Serving Bread

Comment from BuenLB October 13, 2008 at 10:49 am

I enjoy the open minded way that you approach this issue. Like you, I feel marriage has been under attack from a lot of different sources and for us to blame the disintegration of the family on the gay and lesbian community would be ridiculous and irresponsible. While many laws, such as the no fault divorce laws you mentioned, have already begun demeaning the definition of family, my fear is that saying no to proposition 8 allows 4 supreme court justices to define away that ideal. Few claim to have the ideal home and fewer would be intolerant of others based on a difficult family situation. What makes same-sex marriage so frightening to me is that it re-defines the ideal. America is great, not because it is perfect in every way but because it has chosen a vision of perfection for which it consistently strives. “One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” A government that recognizes its position as protector, not definer, of certain ‘inalienable rights.’ So it is with the family. While no one can claim a perfect family, most of us know what we are striving toward as families. Remove that goal and progress becomes impossible, indeed it becomes undefinable. Marriage today is certainly much ‘cheaper’ than God intended but at least there is still a definition for what it ought to be.

I also share your concern as to the message that is sent to the gay community. As far as I am concerned God expects me to give my love and respect to all his children, whether or not I agree with their lifestyle. For me, my fear of the message that NO on proposition 8 would send to families outweighs my fear that YES sends the the gay and lesbian community. I hope that we will find other ways to express our love and respect.

Comment from Mary October 13, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I complete understand where you are coming from about respecting & loving others. I fully believe that we can love PEOPLE without loving what they DO. Jesus was the perfect example of this with the woman who committed adultery & was about to be stoned. He told her that He did not condemn her but then said, “Go, and sin no more.” He made it clear that He loved her, BUT He admonished her to leave her lifestyle. We can love others without encouraging their sins. The Bible is saturated with evidence on how God feels about homosexuality. I hope that I do not sound insensitive. I am sure that there are many that struggle with those feelings, but God cannot change His law because of His love for His children. He will always love us regardless, but He wants us to obey His commandments.

http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/first-graders-taken-to-san-francisco-city-hall-for-gay-wedding

The above link is an article about a group of FIRST GRADERS being taken on a school sponsored field trip to a lesbian wedding. This article is not an opinion or a speculation about what could happen; this is an event that has already happened IN CALIFORNIA.

I consider myself pretty understanding of other perspectives. I completely understand the argument for homosexuals to be treated “equally”, but marriage is not something that WE have the power to re-define. God defined marriage when He created Adam & Eve. Homosexual couples can receive all of the same rights & benefits by filing a domestic partnership, but they will not re-define marriage for our society & thus allowing children to be taught alternate family options in schools. This is something that parents should have the right to teach their children. The following link is about a group of 2nd graders in MA that were read a book about a royal gay wedding. The same school had kindergardners bring home a book in their “diversity bag” about ALL kinds of families.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/

I hope I didn’t overwhelm you with too much info. It helps knowing that you are a Christian & have the religious perspective too. Again, I really try to be understanding to both sides. I have visited the No on Prop 8 to understand the counter arguments & I am still firm in my position.

Comment from Eddy E October 13, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Thanks Mary for commenting. I agree with everything you write about Jesus’ example and model. But Jesus did not legislate his morality or the intentions of God. In fact, rather than just read that story from the perspective of the woman, one can read it from the perspective of the men who were ready to stone. With that read, the story would communicate that Jesus calls us to address our own sin before we put energy in punishing the sins of others.

Instead of legislating his intentions, Jesus called people to consider their heart conditions before God, and to give themselves to a reformation of their heart (to use Dallas Willard’s language). I don’t think that voting against this proposition communicates that we are condoning sin and I don’t think that voting for this proposition preserves God’s ideals.

Having said that, is legislation (of what we deem to be right) the appropriate way of defining marriage? While I believe that Christians should be actively involved in the transformation of our society (including participation in the political realm), I am wondering whether in recent years we have put more stock in the political process rather than other methods of societal transformation.

