This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Prop 8 passed so grow up stop crying and live your life. The gay community wants so much to be accepted and be treated like everyone else, well then why do they have to lower themselves and embarrass the entire gay population by crying because they lost the election? Pathetic. You can't overturn the new federal law. Done deal, the people have spoken.
I don't see crying. I see outrage, I see demonstrations, I see political action. You bigots want us to crawl back into our closets. Ain't gonna happen, bucko. Prop 8's margin of "victory" was tiny, and the voters were lied to over and over -- tens of millions of dollars worth of lies. The truth will come out, and when it does, and the marriage ban is overturned, let's see if YOU start "crying." And BTW, Obama is in favor of repealing DOMA.
"DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP" same RIGHTS THEY will hold if they redefine marriage, Children are NOW taught in our public schools in satates, The parkers family child brought home the book "Whos in the family" by Robert scott, the childs father was arested at the school for demanding a "opt out note" it's the law! teaching are kids the lifestyle and acceptance and promoting a future generation of gay lifestyle. Churches WILL be sued IF THEY REFUSED TO LET JOE AND BOB,get married in their churchs
Prop 8 lost a second time because the people saw through the lies that are here on this Video. Now persecution, hatred, and more lies, death threats are being perpetrated on anyone who supported the yes on 8 prop a 5000 year old "traditional marriage" Who are really the haters here?
No one has come up with a single lie in my video. 5000 years? Lie. Men were marrying men much later than that (see earlier reference to Newsweek). The haters are the ones who TOOK AWAY existing rights. Prop 22 lost by 22%, Prop 8 lost by 2%, but only because the Yes bigots LIED about schools, LIED about churches, LIED about Obama's position on 8, LIED about same sex marriage's effect on straight marriage. Aryan Nations, KKK, and American Nazis supported 8. Who are the haters?
And by the way, persecution, hatred and death threats? Welcome to our world, you idiot. Gays have been routinely threatened, beaten, and KILLED for how we are wired to LOVE. What do you think spawned the gay liberation movement in the late 60s? Police would indiscriminately beat and arrest gay people, and we stood up and said ENOUGH! Don't you dare talk to us about persecution. You claim to be targeted for your BELIEFS. We are targeted for WHO WE ARE. Get the difference?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The law will protect schools if the definition of marrage changes, all under decimation laws, FACT! The words MOTHER and FATHER will be considered OFFENSIVE.
HATE SPEACH.. So this video is a big FAT LIE,, thats why it LOST.
Thanks for voting YES ON 8,
Its not over the activest are not done trying to cram it down us
Your confused, illiterate, preposterous response speaks volumes: "decimation" laws; completely unrealistic fantasy that you claim as fact. Amazing self-delusion.
Keep up the good fight, the world is changing, always has and always will. it's too bad it's not changing fast enough, hopefully within ur lifetime gay marriage will be legal in all western countries.
I just wanted to let you know that my sister received a letter from her kid's school about 5 months ago asking her for permission to talk to the kids about gay couples.
My sister was in shock to have received that and went to the school to make sure that wouldn't happen.
We are not sure where this is coming from but it is happening. The schools are talking about it in one way or another !!!
Hmmm. Reliable, eyewitness account of someone who knows someone hearing about gay things being taught in schools. Do you even hear yourselves? Gays are your doctors, your teachers, engineers, grocery clerks, ministers, mechanics, plumbers, secretaries, and yes, hairdressers and interior decorators. We're Americans. We're taxpayers. You idiots are so hysterical, one would think you were talking about vampires, space aliens or werewolves. Get a grip! You've been brainwashed!
My sister was born different than me. I'm very sad knowing that she doesn't have the same rights. My 8 year old knows that her auntie likes girls. She also understands that Auntie will never be able to get married in California. Its a good thing that doctor she's been seeing is french. We've got a great excuse to go to Paris if they get married!!!
Oh well-sorry you all lost. Now put it to rest. America has spoken, America does not want gay marriage so give it up ok? Or will you continue to push against what the majority of Americans have came out time and time again and said they do not want?
For anyone still paying attention: You can't imagine my depression today. In Sept. 1935, Germany passed the Reich Citizenship Law which forbade Germans from marrying Jews. I now have an inkling of what that must have felt like. The "Good Germans" in California have had their way. But they're on the wrong side of history. For any of you right wingers who wish to gloat, eff ewe. I hope only that you will someday feel the pain you've inflicted on me, you willfully ignorant, self-righteous bastards.
