Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Story Tools

Email this story | Print this story

Indexes


December 1st, 2008
November 30th, 2008
November 29th, 2008
November 28th, 2008
November 27th, 2008
November 26th, 2008
November 25th, 2008
November 24th, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT

Vote 'yes' on Proposition 8

Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:41 PM PDT
Comments (138 comment(s))

It is critical that voters pass Proposition 8 in November to reverse the California Supreme Court's illogical 4-3 decision on May 15, 2008, literally creating out of thin air a constitutional right to "homosexual" or "same-sex marriage."

Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to make clear that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In our form of government, we have entrusted the judiciary with the vital role of declaring what the law is and applying it to the facts of each case.

When the judiciary engages in social experimentation by inventing new "rights," which have no basis in our history, laws, or constitutions, it undermines that trust.

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, who authored the minority opinion for the court, said it well when he wrote: "The majority has violated these principles (of judicial restraint). It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice."

The majority's opinion that homosexuals have a "fundamental right" to same sex marriage is unprecedented in history.

Justice Baxter points out that "Fundamental rights entitled to the Constitution's protection are those "which are, objectively, 'deeply rooted in this (society's) history and tradition,' (citations), and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice could exist if they were sacrificed, (citation)."

Justice Baxter notes: "The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex. Statutes enacted at the state's first legislative session confirmed this assumption, which has continued to the present day. ... The People themselves reaffirmed this definition when, in the year 2000, they adopted Proposition 22 by a 61.4 percent majority."

A vote for Proposition 8 will restore a measure of sanity to our legal system.

Gregory P. Goehring
Lodi

Reader Feedback

tamarasw wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:27 AM:

" It is not discrimination to present clear language to define an institution that has been with us for thousands of years, and to protect it as such. The IDEAL of marriage between a man and a woman and the environment that establishes for the raising of children is worth protecting. If it weren't, Proposition 22 wouldn't have passed with 61% in favor. I speak for myself when I say I am voting for Prop 8 as a vote for an IDEAL I wish to uphold and NOT as a vote against homosexual relationships. But I suspect that 61% of Californians feel the same way. I do not believe they are all filled with hatred and prejudice. "

Report Abuse

tamarasw wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:20 AM:

" I've been following your comments for a few days now, and it seems we've strayed from the purpose of Proposition 8 (which is not, by the way, to legislate discrimination). When the constitution of California was written, it was assumed that the definition of marriage was what marriage had always been, a union between one man and one woman. No one could have ever foreseen that one might need to write that definition into the constitution in order to protect it. Just as now, one might think that the definition of "man" would be obvious. (But perhaps we should be working on a amendment to define "man" because, even though we can't foresee it, that also might come into question someday!)

Marriage between one man and one woman has always been the standard for our society--the IDEAL that we should aim for. It is the best environment for raising children; it is the most stable familial unit; it benefits society in many ways. There are many types of relationships: business relationships, mentor relationships, teacher/student relationships, and yes, even homosexual relationships. But none of those form the foundation of our society. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Scout wrote: Lastly, as already discussed, laws against incest, polygamy, child molestation, underage marriage, etc. are not based on race, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination. "

Scout, so none of these are realy based on sexual orientation discrimination. And neither is denying homosexuals to marry based on sexual orientation discrimination. It's a moral issue. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Voter - it was actually you who furthered the discussion about a what would happen if a brother and sister who, not knowing that they were in fact related fell in love and desired to marry. Because of that familial connection, the need for marriage would not apply - I believe that was the gist of your comment in that regard. Theres nothing perverted or even wrong in discussing it in that context (IMO).

In fact, merely discussing things that are not mainstream or acceptable doesnt make it disgusting or wrong. The fact is there are those who, for whatever reason desire to marry within their own family. I think its wrong and there are laws that prohibit it up to a point. As you pointed out though, it is now okay for first cousins to marry. It has not always been that way. As such, at what point will it end? "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Brian: I feel very confident repeating that I am against any amendment that makes discrimination a constitutional right.

I also do not think that by choosing to eat animal meat (beef, pork, chicken) that I am opening pandora's box and indirectly supporting cannibalism. (See Aug 7, 2008 12:08 PM post.)

Lastly, as already discussed, laws against incest, polygamy, child molestation, underage marriage, etc. are not based on race, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:33 PM:

" scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:31 PM:

" I agree that it is unconstitutional for the state to discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation and I am against ANY amendment that makes discrimination a constitutional right. "

scout, that said, then where do you draw the line? You're opening up a pandora's box. I'm sure you are aware that there
is as multitude of sexual orientations.
I'm dubious you would be a proponent of a father marrying his daughter. How about a sister marrying her sister? You would be a proponet of incest in these two cases. Are you that disgusting? "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:30 PM:

" Girard, cousins can legally marry, so your scenario would not affect them. You are correct to point out that a parent might intervene in a brother/sister pairing, pulling rank in a life or death situation--I can't think of any other familial pairing where this could occur. I do believe it could be worked around with medical power of attorney directives. I think this demonstrates why incestuous relationships are taboo/illegal--confused family hierarchy. It's kinda disturbing that we are even discussing this as if it presents any kind of real problem. Incest is illegal, and really, what sort of loser sees his sister as an option for marriage??? "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:02 AM:

" Voter wrote, '...a permanent family connection which allows them all sorts of legal rights and protections allowed family members. In incestuous relationships these rights already legally exist.'

