Brilliant “No on 8” Campaign Stunt

Tip o’ the hat to the “No on 8” campaigners for their brilliant stunt today on the corner of Watt and El Camino.  A great deal of though obviously went into the planning for today’s protest and it totally paid off.  For those of you that missed it, here’s a brief rundown.

First, the No on 8 folks went to the nearby Wal-Mart and found the absolute craziest looking folks they could find.  We’re talking gap-toothed, elephantized-buttocksed, sloth-jawed creatures who were trotted out to the busy intersection and (here’s where it gets deliciously devious) given “Yes on 8” and “Protect Marriage” signs.  The best was the guy with the radioactive sign tattoo on his shaved dome shouting about the sanctity of marriage. If any rational person were to see this circus sideshow, they’d immediately vote against whatever these sign-wavers were campaigning for in a heartbeat.

Well done, No on 8 campaign.  Your skills in the political arena are formidable.

49 thoughts on “Brilliant “No on 8” Campaign Stunt”

  1. It would be even funnier if “Equality for All” included the bigamists. I guess the bigamists aren’t entitled to equality… Yet. And the animal lovers. And the self marrying types (heck- why does anyone even need someone/thing else to marry?). And those who want to marry their relatives (who are you to tell me I can’t marry my sister?)… Good luck with your “Equality for All” effort.

    Like

  6. Thank for the link, Thomas. Man, that was a pretty balanced report. Very well written. Similar to this one I read recently from the same author…and, is that the same photo, too? Hey, wait a minute…

    Like

  7. So, Turty, in what twisted world do you live in that equality for two adult human being American citizens is equivalent to bigamy?

    I bet you were one of the same people who tried to keep my non-white wife and I from being married in several states in 1965, weren’t you?

    Just admit that you are an enormous bigot and get it over with. If you can’t be honest with yourself about this, then how can you be honest with the gays that you hate them and don’t think they should have the same rights you do?

    Like

  8. “Equality for All” (the ‘no on 8’ slogan) is a misleading lie. The No on 8 people are still discriminating against the bigamists and close-relative marriers. Or are you ok with the laws that still prevent me from marrying my sister (2 adult human Americans)? And what, exactly, is the difference between three people getting married, compared to two, other than “that’s the way it always was”?

    Sad that discrimination against such behavour still exists in the 21st century (unless you are in a Muslim country, in which case such behvour is ok). For someone so “against hate”, Dan, you seem to have a lot of it seething inside you. I assume you hate the pet-nutering crowd too?

    Why did you have to go to several states in 1965 to get married?

    Like

  9. So, you think that two adult men or women who are in a loving committed relationship and wish to marry each other is actually equal or in any way similar to bigamy? Is that what you are saying?

    I assume you are trying to make a point, because if you actually believe that you are, unfortunately, a moron.

    Turty, in 1965, white people were not allowed to marry minorities in 11 states, including Virginia, where I lived at the time. It took the Supreme Court to change things.

    The anti-miscegenation folks’ rallying cry was that allowing blacks and whites (or in our case, a Jew and a Korean) to marry would set us on a slippery slope to where people would marry their own siblings.

    Like

  10. (Folks had to go to Washington, DC to get married at the time – although many hundreds of such couples were arrested for living together when they came back – until the Lovings sued the State of Virginia, but I assume if you went to school you know this already as it’s one of the landmark Supreme Court cases of the century.)

    Didn’t matter if we served our country with honor and distinction, as thousands of gay and lesbian Americans do. Didn’t matter if we sacrificed limbs and health for our country, or if we paid taxes like everyone else, or if we devoted our lives to community service.

    Only one thing mattered: that people like you, who were strong enough to put a boot down on us, wanted to. That’s the only thing that mattered. We all know now it had nothing to do with us, just with your hate and your fear and your power. Someday in hindsight maybe you’ll be able to see that.

