promoting the continued discrimination of a particular group of human beings. This is wrong and this is very, very sad.

Yes, AShaw, it's true that a documentary can say whatever the maker wants it to say - the same is also true with surveys and polls.

I still believe that love from a parent is all that matters, not what gender they are. There are so many abusive couples out there - why would it be assumed that a heterosexual couple is automatically the better choice of parent? Just my opinion - I once again applaud the author for writing what he believes. I just don't happen to agree!

First of all I want to say to Paul Sorenson that although I do not agree with what you said at all, I do appreciate you writing back to attach your name to your article. I am a gay man who went to school at UCSB in the 80's and I understand the hatred and bigotry that gays have experienced. This is just the latest attack on gays and it is hatred. Plain and simple.

I went to a wedding of two of my best friends two weeks ago (this was the fourth wedding of gay friends and the time span for the relationships of these couples ranges from 11 years to 30 years). My buddies got married with their adopted 5 year old girl and 1 1/2 year old girl present. The fact that you, Paul, or AShaw believe that these two girls would be better off with heterosexuals is absurd and bigoted. I guess you think a child is better off with an abusive or drug addicted heterosexual family? Finally, AShaw, what do you think happens to adopted or biological children from divorced heterosexual couples? I also think it is a huge slap in the face to all of the single parents out their because according to the two of you that one parent who is busting their butt and stepping up to the plate is not enough. You both should be ashamed of the hate you are spreading.

This letter is disturbing. The author assumes that having a heterosexual couple is better for children than having homosexual parents. I was a foster kid and I was adopted by a heterosexual couple. I was also abused by them. I was also abused by my biological parents, also a heterosexual couple. This is why I eneded up in group homes and eventually, in the foster system. It is too bad that Ohio in the seventies did not allow gays to fost-adopt. Maybe I would have had the attachment and nurturing I needed and deserved. Thinking that heterosexual parents are automatically better than homsexual parents is absurd. Last I checked, your own personal sexuality had very little to do with your ability to take care of a child and make her feel loved, valuable, and cared for. By the same token, it does not automatically follow that homosexual parents are all good or all bad, either. The writer seems ignorant, regardless of whom he happens to find himself attracted to. I am a heterosexual woman married to a wonderful man. I think that we will be good parents one day and that has nothing to do with our sexual orientation. It has to do with our hearts and our empathy and our values. This is what we need to assess in prospective foster parents. I am voting NO on prop 8. And frankly, people are calling you bigoted because you clearly are. I sincerely hope that we look at the deeper human rights issues here and keep church and state separate. NO on 8. Wake up.

It is disgusting and enraging for the Independent to publish a piece like this -- passed off as "just a contrasting opinion," and therefore ostensibly mere "free speech" -- that seeks to inject the completely false junk sciene (or outright LIES) that "children will suffer!!!" if gay & lesbian couples are given equal rights. Sure, cloak your bigotry in the warm, fuzzy mantel of "Thinking Of The Children" and you get a free pass instead of being called out for what you are -- a bigot and a liar. That goes for the bigoted, despicable comment troll AShaw as well.

Yes, Independent, I expect more even from your "opinion" pieces. This is just disgusting. Just what I wanted is to open my local online newspaper and have filthy bigots remind me once again (as if I could ever forget in this hating society) how much they view me as a second-class citizen. Really, at the core of it, they might as well just come right out and say what they really mean -- that they view me -- us -- as less than human and undeserving of the same rights as everybody else.

I think the argument against the assumption that a homosexual couple's child-rearing abilities are inherently inferior to those of a heterosexual couple has already been effectively made, and I will not repeat it. However, I must question your assertion that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly states anywhere in its text that a child has a “fundamental right” to a heterosexual set of parents. The full text is available here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/cr...

While on the subject, I wonder if you could reference the findings of social science that you use to bolster your argument. Is it indeed the "vast body" you claim it to be?

Furthermore, I think the issue of childcare is ultimately secondary to the most important aspect of this proposition: the denial of access of a particular segment of the population to the rights guaranteed to all others. While religious groups can and will decide who has access to their individual form of marriage, the government has absolutely no place in choosing who specifically is allowed a civil marriage. The only time it is ever permissible to limit the rights of an individual is when that individual poses a clear and immediate threat to others. While you may find gay marriage to offend your sensibilities, that is not grounds for discrimination and the withholding of fundamental rights.

Some people are bigots and will make up any, any bullschit to justify their bigotry.

Are racism and sexism, and prejudice and discrimination, just some alternative political opinion, or are they bigotry?

Was Martin Luther King just pursuing "an emotional issue"?

Sorensen needs to keep his religion to himself and not the California Constitution. Massachusetts affirmed legal marriage for same gender couples a few years ago, and yet THAT COMMONWEALTH STILL STANDS AND THRIVES!!

