Lake County News | California - Willardson: Proposition 8 protects marriage

purplegirl - Now, really...

IP:208.106.99.xxx | 08-24-2008 10:23:03

If this is not an assault against the gay lifestyle, as you claim, and this truly about "preserving marriage according to history, the Bible, anatomy and the will of the majority of California voters" maybe you should start thinking about fighting to restore a few other historical / biblical / anatomical points of marriage, as well. Let's see, there is polygamy, incest, and child marriages both in history and The Bible. And, historically, there were dowries involved, because marriages used to be (and, still are, in many places) a form of commerce and slavery. Oh, let's not forget, the child marriages were actually based on anatomy, as a woman was expected to marry as soon as she was able to procreate, throughout history. In fact, she was considered an "old maid" if she were not married off by the age of 18. Why not fight for those things, as well? After all, these things ARE supported historically, Biblically and anatomically (three out of the four reasons you claim to be fighting this issue for). No, this isn't about wanting to be historically, Biblically or anatomically accurate, if you were to be honest about it to yourself and to us, it is about something else.

What strikes me as odd is how someone (or some groups) find the need to force others to live their lives based on something they themselves are not truly basing their lives upon (because, if they were, they would be living completely different and quite illegal lives).

futhark - Proposition 8 Is Beyond Absurd

IP:66.81.73.xxx | 08-24-2008 10:31:54

First of all, I've been married to the same person of the opposite sex for almost 34 years. I also have gay friends and relatives. Never in all that time have I experienced an occasion in which my marriage was "threatened" by relations between other consenting adults.

Secondly, in view of the law, ALL marriages are civil unions. It would be totally inappropriate for the state to "sanctify" relations between two people. What individuals decide is right in relation to their mutual religious beliefs and the religious community to which they belong is their own business, about which the state should have no say.

Thirdly, any biologist knows that the categories of "male" and "female" are not absolutely delineated. Most males have sex chromosomes X and Y and most females have two X chromosomes. However, there are XX males and XY females, depending on the activity of the male-making SRY gene and consequent testosterone levels in the embryo. Some people are born with an ambiguous intergender status and some have been surgically modified into the wrong biochemical gender. There are transgender people at all stages of transition through surgery and hormone therapy. These are all highly personal and private matters over which the state should have no say.

If you think, as I do, that the American Revolution was at least in part about getting government out of the business of telling people what they should believe and out of the business of engineering society, then you should oppose Proposition 8 as an attempt to use the power of government to regulate the right of people to freely associate.

yellowwing

Registered | 08-24-2008 10:37:52

I am a practicing Christian. Now that I have said that - I see no reason why people have issues with persons of the same sexual orientation marrying.

It isn't as if you can say that people of the opposite sex are more capable of having long term relationships - If that were so there wouldn't be so many divorces.

What do I lose by NOT being a bigot about the marriage of people of the same sex? NOTHING! Won't effect my marriage. Won't effect my children and their relationships. Won't effect my values or the values of my children or grandchildren. Won't lessen "family" values. Won't take money from my pocket.

Permitting people to marry regardless of sexual orientation takes nothing away from me or my faith because the fact is that their marrying is not connected to my faith or the bible. It is a matter of CIVIL law - not biblical law. The two are separate.

There are people in this state that would shove their beliefs down other people's throats based on their religious beliefs. We need to stand up and say NO I won't let you continue the discrimination.

Donna Christopher - Oh dear what a,

Author | 08-24-2008 11:12:37

for lack of a better term, crock. Been looking at the same man first thing in the morning for 30 years, half of that living is sin I supposed some would say. Anyone that says others having equal rights under law is a threat to their happiness, identity, civil rights (say whaaa???)etc needs to look within, not project outward. Organizing hatred, is that really a Christian principle?

sannan - the one certainty

Administrator | 08-24-2008 14:14:31

about marriage we learn from history is that it has been in a constant state of flux in Western civilization.
there is a good examination of that at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

taxismom - let's go after

IP:12.210.218.xxx | 08-24-2008 13:51:03

britney and lindsey lohan too, and brad and angelina -- if anyone is a threat to the 'sanctity of marriage' the celebratization of the antics of these clowns certainly are. Unstable egotistical movie stars and musicians should also be banned from marrying too, doncha think? And while we're at it , let's outlaw the continuous coverage of their juvenile travails on "Entertainment Tonight" too -- and let's make sure they are all sterilized --

Give me an example of which civil rights of yours have been violated? Where has your free speech been abridged? Didnt you get to write a letter to the editor? -- Dont you get to assemble freely to work on a political issue? Don't you get to go to the church of your choice?

Take care of your own family and stay out of others decisions and family lives -- what part of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS dont you get ??-- the constitution accords you those rights -- Civil rights for me but not for thee? How Christian of you.

btw -- who's schneider 2005?