This is not necessarily true, at least as it describes the hierarchy in the decision-making within the family.

In a marriage, it is the spouse who gets to decide, for example if their spouse should be removed from life-support. Without that connection, such a choice usually rests with the parents. A brother, sister or cousin would be relegated to somewhere down the line. Therefore, if a brother and sister were in love with one another and one became terminally ill (and at least one parent was still alive), it would fall to the parent(s) to make these types of decisions, not the sibling. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 8, 2008 3:55 AM:

" Voter, thank you.

I knew you had the knowledge to address Bulldog's question. Well said. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:42 PM:

" voter: Well done. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:16 PM:

" Desired (consensual adult) incest is extremely rare--usually there is a perpetrator and a victim involved. While it may be conceivable (although extremely unlikely) that a brother and sister who did not grow up together might fall in love, they already have the legal rights of kin. This is what marriage provides two unrelated people--a permanent family connection which allows them all sorts of legal rights and protections allowed family members. In incestuous relationships these rights already legally exist. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:11 PM:

" So, for at least three or four reasons, incest is not compatible with stable family relationships. The incest taboo probably developed over time in early human history because it's vital to the survival of the family unit and thus society as a whole. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Bulldog, anthropologists tell us that incest is taboo in ALL societies and as far back in human history as we know of. There is probably no single reason why, but a combination of factors which make it extremely undesirable. First, there is the increased likelihood of genetic defects in offspring--especially disastrous in small, closed communities. Next, for most of human history, marriage was really about alliances necessary for survival, not love. Parents arranged marriages of their children with members of a neighboring tribe or village. This assured family ties between the groups which assured an ally in times of trouble/warfare and aid in situations of famine, etc. Also, incest is just not compatible with a stable family structure, creating sexual rivalries which tear the family apart--mothers and daughters in conflict over father's attention, etc. Furthermore, incest creates confusing relationships that make status within the family difficult to ascertain. The incestuous child of a father-daughter union would be a brother of his own mother, i.e. the son of his own sister; a stepson of his own grandmother; possibly a brother of his own uncle; and certainly a grandson of his own father. "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:31 PM:

" I agree that it is unconstitutional for the state to discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation and I am against ANY amendment that makes discrimination a constitutional right. "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Bulldog: the state cannot discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation when issuing state licenses, including marriage licenses.

Other regulations - like getting married under the age of 18 without parental consent, getting married again while still married to another (third) person, and the marriage between siblings, are not related to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Thus for example, if two people under 18 want to marry without parental consent they would need to challenge the existing law preventing them from doing so in court. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Well, one of the basis that they have to make the rules on is the principle of equal protection which is what the court found in the case that we are discussing here. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Ivan - assuming you are correct.

There is no right to marry in the state of california, but the state can still make the rules about who can and who cannot get married? On what basis can they make those rules?

Why not any two people (of age, same species - I am not going weird here) who want to go down that road? "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Proposition 8 would amend our constitution to allow discrimination. If we want to generalize and debate about the broad implications laws can have, let's discuss the damage that could result by making discrimination a constitutional right. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:44 PM:

" The state regulates marriage but there is no "right" to marriage. We might not like the consequences but there is nothing Constitutionally speaking to prevent the state from discontinuing the issuance of marriage licenses altogether.

The state does, however, have a constitutional obligation to apply whatever laws it DOES enforce fairly and without prejudice.

This is what the court found and what the current system reflects. If you don't believe me, you can look up the ruling for yourself on line. "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:43 PM:

" Bulldog says: "Think of all the laws that are based on marital status: tax, family, benefits like 401K and health. If the state stopped issuing licenses to marry, those laws would be obsolete. Without the state, there is no marital contract...The state has an obligation to perform this function in society."

That is the exact argument in favor of state recognition of gay marriage.

Also, Ivan was correct. It is illegal to discriminate based on gender and/or sexual orientation. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Bulldog, well there you go. You just gave the reasons
why gay people SHOULD have the right to marry.

They are citizens, just like you and I, and should not be denied any of the rights your listed.

Thank you. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:29 PM:

" Ivan - I disagree. The state regulates marriage. It has the sole authority to deem a person "married". With that recognition comes legal protections and obligations under the law.

Think of all the laws that are based on marital status: tax, family, benefits like 401K and health. If the state stopped issuing licenses to marry, those laws would be obsolete.

