Prop 8 – Why our Reaction to Defeat may signal a Longer War

[construct]

Hearing a law professor state that gay rights should trump religious freedom, that a Christian photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a Lesbian comittment ceremony (in a state without gay marriage) . . . is enough to scare even this materialistic atheist.

This is an example of precisely the kind of anti-gay discrimination prohibited by anti-discrimination statutes. While there is almost always an exemption for institutions engaged in primarily religious activity, the statute certainly would apply to a person (religious or not) providing a secular service for pay. Strongly held religious belief should never let an individual off the hook when it comes to discrimination.

 

[bankside]

There is an attitude stopping gay people from being united as is necessary for our security and progress.

Some gay people still think that bread crumbs of equality are enough. But while honours are earned, equality and dignity are not gifts of the majority to be dispensed when they see fit. They are readily available to all, and they are to be taken at will from those who would withhold them.

We don't have to make nice with those who want to discriminate against us.

 

[chuck10x]

Religion killed Prop 8.
The younger generation has been complaining and blaming the older generation since time began.
The under 30 voter allowed little OLD ladies and men in walkers and wheelchairs - with HOSES, to out vote them.
While religous people went out to vote down Prop 8, 3 million or 57% of the under 30 were absent.
Probaly home alone at their computers posting on Forum's the election results as they came in?
Ask anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, WHY?
The pat answer will involve GOD, The Bible, ALLAH,etc.
The under 30 generation IS the most Tolerant, As long as they get want they want.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Religion killed Prop 8.
The younger generation has been complaining and blaming the older generation since time began.
The under 30 voter allowed little OLD ladies and men in walkers and wheelchairs - with HOSES, to out vote them.
While religous people went out to vote down Prop 8, 3 million or 57% of the under 30 were absent.
Probaly home alone at their computers posting on Forum's the election results as they came in?
Ask anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, WHY?
The pat answer will involve GOD, The Bible, ALLAH,etc.
The under 30 generation IS the most Tolerant, As long as they get want they want.

And don't forget as long as they get it NOW!

Otherwise it's someone older that's obviously preventing them from having that instant gratification that they feel that they so rightfully deserve.

It's all the fault of the "older generations" because lord knows we haven't done a damned thing!

 

[jdoe4822]

I see.

Because that's pretty much what that "coming storm" ad suggested. And allowing Doctors to become moral judge and jury? Are you REALLY comfortable with that?

not a California resident, never saw the coming storm ad so cannot comment on that. As I said, I don't believe doctors should be forced to act against their conscious, especially when it comes to creating (or destorying as in the case of abortion, morning after pills, stem cells, etc) life. Doctors are supposed to act in their patients best interests, and if they don't believe its in this child's best interest to be born into this particular family, they shouldn't be forced to create it.

And I'm saying that considering the other bullshit in that story, I can assure you that like most Christians, she's full of shit and making up those "poor woe is me" stories that they throw around to pretend that they're a down-trodden minority.

Remember that silly "war on Christmas" hysteria they try to stir up every year?

What other bullshit are you refering to? You are alleging this particular writer and publication are not credible yet you have no specific examples of where they have fabricated or made up stories. It is a fallacy to simply allege that all Christians lie and this writer is a Christian so therefore she must be lying. Christians are too big and diverse of a group to lump together like that.

The war on Christmas issue is completely irrelevant. Show me where this writer was involved in trudging up the war on Christmas hysteria and I'll give your position more credence. When I was a praciticing Christian, I refused to recognize Christmas. I remembered and celebrated Advent. I opposed Christmas trees, Santa, wreaths, etc. To me, Christmas was a secular, commercialized perversion of what should have been a Christian holiday celebrating Christ's birth. As I said, not all Christians can be lumped together on issues such as this. Thoughtful, intelligent, well reasoned ones do exist and yes, can still disagree with your position.

 

[bankside]

Again, there is a misperception among some gay people that our equality is something that other people have a right to vote on.

 

[jdoe4822]

This is an example of precisely the kind of anti-gay discrimination prohibited by anti-discrimination statutes. While there is almost always an exemption for institutions engaged in primarily religious activity, the statute certainly would apply to a person (religious or not) providing a secular service for pay. Strongly held religious belief should never let an individual off the hook when it comes to discrimination.

Assuming this photographer was self-employed and working as a private contractor, than it should be their right to refuse to participate in a ceremony that violates their firmly held religious or moral beliefs. If the photographer were an atheist and they were being asked to shoot a Church baptism, it should be their right to refuse.

