Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Imposing San Francisco Values On First-Graders
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Thank God for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

If, when the dust settles at the ballot box this Nov. 4, California voters definitively repudiate the California Supreme Court's unjust gay marriage ruling by voting Yes on Proposition 8, Mayor Gavin Newsom will be a big part of the reason why.

Even the San Francisco Chronicle acknowledged on Monday that in recent weeks, Mayor Newsom's role in the gay marriage debate "has turned decidedly unheroic."

"He's become everyone's worst nightmare," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communications at Sacramento State University

Gay marriage is coming "whether you like it or not," Mayor Newsom intones in news clips featured in the first round of Yes-on-Proposition-8 ads, looking unbearably smug and arrogant in dictating the future of marriage for the rest of California from his San Francisco perch. (See the ads for yourself at www.protectmarriage.com.)

Public opinion polls showed a dramatic surge in support for Prop 8 after these Yes-on-Propostion-8 ads featuring Newsom hit the airwaves. Faced with a dramatic drop in public support once the real potential consequences of gay marriage for parents, public schools, church groups and others are highlighted, gay marriage advocates have responded with a rebuttal ad. (See it at www.noonprop8.com.)

Their allegedly pro-gay marriage message? Labeling the concerns that public schools will teach about gay marriage, if we permit gay marriage to remain the law of the land, as just "lies!"

Right. What do gay marriage advocates think public schools should teach about marriage if gay marriage is the law of the land? Could we have a reasonably honest discussion please about what you have in store for California's first-graders?

Instead of standing their ground and defending their moral views, gay marriage advocates are simply pretending to voters that legalizing gay marriage won't affect anyone else at all.

Marriage is a publicly affirmed status -- a shared social ideal -- not just a private act. When the government says gay unions are the ideal -- exactly the same as husband and wife -- a whole lot of people who disagree are going to find life gets a whole lot harder, especially when it comes to raising our children.

So what does Mayor Newsom, the poster boy for arrogance among gay marriage advocates, do in the middle of this campaign to deceive California voters about the real consequences of gay marriage?

Why, he presides over a lesbian teacher's wedding ceremony at City Hall, to which public school children are bused, at taxpayer expense, during school hours. (Newsom claims he wasn't aware of that fact when he agreed to preside.)

That's right. Taxpayers paid for first-graders to take time from reading, writing and 'rithmetic to strew rose petals after a lesbian marriage ceremony -- no doubt in the belief that there was something educational about witnessing a historic civil rights victory the courts have endorsed as the law of the land.

Let me be clear about one thing: I know many, many gay people who have no truck with the arrogance of so many leaders of the gay marriage movement in California (see for example www.gaypatriot.net). I even know some gay people (though, not very many) who think marriage means a husband and wife, and that the California solution struck down by the courts -- civil unions for gay couples, marriage remains marriage -- is common sense, not some kind of gross injustice motivated by seething hatred to gay folks.

If Prop 8 loses, expect a lot more public schools to join Mayor Newsom's crusade to promote gay marriage, "whether you like it or not."

People who think that's a good thing should have the decency to stand up before California voters and say so, instead of pretending it's not going to happen.

It already has.


COPYRIGHT 2008 MAGGIE GALLAGHER Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Good column, to the point.
The author is on the money with her points. Gavin Newsome is about as smug as you can get. And San Francisco values has taken on a new meaning lately.

Without a doubt the SanFrancisco values supporting lemmings will be out in the comment section.

Ms. Gallagher's Ommissions..
So, let's have all the facts Maggie. The school in question is a charter school and it was the parents that decided to have their kids go to the wedding. Two children's families opted out. Isn't this the lie of the Pro Prop 8 campaign that they want parents to decide what their kids learn? Well, in this case that's exactly what happened!

GIVING A TEACHER THE FINGER
Hell, I could do that too in second grade, but it wasn't until I was about 16 that I knew what raising that finger in the air meant. My 7 and 8 year old grandkids don't need to know that either. Aberrant sex shouldn't be part of their curriculum.

Still lacking votes
The latest polls still have Prop 8 failing meet the required 50% + 1 needed to pass. And even if it does barely pass, it will only take the same 50% + 1 to repeal it in a couple of election cycles. That's why it's so ridiculous that constitutional amendments on CA's ballot require such a low threshhold for passage. Barely squeaking by is hardly a popular mandate not to mention just beggin to be overturned on future ballots. At least here in FL it takes 60%, and Prop 2 is also not currently headed for passage either.

Gay Marriage
America seems silly on the subject of gays. Why write them out of the social contract? In Europe we giggle at the US Armed Services shooting themselves in the foot by throwing out US-born gay interpreters of Arabic -- is it so much wiser to turn to foreign-born Arabs who might not support US interests in their hearts? I do not understand anti-Semitism; I do not understand what anybody stands to gain by preventing people who want to commit to each other from doing so either.
What is really scary is that you sound committed and sincere -- and insane.

LAURA BUSH: LADY LUCK OF REP. POLITICS
Laura Welch Bush, First Lady and wife of the 43rd President, a women who gave birth to twins in 1981 (when John McCain quit the Navy to prepare for his career in politics), spoke in the Twin Cities on day two of the Republican Convention which fell on the first Tuesday of the month. What most Americans don’t know about Laura is that she’s the 44th First Lady in U.S. history; and that 63 days from her convention speech, on the first Tuesday of November, when the nation picks the 44th President, she will be celebrating her 62nd birthday. Indeed, just as that day of decision and destiny falls on the First Lady’s birthday so did this occur twice before in her life. For whenever Laura’s birthday converged with a presidential election the nation went Republican putting Ike in the White House in 1952 and the Gipper in 1980.....

To read more about the First Lady's remarkable "luck" for Republicans click ApolloSpeaks and read my piece John McCain, Hero of Destiny: Signs of Republican Victory



Get Ugly
Take a leaf from the opposition. Get conservatives who have little to lose (unemployed, etc.) to form mobs and sit-in in law-offices and courts. Make a scene. Mob judges on the street. After all, the Left didn't seize the university by the rigor or irrefutability of its thinking, but by mob action in the 1960's and '70's. And if they whine--poo' widdle wefitst getting a tast ob his own medicine.

Gavin Newsom
Why isn't this hideous low life in Federal prison anyway.
He has broken Federal law, and is thumbing his nose at the rest of the United States.
We were on the subject why hasn't the Secretary of State in Ohio been arrested by the federal marshals.
Were is justice, and the law, or is just for the people.
It all makes me sick to my stomach.

Gallagher being duplicitious yet again
I am with Dan on this one.

I think Gallagher is missing the point with the example of the children attending the same sex wedding. The question that she and others on her side will not address is whether or not the children's parents gave permission for them to attend the wedding.

If permission was granted, there is NO leg to stand on.

Still, Gallagher's column is a step up from the "waaaah they think that those who believe in 'traditional marriage' are bigots" nonsense she usually pushes.

Remove your kids from public schools
and defund them.

Perverts know that to change the minds of the country, you start with the youth. Indoctrinate young minds when they are willing to listen to authority and allow peer pressure to do it's part.

Get children out of the public schools and teach them your values will you still can

America: The battle for morality
Centuries old plagues of mankind like homosexuality have once again corrupted the moral conscience of our citizenry. Thousands of years ago man figured out that the best possible environment to raise a child was between a man and a woman, and that the role of communities and government should be to advocate that position.

Our only role in the grand scheme of things is to care for and to prepare the next generation, all other considerations are secondary; yet our narcissistic culture overshadows our responsibilities.

Once again the ugly plague of man has resurfaced and the advocates of such behavior claim it as progressive, defying all the accumulated knowledge while professing to be more enlightened than Jesus Christ, Muhammad and Buddha; every pope, philosopher, our founding fathers, every priest and basically billions of people who have preceded this generation.

Yes indeed, there is a battle waging in America, it's not economic, it's not liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs. republican.

Are we a moral and just society, or are we a deviant, regressive society.

Teach kids the WHOLE truth
If the schools are going to teach kids that gay marriage is just fine, why not teach them the FACTS and let the kids decide whether its a good thing. Facts like the following:

Lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence at the hands of their partners.