Of course they're going to continue to fight discrimination! The constitution stated that every man and woman is equal, and California just voted against equality, and you say give up? come on, if everyone just gave up our world would be a horrible place.
Oh no people are not gonna put it to rest. Why? Because it is the obligation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court to protect minorities from the abuse of the majority. No human right should be put to vote on any ballot. If the court doesn't overturn that proposition, then the whole Constitution becomes a fraud and the state a tyranny. What's gonna be the next right to be put on a ballot? Maybe it's gonna be yours... think about it. You're not in a majority everywhere...
Over 11,000 gay couples have married since June 15, 2008. Please ask yourself these questions! Has your child or grandchild come home from school and said that they learned about gay marriage? Was your child taught about alcoholism and drug addition and decided to become a drug addict or alcoholic? No, they haven't. Ask yourself how this has affected your life! It hasn't! Stop the fear advertising! America is tired of it! Hate and intolerance ARE NOT family values! Vote NO ON 8
You people spout this crap as if you know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't. Do your research. Marriage as you know it has NOT been around since the beginning of time. It is, in human history, a fairly recent tradition. There's a lot of information out there -- do some homework!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jesus would say "I do not condone this action.. as I do not condone the actions of those wishing to engage in this perverted version of marriage."
And it is a perverted version of marriage.
Had God wanted marriage between a man and a man.. he would have made Steve instead of Eve. And had that scenario worked out.. well.. it would still be the two of them.
Shut up you psycho. You religious kooks really need to stop invoking the name of god to oppress people and society. I can tell you that Jesus wouldn't oppress anyone, not even his enemies. So why are you invoking the name of God just cause your a homophobe? If we vote no on prop 8 your son/daughter aren't gonna instantly become gay. Seriously, get your head screwed on straight and think like a person, not a religious nut.
More lies. How presumptuous of you to claim to know what Jesus would say! He said nothing about homosexuality. However the Episcopal Bishop of Califoria said this, "Living like Jesus means standing in solidarity with the marginalized of our world. For me, voting no on Proposition 8 is a way I can stand in solidarity with the marginalized, in this case with LGBT brothers and sisters, and continue my journey with Christ." You right wingers use Christ as a weapon. I suspect he'd disapprove of that!
Please, tell me why your religious beliefs should be a part of our government? Like I said before, our government is secular, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!
Please don't allow democracy to become a bludgeon that tyrannizes a minority. We ALL need a secular govt that doesn't discriminate.
You go down this path, and next thing, you'll be forced to pray to Mecca or some other thing, by force of law, because it was crammed down your throats by a majority.
Don't be bullies. It's so ungraceful and will eventually come back to bite you.
Note: The California superintendent of public schools stated "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or children" and "California is not mandated to teach marriage is public schools". In addition, The California Teachers Association not only agrees with the superintendent, but supports "no on prop 8".
Marriage used to only be between two people of the same race. For 98 years that was the law in California until the California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp). Those people who argue that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact argument racists in California used to justify keeping the ban on interracial marriages. Note No on Prop 8.
I spent some time looking up Loving vs. Virginia, the supreme court decision that the anti-miscegenation laws of 13 states were unconstitutional. the original trial judges opinion was particularly offensive. Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
How can you prove that God separated anything? The entirety of your argument hinges on an entity that cannot be proven to exist. Yet, we can prove that there ARE interracial mingling thousands of years ago. There WERE interracial marriage thousands of years ago.
So stop bitching about a millinea-old argument and get on with your life.
I was quoting the trial judge in the case of Loving vs Virginia. This isn't my argument, but an example of religion used to justify racism and bigotry. I stated that I found that opinion offensive.
I am going to vote no on prop 8 because the main reason most people give on voting yes on 8 is because of religion. Most people say in the bible it says marriage is between a man and a woman. But the good thing about our government is that it is secular, and we shouldn't have to worry about other peoples religious views getting in the way of others rights.
Not just religion, but any personal life style choices made by anyone in America should never be infringed upon. I even think we should ease the restrictions on personal drug use. This is the land of the free home of the brave, let's keep it free and be brave by standing up and saying NO WE DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
technically, its not unconstitutional, but you know the main reason why people would vote yes is because of religion. i think its bullshit. i saw a whole bunch of people on a busy corner in sacramento with signs that say "Yes on 8" must have been 50 of them. I just rolled down my window and said "FUCK YOU!". maybe that was immature of me, but i don't really care. haha
Ridiculous video. Filled with half truths and lies cloaked as "the truth". Example: DP's curently have full legal rights in CA under the Civil Code 297.5 Schools would not be rqrd to teach gay marriage but would be allowed to, with no parental choice - proven in MA. The Supreme Court decision was 4 to 3 and did pass, but not with a clear mandate. Also the Prop does nothing for Federal Law. Do your homework and vote YES on PROP 8.
