-
Website
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/ -
Original page
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/10/yes-on-8-bus-tour-impressions-at-an-exhibition/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.
While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/060216...
Society should sacrifice for the health and well being of its children.
This is why I am voting “yes” on prop 8 (on my absentee ballot).
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/l...
yes on prop 8!
And for the record, that basically has ZERO to do with Proposition 8.
Gay couples can ALREADY adopt children, marriage won't change a thing.
SINGLE PARENTS can raise AND ADOPT children.
Right to a mom and a dad? That's the biggest pile of bullshit ever.
It's absolutely pathetic that you've constructed this meager excuse in an attempt to justify your bigotry.
I think that children deserve parents, but not a mom and a dad, it has been irrevalent to me, My dad was pretty much gone while I grew up, from infancy to my current age, I met him a few times at 12, but he still was uninterested in me. He was more interested in his booze.
I think I have been happier, aside from one sad day a year, and a few days where the gap shows through, but from the few experiences I've had, I think I'm happier with being raised by my mother, MY mom also knows how it feels to grow up without a father. but was more affected. My grandfather, was kill din Vietnam in the 60's, a very celebrated fighter pilot, we have a box of medals of his honors. His body was never recovered, and they never got an opportunity for true closure. Every child deserves the right to succeed, and if that means not having a mommy and daddy like you say is "normal" than I must not have my rights, because my good-for-nothing father gives me no sympathy for your argument.
I have an uncle, form my Moms side who is gay, and he was deeply affected as a teenager with my Grandfathers death. He fell into a spiral of tough times, and soon came out of the closet. Speed up 15 years, and him and his partner have been together, for 15 years, and they still haven't gotten married. He has not been able to get a new job, due to descriminatrion. He is a normal, healthy, hard working successful person, and he deserves as much the right as the mommy and daddy kids deserve to live in the way you think they should, as my relative should be able to marry.
No on Proposition 8, in California, Keep rights for everyone.
But they then seem to see it a black and white. And then, somehow, from their religious righteousness, they create falsehoods (like homosexuality is a choice) and then react with hate. Pure hate and intolerance.
Great post.
The part that makes me saddest is how much fear I heard in their voices.
Your point doesn't make sense. It is a false argument. Voting against this proposition will not ensure that every child maintains the right to a mom and a dad.
Are you working to directly ensure that every child has that right to have a mom and a dad? Do the divorce laws in your area favor one side? Are you doing anything to help young/teen parents cope with parenthood?
This is a battle of rights, a hundred years ago the rights of women were fought for. 50 years ago the rights for people of color and now we are fighting for the rights of GLBT's. Someday everyone will remember the part of that constitution that reads all men are created equal.
For the previous commentor that states children should have a mom and a dad, that is, well, I can'teven begin to tell you what that is, let's start with archaic, or sexist, or even downright idiotic. Can your daughter not play with trucks or your son with a doll? If so, that is a sad and deprived life you provide for them. ANd no, I am not GLBT, I am however a single parent who was a girl scout leader for my daughter and a Little League coach for my son. I can do anything for my kids that any dad could.
Thank you for this entry.
In fact, I need to write a blog post on something happened today.
and each other. No problem. Didn't mean to exclude :)
Personally, I think it's disgusting that these groups are attempting to legalize this type of discrimination.
What ever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Prop8discussion, your argument is ludicrous. First of all, you write as though gay marriage is a response to bad heterosexual parents. Because...what, gays are trying to one-up straight parents and show them how to do it right? I'm really reaching here.
And the assertion that gay marriage deprives a child of the "right" to a mom and dad is equally absurd. Nobody has the right to a mom and dad, any more than I have the right to a pony on my birthday. You have the right to a grave, and everything else is icing on the cake.
Besides which, if you're so concerned about the right of children to have a mom and a dad, I can only assume that you're campaigning with equal passion to make sure fathers pay child support and stick around for their pregnant girlfriends, and that couples face dire consequences within the church for divorcing. But of course you're not; it's all about the gays because you think it's gross and weird. Get over it.
Homosexuals don't want to be parents instead of heterosexuals; they want to be parents alongside heterosexuals. And if a child has "a stable home, love and support", then I fail to see why it's so all-fired important to do a pants check on the parents. What's so special about heterosexuals?