Without the state, there is no marital contract. It becomes a moral or religious obligation to one another. The state has an obligation to perform this function in society. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Bulldog, I think you misunderstood the ruling. The court did not find that marriage was a right, what it did find was that, in giving out marriage licenses the government cannot discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

The government could simply stop issuing marriage licenses all together, if it chose to do so, without violating anyones rights but it cannot issue them to one group and not another. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Lodian, I stand corrected. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Scout - I did not say the state should protect the health of the individual, I asked if it should? This is the reason given for preventing incestuous marriage.

Does the state have a right to prevent actions that will harm the individual? To what extent can it go in that regard? These are the questions of limits on the laws of our land. And who decides those limits of the law?

My point all along is that we have to be careful about what is deemed a right? Once you say "Marriage is a right" it becomes a right for everyone. You cannot put a limit on that right that is unreasonalble and without basis.

Marriage, not just gay marriage, has become a "right" in California. So, what are the reasonable limits on that right? Is it health? Morality? What are the new rules about who gets this right and who doesn't, and what are those new rules based on? "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:59 PM:

" sa wrote "Lodian and Scout, Bulldog was looking for a discussion without using religion or name calling."

sam: Boy, that sure was hard to tell from his 12:24pm, wasn't it? Geez Louise. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:57 PM:

" bulldog: When did I shout or call you names. Check yourself. I have been discussing this topic in a rational manner, and with you that is a challenge, but I will press on.

It looks to me as if YOU are the one that has his head in the sand if you think that gay men are the ones with AIDS and at most risk. You really need to get that head out and know that YOU can get the virus today, God forbid.

Yes, you can get AIDS just like any one of us. We're all at risk. This direction, with you on the topic, is like talking to someone in a time warp. Are you living back in time a couple of decades? Get educated on the AIDS issue. Your argument against gay marriage due to AIDS is simply ridiculous. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:49 PM:

" scout: Good points. "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Bulldog: There are more heterosexuals with HIV/AIDS the homosexuals. More over 1 out of every 2 Americans infected with HIV is African-American, the majority of which are straight women.

According to your logic the state should "protect the health of the individuals". Therefore the state should clearly prevent all California citizens from having sex. How do you recommend going about doing this? Banning marriage probably won't work since the majority of people have pre-martial sex. Do you think the state should impose mandatory castration? "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:34 PM:

" But Bull, I did look up why incest is illegal ignoring the birth defect element and the religious factor. I could not find a reason other than it is considered ethically wrong. Hey Lodian or Scout, can you answer that question Bulldog asked?

I am hoping Voter comes along. Voter is the one person I am confident would have the answer I cannot find.

Lodian and Scout, Bulldog was looking for a discussion without using religion or name calling. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Bulldog, we all are at risk of getting AIDS. If my spouse gets Aids, I am at risk of getting it. It is spred with sex, but if I spit in your eye (no insult intended) or vomit on you and I have AIDS, you can catch it from me. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Scout and Lodian - you can put your head in the sand all you want, but the way you get aids is dirty blood, dirty needles, and unsafe sex. That is not drama, that is the way it is.

The A in aids is Acquired. It takes an action to get it. It is not like a cold that passed through the air.

Your idiotic remarks is why this country cannot move forward anymore. You make the argument a shouting contest and deny what is happening in front of your face.

I am sure you will say all those gay men got aids through blood transfusions.

Lets call names then. Perhaps you idiots are only capable of that. "

Report Abuse

scout wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:08 PM:

" LOL - I love Bulldog's drama queen scare tactics. Bulldog's logic states if gay marriage is allowed incest is next. Let's use Bulldog's logic on other topics.

Argument for vegetarians - if people are allowed to eat animal meat what's next? Eating humans?

A past argument against women's right to vote - Women voting? What's next, allowing furniture to vote?

PS to the drama queen: anyone can get HIV, even you. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Bulldog wrote "We know that gay men are at risk for contracting aids."

Bull: We are all at risk for contracting AIDS. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:42 AM:

" Sam,

If health of the offspring is the issue, there is birth control and in the case of accidental pregnancy, abortion.

If the state has a desire to protect the health of the individuals and can use that to prevent marriage, the same could be said for gay men needing to be protected from aids. This is not a religious statement, it is a medical one. We know that gay men are at risk for contracting aids. Why would the state not step in to protect them from this possibility?

Does the right to marry trump the state's obligation to protect its citizens from disease or the offspring from potential birth defect? "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Ivan, a bit off topic, but have you ever heard of Lilith?

Interesting reading.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/lilith.html "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:21 AM:

" sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:13 AM:

I have often wondered though, who did Adam and Eve's children mate with? If incest is so evil, why was it required?

Steve? "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Bulldog, you did not address your questions to me, but I do believe the reason incest is illegal is due to the health risks of offspring.