I do side work as a private tutor. If a parent wanted me to help their child in a Bible class at The First Academy here at First Baptist Church: Orlando or at Bishop Moore Catholic High School, I should have the right to turn down that client (I wouldn't only because of the $).

If they are employed by an agency and are sent there by their employer that's a different story, but even then its between them and the employer, not the client.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Doctors are supposed to act in their patients best interests, and if they don't believe its in this child's best interest to be born into this particular family, they shouldn't be forced to create it.

So yes... you're comfortable with doctors being your own moral judge a jury and apparently executioner. Should they also refuse to "create" a mixed race child if they're Nazis? How about should they have to "create" a child from short parents.. or ugly ones? Maybe Jewish ones?

Geez, I hope you never find a doctor who thinks that gay people should die. Or.. don't already have one. I mean.. if his morals say that you deserve to die (like it says in the bible) maybe he won't tell you about that tumor in your brain... I mean.. morally it's best, right?

you have no specific examples of where they have fabricated or made up stories.

Yeah, I think we've mentioned them in this thread, too. But here's a couple..

"Churches and Mormon temples were vandalized."

No, they weren't. That's a lie.

"Hollywood quickly put together "Prop. 8: The Musical,"

No, that was done by a comedy writer and a handful of actors. The city of Hollywood, which doesn't exist, didn't fund that.

"The violent mobs"

Absolute bullshit. There were no violent protests at all. There was one fight that broke out between two people in one protest. Out of hundreds or protests across the country. That's not a "mob."

I've proven that she's a liar. She also shovels the shit, claiming that by granting me equal rights, hers are somehow hurt. They're not. She just hates gay people and wants to remain legally "better" than us.

But you think that you should only have rights so long as everyone else is ok with it. Which makes you part of the problem.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

She also says that..

"Perhaps gay-rights activists might want to think before they force more people out of jobs for expressing their political and religious beliefs."

When all we did was boycot their businesses for donating money to hurt us. Not for expressing their political or religious beliefs.

But hey, why let the truth get in the way when you're trying to paint yourself as the victim.. when you're not?

 

[Lostlover]

You might want to update your files. President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. Whatever accountability may be appropriate for persons involved in carrying out that order can only reasonably be assigned to persons who were at least 21 years old at that time. Therefore, the youngest of them would be 88 years old today. I’m guessing that age group constitutes only 2 or 3 percent of the overall population.

Similarly, the people who instigated the use of water hoses during the Civil Rights Movement were not youngsters when those assaults took place. The most notorious incident occurred on May 3, 1963 when Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety, Bull Connor, ordered the city’s fire hoses to be turned upon schoolchildren. If Mr. Connor were alive today, he’d be almost 112 years old.

Not so fast Sherlock.

The crimes of the many still living aren't limited to just one event. Vietnam is one.

Fighting against the civil rights movement.

The starting of the war in Iraq (history repeating itself) when the older folks lived through Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin lie and Iraq's WMD lie).

The steadfast support of Israel no matter what Israel does.

The steadfast support of the Apartheid no matter how ugly it was.

Giving Saddam WMDs and then complaining that he had them.

Denying science. Denying global warming.

Denying those that can't access health care, health care.

All the things that make us part of the western world the older folks have tried to suppress by electing officials that blatantly denied the obvious ("C02 comes from cow farts more than cars.")

Again and again.

Shit, they tried voting for McSame in 2008 after 8 years of a miserable presidency.

The black man was scarier than continuing Bush's failures.

They never learned.

Reagan the racist started out his campaign at a place where civil right's workers were killed. Reagan played the race card even. Reagan talked of limited government and how government was the problem yet spending exploded during his presidency. And we all know who talks about Reagan in God-like fashion.

Do you really think Reagan's shit would fly today? Remember the welfare queen he talked about? Do you think someone making not so veiled racist statements would be elected to president?

God surely has a sense of humor. A party that denies the usage of stem cells lost their icon from a disease that could probably be cured by stem cells.

The older folks hate big government as long as Medicare isn't considered big government.

They hate anything socialistic just as long as Medicare isn't included.

A classmate of mine died in the war on terror a few months ago. Guess, which group STILL supports this made up war?

Guess who voted against gays wanting to marry?

It's more than just 88 year olds that are driving this country into the ditch. Or were driving the country into the ditch before they got the big heave ho in November.

If there's one way to cram shit down bigots' throat it would be by electing a black president.

As Bill Maher said and I think it can be applied to the bigots that shot down gay equality. "They hate the most what they've become, a minority."

 

[jdoe4822]

So yes... you're comfortable with doctors being your own moral judge a jury and apparently executioner. Should they also refuse to "create" a mixed race child if they're Nazis? How about should they have to "create" a child from short parents.. or ugly ones? Maybe Jewish ones?

