Were I in the LA area….I would be out protesting!
I wonder what they would think about a Prop taking away the rights of Mormons to marry. Or, perhaps blacks?
I have no doubt both Props would pass in AR, MS, KY…and, a few other southern states.

Please note, I would not support such Props taking away the rights of LDS nor blacks. But then, I would not support a Prop taking away the rights of lesbian and gay people either.
We just avoided a similar situation here in CT were approval of a ballot question would have led to this.
How very sad that there is so much prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry in our great nation!

Amazing that just because a child comes out, the parents disown them! Now that certainly is an example of true parent love! NOT! I can’t imagine disowning either one of my children. How can a parent do that just because a child is a homosexual? Truly stumps me. Those parents aren’t parents, I’m sorry. Parents should have unconditional love for their children, IMO.
Why must religion be the cause of so much pain to individuals? The righteous ones who feel it is wrong need to peek inside themselves and figure out just what they are so afraid of. That book so many righteous ones use isn’t exactly a reason to cause a whole group pain.

Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the groups of opponents aganist Gay marriages thinks the other side should show respect for the voters decision. No respect is worthy of them, the good Christians throwing eggs at other Christians and etc. protesting their decision shows they are not Christians by any measurement. This silliness has to stop, and equality has to respected for all men and women in America.

I mixed my comment up. It should have read Protesting their decision shows that the opponents are not Christians by any measuement.

“Amazing that just because a child comes out, the parents disown them!”
Some parents don’t even wait for the children to come out before they disown them; a very sad state of affairs indeed.

PS can you get the first two new articles for tonight? I can’t. I heard this bit of I think misinformation on the news last night that white people voted for McCain and black people for Obama and racial opinions still continue. This is a lot of bunk, I watched the crowds on TV, I watched the crowds in my part of MO, my relatives in NJ and NYC, Long Island, NY, Iowa were all out for Obama, and the last time I looked we were all white. Now the south might be questionable, but I think this is being said to cause trouble.

Henrietta22-
No, I have not been able to get them all night. I tried as soon as they were listed on the index.
Peace!

Henrietta:
No, I just get a message that says “this page cannot be displayed” on the first 2 new articles. Will send a note to the tech guys tomorrow if the message stays into tomorrow.
I don’t know about the split on black and white voting, but I have been under the impression that all “races” voted for Obama. Lots of the southern states went to McCain…Alabama, Georgia, don’t know about Mississippi, or the others. Virgina went for Obama as did NC!! That was wonderfully amazing.

this is just an extension of their history, the 1857 murder of innocent women and children by mormons, the mountain meadows massacre. I wonder why they were banned from political offices in early, Idaho,….oh, yeah, it was their record of trying to take of politically and running non mormons out!!!!!

Henrietta & John Q.: I sent a message to the tech’s at the B’net community site, to say that those 2 articles weren’t coming through. I’ve found that problems are taken care of rapidly.

Thanks for replying ps and JohnQ. What I commented on was what I heard on tv the night before. Since then I’ve read polls were taken in Churches for how black and white folks voted. It does change things somewhat, but not a lot. The white friends and relatives of ours voted Obama. Certainly the crowds of white faces at campaign rallies were for Obama, and probably many are church members or goers.

Jeff Roth has stuck and struck on subject. Todays headlines and content say that gay activists, friends, etc. are starting a boycott on Utah! No more sking, attending the Hollywood doings of the Sundance Film Festival and other tourist places; all of which bring in 6 billion dollars a year to Utah. The Mormons are being perceived as the persecutors of the 20,000 couples who want to marry in CA. They say it was the Californians who voted, not them, but huge numbers of Mormons live in CA. So that doesn’t cook. Many are advocating that the Mormon Churches should have their tax-exemption taken away from them. They have preached in their pulpits, and given huge monies for this political debacle, and it seems IMO, it might be able to happen. I don’t think I’ll play my CD of the Mormon Tabanacle Choir during the holidays, because it will instantly remind me of the people singing with such beautiful music and voices, and some of them being able to hurt their own children and everybody elses children in the way they have.

