Prop 8 in CA

Muse, the commercials I saw usually ended with the sad, sad face of a child forced to watch a gay marriage or read a book. What I didn't understand was why the commercials against, knowing that one of their biggest opponents was fear, didn't point out the flip side of : what if your child is gay? Won't not being able to marry give them the same sad sad face? I just think the topic wasn't really adequately engaged. They also too easily brushed it aside with "this has nothing to do with schools" rather than really engaging on the subject. They didn't articulate the protection for churches to be free to continue to operate within their own beliefs without governmental sanction or punishment. It just seemed the commercials against prop 8 were too dismissive and summary and didn't really adequately address the very real fears (justified or not) that were represented by the omnipresent Yes on 8 commercials. Gavin Newsom also made a great soundbite for the Prop 8 camp with his speech that was more grandstanding and grating than substantive and thoughtful and gave great play for the Yes on 8 campaign. See, Fadzi...why didn't the campaign deal with more real people like you? Why not have families, children, spouses, speak about being a family, about rights for their children and each other? Why were actual faces like yours totally absent from the months of televised campaigning on the issue? Why was Diane Feinstein the only face I can really remember seeing in a No in 8 commercial? Like McCain said in his loss, the failure was his. I just think that there is responsibility on those who were against Prop 8 for part of the reason why it passed. It's not just that too many people hate. The message also needs to be done better. If that's not really considered, if it's only considered a failure of others (being ignorant, hateful, etc.), then success will continue to elude those who wish to permanently establish the right of gays to marry in CA or any state.

zxc...I agree...where was Hollywood??...almost every powerful person in Hollywood is gay (or Jewish). I just think no one believed it would pass. That is our fault, I am hopeful that people will be stepping up their game now to have the decision reversed or reworded in some way.

Heidi, I totally agree with you about the lack of meaningful information in the advertising campaign against Prop 8. In my own opinion, I think that complacency is to blame for the passage of the state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Whichever organization was in charge of the television advertising against Prop 8 did a really poor job, IMHO. I think they were complacent in their thinking. And it totally sickens me...I don't understand at all why gays and lesbians in monogamous, long-term relationships should be denied any civil rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Yes, the state of California affords some rights and protections for gays and lesbians who register their domestic partnerships. But these rights and protections are far less than those enjoyed by married couples.One example of this unfairness can be found in the issue of property taxes. Gays and lesbians who buy homes and property together in California under joint tenancy with right of survivorship encounter something that married couples do not. As most Californians know, Proposition 13 reformed property taxes here way back in 1979. Our property taxes are calculated on the assessed value of our homes at the time we purchase them. Counties are only allowed to increase the taxes by a small percentage each year, based on the original buying price.When a husband or wife dies, the surviving spouse continues paying the same property taxes, based on the original buying price. However, when a gay or lesbian partner dies, the home's value is reassessed on the current market value for purposes of property taxation. This applies to all homes where the deed is issued as joint tenancy with right of survivorship. It doesn't matter if the domestic partnership is registered with the state or not. The death of a domestic partner automatically triggers a new property valuation and increased property taxes for the surviving partner.This is just one example of the disparity of rights and protections afforded domestic partnerships versus marriages.

Let me turn this around and see how it sits. Let's say I own an apartment building. Should I have the right to say I don't want any Christians renting from me? They have those weird beliefs about dying and coming back alive, this Sunday getting dressed up ritual, etc. I just don't want to rent to them. Should I be able to do this? Should I be able to judge someone on one characteristic and withhold services from them? Let me change my example to black now. Say I don't like black people. Why should I have to serve them? Isn't this an infringement on my rights? Why can't I take one look at them and say, no? The answer is that in America we believe that everyone should be treated equally and this trumps an individual's right to discriminate based on group characteristics. We do this because it protects minority groups from the oppression of the majority. Gay, black, red, purple, everyone gets treated the same. And that is what America is about. The question comes into the word "gay-positive". I doubt the "gay-positive" message was go home and make out with your same sex friends. I'm sure (having seen some of these materials) that they were simply about tolerance - that there are people like this in our community and they are people just like the rest of us. So I would change the question back around. Should parents have the right to demand that their children are taught to discriminate because of bigotry that their parents have? Because the real question is whether parents have the right to be left alone in teaching bigotry or whether the schools have a responsibility to teach tolerance for all groups. All groups, including those that some parents don't like.

fadzi, a picture is worth 1000 words...(i've never seen a pic of you and dh, only miss p....you are a gorgeous family).gwen, I cried when I read your post.how anyone cannot support gay marriage is honestly simply beyond me....i don't even really ''get'' why it is even debated. btw, I am a Christian, and every time I see intolerance promoted ''because of'' Christianity, I want to cry.

Right there with you...

Yes, and "gay positive" was not the word used in the material that the OP quoted from. Here's the actual language, which was modified to make this seem like it wasn't coming from hate mongering extremists. I've bolded the text that the OP changed, presumably to make this seem like it came from a non-biased news source. [url=http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/sc_petition/rejected.html]US Supreme Court rejects David Parker's appeal[/url] Yes - this is intensely personal stuff. It's very hard not to take posts like yours as attacks on our families, because really - they are. The underlying ideas here are that: a) we can choose whether we love someone of the same sex or the opposite, and that therefore, b) kids can be "converted" into a quote-un-quote homosexual lifestyle by hearing that gay people exist and they're okay. I have no problem with my son hearing stories about mommies and daddies - most of his friends have a mommy and a daddy. Statistically, he's probably going to be heterosexual - and that's a-okay with me - makes it a whole lot easier for me to get grandchildren down the road! And indeed, the vast majority of stories that he hears, even from me, are about mommies and daddies. But I want the other kids in his class to know that having two moms is another permutation on what family means. Family might mean being raised by a grandparent. It might mean being adopted and not looking like your parents. If the only families our kids hear about in PUBLICALLY FUNDED SCHOOLS are one mom, one dad, one dog, two kids, all of whom look alike, white picket fence, you're going to have an awful lot of kids feeling like something is wrong with their families. If you don't want our schools to teach a message of tolerance and acceptance, then you are free to remove your child from those schools so they can live in a bubble where people aren't gay or divorced or adopted or in any way other. -AS

I apologize. I didn't mean to cause offense, nor hurt anyone. Have a blessed day.