    Like

  11. My rage at the notion that certain groups or classes of people in this country (or world for that matter, but we’re talking specifically about US citizens here) don’t deserve to have the same rights as everyone else is fucking SKYROCKETING. That notion has always seemed to me to be the most fundamental building block of the United States. Okay, sure, this isn’t exactly the first time a group of people have been discriminated against in this country, or even the most egregious (slavery anyone?), but holy shit, it’s the 21st century for Christ’s sake! I simply can’t understand how, in this day and age, anyone who pretends to love America and what it stands for can look anyone else in the eye and say “you are not as good as me and you don’t deserve the same rights as me.”

    Turty, that is exactly what you are doing, whether you can admit it or not, and you may think you have a good reason for it but you don’t; it’s childish, and hateful, and cruel, and hurtful: it is everything that a good human being is not.

    Like

  12. Certain groups and classes of people don’t deserve the same rights as others. Yes- discrimination based on innate human characteristics (race, gender, blah blah blah) is unconstitutional and really unfair. Discrimination based on BEHAVOUR is done all the time: Ask a felon. Who amongst us would disagree that I get to look a felon in the eye and say, “you are not as good as me and you don’t deserve the same rights as me”? If you disagree so far, you think we should open the prisions and release everyone, and you are a fool.

    Now that we are eliminating the ability to discriminate (that is, catagorize) based on BEHAVOUR, where will it end? Or is THIS the last time I have to be subject to a “gay pride” parade, with more skin on public display than a KFC value meal? Will all you “No on 8” people be as vocal when marriage is expanded to include 3, then 4, then 5 people? How ’bout when Billy Bob wants to officially marry his sister (also a consenting adult)? I think not, thus I speak now. You are modifying a fundamental building block of western civilization. I think that is entitled to a little more thought about the long term consequences.

    One of the most fundamental building blocks of Western Culture is a male/female-headed family unit. When the US federal government messed with this social unit in the early 1960s (i.e.; provided money when no father was present, that is, Welfare), 2 generations later, it got a “culture” of welfare dependance, drug use, and sloth: A “culture” that values, not hard work, and honest pay (let’s face it, neither are really available now), but conspicuous excess for the sake of itself, “freedom” from responsability for one’s offspring. While the intentions were good, the long term outcome was a disaster. We are headed there again if we don’t acknowledge legitimate concerns.

    Particularly in the case of liberal social causes, the tactic is to “nibble, nibble, nibble” and slowly expand (while never contracting) the range of acceptable and/or sanctioned behavour. What makes anyone think that THIS is the last expansion of marriage?

    Like

  13. What, exactly, do you who are so opposed to Prop 8 hope to gain? I keep hearing discrimination and inequality thrown around, but what rights are homosexual couples registered under the domestic partnership laws of California NOT getting that those heterosexual couples with a marriage license are?

    This is not the same thing as racism, not even close to it. And it is offensive to anyone who has ever been the victim of discrimination based on race. We’re not talking about not being allowed in the same restaurant, on the same bus, using the same drinking fountain, or the fundamental rights to be treated as a human being- we’re talking about a semantic difference on the label of “marriage.” I can’t believe how low this Agenda will stoop to pull on the heartstrings of those who don’t want to offend anyone by making analogies to the Civil Rights movement- you people are out of your minds. We’re talking about a class of people who are already very well protected. Prop 8 doesn’t change any of that protection.

    What it does do is prevent a windfall of radical change to happen in the foreseeable future that cuts against hundreds of years of stable, societal norms. Those who don’t think legalizing gay marriage will eventually lead to arguments for legalized polygamy and incest are short-sighted. Under the arguments posed in favor of recognizing gay marriage, what stops the same arguments from being applied to more perverse forms of marriage? At what point do we establish a standard that doesn’t constantly slide? When do we finally say “you know, there are just some forms of love and commitment that the government isn’t going to sanction?” When it just gets to icky? Too icky for who?

    I hate slippery slope arguments, but the fact of the matter is the Homosexual Agenda voice was a small voice 40 years ago that gradually gained more and more momentum, gaining so much strength that now, anyone who opposes them, is labeled ‘hateful’ and ‘evil.’ How is the movement to recognize the legitimacy of plural marriages or incestuous marriage going to be any different in another 40 years? I couldn’t agree with Turty more: what makes anyone think that THIS is the last expansion of marriage, indeed.