Don't know why I bother but here goes. Yes, most rights are the same. But a dry letter from the Sec. of State is not the same as a marriage. I know. There is parental choice since marriage is only taught in sex ed classes, and sex ed class is optional. And what are you so afraid of? Teens already know gays exist. Even the dissenting judges on the Supreme Court recognized that prop 22 was unconstitutional. Do your own damn homework. No lies here. How about YOUR lies?
Your a retard, what good is voting yes gonna do for California? I don't trust the Knights of Columbus and all those nuts that want to alter our constitution. Anyone who lies to pass a proposition to oppress peoples is not an American and is being very un-American by voting yes to oppression. I am not gay nor do I condone it by any means, but I would never ever even consider oppressing anyone in the land of the free home of the brave.
DP's have to live together, Spouses don't. DP constantly experience discrimination by hospitals and employers. Often not given the same rights as spouses. As stated, CA law is different than MA law. CA gives parents the right to opt there kids out of health class. Discrimination due to sexual orientation is wrong.
A lot of gay couples have children... in fact california encourages gay couples to adopt children in foster care because it has been shown they provide loving homes. The only threat to these children are hate mongers like you attacking there families. NO ON 8
This vote will not change the fact that gay couples can, have been, and will continue to have and raise children. All it will do is damage there families and hurt these children.
Do you want to do that? That is what you will accomplish.
I think this becomes absurd when the intent of the marriage institution is lost, and living in a pluralistic society when basically just about anything goes, what's the point of calling it marriage when any combination is ok? Marriage between one man and one woman was created not only to protect the children and the property of a surviving spouse, but also to promote the institution of one man one woman marriage. It isn't like this a natural genetic phenomena.
Yes, it is. More and more studies are showing physiological traits common to gay people. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is well known. Again, do your homework. And by the way, you right wingers have had nothing to say about the cynical lying your side is doing. For any more of you reading these posts, you're on notice: I will not have my posting become a sounding board for your bigoted ramblings. Make your own video.
But the marriage thing with a man and woman is the tradition here. If we are going to open it up to gays, then we need to open it up to everybody. Is that what we want? Well, people pretty much do whatever they want to anyway. Gurus live with harems right here in the USA. Do we want to institutionalize this arrangement?
I surprized you haven't brought up bestiality. That's the usual right wing claptrap. So how far back do you want to go? Prohibit inter-racial marriage? Be careful, though. Go back to the Romans and you find men marrying men (Newsweek, 6/9/2008)
It's already legal. I feel people miss the point on both sides and fail to look at it objectively. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with same-sex marriage. I'm saying I'm not in favor of ELIMINATING a right recently bestowed upon millions of California citizens.
Religion has zip to do with Prop 8, or education, or children.
Thank you. It's hard to be objective when people are trying to return me and my husband to "second class citizen" status, but you're absolutely correct about the elimination of an existing right.
I would restate your closing as "Prop. 8 has zip to do with religion or education." The children of a gay couple would lose the protections that marriage of their parents affords.
Well, why shouldn't marriage be limited to a man and a woman. That's the way it was intended when the institution was created and it was created that why to be sure property was passed to the surviving spouse and the children. This is especially important when there is no Will. Not limiting marriage to one man and one woman begs the question: where do we limit it? How about polygamy?
Aha. Now I see how this works. I put up a well researched video and then right wing wack-jobs come along and fill the comments with their ideological crap. OK, let's talk about passing of property. My husband and I own a half-million dollar house, and quite a bit of art and antiques which we purchased together. Should his family have the right to take it away from me?
'that's what was intended whemn the institution was created"? By whom? You do realize that virtually every culture has marriage of one form or the other. On what basis do you purport to know what each itnended?
That said, you are looking at this wrong. In the U.S., marriage is recognized by law. Our laws cannot discriminate. Laws that let some people marry the person of their choice, and not others, discriminate. It's really that simple.
