Alex Blaze

Vote Yes on Proposition 8 to protect the Separation of Church and State

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 15, 2008 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, Site News
Tags: blogging, California, gay marriage, LGBT, marriage, marriage equality, Prop. 8, same-sex marriage, weblog

Instead of an "I get mail" post, I thought I'd share this comment that appeared on one of Karen Ocamb's posts on Proposition 8 from September:

i am voting yes on prop 8 simply because i think the United States Constitution says a little something about Separation of church and state and if this passes Churches all over CA would be required to marry but not just that why should i pay taxes so my kids can go on a field trip to see there gay teacher get married Double standard when they couldn't come to any Conventional Marriage it al sounds like a bunch of double standards we give give give and have never gotten anything back

What he's referring to is a field trip a first grade class in San Francisco took to city hall to see their teacher get married. It was organized by parents and two students opted out (well, their parents opted them out). Lots more on that after the jump.

There is some controversy, with Bilerico contributor and NCLR executive director Kate Kendell commenting:

"I know, I know, I know, I know," Kate Kendell executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who first learned of the field trip in Saturday's Chronicle. "It was, obviously, a public-relations disaster for us."[...]

Kendell makes two important points about this episode. One, parents were given an option to opt-out - and two of them did. The scare tactic about children being "forced" to learn that same-sex marriage is socially acceptable remains just that: A scare tactic.

Also, Kendell added that what made this teacher's wedding noteworthy is that Californians are about to decide whether to deprive gays and lesbians of their right to marriage. If Prop. 8 is rejected, she noted, same-sex marriages will be routine - and no one would even think of making a field trip out of one.

"We don't want our weddings to be any more special, or any more worth attending, than anyone else's," she said.

I don't know whether this will be a PR disaster or not. I don't see any harm here, with kids being able to see a civil contract taking process in city hall. And while some questioned the educational value, I see more value in this than in about 75% of what I saw the second-graders I worked with last year doing.

What I do know that both sides of the Prop 8 campaign have been avoiding showing gay couples in their ads like the plague, with the No side probably trying to avoid stirring up homophobia and the Yes side trying not to seem like the horrible people they are.

But one side's calculation has to be wrong here.


Recent Entries Filed under Site News:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Where does one begin looking at the twisted logic spewing from the funnel clouds in California?

I can't stand it...I really just can't stand it.

Preserve the separation of church and state by helping pass a Mormon funded amendment to the state constitution?

Are churches forced to recognize divorce? Are churches forced to acknowledge blended families? Does anyone give a shit if they don't?

Do churches get the final say on how our government assigns citizenship?

Enough time wasted on that foolishness...on to the next: the field trip to City Hall combined with the yes on 8 ads depicting an innocent girl boasting of her indoctrination of same sex families.

Is there something wrong with this that I don't understand?

I asked a hetero woman at work about the Yes on 8 ad and she thought it was a great idea to teach children about different families - she does it already with her daughter.

What should they be taught? What would the Mormons teach children in public school if they had their way?

Yeah, I know that the pea brains that overpopulate the state/country/planet think they are the only template for proper living (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) but why are we so afraid to defend our own goddamned existence?

If I recall correctly, Kate Kendall has children of her own and is a former Mormon.

Why are we having such a hard time finding a way to save our asses from being kicked?

At this point I won't give one more dollar of my borrowed money to No on 8 until they can convince me that they aren't completely stupid, timid, victims relying upon the good will of people that are ambivalent at best.

Give people a REASON to vote NO. Don't just tell them it's the nice thing to do.

Wolfgang E. B. Wolfgang E. B. | October 15, 2008 2:08 PM

The impression I get is that these Yes on H8 idiots want to shield their children altogether from the knowledge that LGBT people exist. They think that such knowledge is somehow X-rated, adults only knowledge that pertains solely to adult sexual behavior. The concept of LGBT children makes no sense to them, because they don't really understand what it means to be LGBT.

Part of the problem may be that they also don't know what it means to be straight or gender-conforming. They've always taken these things for granted and never really thought about them.

Our detractors have been showing TV clips of Gavin Newsome acting very "swishy" right after the Supreme Court decision was announced, throwing up his arms and wrists out of control in celebration. Sort of like the Dean "scream" only surrounded by same sex couples. Although he is reported to be heterosexual, he sure dropped a few hair pins on this TV clip. I agree. VoteNoOnProp8 ads are a dissapointment. All straight whites. Should have shown Del Martin and her partner or Ellen or Maxine Waters speaking in favor of same sex marriage. The timing was bad regarding the lesbian teacher and her first grade students. Right before the election, what were they thinking ?