Any tax lawyers out there? As I understand, churches and other religious institutions can support “issues” in elections, but not candidates. Therefore, the Mormons and others of their sad ilk are on safe ground. True?
In a related story, two Mormon missionaries made the mistake of coming to my door yesterday. It wasn’t pretty.

We haven’t had any M. Missionaries ringing our doorbell in our neighborhood for years, but if it should happen I won’t answer the door, as I used to to be friendly. And it’s a shame, because one of them or both might be gay themselves and need a friendly face.

mormons have a history of hate, this is the mt meadow massacre:
Professor Gene Sessions, a Mormon, historian and authority on the massacre has concluded:
“… some 50 Mormons taking orders from local ecclesiastical leaders actually went out and tricked these 120 people out of their encampment with a white flag and then proceeded to murder them in cold blood with the exception of 17 small children. …
“It’s an awful story, you can’t put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, ‘Well don’t you think they deserved it?’ And, no I don’t think they deserved it. I don’t care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old. Everyone older than that was murdered. In fact most of the murdered people were women and children. So there’s no justification. Even if you wanted to make some justification for killing the men, it breaks down pretty fast. It’s just- there’s no justification for the murder of these people. …”

As a proposition 8 supporter I believe that marriage should be a man and a woman, the best example to children they would raise of what a mother, wife, husband, father could be. Doesn’t always work that way, a relative of mine was raised by her widowed mother, but what helped at that time (1930′s) was all the immediate family nearby that could also help. I don’t oppose civil unions or my children deciding their own lives when they become adults.
As to the mormon history of hate, I remember it was once legal to kill mormons on sight in parts of the US in the 19th century, before the Mt. Meadows massacre. Anti-mormon commentators have explained how the mormons brought that on themselves, a statement that has some accuracy to it (and I was taught so growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS) but at the same time is phrased to say “Well, don’t you think they deserved it?”
Back to Prop 8. I’m very concerned that the term “marriage” will be used as a legal weapon to override parent’s rights to raise their children according to their beliefs. When the state sees SSM the same as HSM, it will require they be taught as the same in schools, and while there may be opt outs, Its going to be taught from grade school on up, and I suspect in time with no exemptions. Disagreement on the issue is smeared as “bigotry” and “hate”, an absolutist position that translates into “agree with me or be labeled an enemy of the state”. Only by abandoning our beliefs or not standing up for them, in public, or anywhere that matters, do we avoid whatever nastiness that can be brought to bear. But furtively worshipping in private seems to me a rehearsal for an amoral state to come that does not allow dissent anywhere.
I also remember how churches participated in nuclear freeze marches of the 80′s, or civil rights marches of the 60′s, etc. I noticed no talk of revoking tax exempt status of churches then.

It is a fact that some adults aren’t heterosexual, FrankG. Is there a problem with your children finding that out? Life is what it is, some adult males are attracted to females, some to males. Some females are attracted to males, and some to females. On an age appropriate level, sex ed. should be taught in schools. Many parents certainly avoid the subject, and unfortunately kids find many “facts” from other kids. If a child asks about same gender attractions, would you want them lied to? Parents have the responsiblilty to impart religious beliefs to their kids, some sending their kids to RCC schools or Christian or Muslim or Jewish etc. to continue that religious ed. Public schools should avoid discussions on religion,(unless it is a class on religions in HS) and defer to the parents. However sex ed. starting as early as 5th grade, should be in public school, IMO. The RCC school I taught in had very detailed sex ed. in the middle school classes, complete with condom use. Naturally the emphasis was on waiting until marriage. I’m sure homosexuality came up in those classes as the kids were encouraged to question.
Also, there is a difference in “civil Unions” and marriage. What is the difference in using the same term for both heterosexual and homosexual commitments? Using a religious belief to define a word for a legal commitment whether presided over by a religious representative or a notary public or justice of the peace should be the same for all….marriage.
And how the heck is the term marriage going to be used as a legal weapon to override parents raising children according to their beliefs? You can’t explain to your children your use of the word? and that you disagree with it when used in same gender unions? Why should a relgion have control of the definiation of the word marriage?

