Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A few isolated thoughts on last night's election. I am relieved by the fact that it was not a close election. If it had been, we could have quite a mess on our hands. The votes in several states are astonishingly close and if Obama's lead were within the range where those states could swing the election, we would be having 2000 all over again -- only worse.
In North Carolina, Obama won by only 12,000 votes. In Indiana, his lead is only 23,000 votes. In Missouri, McCain leads by a mere 6,000 votes. If Obama was sitting on 298 electoral votes rather than 338 (without those states included in the tally), we would no doubt be hearing a demand for recounts that would throw the outcome of the election in doubt and we would be facing Florida times three.
That is already likely to happen in some non-presidential races. In Minnesota, for example, the Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman remains a nail biter. With 99% of precincts reporting, Coleman leads by less than 800 votes out of almost 2.5 million cast. There will almost certainly be a recount there.
Ted Stevens appears to have been reelected to the Senate despite his recent conviction on federal corruption charges. As ridiculous as that is to, frankly, anyone with a brain, I think this opens up an opportunity for Sarah Palin. The Senate will likely expel Stevens early next year, which means Alaska will have to call a special election to fill his seat. If she wants to make a serious run at the White House, she needs to go to the Senate where she can be a national figure rather than the governor of a remote state.
Michigan passed both ballot proposals, one to legalize the medical use of marijuana and the other to legalize stem cell research, both by fairly comfortable margins. This is a good thing, in my view. Unfortunately, the federal government can still enforce the Controlled Substances Act in this state against medical marijuana users despite the new law, even if people have a prescription. In California, which has a similar law, people are still arrested and jailed even though they are fully licensed by the state to distribute it and even if they the patients have a prescription to receive it.
You can thank the Supreme Court for that, by the way. In Gonzales v Raich, the 2005 case over California's medical marijuana law, the court handed down one of the worst rulings in its history. And in case you think this is a liberal or conservative issue, you may be surprised to hear how the vote broke down. All four liberals on the court (Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter) voted in favor of allowing the federal government to continue to arrest and prosecute users of medical marijuana despite state law. They were joined by the more moderate Justice Kennedy and the arch-conservative Justice Scalia. Only Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.
There may be some reason to hope that under Barack Obama the federal Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency will find other priorities and stop going after sick people who are only following their state laws to find some relief from their pain, but keep in mind that Joe Biden is the most zealous of drug warriors. He is the primary architect of the asset forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize any assets they think are even remotely connected to the use or distribution of drugs, even if they never actually convict or even charge the person with any crime. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Speaking of courts, the defeat of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Cliff Taylor by Diane Hathaway has to rank among the most significant and surprising things to happen last night. Taylor had incumbency on his side along with a massive war chest (he raised more money than any judicial candidate had ever raised in this state, breaking his own record) and the overwhelming support of Republicans and the business community. He is a virtual icon among conservatives, not just in Michigan but around the country as well. I can't help but think that Elizabeth Weaver, a fellow Republican who has long feuded with Taylor, is smiling right now.
The victory for stem cell research brings Michigan out of the 19th century. I was astonished to find out only a few months ago that Michigan actually made it a felony for researchers to develop new stem cell lines in this state. Last night's victory for Proposal 2 is a win for science, reason and the victims of many terrible diseases. And it should make life a lot easier for at least one stem cell researcher from the University of Michigan, who has had to do her work in a lab in California because of the Michigan laws that were overturned last night.
Sadly, this was not a good night for equality. California's Prop 8, which overturns a state Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage, appears to have passed. In one of the most disturbing statistics I've ever heard, 95% of African-Americans in California voted for Barack Obama but 69% of them also voted to deny equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. Are memories so short? Only last year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage, a tremendous moment for equality and civil rights.
That's not the only cloud in this silver lining. Arizona and Florida also passed bans on gay marriage in those states, while Arkansas passed a referendum prohibiting gay couples from adopting children. And we can lay this one almost entirely at the feet of religion-inspired bigotry. In California, exit polls showed that those who attended church regularly voted against marriage equality 83-17%. Those who attended church only occasionally voted for marriage equality 60-40%. Those who do not attend church at all voted for marriage equality 86-14%. There is still much work to be done.
Comments
Re: Michigan's Medical Marijuana Measure.
It passed in every single county. Now that's a statement.
The stem cell research measure was a shocker to me, because I have been bombarded with "No on 2" advertisements, yard signs, and mailers, and had hear, seen, and received nothing from the measure's proponents. How did it won such an uphill battle?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 10:41 AM
You want to know why 69% of black voters voted to ban gay marriage. It's because you're comparing skin and sin. These voters are offended that you would compare their plight to the plight of homosexuals. These are two very different things.
Posted by: Jared | November 5, 2008 10:52 AM
Writing from oh so progressive Canada.
I was reading a lot of articles in the last couple of weeks about Obama's election heralding the end of the culture wars, at least on the issues that have dominated the dispute in the last half century.
As Ed so ironically noted, the schisms doesn't appear to have lifted. Rather, conservatives who voted for Obama still hold the conservative views on the culture wars. I'm curious how this paradox will play out.
Posted by: Roland Deschain | November 5, 2008 10:52 AM
The statistic of 69% of Black Californians voting for Prop 8 is disturbing. It's basically the Black Community saying, "We are against discrimination, but ONLY if it's against our group!" The Gay Community, fought hard to help get Obama elected, and this is the repayment by the Black Community!
Posted by: John | November 5, 2008 11:00 AM
The statistic of 69% of Blacks voting for Prop 8 is very disturbing! It's basically the Black Community in California saying, "We are against discrimination, but only if it's against us!". The Gay Community fought hard to help get Obama elected, and this is the repayment from the Black Community! Shameful!
Posted by: John | November 5, 2008 11:04 AM
There is a lot of homophobia in the black community, even in the young black community. People act surprised by that, but the simple fact is that any study of black culture always turns up a great deal of homophobia.
They do, it turns out, forget the Loving decision, but it is not that simple. A large percentage of the black community is centered around Churches, and while their leaders are often considered liberal, the homophobia seeps through.
The irony of this statistic is painful, and frustrating.
Posted by: JStein | November 5, 2008 11:07 AM
Jared: I don't see the difference in the skin vs. sin viewpoint among blacks. Whites argued quite persuasively for years that the Bible endorsed slavery and separation of races. These biblical arguments are the only ones left for anti-gay legislation. There are no moral or ethical rationales for opposing gay rights. Neither skin or homosexuality is a choice, so what is the difference in denying rights to one group but not the other?
Posted by: Brent | November 5, 2008 11:07 AM
Jared's characterization of homosexuality as "sin" is a pithy reminder of how, once again, religion is used to justify repression and bigotry. Jared says that racial prejudice and anti-gay prejudice "are two very different things." How, may one ask? Is there any justification outside religion? No, I didn't think so.
Posted by: gary l. day | November 5, 2008 11:15 AM
Rampant homophobia among the African American community has been the elephant in the room of that debate for years. At least now it's out in the open where people can see it. (And yes I know that's a mixed metaphor, but you know what I mean.)