Donna Christopher - Tax Exempt Status

Author | 08-24-2008 14:55:15

of churches should be revoked when they get into politics.

vbrandon - this is bigotry

Author | 08-24-2008 15:19:56

Just how is it that my civil rights -- as a straight woman, twice married and twice widowed -- will be infringed by extending those rights to others who have been denied them up to now? Just how is the institution of marriage undermined by extending it to loving couples who have been excluded from its blessings? The judicial ruling, based on principles of equality and fairness, affects the contractual obligations regulated by the State, and in no way compels any religious body to perform sacraments contrary to its own set of beliefs -- and this attempt to turn back the clock represents a denial of justice that is rooted in nothing but bigotry.

taxismom - further reading

Registered | 08-24-2008 15:40:58

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_marriage

smurf - bigots 'r us

Registered | 08-24-2008 18:05:13

shame on the Mormon and Catholic churches for being involved in yet another un-Christian act, creating second-class citizens in America.
Jesus NEVER mentioned gays because it certainly wasn't an issue for him, only the truly backward could distort his teachings to mean "rights for us but not for you".
When churches are used this way they should be stripped of their tax exempt status, as they are acting as channelers of hate and stupidity for profit. you are a disgusting excuse for a human being Doug, and by NO stretch of the imagination are you a Christian-you bring dishonor to all that truly are with your attempt to inflict hurt and cruelty on others.

purplegirl - Good Points

IP:208.106.99.xxx | 08-25-2008 09:52:04

"Tax Exempt Status of churches should be revoked when they get into politics"

Good point, Donna. Isn't there a little thing called "separation of church and state" we have to abide to?

Unfortunately not. According to the IRC, (which, by the way, isn't actually a "law"), when it comes to churches:

IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations may not do such things as make statements that endorse or oppose a candidate, publish or distribute campaign literature, or make any type of contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a political campaign. On the other hand, IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations are allowed to conduct activities that are not related to elections, such as issue advocacy, lobbying for or against legislation, and supporting or opposing the appointment of individuals to non-elective offices.

However, also, according to the Constitution (which actually is the law), people do have the right to express our opinions (or protest) against organizations of this kind.

I appreciate the Christians on this forum weighing in. It shows that there is something much deeper going on here than the charade it has been presented as by the author of the article.

I was thinking a bit more about the article written and my initial response and there is one more thing I would like to add. As for his argument about the "will of the California voters". You know, there was a time in the United States where the majority of voters also were pro-slavery and anti-women (treating both as second class citizens). Sometimes, the majority isn't always right and it really isn't a good reason at all to get behind something.

hyhybt

Registered | 08-25-2008 21:57:45

It's a bizarre twisting of the language that people say they are "preserving" and "protecting" marriage by preventing people from participating in it. You say that "Proposition 8 does not take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships", but if that were true why bother passing it? The truth is that it *would* take away at least one important benefit: that of legally calling the union a marriage. And part of the need for that is evident by your choice of the phrase "gay lifestyle."

hyhybt

Registered | 08-25-2008 22:05:32

First, apologies if this goes through twice. It seems to have disappeared when I clicked "send". Anyway...

It's a bizarre twist on the language that people claim to be "protecting" or "defending" marriage by not allowing people to participate in it! You claim that "Proposition 8 does not take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships", but if that were true, or even really believed to be true by its supporters, you wouldn't bother trying to pass it. Obviously at least one great benefit would be removed: legally recognizing that such a union is a marriage. And the importance of that is illustrated even by your choice of the phrase "gay lifestyle."

Raphael - You state

Author | 08-26-2008 05:06:09

that proposition 8 wouldn't take any rights away from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships, who under California law would have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses. Then you are stating your belief that California doctors should have the right to REFUSE artificial insemination to same sex couples, and you are inferring they could if these couples were not married.
That's a blatant contradiction.
Tell you what...50% of marriages end in divorce in this nation, so what are you worried about?
Seriously, the biggest destructive influence toward the traditional family has been the industrial revolution, that uprooted rural people and fragmented families. The TRUE traditional family was the extended family, living together under the same roof or on the same rural property. The nuclear family is a modern INVENTION that cannot be found in ANY traditional culture, and that is aptly named as it explodes sooner or later because of too much pressure on the parents and children. That's why so many families are DYSFUNCTIONAL, because the structure is unnatural, and unhealthy.
An extended family offers the parents some relief from the responsibilities and duties of parenthood, allowing them relief from stress, and offers the children other role models and other sources of support, understanding and emotional bonding, preventing neurosis.
So if you are worried about the "traditional" family, do your research to understand what traditional means historically (yes, history goes farther back than the 40's!), and then examine the factors, in modern life, that have and are constantly undermining the stability of families and the psychological and emotional health of children.
And I mean the REAL factors, not a few gay and lesbian married couples!

Choose language

Sections

Games

Advertiser menu

Calendar: click on a date to submit an event