Actually the way it was intended when the institution was created was more along the lines of one man owning several wives, for the purpose of procreation and there dowries. That's why a push for more traditional marriages scares me. I don't want my husband to be allowed to beat me as long as the rod is thinner than his thumb.
you could do it simply by redefining 'accredited' or 'accreditation' It would effect things almost as foundational as the words 'married' or 'marriage'
Harm would come to marriage because the institution would remain redefined. If we redefined 'accredited college' then college degrees, and anyone who claimed such, would be hurt. Not because the act of others invalidates their learning, but because a broadened definition denigrates and waters down the institution for the whole of society.
Absolute nonsense. I feel sorry for you - your hatred and bigotry consume you and prevent you from perceiving love. My marriage to my parter of 20 years does nothing but confirm our commitment to each other and confer basic civil rights that all citizens are entitled to. Our vows are just as binding as anyone else's. How can that dilute anyone's marriage? A marriage is a contract between two people, with rights & privelges granted by the state. Absolutely nothing changes for straight couples.
Because marriage is not uniquely about two individuals committing to each other, it's about the perpetuation of society. Individuals are encouraged to bond not merely for love of each other, but for a love of the posterity they may have. This is about fostering ideal circumstances for children and the optimal transmission of society, not about just two people loving each other. If it was just about two people loving each other it'd be a rather shallow and empty thing for society to support.
More nonsense. This is like saying that only couples who intend to procreate can marry. And do you think gay people don't have families? (I bet that REALLY gets your goat.) There is no detriment to civil society from same-sex marriage - quite the opposite. Stable, committed couples help communities flourish. It may tweak the authority of your religion, but you're not about imposing religion on government, are you?
Marriage was never defined as between a man and a woman. It is defined as a committed union. We commonly talk about a "marriage" of ideas, or a "marriage" between two corporations. Has that lessened the meaning of the word?
If you feel that two men or two women getting married lessens the significance of your own marriage, you need to look inside to address your problems.
It follows that if there's a mandate to teach respect for marriage AND if you redefine marriage then there would be a mandate (I love how all these comments are stating that there's not "currently" any laws on the books, as if to leave open the door on future alterations) for such teachings, and any clauses potentially pre-empting such would face the same fate as prop 22 when they reached the same court that legislated away the votes of a majority of Californians.
Name a single factual lie in this video. You can't. And I talked about current law beacause it is the Yes on 8 people who want to change the law! Furthermore, as pointed out in the video, the court does not legislate. It interprets. Read the decision. Even the dissenters on the court agreed that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional! So do your homework (I did) or take your fatuous right-wing talking points elsewhere.
You placed a "Book of Mormon" and then claimed that we sought to impose a theocracy, that's the most blatant lie. But your others are hidden in your rhetorical nuance.
And what is the essential difference between altering the definition of something and altering legislation. If one defines treason as questioning the president then isn't that redefinition a de facto revision of the law, and if a revision then an addition or deletion? When you seek to redefine law you're seeking a revising of it.
Actually -- the Mormon Church does have a Joseph Smith prophecy, referred to at times as the White Horse prophecy where he claims that the elders of the church will take over the United States as the constitution is held by a thread. It was delivered on July 19 - 1840. That's a theocracy.
You need to study the law a bit. The statute does not set the curriculum; the school does. No law would be broken by them chosing not to discuss gay marriage. Your analogy to the law banning gay marriage is a false analogy. That law was unconstitutional because it denied people constitutionally protected rights. There is no constitutionally protected right to have any particular topic a part of public school curriculum.
religion is evil, religion lies, religion is where child molesters hide....
62rome 1 year ago
I don't know why we are told to give up!
Women DIDN'T give up until they got their rights.
Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers never give up either.
So WHY should we give up???
KoopaKidFan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Prop 8 passed so grow up stop crying and live your life. The gay community wants so much to be accepted and be treated like everyone else, well then why do they have to lower themselves and embarrass the entire gay population by crying because they lost the election? Pathetic. You can't overturn the new federal law. Done deal, the people have spoken.
toastershock 3 years ago
I don't see crying. I see outrage, I see demonstrations, I see political action. You bigots want us to crawl back into our closets. Ain't gonna happen, bucko. Prop 8's margin of "victory" was tiny, and the voters were lied to over and over -- tens of millions of dollars worth of lies. The truth will come out, and when it does, and the marriage ban is overturned, let's see if YOU start "crying." And BTW, Obama is in favor of repealing DOMA.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
"DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP" same RIGHTS THEY will hold if they redefine marriage, Children are NOW taught in our public schools in satates, The parkers family child brought home the book "Whos in the family" by Robert scott, the childs father was arested at the school for demanding a "opt out note" it's the law! teaching are kids the lifestyle and acceptance and promoting a future generation of gay lifestyle. Churches WILL be sued IF THEY REFUSED TO LET JOE AND BOB,get married in their churchs
ctrman4u 3 years ago
Prop 8 lost a second time because the people saw through the lies that are here on this Video. Now persecution, hatred, and more lies, death threats are being perpetrated on anyone who supported the yes on 8 prop a 5000 year old "traditional marriage" Who are really the haters here?
