I was not going to write anything further about this issue, but once again I couldn’t resist the temptation to stoke the dialog with some additional points around voter privacy issues, unfair stereotypes about Christianity, leveraging civil rights rhetoric, marketing basics, and all kinds of other stuff.
For better or worse, media seems to have devoted all of its resources to covering the Prop 8 fallout. If they’re not showing rallies where people are whipping crowds into a frenzy, they’re showing impassioned folks waving rainbow flags and poster boards with images of civil rights leaders on them.
Truly some of these scenes look like they were shot in Palestine, not California. It’s so sad to see all of this unrest, especially after the historical election we should be celebrating! People are angry. And getting angrier. And the press aint helping.
You can’t fight a war for love with hate
In the months leading up to election day, instead of peacefully demonstrating and focusing on education of voters, Prop 8 opponents were in attack mode. Justifiably or not, a faction of the more aggressive ones became soaked in a maltov cocktail of boiling emotions, pride, and desperation, and made the fatal mistake of thinking they could persuade hundreds of thousands of fence-sitters to join their cause by calling them BIGOTS, HATE MONGERS, RELIGIOUS FREAKS, and MODERN DAY HITLERS.
Apparently folks have not read Dale Carnegie’s classic multi-million best seller How to WIN friends and influence people. You won’t find any references to religion bashing, attacks on people’s value systems, the use of profanity to sell an idea, or anything of the sort (Heather Fargo and many of her supporters missed this great read, too evidently).
Outspoken gay marriage proponents have likened gays’ plight to the Civil Rights movement. They have even posited that MLK is probably turning in his grave. And they may be right. But I would argue as to why he is turning. I think he is turning because FIVE DECADES after his death people STILL don’t get this most FUNDAMENTAL concept from Dr King’s very own lips:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King
Then again, Dr. King’s entire lexicon was rooted in Biblical scripture. For nearly everything Dr. King said and wrote you can find multiple sources of Biblical scripture that are similar. MLK was quoting and paraphrasing scripture because he believed the nation had been built on the bedrock of Christian principles, and was clearly attempting to appeal to people’s Christian sensibilities. He was connecting the dots for them.
Therein lies a bit of a quagmire for gay marriage proponents though. Because unlike Dr. King, gay marriage proponents fought their battle by DECRYING Christianity, not championing it, as King did. They tore Christianity down as a FRAUD bent on enslaving humankind to achieve its evil agenda of world dominance, not building it UP and leveraging Jesus’ extraordinary teachings about love as a means of uniting people, as King did.
Perhaps some people need to take a closer look at Dr. King’s teachings. If they did, they would find wonders like this:
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend” and “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.” -Dr. Martin Luther King
How did Prop 8 pass? Slippery slope speculation on part of media doesn’t tell the tale
I don’t know about you, but I think media is half the problem. Every time I see another story on what has now become known as “Prop H8,” it becomes more and more evident to me why traditional marriage media is becoming extinct; they are slow as sap, and many of them simply do not have the depth perception to recognize the multiple layers of complexity on many issues.
One column in particular that got my antennas spinning was Sac Bee columnist Marcos Breton’s recent offering called “Faith was key factor in Prop 8 vote.” The article led off with an inflammatory hook “How could African Americans–and Latinos and Asians to lesser extent–discriminate against gays when they have endured such discrimination?” (a question he was only able to ask by mining what should be private voter stats–more on this later), and opined that “faith” was the key factor in YesOn8’s passage.
Who are we kidding. California has one of the highest–if not the highest–divorce rates in the nation here. We are the porn capital of the country. We are home to the most anti Christian establishment in the known world: Hollywood. We import and grow more drugs than probably any state in the union aside from Florida. I could go on and on. By nearly all measures, Californicate–as we are known–is a modern day Rome (sans the gladiator fights), and no one can convince me the majority of our citizens have suddenly sprung a spiritual conscience and sworn militant allegiance to the Creator. Sorry, but I am not buying that.
“Faith” is a sweeping generalization that doesn’t even scratch the surface of what was probably REALLY behind a lot of those YES votes. I got a small taste myself this past Sunday in my own church. After the service I returned to the foyer for a minute and was speaking to an usher when a homeless guy strolled past us. He was dressed in women’s clothing, and swaggered in like a Vegas prostitute (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Before I could even process what was going on, someone else walked through the door not far behind him and snarled loudly, “HE [the homeless guy] is NOT a parishioner…. ” and then “..disgusting homosexual..”
Of course this is only one tiny example, but I think her use of the word “disgusting,” provides some insight into people’s “other” motivations (namely flat out prejudice). Jesus never used the word “disgusting” to describe humans–as far as I know. That is not faith-based vernacular. This small example is why journalists and others should not draw slippery slope conclusions about the role of “faith” in all of this. It also speaks to why churches should be VERY careful about the message they are sending to their congregations to ensure they are not inadvertently promoting personal prejudice.
In other words, just because people go to church does not mean they are Godly. It also doesn’t mean they understand and practice Jesus’s most profound maxim of all, which was: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and finally it does not mean they are people of “FAITH” (i.e., we could dress up like firemen and hang around the fire station for an hour every Sunday, but that doesn’t make us an actual fireman).
High percentage of Prop 8 Yes votes on part of blacks lead to more slippery slope assertions on the part of the media
This is one that has really frustrated me. What is with all the incendiary interviews with African Americans and publishing of statistics showing how 70% of them voted in favor of Prop 8?
What is the point of these interviews? To make people mad at black folks? Sure seems like it. I was shocked to read a recent Bee article in which the president of the “Citizen Voice” stated flatly Proposition 8 would not have passed if it weren’t for Black people! Wha–?