I have often wondered though, who did Adam and Eve's children mate with? If incest is so evil, why was it required? "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:54 AM:

" Voter, 2 more questions? Why can the state regulate the sex life of incestuous couples and not gay couples? Where is there a line between the two?

I am being totally serious here. Who makes the moral rules and decides this is a right and that is perversion? Do these rules shift by the passage of time? Are they changed by science? Politics? Evolution?

If they shift over time based on one or more of the above factors, who decides when the time has come to change the rules?

Or do we have, as our declaration of independence states "Certain, unalienable rights" that are timeless and can never change?

This is my biggest question in the entire debate on gay marriage. I understand you see it as a civil rights issue, and I want to develop that conversation to hear from you and those who share your views what the answer is to the above questions.

I don't want to really get into a shouting or put down match, but I can. I would rather have a good back and forth in a respectful manner. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:44 AM:

" Voter, I am not offended. I did see the sarcasm, but you seem to fail to see mine.

I like how you take out the contempt in the definition when you are called on it and only focus on the mockery. Nice ability to parse your comment to rephrase it in a way that makes you look better.

I will dispense with the back and forth barbs with you, and ask 2 serious questions. If you don't answer it, that is fine. If you do, I will consider your response in an academic manner and not in a sarcastic manner. Here goes:

Why is incestual marriage any different from gay marriage? Why is gay marriage different from hetrosexual (non-incestual) marriage? "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:35 PM:

" voter wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:49 PM:
" OOPS!!! big goof. Sorry, Ivan. I meant to address Bulldog! "

No problem, on this issue our views are interchangeable.

I am behind everything Bulldog says, 548.392%!!! "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:49 PM:

" OOPS!!! big goof. Sorry, Ivan. I meant to address Bulldog! "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:48 PM:

" Ivan, siblings and parent/child couples can't wed because incest is illegal. Every state has some form of incest prohibition laws. And by the way, consenting and desired adult incestuous relationships are extremely rare--most of these pairs would involve a perp and a victim. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:37 PM:

" Ivan, LOL! My face hurts.

Bulldog, no, I was not showing contempt--maybe a little mocking though--you should check facts before you throw them out as evidence in debate. I just copied and pasted in a dictionary definition and apologize if this offended you. You seemed to miss the sarcasm that Ivan (and then myself and others too) were tossing around and I was alerting you to that fact. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Bulldog wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:21 PM:

Are you prepared to say that siblings can marry? If not, why?

Not if they're too old to have children.

If we don't take a stand against Geriatrifornication today, what will become of the institution of marriage? "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Ivan Dixon: LOL! "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:21 PM:

" voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:44 PM:

" Bulldog,
Sarcasm=the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. "

So Voter - you have only contempt for those who don't believe as you do? Nice. That just makes you a hero, doesn't it.

You stated earlier that this is a civil right issue - like blacks getting to vote. Civil rights belong to all. Then if marriage is a civil right, all possess it. Even siblings would have that right.

Are you prepared to say that siblings can marry? If not, why?

Remember, we can't put morality into the equation, because that is not how we are deciding things. Your morality is no more valid than mine in this discussion. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Ivan, such words of wisdom. My hero. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Exactly. I feel my own marriage, my church and my nation, even my bowling league are endangered by these infertile people getting married.

Marriage is for procreation, not recreation, that's what I say! "

Report Abuse

Metric Time System wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:47 AM:

" It's about rules and standards,and transcending right and wrong. When the building blocks of a civil society are attacked, it's the beginning of the end of a civil society. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Lodian, as sure as George W. Bush is the most intelligent President this country has ever had, I am being absolutely straight with you. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:46 PM:

" Ivan Dixon: Do I understand you correctly, or did I come in late on some snappy sarcasm? So, since I am past my childbearing years, for the most part, does that mean I should now get a divorce? After all, I will not bear children at this point so what's the point in being married, right? Is this what you really believe? Huh?? "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:44 PM:

" Bulldog,
Sarcasm=the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:47 PM:

" Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:32 PM:

So, if two gays cannot procreate, they are perverts? Plain and Simple. That is what you are saying, right Voter?

You've got that abso-freeking-lutely correct! I like your kind of thinking.

My rule when it come to marriage is simple.

If you can't breed, you can't proceed.

Just the other day I saw this quadriplegic that was getting married and I just about threw up in my mouth. There was no way this guy was ever going to father a kid, he didn't even have the machinery, it'd been blown clean off by an Iraqi grenade.

I'm behind you Bulldog 548.38%!!!

Any society that lets homosexuals, old people and gravely wounded soldiers get married is going straight to hell! "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:32 PM:

" Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:58 PM:
"MARRIAGE IS FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS!!! IF YOU ARE A SHRIVELLY OLD MAN AND YOU WANT TO MARRY A DRIED UP APPLE LOOKING WOMAN WHO COULDN'T INCUBATE A CHICKEN EGG YOU ARE A PREVERT, STRAIGHT UP SIMPLE AND PLAIN!!!"

voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:14 PM:
" I think Ivan has hit the nail on the head. "

So, if two gays cannot procreate, they are perverts? Plain and Simple. That is what you are saying, right Voter?