On a brighter note, Colorado's Amendment 48 that would've defined a fertilized egg as a "person" went down 72-27%. It too appears to have failed in every single county, and even lost nearly 3-2 in El Paso County/Colorado Springs, home of James Dobson and his disciples.
Posted by: WScott | November 5, 2008 11:17 AM
Brent: What you fail to consider though is that there are divergent beliefs on the nature of homosexuality. Many people believe that homosexuality is a choice. I would bet you that this is what those 69% of black voters believe. If this is the case, then they are comparing a choice (homosexuality) to a genetic trait (race). This is where they get offended.
Posted by: Jared | November 5, 2008 11:19 AM
Gay teens are 4 times more likely than Heterosexual youth to commit suicide. 33% of LBGT youth attempt suicide. To all voters in all states that have banned gay marriage: Keep screaming out your Hate of Gays to your Children. The next time a teen in your community commits suicide and no one knows why.......remember this statistic. They don't see a reason to go on in life when they know they are Hated by their family and by their church. Spreading Hate to the Masses is a historically Christian thing to do. The Mormon Church contributed approx. 70% of the money for this Hate Amendment. They told mostly Lies that you believed to get you to go along with them. Your children will be unable to turn to you in their need for fear that you will Hate them as well. Legislating your churches Morality does not keep your children safe. Ask any Gay adult what this Hate did to them as children.
Posted by: 4njvotes | November 5, 2008 11:20 AM
I'm very unhappy about proposition 8 in California.
And it's infuriating that so much of the money backing proposition 8 came from out of state.
Posted by: Ryan Jahn | November 5, 2008 11:25 AM
Jared, you are correct in what people believe, but the evidence that homosexuality is a choice is near-to-nonexistent outside of bigots' fantasies. Evidence continues to mount about a genetic basis (or strong genetic component), as well as physiological differences between hetero- and homosexuals. Unfortunately, when the beliefs are opposite to the evidence, we get things like government-enforced bigotry. It's a tribute (in part) to the religious fanatics propaganda that beliefs like "choice" re around. I find it laughable that to the fanatics, "free will" aka Choice, is held up as one of their god's greatest gifts, so much that things like homosexuality have to be choices, they often believe in removing the choices of others (such as women and the typical anti-choice stance of the "pro-lifers"). How the ideas of "free will" and the authoritarian mindset fit together boggles my mind. If I get some time I may have to look into that.
I also think that the psychological factor of "superiority" comes into play. Most groups (and I'd gamble most people) try to make themselves superior by scapegoating, and for the the black voters, they can always say "well, we're better than the homosexuals" (obviously, this is painting a complex issue in the basic shade, but I think you can understand what I mean).
Posted by: Badger3k | November 5, 2008 11:36 AM
4njvotes:Please don't talk about other's hate while spewing vitriol yourself, it makes you look ignorant. The viewpoint of the L.D.S (Mormon) church is this:
"Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation - to create life and bring God's spirit children into the world - is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric".
I got this straight off their website. I don't believe this viewpoint comes from a standpoint of hatred, it comes directly from their faith. Please try to see all sides of the issue.
Posted by: Jared | November 5, 2008 11:37 AM
Is anyone forcing religious people to be in same-sex marriages? Of course not. This is all about the religious imposing their views on the rest of society.
As for whether homosexuality is a choice or not, why does that matter? Collecting stamps is a choice, but I doubt anyone thinks denying marriage to stamp collectors would be moral.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2008 11:47 AM
Quoth Ed:
"...I've ever heard, 95% of African-Americans in California voted for Barack Obama but 69% of them also voted to deny equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. Are memories so short? Only last year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage, a tremendous moment for equality and civil rights."
Kind of off topic, but in an identity politics class I'm taking we came up against much the same thing while reading Nellie McClung's biography. Although she's one of the Famous Five and a serious promoter of women's rights she still looks down on the First Nations around her when she heads west.. Even the title (unintentionally) alludes to it "Clearing in the West", clearing the west of who now?
Sorry for the lack of substance, I just thought this an interesting parallel.
Posted by: Zan | November 5, 2008 11:59 AM
Badger3k: I appreciate your well thought out response. Many people compare the sin of homosexuality with the sin of adultery. They are both thought of as sexual sins. Many religions believe that there is a natural tendency towards these sins and that our purpose in this world is to deny these animalistic tendencies. So, technically these people agree with you on the natural basis of homosexuality, though I doubt they would come right out and say it. They are still going to believe that it is a sin though.
Tulse: Comparing homosexuality to stamp collecting is not a valid comparison in this context.
Of course no one is forcing these people to be in a same sex marriage, but there are consequences. Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place "church and state on a collision course.
Posted by: Jared | November 5, 2008 12:04 PM
Jared, just because the Mormon church doesn't explicitly say they hate gays, their actions show their motivations. Just because something comes from a view point of idiotic superstition does not make it any less vile than if it came from a political institution. Remember that a great deal of opposition to interracial marriage came from religious groups as well. Would you be urging people to try and understand the other side's religious position in that situation as well? I appreciate what you're trying to say; I just think it's misguided.
hollywood, you are ignorant on a staggering level. Fighting to impose bigotry on others using the power of the government is not defending your rights: it's legislating your vitriol into law. I realize that bigots like you will probably never wrap your warped minds around that concept. But the absolutely despicable nature of your comment reveals you for what you truly are.
Posted by: Chris Berez | November 5, 2008 12:09 PM
Re hollywood
Well, well, another gay bashing bigoted shithead joins Mr. mroberts here. Mr. hollywood is cordially invited to go fuck himself.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 12:09 PM
Jared:
Those people have the analogy sideways. You can *always* choose your partner. That person can't choose their race and they can't choose their gender. My marriage would have been illegal in my state before Perez v Sharp. I could have chosen a different person because of an immutable fact about the one I chose, but having the state force me to do that would have been wrong. That's why I voted against Prop 8.
hollywood:
I don't hate Christians. I just totally hate it when they pray, talk about their religion, or otherwise exercise their beliefs. If they'd just stay in the closet and not do crazy things like "go to church" where I can see them doing it, we wouldn't have a problem. Since they do, I will be forced to collect signatures outside of Wal*Mart to get a constitutional amendment banning Christian practices. Nothing personal. You can still be a Christian. Just put it back in the closet where it belongs.
I love the old, "My right not to be offended at what you do trumps your right to do basic stuff that the rest of us take for granted" argument. I'm sure that California's gay population weeps at the plight of Christians and their rights.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 5, 2008 12:10 PM
hollywood, if you married someone of a different race (say, for the sake of argument, you are Caucasian and you married an Asian) and some church condemned you for that "Choice", would you say that church is not "Condeming" you as a person? Would you say they are not creating "HATE"? I have difficulty understanding you would come to that conclusion.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 5, 2008 12:10 PM
On another note, Initiative 11 in South Dakota--which would have banned most abortions--failed 55/45. This was the second try since 2006 to pass some sort of abortion ban; this year's proposed ban was designed especially to be a bit more moderate with exceptions allowed for cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. It still failed.