“The Obama people were thrilled to turn out high percentages of African Americans, but [Proposition 8] literally wouldn’t have passed without those voters,” said Gary Dietrich, president of Citizen Voice, a nonpartisan voter awareness organization. http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1378391.html
Outrageous. ANY large group such as the Mormons or Catholics could be pigeonholed the same way. Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with race, and it is irresponsible and reckless to imply Prop 8 passed strictly on the strength of the African American vote.
I think the voter demographics we are seeing have revealed a GIGANTIC flaw in our voting system. Our votes are supposed to be private, and they are not. The media is publishing votes by race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. How low can they go? Probably lower. If this practice is allowed to continue, it probably won’t be long before we are seeing statistics being broken down like:
“Percentage of Muslim women living in the 1800 block of Smith Avenue, who defected from another country, whose eyes are brown, hair is black, weight is between 100 and 125 pounds, age is between 21-26, with less than three children filing married status on most recent tax return.”
How would you like those kind of statistics if you were that Muslim woman? You wouldn’t because everyone on your street would have a pretty good idea how you voted. The point here is that people of color in general are especially at risk in terms of publishing voter statistics. As a friend of mine recently said to me, “I can’t turn off my black when I go out in public.”
What kind of message is this uber focus on African American Prop 8 voting trends sending to future voters of color? In the case of African Americans, they have been discriminated against since time memorial, and when they finally come out to vote in record numbers, the media pushes cameras into their faces, and demand they tell the community why they voted the way they did? Shameful.
If we’re going to trumpet everyone’s vote all over God’s earth, why even have private voting booths with curtains any longer? ? Why not just plaster everyone’s vote on their front door, or on the backs of their shirts? I bet the media would like that.
Al Sharpton can you come out to play? Someone needs to put the media in check on this. I call for the separation of race and state immediately.
Another idea as to why Prop 8 passed: Fear and Personal Prejudice?
I’ll say it again,YesOnProp8’s marketing campaign was a fear-based slam dunk. NoOnProp8 didn’t know what hit them when the Gavin Newsom-tinged propaganda hit the airwaves. As I said on the Bee’s site, gay marriage opposition used the adversary’s own mascot ( Newsom) to defeat them. Pitching Newsom as the CEO of Hell on the verge of a hostile takeover of the state was absolutely brilliant–and most certainly NOT the work of an amateur. Newsom is by all means perceived as the Mayor of Debauchery City to a lot of people, and to show him licking his chops over the passage of Gay Marriage, and slobbering “It’s comin! Whether ya like it or not!” instilled a sort of fear in people we have not seen since Karl Rove all but announced Al Gore was satan, and Bush was the messiah himself back in 2000.
Fear of what? A shock and awe gay invasion. I think in many people’s minds it was War of the Worlds - Gay Edition.
But if you pull back the curtains on this lame production, you’ll see the little Rove-looking bobblehead pulling the levers. Playing to people’s FEARS is one of the most tried and true, rudimentary tools in any pitchman’s toolbox. Ever seen a car commercial where they show the competition’s car completely destroyed in crash test dummy test, then show their own escape the impact nearly unscathed? What about the Allstate commercials, ARE *YOU* IN GOOD HANDS?? Well ARE you? All of these types of commercials play on our fears. Kevin Johnson’s pre election campaign rhetoric definitely played the fear card more than once.
Five rules to live by for the next Gay Marriage campaign (if there is one)
Rule #1: You can’t make friends with a closed fist.. unless you are Jim Hoffa or Oscar De La Hoya. Stop trying to win a war for LOVE with HATE.
Rule #2: America is all about presentation and perceptions. Ask John McCain and Sarah Palin. Get a better marketing team. Having Samuel Jackson as your spokesperson is not groundbreaking or inspiring.
Rule #3: Be careful not to stereotype Christians. Don’t make the lazy, slippery slope mistake of thinking just because a person is Christian means their vote stems from allegiance to God. People have a ton of insecurities, FEARS, and prejudices that fuel their decisions, and just because they call themselves Christians doesn’t mean they are living a Christ-like life, or that they have correctly interpreted scripture.
Rule #4: Don’t play the reverse race card. Stats about voter trends by race, gender, and/or sexual orientation should be illegal to begin with.
Rule #5: Win the cause with love and firm language about the importance of loving one’s neighbor as Jesus and many other great spiritual teachers have taught the concept. Take time to educate the public as to why BELIEFS can not shape legislative policy. Give examples like “Just because Obama believes marriage should be between a man and a woman does not mean he thinks his belief should be a LAW.”
Where I stand
Wow what an explosive little seven letter word marriage is, huh? Isn’t that what this is really about? Ownership of the word “marriage”?
The gay marriage battle reminds me of the way musicians and producers fight over song rights. Basically we have Christians saying, “we have exclusive rights to the word “marriage” because God invented it, and he didn’t include same sex couples in his definition, so we are the only ones who have the right to use it!”
On the other side gays are saying, “So what if God invented it, you don’t own the copyright on the word and either does God. Therefore the word is in the public domain, and everyone should be entitled to fair use of it!”
In those analogous terms, I believe gays are correct: the word marriage is not a corporate trademark, and while use of the word by gays to describe their unions may anger Christians because the Bible “used it first,” it does not infringe on Christians’ rights because they do not own the word.
In my opinion, as long as the state issues “marriage” certificates as an official entitlement defining the LEGAL PARTNERSHIP of two consenting adults–and does not add the words “Holy Matrimony” to them–I expect those certificates with the word “marriage” on them should not be denied to any two human beings.