ctrman4u 3 years ago
No one has come up with a single lie in my video. 5000 years? Lie. Men were marrying men much later than that (see earlier reference to Newsweek). The haters are the ones who TOOK AWAY existing rights. Prop 22 lost by 22%, Prop 8 lost by 2%, but only because the Yes bigots LIED about schools, LIED about churches, LIED about Obama's position on 8, LIED about same sex marriage's effect on straight marriage. Aryan Nations, KKK, and American Nazis supported 8. Who are the haters?
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
And by the way, persecution, hatred and death threats? Welcome to our world, you idiot. Gays have been routinely threatened, beaten, and KILLED for how we are wired to LOVE. What do you think spawned the gay liberation movement in the late 60s? Police would indiscriminately beat and arrest gay people, and we stood up and said ENOUGH! Don't you dare talk to us about persecution. You claim to be targeted for your BELIEFS. We are targeted for WHO WE ARE. Get the difference?
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The law will protect schools if the definition of marrage changes, all under decimation laws, FACT! The words MOTHER and FATHER will be considered OFFENSIVE.
HATE SPEACH.. So this video is a big FAT LIE,, thats why it LOST.
Thanks for voting YES ON 8,
Its not over the activest are not done trying to cram it down us
ctrman4u 3 years ago
Your confused, illiterate, preposterous response speaks volumes: "decimation" laws; completely unrealistic fantasy that you claim as fact. Amazing self-delusion.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago 2
Keep up the good fight, the world is changing, always has and always will. it's too bad it's not changing fast enough, hopefully within ur lifetime gay marriage will be legal in all western countries.
Chris31088 3 years ago 3
I hope this unconsitual wrong gets overturn you really nailled the hammer in ur video.Love has no gender
angeleyes4us200 2 years ago
your right conservative activists arent done trying to cram theri bigoted ways down our throats
prop 8 is discrimination
any good american would see that its wrong
idaman12345 2 years ago
they bought the lies of the yes on prop h8 supporters
you want to "protect traditional marriage" ban divorce, not gay marriage
idaman12345 2 years ago 3
I just wanted to let you know that my sister received a letter from her kid's school about 5 months ago asking her for permission to talk to the kids about gay couples.
My sister was in shock to have received that and went to the school to make sure that wouldn't happen.
We are not sure where this is coming from but it is happening. The schools are talking about it in one way or another !!!
camelionn 3 years ago
Hmmm. Reliable, eyewitness account of someone who knows someone hearing about gay things being taught in schools. Do you even hear yourselves? Gays are your doctors, your teachers, engineers, grocery clerks, ministers, mechanics, plumbers, secretaries, and yes, hairdressers and interior decorators. We're Americans. We're taxpayers. You idiots are so hysterical, one would think you were talking about vampires, space aliens or werewolves. Get a grip! You've been brainwashed!
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
My sister was born different than me. I'm very sad knowing that she doesn't have the same rights. My 8 year old knows that her auntie likes girls. She also understands that Auntie will never be able to get married in California. Its a good thing that doctor she's been seeing is french. We've got a great excuse to go to Paris if they get married!!!
LazuliteHalcyon 3 years ago
Oh well-sorry you all lost. Now put it to rest. America has spoken, America does not want gay marriage so give it up ok? Or will you continue to push against what the majority of Americans have came out time and time again and said they do not want?
Fusionzude 3 years ago
For anyone still paying attention: You can't imagine my depression today. In Sept. 1935, Germany passed the Reich Citizenship Law which forbade Germans from marrying Jews. I now have an inkling of what that must have felt like. The "Good Germans" in California have had their way. But they're on the wrong side of history. For any of you right wingers who wish to gloat, eff ewe. I hope only that you will someday feel the pain you've inflicted on me, you willfully ignorant, self-righteous bastards.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Sorry... you willfully ignorant, LYING, self-righteous bastards.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Of course they're going to continue to fight discrimination! The constitution stated that every man and woman is equal, and California just voted against equality, and you say give up? come on, if everyone just gave up our world would be a horrible place.
halosawesome13 3 years ago
Oh no people are not gonna put it to rest. Why? Because it is the obligation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court to protect minorities from the abuse of the majority. No human right should be put to vote on any ballot. If the court doesn't overturn that proposition, then the whole Constitution becomes a fraud and the state a tyranny. What's gonna be the next right to be put on a ballot? Maybe it's gonna be yours... think about it. You're not in a majority everywhere...
