Indexes
November 30th, 2008
November 29th, 2008
November 28th, 2008
November 27th, 2008
November 26th, 2008
November 25th, 2008
November 24th, 2008
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Students 'protest' the eating of turkeys on Thanksgiving (78)
- Does citing the facts on immigration mean I am a hate-monger? (77)
- Minister takes to the streets to recruit new members (48)
- Bring Trader Joe's store to Lodi (35)
- Huber upsets Sieglock in 10th Assembly race (33)
- Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete? (30)
- Major cuts loom (29)
- First the banks, now the automakers (27)
- Former gang member hopes to make a difference in Lodi (26)
- Lodi Cricket Club delighted with Beckman Park field (22)
ADVERTISEMENT
Judges ignored will of the people
In response to the debate about Proposition 8, I would first like to ask why the people of California aren't up in arms that four judges appointed to serve our state were able to overturn the votes of millions of Californians in 2000.
We voted on Prop. 22 (same wording that is now on Prop. 8) and it passed with an overwhelming majority. Just because these persons wear black robes does not give them the right to ignore the voices of millions of people in the state they serve.
If gay activists wanted to put their own proposition on a ballot and have the people vote on it, that would have been acceptable, but these judges going behind the backs of the people in this way is very disconcerting to me. And if you're on the fence and thinking, "What do I care? It doesn't affect me either way, they can do what they want," here are just a couple of the repercussions of this proposition failing.
Schools are required to teach about marriage in their curriculum, including elementary schools, and will be forced to include gay marriage in that discussion. Such topics are personal matters that should be addressed at home, not in the schools. I don't think that would be fair to teachers, either.
Will churches then be forced to allow gay marriages when it is against their beliefs? One of the reasons our founding fathers fled England was because of religious persecution. The state has no right to force beliefs onto a religion but, if this became law, would churches that did not abide be subject to consequences such as losing their tax-exempt status? That doesn't seem constitutional.
Adoption agencies in Massachusetts were forced to close down because they did not agree with the state's ruling on marriage. Will agencies in California, namely religious-affiliated ones, be forced to do so as well?
Obviously, this is a very personal and individual matter. One that I think the law should not be involved in. I don't think it is a coincidence that the First Amendment includes the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. I hate to think what could happen if we started messing with those laws.
Callie Crum
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Robb wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:56 PM:
DanielH wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:01 PM:
DanielH wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:20 AM:
DanielH wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:18 AM:
Mr. Hutchins alerts people that government controls the birth certification of children, by contract through the marriage certificate.
Mr. Hutchins says wake up people, fair notification is printed on the bottom of the marriage and birth certificates, informing them that these are monetary instruments.
Mr. Hutchins did not mention how much credit can be established behind these documents. "
DeltaEnglish wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:05 PM:
By the same token, churches and their clergy who wish to perform same sex marriages because of their creed should have the same first amendment right to do so.
Civil marriage should be the right of all Americans--unless gay Americans are second-class citizens. Enshrining second-class citizenship in the California constitution is simply a bad idea. As a people, we've done legally sanctioned second-class citizenship before with the Jim Crow system and laws against interracial marriage. What it got us was misery, injustice, resentment, and misunderstanding.
Let's not go there again. "
edumacation wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:00 PM:
to Daniel H: I followed you over from another blog. You must be smoking that stuff? "
Election Year wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:26 PM:
Parishioner: It's not the difference of opinion at all. I love differing opinions. It is the blatent falsehoods stated in the letter. A difference of opinion bolstered by factual information is an educational opportunity. A difference of opinion bolstered by outright falsehoods and misinformation is incendiary at best. "
DanielH wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:22 PM:
I am suggesting that anybody can become sufficiently proficient in law within 1 year, to be able to protect yourself or your friends in court.
If you don't study law then you are vulnerable to the whims and decisions of a judge, no matter how preposterous they might become. "
DanielH wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:50 PM:
I am suggesting that anybody can become sufficiently proficient in law within 1 year, to be able to protect yourself or your friends in court.
If you don't study law then you are vulnerable to the whims and decisions of a judge, no matter how preposterous they might become. "
DanielH wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:47 PM:
If you've got a problem with a judge's actions, who are you going to complain to?
If you tell people like the other guy Daniel Hutchins from Acampo that he is crazy, smoking paote, then you have absolutely nothing to do. All you can do is write letters to newspapers and complain. Meanwhile, the judge is still on the bank (oops, I meant bench).
If you study law and become a law merchant, there is very much that you can do about judges being a problem. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:38 AM:
Those who are against same-sex marriage are no less right than those who support it
This sort of moral and ethical nihilism is exactly what is wrong with this nation. If we as Americans cannot agree that all citizens should receive equal treatment under the law, what can we agree on? "
LodiReaderFromStockton wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:03 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:00 AM:
Those who really believe that condemning those who believe this way will sway undecided voters (and in this case I submit there are very few of those) are only displaying their own brand of hypocrisy and bigotry in their feeble attempt to silence those with whom they disagree. Not only are we a nation of laws, but one of citizens with an innate belief in right and wrong. Those who are against same-sex marriage are no less right than those who support it. In this case, the majority will decide. "
parishioner wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:41 AM:
parishioner wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:38 AM:
parishioner wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:32 AM:
parishioner wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:29 AM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:32 AM:
California voters should no more be able to vote to discriminate against Gays than they should be able to vote to institute Jim Crow-style segregation
Dang it ! We voted to discriminate. The Constitution is just a scrap of paper. I demand that the voice of the rabble be heard! "
Brian wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:42 AM:
Traditional marriage is the philosophy of most Americans. Gay marriage is trendy and will eventually become a relic of the past. "
Election Year wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:38 AM:
Somebody, please! Kick those rocks back into place!!!! "
Stella wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:29 AM:
And Ms. Crum, no church is forced to perform any ceremony for one who is not a member of that church, or to perform a ceremony that is against the church's teachings. Catholic churches will not marry a divorced person, until that person gets clearance by the Vatican. As a non-Catholic, I could not walk into St. Anne's and force the priests there to marry me and my husband. So don't worry - your church will be able to continue its bigotry!! "
Leonard wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:01 AM:
I believe this particular argument was originally used against Brown Vs the Board of Education.
In fact, everyone on Ms. Crum's arguments could have been used against desegregation. Heck, depending on how old she is, perhaps Ms Crum used them herself.
The people wanted segregated schools and how dare the schools say they couldn't have them??? "
Comments on this story are now closed.