"Familys were designed this way , that is why a man and a woman are both necessary for reproduction" -AShaw

Aside from your obvious bigotry, your inability to write and also your ignorance are showing in this, dear. Families were designed this way??? So, you've traveled the world and studied history so deeply yet you've still managed to miss out on hearing about the fact that innumerable cultures have had communal families, polygamous families, single-caregiver families, matriarchy, and who knows how many other family structures that your small mind hasn't absorbed or been exposed to. Yessiree, you really have a strong grasp of "what nature dictated."

Do us all a favor: crack at least one book once in awhile instead of just filling up these comment boards with your endless stream of uneducated filth that just goes on and on and on and on.

Sorry pal, but it still strikes me as anti gay. If you say that a child absolutely, fundamentally ‘requires’ a set of heterosexual parents, that is just pathetic...

If you say that a couple, involving that of one man and one woman, are the only ones capable of raising a kid, and that parents of the same gender are incapable of doing so, how do you explain the wife or the husband who lost their spouse, refused to remarry and then had their one year old infant grow to become a success? That's one gender right there; What's the difference if they have two of the same?

If you have two nurturing parents, that's really all that you need for a good and fruitful life. Furthermore, having parents of the same sex can teach one great lesson that not all heterosexual parents can teach their children and that frankly, should be taught: "the beauty of diversity."

Also, for you to pit this one- reason, against a "huge" amount of privileges and rights that homosexual men and woman could be entitled to if this bill fails (in case you haven't noticed, there is more involved to it than "just" adoption), I can say that you are one disgusting individual and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this abomination.

You have done one thing though; you've further showed our community exactly how much our society needs to break away from the bigotry that we've either intentionally created or let stretch for as long as we have allowed it to. Because if people like you keep preaching filth like this and are allowed or inspire people to vote this way, democracy might as well be dead.

"...Indeed, it was precisely the inability to favor heterosexual couples that led Catholic Charities, then the largest adoption service in Massachusetts, to close its doors in 2006 after more than 100 years in operation."

Interesting! Where is the A.C.L.U. and its attendent "Separation of Church and State" cronies on this one? Funny how its O.K. for the state to tell the church what to do, but not vice versa.

"Not too long ago this author would be ranting about how if this if prop 8 is defeated then, adoption agencies will no longer be able to favor the white couple!" -Troy-

Is there any proof of this?

It is disgusting and enraging for the Independent to publish a piece like this -- passed off as "just a contrasting opinion," and therefore ostensibly mere "free speech" -- that seeks to inject the completely false junk sciene (or outright LIES) that "children will suffer!!!" -Joe Allegretti-

Joe: What sort of contrasting view would you have them publish? The point of publishing such views is to allow--and moreover challenge--those with different views to come up with arguments to refute such claims.

"Sorensen needs to keep his religion to himself..." -David Pritchett-

David: One of the consequences of living in a free society is that you are going to run across people who don't share your views on life. Since you are journalist held in esteem, I would expect you to react with a logical response instead of throwing a fit.

To those who rightfully point out the drawbacks of various heterosexual couplings, you are avoiding the issue. You actually are working against your own argument by pointing out the failings of heterosexual couples. It's akin to saying that if the ideal gay couple is one notch better than a dysfunctional straight couple, then the standard is set.

As I said before: The Independent published this letter to encourage debate, so hopefully people will respond to it with facts and not unsupported emotionalism. Doing the latter gives the author victory by default.

billclausen:

The case in Massachusetts involved anti-discrimination laws that had been put in place, making it illegal to deny gay couples the right to adopt. The church sought a religious exemption, but as properly dictated by the separation of church and state, the request was denied:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/0...

Seven of the members of the Catholic Charities board resigned in protest of the decision to end the adoption program, saying it "undermines our moral priority of helping vulnerable children find loving homes."

Question: We all agree that Martin Luther King was willing to put his life on the line for his beliefs. Why is it then, that we have never heard anything about him standing up for gay rights/gay pride? If he didn't support gay politics, does that mean he was a bigot? Please answer me that. (And if he did, why has this been supressed?)

Again, billclausen:

"One of the consequences of living in a free society is that you are going to run across people who don't share your views on life."

Dissent and discussion are, of course, essential and necessary in a free society. Problems arise when one seeks to impose their opinions and values (such as religion) onto others in a way that restricts their freedoms. Proposition 8 does just that, which is why its passage would be detrimental to the health of a free and open society.

Go ahead, Bill Clausen, start beating the drum of "Reverse Discrimination" -- one of the tried and true refuges of those who need a good excuse for their bigotry.