Homosexuals have greater incidences of alcoholism, drug abuse, and various mental disorders. They live shorter lives, which would leave their children without a parent.

There is no such thing as a long-term monogamous male homosexual relationship. All long-term male homosexual relationships include sex with other men.

Will these and the other facts about the lifestyle get taught? Of course not. Funny how, on this one issue, public educators feel no need to teach science fact.

O Frank, Frank
To be perfectly frank, what consenting adults do, and commit to one another is allowed in this country, but to give any other relationship the legal status of marriage other than 1 man , 1 woman, would destroy the MORAL FABRIC OF THIS NATION. Our laws on the books reflect some sort of morality, who's morality are we accepting? Those little 10 commandments that are woven thru our laws, seem to be hooked to the human conscience, and when practised, seem to serve our society well. Maggie thanked God for Newsome, how about recognizing and thanking God for His moral law!

"Lies" ?
Forty years ago when they started all this, gays told us all they wanted was to be left alone. Now they are telling us they don't want to impose anything on the rest of us. Yeah, right.

And there is nothing "gay" about their lifestyle, if that's what you can call it. It should be more correctly called "sodomite".

Just imagine two men in bed sodomizing each other, and you'll know how to vote.


Shameful use of red herrings
And you know it.
Have a little more respect for your readers' intelligence.
No on 8.

This is where we're headed?
"Schools, Colleges and Universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are
formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young
socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and
to fight the cynicism and apathy all political groups face on campuses today. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural
lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth
of the virtue of greed."

this is from their own site http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

So why don't we start with theVERY young!?!?!

when will they stop?
I want M.G to explain, just HOW will life get 'a lot harder' for those opposed to marriage EQUALITY?
Harder in WHAT WAY?

Certainly the children of gay parents are lesser in her mind and the others that THEY don't deserve the protections, security and support that marriage brings. So WHOSE life, exactly, will get harder?

Children ARE taught everyday that life in marriage is more affirming, ALL children are taught this, whether they are gay children, hetero children. THEIR parents are the examples in which they understand marriage, not the state.

So, it's whether their parents have a good or bad marriage, or are not married that makes the difference.
Gallagher herself agrees marriage is best for children. What she can't explain is why the children of gay parents must be the exception.

The yes on 8 campaign relies on fear (and lack of scrutiny) to get their way.
The same can't be said for the No campaign.

SURE IT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED, GEMINIGUY.

Been going down this road for over 30 years now!

Year after year it's victory after victory for the Pagan Left as Traditional Americans suffer defeat after defeat!

Talk about a morally bankrupt nation.

Every time I think we can't sink any lower, America plunges deeper into the abyss.

Astounding!


A couple of people...
mentioned that the school in the story was a charter school and the parents allowed their children to attend the wedding. So the parents allowed it and two families opted out? Does the fact that it's a charter school mean that no tax dollars were spent on this little "field trip?" If tax dollars were spent, then they should be replaced. Also, if the school thing was no big deal, as a couple of commenters have proposed, why did Newsome feel the need to say he didn't know that the children would be there or that tax dollars would be spent or whatever it was he was denying? Is M.G. lying about his denial?

du...
The practice of homosexuality is morally reprehensible. This is what the people who M.G. is talking about believe. I am one of these people. Do you not agree that it will be harder for these people to teach their children this fact if the law of the land affirms homosexuality by recognizing gay marriages? Please be honest. I'm sure you want it to be harder for people to teach their children that homosexual behavior is morally reprehensible, an abomination, because you probably feel that that is indoctrination and maybe even hate. However, teaching children something in school with which their parents wholeheartedly disagree is just as much indoctrination, but worse, because it disallows the parents from teaching their children proper morals. You would be wrong, also, to assume that the motive for the belief that homosexual behavior is abomination is hate. I don't have to hate someone to know that what he/she is doing is wrong. Do you?

Gay Marriage
I am somewhat amused (and frightened) by the Gay Marriage debate. In the first place, what gives us the right to "redefine" an institution that was clearly and historically defined for literally thousands of years before the United States even existed?

What a surprise!
I left California after 60 years and I thought it was Pelosi, Feinstien and Boxer that drove me out. How silly ! Newsome and his gay-friendly, sanctuary city reminds me there is much more. I was born and raised in so-cal and I'm old enough to remember when it was a great place to live. I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes but I don't want anyone telling my kids It's an acceptable lifestyle. It's not!!

The Equality Myth
When it comes to humans, there is no such thing as true equality. Comparing the general homosexual lifestyle to the heterosexual lifestyle is the same as comparing apples to bologna: They are not equal, and no law can make them equal. The bigot will label those of us opposed to "gay marriage" rights as homophobes, but I'm convinced they're afraid of the truth. Homosexuality is ultimately death to societies, as fiat is ultimately death to economies.

homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal.

NEWSOM IS GAY
I can't help but believe this guy is bi and an extremely disturbed one at that.

I voted absentee YES on Prop 8.


Wake Up, America, or Die in Your Sleep!!
The so-called "victims" of America's assumed current racism are making an effort to rise up and gain restitution via the presidency of BHO. Blacks see this as racial warfare, while whites are so absorbed with pc'ness and the fairy tale of the first black pres that they have blinded themselves to the DANGERS OF A TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST OBAMA REGIME.

This is why John McCain is a patent fool, an idiot as it relates to this campaign, for taking Jeremiah Wright off the table; those tapes show the racial warfare mindset of Obama and his followers. I'm tired of McCain's f..'n mindless "respectful campaign." If he wants to sell himself out because of the Senate Club civility, fine, but he does not have the right to sell out the rest of us. I thought this guy was going to to fight for "blessed America" and instead he is, I believe, worrying about his image as an "elder statesman" in the Senate if he loses. He was a hero, but he is showing a sickening level of cowardice in this election. McCain was willing to fight dirty to get the nomination (ask Mitt Romney), now he thinks he's at a tea party.

We're going to have to drag McCain over the finish line.

Wake up, America, or die in your sleep!!

california
The best view of calif is in your rear-view mirror.

Been gone 20 years and glad of it.

Hmmmm
I think Californication, especially San Francisco, should be left alone to their own devices....remove all federal funds from this seething pit of decadence...let all the normal folks move away....this is nothing more than a modern Sodom. It deserves to be ridiculed and left to suffer from it's own devices.
San Francisco is a blight on the face of America. Let it rot..let Newsome rule over his Gay world...fools !

God and the left
God cares not that you believe in him. He only cares that you believe in his people. That together we can over come all the evil that stands in the way of the Freedom he wants for all. HE HAS NO EGO.
If you believe in Jesus as Lord then you believe God is in all mankind. Treat your fellow man as you would treat God. That is what Life should be about.
The left's problem is they want socialistic utopia without God. Human nature won't allow that. Force will be nessasary. An so utopia lost

Why San Fran is so Gay
You can blame the good old USA for this one. It turns out that during WWII and through the Korean War the Us Navy discharged all found to be gay members in you got it San Fran.
These men at the time could not go back home for odvious reasons so they set up shop. So to speak. Once a foot hold was established more came to seek a sort of asylim.
And so the story goes of why or how San FRan became so Gay oriented. Look at the records it's all there.

Other life styles
After gay marriage is legal and acceptable everywhere, why limit marriage? How about marrying one's mother or father or sister or brother or several people at once or cat or dog?

Allow an official "Union of Homosexuals" so that gays can participate in the financial advantages of marriage, but don't further degrade the thousands-of-years-old institution of marriage.

It ain't a marriage


Words have meaning, and different words describe items or actions that are similar, but different.

They have already screwed up the usage of words like Qu*er and Gay, now go find your own word for two homosexuals who are committed to each other, love each other, and have performed a ceremony to advertise that union.

For example the word “Gay” is no longer useful in polite conversation between normal people, by that I mean people who do not have a certain birth defect.

That new word would also apply to any two or more people of whatever sex or relationship, who wish to live together, or at least be in constant association with each other, including the right to control healthcare, and inherit goods when death occurs, and other such things.

The dictionary says the following, so get your own words, and leave these alone.

Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife

Husband: a man joined in marriage to a woman

Wife: a woman joined in marriage to a man

If two men say they are married to each other, do they have a marriage? Answer No.