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
When the majority spits on a minority, this minority doesn't just give up, no, they become enraged.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago 3
I agree with you Peace. 11,000 marriages. Can anyone tell me how that has had a negative effect on your daily routine?
ecsson25 3 years ago
Over 11,000 gay couples have married since June 15, 2008. Please ask yourself these questions! Has your child or grandchild come home from school and said that they learned about gay marriage? Was your child taught about alcoholism and drug addition and decided to become a drug addict or alcoholic? No, they haven't. Ask yourself how this has affected your life! It hasn't! Stop the fear advertising! America is tired of it! Hate and intolerance ARE NOT family values! Vote NO ON 8
peaceispatriotic7 3 years ago 2
Enough is enough! Only the facts will answer everyone's questions and opinions. Please view the facts at: .com/watch?v=4JZIJnJWZBQ
LiluBob 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gay marriage is a perversion of what marriage has been since the beginning of time.
I say.. keep it the way it was.. we don't need to redefine it.
MrNirom 3 years ago
You people spout this crap as if you know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't. Do your research. Marriage as you know it has NOT been around since the beginning of time. It is, in human history, a fairly recent tradition. There's a lot of information out there -- do some homework!
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jesus would say "I do not condone this action.. as I do not condone the actions of those wishing to engage in this perverted version of marriage."
And it is a perverted version of marriage.
Had God wanted marriage between a man and a man.. he would have made Steve instead of Eve. And had that scenario worked out.. well.. it would still be the two of them.
Vote YES on 8! Marriage between a man and woman.
MrNirom 3 years ago
Shut up you psycho. You religious kooks really need to stop invoking the name of god to oppress people and society. I can tell you that Jesus wouldn't oppress anyone, not even his enemies. So why are you invoking the name of God just cause your a homophobe? If we vote no on prop 8 your son/daughter aren't gonna instantly become gay. Seriously, get your head screwed on straight and think like a person, not a religious nut.
vic3003 3 years ago 2
More lies. How presumptuous of you to claim to know what Jesus would say! He said nothing about homosexuality. However the Episcopal Bishop of Califoria said this, "Living like Jesus means standing in solidarity with the marginalized of our world. For me, voting no on Proposition 8 is a way I can stand in solidarity with the marginalized, in this case with LGBT brothers and sisters, and continue my journey with Christ." You right wingers use Christ as a weapon. I suspect he'd disapprove of that!
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Please, tell me why your religious beliefs should be a part of our government? Like I said before, our government is secular, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!
benfreckle916 3 years ago 3
For you Prop 8 supporters:
Please don't allow democracy to become a bludgeon that tyrannizes a minority. We ALL need a secular govt that doesn't discriminate.
You go down this path, and next thing, you'll be forced to pray to Mecca or some other thing, by force of law, because it was crammed down your throats by a majority.
Don't be bullies. It's so ungraceful and will eventually come back to bite you.
Elvisdogg 3 years ago 2
Thank you for your excellent, thoughtful video! The religious right have really gone too far in their attempt to alter the CA constitiution.
No on 8!
xlitez 3 years ago 5
Note: The California superintendent of public schools stated "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or children" and "California is not mandated to teach marriage is public schools". In addition, The California Teachers Association not only agrees with the superintendent, but supports "no on prop 8".
luv2dzn 3 years ago 5
Marriage used to only be between two people of the same race. For 98 years that was the law in California until the California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp). Those people who argue that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact argument racists in California used to justify keeping the ban on interracial marriages. Note No on Prop 8.
jtakers78 3 years ago 4
Duly "noted", lol
projectf90 3 years ago
I spent some time looking up Loving vs. Virginia, the supreme court decision that the anti-miscegenation laws of 13 states were unconstitutional. the original trial judges opinion was particularly offensive. Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
LazuliteHalcyon 3 years ago
How can you prove that God separated anything? The entirety of your argument hinges on an entity that cannot be proven to exist. Yet, we can prove that there ARE interracial mingling thousands of years ago. There WERE interracial marriage thousands of years ago.
So stop bitching about a millinea-old argument and get on with your life.
haha169 2 years ago
I was quoting the trial judge in the case of Loving vs Virginia. This isn't my argument, but an example of religion used to justify racism and bigotry. I stated that I found that opinion offensive.