Oh, and by the way: I absolutely agree that society should sacrifice for the health and well-being of their children. Starting with you. Sacrifice your narrow views so that more children can live happily ever after with their moms or dads without having to bear the burden of your ignorance.
I would bet they are still together, still caring deeply about each other and bolstered by that love, reaching out to the community, giving back in a number of ways. I am not in CA any more but
would be voting No on 8 if I was.
They went so far as to plant a speaker at the rally who was saying some very terrible things about gays. The people at the rally booed him off the stage and told him he is not welcome. How do I know this, well it’s because one of the few no on prop 8 people came over and congratulated the woman next to us holding the banner and called her a hero for planting the speaker. Shameful. And yes, I’m sure most of us knew who Lawrence King was. We were all very touched by that horrible hate crime and would never ever condone something like that. But to make the comparison that we support yes on prop 8 to a hate crime that ended up in murder is unconscionable and a disgrace.
public street with a sign, it is fair to ask them why they are holding the
signs.
I actually appreciated the frank honesty of the preteen kids, especially the one in the Bad Religion t-shirt. He was clear, he was pro-8 because the man on the stage said he'd have to learn things in school that he'd rather not learn. Fair enough.
I opted all of my kids out of the health, sexuality and family classes in school, choosing instead to educate them myself. This is a right that any parent has. Yet the Yes on 8 campaign continues to make this a centerpiece of their campaign. It's fair to challenge it in a blog.
As a final note, I have not ever hidden my lack of objectivity. I confess to it. I went there to try and understand what real people in my community were thinking and feeling. I did. And it saddened me. More than I can really express here. It saddens me more that children who have no clue are getting more of an education about same-sex marriage than they would ever get in a classroom, and most of it is extraordinarily negative.
For instance, here's an exerpt from WorldNetDaily, "SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school."
Another from Boston.com, "In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first."
And then there's the Parker family. The dad was arrested for doing as you did. He asked to be told when they were going to teach his kindergartener about same-sex so he could opt his son out. They refused to tell him, and he refused to leave until they did. So they arrested him for trespassing. Sound fair to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0
We already voted on this. But 4 people overruled the 60% of voters who said they wanted only hetero-sexual marriages recognized. Is that ok with you that an oligarchy rules this state?
Futhermore, not a single, additional, legal right is gained over a civil union. Gay marriage is NOT the same as hetero-sexual marriage. It is not equal. It simply, biologically is not.
Yes on 8.
Charter schools may operate differently, because they are sponsored by private interests. There may be different provisions. Attendance at a charter school is also an opt-in, in its entirety. Parents whose children attend charter schools appy for them to attend that school and are presumably bound by the policies of each individual school.
It is true. I attended a lecture where the Parker couple spoke a couple weeks ago. Their case went to court twice in Mass. then to the Surpreme Court, who recently declined to hear their case. What if you were they?
Also, I took a ton of photos of the two with the sign while they were on both sides of the street. I didn't see or hear (and my photos don't indicate) that there was any confrontation with children. They were silent as long as I was there. I left after the last speaker and before the crowd dispersed. They were on the other side of the street, not talking to anyone. I'm having difficulty understanding how they could have been mean to kids that were across the street on the other side.
I wasn't there when they left, so I can't speak to the rest of it. But I do know that the people who were representing the No folks were very pointed with me -- they did not want confrontation.
“Suit and tie”, I was wearing blue jeans and a button up polo short leave shirt. Obviously the fact that you were not that observant leads me to believe that the large part of your blog is also misleading. Second, is the exchange as you of course recollect it? If you felt afraid it was probably because of your one sided agenda and the fact that what you had intended on reporting was factually false. Now lets examine the facts as I remember them. 1. The reason why I had to shout was due to the amount of noise that was coming from the rally, proponents and traffic. 2. It shows your insecurity in answering some one who is actually informed on the issues as opposed to interviewing small children and teenagers as to expose some ignorance as it relates to our ability to support a cause that we believe in. This is a typical tactic that you on the left use as evident in your blog. 3. You did answer my questions what seemed to be without fear or concern for your safety. However, the fact that you had stated that you were a Christian was false. 3. “Which way does it lean” Now if you were any kind of responsible and ethical reporter you would have not taken my words out of context. In response the above quote, I asked what side of the aisle do you lie on. Your answer was correct, however I never walked away, it was you that were walking away making your earlier statements about being a proud liberal. So again false. 4. My response to you stating, “Jesus was a liberal” again was false. (Again as you were walking away) Lets really examine the facts. My response to you like so many others who have made the same statement was “Jesus was neither a liberal or conservative”. Unfortunately that fact that you were walking away is most likely the cause for you not hearing me. So it will be up to your very few listeners to decide who is really telling the truth taking into consideration that you did not have the confidence nor the intellect to confront some one who is well versed on the issues and not to a couple of 11 year old school children.