Two families pay money each month to live in a house, is it the same? No, one pays rent, the other pays a mortgage.

Two wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a bike, the other a motorcycle.

Two multi-wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a car, the other is a truck.

If a man and a woman are married to each other, do you have a marriage? Yes, of course.


To Ben is Right
Perhaps I should just take out that revolver that I played Russian Roulette with last year ... and just finally do myself in. People I did not ask to be gay. You people are not afraid of homosexuals you just hate homosexuals, therefore, you aren't homophobic.........you are just hate-filled.

Check out what happened in Massachusetts
in 2005. Do what you want in your bedroom. This is not a teacher's responsibility.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

Parents gave their consent
but we don't know if they were given all the facts. The permission to participate in the wedding may not have given details like "my new 'husband' is another woman". Don't assume that everything was disclosed as it should be.

And yes, as someone pointed out, Charter Schools operate with tax dollars. Teachers don't even have time during the day to teach all they need to, let alone waste time watching and participating in a perverted ritual.

I agree with Pat. Why isn't that scumbag Newsome arrested? Because he's mayor? And the Sec. of State in Ohio? And the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie? Is it because they have a good income and "celebrity" status instead of being Joe Blow the plumber?

Americans had better wake up! We have foresaken God. If B. Hussein Obama is elected, we will become a Marxist totalitarian nation.

Swampfox
People who don't approve of homosexuality aren't filled with hate! Where do you come up with that? We don't approve of homosexuality (sodomy) because we are God fearing people and God condemns it right along with lying, stealing and murdering. Read for yourself what His word says about it. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their lifestyles.

Parental rights/Solutions
If the parents were fully informed and consented, they have the right to allow their children to attend a homosexual "wedding" as much as I am opposed to it.

The real question is whether attendance of any wedding is a valid field trip for any school.

It is an extreme example of how modern Americans of all political and ideological views have bought into the socialization lie.

It's time we started seriously questioning what method of socializing children is best and why on earth most Americans are passively relying on government schools to accomplish that for their children.

Even parents who don't send the children to government schools for socialization delude themselves into believing schools are only for academics. This is simply not true. No matter how much you think schools SHOULD teach only academics, the fact is they socially engineer secular values.

If you are not comfortable with that, you will have to pull your children out and find an environment that suits you and (GASP!) pay for it yourself.

Stupid Hemale whores


enrightone Location: FL
Reply # 30
Date: Oct 15, 2008 - 11:14 AM EST
Subject: Why San Fran is so Gay
You can blame the good old USA for this one. It turns out that during WWII and through the Korean War the Us Navy discharged all found to be gay members in you got it San Fran.
-----------------

I was in the Merchant Marine in the mid-1940’s and sailed out of Que*ertown.

There was no doubt that the fact the Navy men spend a lot of time with no ladies around, so found another way to satisfy their “wants.”

That doesn’t mean all, or many Navy men went that way, but some did, just as some otherwise reasonable people from any trade, does it, just for fun and just to be difference. But isn’t it interesting to note that these men were not born with the famous birth defect, they learned how to do it with no instruction.

But why do we need to know about it. I would assume the neighbor couple have sex, I see the children, but that is the only thing I know about their sex-life.

Why do I need to know more about the sex-life of a bunch of sick people, who were born with a birth defect, than I know of my neighbor’s.

Just do what you like, but don’t tell me about it. During my working years in the Computer Business, I visited Frisco 100’s of times, and got very tired of the Homo Whores bothering me on the street. I will admit I never said yes to the Ladies of the Street, but they were much nicer than the hemale whores.

Do was you want, but why must we know?


TC
"SURE IT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED, GEMINIGUY."

Sad butt true. Just look @ swampfox.

Yes on Prop 8 signs
Support of proposition 8 has nothing to do with hate. Let's talk about hate. There has been an organized effort here in California to silence those in favor of prop 8. Currently the tactic is to sneak around in the dark of night and steal and/or destroy Yes on 8 signs off personal property. This has been an issue here in the Fresno / Clovis area. Since Friday, hundreds of signs have turned up missing. Those against prop 8 are not in favor of freedom of expression, or should I say unless it is in THEIR favor. I have many friends who are gay. I do not hate them. We both agree to disagree on the morality of homosexuality. Two of them have told me that they have been approached by local gay rights organizations that tried to recruit them to remove signs of the yards of "scum christians." Who harbors hate?

Learned behavior
I agree with the person who said that homosexuality was a learned behavior.
I am definitely voting YES.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8

STOP THE IMMORALITY.

What I believe
I am a 66 year old, Roman Catholic, white, married (45+ years) wife and mother. I believe:
In marriage between a man and a woman
Homosexuality is an mental issue - people aren't born that way
Children should not be exposed sexual deviancy and other adult "bravo sierra."
I'm not obligated to anyone for what happened in years past
God is alive and well, Che is long dead - deal with it!
God bless all of us, even the idiots among us!

marriage is one man and one woman
Maggie Gallagher is right on the mark in this column. Yes on Prop 8 preserves marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- as it has been in history and as it benefits society. It has no effect on the domestic partnership laws in California. But the ramifications of having same-sex marriage (made possible by a - 4 judges in favor, 3 judges opposed - state Supreme Court decision 20 weeks ago) are broad and deep -- silencing churches, forcing issues in education, speech made unlawful. Vote yes on Proposition 8.
Cal

Thank God my children are all grown
I am a 60 year old Christian and have 4 grown children. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. I think God every day that my children are all grown and can make up their own minds about things that are going on and laws that are being written these days. I have no problem with Gays being allowed rights that their partners want to bestow on them, but when it comes to them wanting to get married to accomplish that, I'm totally against it. I'm also against the fact that they are trying to push their own agenda and force their choices on straight people. If my children were still in school and I found out that they had been bused to a lesbian marriage of their teacher or anyone elses teacher, I would withdraw my children from that school so fast, it would make your head spin. What they are trying to push on us is no different than what Obama's campaign is trying to do with the election and that is give the American people the idea that he would some how be good for us. Like Pat said, God bless all of us, even the idiots among us!

Spending tax dollars
I see no difference between spending tax dollars to take children to a same-sex wedding and taking them to an opposite-sex wedding. Both are legal in California--and I'm proud of my state for it, and hope voters uphold that legality in November.

And I know the idea of same-sex marriage is hard for a lot of people to wrap their minds around, and those who think homosexuality is immoral will never accept it. All I can hope is that more and more people come to recognize that being gay is no less (or more) moral than being straight, and that yes, gay people can and do form committed unions, which deserve the same legal recognition as straight ones. But that will not keep any opposite-sex couples from being married, not require churches to perform gay weddings, and, well, if you're worried about "supporters of traditional marriage" (read: people who would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples) being characterized as bigots...maybe someday most of them will realize that such opposition is bigoted, just as today the majority of people recognize that opposition to interracial marriage is bigoted.

Mental issue?
Sorry, Pat, it is not a mental issue ....... unless YOU want to make it a mental issue. I have been on these boards before and told my story. Obviously, there is a whole new crop of posters on this board that don't know what I put myself through for over 30 years. And, what caused my bout with major depression last year, near suicide and hospitalization for 17 days. I just continue to see so much ignorance about homosexuality posted on this and other boards it astounds me. Do you think that someone would choose to be gay? When I got out of the hospital in June of 2007, I was convinced not to be in denial and in the closet anymore. Now I just have to get on with the rest of my life.

Thank God my children are all grown
I am a 60 year old Christian and have 4 grown children. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. I think God every day that my children are all grown and can make up their own minds about things that are going on and laws that are being written these days. I have no problem with Gays being allowed rights that their partners want to bestow on them, but when it comes to them wanting to get married to accomplish that, I'm totally against it. I'm also against the fact that they are trying to push their own agenda and force their choices on straight people. If my children were still in school and I found out that they had been bused to a lesbian marriage of their teacher or anyone elses teacher, I would withdraw my children from that school so fast, it would make your head spin. What they are trying to push on us is no different than what Obama's campaign is trying to do with the election and that is give the American people the idea that he would some how be good for us. Like Pat said, God bless all of us, even the idiots among us!