LazuliteHalcyon 2 years ago
I am going to vote no on prop 8 because the main reason most people give on voting yes on 8 is because of religion. Most people say in the bible it says marriage is between a man and a woman. But the good thing about our government is that it is secular, and we shouldn't have to worry about other peoples religious views getting in the way of others rights.
benfreckle916 3 years ago
Not just religion, but any personal life style choices made by anyone in America should never be infringed upon. I even think we should ease the restrictions on personal drug use. This is the land of the free home of the brave, let's keep it free and be brave by standing up and saying NO WE DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
vic3003 3 years ago 3
technically, its not unconstitutional, but you know the main reason why people would vote yes is because of religion. i think its bullshit. i saw a whole bunch of people on a busy corner in sacramento with signs that say "Yes on 8" must have been 50 of them. I just rolled down my window and said "FUCK YOU!". maybe that was immature of me, but i don't really care. haha
benfreckle916 3 years ago 2
Ridiculous video. Filled with half truths and lies cloaked as "the truth". Example: DP's curently have full legal rights in CA under the Civil Code 297.5 Schools would not be rqrd to teach gay marriage but would be allowed to, with no parental choice - proven in MA. The Supreme Court decision was 4 to 3 and did pass, but not with a clear mandate. Also the Prop does nothing for Federal Law. Do your homework and vote YES on PROP 8.
payingforward 3 years ago
Don't know why I bother but here goes. Yes, most rights are the same. But a dry letter from the Sec. of State is not the same as a marriage. I know. There is parental choice since marriage is only taught in sex ed classes, and sex ed class is optional. And what are you so afraid of? Teens already know gays exist. Even the dissenting judges on the Supreme Court recognized that prop 22 was unconstitutional. Do your own damn homework. No lies here. How about YOUR lies?
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Your a retard, what good is voting yes gonna do for California? I don't trust the Knights of Columbus and all those nuts that want to alter our constitution. Anyone who lies to pass a proposition to oppress peoples is not an American and is being very un-American by voting yes to oppression. I am not gay nor do I condone it by any means, but I would never ever even consider oppressing anyone in the land of the free home of the brave.
vic3003 3 years ago
DP's have to live together, Spouses don't. DP constantly experience discrimination by hospitals and employers. Often not given the same rights as spouses. As stated, CA law is different than MA law. CA gives parents the right to opt there kids out of health class. Discrimination due to sexual orientation is wrong.
LazuliteHalcyon 3 years ago
Awesome video - so clear and concise. How did the truth become so convoluted?
No on Prop 8!
janonda42 3 years ago
A lot of gay couples have children... in fact california encourages gay couples to adopt children in foster care because it has been shown they provide loving homes. The only threat to these children are hate mongers like you attacking there families. NO ON 8
This vote will not change the fact that gay couples can, have been, and will continue to have and raise children. All it will do is damage there families and hurt these children.
Do you want to do that? That is what you will accomplish.
eademe 3 years ago
If only this video was on the airwaves.
cubbcake 3 years ago
I think this becomes absurd when the intent of the marriage institution is lost, and living in a pluralistic society when basically just about anything goes, what's the point of calling it marriage when any combination is ok? Marriage between one man and one woman was created not only to protect the children and the property of a surviving spouse, but also to promote the institution of one man one woman marriage. It isn't like this a natural genetic phenomena.
justicenow999 3 years ago
Yes, it is. More and more studies are showing physiological traits common to gay people. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is well known. Again, do your homework. And by the way, you right wingers have had nothing to say about the cynical lying your side is doing. For any more of you reading these posts, you're on notice: I will not have my posting become a sounding board for your bigoted ramblings. Make your own video.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Then don't post anything then
flyboi737 3 years ago
But the marriage thing with a man and woman is the tradition here. If we are going to open it up to gays, then we need to open it up to everybody. Is that what we want? Well, people pretty much do whatever they want to anyway. Gurus live with harems right here in the USA. Do we want to institutionalize this arrangement?
justicenow999 3 years ago
I surprized you haven't brought up bestiality. That's the usual right wing claptrap. So how far back do you want to go? Prohibit inter-racial marriage? Be careful, though. Go back to the Romans and you find men marrying men (Newsweek, 6/9/2008)
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
"If we are going to open it up..."
It's already legal. I feel people miss the point on both sides and fail to look at it objectively. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with same-sex marriage. I'm saying I'm not in favor of ELIMINATING a right recently bestowed upon millions of California citizens.