Posted by: marty | November 5, 2008 12:12 PM
So what if homosexual activity is a sin?
I wish more of my fellow Christians would read the New Testament and note that it never commands us to make sin illegal.
In fact, the idea is preposterous on the whole. The Sermon on the Mount teaches that the sin is contained in the desire to commit the sinful activity, not in the actual act (which already presupposes the desire.) So any sort of discrimination against homosexuals cannot achieve what is the likely goal--some sort of misdirected attempt to reduce sin, or to shield God (like he needs our help) from seeing sin.
The bible calls for us to resist sin. It calls for us to help one another (fellow believers) to deal with sin. It calls for believers to be accountable to one another. As for what unbelievers do--that's basically none of our business. What we are supposed to do with unbelievers is witness to them, not force them to behave the way we want. There is no passage that I know of that commands us to attempt to prevent unbelievers from sinning.
This is almost painfully obvious.
Posted by: heddle | November 5, 2008 12:12 PM
Jared- "I got this straight off their website. I don't believe this viewpoint comes from a standpoint of hatred, it comes directly from their faith. Please try to see all sides of the issue."
Jared, it appears you're missing the 6000 pound elephant in the middle of the room- Prop 8 ENSHRINES that quaint little bit of mormon dogma in CA civil law. Now, a whole lotta folks in CA get to experience the mormon god's warm and fuzzy feelings for humanity- whether they want to or not.
christian hate- destroying America since.... always.
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2008 12:13 PM
Duke,
I know heterosexual couples who aren't able to reproduce among themselves.
Does that make them abnormal?
Posted by: e | November 5, 2008 12:13 PM
Jared,
People like me who are against the rampant homophobia DO see all sides. There's not a single thing anywhere that says all sides must be valid. Understanding where holocaust deniers come from doesn't make their arguments factually based or morally acceptable, and it's no different with people who erect arguments based on a book they believe is "The One and Only Revealed Truth" against homosexuality and/or against gay marriage. The bigotry exists BECAUSE people convince themselves homosexuality is a choice. BUT IT ISN'T. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. When did any heterosexual say "hmm, I think I'll be attracted to the opposite sex and not the same sex?" This is a point so blindingly obvious to ANYBODY that is gay but many heterosexuals just can't grasp it. And 4njvotes is correct. Ask any gay adult what their childhood was like. Some of us spend a lifetime getting past the hate, overt or institutionalized, that was around us each and every day while we were growing up.
But we don't want pity.
We don't want 100% understanding (hell, plenty of pockets in our society are still racist).
We want equality. It's really that easy. Treat us as equals. Marriage will stay safe, we promise.
Posted by: Jeff | November 5, 2008 12:14 PM
Hollywood: It's not so much that "my DNA made me do it" as "I am not attracted to the opposite sex at all, instead I favour my own gender because of a genetic variation and as much as I deny it and try to be with the opposite sex it physically disgusts me (to varying or lesser degrees dependant upon the person)." Mind you I don't think you really care to listen to listen to me, or anyone, about the actual gay experience.
Jared: I see no justification for religions and their imaginary sexual sins or an aversion to your so-called animalistic tendencies to dictate laws that leave specific groups out of a beneficial (financial even) institution. And I certainly don't see any reason that this would would send church and state on a collision course, you can get married in a church all you like, but the state is the one with the power to legally join two people.
Thor's Hammer am I ever glad to live in Canada.
Posted by: Zan | November 5, 2008 12:15 PM
/delurk
Heddle,
While I wholeheartedly have disagreed with your political choices and reasons for those choices after reading them over at ATBC, and find Calvinism to be completely illogical, I am always amazed at how you sometimes produce gems of rationality from your beliefs.
So, props to you for your statement. Maybe you could become a larger leader in Christian culture within America?
Back to lurking.
/relurk
Posted by: BGT | November 5, 2008 12:24 PM
"This may well place "church and state on a collision course."
Of course it places them on a collision course: in the U.S. which has at least a nominally secular government, any "church" which seeks to impose its dogma on all of society will be at odds with the government.
"To allow Gay-Marriage is to condone the Sin."
Have you ever noticed how U.S. law doesn't talk about "Sin?" Ever wonder why that is?
Posted by: dogscratcher | November 5, 2008 12:29 PM
You're welcome to your opinion, hollywood - but why should the rest of society be forced to abide by it? Is homosexuality bad for society? (please provide proofs to back up your answer)
Posted by: Phaedrus | November 5, 2008 12:32 PM
I understand that I am fighting a losing battle here and there are too many valid points to respond to. The common response seems to be this: "It won't affect you, so why should you care?"
I care because my children will be "adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
In today's secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone - acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today's politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another's differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one's standards or one's opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination."
Thanks to lds.org for the bulk of this.
In parting I would like to say that I respect your views, and your passion to support them, but I simply disagree.
Posted by: Jared | November 5, 2008 12:38 PM
From heddle :As for what unbelievers do--that's basically none of our business. What we are supposed to do with unbelievers is witness to them, not force them to behave the way we want. There is no passage that I know of that commands us to attempt to prevent unbelievers from sinning.
But wait, lots of folks said they could not vote for Obama cause he must be a muslin (definitely not a polyester blend). Folks of that cloth type are well known for repressing gays (like death by hanging for Iranian teens). I bet anti gay types are also more likely to have voted against Obama. They should think this through; now he is in his 'secret' can be out! Sharia law by Easter! Round up the queers (and others we don't like this week)! Stoning in the stadiums! Oh yeah let the good times roll!
Posted by: Jim | November 5, 2008 12:43 PM
Jared:
All due respect, but you can teach your children anything you want. Unfortunately, in the end, they will be the ones who decide what they think is right, using the basis of your teachings, school their friends and most importantly, their own experiences. I really do hope none of your children are born gay, it's a shitty thing to live through, being denounced by your family and church because of something you have no control over.
Alos, might I suggest homeschool if you're that afraid of your children thinking that gay people are -equal- and -normal-.
Posted by: Zan | November 5, 2008 12:51 PM
Hollywood, I support your right to say things I don't agree with. I support your right to practice a religion I don't believe in. I support you're right to spend your money as you see fit, to dress how you choose, to eat what you want, to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm others without their informed consent. I may not like your choices, but I will defend your right to make them.
Go ahead; disapprove of homosexuality all you want. That doesn't make it acceptable to take away homosexuals' right to make choices you don't like. This is the essence of liberty. When you trample on the rights of anyone you attack the liberty of everyone.
Jared, school sex ed programs do not address the morality of sex or marriage. It's about biology, hygiene, risks and precautions. Teaching about sex in a neutral way is not the same as teaching sex is morally neutral. Your fear seems entirely unfounded.
Many views on marriage already exist. Some see it as celebration of love, other as a means to security, or a prerequisite for children, a way of improving one's station, an unfortunate consequence of a drunken night in Vegas, a way of recapturing their youth, an unrealistic commitment to be avoided, or the fulfillment of God's plan, to name but a few. Schools do not address the morality of any of these points of view. Why should homosexuality be the exception?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 12:53 PM
Hurr, I can't grammar or spell today, forgive me.