I think we’re all just going to have to agree to share the word at some point. I am ok with sharing it with homosexuals. It’s just a word. I think of it as I do the word “music.” People define music very differently, but we all live harmoniously, and enjoy our own ideas of music none-the-less. I am certain what is in my i-pod is different than what is in yours, but that doesn’t mean I enjoy my music any less.
My wife and I got married in a Baptist church sixteen years ago. Years later when my wife decided to convert to Catholicism, we were surprised to learn the Catholic church did not consider our marriage holy because it took place somewhere OTHER than the Catholic church. Granted, our Catholic marriage blessing day turned out be one the most joyous days of our lives, but the point here is that the church required we get our marriage blessed in order for it to be considered a “marriage” per se, because Catholics do NOT share the definition of the word marriage with the Baptist church OR city hall .. or anyone else for that matter).
So if the Catholic church has it’s own idea of what constitutes holy matrimony, and doesn’t even recognize civil marriages or those taking place in other churches, then they are ALREADY harmoniously sharing the word with other entities, aren’t they? In other words, they don’t recognize marriage between, e.g., two atheists either, but they aren’t calling for atheists to be denied the right to get a marriage certificate are they? Of course not, because the Catholic Church already has its own unique definition of marriage, as do other groups and religions, and harmony prevails and life goes on.
In conclusion, I don’t think people should be denied the “right” to get a marriage certificate as long as the state is using the word “marriage” to describe the “legal partnership” between two people, as recognized by law, and covered by related laws and protections.
As Dr. King said, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” And I believe this includes the sharing of the word marriage to mean different things to different people.
Just my .02
I want this published in the Bee. Then I want it published in USA Today. You have been promoted to Sergeant First Class! This rocks!!!!!!
I’ve always resented being plugged into a demographic pidgeonhole and try to avoid filling out those race/gender/income level questionnaires whenever humanly possible. I don’t like seeing those kinds of statistics. Besides, if voting is truly private, how do they know who voted for what?
~*
Hi Chani. Yes apparently voting is NOT private.
Joe-
I had a post pre-election on this topic.
As I’m sure you’ve read in my blog…
http://blog-sacramento.blogspot.com/2008/10/answer-to-proposition-8.html
I have yet to talk to someone who can tangibly explain to me what harm a gay civil union does to their own personal marriage. I do understand that religion and marriage are heavily intertwined and that it will be difficult or impossible to ever separate them. But what actual evilness comes from recognizing the commitment of another relationship? I’ve asked many friends, family, those who attend church and those who don’t. The only answer I’ve been able to really hear is “God says homosexuality is wrong.”
I’m not the right person to comment on the religious part of the discussion… but I’m certainly one who believes that any religion’s holy book was not meant to be taken literally. Just as our forefathers could not have predicted modern life, neither could our holy men a few hundred or thousand years ago.
I did read your blog. You make great points as always, as did your readers. I am in agreement.
The question you pose is a great one, but it’s one–imo–gay marriage proponents should avoid because it’s open-ended, and most people need YES or NO questions because they haven’t the ability to reason when more than one variable is involved (see: what happened to math in America?). So you almost set an ignorant person up for failure when you asked them an open-ended question
On the Bible being taking literally, I think you are 100% correct! I agree it should not be taken literally. Reason? It is a SPIRITUAL body of work, not a scientific one.
And that is the same EXACT reason why it should NOT be used by scientists as an argument against evolution.
Every time I read something from some “brilliant” mind shooting down creationism on the strength of some childish theory some scientist inferred from a Bible PARABLE (!) I have to laugh. Brilliant. Sheeyeah.
For all we know God created evolution to confound the wise! What little faith some people have in his CREATIVITY.
Joe, you missed the main reason why Prop 8 passed…IMO… parents not wanting their children indoctrinated. This was the main theme of the late push for prop 8… and it struck a chord. I have two children in public school and I my children are already confused about being taught that “robbie has two daddy’s”.. and they are in KINDERGARTEN! (BTW this was my concern long before the pro prop 8 crowd campaign took up this chant)
The prop 8 folks should re-group and put a referendum on the ballot which makes makes same sex marriage legal but also make it illegal to teach homosexuality in schools…and the proposition would pass by a huge margin. (believe me I want them to be married, so they will have nothing else to complain about) But they won’t do this; they DO want to mainstream and normalize their lifestyle. They fact is the No on 8 crowd DOES want to teach children as young as 5 years old that homosexuality is just as normal as being heterosexual. This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts after same sex marriage was passed. In fact the state took a court case all the way to the supreme court to make sure that parents had no right to keep their children from being taught that homosexuality was normal, regardless of the parents personal beliefs… the Court said it was in the best interest of the state that children be taught that homosexuality was normal….THIS IS WHY PROP 8 PASSED!
As an aside..i could care less if someone is gay or where they put their genitalia…it’s about their special interest agenda…
For me personally this has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with keeping the government out of my home and out of my children’s head. These are my children, not the governments nor the anti Prop 8 H8′ters… I will respect your right to teach your children what you want in the privacy of your home…stay away from my kids, and don’t tell me what my values should be. America, and especially California, is quickly becoming a fascist government with almost every aspect of our lives controlled, and the No on prop 8 crowd was the final straw for me…going after my children’s thoughts.
Now I am sure I will receive a bunch of venomous hate mail for stating my opinion, I’m used to that and it bothers me not one iota. The problem we have in our country and especially this state is that you will be attacked and vilified if you have an opposing viewpoint, as your post so aptly states. This is another reason i voted yes on prop 8…because of the venom and hate I saw coming from the anti 8 crowd if you were not on their side.