10 years of indoctrination
Indoctrination into homosexuality has been going on for several years in this state's public schools. Actually, just this last year, the legislature outlawed any contrary views with SB777. Schwarzenegger signed it into law.

Have you ever actually read the book "Heather has two mommies"? It's not about tolerance. It shows the lesbian being artificially inseminated.

Sickening. Parents are just finding out now that their kids have been brainwashed. Get your kids out of public school now!!!

Swampfox,
we are sorry for your pain, but what probably would do you the most good would be to delve back into your life's history, think about who "exposed" and indoctrinated you into this lifestyle and maybe accept some personal responsibility for your own behavior. It is a choice you made, it's not a defect. God does not condemn people born with defects.

GEMINIGUY,GLEN,OTHERS

It's sick out there and getting sicker.

The entertainment industry loves the homosexual life style. Also, the indoctrination (as Glen pointed out) in the public school system and the acceptance by the MSM of the Gay lifestyle.

And speaking of the media, our left-wing, liberal, local newspaper once again ran the Matthew Shepard story. It's a story they just can't run enough, apparently.

Now the torture and murder of young boy by two homosexuals, however, is a story you'll never hear about. That's the way the MSM likes to provide you with news.

Not very honest or straight is it?


this old argument?
"After gay marriage is legal and acceptable everywhere, why limit marriage? How about marrying one's mother or father or sister or brother or several people at once or cat or dog?"

The ever scary slippery slope. Well, we can dispense with the dog and cat and rock and whatever else right off for the absurdity that it is. But let's talk about the immediate family argument. And I do mean immediate since it is legal to marry your first cousin in many states. I think that the onus falls on the person trying to establish restrictions. So I ask TH posters, why should family members, if they've reached the age of consent, not be able to marry? (And because its gross is not an argument.)

Perhaps there should be limits on marriage, but you can't just say, "either limit it the way I want or why should there be any limits?" Its like saying, "if we allow people to own assault rifles then we'll have let them own nuclear bombs?"

homosexuality as a choice
For the many posters that have stated their belief that homosexuality is a choice. Can you present one piece of evidence to back up that belief?

To Matlock
Matlock, do you really think that a gay person wakes up one day and says, whoopee, I am gay. I don't know one gay person that hasn't reflected upon when or why they might be gay. I tired of theories, studies ............ I have read them all in the last 30 or so years. As for condemning my behavior, I am still a virgin. If you want to go after some people for their behavior, I would suggest you go after the fifty percent divorce rate of heterosexuals and 30% or so of children now born out of wedlock.

Re: Good Grief!!!!
This is the most SP motivated move I have ever seen and this is a total screw up by the school officials, they should be reprimanded for that brainwashing crap!! Those were first graders!!
Good Grief!!

beyond the marriage argument
is that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate children in beliefs that are an anathema to their parents.

if certain religious parents really believe that a behavior will lead to eternal damnation you can not ask them to support something that will lead to their children being led into sin.

and if people were honest about this they would admit that if "gay marriage" is given legal status it will be taught in schools -- it's already happening in MA.

If you open up the definition of
marriage to more than a man and a woman you can not realistically limit it for other consenting adults meaning relatives should be able to marry as well as polygamy.

this is just logical there is no justification to deny these people either if you take the religious or tradition arguments out of the equation. polygamy makes more sense than gays marrying because that has been a common practice worldwide.

MikeH
Everybody has various desires. Desires don't justify anything. I've got plenty of desires to do things that I wouldn't want legalized. So stop with the stupid "they're just born that way" stuff. It doesn't matter.

The union of a man and a woman is the cause of a child. That's true for everyone posting here.

Marrying your sister or close relative causes grave defects in the resulting children. This has always been known and forbidden everywhere - it's called consanguinity ("same blood").

MikeH: you said marrying a cat or dog can be excluded as absurd. Yes, I agree. But a man marrying a man is JUST AS ABSURD.

Vomit out the koolaid.

Vote YES on Prop 8 because of what men, women and children ARE. Man+Woman=Child. Marriage is the promise to take care of the resulting children.

Also Vote Yes on Prop 8 to PUNISH THE ARROGANT SUPREME COURT that had the nerve to overturn a Prop (22) and then start bossing the State around. The supreme court's ruling was a DIRECT ATTACK on the Government by the People.

You want proof it's a choice? Okay. I made the choice. What are you saying? We aren't free?

Some people do suffer with same sex attraction. It responds to counselling like any other problem: one third healed, one third better, one third no effect. Thay have problem desires like the rest of us. It doesn't mean that you have to undefine Man/Woman/Child.

This Nonsense Is Nationwide
New 8th Grade English Textbooks Now Contain 15 Page Section on Obama
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/unreal-new-8th-gr ade-english-textbooks.html

We also saw O'Reilly speaking with two "educators" who were there to defend, get this, William Ayers.

I guess there might be something to this Russian defectors warning;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVZ4Lkm6JQw

America: 7/4/1776 - 1/19/2009
It's time to move to Texas and secede from the Union.

A revealing and frightening "Obama Timeline" at:
http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

"What Obama would do..." at:
http://www.colony14.net/id35.html

Evidence
Mike H...it's a choice because God made man and He said it was an abomination. He did not make people homosexuals. You have no proof that it isn't a choice! Oh, yeah...some trumped up psuedo-science.

You are grossly mistaken if you think it is not an acquired sexual habit developed sometimes because of slow indoctrination and sometimes out of sexual "necessity or desire" like several pointed out with men in the navy.

Furthermore...if you'll look at the statistics, the number seems to be increasing year by year. Why? Are all our babies born defective these days? No! It's because of our tolerant, lascivious, immoral culture that permits just about any deviant behavior.

As for the argument about people marrying anybody, anything...why bother with marriage at all? God instituted marriage, don't make a farce of it and mock His ways, His institutions.

Swampfox
The vast majority of people do not hate homosexuals. However that does not mean that they endorse, celebrate, or encourage homosexuality.

Monogamy is not the natural state for many men but we do not endorse, celebrate, or encourage adultery.

Likewise, pedophiles really are sexually attracted to prepubescent children that doesn't mean we should endorse, celebrate, or encourage this behavior.

Whether nature or nurture the world is full of people with sexual urges that society does not endorse, celebrate, or encourage.

You should live your life the way that you believe is spiritually and emotionally best for you but to suggest that others must teach their children about your or anyone else's lifestyle or feelings is not reasonable.

Kids go through confusing
Kids go through confusing times. Remember the "girl germs" in the school playground? I remember things in my own life that could look pretty weird. I'm glad nobody exposed me to those lifestyles when I was young. It would have made me wonder. To send kids the wrong image is just merciless. I is sheer cruelty.

Do you want your boy or your neighbor's boy to
get AIDS? What about Gay Bowel Syndrome? It would be kinder to give them a cigarette, than to suggest they may have to be true to some homosexual tendencies.

The onus of proof
The onus of proof is not on the Traditional marriage advocates. The precedent is decidely in our favor. I think for the Supreme Court to overturn precedent should require better than a simple majority.

Oh, and MikeH, first cousins are not immediate family. They are extended family. Most places outlaw marriage within two degrees of consanguinity (whatever that exactly means). So stop jumbling your absurdity terms about cats dogs and cousins so carelessly.

Goodbye all
Goodbye all. I am written so much on this subject at Townhall, I am just burnt out on trying to get those that don't understand to understand.

By the way Don, you don't know your Texas history. After the War Between the States the United States Supreme Court ruled that states did not have the right to leave the Union in the famous case Texas v. White (1866). Too bad the court didn't rule on this issue before the war began and all those lives could have been saved.



Russian defector
Chris...I haven't had time to check out the Russian defector site, but I need to share this after all these years, especially now.

Years ago right after WWII, my mother attended a series of lectures designed to educate people about the threat of Communism. After each lecture she would tell my sisters and me what she learned. She said the Communists planned to put people in key positions and when the time was right, they would take over our country.

In my childish ignorance I imagined the police, the military, the utilities companies, etc. and one day we would wake up and find armed men patrolling our streets and we'd be communist.