Posted by: Zan | November 5, 2008 12:55 PM
Re hollywood
Hey hollywood, don't go away mad, just go away.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 12:59 PM
To allow Gay-Marriage is to condone the Sin. It is to agree that there is nothing wrong with two same gender people to participate in sexual activity. Homosexuality is wrong. It is unacceptable.
Given the above, which of the statements below is a valid argument?
To allow Mixed race-Marriage is to condone the Sin. It is to agree that there is nothing wrong with two same People of different races to participate in sexual activity. Miscengation is wrong. It is unacceptable.
To allow Catholic-Marriage is to condone the Sin. It is to agree that there is nothing wrong with two same Catholics to participate in sexual activity. Catholicism is wrong. It is unacceptable.
To allow Jew-Marriage is to condone the Sin. It is to agree that there is nothing wrong with two same Jews to participate in sexual activity. Judaism is wrong. It is unacceptable.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2008 1:02 PM
For many voters Proposition 8 was a "testament of faith." Yet, sadly, this issue had very little to do with faith. For many it was a way to express their disgust for a minority group, and to ensure that they would not enjoy the same privileges as the rest of us. This is a story that repeats itself over and over again in America. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL died in 1957 with Brown v. Board of Education. Let it stay dead so that we can all share the same rights under the Law. AND - for those people who are out there thinking that gay people are wrong, evil, sinful, diseased, unfit --- go look in a mirror and then call a therapist. I'm just saying... ISSUES!! (All closets have doors, bro, STEP OUTTA THAT CLOSET)
Posted by: SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS OVER | November 5, 2008 1:18 PM
Woe to the Mormons and the jarring culture clash they experience when schools allow children to consume beverages with caffeine in them or Muslims who have to cope with the fact that pork consumption is not condemned in health class.
Essentially, what you're saying is that you're uncomfortable teaching children about the world around them, so you'd rather change the world and block couples from getting married than expend the energy to say, "Gay people can legally get married. We don't approve. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's Holy(tm)."
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 5, 2008 1:26 PM
Jared, there is a lot in school curricula now that is offensive to various religious groups -- should schools not teach about farms, or serve beef, at the risk of offending Hindus? Should their health classes not talk about blood transfusions, to avoid angering Jehovah's Witnesses?
More to the point, should the state actually outlaw the consumption of beef and provision of blood transfusions for all citizens because these practices are contrary to the beliefs of some? Because that's what this law is about -- making it illegal for everyone to do something that only some people object to.
And hollywood, your carefully reasoned argument that "ALL you Fags are going to burn in HELL for your sinfull lives!!!" is immensely persuasive.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2008 1:35 PM
Okay... The disaster over Prop 8 is over. Time to move forward.
I would suggest a 3-pronged counter.
1. Check the donation records. Are there any churches that have stepped over the line and should lose their tax exempt status? How about that last minute $200,000 from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Sure looks like a religious effort to engage in politics to me. Are the Knights of Columbus tax exempt? Even the Yes on 8 ads mentioned backing from them.
2. File suit in Federal court on the basis that Prop 8 violates equal protection, especially after the Calif. Supreme Court ruling.
3. Start a petition drive to repeal Prop 8. The fundies haven't given up trying to tear down Roe v. Wade after 30+ years, so why not just keep trying to get rid of this travesty? Push the parallels to the demise of the old anti-miscegenation laws for all they're worth. Rub peoples noses in the idea that Prop 8 took away a civil right. Embarrass the hell out of churches for being on the side of bigotry and ask if they want to go back to banning inter-racial marriage, too? If marriage is "sacred", why aren't they trying to ban divorce?
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | November 5, 2008 1:36 PM
Hollywood said:
And followed it up with this... twice:
Liar.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 1:37 PM
Re hollywood
Mr. fucktard hollywood is obviously an asshole who is rather presumptuous in claiming to speak for god in deciding who is directed to the hot place. That's generally known as blasphemy.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 1:44 PM
Paraphrasing Hollywood troll:
To allow Masturbation is to condone the Sin. It is to agree that there is nothing wrong with one person participating sexual activity. Masturbation is wrong. It is unacceptable.
Hollywood - do you think masturbation should be illegal? Maybe you should be in jail?
Posted by: Michael | November 5, 2008 1:51 PM
My last word on Proposition 8: Someday, when Gavin Newsome becomes governor of California...
Posted by: gary l. day | November 5, 2008 1:53 PM
If homosexuality was normal they would ba able to reproduce among themselves.
Thank god that isn't possible.
Posted by: Duke | November 5, 2008 11:29 AM
Huh?
You've really found a precious crowd of homophobes today, Ed.
Posted by: RickD | November 5, 2008 1:55 PM
The Defense of Marriage Act undercuts the equal protection argument -- that was its whole purpose. One would first need to challenge DOMA, and the Supreme Court has so far refused to rule on it.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2008 1:57 PM
Quit giving money to churches. Quit supporting politicians who are anti-gay. The KKKristian reich has used fear and intimidation for so many years to spread their "love" to the masses. Fuck them all.
Posted by: democommie | November 5, 2008 2:26 PM
Jared wrote:
That's a very good analogy, Jared. And do we outlaw adultery in the U.S.? When's the last time you heard of someone being prosecuted for being adulterous?Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 2:30 PM
when church and state are on a collision course, the church is perfectly free --- and would be very well advised --- to step out of the way.
there was a time when states deferred to churches. millions died because of it. let's not go there again.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 5, 2008 2:30 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 2:32 PM
Yo, I notice Liddy Dole lost in NC. That should at least kinda compensate for the passage of Prop 8 in CA.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 5, 2008 2:32 PM
Don't people hear what they say, or read what they type? How else can you explain all the whines of "You must support this bigoted ban, or else they'll force us/our children to stop the bigotry"?
Posted by: Beowulff | November 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend has a very good piece up cautioning against scapegoating the African American community for the Yes on 8 results. She says it better than I can, so I'll just link to it. (The upshot: 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8... but blacks represent only 6.2% of of California's population. The big demographic that killed us was voters over 65... and the big money source that killed us was the Mormon Church, one of the whitest institutions in America.)
Posted by: Greta Christina | November 5, 2008 2:44 PM
The Mormon Church has aprox 13million people in it... more than half are from outside of America. Mostly in South and Central America. "Whitest institutions in America?!"
You Gays are SO GAY!!!!
Posted by: Gary | November 5, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 3:00 PM
Have you ever seen that movie "Junior" with Gov. Arnold S.?? Where a Dude has a child. Wouldn't that be something if it were possible? It was a pretty good movie. im really glad that Gay men can't have children. You Gays would be having Gay babies, and the world would fill with this disease.
Posted by: Frank P | November 5, 2008 3:01 PM
Posted by: Taz | November 5, 2008 3:02 PM
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. CALIFORNIA IS SAFE FROM GAY-MARRIAGE. the gays are bitter.... and SO SO GAY!