Geez, I hope you never find a doctor who thinks that gay people should die. Or.. don't already have one. I mean.. if his morals say that you deserve to die (like it says in the bible) maybe he won't tell you about that tumor in your brain... I mean.. morally it's best, right?

There's a big difference between protecting and preserving life versus creating a new one. All physicians are obligated to do the former.

Yeah, I think we've mentioned them in this thread, too. But here's a couple..

"Churches and Mormon temples were vandalized."

No, they weren't. That's a lie.

"Hollywood quickly put together "Prop. 8: The Musical,"

No, that was done by a comedy writer and a handful of actors. The city of Hollywood, which doesn't exist, didn't fund that.

"The violent mobs"

Absolute bullshit. There were no violent protests at all. There was one fight that broke out between two people in one protest. Out of hundreds or protests across the country. That's not a "mob."

I've proven that she's a liar. She also shovels the shit, claiming that by granting me equal rights, hers are somehow hurt. They're not. She just hates gay people and wants to remain legally "better" than us.

But you think that you should only have rights so long as everyone else is ok with it. Which makes you part of the problem.

You're using circular reasoning. You know she lied about one thing because she's a liar and you know she's a liar because she lied about the other stuff and you know she lied about the other stuff because she's a liar.

As far as the "Hollywood" reference is concerned, SERIOUSLY? Now I know your scraping for something. Do I really need to state the obvious - that she wasn't refernencing the city of Hollywood but was simply using the term as a general reference to the entertainment industry like many people do?

You then delve into an ad hominen attack on the writer. I see nothing in her piece that even remotely indicates she hates gay people. In fact (while I have no doubt she opposed gay marriage), she never explicitly states her position on the issue. She simply points out things that some opponents of Prop 8 have done to hurt their cause. If anything, her piece (should be) a wake up call to remind gay rights supporters of how not to win people's votes.

As far as your rights being granted hurting hers, as I've mentioned in other posts here, I think she's documented several compelling cases where gay rights are affecting religious freedom.

As far as what I'm ok with, I've made no secret of my position on the issue: no government marriage for anyone, civil unions for all. And no I don't think my rights are being violated. I'm not being told I can't marry, just that there are certain people I can't (which is quite a long list even if I don't include people of the same gender). But like I said, in my perfect world, marriage, and any sort of "blesssed" or "sacred" relationship would be recognized as the religious institution that it is and not the business of the government and be left to houses of worship.

 

[jdoe4822]

She also says that..

"Perhaps gay-rights activists might want to think before they force more people out of jobs for expressing their political and religious beliefs."

When all we did was boycot their businesses for donating money to hurt us. Not for expressing their political or religious beliefs.

But hey, why let the truth get in the way when you're trying to paint yourself as the victim.. when you're not?

the impression I got was that some were putting more pressure than just a boycott, plus a boycott to get people fired for their political beliefs is taking things to a new level. The demonstrations you were involved with may very well have been civil, respectful, and peaceful. But that doesn't mean that all were.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

There's a big difference between protecting and preserving life versus creating a new one. All physicians are obligated to do the former.

OK, well how about my other examples? Short people. Jews. Black/White couples?

Do they get to choose there, too? Or just the fags?

You know she lied about one thing because she's a liar and you know she's a liar because she lied about the other stuff and you know she lied about the other stuff because she's a liar.

No, I know she's a liar because she's printing lies. Pretty obvious to someone with a clue.

I think she's documented several compelling cases where gay rights are affecting religious freedom.

And you're wrong. Again. She's free to believe whatever she wants. But if she wants the Tax-Free Status granted by the government, she'll have to follow a couple rules. There's no guarantee to tax-free status in the bible. In fact, I think it says something about "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" or something.

And no I don't think my rights are being violated. I'm not being told I can't marry, just that there are certain people I can't.

AH. So you have the right to marry someone so long as the government and the church approves. But your rights aren't being violated.

I see.

Are you even fucking listening to yourself?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

the impression I got was that some were putting more pressure than just a boycott, plus a boycott to get people fired for their political beliefs is taking things to a new level.

And you got that impression from where? Reading more Christian lies on a website dedicated to them?

The demonstrations you were involved with may very well have been civil, respectful, and peaceful.

But that doesn't mean that all were.

Except they all were. If you want to suggest that there were "violent mobs" anywhere.. you go find a reputable source to support it. Even a youtube video shot on someone's cell phone. Because they don't exist... and that woman and the other liars are.. well.. liars if they say there were "Violent Mobs" anywhere.