How about reading up on what the Catholic Charities case really consisted of: that organization had a contract with the Massachusetts Dept of Social Services and in 2006 Catholic Charities decided to pull the plug on its own adoption placement activities (again, as a state contractor) rather than comply with state law which forbids discriminating against gays as adoptive parents. It was also revealed in the press that over years of operation prior to 2006, Catholic Charities had actually placed 13 children with gay/lesbian parents. Still, for seemingly political reasons, they chose to end their own adoption services for the state and cry that they were being forced to do things against their beliefs. This wasn't "the state" telling "the church" what it could do... it was telling "the church" that if it wanted a contract with the state it had to (SURPRISE!) follow state law.

Do some research. Let your fingers do the Googling. Stop lying and making things up to suit your bigoted opinion.

Clausen: In response to your hypothetical about MLK, I have a question for you:

When did you stop beating your wife?

"The point of publishing such views is to challenge those with different views to come up with arguments to refute such claims" -Clausen-

NOT when those different views are backed up with alleged scientific facts that are then used to denigrate and demonize an entire population.

I have no doubt that the Independent would not publish an opinion piece that stated, "It has been scientifically shown in the work of Dr. PDQ Physiognomist that the Negro is a mentally and ethically inferior sort of human being incapable of rearing his children to be good productive citizens." Such a piece would offend the sensibilities of readers everywhere and be seen for what it is, rather than a "reasoned" difference of opinion. However, these types of "diverse" opinions regarding gays & lesbians are still commonplace and predictable -- one of the last bastions of acceptable social discrimination cloaked in pseudoscience.

As for "challenging those with different views to refute such claims": I suppose you'd consider it a reasonable "challenge" for an African American to be put on the spot to refute claims that s/he is undeserving of equal rights under the law?

Sorry, but it's disgusting that certain basic human rights are still being challenged in a so-called Enlightened society.

Just because you write a long letter doesn't make it well-reasoned. You didn't start out researching child welfare and then come to the conclusion that Prop 8 is the best thing for kids. You clearly started with the conclusion that you should be able to tell other adult couples of the same gender how they can and can't live their lives in loving relationships and you're reaching for any panic button that you think will get people onto your side through fear. If you REALLY think that little children are the most harmed by not having a FATHER and a MOTHER raising them then why don't you start circulating a petition to outlaw single parent homes, or force a state-appointed MOM or DAD to move in with all single parents? Your logic says that would be the best thing, AND this would be more efficacious in achieving your result since it would target that which bothers you most: kids being raised without a Mom and a Dad. So.... would you favor a Prop that said gay marriage can stay on the books in California if they don't adopt? I doubt it. Your red herring of "save the children" is transparent and shameful.

Joe:

It sounds perfectly true, but where did you find the information relating to the contract Catholic Charities had with MA Social Services? When I was looking up news about the issue, I found nothing indicating that (admittedly, I did not exhaustively research the event).

Thanks Paul for supporting Proposition 8 although it is my understanding that same-sex unions can already adopt children. CA law gives all domestic partnerships the same rights as married couples so I don't see this as a "human rights" issue. I see it as a moral issue to protect the rights of families and religious freedom.

Passing proposition 8 will not take any rights away from anyone. A failure to pass proposition 8 may limit the rights of churches to preach that homosexuality is immoral (the act, not the desire). It may lead to the revocation of the churches right to determine what marriage means and what ceremonies they perform. It may also lead to churches losing their tax-exempt status. This last one isn't really a concern of mine but ask your pastor if it concerns him or her. My church doesn't need money to survive, it just uses donations to help others.

Same-gender marriage will be taught in schools as well as same-gender sexual education. We who do not condone homosexual practices do not want this. This obviously won't matter to many Santa Barbarians but this is a response to the argument of "how does this affect you?"

I am a Christian and I love all people in this world: those who consider themselves homosexual and those who do not. I am supporting proposition 8 because I feel it is the right thing to do for families and religious freedoms.

I also have problems with the judicial branch legislating contrary to the majority vote of 2000 but this post is already too long!

Wow gay people are really hateful and intolerant of heterosexual bigots, aren't they?

Bear with me while I copy this thread:

"Sorensen needs to keep his religion to himself..." -David Pritchett-

David: One of the consequences of living in a free society is that you are going to run across people who don't share your views on life. Since you are journalist held in esteem, I would expect you to react with a logical response instead of throwing a fit.
______________________________

But the converse is not true, that you all need to keep your gayness to yourself? Intolerance of people's faith and religion is acceptable but intolerance of immoral lifestyles is not? I will not grant that Pritchett is held in esteem by anyone but himself. I've never seen such hypocrisy and lack of professionalism.. What if I said you all need to keep your gayness to yourself? How would you feel about that?
_______________________________

Typo:

Problems arise when one seeks to impose their opinions and values (such as religion) onto others in a way that restricts their freedoms. Proposition 8 does just that, which is why its passage would be detrimental to the health of a free and open society.
_________________________________

And AIDs and further degrading of the nurturing family unit is not detrimental to the health of society?