The culture war is in full swing…the future of this country and state looks bleak…multicultural divisiveness and extreme liberalism has polarized our country and the America that once was will sadly never return.
Cant we all just get along?…. well no we cant…as long as getting along means that I have to accept your values into my life.
Ok, but wait, that’s a FEAR isn’t it? Parents FEARFUL that their kids will be taught all about homosexuality in school? I think that is yet another example of fear that I based my whole article on. I thought my “Gavin Newsom pitched as the CEO of Hell poised to do a hostile takeover the state” was broad enough stroke to cover all fear categories–including those around what will be taught at school.
Yes, I covered this as well. I absolutely feel this point alone cost NoOnProp8 hundreds upon thousands of votes. Not saying this applies to you Sac Insider, but I theorize a lot of people voted YES on Prop 8 simply out of vengeance. An act of retaliation. I remember one Sac Bee commenter called the Catholic religion a “priesthood of pedophiles” in a vitriolic post in response to the article about how Mormons were spending millions on the YesOn8 campaign.
Naw, not here. We don’t get haters here. I think by and large people who read here have pretty thick skin and they respect others’ views. I’d like to think so anyways. Plus, anyone who is not done learning in life enjoys learning others’ views. I know I do.
Joe said–>”What right does the media–or anyone for that matter–have to know how you or I voted? This seems like a severe invasion of privacy, and I am astounded citizens are not demanding media (and state) cease and desist.”
Amen to that! I thought voting was supposed to be private!!???
BTW Roger thanks. I’m honored. I think.
Honestly I don’t think there was that much synergy and I think the whole thing read like a rambling manifesto from the mind of a crazy man, but thanks for your words
SacInsider-
I’m not sure why you feel so angry but I sense a serious amount of venom in your post. Things like Heather has two mommies or Robbie has two daddies are discussed so that the CHILDREN are not harassed, bullied or teased. Just like you don’t want homosexuality taught to kindergartners, I do not want the child of a gay couple to be tormented, bullied and teased at school. You may or may not agree in your own home and you can teach however you choose, but a certain level of public decorum and tolerance has to be taught in school.
If you’d like to take your child home and then say “mommy and daddy believe…” then more power to you. This is something I have to do every day in my life. We are atheists (which is not up for debate),every day my child comes home with indoctrination and beliefs that we do not support in our house. I am quite accustomed to having to explain to him that we don’t go to church or pray and that’s okay, but other people do and that’s okay too. I have to explain to him that even though he’s in a secular school, they are still singing Little Drummer Boy and Christmas hymns. Is it uncomfortable for me to know that he’s being taught something I am fundamentally opposed to? Yes. But how do you shield a child from that? I guess we could homeschool, but then he would be missing out on the beautiful friendships from a diverse group of kids. His two best friends are Muslim and Jewish. If you want to hear a lunch conversation about love, tolerance and peace, hang out with them a week in December. They compare and contrast ideas and philosophies and generally, settle with whatever holiday gives you the most presents.
The government is in your child’s head every day. The food they are sold or not sold, the textbooks they read at school, the reading list that is sent home in the summer, the newspaper… the government is in there every day. I don’t believe there is any way that anyone has found in a century to remove the government from every day life. Perhaps teaching your children to critically think and question would be a better idea.
By the way, your version of the America that once was… it never existed. These are the age old arguments of our founding fathers. The topics change but the argument is still the same.
Sac Blog, you raise a very interesting point:
So is religion optional in your home, or banned? If that is not for public consumption, I understand. Just curious.
I ask because I have met Catholic priests who were brought up in atheist homes, and they cite their upbringing as the basis of their conversion.
It goes to show no matter what we teach our kids, they will grow up some day and form their own opinions and become their own people, and in time, if we have taught them to be seekers of the truth, which we should all be doing, they will attempt to prove and disprove everything we ever taught them. And from that quest will find their own truth… whether we agree with them or not.
Also, I can’t speak for Sac Insider, but I think a lot of people feel angry for the very reasons he stated; they are not happy about being portrayed as bigots and hate mongers simply because they don’t agree with gay marriage.
Joe-
I don’t mind talking about it- it makes us seem like less of the crazy demon family!
Religion is neither optional or banned in our house, it’s an intellectual study. We read Greek and Roman mythology, talk about different countries and their religious philosophies, discuss holidays and customs. My son is currently obsessed with Egyptian mummification rituals. We talk about why my husband and I believe what we believe and make it clear to our son that he is free to choose when he’s older. I’ve even offered to take him to church with his friends when he’s been curious. We talk about how some religions are in direct conflict with each other and therefore, cannot both be correct. We’ve discussed how often people corrupt religion to use it for their own evil purposes. And even at his young age, we are teaching him how to argue effectively and make rational choices.
Many have said that we can’t possibly teach him how to be a good person without a religious moral compass. For us, it’s simple. This is the only life you have, you’d better do it right- your family and friends are judging you every day.
Well, that is ridiculous because I am certain as loving, caring intelligent parents you teach your child:
* Love
* Joy
* Peace
* Patience
* Kindness
* Goodness
* Faithfulness
* Gentleness
* Self-control
Right?
And those are the Nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit in the Bible! (Galatians 5:22 for the record). If you’re teaching your child those things, you are teaching him the fundamentals of Christianity.
Joe,
Kudos to you for writing the only intelligent and respectful article on Prop. 8 that I have seen so far. While I ultimately disagree with you on Prop. 8, there is alot that I do agree with in this article. Nicely done.