As to the truthfulness of my account, I was sending messages in real time to twitter to keep my overal impression accurate.
I did indeed say I was a Christian The fact that you chose to ignore that or simply didn't hear me does not, however, mean that I am challenging your veracity the way you challenged mine. As any investigator will attest, memories of what people wear and what they look like is often mistaken. This is why eyewitness identification in criminal cases is so unreliable.
As to the fear, I don't believe that I said I was shaky-afraid. I clearly stated how I felt, but I certainly did not feel as though I was in any physical danger.
I have not attacked you. I took care to limit my remarks to my own reactions. Yet in this comment, you have chosen to attack my intellect, my veracity, and my motives. I submit that speaks volumes to your attitude and affirms my original concerns.
If you choose to respond, please do so without the personal attacks. The respectful tone I witnessed today with most who were there was far more productive than shouts and pointed fingers. I can and do delete comments which do not advance the discussion. Thank you in advance.
If you viewed that as avoiding issues, I can assure you that it was far more to do with a desire not to disrupt any more than I already had.
Assuming noyb is who he claims he only reinforces your perception of the event by resorting to attacking things he doesn't understand, or purposefully limits his knowledge of. I live near San Diego and am disgusted by the ignorance of some of our own family members regarding 8.
Having an 18 year old nephew who recently came out, most of his immediate family are still clinging to their "Hate the sin, love the sinner" backhanded Christian claim. Even one cousin who is engaged to be married is under the delusion that "they" can have all the same rights as a hetero couple without being legally married.
The only thing qualified to define marriage is the love of those involved.
Keep up the great blog!
No on 8
Don't discriminate.
8 teaches HATE
NO ON 8!
Some who support prop 8 are ignorant, yes. I would argue ome who oppose prop 8 are ignorant as well.
I want to say I'm sorry many of the represntations yesterday hurt you. I can't speak for everyone who supports prop 8, but I can say for myself that I don't hate homosexuals. To me, that isn't what it's all about. You might not be able to understand that, but I want you to know that for me and many others it isn't about hate. Hate crimes like Lawrence King appall me also. Hate and intolerance make me sad too.
I hope you will look at that rally and just see people who just honestly believe what they believe, are teaching their children like any other parent would (hetero or homo sexual... we've seen them on both sides), and who were using their freedom of speech to do what they feel is right.
God bless
Help me understand how allowing gays equal access to marriage threatens in any way your core beliefs? And how does exclusion square with inclusion.
As to painful remarks, let me be clear that they did not come from the crowd. The speakers were the source. I was not in any way characterizing people I encountered as rude or hurtful. At the same time, I don't see how exclusion is anything but hurtful and alienating.
People have been assaulted for simply handing out signs in a church parking lot; cars bearing "Yes on 8" stickers have been keyed with words like "gay sex is fun;" someone parked an suv in front of a pro-8 house with their own signs reading, "Bigots live here!" and multiple signs have been stolen, including one of mine. And we're the ones harboring hate? Really? C'mon now.
From a Gay Baha'i
me. It offends me that I get lumped in with them.
By the way, I enjoyed reading through your blog so much, I added the RSS feed to my yahoo homepage. =)
the rest of this election, I look forward to celebrating on the other side.
I now know it will pass.
Last night I had a dream.
I dreamed that I was invited to address the No on 8 campaign after they had announced Prop 8 had won.
I looked out and saw the faces of all my Catholic friends who wouldn't support Prop 8, including my old pastor, who denied me permission to have a table after Mass.
I remember getting ready to gloat and crow about our victory, and then I saw the look on their faces, and it suddenyl hit me-
they looked exactly how I would look if Prop 8 lost.
I started to cry, and I woke up crying.
We are going to beat you, and I would never wish for any other outcome.
God grant me the grace of compassion after it's over.
If prop 8 passes, it will be struck down by the supreme court, after the expenditure of millions of dollars on legal fees. Money that could have been to help the poor, those in need, those who need to experience Christ's love.