Posted by: Gary | November 5, 2008 3:09 PM
Perhaps more directly on-point, Jesus directly condemned divorce, and divorcee remarriage, as sins. Why didn't proposal 8 include a ban on either?
Posted by: DaveL | November 5, 2008 3:11 PM
The overuse of caps is so gay.
Posted by: Taz | November 5, 2008 3:18 PM
DaveL,
You don't even have to go that far. He condemned (as equivalent to adultery) your garden-variety heterosexual lustful thought. Why not make that illegal?
Posted by: heddle | November 5, 2008 3:18 PM
I have a question-
You say that a homosexual relatoinship is normal. Perhaps because it is a natural attraction to the same sex. Something that is in the genetics of a human. In fact, you want to be given the same marital status as that of a man-wife marriage. am i right? You do not want to be treated different. Equal Rights?.
What about a relationship between a man and a child of 12 years old? The man has an attraction to young children. This desire is instilled in him from birth. Is he exempt from "choice"? Should it be legal for him to marry the child. Or to have sexual relations with him? Even if the child Consents to all this?
Proposition 8 was and is not discrimination. It states marriage is between a man and a woman.
Do you believe that marriage will make you happy? Do You think that pleasure is happiness? That is simply not true. Wickedness never was happiness. Only repentance will bring you the real happiness you desire.
Posted by: Lance | November 5, 2008 3:31 PM
Children can neither consent to sex nor enter into contracts, so I have no idea what you think this has to do with marriage between homosexual adults.
Actually, studies suggest a healthy marriage is one of the most important factors in a person's long-term happiness.
No, but gay people already have gay sex. I trust you knew that already, right? I'd love to see what kind of tortured logic you're using to imply that homosexuals are seeking marriage for pure hedonistic pleasure.
Homosexuality never was wickedness. Bigotry, however, is. Have you repented yet?
Posted by: DaveL | November 5, 2008 3:39 PM
Children cannot give informed consent to sex.
...which discriminates against those who want to marry their partners of the same sex. Really, this isn't rocket science.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2008 3:40 PM
And we'll pray for you, so you'll get beyond your own spiritual pride and arrogance, thinking that you know the mind of God.
Posted by: gwangung | November 5, 2008 3:50 PM
Lance the homophobic bigoted strawman manufacturer:
Dumbass, a 12 year old child is not able to consent to such a relationship. So your worthless analogy fails for the ten millionth time. Did you honestly think we haven't seen your fellow homophobes trot out this garbage at every opportunity. It has never been anything more than bullshit.
Now I have a few questions, Lance. Are you too stupid to understand how bad your argument is? Or are you just so desperate to poison the well that you see no problem with lying?
Can you explain why the state should be in the business of enforcing your bigotry? Can you even try to give a single valid reason to restrict the rights of consenting adults? No, you can't, you're a total failure, you'll just keep spewing the same bullshit and pretending you don't know it's a lie. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 5, 2008 3:51 PM
Lance, you forfeited your argument as soon as you compared my relationship to that of a pedophile.
For all the people who voted for prop 8, I have one thing to say, a quote from Thomas Paine.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Posted by: Bachalon | November 5, 2008 3:52 PM
It's astounding that Lance could actually type "Or to have sexual relations with him? Even if the child Consents to all this?" without gagging and puking.
What a sick f*** you must be to think a child can actually consent to sex with an adult.
To make things clear to you, the issue for we gay rights supporters has always been, "consenting adults." If a person is (a) an adult, and (b) consents, then it's really none of your--or my--business. Now compare our stance of "consenting adults" with your stance of "consenting children," and tell me who's the really disturbed one here.
Please excuse me while I go puke up my lunch at the thought of the child molestation you so casually imply.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 3:55 PM
>>Wickedness never was happiness.
It is when it's done right.
Posted by: gary l. day | November 5, 2008 3:57 PM
Posted by: Owen | November 5, 2008 4:16 PM
Proposition 8 was and is not discrimination. It states marriage is between a man and a woman.
Do you believe that marriage will make you happy? Do You think that pleasure is happiness? That is simply not true. Wickedness never was happiness. Only repentance will bring you the real happiness you desire
Anti Miscngation Laws were and are not discrimination. They state marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race.
Do you believe that marriage will make you happy? Do You think that pleasure is happiness? That is simply not true. Wickedness never was happiness. Only repentance will bring you the real happiness you desire.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Where did the flock of trolls come from?
Is this one of the GOP stages of grief?
Posted by: SharonB | November 5, 2008 5:11 PM
If you think you know what god thinks
do the world a favor
and think you know what god thinks for you
and leave the rest of us out of it
Posted by: kamaka | November 5, 2008 6:11 PM
First of all, the notion that homosexuals choose to be gay is absurd. I don't see how anyone could actually know a gay person, have heard his or her life story, and still cling to this deluded belief. Think about it for a second: even if you REALLY wanted to be a sinner (why do the faithful assume we secular types even care whether we're sinning?), would it be worth the derision, the bigotry, the violence, and the political marginalization to do so?
But even if it WAS a choice...well...so is religion, and religion is protected. There is still no (logically valid) legal argument to discriminate against homosexuals. I know others have already pointed this out, but I have a hard time understanding why these people can't understand this.
Posted by: Dan L. | November 5, 2008 6:22 PM
re: 69% of black voters. A close friend of many years who was (he's deceased) black and gay used to be fairly annoyed by this situation. He said on more than one occasion that he actually felt more accepted by white people than by black people. He had a great deal equanimity about the whole thing, but on more than one occasion when we were approached by black panhandlers who called him 'brother,' he sarcastically muttered after they'd left that he was their brother when they wanted money and a 'faggot' the rest of the time. He was clear about the comparability of bigotries. Notwithstanding the comment above about skin and sin, a religious rationalization doesn't make it any less bigoted or pernicious.
Posted by: Dr X | November 5, 2008 6:43 PM
Wow, if you allow homosexuals to marry, it attacks your rights, attacks your marriage ... I don't even see where supporters of 8 who claim this can even develop the "logic" of this argument. I could then just as easily argue that a black man and white woman married offends me and attacks my marriage, or that non-whites being "married" offends me and attacks my marriage. It is just as discriminatory, just as false, and just as wrong.
The fact is, you don't get to base secular laws on your religious bigotry. You can hate them all you want, you can tsk tsk the fact that they live a "lifestyle" that you don't agree with. You can pray for them and hope they "see the light." But passing a law that violates their rights and enforces the idea that they are second class citizens is discrimination.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't participate in one. Don't go to a gay wedding, don't go to a gay wedding reception. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to stop others from doing it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 5, 2008 7:02 PM
OT: First lawsuit against prop 8 filed:
http://justinmclachlan.com/08/11/first-prop-8-lawsuit-filed/
Posted by: llewelly | November 5, 2008 7:14 PM
I see that hour host, Mr. Brayton, has consigned Mr. Hollywood to the disposal bin. Good riddance to bad medicine.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 7:20 PM
Is anyone forcing religious people to be in same-sex marriages? Of course not. This is all about the religious imposing their views on the rest of society.