Imposing YOUR opinions and values is ok? Yours overide mine and those of the majority of Californians and Americans? Simply because a panel of judges say so? You should be more worried about the out of control power of the courts than gay marriage. Have fun when a conservative court has the power to overrule the will of the people.

I don't want my children forced to accept your values, but if you have your way it will be legislated.

danh, I just want to say I think it's a shame that you've been fed and seem to believe many lies that you enumerate in your second paragraph. Not a single one of those things is true, and I wish you would look deeper into the facts.

The only thing that might be true is children being "taught" about gay marriage in school -- if by "taught" you mean that it will be recognized as a fact if it remains legal. What will be taught is that same-sex people sometimes get married -- period. How does knowing this damage you or your child? Surely there are things that are legal that you don't agree with personally and you're still free to teach your child whatever you wish.

And yes, voting Yes on 8 would take away rights from me and others. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

Regarding AShaw: Do not feed the ignorant comment troll.

Wow gay people are really hateful and intolerant of heterosexual bigots, aren't they? - AShaw

Uhm... can I ask you something? Where did your "love they neighbor" values run off to? You claim to be religious, but you have more chauvinism then any of the rest of us, gay or not!

---------------------

And AIDs and further degrading of the nurturing family unit is not detrimental to the health of society? - AShaw

You- have the exact same potential to get AIDS as they do and that goes with the REST of us as well. Don't you DARE try to pin that horrible and terrifying burden on them alone.

What do you mean "take away rights" these are "rights" you were never granted or recognized in history up until a panel of judges decided to grant it, what, a year ago??. It was never left to the will of the people and that is the biggest issue here. If I were you I would just be thankful you live in the US where you are tolerated more than any country on earth. Try living in Iran for a while and stop getting so greedy and demanding. You are hurting your own cause to be treated equally. Nobody likes demanding "victims".

Sorry - I am sure there are more "tolerant" countries, but certainly less as well . Be thankful for what you have and leave things alone. Work on nurturing your gay relationship instead of trying to change the world to bend to and accommodate your demands.

Good foster parents are hard to find, and abuse sadly takes place. By allowing for gay marriage, there are more families to choose from when deciding on foster parents thus there's less probability of an abusive situation. As is, the state is forced at times to adopt to parents that are less than ideal. Two male incomes = lots of money, combine that with love and you have a better situation than some kid thrown in a trailer and abused while living in poverty. Some foster children are killed by their foster parents, even in our neck of the woods:

http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=8...
Santa Maria woman arrested for alleged murder of 3-year-old foster child

AShaw:

AIDS and its transmission is by no means limited to homosexuality, and linking the two is incredibly dishonest. Furthermore, there is no grounds to suggest that upholding the right to gay marriage will cause a spike in "homosexual activity."

On the same note, to claim that allowing homosexuals to marry and raise children is a threat to the "nurturing family unit" implies that such a family would somehow be a less loving relationship. Such a statement has no basis in reality.

I am not imposing my opinions or values on you. The defeat of this proposition will change your life in no way, because the ability of homosexual couples to be united under the law has no bearing on your marriage or general well-being. I am simply campaigning to uphold the principles of the United States Constitution; simply put, that all men are created equal. And in that respect, the Supreme Court and I are in agreement.

All men are created equal? That's funny in this context...

It's hard to keep up with you, AShaw,

To argue that, as there are other people in more oppressive societies that lack many of the basic freedoms we take for granted, we should accept what we have is ludicrous. It is because we are so fortunate to live in this country that we are obligated to fight for what we believe in, and to continue to bring equality and justice to as many as possible.

Leaving everything to the "will of the people" is dangerous, which is why the judicial branch exists in the first place. Its role is to prevent such acts of "mobocracy" that threaten the rights of the minority populations.

Look - I concede that a gay parent is better than no parent. That isn't my point. My point is that heterosexual marriage is and should be the ideal that should be strived for. A gay marriage is NOT equal, and we don't want you redefining that standard. It's going TOO far. You have your rights, from a previous post it seems that gays can already adopt. I don't know if that is true, but it's fine with me if no suitable heterosexual family can be found. I would even agree that a (loving) gay couple MAY better than a single parent. It depends on which single parent and which particular gay couple you are talking about.

What I do NOT want is redefinition of the word marriage , which any dictionary will tell you is between a man and a woman, and has been since the beginning of civilization. Even both presidential candidates agree on that one. And I don't want any government interference in the church, just as you don't want any church interference with the government.

Regarding your "mobocracy" point typo we have gone too far in the other direction in this country - where minorities rule. If you want any power at all, or any entitlements or privileges you must join or invent or be part of, a minority. This country has become a democracy where minorities rule. Where does that leave those in the majority? Powerless. But let's not start a new debate.

AShaw:

"My point is that heterosexual marriage is and should be the ideal that should be strived for."