    And why should my children be forced into private schools where I can be sure that they will be insulated from the influence and cramming-down-the-throat of the Homosexual Agenda? It’s not that I intend to shelter my children from what homosexuality is as a lifestyle, and our family’s opinion on it- but I should decide when that topic comes up, not place it in the hands of a kindergarten teacher who feels that five year olds, who should have no need to worry about things like “sexual orientation” or “gender identification,” need to learn tolerance of such subjects?

    This is not an equal protection issue, this is the movement of a minority voice who will never be satisfied until all society rejoices their way of life…

    Or be labeled a bigot and ostracized for not.

    Like

  14. I always thought that the “Homosexual Agenda” involved finding a pair of jeans that your ass looks really nice in when you dance, which is shockingly similar to the “Heterosexual Agenda”.

    Like

  15. You think homosexuals are felons, now? That’s incredible. And typical.

    Nobody wants you to rejoice in their way of life. They just want rights, that’s all. They don’t necessarily even want recognition – just basic rights that are given to other law-abiding American adults.

    This “homosexual agenda” is no different from the “black agenda” or the “Jewish agenda” or the “vegeterian agenda.”

    Turty Squip, I’m confused. When were you forced to attend a gay pride parade? I’m not gay. I didn’t go. Nobody told me I had to.

    But just because I didn’t want to go to their parade doesn’t mean I can afford to lie down when it comes to their rights.

    My best friend’s mother and father both died in a work camp in the Czech Republic. My wife’s grandmother was forced into servitude by the Japanese and beheaded in front of her husband. I have worked all my life – spending a good portion of it in the United States Military – specifically so these things wouldn’t happen here. I’m not going to say you’re not a patriot, because you have a different idea of patriotism than I do, and I’m sure the years of service you’ve given to the causes you believe in have done what you think needs to be done to make the country safer for your kids.

    But I’m not just working for my kids. I’m working for everyone’s kids. Yours, too. If your son or daughter is gay – and is a law-abiding, taxpaying, ethical and moral human adult who loves someone who just happens to be the same gender – then I am working so that they can marry, too. Because I don’t feel that this particular behavior or trait or whatever it is (and I really don’t care, because the distinction isn’t important to me, if there’s really any distinction at all) is important enough to deny someone marriage.

    I understand that you and “Right Power” feel threatened by minority groups “nibbling” away at “your” rights. But just remember that a lot of us died so that you could have them, too. And even many of us haven’t been able to enjoy those same rights we’ve died of. I know you’ll skirt the issue, and make light of our sacrifice and our sensitivity and in the end suggest that these aren’t even rights we deserve. I stared down a klansman in Ararat, Virginia, in 1962, who believed my wife – my girlfriend at the time – shouldn’t have been allowed to hold my hand. I got knocked down by another man like you who didn’t like me bringing my wife into a whites-only bus in Richmond, even though it was the only bus that went to the train station from our neighborhood. They said all the same things you say.

    Other people thought the color of someone’s skin was enough to deny them the vote, or to let them marry who they wanted. Or even to have their own freedom. Later, people thought that one’s political beliefs – certainly not a trait we are born with – were enough to deny them the vote. One of the bravest human beings I’ve ever known got his head blown to pieces by an anti-personnel mine lashed to a tree in Cheo Reo in April of 1970. He was black, and he called himself a socialist, too. His white grandfather had been a wobblie and a union organizer. He died with a silver star and two purple hearts, and I carried most of his body 11 miles that day. I’m doing this because he would have, and because I am a good American, and because I believe it is my duty as a good American to stand up to bullies like you. And like I said, you won’t thank me – and I don’t need thanks. But your kids and their kids might, and I’m going to die one of these days myself, and I’ll be happy I did something for them.

    I don’t care if consenting adults love other consenting adults who are the same gender as them. Doesn’t bother me, because I don’t care what they do in their bedroom. It’s not my business. My business, though, is that they’re allowed to, and that they’re not denied something that I have because of it.