Comment from Tom October 13, 2008 at 9:39 pm

We all–and particularly the committed religious folks of all traditions–benefit from living in a secular republic. State constitutions shouldn’t play a role in defining who can marry.

Our founding fathers chose a secular form of government–even though many of them were committed Christians who knew their bibles backwards and forwards–because they understood the unfortunate results of many thousands of years of governments that tried to enforce specific sectarian religious commandments.

It’s funny to some of us that many religious conservatives seem to want state and federal governments to guarantee their specific sectarian moral convictions but also think that ‘government is the problem’ and want little or no government intervention in the economy or financial markets.

I guess you either believe in a free marketplace or you don’t :^)

Comment from Amanda October 13, 2008 at 11:25 pm

I was curious to see what you would vote on this Prop since you’re voting no on almost all the other Props.

I can’t, as a believer in what the Bible says, vote No on this proposition especially since marriage is so important to God and is a quintessential example of Christ and the church.

You mentioned above, “Instead of legislating his intentions, Jesus called people to consider their heart conditions before God, and to give themselves to a reformation of their heart (to use Dallas Willard’s language). I don’t think that voting against this proposition communicates that we are condoning sin and I don’t think that voting for this proposition preserves God’s ideals.”

Yes, I agree that we should consider our heart conditions before God. Additionally, we should really turn to the Word in determining our decisions. We might not be well-liked in the gay-lesbian community but we have an all powerful, all mighty, glorious, holy God to answer to.

Comment from Jesus H. Christ October 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

Holee Shmolee…

Finally a viable solution…

Jesus H. proposes traditional marriage remain to be spelled with 2 r’s as LEGAL and DESIGNATABLE understanding that this “maRRiage” refers to a consecrated “one penis and one vagina” relationship (a hole and a hole-ee relationship).

Then, that union of 2 Gays be designated as “MaRiage” with ONE “R….” (I know it looks kind of queer, but somehow it’s appropriate),

This can be worn as a badge of honor (they SOUND the same) but mainly as a LEGAL DISCERNMENT for written documents of which type marriage it is (heterosexual or homosexual)……..kind of like humans as “MR”….or add an “S” and “MR.” becomes “MRS”…a simple differentiator with just one letter or lack thereof.

You may kiss the bride.

–Jesus, Webster, Korzybski, Barbie & Ken

Comment from Op Ed. October 14, 2008 at 11:48 pm

I’ll deal with the objections one at a time:

* It doesn’t seem to me that the definition of marriage belongs in a state’s constitution.

I agree. When our government decides it can circumvent the amendment process of the Constitution by redefining what some words mean, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong that simply stapling a dictionary to the constitution will not fix. Change the meaning of “marriage” today, change the meaning of “vote” tomorrow, or change the meaning of “We the People” the next day. For our society to survive, we need to fix what has gone wrong with our government and fix it. Defining marriage in the constitution is nothing but a temporary fix, a bandage. While we need a long term fix, we need time to figure out what that fix is. If we don’t staunch the bleeding now, we may never get the time to find and fix the larger problem.

* My rule of thumb is to vote NO on ballot initiatives.

Mine, too. This is, however, only a rule of thumb. If we make it a hard and fast rule we effectively take away our participation in government and leave our government representatives unchecked.

* most Christians are not “gay bashing” [but] perception holds much capital in this instance.

Only most? I would argue that no true Christian is “gay bashing” by supporting this amendment or by any other endeavor. I would also argue that true Christ and thereby his followers was more concerned about God’s perceptions than the perceptions of any man or men.

* Gay marriage is not the primary reason for the demise of marriages.

The important question is about the future, not about the past. The question is whether or not redefining marriage will help it or hurt it. When one finds a man on the street who has been hit by an automobile, one makes decisions based on what helps going forward. One doesn’t justify taking the man’s wallet by looking at the past and saying petty theft isn’t what put him in his current state.