It is not a hate crime to try to perserve marriage as it is suppose to be one man one woman.

It is not a hate crime to try to preserve marriage as it is suppose to be one man one woman. It seems there is a huge allowance here that homosexual supporters can dredge up horrors for name calling of the Mormons and yet it is not acceptable to oppose homosexuality or point out facts concerning its nature. It was a fair voting practice the homosexual support raised money presented its case just as supporters of Prop 8 did and they lost by the will of the people. The people have spoken they have look at marriage and decided that in its true nature it is represented by one man one woman period, it was not a Mormon only vote, it was the people.

Perhaps the definition of marriage should be redefined. Marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. Currently, the thought is a man and woman. I want to see this redefined as a man and woman, two men or two woman. The contractual agree, marriage, could be done religiously or secularly, i don’t care. There are religions that will marry two men or two women or a man and a woman. To tell me it’s god’s plan is hockie to me, it’s an excuse. Suddenly, i’m supposed to agree with this thought even though it isn’t my religion. Here’s an article on debunking ‘traditional marriage’ claim:
http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm
Marriage, like all other institutions in human society, has changed over the years.
Should i meet the right guy, i want the protection that marriage offers, for both he and I. What many do not know is that a civil union doesn’t carry the same protection in the eyes of the government as does marriage. Religious claim marriage is sacred, fine, if that’s how you want to see it. In the eyes of the government, it’s a legal contact, which they honor, nothing more. Spin it how ever you want, what gay men and women want is the same legal rights and benefits straight marriages have, nothing eles. Nothing more BUT nothing less.

cknuck supporting Mormons. Now I’ve heard everything! A church which refused to allow black men into their priesthood for over a century in now being defended by a black man because they find common ground in their hatred of gay people. Does one laugh or cry at such irony?

Todays LA Times had an article that Saddleback Church, Rick Warrens, lied to their people; that their kindergarten children would now be taught about SS marriages, and other things that had nothing to do with Prop 8. If this church did this other Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Mormon Churches did the same. This IMO makes them pseudo-Christians. I won’t renew my subscription to a magazine with R. Warrens column. This will not make or break a good magazine, but it will make me feel better. And Cnuck it wasn’t a fair vote because the people were lied to.

I’m not supporting Mormon’s religion but their rights, I’m supporting the U.S.A. as I’ve always have. The vote has been cast get over it and spend time and resources on something constructive.

cknuck-
I completely support the rights of the Mormon church and each of its members. I also completely support the rights of the Roman Catholic church and each of its members. Likewise I support the rights of all religions and their members.
Churches have the right to preach and embrace whatever doctrine they wish. They have the right to insist that their members follow whatever doctrine they wish. This is not the same as when church leaders direct/encourage their members to donate money and vote to enshrine the church’s prejudicial, discriminatory, and bigoted doctrine into our laws.
The Mormon and Roman Catholic churches have contributed to an amendment that strips a group of people of their equal-rights.
The fact that both churches are doing this after they both suffered great discrimination at the hands of the majority of citizens as well as the state governments….earlier in our great nation’s history….just shows the lack of organizational memory and empathy.
Equal-rights are something constructive.
Prejudice, discrimination,and bigotry are just wrong. Prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry of any group of people is indefensible.

It’s not prejudice JohnQ it is a fact that marriage is designed for one man one woman and just because people stand on a principle that is different does not make them bigots or any of the names used. Churches have since the beginning of America had political and moral stances they were the hub of community and for many still are, to attack them with false information is wrong on so many levels and shows the character of the attacker.

Because people don’t call apples oranges then they have to be prejudice bigots

“Because people don’t call apples oranges then they have to be prejudice bigots”
No, but you’re judged by the company you keep. I’ll bet anything that every card carrying Klan member voted for Prop 8, just like you did, cknuck.

sin that sounds like a bet you’d make, and the type of misinformation you’d promote.