I also hate it when people believe that just because I'm gay that I can't be a Christian. Being a Christian means believe that Jesus Christ is the one true God therefore my sexuality has nothing to do with my salvation.

I look at prop 8 in CA like the presidency. A little less than half of CA voters didn't want to live under prop 8, and a little less than half of the nation doesn't want to live under Barack Hussein Obama's leadership. Case over, we're stuck with what we voted for (or against, in my case). The people sadly have spoken, but at least we still have a shred of democracy in place. :arrow:

FQM - I agree with your point completely, except for your assessment of "shred of democracy." We have a full and robust democracy. The results may not be what we all hoped for as individuals, but so far the process is still intact.

I haven't read all the posts because I got to the party late. Would like to throw in these thoughts, though: - If the word "marriage" is the issue because some people feel "marriage" is a holy sacrament and all, and use of it for same-sex unions offends them, then I suggest we use the phrase "civil union" for all state-sanctioned, legal, recognized-by-the-courts unions, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or difficult to define narrowly. Leave the choice of whether or not to perform a religious "marriage" to individual faith traditions. After all, legal "marriage" really is nothing more nor less than a civil union--no religion needed. So let's stop confusing ideas and feelings regarding religious sacraments with secular commitments.:love: - I see no reason why anyone in the GLBT (I?) community should not bear the same legal responsibilities as heterosexuals. Why should they get off easy just because it's a same-sex relationship? Why should they get to shirk the legal responsibilities of "marriage" (to be changed, of course, to "civil union" for all unions) when heterosexuals get stuck with them? Forget worrying about the rights and privileges, how about the burdens? Stick it to everyone, I say!:boot: -The more couples of any kind that are locked up tightly in a legally, financially, and presumably emotionally binding death grip, um, relationship, the more stable and healthier our society will be.:flower: - There is no place for a miserly sense of tolerance in our society today. Embrace! Embrace! Embrace!:woohoo: - It is more aberrant (as in out of the norm) to be red-haired, green-eyed, and freckled than to be gay.:eyebrows: - There were no black people in Dick & Jane. I guess being black was against somebody's religion. Maybe showing black middle class people was offensive to some people. It's not now. I suppose showing black families and mixed-race families in schoolbooks was controversial once, too. IDK, because my books were white and my kids' books are mixed--so something happened in between. It is no longer a conscious decision, people of different races are just there, in the books. I suspect it will be the same for family portraits. A teacher is not "reading a book about a homosexual family," anymore than she is "reading a book about black people." The teacher is reading a book about a family:grouphug: . These little smiley guys are fun. I should use them more often. Warm fuzzies, everyone. :loveyou:

Getting away from the previous posts for a second, I'd like to comment on this. I am as conservative as can be on most issues. But I've never understood why anyone would be against gay marriage. Why should anyone want to legislate what other people can or can't do? We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness right? So what if gay people can have a marriage certificate? Does it threaten the straight lifestyle? How could it possibly harm anyone? Even if your church says it shouldn't be recognized, that doesn't mean that the government should say the same. Your church may not allow what another church allows and so we all have to do what's right for ourselves as individuals, not try to dictate what's right for everyone. (don't know why I'm so wordy tonight.. couldve said it in about 3 sentences. oh well, you get my drift! :arrow: )

I loved watching all the demonstrations here in California on television this weekend. Many, many people are angry about Prop 8 getting passed. The ACLU has filed suit, stating that the proposition should never have been put on the ballot to begin with. I think part of the problem is that many people seem to believe that being gay or lesbian is a life choice. Sure, my son decided when he was 6 years old that he wanted to grow up to be discriminated against, to be beaten up because he's gay, to be called names. Give me a break. He was born gay...it has nothing to do with any decision he made. The "decision" he made was to come out of the closet, with not only himself but his family, friends, employers, and acquaintances. And I am proud of him for that...that took a lot of courage. He has lived in a monogamous relationship with the same partner for over 12 years. Why shouldn't they enjoy the same legal rights and protections afforded to heterosexual couples? Gays and lesbians pay taxes, just like anybody else in this country. I've never heard any of my gay or lesbian friends complain about their tax dollars going to the public education of other people's kids. Some of my friends foster...a couple have adopted out of foster care. Personally, I'm hoping that my son and son-in-law decide to bring a child into their home one day. I would love being a grandmother.

I really respect the pride you show in your son on each and every post. And I'd feel the very same way if one of my son's told me he was gay. I'd want him to have the same rights that I want for all of my children - the black ones, the white ones, the boy ones and the girl ones. I've just gotta comment on the use of Obama's middle name, by saying this: I'm sure Barack Obama is quite proud of the heritage of his middle name. I just find it interesting, though, that I don't recall the middle name of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln -- just a thought. And "Supa" -- I'm with you -- some just continue to get away with throwing gasoline on the fire. That's fine, though. Call it what you want "racism" or "not-racism" - it really doesn't matter, does it??? It's just a name . . .