Tulse, have you ever thought that gays might be the ones imposing? When a religious person is forced to keep their child in a class where pro-homosexual propaganda is being taught, don't you think that is imposing on their religious beliefs? Or when a Christian business is forced to hire a transvestite that would damage the image of their business, don't you think that is imposing? Or when a doctor is sued because he won't artificially inseminate a lesbian couple that easily could have gone somewhere else, you don't think that is imposing? Christians are NOT dictating to gays how to live their lives. They are not parading the streets of SF telling gays they can't be gay. They however do live in this society too, and they have just as legitimate a voice in the affairs of our society as anybody else. Gays are the ones making the changes on the status quo. If anybody is imposing, it is the gay movement.
Posted by: mroberts | November 5, 2008 7:20 PM
Ed,
How do measures like Prop 8 not run afoul of "full faith and credit" clause? Even Scalia seemed to think they would in Lawrence. Is it just that no challenges have made it that far yet?
Posted by: Ignignockt | November 5, 2008 7:21 PM
On November 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Bachalon Posted:
For all the people who voted for prop 8, I have one thing to say, a quote from Thomas Paine.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
I have heard that there is a Hispanic group planning on putting a proposition on the ballot to make Spanish a/the official language of California. They were looking at Prop Hate to see how it went. I am guessing that a lot of the people who voted for Prop Hate would not like a Prop Mex. I would not vote for a Prop Mex (yes, yes, one could say that I am bigoted about that, so sue me). But it will be interesting to see the Prop Hate crowd tie themselves in knots.
Posted by: Blue Nine | November 5, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by: mroberts | November 5, 2008 7:20 PM
Tulse, have you ever thought that gays might be the ones imposing?....Christians are NOT dictating to gays how to live their lives. They are not parading the streets of SF telling gays they can't be gay. They however do live in this society too, and they have just as legitimate a voice in the affairs of our society as anybody else. Gays are the ones making the changes on the status quo. If anybody is imposing, it is the gay movement.
There is a gay pride parade every summer in Chicago, and let's just say it is an interesting show. Over the top (no pun intended).
But I think a lot of so-called christians need to make the connection. Maybe the reason gay people parade like lunatics is because they have had to expend a lot of energy hiding and trying to be something they are not. An extreme response to an extreme stimulus.
Posted by: Blue Nine | November 5, 2008 7:28 PM
And, mroberts, no one is telling Christians how to live their lives.
Get over yourself.
"homosexual propaganda." Thanks for the laugh, though.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 5, 2008 7:33 PM
So, "values voters" literally doing what their religion tells them, against one specific group of people, ISN'T imposing?
Posted by: Bachalon | November 5, 2008 7:35 PM
Regarding the ban on colored marriage I support:
Tulse, have you ever thought that coloreds might be the ones imposing? When a white person is forced to keep their child in a class where pro-colored propaganda is being taught, don't you think that is imposing on their white beliefs? Or when a white business is forced to hire a colored that would damage the image of their business, don't you think that is imposing? Or when a doctor is sued because he won't artificially inseminate a colored couple that easily could have gone somewhere else, you don't think that is imposing? Christians are NOT dictating to coloreds how to live their lives. They are not parading the streets of Harlem telling coloreds they can't be colored. They however do live in this society too, and they have just as legitimate a voice in the affairs of our society as anybody else. Coloreds are the ones making the changes on the status quo. If anybody is imposing, it is the colored movement.
Posted by: 1860's version of mroberts | November 5, 2008 8:10 PM
Mroberts,
To be fair, the current status quo is a little biased to the Christian way of thinking. One could argue that the rest of us are just trying to level the playing field so we can all have a fair crack at life.
I'm also a little confused by the notion of needing a ban on gay marriage to protect those in hetero marriages. How does allowing gays to marry threaten your (hetero) marriage? As far as I know, it doesn't. And if you think the strength of your marriage is determined from the lack of others being allowed to marry then I suspect your marriage isn't that fullfilling anyway.
Posted by: Scott | November 5, 2008 8:20 PM
When a period of social bigotry starts to end, there's always a mixture of bigots and non-bigots, with the bigots like mroberts slowly, over decades, replaced by non-bigots. It happened with blacks. It's gradually happening with gays:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27010.html
Posted by: steve s | November 5, 2008 8:21 PM
Regarding Lance, hollywood, Gary, Jared, and the other homophobes we appear to have attracted...it certainly looks like they agree with Robert Bork that the knowledge that someone is engaging in activity they strongly disapprove of is as damaging to their psyche, and therefore them, as being the victim of assault. Kind of a nutty idea, yes, but in Bizzaro Land, I suppose any kind of half-assed reason is supposed to be taken as an iron-clad argument. In some ways, it is repellent, but others, downright fascinating.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 5, 2008 8:30 PM
Pro-homosexual propaganda? The relevance to allowing gay marriage is...?
OK, red herring number two. Apparently, doing away with gay marriage prevents businesses from having to hire transvestites.
A problem obviously easily solved by making sure gays don't get married. Or something.
Except for the "don't get married" part.
So let's talk about the balance of impositions here. On one side, you have impositions like telling your kids, "It's legal for men to marry other men. We believe that's immoral, but not all immoral things are illegal." On the other side, it's, "You don't get to marry the person you want to marry."
Once again, I'm sure that the couple in that position weeps at your situation.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 5, 2008 8:36 PM
Um, no.
And explain how any of your examples have anything to do specifically with allowing gays to marry.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2008 8:39 PM
1860's version of Mr. Roberts,
I'm old enough to remember, you could have titled that 1960's version of Mr. Roberts.
Posted by: Dr X | November 5, 2008 8:46 PM
Jared said,
So basically you're saying that gay marriage might prevent you from teaching your kids to be homophobic bigots. Explain to me how that's a bad thing.
Wrapping you bigotry up in religious dogma doesn't make it any less vile.
Posted by: Malcolm | November 5, 2008 9:07 PM
It's nice to see in the comments here that there is one bigot and like 30 non-bigots.
Posted by: steve s | November 5, 2008 9:28 PM
I've never understood how Christians justify these kinds of bigotry. We all know how the OT commands that gays be put to death, yet Christians (online) are always saying how they don't have to follow the barbaric laws of the OT anymore because they have a new Covenant with Jesus.
In this new Covenant, Jesus spends a lot of time criticizing the thoughtlessly dogmatic religious leaders of his day and going on about doing unto others as you would have done unto you.
So, apparently, Jesus is explicitly telling Christians to treat people how they would want to be treated, yet, somehow, they disregard all that when it comes to gays and happily prevent them for having the same rights that they enjoy.
And if Christians feel that Jesus wants them to legally prevent gays from getting married because it's a sin, why aren't they also for legally preventing people from engaging in all of the thousands of other behaviors that they think are sinful as well?
I wonder what Jesus had to say about hypocrites?