Finally, to the commenter who thinks Jesus “did not legislate his morality,” I remind you of the cleansing of the Temple wherein Jesus enforced his own sense of morality on how the Temple grounds should be used. Further, unless you believe Jesus was not the same God who spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai, Jesus directly handed to Moses the Law by which the Israelite nation would be governed until His advent in the flesh.

That said, we are not Jesus. We are not God. Under Roman rule Jesus did not have the same right to vote that we enjoy, but if He did, I can’t believe he would have ignored his own sense of morality in doing so. As members of a secular society, we do not tell those whose morality is informed by religion that their sense doesn’t count as much as the sense of some different citizen. It is not only our right to vote our conscience, religious or not, but it is our responsibility. Anything that we do less, anyone who tells us we should do less, is the true threat to freedom in our society.

Comment from Preston K. Gamble October 15, 2008 at 3:17 pm

If Proposition 8 passes, the law will change to designate an entire class of people as unequal to, as less than, every other class of people. In the eyes of the law, gay people will be seen as inferior to everyone else. And when opponents of gay rights see the idea that gays are inferior validated by the government, it will allow them to continue on their path of dehumanizing gays and lesbians. That’s what denying a class of people an equal right does. It dehumanizes them, and it is dangerous. It is the dehumanization of a group that creates a culture in which people feel that it is okay to yell epithets at others in public; that it is okay for kids to be bullied and beaten at school; that it is okay for a jeering mob to incite a gay 17-year-old to commit suicide by jumping off a building. (Read the news.) These things happen because gays are demonized. And gays are demonized when they’re made out to be an inferior class of people. And they are made out to be an inferior class of people when they are not allowed the same rights as everyone else.

IN ADDITION, PROPONENTS OF PROP 8 CONTINUE TO LIE IN THEIR TELEVISION ADS:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right–the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

AND, ADDITIONALLY:

Fiction: Civil unions and domestic partnerships give gay couples the same rights as married couples.

Fact: In the few states in which civil unions or similar domestic partnerships exist, same-sex couples are granted the same rights as married couples but only on the state level. There are hundreds upon hundreds of federal benefits that do not apply to those couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Please do not allow blatant discrimination to be written into the law. California is better, smarter, and more humane than that.

Comment from Op Ed. October 17, 2008 at 8:55 am

That last comment is obviously just a recycled list of talking points not directly related to the original question asked in this post and I won’t waste time responding to it directly. I will, however, point out that it does not talk about marriage anywhere, which is all Prop 8 is about. Instead, it talks about “class[es] of people,” “demonizing,” and “jeering mobs.”

That last comment spends its time trying to divide us rather than talking about what unites us. We all have an interest in responsible procreation, in both parents being responsible to the child they produced. These common interests, the common principles of marriage, are what unite us. Dividing us up into classes, pitting one class against another. Dividing a house against itself does not strengthen it, it makes it fall.

Don’t divide us. Don’t support the politics of division. Vote on marriage. Vote YES on Prop 8.

Comment from Jesus H. Christ October 17, 2008 at 10:15 am

To all made blinder by penis and vagina binders only:

Respect For Diversity is the foundation of a civil society…..
PROP 8 is a civil rights issue….Why don’t we vote whether blacks should have their own drinking fountain???? Why don’t we vote to intern the japanese??? Why not vote that barking dogs be eliminated from all Residential Neighborhoods??? But I BELIEVE in clean white porcelin drinking fountains….But I BELIEVE that Japanese think differently than me….But I BELIEVE that barking dogs are a nuisance….This is CIVIL RIGHTS for a class of people, People…..BELIEFS ASIDE…..I don’t believe it, so “f**k them !!!”

Higher Spirit solution would be “Marriage” with two r’s is traditional and “mariage” with one r is same sex…..one should not be denied their civil rights to love and be in a committed union, no matter which “r” they choose.

If you have a DECENT caring for your fellow being’s rights, VOTE NO…..If you are a pig and believe ONLY in YOUR belief system….please forget to vote. Remember it’s called a belief….not a CERTAINTY. VOTE NO on 8 for the sake of civility.