That is your ideal, and you are seeking to impose it upon others. Bottom line.

"What I do NOT want is redefinition of the word marriage"

As I have stated before, religious institutions can call marriage whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. But the civil definition of marriage should not be dictated by the church, as Proposition 8 seeks to achieve.

AShaw,

Your "minority rule" theory is entirely false. There still exist flagrant systems of sexism, racism, and related bigotry throughout the country today, even with the considerable progress that has been made protecting minority rights. To suggest that we have gone too far, that we should scale back our efforts, is, in effect, embracing the institutionalized discrimination that until only relatively recently was rampant in this country.

Note that I am a white heterosexual male and feel no need to invent for myself a minority group in order to succeed in life. Such an assertion is racist, whether you consciously realize it or not.

Marriage is stupid. If I really hated gay people I'd want them to get married so they can hate each other. It's just a stamp the government gives, it doesn't encourage anything. Young brides go nuts over it, then they sue their husbands for all they're worth. It makes gay people happy(more gay), they move here, pay more taxes. We have a budget crisis. It's not a moral issue. The world won't end. I've lived in countries with gay marriage, the world didn't end and gay people weren't forcing everyone to be gay. It's only a big deal if you choose to make it a big deal. Gay people exist in all societies, even Iran. They're born that way.

I don't think we should encourage one way or the other, just put that govt stamp on the marriage certificate and collect the money. Let the rest of us decide who we want to be with. I also have no problems with polygamy. I don't think we should get into people's private lives and legislate their behavior, preferences, etc. Get government out of the bedroom. We hear a lot about the evils of big government, but I've yet to see that followed to action.

Set up vending machines throughout the state selling those things for $1k/pop. Ka-ching.

Great article I have linked to it from "Why and How Prop 8 must pass."

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/ma...

California politics has always been a rough and tumble sport - Prop 8 is no exception. The rhetoric levels have been high and getting higher. Protests and boycotts have been done by both sides. And, to some part demonetization of those on the other side ...

... webcast, which articulates the position, is not one of hate as people pray and fast for the protection of marriage, ... "gay” activists and their allies use the accusation of hatred as a weapon, not because they believe it is true (they know that most of their opponents do not hate them), but because it is a very effective tool of psychological manipulation -- especially when used against Christians. ...

... Christians have been called bigots and haters (some other things I will not publish), and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom has not exactly received a lot of kind letters, he has been featured on a yes on 8 campaign ad.

Wayne:

Have you been following this debate at all? The fact is that religion has no role in the governmental interpretation and recognition of same-sex marriage. Religion can and will continue to see marriage as it wishes, but government cannot use the basis of one religion to judge a vast and diverse set of people, many of whom do not subscribe to such beliefs.

On the tax-exempt issue, churches are currently financially dependent, to some degree, upon the government. If they choose to ignore the laws of the government, logically they will lose that state-sponsored money.

"Clausen: In response to your hypothetical about MLK, I have a question for you:

When did you stop beating your wife?" -Joe Allegretti-

Joe!...I told you not to tell anybody that! Now all my friends and family are going to know my dark little secret, To Wit: CLAUSEN BEATS HIS WIFE! (Hmm, if I hadn't been allowed to marry, I wouldn't have this problem would I?)

"I'm going to eat Lennox Lewis's children" -Mike Tyson-
"Funny, I don't have any children" -Lennox Lewis"
"When did you stop beating your wife" (Joe Allegretti, directed at me) OK Joe, here is the truth: I've never been married. (So what do you have in common with Mike Tyson?)
You see people, there are some that would just as soon shut down debate on an issue. Getting back to Allegretti's comments: Sorensen's article obviously has you upset, and you challenge his data as being false. THIS is the essence of free journalism. Sorensen offers his opinion, and you challenge it. Fair enough. Free debate in and of itself keeps false statements in check. When you say The Independent should not publish someone's opinion piece, I would instead challenge you to refute individual points of that said article. Doing so would only increase your credibility.

One more thing, you need to sharpen up your sarcasm. The wife-beating analogy is sooooo old!

Finally, AShaw, what do you think happens to adopted or biological children from divorced heterosexual couples? I also think it is a huge slap in the face to all of the single parents out their because according to the two of you that one parent who is busting their butt and stepping up to the plate is not enough. -dleroy-

An interesting point. What needs to be understood is that is isn't just the absence of a parent that is the problem, but the reason WHY there are so many single parents.

In the old days, (pre-sexual revolution) a kid growing up with one parent did so because either the other had died, or (obviously) one of the parents left. The difference was that in those days, most of the other kids had two parents at home so the kids with one parent understood what was the norm. Today, so many kids are growing up with one parent that this has become a cultural standard. Yes, one parent CAN do a great job at raising a kid, but from what I've observed, when a couple divorces, it's usually the result of both people's bad behavior--one openly, and the other passively.

