To My Fellow Californians: A Word on Prop 8 and Fairytales

[SEVERUSMAX]

Okay, then. Let's focus in on this particular bit of heresy. I do know my Bible pretty well and this "against God's Word" is a lie. There is one, repeat one place in the Bible where same sex relations are forbidden. That's in the old Mosaic Law portion known as the Torah. It's in Leviticus and you can look it up if you like. However, before anyone rushes off to do so, make sure that you read the entire thing and then go to Chap 15 in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. There, quite clearly, the Desciples Peter and James and the Apostle Paul, after much prayer, meditation and discussion reach the conclusion that it doesn't apply to non-Jewish Christians. Except for eating food sacrificed on alters of false gods, adultry and eating bloody meat the entirety of the old Mosaic law is swept away entirely. And that's not some modern theory, it's two men who knew Jesus personally and the greatest missionary Christianity ever produced. Anyone who wants to argue with their authority is going to look pretty foolish, IMO. So if anyone tries the "against God's Word" on you, just tell ol' Satan to fuck off because that's who's doing the talking.

Actually, Paul condemns it in Romans chapter 1, but then Paul generally disapproved of sex, period. He indicated a clear preference for celibacy, as did Jesus in another case. Which has always made me wonder about Paul's sexuality, no offense intended to Christians here. After all, he lingers a bit on the subject when discussing it in Romans 1.

 

[Xelebes]

We do have a fetish thread for that sort of thing, you know!

We have several.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually, Paul condemns it in Romans chapter 1, but then Paul generally disapproved of sex, period. He indicated a clear preference for celibacy, as did Jesus in another case. Which has always made me wonder about Paul's sexuality, no offense intended to Christians here. After all, he lingers a bit on the subject when discussing it in Romans 1.

Most modern Biblical authorities consider Paul to have been widowed and what we today consider his 'hostility' to women to be rather liberal given the mood of the times. Additionally there is the question of which Paul actually wrote those passages. Koine Greek scholarship clearly establishes that there is a Paul the Apostle and the False Paul who wrote as though he had the same authority.

Additionally, that word which is traditionally considered to be 'homosexual' in Romans I is no where near so clearcut in Greek. In fact, it only appears in Paul's writing and it, along with a number of other words he used, have highly questionable meanings.

Consider: the word in Romans most simply translates as a compound word along the lines of 'man-lover'. But what does that really mean? For example, let's use two words in English, lady and killer. Individually, their definitions are fairly clearcut. "female human of some status" and "one who takes life, usually human". Hence, it should be easy to translate the word 'ladykiller' into either one who slays women of status or a woman of status who goes around murdering people. However, as we all know, neither of those is really what the word means, not even close.

Now, what was Paul's real concern in the time he wrote? He was trying to establish Christianity and its worship of one God of Everything and to stamp out the veneration of 'false gods'. That 'man-lover' he excoriates is much more likely to be a temple prostitute whose real sin is not fellatio but taking money for doing so and giving it to the worship of That-Which-Does-Not-Exist.

No, the Bible does not 'obviously' condemn homosexuality. In fact, if you read carefully you will find that the New Testament doesn't really have anything say about the sexuality of unmarried people at all. Just that married people should be faithful. It doesn't even condemn multiple partners in a marriage unless the pater familias is an elder in the church. The rest of us are Biblically free to have as many partners in marriage as we wish.

This is a crude explanation, I realize. For more in depth discussion I refer you to John Boswell's epochal Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality.

 

[matriarch]

The whole Leviticus thing is a crock.

If you're going to use a part of the bible to justify an unjustifiable tenet, then you have to apply all of it:

----------------------------------------------------------------

From The West Wing, October 18, 2000:
Dr Jacobs: I don’t call homosexuality an abomination, Mr President. The Bible does.

President: Yes, it does. Leviticus …

Dr Jacobs: ........18:22.

President: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while you were here.

I am interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She is a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that can I ask another?

My chief of Staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here is one that is really important because we have a lot of sport fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garment made from two different threads?

Think about those questions, would you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"hear, hear"

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Most modern Biblical authorities consider Paul to have been widowed and what we today consider his 'hostility' to women to be rather liberal given the mood of the times. Additionally there is the question of which Paul actually wrote those passages. Koine Greek scholarship clearly establishes that there is a Paul the Apostle and the False Paul who wrote as though he had the same authority.