As the years have gone by, I see they are doing just what was predicted. They have placed people in our schools and universities for indoctrinating our young; they have placed people in our courts to strip away our rights; they have people in the media to slant and censor the news; they have people in our Congress; they have taken over the Democratic Party and almost taken over the GOP; they now have a foot in our financial system with the nationalization of our big banks. Last, but just as important...we now have the dubious distinction of voting for a Marxist president.

She also said they use "front" organizations to hide their subversive, anti-American activities by naming them something benign and inspiring like The American Civil Liberties Union, ACORN, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc. Some leaders know what the agenda is, while others are ignorant dupes...or more appropriately dopes.

We had better vote right or this is the end of the good old USA!

Proud Lib writes:
All I can hope is that more and more people come to recognize that being gay is no less (or more) moral than being straight, and that yes,

No, more and more people need to realize that homosexual activity is against God's law and therefore should be against man's law.

Either we are a moral nation or become a cesspool of sin.

to Swampfox
You ask "Do people just wake up and say Oh I'm Gay". Maybe sometimes, but more often these days they've been seduced into it by friends and brainwashing schools.

Homosexuality has at least some causes. My own experience is with my cousins, who had a smotheringly loving mother and a weak father. That's a common cause.

Another man I knew (used to visit him after he got AIDS) had been married and had a little girl. His business buddies got him into homosexual practices. He told me that what he did repulsed him, and he didn't know why he got into it. Now he's dead, and his girl fatherless. Why would we want to even consider promoting this behavior among defenseless kids.

People - get your kids out of public school NOW. Homeschool starting tomorrow.

Oh, heck one more time
Glen, where do you get your misinformation. Marrying your first cousin is permitted in a 21 of our fifty states. And, those that are married in other states that allow such marriages do have their marriages recognized in states that do not allow them. Now would like to discuss the Biblical story of Lot and his incestuous relationship with his two daughters that resulted in children?

Goodbye Swampfox
Thanks so much for your patience with all of us stupid babies down here. I guess we couldn't absorb your so high thoughts. Marriage is written in our human sexuality. Not asexuality. Not homosexuality. Wake up to reality and start defending it against the kultural revolution.

"Change" = hatred of what is.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.


Swampfox? You still here?
"One more time" hey? How gracious of you. How benevolent.

Where do I get what information? You mean that first cousins are not immediate family? To be honest, I didn't even look it up. I remember it from watching the Waltons, and from vocabulary in elementary school. Immediate family = brothers and sisters.


Now, you fox you, (not being mean, but that's your name) I didn't say First cousins couldn't marry. I am not a lawyer. Frankly, I doubt the law is framed in terms of "cousins" at all, but in terms of degrees of consanguinity. Where do you get your information?

Why would I want to discuss Lot, who's daughters plied him with drink once (and didn't claim to be marrying him)?

Sorry, NACN, but that is not true
"Lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence at the hands of their partners.

Homosexuals have greater incidences of alcoholism, drug abuse, and various mental disorders. They live shorter lives, which would leave their children without a parent."

Sorry, but those claims are the products of either discredited studies or studies taken out of context to generalize.

For example there was an article in Nursing Research that looked at 35 women who had a problem with alcohol abuse. The article was taken out of context to generalize about lesbians in general, DESPITE the fact that the author of the study/article (Professor Joanne Hall) went on record disputing the misuse of her work.




Don, Swampfox
Don, I looked at your "What Obama Would Do" list, and gee, I think most of his ideas are darn good, and they likely will not have the unintended consequences you predict. I don't imagine he'll be able to accomplish all he wants to, but his vision for this country is so much better than McCain's (or G.W. Bush's!), there's no comparison.

And Swampfox, I mourn the bloodshed of the Civil War, a period of history I've studied extensively--but if it hadn't happened, slavery would have lasted a hell of a lot longer.

San FranGloryHole
I remember when San Francisco was a place where families would visit on cloudless, sunny days. Mothers and daughters would window shop while fathers and sons relaxed on a park bench. Dinner at one of the many fine restaurants was an excitedly anticipated treat at the end of the day.

Now, thanks to liberals, those days are long gone. San Francisco has become a sanctuary for the homeless with their attendant stink, lice and aggressive panhandling. Gangs of illegal aliens prowl the alleys looking to savage anyone within view. The wonderful smells that emanated from the restaurants and bakeries are gone, replaced by the ubiquitous smell of urine and feces. Topping off the whole deviant, sick society that is San Francisco is the homosexual community with their anonymous sex, bath houses and glory-holes.

That some parents applaud this behavior by allowing their young children to attend a lesbian wedding speaks to the weird liberal mentality that has infected and destroyed this once beautiful American city.

The fact that the San Francisco School Board and the NEA approve of lesbian teachers indoctrinating six-year-old children in the ways of the homosexual death style, should be a three alarm wake-up call to the few normal families left in this pitiful city.

To Glen
To quote you, "Marrying your sister or close relative causes grave defects in the resulting children. This has always been known and forbidden everywhere - it's called consanguinity ("same blood")." I took it upon myself to bring up the subject of first cousins. I would certainly consider first cousins to be close relatives.

As for the subject of Lot and his daughters. I wonder if his daughters were able to write their account of what happened.

Bobaz
I heartily agree with you. Anybody who has been following the CA legislature the last 10 years knows that Public Education has been hijacked by the homosexual indoctrination camp. Every year there have been homosexual eduactaion encroachement bills signed into law by Davis or Schwarzenegger. They'll veto some (like Harvey Milk day, that Arnold just vetoed) but they'll sign others (like the horrific SB777 just signed this year).

Wake up people. This isn't just about a one-time field trip to a freak "wedding". This is systematic and endemic from K-12.

I joined the Campaign For California Families ten years ago and have watched the slow train wreck of California. For anybody to deny this is willfully happening to school kids is preposterous.

For the CCF, see here:
http://www.savecalifornia.com

To Swampfox
Thanks for quoting the exact source of your objection.

Yes, I agree. The degree to which consanguinity is forbidden varies from place to place. My assertion was perhaps over broad - but you will agree that sister and brother marriage (including half-sister etc) is forbidden throughout the 50 states (or 57 for Obama)?

The point is that every state forbids to some degree of consangunity. The reason is that which I said, and it has always been the same everywhere. That is, the same reason, not the same degree of consanguinity. The closer the consanguinity, the greater the risk. That is known throughout the world and its history. AND THAT IS WHY CONSANGUINITY IS LIMITED: BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS ABOUT THE CHILDREN. That is my point, and it is proven.

Regarding the detail about the degree of consanguinity, until you prove that some states have legal license for first cousions, I have my doubts. But if true it doesn't weaken my argument. CONSANGUINITY IS LIMITED IN MARRIAGE TO AVOID GROSS BIRTH DEFECTS. Marriage is about having children.

Your bringing up Lot was just over the top. Why do you wonder about whose account it was? It probably was the girls' account, passed on orally to their kids. After all, they raised their kids, while Lot probably died of old age. Who cares?

Why do you have to bring up religion, anyway? Do you think that because David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and then had her husband killed, that Jews and Christians are bound to legalize adultery and murder? It's an account of a horrible crime. The story of Lot is an account of incest. Human history is rife with ghastly events. You think Jews and Christians are supposed to advocate the recreation of the outrage at Gibeah?

I'm sorry, but you bringing up Lot and then asking whose account it was is just silly.

To Glen
The marriage of first cousins only increases the incidence of birth defeats to the level of a woman over the age of 40 having a child of birth defects. Here is a website that will give the current laws in our 50 states:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm

As for half-brothers and half-sisters marrying, you may not believe it, but genetically it would be same as marrying your first cousin.

If marriage is only about having children, shouldn't people who can't have children be banned from being married?







Liberalism
The ideology which so many leftists adhere to these days is nothing more or less than fascism. Everything they support gets shoved down our throats "whether we like it or not." Does anyone think that conservatives could do such a thing and get away with it? Arrogance is certainly an accurate descriptor concerning these people. To them, conservatism is a sadly mistaken ideology which they keep around to maintain the fig-leaf of democracy so that their fascist strangle-hold on America isn't blatantly revealed for all to see.

To Ivan the Kafir
If being homosexual was a choice, shouldn't it then be the right of the individual to choose?