J.H. Cristos

Comment from On Lawn October 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Hello JHC,

I think there are some points in that post I would like to reply to.

Respect For Diversity is the foundation of a civil society

Agreed. I, for one, expect tolerance and respect for diversity. The man-woman relationship is divergent, or different, than the man-man or woman-woman relationship. I would appreciate the respect and tolerance for recognizing those differences, especially when those differences are so ingrained in our own humanitarian values and how we treat our children and our differences as men and women.

PROP 8 is a civil rights issue

Again I agree. Marriage itself is a civil right to engage in a behavior that represents our own footprint in the evolutionary and social continuance of our civilization and species. This comes from a fundamental unit of one man and one woman who combine to create children with whom they share their identity.

To be recognized as someone who integrated with the other gender to create life, and to understand the responsibilities to the other gender and that child is a civil rights issue between genders and children/parents.

Why don’t we vote whether blacks should have their own drinking fountain????

I’m not afraid of such a vote. I think you and I would both know how it would go in California.

But consider this, african-americans were segregated from the rest of society. They were oppressed, and fought for not only equality but the fact that integration helps ensure that equality. That is why we don’t support all-white or all-black schools as public education.

So then, why are you using their example of integration to fight for the establishment of segregated (all male or all female) marriages as if they are equal? As if they are the same, and not diverse, from gender integrated marriages?

Higher Spirit solution would be “Marriage” with two r’s is traditional and “mariage” with one r is same sex…

Without quibbling over details (homonym or not), the use of different names would be the plan for voting Yes on 8, not “No”. For your plan to work, we would first have to recognize that diversity and be tolerant and respectful towards each other — by voting Yes on 8. Only that way do we acknowledge that there is a difference, and then in turn treat each case with the important benefits and protections they require.

Comment from Tom October 17, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Not sure I fully understand what you’re getting at here.

If I’m the commenter who thinks ‘Jesus didn’t legislate morality,’ I think you may have missed my point.

I think the bible makes clear that the political theocracy of Israel was a failure both in terms of real world governance and faith. All that due to our common tendency to be self justifying and arrogant more than might be constructive.

Since self justification and arrogance is so very common and endemic in the area of politics and everywhere else, and since religious justifications normally inflame that kind of arrogance so much that even the people with the best religious intentions often end up doing the worst kinds of things, I think the NT focuses on a new spiritual community that isn’t identified with any state or political point of view. Combining the elements of religion and state or corporate power just produce the same kind of toxic blend that got our OT ancestors into trouble in the first place. I think we can see the same thing playing itself out in the contemporary Muslim world.

I guess my point is, I think the example of Jesus cleansing the temple or Moses getting the law are examples for the church and the Christian community, not for the state.

In my view, that leaves us Christians free to figure out what makes the most sense in a blessedly secular political environment that benefits every person of faith by keeping us from repeating the stupid theocratic mistakes of the past. Some Christians may think that trying to politically ban the behavior of gay people will advance the kingdom and create a more just secular state. Others of us may not.

There will be that kind of disagreement about politically enforcing morality in a secular state on a wide array of issues. All of us now think that politically banning slavery in secular society is a moral absolute, even though the bible is actually pretty ambiguous and even tolerant in many places on the topic. Many of us now think that supporting women in the most important leadership roles in secular society is a moral absolute, but at the same time many (most?) current evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians think that women shouldn’t play a leading role in the affairs of the church.

Complicated I guess.

Comment from Op Ed. October 18, 2008 at 11:14 am

Tom: Combining the elements of religion and state or corporate power just produce the same kind of toxic blend that got our OT ancestors into trouble in the first place.

I see. So handing Moses the Law was a giant blunder on God’s part that doomed “our OT ancestors” to a “toxic” community and their eventual overthrow and captivity. Not a particularly Christian reading of the Old Testament. If you are interested in an alternate hypothesis you could check out 1 Samuel and see what he thought caused the demise of Israel.