    Like

  16. 1) The parades are on public streets. Stick that in your craw.
    2) So, IS this the last modification of what marriage means? You ‘gonna answer or not?
    3) I’m a registered voting Libertarian-don’t you dare to pretend to be concerned with what I do in my bedroom/kitchen/garage, and sometimes in the closets (!) with/without fellow consenting adults/substances/and/or objects d’art. Don’t think for a moment I care what you do.
    4) Boo hoo- I’m playing the wolrd’s smallest violin for you. I was once called a racist, and I got ptsd from it. Ptthththt

    Like

  17. You obviously care very, very much what other consenting adults do in their own homes, and you are far, far, FAR from a libertarian. In fact, everything you’ve argued above puts you at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum from everything that’s every been presented as libertarian ideology.

    There are still about 10 counties in this country where second and third cousins cannot marry, even though medical risks to their children are no more common, by and large, than would be expected in the children of non-relatives. So sure, I bet there is more to do to work on marriage equality.

    The minute we stop working toward equality is the minute that we might as well be dead, and certainly the minute we don’t deserve to be Americans!

    Dan, thanks very much for your sacrifice. There are many of us who do appreciate what our armed forces do for the rest of us. Thank you, thank you, many times over, from me and my family and our family yet to come. People like you make me proud to be an American. People like TS, who make fun of your sacrifice and spit on you, are sad and pitiful and so full of hate that nothing is ever going to change them. But we don’t need to sink down to that.

    Like

  18. Forget Joe the Plumber, Moe for congress. Moe is an icon for every iconic terrorized minority and heroic career ever.

    He forgot to mention that he joined the NYPD after saving the Kuwaiti’s in operation desert storm only to see his black partner who was 1 week away from retirement overcome by the smoke in the 9/11 attack.

    Like

  20. There is no good reason why polygamy/polyandry/whatever shouldn’t follow if gay marriage is legally recognized. But that’s not an argument against gay marriage, that’s an argument against government regulating marriage.

    Like

  22. So you believe that the government should define what marriage should be by injecting religious morals into the equation? Is it a religious institution or a civil one?

    Or do you simply believe that it is not Government’s role to grant civil rights, or to reduce injustice?

    Or do you believe that this particular group doesn’t actually deserve the same rights? Maybe that’s a better explication of your beliefs?

    You can dress it up however you like. At some point in your life, you will need to admit your bigotry to yourself.

    Like

  23. It’s government’s business to protect us from our animal natures. Goverments impose civil and moral laws to promote a stable society where individuals are free to thrive.

    Like

  24. It’s not Government’s role to define religious terms. No more do I want them to have say over what marriage is than do I want them to define First Communion, and to determine who is eligible to receive First Communion. It’s not a civil matter. The Government should recognize my marriage as a civil union and my church should recognize my civil union as a marriage. That doesn’t make the terms interchangeable, though some seem to use them that way. Marriage clearly predates the State of California.

    What perceived injustice is there in allowing two different couples to enjoy the same rights and freedoms? What do same sex couples lose in a civil union that a man-woman marriage have? I have yet to see a demonstration or example of the alleged inequality, everytime I’ve asked someone has labeled me with a nasty name instead of giving an answer.

    This entire issue is a big bang-up over semantics. To borrow from some famous guy: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” So why wouldn’t a civil union smell as sweet as a marriage?

    Like

  26. “So why wouldn’t a civil union smell as sweet as a marriage?”

    You have to ask a homosexual couple who wishes to marry, but cannot. Otherwise, it is like asking a white guy “Why is it so hard to be a black woman in America?”

    Paging gay readers of the SacRag….

    Like

  27. Sorry, not gay, but what about looking at it the other way. I was not married in a church and would be perfectly happy to have a civil union with my husband. I think ANYONE should be able to have a civil union and then those who wish to can go to the church of their choice and have it blessed by god (or whatever) and have it be called a marriage. Everyone I’ve talked to about this agrees that most straight folks would be fine with changing their ‘status’ to a civil union. Who cares? Call it a civil eggplant for all I care. I married my husband because I loved him and couldn’t give a damn what the church (any church) has to say about it. Separate church and state already!