To Swampfox
That's a nice summary, Swampfox. Thanks.

Marriage is about sex, which is inherently about children because it brings about the possibility of children. That's why the destruction of marriage has followed on the heels of the sexual revolution.

As for people who "can't have children", they can still be open to children. It is that openess that is a prerequisite of marriage. You brought up the Bible. Look at Sarah and Abraham. They "couldn't" have children. Just after we maried, my wife was told she would have difficulty conceiving. Ha! Every child has the right to be the result of a loving act between a man and a woman. You had a mom and a dad, even if one or both abandoned you. If they did so, they violated your natural right to them, as the product of their bodies (and ideally their love).

I read some earlier posts, and noticed that you have homosexual tendencies (unless I'm mistaken). My condolences. It is not an easy cross to bear, especially with the modern temptations. I also have things in my life I don't like. I urge you to bear this cross chastely, but if you do want children, marry someone of the opposite sex. If you're a male attracted to masculinity, then maybe marry a more masculine woman. But don't create kids in test tubes and freeze/kill most of them just to have things your own way. I say that to the straight people as well.

Gotta go.

To Swampfox
Oh, and I wanted to add that my argument is still valid unless you can show that first cousins can have children without problems for generation after generation and that sisters and brothers can do so as well.

Now I'm gone.

To Glen
My denial of my sexuality nearly cost me my life. As for me marrying a woman who is masculine ...... you really just don't understand the nature of homosexuality.

If you want to get an in depth discussion of genetics and human genetic problems should I bring up the subject of eugenics? Should the government be in the business of eradication of genetic disorder?


No rules...
is the trend we have today. The politically correct version is that there is no such thing as immorality. Indoctrination has changed the trend. In the past homosexuality was wrong and now it is supposed to be considered normal. As far as I am concerned it is wrong wrong wrong.

To Blanco
To me there are rules. Commit yourself to the one that you love whether or not the government recognizes your commitment. Where is your strong condemnation of the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals or the soaring out-of-wedlock rate among heterosexuals?

FOR ME, A CHOICE; LIFE IS CHOICE
to Mike H of MD -- It's a choice for me. I've been there. With a strong mother/son relationship and an absent father I was "naturally" distanced from all men around me. So the feelings were there from an early age. But even then I knew right from wrong. I did not have any experiences until I was an adult working to find myself. Those were choices. And I learned from them. I have lived the "lifestyle", lived with a man with whom I had full sexual relations. That was a choice. I have lived the "lie" pretending to be straight while secretly encountering men in parks and sex shops and on line. Thought a compulsion, that was also a choice. And I have also been through several attempts at reparative therapy. My choice again. Some therepists helped a little, meant well. One recently laughed me out of his office to scorn because in the view typical view of psychiatry nowadays ssa or homosexuality is no longer seen as a malady or situation to be corrected. But it was my choice and I learned from that, too. I came out to my family. That was my choice. Ultimately, I chose marriage. To a wonderful longsuffering woman and we now have 3 fantastic, challenging kids. I am not cured, I still bear under those ssa feelings. So it is an everyday choice, for me. Every day I get up and say, can I do this one more day? And every day I pray and find that, yes, I can choose to go on. Sometimes when i want to say, "Look, I have urges. I can't help it. I'm different, so i should be excused." But then I think of my kids, of your kids. I don't want my daughter or my sons to go through this. And lest anyone here misapprehend my meaning, the hardship in my life is NOT the result of cruel judgmental parents, or societies unwillingness to accept me as I am.


FOR ME, A CHOICE; LIFE IS CHOICE
Part II

So, no. The hardship comes from the plain and simple truth that acting out on homosexual urges draws from and feeds a terrible myth, a lie, a false truth in an effort to achieve real fulfillment. There is a deep, real need in each of us to be loved and to be completed by connection with another. There is nothing wrong about that need. The falsehood comes from the idea that it can be achieved by borrowing or stealing virtue. Yet it destroys virtue and perpetuates the problem need. Even if a person gets into homoerotic behavior on a lark or experimentally. The very acts and thinking that goes with them destroys virtue and creates or increases this inner need.

I still don't know the answer to this growing epidemic. Nonetheless there is one thing from my experience in this area that I do know:

Life is choice and so is this.

globule
God Bless you....and I hope that the choices you have made with your own free will...will continue to be a step towards the light.

Btw, their are wonderful books written by Joe Dallas (ex-gay...now born again Christian author/speaker) who you may have heard of. I think many of the books he has written can be found at http://www.equip.org.

God Bless

McCAIN, PROP H8 BOTH FAIL
Opposition to Prop. 8 up to 55%, poll shows

By John Marelius
STAFF WRITER SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE

September 18, 2008

California voter opposition to a ban on same-sex marriages has grown over the past two months and is now a solid majority, according to a new Field Poll.

The nonpartisan poll of voters likely to cast ballots in the Nov. 4 election shows 55 percent opposing Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would reinstate a ban on same-sex marriages, to 38 percent in favor. Only 7 percent were undecided.

And after California is defeated, we'll take it to every other state.


Priceless.

.

Choice or no choice
If we except these morals, then some will profit and most will suffer. There is no free lunch. Europeans may giggle at us kicking out gay members of the military, but then again, when was the last time Europe fielded any sort of army? WW2 comes to mind.
Europeans have embraced gays, while watching their birth rates plummet to well below sustainable levels, coincidences? Family law practices support gay marriage, while gay marriage rates makes hetero divorce rates look good, again coincidence? Gay rights groups sue for access to children, yet gays represent a disproportional number pedophile cases. Why?
Gays claim they are born "that way", but have not a shred of evidence to support their argument. Why?
Why do voters except these arguments, or do they? Which would explain why judges and courts have implemented been required to implement them?

Devaluation of San Francisco Values
As a secondary thought. Is Liberalism, Communism and Socialism just a way for their members to cast any and all responsibility for their immoral and corrupt acts. It seems to me that criminals, just as an example, would feel more secure in committing crimes if there appears to be not penalty - or for that matter - weak or non-existent law enforcement.

So, to extrapolate, it could explain why the population of agnostics and atheist have increased. It would also explain why so many have found roosting space in the far left enclaves. After all, if you can convince yourself that there is no punishment in the afterlife then anything and anyone becomes doable . . . all without that troublesome guilt part. Without guilt one can enjoy the modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorrah just that much more.

After all guilt really takes the edge out of thoroughly enjoying ones personal depravities. Not having any guilt also greatly expands ones boundaries and latitudes for any opportunities or endeavor. Just ask serial killer, necrophiliac, cannibal and psychopath Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer if he experienced any feeling of guilt.

Lastly, what comes to mind is that classic line in the movie The Usual Suspects where Verbal says "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone." San Francisco fell for the trick and seems convinced he indeed does not exist.

Are we all EQUAL or not?
It is real simple people. Either you believe everyone is entitled to the same rights or not. Many argue that everyone has equal rights when it comes to marriage. Any man can marry any (of age for both of course) consenting woman he chooses. Gay men have the same right. They can marry any consenting woman they choose. Women can marry any (of age of course) consenting man she wants. Gay women have the same right to marry any guy they want. So everything is equal right? Wrong, the idea is not that all men are created equal and all women are created equal. The heart and soul of America rests on our belief that EVERYONE, men and women, are created equal and have the same rights. You can not give certain rights only to men. Nor can you deny men a right that women have. So if a man has the right to marry a woman, then women should also have that right. If women can marry men, then men should have the same right.

The author mentions a study that she says shows children raised in same-sex households are basically doomed. Like 99% of people who make such claims to scientific evidence of their point of view, the author provides no link or even the name of the study or who performed it. So in the interest of education allow me to provide you with a link to some actual scientific studies on this issue.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html

Single and loving it
"Marriage is a publicly affirmed status -- a shared social ideal -- not just a private act."

"When the government says gay unions are the ideal..."

Ideal? Status? It is a business partnership, plain and simple, and it is not the role of government to be telling us that getting married is "ideal."

Let the gays marry. They have just as much right to be miserable as the others.

I love a man in uniform
Alex: "Europeans may giggle at us kicking out gay members of the military, but then again, when was the last time Europe fielded any sort of army? WW2 comes to mind."