Seems to me you are flip flopping.

Your gay friends are not going to like you. Wait until Billy Rubin hears what you think. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:14 PM:

" I think Ivan has hit the nail on the head. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:13 PM:

" Bulldog, cousins can legally marry in California. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:52 PM:

So, if a 75 year old woman wants to marry her 55 year old son, why not? What harm is there in two people who love each other living in a marriage union? They don't harm anyone? What is the big deal?

I'll tell you Mr Bulldog why these preverts shouldn't be allowed to marry. They shouldn't be allowed to marry because A 75 YEAR OLD WOMAN CAN'T BEAR CHILDREN!!!!

JUMPING JESUS ON A POGO STICK!!!

MARRIAGE IS FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS!!! IF YOU ARE A SHRIVELLY OLD MAN AND YOU WANT TO MARRY A DRIED UP APPLE LOOKING WOMAN WHO COULDN'T INCUBATE A CHICKEN EGG YOU ARE A PREVERT, STRAIGHT UP SIMPLE AND PLAIN!!!

What are these people thinking? "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:52 PM:

" And yes, I understand that we don't let kids drive. We don't send children to war either. We also don't let them marry or vote until they reach the age of majority, which is the same for all individuals. When you get to the age where you can make your own decisions, you get the rights and privleges of reaching that age.

Your argument is the one that is silly. You obviously are not looking at the difference between children and consenting adults.

So, if a 75 year old woman wants to marry her 55 year old son, why not? What harm is there in two people who love each other living in a marriage union? They don't harm anyone? What is the big deal?

If you don't have a good answer except something along the lines of "THAT'S GROSS", then they should be allowed to marry. We are not going to discriminate based on moral objections in this state.

That is what the 4 SC judges have ruled. That is for now the law of the state. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Voter, so two gay people get to get into the marriage business, but you would discriminate against two cousins who marry?

Oh, you decided that two cousins are sexual deviants, but two gays just love each other.

Your argument has a problem. You are putting morality into the equation.

Why do two cousins who love each other and want to share their lives together have less rights than two gays who want to do the same? Why are the gay's rights more important? Who are you to say that two people who love each other cannot be married? What makes your morality superior?

Why is it different with gays? What is so special about having sex with someone of the same gender that give them a moral right that cousins of opposite genders don't have?

Your argument is weak voter. Either there is a fundamental human right to marry or there isn't. That is what "equal protection under the law" means. If there is a fundamental right, everyone gets to have it (gay, straight, black, brown). "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Bulldog, let me explain the legal system to you. ALL laws are a limitation by degrees. Your argument of "where does this stop" is silly. Just because we changed the law to let blacks and women vote, does not mean that soon children will be allowed to vote. Not everyone is entitled to drive a car--we don't let children or the blind get behind the wheel. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:00 PM:

" tamarsw - I am for prop 8. I am just taking the supposed reasoning of the "gay marriage is a civil (human) right" crowd and extending it to its natural conclusions.

It gets a little scary, don't you think.

At what point do we say "This is what marriage is" in this state? If you use the gay lobby arguments, and apply them to other situations, you get the conclusions I outlined.

This is where we are headed if we don't pass prop 8.

Sorry my post was unclear. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:43 PM:

" I absolutely agree that marriage is for procreation.

The fact that all these infertile couples are allowed to marry makes me sick.

What business does a 80 year old man have marrying a 75 year old woman when there is no way they will ever have kids?

Dang sickoes! "

Report Abuse

tamarasw wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Bulldog, I'm having a hard time figuring out where you stand on this. But there is one thing I would like to add...

If, in order to allow marriage without any restrictions at all, one must do things like rely on abortion to take care of accidental pregnancies...or just plan to not have kids, or always rely on safe sex, or protect polygamy because "it is just another contract", why must traditional marriage be so completely tampered with and diluted as to have no real meaning at all? Can't all the exceptions to a traditional marriage find another avenue to express their relationships without changing marriage? If Californians wish to keep the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what is so wrong with that? It has worked for a long time--can't this remain sacred to those who believe in it? "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:01 AM:

" If you say - Cousins, siblings, and parent/child marriages cause harm to the offspring, the argument is they don't plan to have kids, and if there is an "accidental pregnancy", then there is abortion to take care of that.

But what about the health of the gay men who marry and contract aids? But they have safe sex to prevent that disease. Well, cousins and siblings can make the same argument.

And polygamy would have to be protected. Why not allow three people who love each other to live in a caring relationship with the rights and privelges of other married units. It is just a contract anyway, and they don't hurt anyone with their activities. What gives the state the right to trash their "human right" to marry who they choose, even if it is more than one spouse?