Much has been said on both sides of this debate which is not helpful. Emotional tirades accomplish nothing but hurting others. I will simply say that it is my deeply held belief that God created humans and put one man and one woman together as a couple to be married and produce and raise offspring. Anatomy would suggest the same.Traditional marriage has its challenges, but has served humanity well since the beginning. In the Old and New Testament, the Bible identifies homosexual behavior as a sin, not an "Alternative Lifestyle". I can only hope and pray that in this diverse nation with freedom of belilef and speech, that my right to an opinion still stands.

pastor1 has said all that really ever needed to be said. The gay agenda is frightening and this is just the begining.

Pastor, the Bible is a book written by privileged and literate men, hardly representative of the society as a whole, so let's not use your good book as empirical evidence in this debate.

It's MY deeply held belief that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. While my perspective conflicts with yours, it does not deny your opinion in this country nor does it deny your ability to practice your religion in your church, synagogue, mosque, etc.

However, your perspective does not allow for the tolerance, acceptance or embrace of homosexuality in this country and in the world. You and your parishioners seek to deny a particular group of human beings the right to marry. Again, you have the right to do this within the confines of your church. However, you have no right to dictate to whom the state of California issues marriage certificates.

The bigger question of this whole debate would be the long term ripple effects if this passes. True many supporting traditional marriage have personal and religious beliefs that are contrary to this passing, what then? Which organization will be the first on the chopping block of lawsuits because they will not cower to the demands they believe to be wrong. What of the families that believe this to be morally wrong but now their children learn about it as a mandate in schools. My other question which no one seems to address is how 4 judges can legislate from the bench and overturn the voice of 61% of the people in merely 8 years. I think they should be removed from the bench and all people whichever side of the debate you are on should call for such action. I applaud people like Paul that didn't allow the judges the final say and brought it back to the voice of the people.

You- have the exact same potential to get AIDS as they do and that goes with the REST of us as well. Don't you DARE try to pin that horrible and terrifying burden on them alone.

-Yamiko

No I don't! I live a moral lifestyle and my wife does not have AIDS.

AIDS and its transmission is by no means limited to homosexuality, and linking the two is incredibly dishonest.

-typo

Ok you're right - AIDS began with the immoral lifestyles of homosexuals. Now it is no longer limited. Is that a better link? Thanks for the gift to the health of society

Uhm... can I ask you something? Where did your "love they neighbor" values run off to? You claim to be religious, but you have more chauvinism then any of the rest of us, gay or not!

-Yamiko

Answer: It is possible to love someone without liking them. It is also possible to love someone without being "nice". It is possible to love someone without tolerating their behavior. I love my children enough to discipline them when their behavior is destructive to themselves or others. Love is not about being "nice" or even pleasant. It is possible to love someone enough to put them in jail for their own sake and for the sake of others you love if they are doing something destructive or dangerous (to use an extreme example). I love you Yamiko, enough that I don't want you or anyone else to spend eternity in hell, or drag others down with you.

JJepsen:

The only organizations that have any risk of being on the "chopping block" are those that are government-run or funded. Any private organization is free to practice and preach whatever it deems appropriate.

Much is being made of the risk of our children being privy to the terrifying fact that in this country, some people are attracted to others of the same sex, as if this knowledge will immediately cause a tidal wave of juvenile homosexuality across the state. This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

Lastly, I hate to quote myself, but it bears repeating:

"Leaving everything to the 'will of the people' is dangerous, which is why the judicial branch exists in the first place. Its role is to prevent such acts of 'mobocracy' that threaten the rights of the minority populations."

The Supreme Court acted correctly in overturning the original Proposition 22 and preventing the minority from the oppressive tendencies of the majority.

AShaw:

AIDS did not originate with homosexuals. It was passed from primates to humans in Sub-Saharan Africa in the early twentieth century, and first official identified in homosexual men. To confuse the real and visible origin only perpetuates the stigmatization and discrimination of homosexuality that continues to persist, as is readily evident by many of your comments.

Pastor, the Bible is a book written by privileged and literate men, hardly representative of the society as a whole, so let's not use your good book as empirical evidence in this debate

-bigyoon

Where do you get the idea the Bible was written by privileged men? Literate, yes, privileged sometimes, usually not, unless you consider shepherds or homeless transients in that category - Moses was a shepherd, John was a prisoner, Paul a homeless transient... most of the prophets were pretty down and out...throw in some former slaves...perhaps actually STUDYIING the Bible might help you in this debate - ever picked one up?

Representative of society as a whole? Probably not, they were righteous men. Society as a whole is sadly short of that.

Typo would you be willing to leave decisions to the 'will of the few' if that few were a tyranical theocracy detesting homosexual behaviour or homosexuals themselves? Move to Iran then. I think you would be the leader of the mob (though you may not have a mob behind you). Just be thankful you enjoy tolerance and freedom. Leave marriage alone.