I guess my point is, I think the example of Jesus cleansing the temple or Moses getting the law are examples for the church and the Christian community, not for the state.

You are the one who brought up Christ’s example. When you thought He didn’t “legislate morality,” His example mattered. Now that it turns out Christ actually did, you say His example is irrelevant. I hope you see this looks like a very convenient and frankly dishonest way of using Christ’s example in our lives.

Some Christians may think that trying to politically ban the behavior of gay people will advance the kingdom and create a more just secular state.

There you go again looking at the world as different classes of people clashing with each other. Do you think when Christ looks at us He sees classes of people, or do you think He sees His children? Can you justify opposing Prop 8 without relying on the politics of division? Why should marriage be stripped of its ties to responsible procreation?

Comment from Cyber Mix Tape Show October 21, 2008 at 10:22 am

Hi Eddy,
Hope you can tune into my podcast on Prop 8! It’s on Wed. Oct 22, 1 PM PST. I have reps from No on Prop 8 as well as speakers from Protect Marriage.com calling in and I want to take questions from listeners.

You can listen live online at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cybermixtapeshow.
Hope to hear from you!

Comment from Jesus H. Christ October 21, 2008 at 10:35 am

Nobody gives a rats asssssssss about anyone’s opinions ….opinions are like a–holes…everyone’s got one…..this is a case of CIVIL RIGHTS FOR A MINORITY !!!!!!!

If you cannot see that….your heart is numb and your brain is dumb and your uncle is GOVERNOR WALLACE (Mr. “I don’t think that Negroes should go to a white college”…..civil rights replaying themselves???

No on 8 means you are tolerant of other’s rights….yes means you are
a “NOT SEE.”

Comment from Andrew October 22, 2008 at 11:04 am

I’d been wondering if anyone was still grappling with this. I’m gay and not a christian and I’m married, so you can probably guess where I’m coming from without reading more. Unfortunately, the arguments on both sides of the issue are exhausted and repetitious. But wait, don’t stop! For one thing, we are talking about secular/civil marriage which is quite different from the sacrament offered by various religions. Organized religion is able to determine marriage or anything else according to their own principles. I could see churches losing their tax exempt status if they spend too much time/money trying to influence secular law. The Bible, Koran, etc should not be directing the principles of secular law. They may share common points but are completely separate. If marriage between a father and mother is the best environment in which to raise children, then where does that leave the children of gay parents? Wouldn’t civil marriage add to legal substance to the structure that exists between two otherwise commented partners? In California, domestic partnership laws have provided a lot of support to gay couples. Unfortunately,federal benefits/responsibilities are not available to us, because recognition of gay marriage at the federal level is outlawed. Recognition of marriage equality in CA is one more step in the direction of increasing acceptance of what it means to be gay in America. Those of us who are gay, functioning, tax paying, child rearing, upstanding citizens want our relationships acknowledged on a par with other civil marriages in this state and country. In absence of hard evidence to the contrary as opposed to religious belief or tradition, the law should strive to provide equal treatment and access for all of citizens. For me, prop 8 doesn’t meet that test.

Comment from Andrew October 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

Just one more thing! I just read what someone else said about tolerating and condoning being two distinct things. I’ve often wondered about the marriage issue from the heterosexual point of view. It seems as though many use the civil institution in ways that I find objectionable i.e. multiple marriages, marriage to take advantage of immigration law, teens getting married. I don’t condone these acts, but I will tolerate them, respecting the decision of another to lead his/her own life. I will defer judgement in view of substantial evidence that statistically the odds are against success and the consequences to children who come out of these failed unions face challenges. I would never think of suggesting an amendment to the constitution to prohit civil marriage to someone who has been divorce more than twice or to ban marriage for anyone under 25. For this reason, a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage seems extreme.

Comment from Fluffer October 24, 2008 at 8:55 am

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

Lying…who’s really lying?