So, if this "judge made law" prevails as the law of the land, then I would predict that we will see these suits in court, using the gay marriage window to make their marriages legal. "

Report Abuse

Bulldog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:56 AM:

" OK - if this gay marriage is just about the "human right" to marry, then the state overreaches when it denies that right to cousins. Why can't cousins marry? If they love each other and want to form a family unit, then what right does the state have to trash their "human right" to live in a loving marriage with the person of their choice.

Lets not get to beastiality here, lets stay in the same species.

If a brother and sister want to marry and have all the rights and privleges of marriage, who is the state to stop them? Why can the state trash that human right?

If a woman wants to marry her son (legal age - no child abuse here), why not. What harm are they doing to the state if they marry? They just want to be in a loving relationship where they can be together in a union that is recognized like any other couple who want to be married.

If the SC decision stands, these questions must be answered. "

Report Abuse

tamarasw wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:41 AM:

" There are a lot more reasons to vote for Proposition 8 than to rein in judicial activists.
1) Marriage between a man and a woman has been proven over centuries of time to provide the most stable unit of society and the best environment for children. A child needs a mother and a father.
2) A small minority of homosexuals should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
3)States have always reserved the right to limit/restrict marriage in the best interest of their citizens. There are many different kinds of "marriage" that are forbidden by state laws, including, but not limited to polygamy, marriages between cousins, or marriages between a parent and a child.
4)Changing the definition of marriage will have so many far-reaching ramifications for the public school system: what is taught in the curriculum, uni-sex bathrooms, and boys' and girls' sports, just for starters.
5) Homosexual relationships can never be the same as heterosexual because of biological differences and the inability to produce offspring. "

Report Abuse

JD wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Anyone notice that the only reason Goehring gives to vote for Prop 8 is to rein in judicial activists?

If that's *really* the goal of Prop 8, wouldn't that goal be better served by a carefully crafted state constitutional amendment that expressly limits the jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court vis a vis explicitly denoted fields of law?

Passing a law like this just for the sake of p!$$ing off the judiciary seems misguided at best. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 3, 2008 2:53 PM:

" I'm sure the radical liberals in government have pondered how they can
make homosexuality a handicapp or disability. They just love creating new social programs.

We WOULD see a sharp rise in people discovering they have always been homosexual to tap into these programs.
This would be yet another slap in the face to the truly disabled or handicapped. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:26 AM:

" I shudder at the possibility of the quack doctors declaring there is a homosexual spectrum. I'm not too anxious to be put in this spectrum because I may glance at a man with a nice physique. Of course I could qualify for federal aid under the "Homosexuality As A Disability Act".
Gaven Newsome would be licking his chops
if an act like this was passed. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 3, 2008 9:59 AM:

" I'm sure the radical liberals in government have pondered how they can
make homosexuality a handicapp or disability. They just love creating new social programs.

We WOULD see a sharp rise in people discovering they have always been homosexual to tap into these programs.
This would be yet another slap in the face to the truly disabled or handicapped. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Aug 3, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Voter, I should remind you that homosexuality is a dysfunction that should not be rewarded with special rights just because they say so. This dysfunction will go back into the closet in due time.

Ones race or ethnicity is not a dysfunction. That said, denying one the right to vote based on their race or ethnicity is hardly comparable to denying one the right to marry the same sex. Now, this does not mean people with dysfunctions should not have special rights. Handicapped and disabled people are given special rights. I'm dubious homosexuals would like to be placed in this category. However, given their determination to have special rights, I may be wrong. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:04 PM:

" zinfandel wrote, 'There is no irony........the voters of California voted that marriage is between a man and woman.'

And now they get to make that determination once more. I guess we can consider the first proposition a 'dry run.' Now we'll get to see if Californians were serious about that decision. "

Report Abuse

zinfandel wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:00 PM:

" There is no irony........the voters of California voted that marriage is between a man and woman.
God stated it as well....read the Bible.
All I am saying is that we should agree to disagree. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Seriously, zinfandel, you don't see the irony in your post? My disagreeing with your viewpoint is disrespectful, yet denying a whole segment of society basic equality is not? "

Report Abuse

Zinfandel wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:30 AM:

" disrespectful.... "

Report Abuse

Zinfandel wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:29 AM:

" voter wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Zinfandel wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:53 PM:
" I have nothing against homosexuals...I just don't believe they should be allowed to marry. "

I love this sentence. Let's have fun and change it.
I have nothing against blacks/women/Asians . . . I just don't believe they should be allowed to vote." "

Voter, I am so happy that you "loved" the sentence.
Your opinion is yours alone. Do not attempt to speak for me or anyone else.
I do not have to justify my opinion on this topic to you...
My beliefs are mine and mine alone. . .which I am entitled to.
Just because our opinions and/or beliefs are not the same does not give you to right to be disrespectiveful! "