Joe, I enjoy reading your articles and I especially loved this one. It was beautifully written and very insightful. Thank you.
Thank you so much for that, Susie. Very much appreciated. I enjoy reading your comments as well. I have learned a lot from you and many others who post on the Bee. Thanks for stopping in
Well poop Joe. Now you made me like you.
The end literally brought a tear to my eye. Thank you for this.
I want to also say I totally agree with you about voter privacy. There are still a lot of difficult votes and propositions ahead and it is so n o t cool to show private votes. Is the media trying to cause a riot? Jerks/.
Joe you know I dig this article ! Good looking! Black peeps getting lynched for voting against gay marriage! wtf is up with that Joe Joe!? you know you brought the science with that one. Get the ACLU on the phone man and sick them on this issue. u are right it is str8 up divides people.
The California Supreme court ruled that Prop 22 ( now known as Prop 8, the constitutional amendment) was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th amendment. What this means is a law, or in this case, a law passed by initiative did not meet the constitutional standard because it discriminated against a group of people. That is what the 14th amendment means. It means that the Bill of Rights apply to the states, but also laws that are passed by Legislatures must meet this test as well. This has well established court precedent, when it comes to cases like Brown v Bd. of Education, voting rights laws and laws that did like things like desegrating lunch counters. There is also similar precedent established in criminal law rulings such as Miranda. The point I am making here is this: The 4 California Supreme Court judges who ruled in this case were NOT activist judges. They were making a STRICT inpretation of the 14th amendment as it should apply to laws that discriminate. It is the OTHER side, who are the activist folks who want the court to actually violate the intent of the 14th amendment and permanently enshrine discrimination into law in California. As it did several months ago, the California State Supreme Court will rule 4-3 ( or perhaps a wider decision, let the decision stand, stare decisis) and declare Prop 8 unconstitutional because Federal law prevails, which in this case, is the 14th amendment. And once again as it was the last time, it is a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, NOT an activist decision as all the Yes on 8 folks will have you believe when they lied to everyone the last time.
What Rich said
I was going to respond…but it’s a waste of time and those on the left will never have their views changed.
Just keep the f’n jack booted government and your ultra left liberal views out of my life. I was not a h8ter until I listened to those against prop 8… they have driven me far away from their cause through their vitriol and lies during the campaign, they hurt the very cause they supported. They lost this election, the Yes on Prop 8 people did not win it.
Yep all that vitriol on the part of some gay marriage proponents was nothing but a complete waste of their time and energy because it did nothing but hurt their cause. Agreed.
Glad to see someone going few layers deeper. The superficial reporting gets very stale. Up until recently SN&R was the only place for esoteric articles so it’s cool to have another outlet. Very poignant article covering a lot of ground and even areas I had not even considered. Good stuff
The comparisons gays make to black people are lame!!!!!!!!!!! The bible doesn’t say it’s a sin to be black!!!!!!!!!! Dr MLK was fighting against racism not gayism!!! The bible does not say ‘though shalt not be black’ but it does say ‘thou shalt not be gay’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MLK would not fight for gay marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He would take the same position Barack Obama has taken and say he believes it is man and woman and that’s it!!!!!!!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii don’t see how this article is pro gay marriage. seems pretty neutral to me. the author shows more criticism of the media than anyone. i tend to agree they are a bunch or tools.
Sacramento is finally getting a blog scene! I just found out about your site and love what I see so far. Keep it up!
Well it’s not a celebration of it –if that’s what you mean. But I did state: “As long as marriage is a legal partnership offered as a SERVICE by the “state,” I expect that service should not be denied to any two human beings.”
The person who wrote that it is fear driving the pro-Prop 8 campaign is correct! Seriously. I don’t believe there are any clandestine plans being made to indoctrinate children to become gay. The whole idea is absurd.
At the same time, the fact that the pro-Prop 8 might be spreading perceived hate is no excuse to spread it in return. Example: vandalizing Mormon temples. Come on!
I wrote about this today, as a matter of fact.
http://thailandgal.blogspot.com
Thanks for continuing to talk about this, Joe
~Chani
Joe, let me weigh in on the issues you bring up. First, thank you for addressing the Prop 8 boondoggle in the manner you did. It hit the real issues and not the facade issues. I am a Christian leader who chose not to support or reject Prop 8. I did this for two reasons. First, for a completely unrelated reason, I wouldn’t be able to vote on Prop 8; therefore I didn’t feel I had a place to comment on it. Second, I don’t think my real problems involving homosexual relationships have anything to do with marriage, so I had very little interest in this debate.
But, I want to emphasize something you said. If those who want me, as a Christian, to support your issue, you’re going to have to convince me by speaking my language. Christians have high respect for three things when debating: Attitude, biblical basis, and the existence of moral absolutes. Even in debates among ourselves, we recognize that we lose the high ground if we say the right things but do so with a hateful or demeaning manner.
So if the “No on 8″ contingent are going to convince Christians to see it differently, they must have an attitude of respect for those who differ. They need to use biblical mandates (as you did when you spoke on the importance of love). And they need to recognize that all laws we pass must recognize a higher standard than public opinion. For those who shove something in my face which says “we are the majority in California and we will get our way” should never expect I will support them when they take that attitude.
That said, those who are in the “Yes on 8″ camp lose the moral high ground the same way when they: Caricature or ridicule their opponents on this issue; neglect to point out where they stand on the Bible and just quote vague church traditions; or tell the rest of the state “we got the majority, so you just have to suck it up”.