Additionally, that word which is traditionally considered to be 'homosexual' in Romans I is no where near so clearcut in Greek. In fact, it only appears in Paul's writing and it, along with a number of other words he used, have highly questionable meanings.

Consider: the word in Romans most simply translates as a compound word along the lines of 'man-lover'. But what does that really mean? For example, let's use two words in English, lady and killer. Individually, their definitions are fairly clearcut. "female human of some status" and "one who takes life, usually human". Hence, it should be easy to translate the word 'ladykiller' into either one who slays women of status or a woman of status who goes around murdering people. However, as we all know, neither of those is really what the word means, not even close.

Now, what was Paul's real concern in the time he wrote? He was trying to establish Christianity and its worship of one God of Everything and to stamp out the veneration of 'false gods'. That 'man-lover' he excoriates is much more likely to be a temple prostitute whose real sin is not fellatio but taking money for doing so and giving it to the worship of That-Which-Does-Not-Exist.

No, the Bible does not 'obviously' condemn homosexuality. In fact, if you read carefully you will find that the New Testament doesn't really have anything say about the sexuality of unmarried people at all. Just that married people should be faithful. It doesn't even condemn multiple partners in a marriage unless the pater familias is an elder in the church. The rest of us are Biblically free to have as many partners in marriage as we wish.''

This is a crude explanation, I realize. For more in depth discussion I refer you to John Boswell's epochal Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality.

I doubt that we would agree on Paul. But only because the overall impression that I get of Paul and the other church apostles was of asceticism. Which is a large part of why it ultimately failed among Jews, I think, and had to recruit more Greeks and other Gentiles. The Jewish religion is more sympathetic to marriage and hostile to celibacy, with few exceptions (the Essenes being quite notable for precisely that reason).

I don't think that Paul was especially hostile to homosexuals. I think that he was hostile to sex in principle, grudgingly accepting it in marriage to ensure another generation of Christians. It was the triumph of the ascetic impulse.

I think that Jesus, for his part, was also pro-celibate, and his world-view was a blend of Mandean (disciples of John the Baptist) and Essene beliefs. These guys considered even the Pharisees to be loose morally. He didn't urge married men to divorce because that would impoverish their wives, but he largely agreed with Peter's conclusion that it was better for men not to marry at all. And that his ban on divorce was chiefly motivated as a way to discourage marriage in the first place.

So, there I doubt that we would agree, but I agree with you that the Biblical treatment of homosexuality is much less severe than is broadly assumed by the religious right. It is banned, but with no more venom than fornication or adultery.

As to whether Jesus actually taught what is put into his mouth by the Gospels, well, that's another matter. I have suspicions that his teachings were modified a tad by the writers to reinforce Pauline and Petrine authority and dogmas.

 

[matriarch]

Ooops!! double post.

Sorry!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VM

Sigh. All you say is irrelevant. Society will be whatever the polity wants.

Until 1925 it was legal to marry a child in this state, and there were no molestation laws to protect kids. It was legal to whip leased convicts. And no one needed a drivers license.

In the 50s I took guns and knives to school. I fucked teenage girls. You could marry at 14 then. Gay was a psychiatric disorder. Mothers caused schizophrenia.

We all know why marriage is ordained for heterosexuals. So make a case for the queers.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The whole Leviticus thing is a crock.

If you're going to use a part of the bible to justify an unjustifiable tenet, then you have to apply all of it:

----------------------------------------------------------------

From The West Wing, October 18, 2000:
Dr Jacobs: I don’t call homosexuality an abomination, Mr President. The Bible does.

President: Yes, it does. Leviticus …

Dr Jacobs: ........18:22.

President: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while you were here.

I am interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She is a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that can I ask another?

My chief of Staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here is one that is really important because we have a lot of sport fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garment made from two different threads?

Think about those questions, would you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"hear, hear"

I love that episode, as well as the one where the fanatic William Bennett-like character gets the First Commandment wrong, President Bartlet gets it right, and then confronts Rev. Al Caldwell about his links to the "Lambs of God", a fictitious, but frighteningly realistic terrorist group.

At the same meeting, Toby lets Josh know that the "New York humor" dig was a poorly coded anti-Semitic comment.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Okay, confession time.

I admit it, I am the only person on the entire continent who has never seen an episode of either The West Wing or Seinfeld. I have been chastized on several occasions that my lack of interest in popular culture severely limits my conversation with other people. I apologize to those of you who are shocked by such abnormal, un-American behavior but want to assure you that it will not affect my voting . . . since I did that already.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VM

Hey! Man! I'm voting on the same prop here in Florida, and several of my family are voting on the Calif prop. Make your case to me while you can.

Why should I give a fuck about gays who routinely oppose every issue I support?

That is, whats in it for me if I help a queer out?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This should have been a PM.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I feel vey stongly about Prop. 8 myself, and I agree that we should do what we can to defeat it. Two thingsI do quite well are proofread and edit, so I will suggest some possible changes

Prop. 8 has been keeping me awake at night. I've given money, but I want to do more. This morning, I figured I ought to do what I do best. I write. So here it is. I'm going to post this where I can. I don't know if it's any good, or will do any good--and by all means, please give me your feedback so I can make it better, as I can't think of better critics and editors than those here on the AH. Most important: if anyone wants to post it elsewhere, do so. Change it as you like, make it yours, as a blog, as a letter to a newspaper, as an argument on a forum. Use any of it or all of it. If it can make even one person waver, and punch that "No" vote rather than "Yes," then it will have done it's job:

To my fellow Californians: Many of you have been looking for an excuse to vote "Yes" on Prop. 8. You know in your heart that it is a Jim Crow law. A law to keep some people separate AND NOT EVEN equal, as many were once kept from eating at lunch counters, or staying AT certain hotels, or sending their children to certain schools. Some of these many may even have been you, or your parents or grandparents. The truth is, you feel uncomfortable about the fact that gays can marry, and you want a reason to go back to the comfortable status quo. You know, however, that it is wrong to take away any such right from law-abiding citizens. (Actually, even non-law-abiding, as men and women in PRISON can still marry!) Jail is usually a place to hold accused persons or to incarcerate those doing short sentences. People would rarely get married in those places. In prison, however, they do.

You need a good excuse to vote "Yes." Proponents of 8 have found that excuse for you: protecting children. They have told you that if you do not vote "Yes" your children will be taught something you don't want them taught. Something "immoral." As an example, they point out one IMAGINARY fairytale read to children by one teacher. I say "imaginary because the one being cited is probably nonexistent. At least, I have never heard of it.

I would like you to think about this rational that Prop. 8 proponents keep advertising with scary music and distraught parents. Really think about it in comparison to the law you're ready to pass. One teacher SUPPOSEDLY read one NONEXISTENT three minute fairytale to one group of kids and one set of parents got upset. Because of this fear that one, three-minute fairytale THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST might be read to your kids once in their lifetime, you are willing to take away the right to marry from thousands of adult men and women. From neighbors. Friends. Work colleagues. From parents of other children who will be raised knowing that their loving parents were never allowed to marry because people were scared of...A NONEXISTENT fairytale.

Or because of Biblical law. Even that, however, is an excuse to do wrong. Consider: in some countries, Christians are regularly put in jail for blasphemy. How they privately practice their faith, pray to their God and worship Him goes against certain religious texts. This gives the majority an excuse to abuse them. We don't do that here. We know that is is wrong to take away a person's rights just because they do not follow certain Biblical laws. We do not, for example, take away a woman's right to wear what she likes and force her to cover herself head to toe because the Bible says she should. We do not force business folk to close up shop on the Sabbath, even though the Bible says they must, or refuse to let people eat bacon or drink alchohol. And no one is jailed for swearing, even though there is a Biblical commandment against taking God's name in vain.

And we no longer force people of a different race or religion to stay in particular hotels, or drink from certain fountains even if there might be Biblical precedent for doing so. There were Bible quotes as well as fairytales used back in the days of the Civil Rights movement to give those in the majority an excuse to abuse minorities. As in those days, it took the justice system to tell the majority that these laws were unfair and wrong. That America should not be doing this. That America should and could do better, and to remind America, in the end, that everyone does have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That's all anyone is asking for in getting married. To try and pursue their own happiness. Not to infringe on yours.

I'm writing this because I can't stand to watch the state of California, my state, give into an excuse, any excuse to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens. It is cowardly to give into this excuse instead of facing the truth and saying, "This makes me uncomfortable and I have a bias against it." Face the truth, and then face the fact that you know it's wrong to let your bias make this decision. It is wrong for any majority to create Jim Crow laws.

Above all, I ask that you remember this: The lessons and stories told to us by teachers come and go, but the actions of our parents remain with us forever. One day, your children might have friends or neighbors who are gay, or even someone they decide to marry who has a gay parent. Your children will hear the story of how this friend or parent wanted to marry and was not allowed to because of Prop. 8. And your child will ask you then, "What was your vote?"

What will you tell them when they look at you with hope in their eyes, hope that you did the right thing and voted "no"? This is a real tale, not a fairytale. You will have to justify this vote to your children, and if you know it's wrong, and you let a fairytale excuse your actions, they will be ashamed of you, and you will be ashamed of yourself.

Jim Crow laws are wrong. No fairytaleESPECIALLY ONE THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST, can make them right. VOTE NO on Prop 8.

If there really is such a fairytale, then STET to those suggested changes.

As for the statement by Ms. Wax, I have my doubts that it would be effective. I am opposed to Prop. 8, and I don't want somebody wasting their time with things that will not work. Most Californians know that, in 2001 or thereabouts, an initiative was passed that had the effect of outlawing gay marriage. Last June, the state Supreme Court overturned the law, and now some people want to change the state Constituton to outlaw it that way.

If you didn't know better, you might think that there was a vote by the people to legalize gay marriage last summer, rather than a court decision, and that Prop 8 is seeking to overrule that vote. However, Californians KNOW that was not what happened, and some might look at the essay by Alyce Wax, decide it is misleading and read no further, and it might even have the wrong effect on their vote.

 

[Boxlicker101]

VM

Hey! Man! I'm voting on the same prop here in Florida, and several of my family are voting on the Calif prop. Make your case to me while you can.

Why should I give a fuck about gays who routinely oppose every issue I support?

That is, whats in it for me if I help a queer out?

There is absolutely nothing in if for you or me or anybody else who is straight. The only reason to oppose it is fairness or dislike of discrimination.

 

[Belegon]

Why Jesus Would Vote No On 8

My blog post and most recent e-zine article on the subject:

***

Throughout this election season we have seen wild accusations, strong feelings and deceitful advertising on many issues. Nationally, this is focused on the Presidential race, but here in California we are seeing the same kind of bitter focus on a piece of legislation that, for a large portion of our population, is equally important.

I am among those with strong feelings about the proposal to amend the state constitution to define legal marriage as being between a man and a woman. Simply put, I must tell you that I am categorically against any law which denies any citizen their civil rights.

The primary opposition to that view is being based in the churches. It’s predictable. It is also, from my point of view, incredibly sad.

Approximately two thousand years ago, a transformational figure emerged from a small town called Nazareth. This man’s teachings and morality were so revolutionary that they have literally transformed the globe. He was an incredible pioneer… not in the area of religion, although that certainly applies. But in civil rights.

Let’s look at the man, his actions and his teaching. I am restraining this discussion to the actual words and deeds of the man Jesus. I am not, for the purposes of this piece, interested in the epistles of his followers. Also, I am taking the Gospels at face value, ignoring the questions about the literal truth of the document and focusing on the man they describe.

Jesus of Nazareth was the one of the first major western figures to propose such revolutionary concepts as the separation of church and state, pacifism in the face of persecution and a commitment to care for the poor, sick and disabled. But the leadership position I wish to emphasize here is his belief in equality.

If you examine the teachings and words of Jesus, you find a dramatic difference between him and his contemporaries. One that is less obvious to us because of the very changes his teachings helped bring about.

In that time, it was an accepted truth that a king was in all ways superior to his subjects, that only a priest could speak to God and that people who were different were inferior. Women were chattel. Children were an expendable commodity. Slavery was common. Those who worked in certain professions were not only misguided, but evil and sub-human.

Jesus rejected all of the above. He recruited his disciples from the ranks of fishermen. Laborers, whose lack of formal education was appalling to the men who sat in the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. He dared to suggest that a common man was as valuable as a king or priest. He not only suffered the attentions of children, he adored them. He sought out the companionship of women, not as sexual vessels, but as his intellectual equal. He healed lepers, who were considered to have been afflicted by God for their sins. He comforted the insane, who were considered to be possessed by demons.

And perhaps most shocking of all, he preached that Samaritans and Gentiles of all sorts, even Romans, were worthy of respect. Just as were such “scum” as tax collectors and prostitutes.

When he would not desist from these teachings, he was considered so incredibly dangerous that he was put to death. Not by the civil authorities. According to most accounts, they did everything they could to avoid condemning him. He was condemned by the religious establishment of his own country. By those viewed by the masses he preached to as closest to God. By the men who should most have embraced his message, were they truly concerned with souls instead of shekels.

Now, those who occupy the same place in the consciousness of California are arguing that a group of God’s children are somehow less deserving of civil rights. That granting these civil rights, despite not changing a single thing about their own lives, will somehow reduce the value of marriage. They are arguing that a “true believer” has no choice but to vote yes on Proposition Eight.

In doing so, they take a direct stand against the ideals of Jesus of Nazareth. They betray the very concepts this man died a horrible death to defend. They deny his example. Note that I am not talking about sin. I am talking about the legal principles that Jesus pioneered.

Peter denied his Lord three times. These people prepare to follow the example of Peter on November fourth. Peter’s guilt, by all accounts, followed him for the rest of his days and even influenced the manner of his death.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus of Nazareth were to cast a ballot this November, he would vote against this measure to disenfranchise a portion of the masses. Every position of his ministry expresses this. He died rather than reject his convictions.

If you truly honor this man, how can you betray the principles of his life?

Ignore your personal Sanhedrin. Vote no on Proposition Eight.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Very well written!

 

[Wyldfire]

Flame away! I am Bisexual and I am voting yes on 8.

It takes away a business' right to refuse service to anyone. It takes a parents' right to teach their children about sexuality and marriage from them. It allows a subculture to dictate who may have non profit status and who may not, based one that groups acceptance of the subculture.


Now, I know some will say "Oh, none of that will happen", but face it this is California. People will sue another just for looking cross eyed at them. It has already happened in a case of a wedding photographer who refused to work a gay marriage. Churches will lose their non profit status, and businesses will be sued for holding to their right to refuse service to anyone.

Honestly the No on 8 folk are the nastiest most negatively inforced group in the world. Third world terrorists could learn from them.

They see this as an excuse to hate those who hated them in the past.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Flame away! I am Bisexual and I am voting yes on 8.

It takes away a business' right to refuse service to anyone. It takes a parents' right to teach their children about sexuality and marriage from them. It allows a subculture to dictate who may have non profit status and who may not, based one that groups acceptance of the subculture.


Now, I know some will say "Oh, none of that will happen", but face it this is California. People will sue another just for looking cross eyed at them. It has already happened in a case of a wedding photographer who refused to work a gay marriage. Churches will lose their non profit status, and businesses will be sued for holding to their right to refuse service to anyone.

Honestly the No on 8 folk are the nastiest most negatively inforced group in the world. Third world terrorists could learn from them.

They see this as an excuse to hate those who hated them in the past.

Thank you for your opinion. Please either document or withdraw your statements because the are all misleading, outright lies and/or distortions. Thank you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SAFE_BET

We owned a restaurant-bar and had an awful time with the local gay community. I'm speaking of sex in the restrooms, fighting, and the lewd & lacivious groping and fondling. We began with the attitude that gays were welcome, and it changed when gays became a major nuisance because of the bullshit.

Someone emailed me and counselled me to meet more gay people, but I know gozillions of gays already. I dont get gay, but I dont get why people put mustard on their pork chops or wanna move to Florida. I dont get merlot. I dont get lotsa stuff. But I do get problems that make my life difficult, and some groups provide a lot more trouble than others.

So my attitude about gay issues is: What you got in trade for my support? I am not interested is earning brownie points for Heaven; I wanna know whats in it for me OR why gay marriage is a gotta have for society. But mostly I wanna know what in hell youre gonna do for me if I agree to let you play house.

 

[Safe_Bet]

SAFE_BET

We owned a restaurant-bar and had an awful time with the local gay community. I'm speaking of sex in the restrooms, fighting, and the lewd & lacivious groping and fondling. We began with the attitude that gays were welcome, and it changed when gays became a major nuisance because of the bullshit.

Someone emailed me and counselled me to meet more gay people, but I know gozillions of gays already. I dont get gay, but I dont get why people put mustard on their pork chops or wanna move to Florida. I dont get merlot. I dont get lotsa stuff. But I do get problems that make my life difficult, and some groups provide a lot more trouble than others.

So my attitude about gay issues is: What you got in trade for my support? I am not interested is earning brownie points for Heaven; I wanna know whats in it for me OR why gay marriage is a gotta have for society. But mostly I wanna know what in hell youre gonna do for me if I agree to let you play house.

*Snerk* JBJ we will get ten times more vote by having you AGAINST us. Go bother the fundies will you? Tell them you spit on a queer or something. They'll love you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SAFE_BET

I dont spit on queers. I dont make their lives difficult.

I do think the average queer is self-absorbed, feels entitled to whatever she wants, and has no intention of exchanging anything to get the outcome she desires. But politics is all about trade.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

A PM from Safe_Bet has informed me that my jokes on page 1 has been offensive to atleast Safe_Bet (and possibly also to others who find this topic pretty important).

I apologize to anyone who found my jokes offensive. Being a Swede, I ofcourse will not be voting on prop 8, but I can assure you all that if I could vote, I'd vote NO on prop 8, because I think everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of them having the same gender or not.

I was merely trying to lighten the mood by making some jokes, but since this seems to be offensive to some, I'll wish you all well and take my humour elsewhere. I'm leaving this thread.

Svenskaflicka
Offensive joker

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I find SAFE_BETs I'M HERE AND I'M QUEER self promotion offensive.

 

[cloudy]

Flame away! I am Bisexual and I am voting yes on 8.

It takes away a business' right to refuse service to anyone. It takes a parents' right to teach their children about sexuality and marriage from them. It allows a subculture to dictate who may have non profit status and who may not, based one that groups acceptance of the subculture.


Now, I know some will say "Oh, none of that will happen", but face it this is California. People will sue another just for looking cross eyed at them. It has already happened in a case of a wedding photographer who refused to work a gay marriage. Churches will lose their non profit status, and businesses will be sued for holding to their right to refuse service to anyone.

Honestly the No on 8 folk are the nastiest most negatively inforced group in the world. Third world terrorists could learn from them.

They see this as an excuse to hate those who hated them in the past.

You're bisexual, so you still have the right to marry, but apparently it's okay to take that right away from others.

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[john-the-author]

I admire this piece enormously, 3113. I've sent it to a Unitarian Church elist that I'm on in Southern California, along with your comments about passing it on. I'm also saving it for future use: I'm sure we'll need it again in other states.

Well said.

 

[john-the-author]

Flame away! I am Bisexual and I am voting yes on 8.

It takes away a business' right to refuse service to anyone. It takes a parents' right to teach their children about sexuality and marriage from them. It allows a subculture to dictate who may have non profit status and who may not, based one that groups acceptance of the subculture.

Now, I know some will say "Oh, none of that will happen", but face it this is California. People will sue another just for looking cross eyed at them. It has already happened in a case of a wedding photographer who refused to work a gay marriage. Churches will lose their non profit status, and businesses will be sued for holding to their right to refuse service to anyone.

Honestly the No on 8 folk are the nastiest most negatively inforced group in the world. Third world terrorists could learn from them.

They see this as an excuse to hate those who hated them in the past.

I am at a loss to see how the right to marry will result in the loss of a business's right to serve anyone. You can still refuse service and anyone has ALWAYS been able to sue anyone for anything. (Being married to a judge, I get to hear about this.) Where do the two of these connect in this law?

Churches losing their non-profit status? I'd very much like to see how that follows. Baptists and Mormons and Scientologists are still running around loose with non-profit status and they're fucking weird from the word 'go', with beliefs that don't conform to much reality and NONE of 'em like gays doctrinally now. Non-profit status depends from the IRS: I was on the board of a religious association for some years as the Treasurer and I had to deal with the IRS for filing documents of various kinds.

So I'd love to hear the justification for your conclusions. I think the reducto ad absurdium that we should not only deny marriages to gays but also to interracial couples for the same reasons is highly relevant.