The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at http://www.noonprop8.com)

In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”

It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Newsom called the (Yes on ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading.” Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.

“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’ taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.

According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.

The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:

“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]

(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]

“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]

(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]

“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas” [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’

Please vote YES on 8!

Comment from Chanelle October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from the gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, they “shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses (family code 297.5). To me I don’t believe that voting Yes is discriminating. If we took away the benefits rights that same-sex partnerships would recieve would be unfair. Those in same-sex relationships can still love who they love and live with whom they live and obtain benfits. By Prop. 8 not passing there are a lot more negative results that can happen. I am a concerned parent and also am upset that the 4 activist judges went against the majority of what the people voted for. If we are all about voting, then the judges should uphold that. They should have waited to decide and to see what the majority of California finally decides. There is no need to criticize others with opposing views, opinions, beliefs, etc. I respect others opinions, and don’t call names and have love and compassion for others. To me, you can have love for others and tolerance without agreeing completely with things. I have and try to have tolerance for those with differing views and morals, but this not only affects those gay/lesbians marry. There are far greater consequences than if people vote Yes.

Comment from Matt Johanson October 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm

As a Christian, I’m sincerely disappointed to see the supporters of California’s Prop. 8 let their prejudice move them further from God.

How can it be otherwise, when their arguments in favor of the proposed marriage ban are demonstrably false? Gay marriages have taken place in California for more than four months, and haven’t yet caused a church to get sued or a child to be brainwashed in school. God does not love lies.

Those who think God calls on them to stop gay marriages as sinful should remember these words of our Lord: “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.”

Would Jesus support marriages that promote love and dignity, provide stable families for children, and harm no one? Or would he take part in a deceptive attempt to hurt families and brand a minority group with inferior rights, discrimination and second-class citizenship?

Comment from John Howard October 31, 2008 at 10:21 am

Eddy, here’s another reason to vote Yes on 8: soon we will have to decide whether or not to allow labs to create offspring for same-sex couples using genetically modified gametes, “female eggs” or “male sperm” derived from stem cells. If we allow it, it would open the door to all forms of genetic engineering of children, and create a huge expense and government agency, and eventually obligate everyone to have their children designed for them like in the movie Gattaca.

Some scientists think that children from same-sex parents is only a few years away, if research continues. I think we need to ban it, and I think the public will agree to ban it, and preserve natural conception so that all people are created equal and all people have equal conception rights. But if we allow same-sex marriage, then it will be much harder to ban, because conception rights have always been part of every marriage since the first marriages. Never in history has there been a marriage that was publicly prohibited by law from conceiving children together. That would mean that male-female marriages could also be prohibited from attempting to use their own genes, since they would be “equal” to same-sex marriages and thus have no greater claim to the right to conceive together.

We really need to prohibit same-sex conception and genetic engineering by only allowing people to create children using unmodified gametes of a man and a woman, so then schools will have to teach children that if they want to have children with the person they love, they will have to love someone of the other sex. They won’t be able to pretend that there is no difference, once we have a law against genetic engineering.

Comment from Amy Denver February 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Can you provide more details on this?

Comment from Jesus H. Christ February 1, 2009 at 8:18 pm

It just seems like its an issue over “weenie”….whether you got one or not…and how many per family should be allowed……it kind of gives “weenie” a good name….cuz so often weenies can be such a PRICK !!!

Comment from humble cause February 3, 2009 at 6:45 pm

JOHN HOWARD – thanks for the interesting perspective on the topic. You wonder where all the pressure for stem cell research actually comes from. I’ve heard of all the puzzle pieces you mention but had not seen them put together in that way before. I haven’t heard or seen an example of private capital willing to flow into this type of research. Explains the necessity for our tax dollars to do the work. Just curious, for the disgusting foul mouth I won’t refer to you by your poorly choosen name, do you really think your doing your position any good at all with your ridiculous comparisons? It’s nice to speak with the person who’s vote I canceled out on election day. I must say after reading your input I feel even better about my vote.