You know, on an issue like this, I had a sneaking suspicion that our state would lose no matter which side prevailed. Now I know that is what happened.
Great input Chani. Yeah, I too was disappointed to hear about the Mormon temple being vandalized.
Some sensible leader(s) amongst us needs to at least TRY to mold consensus on this issue. I think it MAYBE can be done if done delicately and with great respect and sensitivity towards both sides.
This is almost like a hostage situation. We need NEGOTIATORS to stand up and help settle this. It is not going to end with the vote. All that money folks spent to support their position? Up in smoke. Someone got rich. Wasn’t me. You?
Slamming a ban on gay marriage into the constitution is a recipe for disaster.
Mike is spot on where he says he thought the state would lose either way. This is because both sides want to force their ideas on everyone. That is not how you get things done. Guess they are hopefully realizing that now.
Agreed. I will go one further and just say they need to use common decency standards–which appear to have gone out the window with self respect.
Mike you hit on two great points…moral relativism…thats what our country is turning to…no more right or wrong values… it’s all gray.. those against prop 8 believe that anything goes and society should have no fundamental values…unless its the value to allow anyone to do anything…and especially if those values are based in America’s Christian tradition…Is there right and wrong any more? Well if you have a christian foundation, clearly their is… but to the Left…anything goes.
I also agree that the state has lost no matter who prevailed… this proposition was very divisive.. and there are now lines drawn in the sand… I have seen this since election day…I have had to learn that while in public.. just keep my mouth shut on Prop 8… it brings out a lot of passion…even much more that the Obama/McCain vote I think.
I personally will not be bullied and intimidated by the Left…they just Piss me off and strengthen my resolve to fight harder against their Anti American and Pro Gay agenda… and I differentiate the “gay agenda” from where they want to put their genitalia agenda, I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes…their agenda is a socialist/marxist big government agenda…
I am starting to believe what a christian man said to me the other day…”there is no solving this”
I think this is a very valuable conversation here. It is one of the most civil and reasonable I have observed. Very good.
I think the belief that the passing of gay marriage gives rise to unchecked moral turpitude and leads to the downfall of society is another one of those dangerous slippery slopes. Gay people share values of family, public safety, good schools, love for country, love for patriotism, just as conservatives do. They simply have a different sexual preference.
It is unfair to group all gay people, just as like Joes says it is unfair to group all Christians. Joe himself is a Christian and does not support a ban on gay marriage. A preacher here has decided to stay neutral -which is very admirable. There are a lot of different views out there. All should be respected.
This is all great and all. .but ..
The country was founded on Christianity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I say let them marry and let’s get it over with. While we’re at it let’s legalize marijuana too and tax it. We will have no more budget problems.
Impeach Obama-
This country was founded on Christian ideals… not Christianity. There are very specific and well defined reasons that our founding fathers did not establish a religious state. If you read the original writings of James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, you will realize that they left out a religious state on purpose.
Sac Blog I agree 100%. I think people find themselves caught between the ideals of their forefathers and their ideals of their holy father. The twain has met. And it is a twain wreck of mammoth proportions.
#34 Impeach Obama in January: This country was NOT founded on Christianity. It was founded on religious freedom for all. At one point, during the time that Emerson & Thoreau were writing, the country almost went toward a more Unitarian spirituality. The Constituion certainly does NOT say that we ALL have to be Christian.
And #25 CarrotTop: Show me in the Bible where it actually says, “Thou shalt not be gay.” I know you’re going to point to that lame Leviticus verse. But Leviticus is part of the OLD Testament. If you’re really a CHRISTian, then you would follow the NEW Testament. And Jesus NEVER said “Thou shalt be gay.” He said to love one another.
“Marriage” is basically a LEGAL agreement. Many gays & lesbians choose NOT to seek to get married in churches or Mormon Temples. It is NOT exclusively a “religious” agreement.
Oh, & Carrot Top, regarding Dr. Martin Luther King: He preached love also. I would tend to believe that he might have be inclined to believe that marriage is “between a man & a woman” according to his religious values. BUT, I like to think that he would have been INTELLIGENT & EMPATHETIC enough to realize that HIS religious values did not apply to EVERYONE. Same with Obama.
Actually LawlessJane you are wrong. Jesus did reinforce the laws of the Old Testament. In his most famous speech Sermon on the Mount he said “I did not come to change your laws. I came to fulfill them.” Here is an excellent dissertation on this very subject. “Laws” refers to the five books of the Old Testament, one of which was Levitcus.This has all been twisted around through the years but bible scholars generally agree JC never said the Old Testament laws no longer applied. All he said was that his was a new *covenant* between man and God. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/JC/godslaw.htm
Lawless,the Old Testament is very much part of Christian doctrine, and Christians don’t consider anything in the Old Testament to be outdated or insignificant or trivial. Jesus referred to the Old Testament throughout his ministry. He said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as “the commandment of God” (Matthew 15:3) and as the “Word of God” (Matthew 15:6).
Most importantly, He said the Old Testament was indestructible: “Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).
Then again, just my interpretation, and what I have read from many historians and theologians on the topic.
Not hoisting this up as a rebuttal, just stating that Christians still place a lot of importance on the Old Testament because Jesus instructed them to.
I guess a lot of this comes down to “literal” interpretation vs. open interpretation of the Bible. (I’m an Episcopalion — we’re more like “open” interpretation. I was raised a Catholic, & NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE, that religion is stuck in the Dark Ages, in my opinion. But anyway, there’s all that other negative stuff in Leviticus that we don’t pay any attention to — like, we don’t stone people to death anymore. (Unless the Death Penalty is considered to be what stoning turned into.) I don’t interpret the Bible literally in most instances — that’s what makes it a living document (to me). I’m also technically Jewish (my mother is Jewish) but I wasn’t raised in that faith. But I have a lot of respect of a lot of the OT.