Posted by: Caliban | November 5, 2008 9:41 PM
Caliban,
Christians don't use the bible as the basis for their beliefs, just as an excuse for them. People like Jared and mroberts are bigots who use religion as a way to justify their hatred.
If they really believed what the bible said, they would give all of their possessions away.
Posted by: Malcolm | November 5, 2008 10:01 PM
....and buy a sword. :)
Posted by: Caliban | November 5, 2008 10:04 PM
First I would like to say that I am ashamed of my state for passing this nasty bit of bigotry. "Gays getting married makes Jesus cry" is not a sound basis for making laws.
However another question that should be asked is how is it that the California State Constitution is subject to amendment by the mob?
Next year we put up a proposition to repeal Prop. 8 and the year after, depending on how the mob feels (or how much money this or that out-of-state interest group dumps here), we put one up to reinstate it. This is insanity.
Being able to change the Constitution by a simple majority vote is a recipe for anarchy, which is why the Framers of the Federal Constitution made the amendment process fairly difficult. Californians should follow their example.
Posted by: Troy Britain | November 5, 2008 10:15 PM
I have, then quickly realized that heterosexuals are not parties to gay marriages.
What pro-homosexual propaganda? The mere fact that homosexuals might be mentioned without scorn or condemnation? The same way eating beef, pork, or shellfish might be mentioned, despite it being an abomination under certain religious beliefs? Teach your kids your religious taboos at home or in church; that's what everyone else has to do.
1. Transvestites are not necessarily gay.
2. Employers have always had the ability to enforce workplace dress standards, so I don't see how this would come up. Do you perhaps have a particular case in mind?
No. Doctors must subjugate their religious beliefs to their duty towards their patients. That's what makes medicine a profession and not just a job. A fertility specialist is someone who helps people conceive, not someone who decides who should and should not conceive.
Except, of course, by campaigning to deny them marriage rights. And adoption rights. And by discriminating against gays in employment. And by denying them medical treatment.
They do not have a legitimate voice in their personal affairs, like marriage.
Were blacks "imposing" by demanding an end to Jim Crow laws? They, too, were making changes to the status quo. The fact that oppression against gays is long-standing does not, in any way, make it less of an "imposition", and it's truly bizarre how anyone could convince themselves otherwise.
Posted by: DaveL | November 5, 2008 10:17 PM
Damn straight Jared!
Personally I'm working on changing our local zoning ordinances to require 10 foot high opaque fences built around all fields with grazing animals so my children will not be adversely affected by all the fucking, pissing, and shitting going on - they act like animals!
I'm also trying to get my wife to team up with me by working to pass that a law that prohibits the ownership of all dogs and cats since we simply can't control their behavior and I don't want some damn gay dog humpin' my kids leg before he's ready for me to pass on my infinite wisdom on the "birds and the bees" if you get my drift.
Keep up the great work, see you on your planet someday. I hear I'm getting something tropical.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Michael Heath:
That last comment leads me to believe that you are beginning to truly understand that reasoned discourse with asshats lik Jairhead and mroberts are as productive as foreign policy discussions with Sarah Whatsername.
mroberts:
I think one of your legion of detractors had it right today when they said that the drama you invest in here gives you an erection.
Posted by: democommie | November 5, 2008 10:58 PM
There is no reason, other than a hatred of gays and lesbians, to vote to make them second class citizens de jure as well as de facto. Anyone who is not so ignorant of the issues that choosing to vote under those circumstances is morally inexcusable for that reason alone, who voted in favor of Prop 8 (or would have if he or she were eligible), and tells you that he or she does not hate gays and lesbians, is a liar. The only question is whether they're lying just to you, or to themselves as well.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 5, 2008 11:03 PM
heddle at 12:12 pm
> There is no passage that I know of that commands us to attempt to prevent
> unbelievers from sinning.
I'm glad to hear you say that, although with many people I think it's precisely the "flaunting" aspect -- removing the shame of sin and making it publicly acceptable -- that so infuriates them. When it was safe in the closet, well okay, private is private, but to put it out in the open, advocating, abetting and normalizing it, that's an offense of another order of magnitude, much much worse than the sin itself. The line from the Sermon on the Mount about "better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea" comes to mind (for leading others into sin).
That, at least, is how I understand the preoccupation with legislating private morality, and why people think civilisation (including marriage) is on the brink if people are allowed to loosen things up.
Posted by: countlurkula | November 5, 2008 11:35 PM
I care because my children will be "adversely affected". The establishment of men holding hands as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that men holding hands are equivalent to heterosexual hand-holding, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that holding hands can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual hand holding is morally neutral. Classroom instruction on holding hands in secondary schools can be expected to equate men holding hands with heterosexual hand-holding. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
In today's secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone - acceptance of men holding hands as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today's politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
Truly, Christianity is threatened.
Posted by: llewelly | November 6, 2008 12:51 AM
Countlurkula,
I think you're right about that. I get the impression that they feel if homosexuality is "normalised" and brought out in the open, that it will anger thier God and tempt his wrath or something. Pat Robertson certainly seems to feel that every tornado or hurricane that hits the country is God throwing a temper tantrum over gays.
Which, if you think about it, is kinda silly cuz practically everything humans do and think is some kind of sin already.
And technically speaking, being married to a person of the same sex and walking down the street together (or going out for dinner or a movie) wouldn't look much different (even to God) than any other two people doing the same public activities. It's not as if gays are going to start having sex in the middle of the street during rush hour if they are given legal standing as married couples.
Posted by: Caliban | November 6, 2008 1:02 AM
It's a rather weak God that's so threatened. My idea of God isn't that threatened.
And I see no love in your fruits.
Posted by: gwangung | November 6, 2008 1:09 AM
llewelly, LOL! Dude, get a grip. If you think Christianity is "threatened" by hand-holding, then that doesn't say much for Christianity.
Christianity has survived and thrived for over 2000 years. If hand-holding was all it took to bring Christianity crashing down, i would have turned gay a long time ago. :)
Posted by: Caliban | November 6, 2008 1:10 AM
Poe's law strikes again.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2008 1:13 AM
LOL! You totally got me! Well played...
Posted by: Caliban | November 6, 2008 1:16 AM
I am just SO TIRED of religious people expecting the rest of society to follow their rules and beliefs.
And being against gay marriage (gay relationships) IS a religious belief, based on the(BIBLICAL) belief that gays are "sinners" and "an abomination".
This is JUST LIKE Muslim leaders that want secular nations to jail their (non-Muslim)citizens for speaking negatively about Mohammad.
Most Americans (Including Christians) would never (and should never)tolerate this, and would feel it unjust if the USA put it into law and enforced it. How about having to wear a veil, because some others around you think its a "sin" not too?
Who gets to pick what biblical belief should be legally mandated? (No one does, which is the strength of SECULAR SOCIETY. State support of one religions' beliefs immediately violates all others.)
When I mention beliefs held by Muslims, it's SO obvious that people should not be obligated to follow religions not their own. But when its a Christian belief, no one notices the conflict.
IT IS THE SAME THING.
TRUE Religious Freedom INCLUDES FREEDOM FROM Religion- and it's mandates!