It is disappointing to see Christians practice politics of exclusion. Even more disappointing to see them exult at the idea.
A ton of other stuff is addressed issue by issue here: http://members.cox.net/mamaof4/index.shtml
"During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.
The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."
The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners. "
It would not be ok with me for this to happen to my chldren at any grade level. Why schools are so anxious to bring up the subject with children is beyond me. And they want to get them familiar with the gay lifestyle as soon as possible!
Listen to this, “According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of ‘diversity,’ and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped. …
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: ‘In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents’ [p 5].
‘Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction’ [p 3]."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/proposit...
And there go the rights of the parents who want schools to do their job, which is to provide an education in reading, writing, and 'rithmetic.
trampling on your rights. Or theirs. If that teacher had gone through and
taught them each individual term, what it meant, and forced them to sign the
card, you'd have grounds for a huge lawsuit and you'd win.
Here are the facts: Gays are here. They're not going anywhere. Lean in,
now, so you can get this clearly. Preaching hate on street corners is a
very, very bad idea. Discrimination against one class of people guarantees
that you're trampling on their rights. Creating two classes of people and
denying them the same standing as the other under the law? that's trampling
on rights.
Here's something I'll bet you don't know. If you are in a pension plan (not
a 401k necessarily, but a straight-up pension plan), and you're married,
you're entitled automatically to a spousal benefit on the death of a spouse.
Civil unions aren't recognized the same way. So if you limit gays to civil
unions, they do not have any right as spousal beneficiaries of their
partners' pensions. Unequal. DIscriminatory.
THAT is trampling on rights.
As far as learning about GLBT issues? You people have done more to educate
your little darlings about homosexuality and gay marriage than they would
EVER have learned in a health class.LOL.
I do not wish someone's alternative lifestyle -- be it gay, swinging, what have you -- in my face or my children's. It's that simple. And I demand the right to be free from that. As I have shown, many times in many places of this great country, that right has been knocked away.
I would also remind you that there is another group of people who would be outraged at a reference directed toward them as "you people." Guess you're not that pc after all, and none of this is funny.
I am extremely disappointed in the lack of reasoning and the arguing in circles that I encounter. I am strengthened by the amazing good that has come from this: Christian groups have seen how much they have in common instead of what they haven't. There has been a coming together that is so uplifting and so inspirational. It crosses state lines and religious affiliations. I am honored and humbled to be a part of that. It feels like Christmas, and I hope it lasts for a long time.
This is my last post. Thank you everyone for reading. I hope I connected with you in some way and that you'll read this essay http://members.cox.net/mamaof4/index.shtml
Blessings.
out-of-state case as a reason for California to discriminate based on a
state with different laws.
In California it is mandatory that parents be given the option to decline
health education for their children. Failure to do so would be a huge
disaster.
You out-of-staters are using California as your test case, so you can take
it to the other states. I'm not stupid, we know that. But even if you do
succeed, and I pray you don't, the Supreme Court will recognize it for the
discrimination that it is. If they even decide to hear it after the 9th
circuit strikes it down.
Too bad we can'r opt our kids out of learning about the bloody wars fought, too. Because that scared my kids a heckuva lot more than a couple of folks proessing love for each other and committing their lives to one another. They had nightmares over that. Especially when their brother was serving after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Yep, amen.
Sent via BlackBerry, a miracle invented by John McCain.
Why is it so wrong to ask them not to perpetuate hate and discrimination? To open their eyes and minds that all people are created equally in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such.
As for parental rights, get yourself a clue. In the state of California, any parent can choose to opt their child out of any lesson that the parent objects to. It is the parents' right to do so. I'm sorry if paying attention to what your child is learning in school is too much work for you, but the public school system was not created to push your religious beliefs or hate agenda.
Also, so that we're clear: California does not have civil unions for homosexuals. It has registered domestic partnerships, which are NOT the same as a legal marriage nor are they equal in rights and protections, under the law. But since you're so convinced that it's the same thing as a legal marriage, maybe what we should do is end legal marriage entirely, and everyone can have a registered domestic partnership. Then we'll all be equals and gay folk won't be soiling your precious institution.
Didn't you wonder how school in California has been in session for over two months, now, while gay marriage has been legal, and nobody could find a similar story in California?
Or did you just not think it through that far?