Darn, that last line was a mess. I need to eat dinner.
It should be: “But I have a lot of respect for the writings in the OT.”
I appreciate that you put IMO. No offense taken. I happen to love that it is stuck in the Dark Ages. It is one of the only things that quite frankly never changes IMO
I do find it curious that every time the history of America is invoked, people read their own values into the hearts and minds of historical figures. In actuality, we have little idea what each person involved with the framing of the constitution believed personally. From their writings, we know there were theists (believers in a personal God), deists (those who accept an impersonal, distant creative force), agnostics, Calvinists (those who believe everything is already decided by God) and many other beliefs. Congress had writers, doctors, theologians, watch-makers and all number of professions represented.
What they had in common was not Christianity. It was a mutual acceptance of the rule of Natural Law. Google it and you will see that Natural Law was a belief that behind our Community Laws (like the State Constitution) exists a series of absolute principles that no one can disagree with. That’s why it was penned “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” etc.
What that means is that though we may disagree on how Natural Law should be worked out in individual cases, there is an absolute principle that we are supposed to base our opinions on. Some will accept the Bible as a basis. Others will accept Moral Consensus (i.e. things that everyone agrees upon: equality, love, respect). But what we have to beware of is any concept that says “We should just allow anyone to do what they want and just leave them alone”. That is not a society: It is anarchy. And we should also avoid arguments that include the dubious logic “We can’t stop people from doing this, so why bother”. Natural Law says that a society has the right to argue for the best laws to reflect commonly held principles.
That could mean restricting marijuana use, outlawing prostitution, putting curbs on public drunkenness and, if the majority agreed, restrictions on who may marry and how.
So no, the nation was not founded on Christianity. It was founded on Natural Law, which allows us to have a civil debate on what might best reflect that law.
Very interesting Mike.
But what we have to beware of is any concept that says “We should just allow anyone to do what they want and just leave them alone”. That is not a society: It is anarchy.
I agree
That could mean restricting marijuana use, outlawing prostitution, putting curbs on public drunkenness …..
See your point, but all these listed have negative impacts on society so not sure how they are relevant because I don’t think anyone has been able to explain how gay marriage could have a negative impact
natural law..
Does natural law cover homosexuality or does it not go that far?
You wrote “Does natural law cover homosexuality, or does it not go that far?” That is a good question and as far as I am concerned, the proper question for debate. There are some who say yes (after all, the natural order of things suggests that mating heterosexually is most stable), and others who say no (presenting animals such as the Bonobos that practice all kinds of sexuality). My point was not to champion a point of view on this issue. It is to show that America was founded on the principle of informed debate over moral and ethical issues. Debate is what we need, not media sound bytes and emotional appeals (isn’t that right Joe?).
Yes. I think the Eckern story today (high profile local artistic director and devout Mormon inserts foot in mouth after gays found out he supported the Prop 8 campaign), and the outcome (him admitting he did not understand the discrimination issue until after holding conversations with many of his devastated gay employees and colleagues today) is proof intelligent and compassionate dialog works. This guy might just become the poster child for gay marriage. Either him or the mayor of San Diego, or the governor, both of whom have done total about-faces on gay marriage after they got informed.
I am going to share something pretty interesting in a moment. It will blow ya away if you’re into learning new things…
Thought-provoking stuff from perspective of both giraffe and goldfish…
Letter #1 sent from a concerned Christian to a well known gay man:
Response letter from well known gay man
Jeff Whitty is famous [gay] American Playwright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Whitty
http://www.whitless.com (he’s anything but witless)
Particularly poignant:
Joe: These two letters underscore my point. They are talking “at” each other, not talking “with” each other. This is not a debate, just as the presidential debates are not debates. Notice when McCain and Obama were asked questions, they simply turned the answers into snippets of quotable material. They never looked each other in the eye and discussed pros and cons of issues. Neither did these two letter writers. They spoke different languages, to be sure, but they never tried to learn each other’s lexicon. Disgraceful.
What do people think of sites such as this one:
http://antigayblacklist.com/
Is it kosher to publish the names of Prop 8 donors like this? Some might argue it is necessary because gays are being persecuted.
Hi joe i am dead set against publishing voter demographics. I totally agree with you that they should be illegal to publish
Joe-
While I do not agree that harassing and persecuting funders of Prop8 is a good idea, the donors are a matter of public record. I agree that it should continue to be public record and that proper public protest is a matter of the 1st Amendment. Campaign finance reforms have pushed hard for public disclosure. I want to know who is buying my Senator, just as much as who is buying my propositions. Protesting in front of the Mormon church is a perfectly acceptable American way of showing displeasure.
The voter demographics issue has me a bit puzzled. I’m not sure why people are up in arms over it when these statistics have been published for years. It seems that now that one group in the minority has been called out for its vote against another minority that it bothers people. Have we all forgotten the original debate in the Presidential election about whether Latinos would vote for a Black man? Would wealthy whites vote for a woman? It’s the age old curiosity of secret ballot.