I didn't say AIDS originated, I said it BEGAN with gay immoral lifestyles. I don't care if it originated with monkeys, don't deny it was first introduced and spread by rampant non-monogamous homosexual activity. Don't redefine history in addition to marriage.

AShaw:

"don't deny it was first introduced and spread by rampant non-monogamous homosexual activity."

Until you can find proof of this, I will assume it to be false. There is a significant difference between the first noticeable cases of the disease and the ways and means by which it spread.

AShaw:

In response to your inflammatory post regarding tyranny and Iran: do you oppose the structure of the government? If you are taking issue with the role of the judiciary, then that is the subject of another debate entirely. Meanwhile, I suggest you accept that the Supreme Court does and will continue to do that which is its duty.

For those of you unfamiliar with my friend AShaw's Chronic Comment Syndrome, may I clarify some of his comments:

When AShaw says:

"Where do you get the idea the Bible was written by privileged men? Literate, yes, privileged sometimes, usually not, unless you consider shepherds or homeless transients in that category - Moses was a shepherd, John was a prisoner, Paul a homeless transient... most of the prophets were pretty down and out...throw in some former slaves...perhaps actually STUDYIING the Bible might help you in this debate - ever picked one up?"

-- ASHAW DOES NOT MEAN:

... that the Bible was written by the prophets or saints -- as someone prone to quoting Scripture he knows full well the authors were anonymous and not even contemporaneous to their subjects (the Gospels, the Epistles, Torah/Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings, etc.)

When AShaw says:

"I didn't say AIDS originated, I said it BEGAN with gay immoral lifestyles."

--- WHAT ASHAW HOPES:

... is you will accept his personal distinction between "originated" and "began" because he thinks they are different.

And when AShaw defines LOVE in these terms:

"Answer: It is possible to love someone without liking them. It is also possible to love someone without being "nice". It is possible to love someone without tolerating their behavior. I love my children enough to discipline them when their behavior is destructive to themselves or others. Love is not about being "nice" or even pleasant. It is possible to love someone enough to put them in jail for their own sake and for the sake of others you love if they are doing something destructive or dangerous (to use an extreme example). I love you Yamiko, enough that I don't want you or anyone else to spend eternity in hell, or drag others down with you."

--- WHAT HE REALLY MEANS:

... is exactly what he said.

Typo, asks if I've been following the issue.

I signed the petition to put Prop 8 on the ballot before the court ruled Prop 22 was unconstitutional.

Wayne:

I must clarify my comment. By "this debate" I was referring to the discussion of this letter, in which I had previously explained how religion and personal values have no role in determining what the government is obligated to do.

"Pastor, the Bible is a book written by privileged and literate men, hardly representative of the society as a whole..."

-bigyoon

Let's take that argument to its logical conclusion: Does that mean we should scrap the constitution of the U.S.?

Redefining marriage is not about gay rights; Gays have civil union rights in California ...

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/ma...

Redefining marriage is about forcing acceptance or silence on other people in regards to how children are taught morals.

Redefining marriage is about taking the word to other states and using California as a capital for a never ending culture war ... I would like to say this debate would end by passing 8 but likely the ACLU will take it to court.

Redefining marriage is about redefining what the word "right" means. Rights by nature do not impose on other rights, rights are not wants, rights are not behaviors.

Typo

The format of this comment forum does not break down into comment threads. Would be better if it did ... The earlier post relates to "Nobody I know wants to be a bigot. In the American psyche, bigotry translates to the KKK, witch hunts, etc. That is why most of us will go out of our way to avoid any behavior that could even be construed as bigotry." of the letter.

Since AIDS has made its way into this thread, I'll comment on it. We all know what a terrible way to die AIDS is, and we also know that emphysema and lung cancer are bad ways to die.

Our society is very anti-smoking because it recognizes the connection between smoking and lung cancer/emphysema. If someone dies because they smoked themselves to death, people say "he/she did it to themselves". Yet there are Gay Pride parades which celebrate the sexual aspect of the lifestyle that has resulted in so many gay men dying of AIDS. In short: Society is down on smoking because it causes deadly disease, yet embraces the "pride" aspect of gay culture with its attendant encouragement of the promiscuity that results in so many dying needlessly. I would also apply this inconsistency to Hollywood which is so into their "AIDS Awareness" stick while putting out movies that promote HETEROsexual promiscuity as well.

By the way, did I mention how ironic it is that people called the author a coward because his name was not originally published while these same people hide behind screen name?

If you are into the idea of gays "coming out", why don't you do the same?

On the "privileged men" fallacy, that does not apply as a whole; Yes king David was a privleged man ... but Christ was born in to a poor family - those people who were fed to lions were in no way privileged.