Yeah, it comes to my mind, too. The Germans had a pretty good army.

Also remember what Barry Goldwater said: "You don't have to be straight, just shoot straight."

Closets are for gowns, darling
Globule: "Even if a person gets into homoerotic behavior on a lark or experimentally..."

I have never even entertained the notion of engaging in gay sex in any of my larks, and that's because I am straight. It's not a choice: I just am, and anyone who entertains such a notion is gay. Just learn to accept and love yourself as you are.

"I have lived the "lie" pretending to be straight while secretly encountering men in parks and sex shops and on line."

This self-hating behavior is the result of being closeted. Healthy affirmed gay men don't do this.

"...the hardship in my life is NOT the result of cruel judgmental parents, or societies unwillingness to accept me as I am. "

It's YOUR unwillingness to accept you as you are.

Where do you come up with this stuff?
Glen: "If you're a male attracted to masculinity, then maybe marry a more masculine woman."

I think that would be the last thing on Earth a gay guy would get attracted to.

"...more often these days they've been seduced into it by friends and brainwashing schools. Another man I knew had been married and had a little girl. His business buddies got him into homosexual practices. He told me that what he did repulsed him, and he didn't know why he got into it."

There is no way a straight person would be "seduced" into this. I know, because I am straight. You could parade Halle Barry, Nicole Kidman and Lucy Liu naked all around me, and it wouldn't work.

Glen
You are a prime example of why popular vote cannot determine what is to happen to gay people in common life.
You reiterate the worst, most limited information and stereotype.

YOU lecture the one or few gay people who are on this thread as IF you know more about being gay or gay people than a gay person!
WTF?!

If you were a white man, would you lecture a black man that YOU know more about being black, living as a black person or racism than a black person?
I think not.

Yet, you have the arrogance to repeat TO a gay person, all the contradictory and distorted stereotypes you can muster.

As if swampfox were the one who was ignorant or a liar and all the heterosexuals were the best informed and couldn't possibly have a traditional agenda they are holding onto?

You wouldn't appreciate the table being turned on YOU, would you?
What YOU expect a gay person to accept from YOU, you wouldn't tolerate for five seconds. I know it because this these articles on gay people bait you.
All. too. easily.

You don't question the veracity of the straight people, but the gay folks.

I'm a heterosexual woman. I'm a black woman who has experience being devalued as a person and knowledgable about my own experience.
You embarass me and yourself the way you talk about gay people, if you'd said the same stupid things about Jews and blacks, it would have been just as bad.
Gay people are NOT fair game because this is a behavior based issue. It's not.

Sexual orientation, yours or a gay person's is the SAME in context.
I wish for once, someone straight would admit they don't know, and let equal opportunity, rights and protection speak for itself.
If only so we ALL would REALLY know better.

so weird
Good questions, Caligula
Why is it that straight people think the way to change a gay person is:

A. To have sex with them.

B. To pretend God and Jesus (re celibacy) are a better substitute for a healthy, robust sex life.

When heterosexuals suffer from addictions, depression, relationship problems and sexual dysfunction, why isn't THEIR orientation blamed for it?

I work hard at making observations outside of my own box of heterosexuality.
And the stupid, contradictory, irrational, hypocritical and stereotypical beliefs and opinions (not facts necessarily) that the folks here at TH embarass me.
Seriously embarass and frustrate me, no end.

I guess I never wanted to believe people could be SO numb skulled on the subject. THIS subject especially.
Why...except to hang on pathetically to the hetero supremacy myth.

There IS no supremacy among us human beings. THAT is something everyone should know.


matlock
"it's a choice because God made man and He said it was an abomination. He did not make people homosexuals. You have no proof that it isn't a choice! Oh, yeah...some trumped up psuedo-science."

Thank you for proving my point. I asked for one piece of evidence and you were unable to provide that. And by "trumped up pseudo-science" I think you just mean "science."

Glen
"The onus of proof is not on the Traditional marriage advocates. The precedent is decidely in our favor."

I think you missed my point. Certainly I think that advocates for changing laws to allow same-sex marriage have to make an argument for doing so. My question dealt specifically with the slippery slope argument. Let me phrase it another way. We now define marriage as a union between

1. two people
2. of the opposite sex
3. not immediately related
4. of the age of consent

Now, if you are going to make the slippery slope argument, you have to have a reason why eliminating the restriction of number 2 above would necessarily lead to the elimination of the other three. The burden of proof always falls on the person making the argument.

p.s. note that there used to be another restriction in that definition - 5. of the same race.

Glen
I do understand that cousins are not immediate family. My original post may have not been clear on that.

the slipperiest slope of all
Is legislating gender and it's role in marriage and family. The assumption that heterosexuals make the 'best parents' loses, so does the argument that marriage is 'best' for those who intend to have children.
Any of us who are married, know FULL well, that intention of a child is not asked, nor required when obtaining a marriage license.

Nor is proof of fitness for parenthood a requirement of anyone other than foster or adopting parents.
Again, this is why you all lost in court, not the justices acting out of bounds of their powers.


The state never held any restrictions on parents in their endeavors to maximize their ability to provide for their child. Once you're doing it, how can or why should the state THEN LIMIT you?

Gallagher herself, with the title of HER BOOK, supports marriage for gay couples.

There is NO PROOF whatsoever, nor result, no evidence...that gay couples and parents won't ALSO benefit from marriage, and that their children won't ACCORDING to Gallagher.

It's patently crazy, to say one thing...then contradict your own words for a SINGLE group.
Not even CRIMINALS get that restriction in the law.

Come ON people!

so..tell me
the Yes on 8 campaign says it's all about 'protecting marriage, children and families.'
Well, already it's patently saying that the children of gay parents have less value and less options for THEIR stability and needs.

But will this amendment reduce domestic violence, divorce, child abuse and abandonment, poverty or addiction?
Are the serially divorced and remarried restricted, although they show a lack of skill in marriage and it's intent?

See? this amendment won't save marriage, won't save the redefinition where it matters, nor will ALL children have the security it represents, just some children.

Reminds me so much of the arguments during the Brown vs. Brd of Ed.

THEIR arguments were very similar. Segregationists were certain of the inferiority of their target and the destruction of their system of education.
Translation: God didn't intend that we GET ALONG, so let's teach kids early to be fearful and distrustful of one another.
Taking what you think of the adults out on their children.
And eventually, perhaps the gay child in your own family.

You haven't learned, and sadly, neither will they.

reply to du
I think it's clear that conservative arguments against gay marriage today parallel directly racist arguments against interrracial marriage. I assume conservatives are familiar with the history litigation on this issue, settled by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which overturned the last state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Arguments against interracial marriage, which were the basis of many state laws in this area throughout American history, as well as several proposals for a constitutional amendment to prohibit such marriages, generally took one of three forms (often mixed together by advocates).

1. Arguments from 'nature.' It was argued that in 'nature' there is no race-mixing, that animals mate and reproduce within their own species. This view assumes that differences between whites and blacks are like differences between species, say, between cats and dogs. There are plenty of anti-gay marriage arguments that work this way.

2. God. Many opponents of interracial marriage found Biblical justifications for their views. Such arguments are crucial for many opponents of gay marriage today.

3. Tradition. Traditionally, interrracial marriage had been forbidden in American states. On conservative grounds of respecting tradition, such prohibitions should be honored. Again, opponents of gay marriage frequently invoke this argument.

Needless to say, we liberals don't buy any of these arguments as applied to gay marriage any more than we bought them when made by opponents of interracial marriage.

hi Gestell!
The current dissent has even LESS weight than that of those presented against mixed marriage.


The main reason being that neither homosexuality, nor lack of or interest in procreation is limited by culture, indigenous quality or family structure.
Those voting against marriage equality or any other for gay people will inevitably have their own flesh and blood, a member of their own tribe to answer to.

And, the track record of according equal dignity and protection to suspect classes that otherwise didn't have it, is excellent. And religious doctrine used a political reform, doesn't.
Decent human beings care about those things. Who cares about marrying who they love, and securing their children if they have them through marriage. Engaging in the same rules of social cooperation and commitment.