Joe,
You are not as naive about this issue as you portray yourself! Gay lobbyists have obtained MORE rights for sexual partners than do marriages. They may adopt, jointly hold property, inherit, gain health benefits as a spouse. They lose nothing, and have more rights because these are clearly assigned to them by recent law. Now why do they need “marriage”? There is only one reason. They want to legally force religious institutions to recognize the legal bonds they have made. They want by law, to overturn the churches that wont accept homosexual practice in their members. This is the gay lobbyists firm intention and they are not trying to hide it. Love you say? God is not tricked by you. You are tricked by yourself.
SacPine: Well now that is one conspiracy theory and a big bag of spicy jalapeno Doritos with Louisiana hot sauce splashed on top for good measure. I will do one-time courtesy translation here for you, pine.
I believe you are asserting the following. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Been a while since I analyzed a multi-headed evil conspiracy theory..
-Gay couples already have more rights than straight married couples, so this isn’t about rights.
-Gay lobbyists are the REAL enemy (wink, wink) not the couples at the rallies huddling in the cold, demanding equal rights
-Gay marriage passage accomplishes absolutely nothing for gays other than furthers the cause of evil gay Lex Luthor lobbyists who are secretly plotting to overthrow Smallville’s religious order
-I am intentionally feigning naivety to trick God
-And the more subtle: This is not about love to gay people.
Have you ever considered screenplay writing? This could be a blockbuster on the scale of Independence Day. Then again, you are the one who called Palin a “model VP candidate for McCain” and “one smart cookie..” and again implied I was a sucker in supporting Obama because he was nothing but a “front man..” whose “movie star smoothness..” should not be mistaken for presidential leadership. So ya can’t really blame me for handicapping everything you say.. at least until I know you have a full set of marbles in your bag.
Rather humorous that Fundamentalists now have allies in science, biology and evolution regarding the man (men) and woman (women) deal after denying that science can explain much of anything.
Main line Protestantism (high Episcopalians, the Church of England, Presbyterians….) broke with Fundamentalism a long time ago over the questions posed by Clarence Darrow, “exactly where in the devil did Cain get himself a wife?” As both Protestantism and Catholicism became philosophical beliefs based on the life and teachings of presumably one Jewish man, Fundamentalists clung to the “Old Time Religion” based partly on a literal reading of the Old Testament most of which is contrary to historical facts, scientific evidence and quite a bit is just oral tradition and folk tales borrowed for the Babylonians and other ancient peoples.
Nobel Physicists Richard Feynman was trapped in an elevator one day with Orthodox Rabbi students, who proceeded to question him whether “fire was electricity” , for it seems there is some requirement not to use fire on certain days. Feynman explained the physics and chemistry of fire and electricity and the differences, to which the Rabbis again asked, “is fire, electricity?”. At this point Feynman did not respond for he knew he was talking to people with beliefs based on text from the Middle Ages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0ZHaoSnf0
Cole, thanks for sharing that. I embedded the video for ya. I think I saw this a ways back. Great one.
Sac Blog.. I am all for publishing donor names. I’m just not sure how I feel about publishing votes by race. Not sure of the value. Could do more harm than good?
Just found your site. Loving it and this article. One of the best Ive seen but ummmm I might disagree with the part about publishing voter demographics. Blacks would want to know who was voting on a measure against THEM wouldn’t they? Blacks should not be able to hide any more than the rest of us. Make them answer for themselves. Draw them into the process. Make them accountable. It might be painful at first for them, but they’ll learn to deal with it like voters have been dealing with it since voting began. But don’t get me wrong, I loved your article. I particularly loved this paragraph.
“Pitching Newsom as the CEO of Hell on the verge of a hostile takeover of the state was absolutely brilliant–and most certainly NOT the work of an amateur. Newsom is by all means perceived as the Mayor of Debauchery City to a lot of people, and to show him licking his chops over the passage of Gay Marriage, and slobbering “It’s comin! Whether ya like it or not!” instilled a sort of fear in people we have not seen since Karl Rove all but announced Al Gore was satan, and Bush was the messiah himself back in 2000.”
Could not have ever said it better. When all is siad and done, you are right, YesOn8 just had a better pitch. America is all about the pitch.
Cousin Ned,
You have a short memory, I am so tired of hearing the Dems whining of Rove, it is such a worn out talking point on the left-I guess the whole campaign theme of David Axelrod claiming the last 8 years as the republic’s worst was not based on fear mongering, and partisan attacks. Carl Rove was a campaign tactician trying to win elections. Are you claiming that when Obama won, he was not advised by consultants that did everything they could to win, including lying to Americans and not accepting public financing. The non stop Bush negative attacks will haunt Obama’s legacy. Was Bush satan??
Anyone catch the Colbert Report last night where the anti 8 guy said he’d wish “old people” who voted for prop 8 should DIE…and that once they are all dead…. the pro gay marriage agenda could finally be fulfilled?
nice…i love it when those who spew the inclusiveness and equality rhetoric show their true hypocritical nature…
as long as you agree with their ultra liberal political agenda your inclusive… if not your a nazi
Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice - or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Whats your point Jane? That wanting people to die because they supported Prop 8 is just part of the no on 8’s extremism for the cause of justice?
So as long as the cause you believe is just…extremism is acceptable? Not a good position to take.
Apparently Al Qaeda was justified in taking out the two towers..after all to them is was about what they believed their cause was Just.
Former Gay Marriage Supporter: Actually, I wasn’t responding to #62, I was referring to a previous post that I made (#39) in response to Carrot Top. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I don’t want anyone to die. I thought the remark the guy made on the Colbert Report was not in good taste & very insulting to older voters. My position is that, given a choice between hate & love, & injustice & justice, I would want love & justice to prevail. I also don’t believe in extremism. I’m interpreting King’s use of the word “extremist” to be metaphorical.