And as a point of law ... Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, clearly the only reference is to rights held by the people IE the voters. Ironically the four judges violated the separation of powers

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/ma...

In which changes to Prop 22 require a vote of the people.

I would normally read all the posts--even, and especially the tangents, but there are far too many for my time now. . . .That being said, to address the article:

Every kid up for adoption HAD a shot at a male and female, "hetero"-parent family. And, with exceptions such as premature deaths, or children of rape, and such, THOSE WERE THE TWO THAT GAVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION! Or hey, how about all the single-parent families out there? Should we enact legislation, that does not allow divorce, or maybe provides funding for "stand-in" parents (male or female as necessary)?

What about an argument for economics? Would a child be better off, with a hetero couple in poverty, or with a same-sex couple that is finacially superior? Or, would it make more sense to take a child from a poor couple, and give it to a rich couple?

I've only known a handful of foster kids, and a couple of adopted ones, and I can tell you that WITHOUT EXCEPTION, the kids that bounce around until they were adults are much more messed up than the adopted ones. Now, it could be argued that the adopted ones went to hetero-parented families, but that's not the point. The point is, children need a *stable* environment, and if that is provided by a same-sex couple, I say so be it.

Wow! For a second I was taken back to my former stomping grounds in Tennessee while reading this letter and the follow-up comments... I thought that I had left the bible belt, but I am mistaken. Ignorance and evangelism runs wild through this playground called Santa Barbara...

Equality for All Families.

NO on Prop 8

Having said what we've said, gay marriage would not introduce any new concepts per biblical standards. The fact that it is already legal to slough off your spouse and get remarried (which the Bible forbids) means that if Prop 8 passes, then another proposition must be passed to outlaw adulterous heterosexual marriages as well.

RE: outlaw adulterous heterosexual marriages as well ...

Prop 8 does not outlaw Civil Unions ... There is nothing on the ballot making any kind of relationships illegal.

" Ignorance and evangelism runs wild through this playground called Santa Barbara..." -sbchris-

Indeed it does--as evidenced by all the drunks/bars you find downtown. Throw in gang violence and rude drivers and this proves what a Christian place this is.

Wayne:

Your link references an uncited quote from Supreme Court judge Baxter to support the claim that it is outside the authority of the judiciary to repeal initiatives. Let's look at the exact wording of Article 2, Section 10, Subdivision C:

"The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval." (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.articl...)

That describes the limitations of the legislature regarding the repeal of initiatives, but makes no mention of the powers of the judiciary.

"Gay marriage is not in the Constitution..."

But the 14th Amendment certainly is.

billclausen - No, it does not mean that we should scrap the U.S. Constitution. But we shouldn't take its literal meaning and apply it to contemporary life. Nor should we also accept that it is perfect, thus the need for the Amendments. Unfortunately, there is no way in their hell or heaven that Christians will allow for amendments to its flawed bible, which is rife with contradictions.

Bill, it's obvious that you have not spent time with anyone who is gay (out of fear, hatred, ignorance - who knows?) because you believe that those you've seen in gay pride parades, probably on t.v., represent the entire population of gay people in the world. Nope. They come in different sizes, shapes, flavors, ideologies, customs, religions and varying degrees of conservatism, just like you and me.

And if you're worried about promiscuity, then Vote No on Proposition 8. Because if we extend the institution of marriage - which you and the others put so much of their faith and effort into defending - to all people, wouldn't this mean there would be fewer unmarried and promiscuous people around? This sounds like your kind of Christian logic.

Just a tip here for those who express outrage about commentary against their right to be bigots and homophobes.

Yes, being a bigot, whether one admits it or not, is a personal choice and the right to express those points of view is fully protected and I fully support that right, of course.

The difference here is that Proposition 8 would change the California Constitution to eliminate an existing right affirmed by the State Supreme Court last May. That is the difference between bigoted bluster and universal legal changes.

Thus, advocating the Yes position on Prop. 8 is not just bigoted opinionated bluster but instead would the most fundamental legal effect that impacts everyone in California.

THAT is why people whose religion or whatever belief-system promotes bigotry need to keep their religion to themselves and not interject their bigotry into the State Constitution, which affects everyone.

Believe it or not (and some will not), the State of California is not a religious institution. Accordingly, bigotry encouraged by a religion should not be interjected into the State Constitution, as that would impose a particular religion onto others.
Therefore, vote NO on PROP. 8

One quick observation without getting into the debate: For all of you (Jilly, Poedad, Cranebaker and Taz...) who called the author "a coward" for not posting his name (which you haven't either by the way as neither have I) I find if so telling indeed that none of you even apologized for your mischaracterization once it was made know that he had indeed submitted his name and that the ommission was caused inadvertently by the Independent. You owe him an apology for wether you agree with him or not, he is no coward, au contraire!