Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Local reaction varies on Proposition 8 ruling

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Rachel Drake

Bill Cummins

Steve Newman

Richard Blackston

Raphael Pazo

Posted: Thursday, August 5, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 7:45 am, Thu Aug 5, 2010.

Wednesday's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional met with mixed reaction in the Lodi area.

Some say it's a great day for California.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

28 comments:

  • John Kacergis-Lamb posted at 12:57 pm on Sun, Aug 8, 2010.

    John Kacergis-Lamb Posts: 17

    Currently I'm in Sunnyvale (plan to retire to a place such as Lodi in a few months) so I won't intrude into your discussion. Two short notes: Your civility is a credit to your town --- you are sincerely trying to communicate and share with each other (in great distinction to the violent insults and illogicality which plague the national blog sites). You might find interesting Dana Mack's article in The Wall Street Journal, "Now what for Marriage?" August 6, 2010, page W9. She discusses a man named Blankenhorn (whom she knows personally and was one of the only two witnesses called by the defense). Mack is astute and pithy, so I'll not attempt a synopsis of her interesting observations. Thanks, Guys! Stay Well and keep talking.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:03 pm on Sat, Aug 7, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Kevin, a well regulated militia is a reason for the right to bear arms. It does not limit the right to bear arms. You need to pay closer attention to what the words of the amendment say and spend less time worrying about what you have been told that they say.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:25 pm on Sat, Aug 7, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1975

    Sorry Steve, I disagree with you. Nowhere in 14 does it say anyone has the right to marry anyone. It does say everyone is offered equal protection under the law. Strictly speaking the constitution left the issue of marriage up to the individual states to decide. "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." This issue was voted on in a legal election, decided, then over turned because of a Judge didn't like it.

    Marriage is not a "Constitutional right", the Constitution says nothing about marriage. It is a right reserved for individual states to establish, which California did, which a judge overturned.

    Oh, since I am there already the 2nd amendment says our right to own a gun only exists as part of a militia "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It has been twisted so that drug dealers and thugs can carry better weaponry than our police officers.

     
  • trista aquino posted at 5:22 pm on Sat, Aug 7, 2010.

    trista aquino Posts: 98

    Ok, quick question, off topic.....
    How in the (bleep) do you change your picture??? Ive gone to edit profile and uploaded, but theres no save changes or anything- Ive tried "update profile" but it didnt work and Im getting v e r y frustrated...
    Oh another quick question please if I may....Im dying to know- and if you dont wish to come forward, no worries, I wont ask again, but now that we have to introduce ourselves by real name,...... . who are: 'T n C' "Dogs 4 u' and "Geovanina'?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:22 pm on Sat, Aug 7, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    It is clear from the first amendment that Churches are immune from suits to force them to ordain women, ordain blacks or marry gays. The first amendment protects them from such coercion just as the 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms and the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays to marry.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:30 am on Sat, Aug 7, 2010.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2346

    Steve Schmidt stated, “The women who are trying to change the Catholic system in this country are doing so through the traditional means of the Church, not through the secular courts.”

    As I am not absolutely certain where Mr. Schmidt stands on this particular subject (women serving as priests in the Catholic (or any other) church), he seems to hint that while there is no legal recourse for them (women who want to be priests) through their grievances to the Vatican, if they were to attempt to challenge the restriction in civil court, they might prevail. (Please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Schmidt.)

    No one has the right to demand that any church alter their practices unless they violate the law. Under the Constitution, the Church is specifically protected from governmental interference. Sadly, many Americans actually believe the opposite to be true.

    I won’t be surprised if gay marriage becomes the law of the land there will be actions filed that would attempt to force churches to perform homosexual ceremonies. Since the leverage the government will have in their favor will be their tax-exempt status, I fear that many of these churches will cave under the pressure.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:42 pm on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    No, I never said anything about women and the priesthood. Rich Yorn mentioned it and I think the point he was trying to make was that the 1st Amendment allows the Catholics to discriminate against women with out legal repercussions. This is, of course, true.

    The women who are trying to change the Catholic system in this country are doing so through the traditional means of the Church, not through the secular courts.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:51 pm on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1975

    So...I'm trying to see where you can reasonably draw the conclusions that I said "that women are fighting to become catholic priests because we allow them to get married".