H22 people were not lied to about the teaching of the king marrying the king, the article was posted long ago and many of you guys both supported and commented on it.

“It’s not prejudice”
Yes it is. Very clearly so.
“it is a fact that marriage is designed for one man one woman”
That is not a “fact”, ck, it is a tenet of your faith’s beliefs. Others of different (or of no) faith disagree.

“Because people don’t call apples oranges then they have to be prejudice bigots”
Correct, for once, ck. What makes them prejudiced bigots is them wanting to take other people’s right to equal treatment before the law away.
Glad I could clear that up.

“As a proposition 8 supporter I believe that marriage should be a man and a woman”
Frank G, you are free to believe what you wish, but your post doesn’t allow for others who believe differently than you. It’s called freedom of religion and it works both ways.
“the best example to children they would raise”
Sorry, but I’ve seen way too many examples of bad parenting from heterosexual couples to give much credence to that.
“Doesn’t always work that way, a relative of mine was raised by her widowed mother, but what helped at that time (1930′s) was all the immediate family nearby that could also help.”
Do you mean to say you think gay people don’t likewise have extended families that could also help?
“I don’t oppose civil unions”
What is it about equal marriage that you disagree with you find acceptable in civil unions (which are supposed to grant the legal responsibilities to gay couples – but don’t necessarily)?
“I remember it was once legal to kill mormons on sight in parts of the US in the 19th century”
Sorta like how it is ‘legal’ to kill gay people on sight (pace Matt Sheppard, Gwen Araujo, Teena Brandon, Aaron Webster, et al) in parts of America in the 20th-21st century.
“Back to Prop 8. I’m very concerned that the term “marriage” will be used as a legal weapon to override parent’s rights to raise their children according to their beliefs.”
Not sure that the word “marriage” is a “weapon”.
“When the state sees SSM the same as HSM, it will require they be taught as the same in schools”
Not the “same”, Frank, but most certainly as equal. Because it is. And it should be, if the Constituion means anything at all anymore.
“Its going to be taught from grade school on up”
“It”??? You mean that homosexuals exist? That some people are attracted to other people of the same seex? That some of them will want to marry? That they are deserving of equal protections before the law? Seems what you fear is that children will be taught about the real world.
“Disagreement on the issue is smeared as “bigotry” and “hate”
No, Frank, what gets labelled as bigotry and hate is commparing consenting, adult relationships to (and here I quote from many other places here on B’net) beastiality, necrophilia, incest, rape, child molestation, polygamy, “marryin’ a plant”, “marryin’ an animal” (that one’s from would-be-President Mike Hucklebee and not a few posters), etc. These statements are rightfully labelled hate and bigotry – because they are. They are in direct conflict with not bearing false witness aginst one’s neighbour, and also in direct conflict with doing to others as one would have done unto one’s self.
“Only by abandoning our beliefs”
Frank, no one is asking you to abandon your faith. We are asking you not to impose it on other citizens who are not of your faith (or of any faith). Like I said, it’s called freedom of religion and it works both ways. My church marries gays, as do numerous other faiths.
“do we avoid whatever nastiness that can be brought to bear”
Frank, please re-read my list of what gets said on these (religious?) threads, and do NOT presume to lecture US about “nastiness”.
Equal treatment before the law – exactly what the Constitution requires – is our only ‘agenda’. I’m not sure what there is to “fear” in that. (Except the special rights heterosexuals have so long been privileged to. That’s why I call ‘em betterosexuals – at least the ones that feel they’re entitled to something that they would deny to others.)

Actually anything outside of one man one woman marriage is open for comparison, because marriage is and always have been up until this attempt one man one woman. It can if fact be compared to the woman who is being called the “first pregnant man.” Where does it stop there is no limit because the redefining does not have to stop at same sex.

“marriage is and always have been up until this attempt one man one woman.”
Biblical marriage was by no means any such thing. Polygamy was the norm. You’re not even making plausible arguments anymore, ck.