Report Abuse

Winston Wallace wrote on Aug 2, 2008 6:04 AM:

" California is a state with a homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexual relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote domestic partnerships as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care parents must take diversity training that orders them to affirm a childs sexual behavior, including cross-dressing. Prop 8 will slow down this madness although domestic partnerships already affords gays most all of the rights and privileges now granted to married people. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:13 PM:

" Oh, I fully understand where you're coming from. I often look at things from different perspectives; and sometimes there are many ways to view the same thing. As the subjects of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, heterosexuality, 'conventional' marriage, perception of reversing the 'will of the people,' and proposed constitutional amendments having been covered ad nauseum over the course of just the past few weeks, I foresee the next 94 days to be loaded with high-intensive rhetoric, anger and a bevy of other sentiments and attitudes coming our way. While I would like to see things settle down as this situation heats up, I'm afraid we're in for a rough ride. Without a doubt it will be historical; I just hope that it doesn't get too far out of hand. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:36 PM:

" girard, you fully realize I was being sarcastic, I'm sure. To me, this whole issue is one of civil rights. The fact that there is any argument at all about whether one particular group should be afforded equality or denied it is just plain ridiculous. One side sees it as essentially about forbidden sex, the other sees it as about civil rights. We aren't even speaking the same language. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:21 PM:

" Voter wrote, 'I love this sentence. Let's have fun and change it.
I have nothing against blacks/women/Asians . . . I just don't believe they should be allowed to vote.'

Fun as it may be, this really is a serious matter. So serious in fact that it merits not only judicial attention by the California Supreme Court but a place on a general election ballot in November not too far removed from where we will be electing our next president. Also, depending upon the outcome the question could very well find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in relatively short order.

Sure, there was a time when certain citizens were not afforded other basic rights and those had to be corrected in the manner set forth in our laws. Now it's same-sex marriage that is being decided by the people. At the very least it deserves a modicum of respect - from both sides of the issue. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:08 PM:

" educated reader wrote, 'We are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, whereby we elect officials who we believe will represent our interests. Please everyone get off your high horses with the notion that WE VOTED against X or Y.'

Yes, we are a representative democracy - as it pertains to laws enacted by the local, state and federal legislative bodies which we elect to 'represent' us.

However, when an issue is placed on the ballot as a result of the gathering of the requisite number of registered voters' signatures, this is as close to a 'pure' democracy that we can get. At this point it 'is' the people who choose to decide whatever is placed before the voters directly, bypassing those elected legislative bodies. We rightfully expect that the 'will' of the people will prevail.

The Supreme Court only serves to ensure that the laws pass constitutional muster. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Zinfandel wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:53 PM:
" I have nothing against homosexuals...I just don't believe they should be allowed to marry. "

I love this sentence. Let's have fun and change it.
I have nothing against blacks/women/Asians . . . I just don't believe they should be allowed to vote." "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:58 PM:

" educated reader wrote, 'Another wonderful thing about our society. It is not up the any review process to ensure that a Prop is written correctly or not.'

While it is true that there is no 'requirement' that any proposed ballot initiative be reviewed for legal sufficiency, it makes little sense for those who truly desire its success on election day 'and' and have said initiative survive the constitutional scrutiny that is sure to follow by those who oppose it to not spend the necessary effort and money in pre-election review to ensure its survival.

Moreover, normally a pre-election pamphlet is distributed that contains multiple narratives by those who are 'Pro' and 'Con' to any proposed laws. Here one would think that anyone who truly desired the initiative to fail would have taken the time, energy and cost to stop the matter in its tracks before the voters got a chance at voting it into law, even if they believed that it would not survive post-election review by the Supreme Court.

It doesn't appear that any of these things happened with the original marriage proposition. "

Report Abuse

Zinfandel wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:53 PM:

" educated reader......I have as much right to state my opinion as you do. I have as much right to my opinion as you do. And why don't you put a "banner in your front yard"???
It doesn't matter to me which order you want to put it; woman + man = marriage or man + woman = marriage. The order doesn't matter...it's the combination that does!!!
You used the word "thank God" if you truely believe in God you would know that He was against homosexuality...I have nothing against homosexuals...I just don't believe they should be allowed to marry. "

Report Abuse

educated reader wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:27 PM:

" girard: Another wonderful thing about our society. It is not up the any review process to ensure that a Prop is written correctly or not. The proponents should be guided by experts, otherwise they take their chances that the wording will be found UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And meanwhile, the sheep that constitute our population here in California lap up all the garbage (oops, maybe those are goats!) just follow along without question.