    I briefly mentioned gay marriage and how lawsuits may force churches oppose to them, perfom them. Then YOU mentioned women can't become priests which I countered showing there are those trying. From that you infer that I think "women are fighting to become catholic priests because we allow them to get married"?

    You're right, that makes no sense.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:11 pm on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    So... you are saying that women are fighting to become catholic priests because we allow them to get married?

    That makes no sense.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:50 am on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1975

    Rich: You inadvertently have proven my point. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Swiss_woman_ordained_Catholic_priest.html?cid=5279216

    http://www.womenpriests.org/

    Women are already (And on this issue I agree) fighting to become priests. If this loong standing tradition is falling under more and more scrutiny then other, equally long held teachings stand to falter as well.

    The reason I support women in the priesthood is the Biblical accounts of how often God used women to deliver His messages. In my opinion if a woman is good enough to carry the son of God, raise him, and stand by him through all the trials when men failed, then women are worthy of priesthood. I suspect in the next 50 years this men-only tradition could change. The next Pope selected will be the first one ever to be selected who has grown up entirely post Vatican II, thus most likely not as bound with older traditions.

     
  • Ricky Yorn posted at 9:58 am on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Rick Yorn Posts: 37

    Kevin i've seen this "issue" brought up before. But there's a problem with the rationality of it. You see churches are left to their own customs especially the two that you named who were the biggest supporters of prop 8 , the Catholic and Mormon Church. Where the fear falls short and simply becomes a tactics is because there is already separation in the church that would be considered unjust or unconstitutional but because they are part of the belief system then they are continued as usual.

    The Catholic Church does not allow women to hold the Priesthood. And in the Mormon Church people of African American Decent or with a dark pigment to their skin (Cuban, Haitian, Etc ) are seen as the decedents of Cain who slayed his brother able and was punished by God. His punishment was that his decedents would not be allowed into the holly Priesthood and through out their book it describes them as having a dark color or pigment to their skin.

    And yet the government has not stepped in even though they are by definition unconstitutional. Churches have protection and are left to their belief systems and nothing will change that.

    After all if i were to get married regardless of my sexual orientation, i would go where i am welcomed, wouldn't you?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:27 am on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1975

    Trista: Just a point of clarification and I have had this discussion in the past with others on these boards but while it is true that Christians are taught that God is the final judge one of the things he will judge us on is if we abide by the standard set in Ezekiel 33. That is if we see someone doing wrong then we should tell them. There is huge difference between saying a behavior is wrong and blatant condemnation which many of those against gay marriage have done. Using Ezekiel's terms, we are to sound the trumpet, not bash it over their heads.

    You did however touch on something I agree with. I see a time in the not to future when a gay couple tries to force a church they belong to who does not endorse gay marriage to marry them. There are many gay people in the Catholic and Mormon churches. Without legal protection these two and other churches may be forced, by law, to do something they believe is wrong. Prop 8 was the only protection these churches had not to go against their beliefs. I believe there is a middle ground that could be estabished to allow for gay marriage, but protect establishments from supporting it if it is against their religious beliefs.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:32 am on Fri, Aug 6, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    An unconstitutional law is just as unconstitutional if 100% of the people vote for it as if 51% of the people vote for it.

    If people want to ban guns or gay marriage, they should amend the Constitution. From what I have seen of polls, they will need an awful lot of luck and money to do either.

     
  • trista aquino posted at 7:20 pm on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    trista aquino Posts: 98

    First off, since when have schools taught ANYTHING having to do w/ anything about marriage? Had gays been allowed to marry, end of story, no one would would be hearing or even thinking about it by now-If anything, its BECAUSE of all this controversy that students could be required to study this issue as it unfolds, this history in the making.. The fact that this has been a subject of taboo throughout history evokes the very curiosity those opposing are desperate to keep our youth away from. We instinctively want to see and know what we're not supposed to, its in our nature- what do we do when someone tells us not to look?
    Secondly, since most of the argument is in regards to religious beliefs, doesnt the bible teach us indifference-that their is only One judge? To follow some teachings and blatantly disregard others how they see fit is doing more harm then good because hypocrisy is ruining the integrity of the religion itself-what kind of example are leaders setting by teaching kids its ok to go against certain things written in the bible or by even just by teaching something that they themselves dont even follow?
    And lastly, I was just wondering, and this is a sincere inquiry so I would like a sincere answer and/or feedback on it- what about hermaphrodites? Now thats a genuine medical reason for amending the constitution-because last I heard marriage doesnt discriminate against people because they have a medical condition.
    Churches should have the right to refuse marrying gays-asking them to go against something they believe in is just plain disrespectful, just as it is to deny an adult the legal rights that comes with marriage because the state (or any person/entity) doesnt approve of the person they want to marry.