 

[jdoe4822]

Not so fast Sherlock.

The crimes of the many still living aren't limited to just one event. Vietnam is one.

Fighting against the civil rights movement.

The starting of the war in Iraq (history repeating itself) when the older folks lived through Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin lie and Iraq's WMD lie).

The steadfast support of Israel no matter what Israel does.

The steadfast support of the Apartheid no matter how ugly it was.

Giving Saddam WMDs and then complaining that he had them.

Denying science. Denying global warming.

Denying those that can't access health care, health care.

All the things that make us part of the western world the older folks have tried to suppress by electing officials that blatantly denied the obvious ("C02 comes from cow farts more than cars.")

Again and again.

Shit, they tried voting for McSame in 2008 after 8 years of a miserable presidency.

The black man was scarier than continuing Bush's failures.

They never learned.

Reagan the racist started out his campaign at a place where civil right's workers were killed. Reagan played the race card even. Reagan talked of limited government and how government was the problem yet spending exploded during his presidency. And we all know who talks about Reagan in God-like fashion.

Do you really think Reagan's shit would fly today? Remember the welfare queen he talked about? Do you think someone making not so veiled racist statements would be elected to president?

God surely has a sense of humor. A party that denies the usage of stem cells lost their icon from a disease that could probably be cured by stem cells.

The older folks hate big government as long as Medicare isn't considered big government.

They hate anything socialistic just as long as Medicare isn't included.

A classmate of mine died in the war on terror a few months ago. Guess, which group STILL supports this made up war?

Guess who voted against gays wanting to marry?

It's more than just 88 year olds that are driving this country into the ditch. Or were driving the country into the ditch before they got the big heave ho in November.

If there's one way to cram shit down bigots' throat it would be by electing a black president.

As Bill Maher said and I think it can be applied to the bigots that shot down gay equality. "They hate the most what they've become, a minority."

My understanding was that Obama won most, if not all age demographics, but I'm not sure (couldn't find numbers either way so if someone has exit poll data that would be awesome). I know in my family my grandparents were the only ones to vote for him.

And since when did global warming or uniersal health care becoming only young peoples issues? Last I checked the 50 and 60 year olds of my parent's generation were the ones getting stoned at Woodstock while protesting Vietnam, enjoying Free Love, and trying to save the rainforest. Many of my teachers/professors in high school and college definitely fit the bill.

Either way I'm 25, I think global warming is bullshit, I am not interested in seeing my taxes go up to give anybody health insurance, and I'm against anything socialistic including Medicare and Social Security, not to mention none of that has anything to do with Prop 8. Need I remind you that California (as well as Florida) both banned gay marriage and still went for Obama.

 

[jdoe4822]

OK, well how about my other examples? Short people. Jews. Black/White couples?

Do they get to choose there, too? Or just the fags?

Ultimately, it should be their right, as long as they can demonstrate it violates their deeply held beliefs (similar to the consciencous objector status in the military). Is it repulsive and disgusting? Absolutely. Will they likely last long in practice? I doubt it. I imagine garnering that sort of media attention would drive them out of business. But I don't believe it's the government's job to legislate against hate or racism.

No, I know she's a liar because she's printing lies. Pretty obvious to someone with a clue.

and you know she's printing lies because she's a liar. and around we go...

And you're wrong. Again. She's free to believe whatever she wants. But if she wants the Tax-Free Status granted by the government, she'll have to follow a couple rules. There's no guarantee to tax-free status in the bible. In fact, I think it says something about "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" or something.

only one example she listed had anything to do with tax free status. you ignore the others. If it's church camp, they should be able to practice their religion their without losing that status. my understanding is that the tax free status comes from the establishment clause of the constiution.

AH. So you have the right to marry someone so long as the government and the church approves. But your rights aren't being violated.

I see.

Are you even fucking listening to yourself?

I don't believe the government should be approving of any marriages. And yeah a church should have the right to decide whom it marries.

And you got that impression from where? Reading more Christian lies on a website dedicated to them?

and as I already said, based on my previous experience with the site and magazine, I don't consider Christianity Today to be dedicated to lies.

Except they all were. If you want to suggest that there were "violent mobs" anywhere.. you go find a reputable source to support it. Even a youtube video shot on someone's cell phone. Because they don't exist... and that woman and the other liars are.. well.. liars if they say there were "Violent Mobs" anywhere.

You can't speak for every protest in every city across California or the country. If I had reason to doubt the crediblity of CT or this writer, I would go and research it for myself (and if I feel like it a later time, I may anyway). For now, though, as I stated above, I consider them to be a generally credible, if biased, source, and seeing as I find what they say to be belieavable, I'll go ahead and accept it as fact for now.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

and you know she's printing lies because she's a liar. and around we go...