It is an indecent human being that will forget or never learn the lessons of an ugly past, and try to extend them further. And who insists on feasting on what they want others to starve for and watch them without protest.

I can look a gay person in the face, and not phony up some rationale for thinking they don't require exactly what I do.
Can't say the same about the usual opponent.

Thanks for giving context to this thread. Another thing sorely lacking from the other side.


I betcha
No one will answer me on the point of why the children of gay parents are going to have LESS value in the eyes of the state Constitution. Since the opposition argued in court, the importance of marriage for children. The case is being contradicted here.

But this contradiction searingly points out EXACTLY that our society HAS valued some people's children over other's.
The posts that talk about the sanctity of ALL life, manage to squirm out of WHOSE life they REALLY meant.
Now we know. Children aren't really so innocent, depending on what kind of parents they have.
Kind of like those 'mongrel children' the segregationists spoke of.
It was THOSE children they wanted to deny equal protection under the law.

Children of gay parents are now the mongrels.
Wow, never thought I see history like that repeating.
What a God. damned. shame.

oh and gestell
You don't have to be liberal not to buy the arguments against marriage equality.

You just have to be concerned for the intergrity of the state and federal Constitution.
Believe in the affirmation of marriage and it's life enhancing qualities.
Understand a decent person's commitment to social justice and it's consequences.
Know well the historical context in which this discrimination rests and reject it.
And know, that even as a person of faith, God allows us continuity in our sense of empathy, curiosity and uncertainty and wholesome willingness to learn from experience.
We're like that to make progress, not go backwards to more fearful, barbaric times.

We're not necessarily more liberal, just harder to scare.

Gay marriage will come...
I am a gay activist seeking marriage equality, and although I am distressed by the recent surge of support for Proposition 8, I still believe that this unjust proposed amendment can be defeated. Should we lose, however, we will still have won a major victory.

In finding that the prohibition of gay marriage violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the California constitution, the California Supreme Court held that gay persons comprise a "suspect class" for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Even if Proposition 8 succeeds, this holding will survive -- and the implications cannot be overstated.

A "suspect class" is a group of persons afforded heightened protection under the law, due to several factors. Members of the group must have suffered a history of past discrimination based on the expression of a characteristic that bears no logical relationship to the ability of members of that group to contribute to society. Less importantly, the characteristic in question must either be "immutable," or subject to change only at an unacceptable personal cost to members of the group in question; and the group must be relatively politically powerless. Gay persons meet all criteria in the eyes of the state court, and are thus deemed to be a "suspect class."

Even if Proposition 8 succeeds, laws that draw classifications on the basis of sexual orientation must now pass constitutional muster under "strict scrutiny" -- the most demanding level of review. Such laws must promote a "compelling" state interest, and must be "necessary" to promote that interest (i.e., narrowly tailored).

(CONTINUED)

Gay marriage will come...
We have thus already won a major victory. Should Proposition 8 succeed, the existing "domestic partnership" status will remain available to gay couples; and any differences between such partnerships and actual marriages (other than the name) must be eliminated. But it is with respect to other spheres that we have won a major victory. When a law is subjected to strict scrutiny, the state almost always loses. Bullying and taunting of gay students will be treated as seriously as bullying and taunting of racial minorities. This is just one example of the impact of this decision.

Meanwhile, we won a major victory in Connecticut on Friday of last week, when the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a decision legalizing gay marriage in that state. Unlike California, Connecticut does not permit direct amendment of its constitution by the voters at the ballot box. The governor of Connecticut has already stated that she will comply with the court’s ruling, and state legislators are already talking about codifying the court’s ruling. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes legal in other jurisdictions. A challenge to the constitutionality of the Iowa law prohibiting gay marriage is pending before that state’s high court, following a victory for gay persons at the trial court level.

There will always be setbacks – but if there is one thing I do know about the gay community, it is that we don’t let setbacks get the better of us, or demotivate us.

Three down, with 47 to go.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Gay marriage will come...
We have thus already won a major victory. Should Proposition 8 succeed, the existing "domestic partnership" status will remain available to gay couples; and any differences between such partnerships and actual marriages (other than the name) must be eliminated. But it is with respect to other spheres that we have won a major victory. When a law is subjected to strict scrutiny, the state almost always loses. Bullying and taunting of gay students will be treated as seriously as bullying and taunting of racial minorities. This is just one example of the impact of this decision.

Meanwhile, we won a major victory in Connecticut on Friday of last week, when the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a decision legalizing gay marriage in that state. Unlike California, Connecticut does not permit direct amendment of its constitution by the voters at the ballot box. The governor of Connecticut has already stated that she will comply with the court’s ruling, and state legislators are already talking about codifying the court’s ruling. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes legal in other jurisdictions. A challenge to the constitutionality of the Iowa law prohibiting gay marriage is pending before that state’s high court, following a victory for gay persons at the trial court level.

There will always be setbacks – but if there is one thing I do know about the gay community, it is that we don’t let setbacks get the better of us, or demotivate us.

Three down, with 47 to go.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Prop 69 No Divorce!
How many of you in California would be willing to support Prop. 69 which will state the following:
"In accordance with the Bible verse - Matthew 19.9 ("And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" - Jesus Christ") Divorce in the State of California will be outlawed except for sexual immorality.
Vote: Yes: agree to the above.
No: Allow Divorce for currently allowed reason(s).
P.S. I believe that Dr. Dobson, Focus on the Family, California Family Council, Baptist Convention, Christian Coaltion et. al. would support this proposed amendment so that the California Constitution will reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ.

y John -- nobody....
In response to John -- nobody who believes in the separation of church and state would be willing to vote for the abomination that you refer to as "Proposition 69" -- nor should any thinking citizen vote for such a measure.

We do not live in a theocracy -- and it is evident from the very text of the above proposition that this measure is intended to codify Mosaic law into the laws of California. For that reason alone, I don't believe that this proposed measure would even make it onto the ballot -- it would be attacked as facially unconstitutional, and would be deemed facially unconstitutional.

The US is not a Christian nation, any more than it is a Moslem nation or a Hindu nation. It is because we maintain strict separation of church and state that different religions have been able to flourish in this country without government intervention.

PHILIP CHANDLER

The teachings of Jesus Christ
The teachings of Jesus Christ should be discussed in church, and in private conversations. They should not be codified and identified in the form of a state constitutional amendment. The highest law of the land is the US Constitution, not the Bible or any other religiuos tract. The highest law of a state is its own constitution, which may not deprive its citizens of rights that they enjoy under the US Constitution.

I am sure that a few people would vote for the "Proposition 69" that you identify -- but such a measure would be unconstitutional on its face, and a preliminary injunction would almost certainly be handed down by a state court judge on the very day that the vote is tallied, prohibiting the amendment from taking effect. The judge would then schedule a trial, where the state would get the opportunity to defend the law -- and the state court judge would certainly issue a permanent injunction, prohibiting the state from enforcing the amendment.

Is this a serious question?



GAY MARRIAGE
Well I guess all you democrats can now puff up your chest and proudly proclaim that you all are the best thing that ever happened in California. And once you elect Obama and a majority in congress you can then make the entire USA a sewer to the rest of the world instead of just California. UGLY just UGLY

Where conservatives should be on prop 69
I'm going to assume that the TH readers who weighed in against "Prop. 69" are either libertarians or liberals, but not genuine conservatives. Genuine conservatives should have no problem with legislating Biblical morality. All of the arguments against such legislation came originally from the liberal playbook anyway.

American conservatism is essentially religious conservatism. Consider the following definition of conservatism from "American Conservatism
An Encyclopedia" ISI, 2000. [For those of you who don't know--although you should--ISI is the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative educational organization founded in 1953.

Here's the definition, found on p. 180: "Conservatism is a philosophy that seeks to maintain and enrich societies charactrerized by respect for inherited institutions, beliefs and practices, in which individuals develop good character by cooperating with one another in primary, local associations such as families, churches and social groups aimed at furthering the common good in a manner pleasing to God."
In the Bible God makes his views on gays quite clear--or so you religious authorities on the Right tell me--so what is "pleasing to God" just happens to coincide with the conservative agenda.

What's your problem?
Since the first graders and their parents are San Franciscans, what values should they be raised with?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.