    Like

  28. First of all, TS just like to watch pots boil. Ignore.

    I am very sad to see that California cares more about animal rights than civil rights.

    I am sad to know that many people of color voted for Obama but then turned around and voted for Prop 8. It’s all been broken down. I’ll bet very few gays voted for the white guy. “Religion” is cited as the reason for being for prop 8 “they’ll destory the family…those gays”. Such a load of crappola..and the “they’ll force our children to learn about homosexual marriage”. When did they start teaching kids about marriage…hetero or homo?

    We don’t know what it feels like until we walk in their shoes..regardless of who they are. Leave religion out of it…and then take the walk. Civil rights people…read the constitution.

    Like

  30. A functional family unit is vital to the well-being of children. Children usually develop best when they live in a stable environment with their mother and father and receive from their parents consistent love, support, and direction. However, children from nontraditional families can also develop successfully.

    Like

  32. Adamant,

    Barack came from a nontraditional family on two fronts:

    His father was black, his mom white (at one time, thought to be immoral and illegal)

    He was raised by his mother and grandparents, both white

    I’d say Mr. Obama is pretty successful. There are thousands and thousands of other examples..maybe millions.

    Like

  33. Adamant, why would two gay parents present any less a stable household than two straight parents? I don’t get that. If anything, gay parents are more likely to be college-educated and are less likely to have criminal records, so that’s probably healthier, right?

    Like

  34. I’m just citing the experts at the California Department of Education. They’re probably relying on something like research instead of anecdotes, but I could be wrong.

    dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid

    Like

  35. My comment was not an anecdote. Also, I am cynical about “research”. Results can always be skewed in order to benefit those that fund it.

    Like

  36. But still, no one has cited for me a civil right that is being infringed, just repetition that rights are in the Constitution.

    The only right I can see that keeps getting stepped on in California (and not just on the Prop 8 issue, I could go on for days about judicial activism) is enumerated by the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” As the US Constitution does not have a power regarding the application of marriage, it would seem to me that it defaults to the state (the California Constitution), or the people (who have voted twice on the issue).

    And in response to plumwin: I’d be pleased to have my marriage be called a civil union by the Government and marriage by my church. If that’s an acceptable solution for all, I say we put it on the ballot next go-round.

    Like

  37. Adamant> So would you support the seizing of children in single-parent homes and placing them in functional foster families? Because I’m very sure the data supports the trend that two parents generally provide better than just one. Do you think that the safety and livelihood of children outweighs parental rights? Because that’s what your stance logically leads to.

    Like

  38. Now that I have that big “L” on my forehead -be that lesbian or loser – I guess now I qualify in both regards. I could go on forever about many of Turdy Squib’s outlandish remarks, but let’s just stick to the facts.

    I’m going to clue everyone in to the big Gay Agenda. Shhh. Don’t tell. Turdy Squip – cover your ears and eyes.

    In order to win Federal benefits, we need to win states. Lots of them.

    True equality will not exist until that happens.

    Rights granted under domestic partnerships are not recognized in other states. A couple takes a job transfer…poof, gone. They move to take care of an aging parent in a state they fled from thirty years ago, nada. Pensions, social security benefits, health benefits, family law, and probate law aren’t protected. Reciprocity of the recognition is not automatic. As is supposed to be guaranteed by our US Constitution. Two-parent adoptions? Up for grabs. Custody battles, who knows? Health benefits are not pre-tax, so we pay more.

    Our life partners, should we be so fortunate to have one, have no guaranteed Federal protections or rights. Our California DP laws are fine and dandy, but they aren’t equal, not by a long-shot. We pay more, we fight harder to do anything – like adopt or foster – and we spend a LOT more money drawing up iron clad contracts to ensure the safety and security of our families. When we die, our partners may lose their home or possibly just have to pay taxes on the half just gained, and joint minor children or retired partners will not receive SS benefits. We are taxed at a higher rate Federally. I could literally go on for about 1800 more reasons.

    Why is that?

    Anyone out there with a 9th grade civics background have the answer?

    Because it’s not called MARRIAGE.