Here are some statements to use in a NO on 8 advertisement - if none of these people are willing to show their face, let's use the words that they hide behind:

Dianne Feinstein:

"The views of Californians on this issue have changed over time, and as a state, I believe we should uphold the ability of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are gay and lesbian to enter into the contract of marriage,"

Barak Obama:

"For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect."

and/or:

"...I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Arnold Schwarzenneger:

"I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling"

How about quoting the four moderate (THREE REPUBLICAN) justices on the CA Supreme Court in their decision to show how moderate and reasonable a decision it is:

"As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own - and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family - constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society."

Why not ask Deval Patrick and David Patterson - two African American political leaders that aren't afraid to defend equal protections for all Americans - to appear in an ad or issue statements opposed to 8 that can be used for an ad?

Film a room full of same sex couples with their infant children, teen age children and some adult seniors with their childs same-sex partner and their grandchildren saying

"The Mormon church wants to keep my family from being recognized by the State of California."

"What is next? Do we pass an amendment when our ex-spouse remarries and we don't like their new partner?"

"Does the Mormon church approve of divorce? Will they go further in their attempts to undermine the California state Constitution?"

"Why does the Mormon church hide behind it's friends at Pepperdine University to spread misleading information to California voters about my family? What does the Mormon church think about YOUR family?"


Tell the California voters that Mitt Romney wants his church to re-write the CA constitution to fit their religious dogma - with no concern about the rationale behind the judges decision.

Why let the Mormon church dictate the terms of the most precious document in our state's democracy?

Whose interpretation of rights do you trust - the Republican majority of the State Supreme Court or Mitt Romney's?

- - - - - - - - - -
I came up with the ideas in this post while I was in the shower getting ready for work. I am now (once again) late for work.

Does anyone else have ideas about how we can go on the offense and defeat Prop 8?

Apparently, Kate Kendall and company need some ideas and there is no time to waste.

If this amendment passes in three weeks I don't want any blood on my hands. If the gay leaders/consultants/know-it-alls don't like our ideas or input the passage of Prop 8 can be the fault of their cautious, victim-like, timidity but it won't be because I let them get away with it.

It will be a PR disaster. The Indiana Family Institute has already picked it up for their e-mails and blog and Yes on 8 has a web video up and they're making a commercial too.

*sigh*

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | October 16, 2008 7:44 AM

Indeed, Bil. But what the heck, who really cares about public relations sensitivity anyway? If we're principled, we'd far rather lose on this landmark issue than maybe exercise just a teeny-weeny bit of discretion here. But then I forget: it's really the thing all over the country for school kids to jump on busses and go to weddings during class time, even the opposite sex kind. Well, isn't it? Let's get real here.

I'm a CHRISTIAN and I'm voting NO on 8!

Why? Because the funding comes primarily from two out-of-state IDOLATRY groups: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (who worship Mary) and the "MORMONS" who worship MEN.

Since I DO NOT SUPPORT IDOLATRY IN ANY FORM, I'm VOTING NO ON 8.

Don't be fooled by IDOL WORSHIPPERS!. Tell all Christians to vote NO on 8.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 16, 2008 9:09 PM

I knew even before the "Yes on 8" ads hit the air-waves that they'd bring in "protecting teh children." Also, "we won't be able to practice our faith."

They can't argue on reality, logic, fairness, nor the Constitution, so of course they're going to lie, distort and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Why the heck are they all such bad spellers, though? It never fails.

Gay marriage has been legal now in California for over six months. Has one straight marriage even felt the slightest ripple effect in their own marriage, because of it? Has the school teachings changed, teaching kids about gay marriage? The answer is obviously no to both!

What if the situation was reversed. We propose that marriage be exclusively between gay couples only. How would that make you feel?

What has happened to that phrase, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?

Come on California, what’s fair is fair. I will not tell you how to live your lives, don’t pass laws that force your beliefs, on me!!

With the schism in the Anglican communion, the Constitutional amendment in the United States to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in light of various ‘human rights’ laws around the world that vilify those who speak against homosexuality, more Christians are asking what the Christian position towards homosexuality should be. While only a tiny percentage of people are homosexual, the gay lifestyle is becoming mainstream – at least in some circles and in the media. Let’s examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, and clear up a few myths in the process.