ALSO-
Christians often don't like the beliefs supported by public schools, and instead teach their kids what they believe (like creationism!). To think that gay relationships would be a focus in education, rather than a side note, is not realistic.
Besides, there ARE schools available that teach only religious-approved values. You are free to send your kids there, or home school them. You cannot expect secular society to promote YOUR religious values in a PUBLIC School.
BUT REALLY-
What religious believers are truly afraid of is that Gays might someday be considered "Normal" in the eyes of society. That one day, your kids will NOT think that being gay is a "sin", no matter what you tell them. That YOUR definition of family will no longer be the ONLY one, maybe not even the preferred one. That your religious beliefs will cease to be the foundation of modern society, the primary, default, position.
Religious people feel society is crumbling- what is REALLY happening is that as our society evolves away from biblical beliefs, more people are seen as equals to "white Xtians" (slaves, Indians, Blacks, now Gays). We enlarge the old definitions of family and marriage to include other people we now see as HUMANS deserving of rights. (Gay marriage is only the most recent fight.)
Gay people just want to be treated EQUAL under the law, and want to be legally protected from unfair treatment. No more, no less. It is both a Human rights issue, and a religious freedom issue
StaceyJW
Posted by: StaceyJW | November 6, 2008 2:15 AM
Mrroberts said:
1. There are Christian businesses? = How does one tell? Isn't businesses purpose to make money (that root of all evil)? Shouldn't they give all their money away and go wait in a cave somewhere for the 'end times' (coming soon, for over 2000 years)?
2. Do you mean Transvestite, Transsexual or Cross-Dresser? No, they are NOT the same thing!
3. Since it is unlikely anyone could readily tell that a business is Christian, Buddhist, Mormon or Satanist, I can't see how the business would be affected. But if the religious culture of a business was that obvious probably I would think "Well perhaps these [fill in religious group here] are a lot better than I thought. Maybe I'll consider them."
DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2008 2:30 AM
I wonder if I can make the label "Jim Flamingo laws" stick...
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2008 3:30 AM
1950s version of mrroberts
Tulse, have you ever thought that niggers might be the ones imposing? When a religious person is forced to keep their child in a class where pro-nigger propaganda is being taught, don't you think that is imposing on their religious beliefs? Or when a Christian business is forced to hire a nigger that would damage the image of their business, don't you think that is imposing? Or when a doctor is sued because he won't artificially inseminate a nigger couple that easily could have gone somewhere else, you don't think that is imposing? Christians are NOT dictating to nigger how to live their lives. They are not parading the streets of SF telling nigger they can't be nigger. They however do live in this society too, and they have just as legitimate a voice in the affairs of our society as anybody else. Niggers are the ones making the changes on the status quo. If anybody is imposing, it is the nigger movement.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 6, 2008 5:02 AM
D'oh! I see someone got there before I did!
Posted by: Donalbain | November 6, 2008 5:05 AM
I think some people (llewelly) are labouring under a misapprehension as to what 'tolerance' actually means. It means, well, tolerating things. Putting up with stuff. You don't have to like it, or agree with it - you just put up with it. That's the cornerstone of democracy - people tolerating different views, opinions, lifestyles than their own. A democratic society, a free society, must be a tolerant society. You put up with things you don't necessarily like and people who may not like your values and what you stand for put up with you. That's how it works.
Posted by: CommiusRex | November 6, 2008 6:06 AM
CommiusRex:
Look above at Jared's comment at Nov. 5, 12:38 PM that he pulled mainly from the LDS website, and then start slamming Llewelly. So, I guess, by "some people", you mean the hierarchy and large swaths of the LDS (Mormon) church.
Minor Fail.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 6, 2008 9:39 AM
> I get the impression that they feel if homosexuality is "normalised" and
> brought out in the open, that it will anger thier God and tempt his wrath
> or something. Pat Robertson certainly seems to feel that every tornado or
> hurricane that hits the country is God throwing a temper tantrum over gays.
Yes, there may be two fears, one that if everyone _can_ do it, then everyone _will_ do it, which may or may not be correct (depending); and the other that we'll be punished/and or lose our dominant position as a country.
Fears like this have come and gone before. A distant cousin of mine was a well-known NYC preacher who 80-90 yrs ago predicted that the attenuation of Sabbath observance, particularly publishing newspapers and operating trains on Sunday, would threaten this country's standing. He was right about Sunday rest being on its way out, but boy, was he wrong about the consequences.
Posted by: countlurkula | November 6, 2008 9:42 AM
Thw wonderful thing about the LDS posters in this thread is that I'm sure none of them for a second have considered how the early enemies of the LDS justified their persecution.
"have you ever thought that polygamists might be the ones imposing? When a religious person is forced to keep their child in a class where pro-polygamists propaganda is being taught, don't you think that is imposing on their religious beliefs? Or when a Christian business is forced to hire a polygamist that would damage the image of their business, don't you think that is imposing? Or when a doctor is sued because he won't artificially inseminate a polygamist couple that easily could have gone somewhere else, you don't think that is imposing? Christians are NOT dictating to polygamists how to live their lives. They are not parading the streets of SF telling polygamists they can't be polygamists. They however do live in this society too, and they have just as legitimate a voice in the affairs of our society as anybody else. Polygamists are the ones making the changes on the status quo. If anybody is imposing, it is the polygamist movement."
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 6, 2008 9:43 AM
As I have said in other blogs, I am incredibly disappointed, disturbed, and angered by the passage of Prop 8, for all the reasons so clearly enunciated in this blog and these comments. For my part, as one living in Texas, I feel somewhat limited in what I can do. So, until something more productive comes along, I am personally boycotting as much of California as I can. I know that doesn't mean much, but it makes me feel better. I am letting the Hollywood-based websites I generally frequent know that I will not be visiting their web pages, or their advertisers, until Prop 8 disappears. I will not be contributing to the movie industry, consuming California products, or traveling to that state (much as I love San Francisco). Speaking as a heterosexual Presbyterian whose marriage is strong and healthy and in no way threatened by the fact that others want to enjoy the same love and benefits of this relationship as I do, I am ashamed of the institutionalized discrimination that California and other states have created.
Posted by: Kim | November 6, 2008 9:46 AM
And they seem to ignore the shameful history of official racism in the LDS that has since been (somewhat) overcome. If their views on black skin have changed, why not views on homosexuality.
Posted by: Tulse | November 6, 2008 9:49 AM
Kim:
Given that Hollywood and the entertainment industry were largely against Prop 8 and included many of its most visible opponents, that seems counterproductive and senseless. I would suggest boycotting Utah instead.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2008 10:19 AM
Sorry about prop 8-what the state decides has no bearing on what a church teaches as "right or wrong." We break down one barrier of discrimination only to build up another.
But to hijack the post a bit...I still have to pich myself...Indiana went blue!
Can't wait for Thanksgiving with the in-laws;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | November 6, 2008 11:15 AM
thanks
Posted by: mevlüt şekeri | November 8, 2008 10:11 AM