No, I've given examples. But because they prove you wrong, you're ignoring them.

I don't believe the government should be approving of any marriages. And yeah a church should have the right to decide whom it marries.

Nobody argues that the church should marry who it wants to marry. But the rights that comes with that... THAT's what we want. You get that, right? And you get that those rights are being kept from us by your "credible" sources that call us a "Violent Mob."

You can't speak for every protest in every city across California or the country.

Unless I'm telling the truth. Which I am. And you don't want to hear. There were NO violent mobs. Period. That's a lie made up by those... "people."

If I had reason to doubt the crediblity of CT or this writer, I would go and research it for myself (and if I feel like it a later time, I may anyway). For now, though, as I stated above, I consider them to be a generally credible, if biased, source, and seeing as I find what they say to be belieavable, I'll go ahead and accept it as fact for now.

Ok, you realize that this is the equivallent of rolling on the ground, sticking your fingers on your ears and screaming "I'm not listening LALALLALA" right?

 

[jdoe4822]

No, I've given examples. But because they prove you wrong, you're ignoring them.



Nobody argues that the church should marry who it wants to marry. But the rights that comes with that... THAT's what we want. You get that, right? And you get that those rights are being kept from us by your "credible" sources that call us a "Violent Mob."



Unless I'm telling the truth. Which I am. And you don't want to hear. There were NO violent mobs. Period. That's a lie made up by those... "people."




Ok, you realize that this is the equivallent of rolling on the ground, sticking your fingers on your ears and screaming "I'm not listening LALALLALA" right?

No you can only point out things she says in this one article that you believe to be untrue. You have yet to substantiate your allegation that what she says is false beyond speaking from your own personal experiences, which may not be universal.

she's not calling every gay a part of a violent mob. all she is stating is that the actions of a few are hurting the cause as a whole by feeding that perception.

and what I'm saying is that if a source I have hitherto found to be credible makes a claim, they get the benefit of the doubt on that claim, especially if I find that claim to reasonable, as I do here. If people feel as strongly as you have indicated that their rights have been violated on such a fundemental level, I find it reasonable to believe that some would go too far and engage in violent rioting, vandalism, etc. Other people have certainly done it before and I see no reason to believe that gays are not as flawed as everyone else. May I also remind you that Dr. King achieved what he for racial civil rights did in part by separating and differentiating himself from the more militant and violent elements of the black community.

If it will really make that big of a difference, I'll go ahead and committ to doing some fact checking, but not when its 2 in the morning like now.

 

[Kurn]

As I said, I don't believe doctors should be forced to act against their conscious, especially when it comes to creating (or destorying as in the case of abortion, morning after pills, stem cells, etc) life. Doctors are supposed to act in their patients best interests, and if they don't believe its in this child's best interest to be born into this particular family, they shouldn't be forced to create it.

I am totally pro-choice because that is what the law in America must be as such. A woman knows if she should have an abortion or not. People can encourage but no one can force.I could concede letting certain doctors opt-out of later-term abortions if they properly refer the person to a doctor who will.
.
Of your idea against gay people having children: The thesis is that "a man and a woman are ideal for raising a child." There is no proper evidence that this is the case since the evidence pro-thesis is extremely biased. But the evidence anti-thesis is that same-sex couples who raise children generally do extremely well at the job. It's just that the numbers are relatively few, and, ergo, that tired argument that the christians like to use is bogus. There are too many factors in play to make that thesis a valid one.
___
And re: the Article, while the demonstrations might have some cost at the ballot box, I don't question them for one moment. My feeling is that the cost won't outweigh the benefit, although people have gotta be relatively cool for the time being.
[and Jasun's observations are probably rather "epi-center" and valid, being in LA, rather connected, and all.]

 

[JB3]

I don't know if I agree with the article, but the premise may be sound when we're talking about the critical band of independent voters that can swing the vote either way.

I do agree, however, with the idea that the reaction towards the beliefs of those that advocated against Prop 8 went too far. You can disagree with what they believe (as most, including myself, do), but showing such hate towards those beliefs doesn't help our argument. Protesting against what they did is fine, and warranted. Protesting against their beliefs as wrong does not do our cause any good. It shows us to be hypocrites; They believe marriage is between a man and woman, and that our lives are sinful. We respond by reacting the exact same way, but in regards to their beliefs.

Think about it; by reacting the way we did, we sink to their level. Morally, we have the upper hand, so why sink to their level?