    It’s that simple. To make our families safe and strong and without having to bear the burden of those worries you cannot even fathom, only complete equality is going to satisfy us. The fact that you, Turdy Squib, don’t get that is really a shame.

    You’ve brought everything into the argument except the humanity.

    For all of you SacRag readers who jumped in here, thank you. Thank you for your votes. Thank you in advance for helping us find a way to change this very, very wrong and unjust decision made by a minor majority.

    Lori Hahn
    Hahn at Home

    Like

  39. “only complete equality is going to satisfy us”

    Yeah- about that… For “ya’ll” to get “complete quality”, your efforts will result in the cramming of unacceptable aspects of human behavour (e.g.; bigamy) down the “minor majority’s” throat.

    I wish the “humanity” of others’ deeply held belief’s was recognized, and the No on 8 crowd could stop with the “ohh- that’s hate speach” language. Maybe leave the Morman’s holy places of worship alone? Not a good PR move. And once the shrill cries of “discrimination” come out, the “conversation” or “debate” is over.

    And finally, in terms of “complete equality,” I’ve got some bad news for you about the biological and reproductive aspects and consequenses of homosexuality. Neither two female nor two male humans can procreate together. Just as males and females will never be “completely equal” (basketball fans will ALWAYS get better dunks in the NBA than in the WNBA [though the fundamentals might be tighter in the WNBA], men will always make up a higher proportion of the violent crime incarcerated population, etc.), from a boilogical point of view, same-sex couples must, by deffinition, face an issue that hetero couples don’t have to: Who is the third party we are going to involve if we want to have a kid?

    So there can never be “complete equality.” Or maybe I’m taking you too literally?

    Like

  41. Yes- Bigamy. It follows naturally in this discussion: Due to biological constraints, reproduction (you brought up “joint minor children” [?]) by same-sex couples requires a third person. Thus THREE people seeking (yet again, further “we just want to all be ‘equal'” marches coming your way!) rights to the child would now all want to be a “family unit,” or married. Not that outlandish now, is it?

    Nice factual debate. Hahn would rather make it make it a personal attack than a discussion? Ok- I’m up for it:
    You lost brain cells thinking up “Turdy”? Thank goodness you won’t be having any biological offspring to pass that razor sharp wit to.

    Like

  42. I don’t understand how it “follows naturally.” You make these claims without any substantiation: what does that mean? How does it follow naturally? I’m very confused by all the claims-making going on here.

    Mr/Ms Squip, I hope you can forgive your ideological opponents here; it’s hard to feel civil when you have a boot on your neck…

    LDS Church members and leaders who support the “Yes on 8″ and “Protect Marriage” campaign believe that the magistrates (judges) on the California State Supreme Court were wrong, and are not honoring and sustaining the law as written in the California state constitution and interpreted by duly appointed and confirmed judges on the bench.

    There is no reason to make this discussion longer: either you believe in being subject to the magistrates who were appointed to interpret the law of California, and honoring and sustaining that law, or you don’t. Clearly, the LDS Church believes that this article of faith only applies when the magistrates’ opinions and law of the land are consistent with Church doctrine.

    Like

  43. Thank you Moe.
    It (bigamy) follows because if a Same Sex couple (be they both male or female) wants to procreate, they will require services or er… products of another person: either a womb and egg, or a seed. Ergo, by deffinition, a third person will be now involved.
    Granted, SOME SS couples will obtain the required goods/services from an anonymous/indifferent source. But at least one of these triads will try to claim that THEIR “family unit” of 2 moms/1 dad or 2 dads/1 mom should be (it’s only humane/fair/etc) entitled to all the legal protections that 2 person family units are entitled to. They are being “discriminated against” due to the nature of their sexual proclivities (and related biological consequenses), to borrow a phrase. And then we are back at a marraige of more than 2 people, ie.; bigamy.

    I think the Mormans respected the Judges’ decision, and in amending the constitution (with approval of the majority of voters), changed the law.

    Like

  44. But what does procreation have to do with marriage? That’s a religious definition, and you’re using a totally religious argument. Marriage is a civil institution, too.

    So please humor me: how does bigamy follow when we are talking about civil marriage?

    Given your definition, it would be hypocritical if you were not also strongly against the marriage of older people, or people who did not want children, or people who had any sort of genetic predisposition to disease that would preclude their having children.

    Like

  45. In western culture, marriage provides the framework within which procreation, and social development of the younguns’, is carried out. Marraige provides the smallest unit of viable (one that grows) “society.” Multiple marriages in geographical proximity, combined with larger family in the vicinity, leads to a village. More of the same leads to a town, and so on, up to the national level, and to a “western society” level if you want to take it that far. Thus, marriage is the basic building block for western society.

    In expanding the deffinition of marriage beyond a strict “two adults, one man, one woman,” you are asking “marriage” to become too inclusive. Marriage is afforded certain protections, rights, and (sigh) liabilities (see Hahn at Homes’s summary thereof) exactly because of its core role in western society, and its role in socializing/preparing the next generation. By expanding marriage to potentially include other “arrangements”, you include bigamy, and you are demeaning the institution itself. By demeaning this core insitution, you are demonstrating a disregard for core western values: Intergenerational social development and education, individual responsability and roles in society (including gender roles), and social attitudes toward the institution of marriage. Thus, to expand “marriage” to include arrangements beyond the traditional, is to open a gate that can not be closed to whittle away and attack the core building block for western society. I’m not willing to even think about going down that road.

    Yes- all old people, once past child bearing age, should be put on ice floes and floated to sea. Seriously though- the deffinition of marriage can include the old and diseased (still one man/one woman) without impacting the deffinition of marriage itself. This position is consistent with eliminating race based barriers to marriage, while still allowing age-based barriers to marriages.

    Kids are not necessary to get married, but I think society, and children in particular (THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!), would, on the average, be a lot better off if you had to be married to have kids. I can’t impose that on society, but I can sure vote with that position. And the attempt to seperate marriage and procreation is simply not possible under this view.

    Like

  46. “In western culture, marriage provides the framework within which procreation, and social development of the younguns’, is carried out.”

    I agree that, ideally, children get a better and broader understanding of the world from more than one parent. Certainly single parents often are more than capable of raising children successfully, but I’ll agree with you that having two people – either a wage earner and full-time parent, or two wage-earner/parents (as long as they get along) is probably better for the kids. However, one loving parent is certainly better than two who don’t get along, right?

    We have tens of thousands of children without parents. Are you saying that gay couples shouldn’t be able to adopt them? Or bring in children from previous heterosexual relationships?

    Of the four legally-married gay couples I know, two have children.

    You say that this “traditional” definition of marriage can include old people and others who cannot or don’t wish to have children, and heterosexual couples who are extremely unhappy with each other – or even violent against each other – but it’s not flexible enough to include loving and stable homosexual parents. Is that right?

    It sounds to me like you are arguing FOR gay marriage, not against it. Or do you think that gay couples with children SHOULD be allowed to be married, but not gay couples without children? Or are you simply arguing that gay couples should not be allowed to have children?

    Like

  47. Take it as it is but my Father in Law was raised by his lesbian mother and her lover. His mother had 2 daughters as well. He is still to this day mis treated by his sisters and was by his mother until she died. He was always the WRONG GENDER in his family. He was always “dumb or stupid” because he was a boy. They have shunned all of the boys in the family, but not the girls. My concern for gays and lesbians is that if they adopt a child that is the wrong gender that they will be discrimiated against just like my father-in-law.

    Like

  48. There are crazy damned parents of both genders. Don’t generalize please. Your FIL’s parents were mean and nuts…and not because they were lesbians.

    Like

  49. MEB, that’s a valid concern, but don’t let your concern that people will be discriminated against result in voting for or supporting their discrimination. You can’t protect people by taking away their rights.

    I know plenty of gay parents and children of gay parents. Those that I know are no more or less messed up than straight parents and children of straight parents. I can’t imagine that who one falls in love with can possibly have any correlation with the ability to raise healthy and happy children.

    Like

Comments are closed.