First, let’s start with some fundamental groundwork. Some people, uneducated in scripture, are under the mistaken impression that all forms of sexuality are sinful according to the Bible. With this misconception, they readily disregard anything the Bible might say with regards to sexuality, choosing instead to side with their sexual desires. What they don’t understand is that they are completely wrong. Sex is a creation of God, who pronounced all His creation “good!” Sexuality is not sinful. It is a wonderful part of God’s plan.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

God put a limit on sex, though. Yes, a limit – only one. There is no long dissertation on the do’s and don’ts of sex. The only caveat to the enjoyment of sex is this: sex is meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage – not outside of it. Unfortunately, these days we must be specific. Sex is to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it! That’s the limit. Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

Having established that homosexuality is a sin, we must now face that we live in increasingly pro-homosexual societies. The media and the schools have become mouthpieces for the gay subculture, and are working hard to marginalize those of us who take a moral, biblical stance on the issue. School sex education programs based on the curriculum developed by SIECUS champion homosexuality as being normal and healthy, while encouraging teenagers to ignore the values of their parents if their parents feel homosexuality is wrong. “Gay” television shows are popping up on networks like Bravo and on other networks as well.

In many nations, current and existing laws are including slurs against homosexuality in the definition of hate crimes. In fact, some in Canada have found themselves in legal trouble for reading the first chapter of Romans over the airwaves. This is a pattern that is sweeping the Western world, and I predict we’ll see similar legislation in the United States within the next few years. While the Canadian Parliament claims that a religious exemption in their recent hate speech bill will protect speech of a religious nature, in practice Canadians have already been prosecuted by human rights tribunals for things as simple as listing the same Bible verses above in a newspaper advertisement.

Even the church today is not immune to the mainstreaming of immorality. The Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the United States is suffering a rift because of the appointment of an openly homosexual bishop. This rift is widened because some of its leaders have deemed it appropriate to perform homosexual marriages. The Methodist Church has allowed openly homosexual ministers to retain their positions. Let me make this clear: I do not oppose allowing homosexuals to attend church. In fact, I think that’s where they should be. However, we must not condone sinful immorality by allowing our clergy to practice it openly. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are unrepentant of their sin. If they were repentant, they would no longer identify themselves as homosexual. Just as no church would allow their minister to engage in an ongoing adulterous affair and retain his position, so we must not allow homosexual ministers to retain their positions of leadership.

Homosexual advocates will contend that homosexuality is natural, and some will point to homosexual activity within some animal species as evidence. However, it’s not hard to figure out that homosexuality is decidedly unnatural. My wife and I used to have a couple of pendant necklaces. Each of us had half of a pendant on our necklace. When we put our two halves together, the zigzag pattern meshed together flawlessly to create a single, whole pendant (which, by the way, bore the words of Genesis 2:24). God made men and women different, both emotionally and physically. Physically, we were created to fit together anatomically much like our pendant. Our parts just match up! Remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! The argument above also falls flat on its face when you consider that some animal species also eat their young. I don’t think we can extrapolate that into an acceptable practice for human beings.

These same homosexual advocates will claim that homosexuality is genetic. NOT TRUE! Nobody is ‘born homosexual.’ In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found. A British psychologist has had enormous success in providing “reorientation” therapy to homosexuals who want to change. This is not a surgery or a medical treatment, but it is effective. How could it be effective if the cause of homosexuality is physical? Well, it couldn’t be. Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition.

Also untrue is the label applied to those who don’t approve of homosexuality. “Homophobe” has been applied to anyone speaking negatively of homosexuality or of homosexuals. But in 2002, a study by the University of Arkansas was publicized that showed that term to be inaccurate. While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.

God’s laws were handed down for our benefit. HIV and AIDS, while no longer exclusive to homosexuals, are still much more rampant and spreading more quickly among the gay community (at least in the western nations). Our children are at risk as well. While GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) will tell your seventh-grader during a school assembly that heterosexual men molest more children than homosexual men do, they are not telling the whole story. That statistic is only true because homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population. Statistically though, a homosexual man is 10 to 20 times more likely than a heterosexual man to sexually abuse a minor.

A few “Christians” have hurt the cause of morality by acting out violently and/or hatefully against homosexuals. When Matthew Shepherd was killed for being homosexual,* a Baptist congregation gathered outside the courthouse during his killers’ trial. They held up banners that stated how many days Shepherd had been in hell, and used some disgusting names to describe him. They seemed to be happy that he had been brutally murdered. Hate is not the answer to anything. Every one of us is sinful, yet every one of us is loved by God. Jesus did not celebrate the death of Matthew Shepherd, and neither should we. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” is how the saying goes, and that applies to homosexuals as well.

With that said, we must not be afraid to stand up and champion the cause of morality. Some will call us bigots and homophobes for our belief that homosexuality is a sin, but we cannot let name-calling soften our beliefs in God’s moral code. The pro-homosexual movement can only marginalize us if we allow ourselves to be marginalized. There are two ways we can do that: a) we exhibit hate toward homosexuals rather than love, or b) we remain silent. We must proudly champion God’s love toward the homosexual without condoning his or her behavior. Let His love shine through us, and may we all be examples of the morality God desires.