     
  • Ricky Yorn posted at 6:54 pm on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Rick Yorn Posts: 37

    i understand your point but it's hard comparing 100% which is never going to happen and 57% to 43% such as with prop 8. It's just a huge leap.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:02 pm on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    There should be no problem, it is exactly the same scenario in reverse.

    The Constitution is not a smorgasbord. You cannot pick and choose which rights you want to respect. If you can't respect the 2nd Amendment, how can you possibly demand that conservatives respect the 14th?

    Personally, I favor both the right to bear arms and the right of gays to get married.

     
  • Ricky Yorn posted at 5:23 pm on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Rick Yorn Posts: 37

    Theres a problem answering such an exaggerated hypothetical question.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    If 100% of Californians voted to make guns illegal, would it be right for the courts to uphold that law?

     
  • Ricky Yorn posted at 10:42 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Rick Yorn Posts: 37

    Brian wrote, " If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme
    Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach
    young children there is no difference between gay marriage and
    traditional marriage."

    Brian we all know that is complete bs....and no where is it stated that homosexuality would be taught in any schools what so ever.

    Thats a simple scare tactic, and a pathetic one at that. Schools are supposed to be bipartisan and teach facts not opinion.

    You can't and shouldn't be able to vote away an individuals rights, thus why we have the constitution and the judicial system, in order to protect those rights.

     
  • rochelle selby posted at 9:31 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    rochelle selby Posts: 2

    Quick question! Why is it always men who get the interview? or blog! Way to go prop 8 i support you all the way! As long as everyone is happy I think there are a lot of other things to worry about! Rachel you Rock! And you have the best family and support! Love ya!

     
  • Ross Farrow posted at 9:21 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Ross Farrow Posts: 104

    Brian: Your 7:34 a.m. post shouldn't be attributed to me. Pastor Bill Cummins made that statement, not me.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Alice,

    Of course the judge ignored that the Constitution says ,in so many words, boundaries must be established in order for a society to function. I doubt it occurred to him that our moral footing would be compromised when he arrived at his decision.

     
  • Alice Dodson posted at 8:23 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Alice Dodson Posts: 20

    One of the things we hear all the time is that every vote counts. This is garbage. A judge can come right along and overturn a ruling voted in by voters at a whim. Your vote doesn't count for a darn thing. Very, very disappointed in the outcome on the Prop 8 issue. After voting for 46 years, my faith is gone in the public vote and will spend my time doing something else rather than studying the issues.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:02 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Rabbi Raphael Pazo, Lodi: "Nobody has the right to tell anyone what they can do or not do. That creates a second-class citizen. It goes back to the commandment, 'Love thy neighbor.' "

    -Seems to me this Rabbi doesn't understand the concept of setting boundries.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:34 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Ross Wrote:


    The homosexual population in America is about seven percent. To their credit, they have been able to control a great deal of our culture through their selfishness

    -Couldn't agree more..

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:30 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme
    Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach
    young children there is no difference between gay marriage and
    traditional marriage.
    We should not accept a court decision that may
    result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay
    marriage is ok. * * * [W]hile gays have the right to their
    private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage
    for everyone else.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:25 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/04/prop8ruling.pdf?hpt=T1

    Judges ruling.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:52 am on Thu, Aug 5, 2010.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    It's not about having equal rights via a civil union for those inn the gay community.
    It's all about having equal rights via a marriage. The GLM is clear. It will do anything it can in tyhe name of equality even if it means the long standing tradition of marriage,
    that has always been between 1 man and 1 woman, has to be eroded.

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists