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

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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

Wyldfire does have a certain point there. California does have a law, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying those who provide public accomodations, such as bars, restaurants and, presumably, photographers cannot refuse service on the basis of, among other things, sexual preference. Just as racists would not be allowed to get away with drawing the color line and refusing to videotape a wedding of black people, a homophobe would not be allowed to refuse to videotape the wedding of gay people. However, that law would apply just as much to refusing to videotape a commitment ceremony, so nothing would change.

Custodial Parents ALWAYS have a right to teach thei childen about marriage and sexuality. That would not change, although there would be some changes in some public school textbooks, mostly in high school.

If a church, etc. gets involved in politics, they should lose their tax exempt status.

As I mentioned before, businesses are not allowed to disciminate. A bar can eject and ban a trouble-maker, but not if the ejection is based on race, religion, etc. including sexual preference. This law is already on the books, and would not change.

Some of those who are the loudest against Prop. 8 might be pretty nasty, but not as bad as some of those fundies who are so strongly for it. It is a very divisive issue, whichever side you take.

 

[Vermilion]

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.

I see your point, but surely the gay community who wish to marry their partner are the ones who are least likely to be having promiscuous sex in a public place - surely everyone knows you stop having sex once you get married...

Sorry, couldn;t help that joke, but I think you'll agree I have a point...

 

[Safe_Bet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.




Wyldfire does have a certain point there. California does have a law, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying those who provide public accomodations, such as bars, restaurants and, presumably, photographers cannot refuse service on the basis of, among other things, sexual preference. Just as racists would not be allowed to get away with drawing the color line and refusing to videotape a wedding of black people, a homophobe would not be allowed to refuse to videotape the wedding of gay people. However, that law would apply just as much to refusing to videotape a commitment ceremony, so nothing would change.

Custodial Parents ALWAYS have a right to teach thei childen about marriage and sexuality. That would not change, although there would be some changes in some public school textbooks, mostly in high school.

If a church, etc. gets involved in politics, they should lose their tax exempt status.

As I mentioned before, businesses are not allowed to disciminate. A bar can eject and ban a trouble-maker, but not if the ejection is based on race, religion, etc. including sexual preference. This law is already on the books, and would not change.

Some of those who are the loudest against Prop. 8 might be pretty nasty, but not as bad as some of those fundies who are so strongly for it. It is a very divisive issue, whichever side you take.

Box, you said "Wyldfire does have a certain point there." Maybe I'm being dense today, but what exactly IS her point in regards to Prop 8?

The law you cited is and will remain in effect regardless of how the vote goes. The only thing the passage of Prop 8 will do is prevent my children's parents from remaining legally married. Period. The end. Fini!

 

[3113]

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.

Thank you so much John! (and I still hope we changed that word to "pursue" I hate being a bad speller).

What's really gotten to me is the way that the "Yes" folk have put the "No" on the defensive with this story of a teacher who read a fairytale to kids about two princes marrying. Suddenly the "No" people are trying to fight this hyperbole, this belief that if this law doesn't pass, little kids will be in danger of...what? Being turned gay? Not wanting to beat up gays in High School? Actually seeing them a human beings?

I want the "No" folk to realize that the "yes" folk have us where they want us with this argument. On the defensive. We can't be on the defensive. We have to take the offensive, and the offensive we have is that Prop. 8 is a Jim Crowe law. Plain and simple. You cannot have separate but equal. This has to be hammered home. Anything else they throw out there is an attempt to distract us and make us waste our energy on arguments we can't win. Let's make them waste their energy on an argument they can't win.

I really doubt most Californians want to think of their state as one with a Jim Crowe law.

And that's why I wrote that up and hope it will do some good. Those intent on voting "Yes," fearful that their kids will turn gay if they're read one gay-ish fairytale, are not likely to be swayed by what I've said. But it's the fence sitters we're after, and we can push their conscience in the right direction (and their courage) if we make them see what this law really is and what it will really do...to real people. I sure hope what I wrote does that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

The entire issue is about gay self-esteem; the normalization of the deviant.

Americans tolerate homosexuality like they tolerate homeless bums and the mentally ill, but no one wants their kid to be one! Books about gay couples are like books like BE A CARNIE! BE A WELFARE QUEEN! BE A HIT-MAN FOR THE MOB!

 

[Safe_Bet]

Why the Great Concern?

Please note that the emphasis is mine.

California Prop 8 Remains a Fierce Fight That Could Be Decided Either Way By Handful of Votes:

In a vote today, 10/17/08, on California's Proposition 8 Ballot Initiative, which would change California's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, approximately half the state supports the measure, half the state opposes the measure, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll conducted for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego, and KFSN-TV Fresno.

The exact findings are: 'Yes' (to change the law) 48%, 'No' (to leave the law alone) 45%. But: polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business, so SurveyUSA urges all who examine these results to not put too fine a point on the 3 points that separate "Yes" and "No" today. In 3 SurveyUSA tracking polls over the past month, Proposition 8 has been fiercely fought, and effectively even, all 3 times. "No" nominally led by 5 points on 09/25/08. "Yes" nominally led by 5 points on 10/06/08. The movement from 10/06/08 to today is not necessarily statistically significant.

What remains clear today: Those in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley continue to want the law changed. Those in the Bay Area continue to want the law left alone. Those in greater LA remain split. Men, seniors, gun owners, the less well educated and the more religious, support 8. Women, Democrats, liberals and Pro-Choice voters oppose. Young voters, upper-income voters, white voters, moderates and Independents split. There is no meaningful difference between how those who have already voted, and those who promise SurveyUSA they will, see the measure.

Personal comment: I find it terrifying that the "less well educated and the more religious" may well be successful in dissolving my marriage and may cause my children to no longer have legally married parents. As 3113 so well stated, if you are any other minority; be warned that you may be next on this "slippery slope". If you are Black, Hispanic and/or non-Christian, or for that matter Catholic or LDS, you may be next. THINK long and hard about that before you vote "yes".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thank you so much John! (and I still hope we changed that word to "pursue" I hate being a bad speller).

What's really gotten to me is the way that the "Yes" folk have put the "No" on the defensive with this story of a teacher who read a fairytale to kids about two princes marrying. Suddenly the "No" people are trying to fight this hyperbole, this belief that if this law doesn't pass, little kids will be in danger of...what? Being turned gay? Not wanting to beat up gays in High School? Actually seeing them a human beings?

I want the "No" folk to realize that the "yes" folk have us where they want us with this argument. On the defensive. We can't be on the defensive. We have to take the offensive, and the offensive we have is that Prop. 8 is a Jim Crowe law. Plain and simple. You cannot have separate but equal. This has to be hammered home. Anything else they throw out there is an attempt to distract us and make us waste our energy on arguments we can't win. Let's make them waste their energy on an argument they can't win.

I really doubt most Californians want to think of their state as one with a Jim Crowe law.

And that's why I wrote that up and hope it will do some good. Those intent on voting "Yes," fearful that their kids will turn gay if they're read one gay-ish fairytale, are not likely to be swayed by what I've said. But it's the fence sitters we're after, and we can push their conscience in the right direction (and their courage) if we make them see what this law really is and what it will really do...to real people. I sure hope what I wrote does that.

That was not a misspelling; that was a typo. You know the difference between "peruse" and "pursue" but your spellchecker doesn't.

What about that fairytale, or those fairytales that I have seen so much about on TV? I have never heard of that particular story, and none of the traditional fairytails that I have read make any mention of gayness. Was it strictly made up?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you said "Wyldfire does have a certain point there." Maybe I'm being dense today, but what exactly IS her point in regards to Prop 8?

The law you cited is and will remain in effect regardless of how the vote goes. The only thing the passage of Prop 8 will do is prevent my children's parents from remaining legally married. Period. The end. Fini!

Any point he has is a very minor one. Married couples, gay or straight, have more status than a couple who are "shacking up" together. A hotel or apartment house owner might be able to get away with refusing to rent to the latter on moral grounds, but not to the former. I say they might be able to, because I am unsure about what the law would say about a couple who have been through a commitment ceremony.

I have never been to high school in CA, nor have I seen many textbooks. I think it likely there are courses on sexuality and marriage, and those would need to be changed, a simple process, to reflect the new facts. As far as I am concerned, they should reflect what is, not what some people wish were.

 

[3113]

What about that fairytale, or those fairytales that I have seen so much about on TV? I have never heard of that particular story, and none of the traditional fairytails that I have read make any mention of gayness. Was it strictly made up?

I don't know all the details, but here's what happened. Apparently there is a fairytale written by someone--an actual book--that ends with two princes getting married. One Mass. school teacher read this story to her class. The little girl informed her parents and they, being very religious, decided to throw a fit about this (likely the little girl would have forgotten all about this fairytale, but now she won't ). They took it all to court, saying that they were in charge of teaching their kids morals, and lost the case against the school district.

Now, however, they and that book are on the "Yes on 8" commercials asserting that if this measure doesn't pass, little kids will be taught about gay marriage in school. The truth is more complex than that...and very ironic as it leads us back to George Bush and his sex education requirements. See, what the "Yes on 8" folk keep insisting is that schools legally have to teach about marriage in class (and, therefore, gay marriage if gays are allowed to marry). There is such a law, but is this: if you teach kids about sex education, you must emphasize that sex should be between married adults in a committed relationship (not between anyone else).

Now here's the problem with their argument that this means teaching kids about gay marriage (or rather, teaching kids that it's okay for gays to marry, rather than immoral as their parents say it is). First, sex ed classes are taught to teens, not kindergartners. Second, no child is required to take sex ed. Parents can opt out of letting their kids take a sex ed. class. So if gays can marry and you fear your child will lean some immorality in this class, have them opt out. Teach them sex ed yourself! Third, the requirements says only that the teacher must urge students to be in married relationships before they have sex. It does not say that the teacher needs to go any farther than that, like pointing out that if you're gay you can still marry (if Prop. 8 doesn't pass).

So it's all bogus. As for some teacher reading such a fairytale to a child, well, it happened in school yes. And it may happen again...whether or not Prop. 8 passes. A fairytale is a fairytale and if the princes marry in that fairytale, then they marry...whether they legally can or not is immaterial to a fairytale. People don't turn into frogs and yet it happens in fairytales. I don't see how the law passing or not passing will stop a teacher determined to read this tale to her kids or encourage her to read it to her kids if she's not inclined to.

In short, it's a bogus argument meant to scare people and keep them from thinking rationally about prop. 8. Because, in the end, making people think their kids are in danger is the only way to make them want to vote yes, unless they're already inclined to vote yes because, so far, gay marriage hasn't hurt anyone or intruded on any heterosexual's life or livelihood. How else can these people pass this monstrosity if gay marriage, so far, has proven itself to be so harmless--even helpful in that it's boosted the economy? They have to create a fairytale monster and let it lose.

I just wish the "No" ads would point this out. Make it seem as silly and absurd as it is.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That survey is bizarre. As a senior, gun-owning male with a mere MA, I oppose Prop 8. I guess there's one in every crowd.

 

[Safe_Bet]

That survey is bizarre. As a senior, gun-owning male with a mere MA, I oppose Prop 8. I guess there's one in every crowd.

Thank you for that!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Second, no child is required to take sex ed. Parents can opt out of letting their kids take a sex ed. class.

Thankfully this is still an option for parents whose kids attend public schools. And should be the bottomline argument against anyone who objects to anything taught in sex ed in public schools.

 

[3113]

Thankfully this is still an option for parents whose kids attend public schools. And should be the bottomline argument against anyone who objects to anything taught in sex ed in public schools.

Yes indeed. But see, there's the trick. The "Yes" folk take this "law" ("You must teach kids in sex ed that only married people should have sex!") and they make it *seem* like it means that teachers must read fairytales about gays getting married to their kindergardeners.

Instant panic among undecided voters. "I don't mind gays marrying, but don't read such fairytales to my child! How dare they!" Bogus.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Yes indeed. But see, there's the trick. The "Yes" folk take this "law" ("You must teach kids in sex ed that only married people should have sex!") and they make it *seem* like it means that teachers must read fairytales about gays getting married to their kindergardeners.

Instant panic among undecided voters. "I don't mind gays marrying, but don't read such fairytales to my child! How dare they!" Bogus.

I can't believe some organization hasn't come out with a clear counter ad. It would be easy to do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can't believe some organization hasn't come out with a clear counter ad. It would be easy to do.

If you mean to counter the "fairytale" ads, they have. The state superintendant of schools has appeared saying there is no requirement to teach sex and marriage in schools. Here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE

 

[impressive]

So get your blog on. Get your Twitter and your Facebook and your MySpace on. Text a friend, e-mail a loved one. Tell them that if they buy any Comstock Films DVD on October 28, 100% of the purchase price will go helping stop Ballot Measure 8 in California.

http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/10/24/comstock-films-no-on-proposition-8-fund-raiser/


These are cool, documentary-style sex flicks. Quality stuff.

 

[Boxlicker101]

http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/10/24/comstock-films-no-on-proposition-8-fund-raiser/


These are cool, documentary-style sex flicks. Quality stuff.

I dunno. I read the advertising blurb on one, and it looks like it has a plot.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I personally think that it is funny that people still don't get that marriage has always changed in subtle ways (and not-so-subtle ways) over history.

The institution used to include more polygamy and concubinage, for instance. And personally, I think that the former should be legalized. The fact that the far right fanatics like Rick Santorum argue that gay marriage opens the door to such things proves that monogamous marriage itself is a social experiment a mere 2 centuries old. He knows, as do others, that letting some people opt out of the nuclear family and the Victorian ideal of marriage creates a precedent.

I don't fear such a precedent myself. I think it a good thing. Family and marriage are not ironclad institutions with permanent definitions, but malleable and evolving (and even devolving ones, as seen with the Victorian pressure to destroy any alternatives to heterosexual monogamy).

But the very fear itself demonstrates that marriage is mutable, not set in stone.

 

[tolyk]

I was watching television tonight and sat through 3 "Vote no on prop 8" commercials with the guy from the school. It made me curious enough to do a search on what the hell Prop 8 was about. I found a video and after watching said video, looked at my fiancee and we both expressed our opinions of how frightened we were of our children suddenly turning gay. It was mortifying.. really.. we were so scared.

*rolls eyes*

Best of luck to those opposed to this dumbass law.

Great words 3113

 

[3113]

looked at my fiancee and we both expressed our opinions of how frightened we were of our children suddenly turning gay. It was mortifying.. really.. we were so scared.

Well, one gay fairytale will do it, right?

Thanks Tolyk!

 

[3113]

I personally think that it is funny that people still don't get that marriage has always changed in subtle ways (and not-so-subtle ways) over history.

The institution used to include more polygamy and concubinage, for instance.

Still does in certain countries. Islamic law still allows men to have more than one wife. But what these people always seem to argue is that marriage has always been between a man and woman--that is their "natural law" argument--and/or that the Bible says marriage is a man and a woman (or a man and several women).

Believe me, none of them ever want to see or understand that marriage, on the state level, is a legal contract. The "spiritual" union part of marriage doesn't or shouldn't require any legal approval, meaning that if you believe people aren't really married if they forego a church ceremony, then why object to the state allowing them marriage licenses? Putting it another way, the state allowing them to marry doesn't negate Biblical law if one believes that only a priest can make you truly married.

In the end, all these arguments are really saying the same thing underneath: "I don't want those people being treated like people!"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEVERUS

If you favor democracy, then you are forced to accept the polity's decisions affecting society, and much of the time The People have their heads inside their asses. I cant name one democracy that's survived for any significant amount of time, except maybe Switzerland. Democracy always degenerates into mob & oligarchy.

Gays are "Sideshow Bob." Society tolerates gays because they create wealth and have no heirs. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is. Tyrants like gays for the same reason, and they have no children to avenge them.

 

[Safe_Bet]

SEVERUS

If you favor democracy, then you are forced to accept the polity's decisions affecting society, and much of the time The People have their heads inside their asses. I cant name one democracy that's survived for any significant amount of time, except maybe Switzerland. Democracy always degenerates into mob & oligarchy.

Gays are "Sideshow Bob." Society tolerates gays because they create wealth and have no heirs. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is. Tyrants like gays for the same reason, and they have no children to avenge them .

Care to bet on that statement dumb-ass?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Still does in certain countries. Islamic law still allows men to have more than one wife. But what these people always seem to argue is that marriage has always been between a man and woman--that is their "natural law" argument--and/or that the Bible says marriage is a man and a woman (or a man and several women).

Believe me, none of them ever want to see or understand that marriage, on the state level, is a legal contract. The "spiritual" union part of marriage doesn't or shouldn't require any legal approval, meaning that if you believe people aren't really married if they forego a church ceremony, then why object to the state allowing them marriage licenses? Putting it another way, the state allowing them to marry doesn't negate Biblical law if one believes that only a priest can make you truly married.

In the end, all these arguments are really saying the same thing underneath: "I don't want those people being treated like people!"

And religion is the last refuge of the bigot. Not that I condemn all religion, anymore than the author of the saying about patriotism and scoundrels condemned patriotism. The point is the abuse and misuse of an idea to propagate a less justifiable idea or scheme.

Remember, this is the same crowd that objected (and still does many times) to interracial unions. So, again, bigotry comes into play, disguised as faith.

Like some people say about abortion. If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. But don't throw other people in jail or prison because they are gay or lesbian. Mind you, some of the biggest objectors are repressed homosexuals and lesbians themselves. And they will always be the most adamant. But they have the right to repress their true preferences. They don't have the right to shove repression down the throats of others.

But, of course, they think that marriage is just for straight people. What a pity. From what I've seen, there are plenty of gays and lesbians who would be as good at marriage as any straight couple. And some would do better, in fact.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEVERUS

If you favor democracy, then you are forced to accept the polity's decisions affecting society, and much of the time The People have their heads inside their asses. I cant name one democracy that's survived for any significant amount of time, except maybe Switzerland. Democracy always degenerates into mob & oligarchy.

Gays are "Sideshow Bob." Society tolerates gays because they create wealth and have no heirs. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is. Tyrants like gays for the same reason, and they have no children to avenge them.

Pure democracy might descend to mob rule. But a republic is about more than majority rule. It's also about representative government, the rule of law, and the rights of all, including those of minorities.

Which is why liberal democracy can only exist in a representative form.

I won't dignify your comments about gays and lesbians, however.