The bottom line in this discussion is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed - that is a matter of law and not a societal decision. The question is: how can we change things in accordance with the Constitution of the US and/or CA? Until people understand how this country/state works, we will continue to read the ridiculous opinions about "the will of the people" stated over and over. "

Report Abuse

educated reader wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Someone needs to take a basic course in political science to realize what branch of government can do what before they make accusations of the state government crumbling before our eyes. In case no one has realized this yet, this is (the Federal nor the State) not a DIRECT democracy, meaning that the peoples' vote is not the final word. We are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, whereby we elect officials who we believe will represent our interests. Please everyone get off your high horses with the notion that WE VOTED against X or Y. The Constitution is the law and the State and Fed Supreme Courts are charged with upholding that law - and yes, all constitutions are written in a manner that leaves them open to interpretation (thank, God!) depending on the progress of society. They are also written in a manner that does not permit them to be altered easily, otherwise anarchy would ensue.

And to those who keep writing:

Man + Woman = Marriage, why don't you just put up a banner in your front yard proclaiming your belief. And why not:

Woman + Man = Marriage! "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Another problem I had with the original proposition at the time it was placed on the ballot was how it could have passed legal sufficiency review as all proposed laws are expected to prior to going to the voters. If I, a lowly lay-citizen (along with many more), could see the conflict then, why didn't more intelligent or clearer minds prevail?

My only answer is that those who would have had the responsibility and authority to voice their opinions either way were more than likely facing re-election themselves - and as we know from the history of politics in our nation, re-election always trumps doing the right thing. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Tom Carlson asked, 'Can the SC overrule an amendment to the constitution as being unconstitutional?'

Probably, but it will take a great deal of courage for them to do such a thing, especially after the uproar that has been raised forcing this proposed amendment. And therein may lie the conundrum. I too wonder how any two (or more) contradicting rules can co-exist in a document designed (at least in part) to avoid such confusion.

If this does occur I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court will be called upon to make a ruling to resolve the entire issue. Unless another justice resigns or dies before such an issue is brought before the Supreme Nine, its makeup will more than likely force one man (Anthony Kennedy) to make that determination.

If the proposition fails, at least for awhile in California the issue will be moot; it may then be up to another state to have its courts to make the decision.

(IMHO) "

Report Abuse

Zinfandel wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Man + Woman = Marriage!!! "

Report Abuse

Tom Carlson wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Girard - a question for you to answer.

Can the SC overrule an amendment to the constitution as being unconstitutional?

What discretion would they be allowed in making that decision? If two parts of the constitution are at odds with each other, which should prevail as the law? Who decides? Do you really want 4 judges telling us what can or cannot be in our constitution? Can you see where this might lead to the type of government model that does not respect the vote? "

Report Abuse

Tom Carlson wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Girard - on what priciple did the state SC rule the prop 22 to be unconstitutional? Equal protection under the law? Now we get into the nuances about what is "Equal protection under the law?". Originally written to ensure that blacks were treated fairly, not denied voting and property rights, and given fair trials.

What does it mean today? Anything any socially active judge wants it to mean. There is no right to marriage in any form under the state constitution, so they just created one and then shoved their ruling into the category of "Equal protection under the law". 7 people in a state of over 30 million got to debate this issue. They were very divided. 4 people with an activist view of the court threw out the will of the people to create a new right and protect it over the objection of millions in the state.

Nothing good will come of this. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Tom Carlson wrote, 'That does not mean that our legislature cannot create and enforce social rules of order in the state,' and then asked, 'Does that help explain my position Girard?'

Sure, and thanks for setting it out. But I wasn't all that confused as to what you were attempting to convey.

Your near final thought on the matter, however brings us right back from where we started. For example, when the legislature (or the people by referendum or any other manner to enact new laws/regulations) creates an edict that limits marriage to be between a man and a woman only, the only test of its validity is to have it determined to be 'constitutional.' This is the sole purpose of any the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although not obtained by a unanimous decision, it was decided that the law as approved by the voters failed to pass this test. Perhaps by requiring a unanimous decision by those appointed to make such important decisions the voice of the people might be more clearly heard and respected. "

Report Abuse

Tom Carlson wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:38 AM:

" That does not mean that our legislature cannot create and enforce social rules of order in the state. They should, and this is my point. We are at where we are at because the elected officials failed in their duty, and now we are damaging our constitution, diluting the power of the vote, and going towards a system where money is more powerful than the vote.

Does that help explain my position Girard? "

Report Abuse

Tom Carlson wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:35 AM:

" In my opinion, social issues relate to how we live amongst each other. They are the "current" rules for how we get along with each other. Rights are absolute and timeless, they are the principles that cannot be violated.

So where do we find the absolute right in the state constitution to marry? What timeless principle in that document was violated? Or did the court over reach and create a new right by interpreting the state constitution?

My opinion, they did. There is nothing - as noted by WTF - that guarantees the right to marry? I believe the court should have thrown this back to the legislature, because it is a social issue, not an absolute, timeless right.

But that opinion comes from my belief that we must strictly interpret our constitution. We