Religion has zip to do with Prop 8, or education, or children.
cubbcake 3 years ago 2
Thank you. It's hard to be objective when people are trying to return me and my husband to "second class citizen" status, but you're absolutely correct about the elimination of an existing right.
I would restate your closing as "Prop. 8 has zip to do with religion or education." The children of a gay couple would lose the protections that marriage of their parents affords.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Well, why shouldn't marriage be limited to a man and a woman. That's the way it was intended when the institution was created and it was created that why to be sure property was passed to the surviving spouse and the children. This is especially important when there is no Will. Not limiting marriage to one man and one woman begs the question: where do we limit it? How about polygamy?
justicenow999 3 years ago
Aha. Now I see how this works. I put up a well researched video and then right wing wack-jobs come along and fill the comments with their ideological crap. OK, let's talk about passing of property. My husband and I own a half-million dollar house, and quite a bit of art and antiques which we purchased together. Should his family have the right to take it away from me?
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
'that's what was intended whemn the institution was created"? By whom? You do realize that virtually every culture has marriage of one form or the other. On what basis do you purport to know what each itnended?
That said, you are looking at this wrong. In the U.S., marriage is recognized by law. Our laws cannot discriminate. Laws that let some people marry the person of their choice, and not others, discriminate. It's really that simple.
History is not proof or right. Take slavery.
sidiggy1 3 years ago 2
Actually the way it was intended when the institution was created was more along the lines of one man owning several wives, for the purpose of procreation and there dowries. That's why a push for more traditional marriages scares me. I don't want my husband to be allowed to beat me as long as the rod is thinner than his thumb.
LazuliteHalcyon 3 years ago
Great vid -- should be on tv.
cryan71 3 years ago
Yes, the redefinition of 'accredited college' is a HORRENDOUS analogy. Big time.
bimboblacky 3 years ago
you could do it simply by redefining 'accredited' or 'accreditation' It would effect things almost as foundational as the words 'married' or 'marriage'
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Harm would come to marriage because the institution would remain redefined. If we redefined 'accredited college' then college degrees, and anyone who claimed such, would be hurt. Not because the act of others invalidates their learning, but because a broadened definition denigrates and waters down the institution for the whole of society.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Absolute nonsense. I feel sorry for you - your hatred and bigotry consume you and prevent you from perceiving love. My marriage to my parter of 20 years does nothing but confirm our commitment to each other and confer basic civil rights that all citizens are entitled to. Our vows are just as binding as anyone else's. How can that dilute anyone's marriage? A marriage is a contract between two people, with rights & privelges granted by the state. Absolutely nothing changes for straight couples.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Because marriage is not uniquely about two individuals committing to each other, it's about the perpetuation of society. Individuals are encouraged to bond not merely for love of each other, but for a love of the posterity they may have. This is about fostering ideal circumstances for children and the optimal transmission of society, not about just two people loving each other. If it was just about two people loving each other it'd be a rather shallow and empty thing for society to support.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
More nonsense. This is like saying that only couples who intend to procreate can marry. And do you think gay people don't have families? (I bet that REALLY gets your goat.) There is no detriment to civil society from same-sex marriage - quite the opposite. Stable, committed couples help communities flourish. It may tweak the authority of your religion, but you're not about imposing religion on government, are you?
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
Marriage was never defined as between a man and a woman. It is defined as a committed union. We commonly talk about a "marriage" of ideas, or a "marriage" between two corporations. Has that lessened the meaning of the word?
If you feel that two men or two women getting married lessens the significance of your own marriage, you need to look inside to address your problems.
sidiggy1 3 years ago 3
This is itself full of lies.
It follows that if there's a mandate to teach respect for marriage AND if you redefine marriage then there would be a mandate (I love how all these comments are stating that there's not "currently" any laws on the books, as if to leave open the door on future alterations) for such teachings, and any clauses potentially pre-empting such would face the same fate as prop 22 when they reached the same court that legislated away the votes of a majority of Californians.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Name a single factual lie in this video. You can't. And I talked about current law beacause it is the Yes on 8 people who want to change the law! Furthermore, as pointed out in the video, the court does not legislate. It interprets. Read the decision. Even the dissenters on the court agreed that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional! So do your homework (I did) or take your fatuous right-wing talking points elsewhere.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago
You placed a "Book of Mormon" and then claimed that we sought to impose a theocracy, that's the most blatant lie. But your others are hidden in your rhetorical nuance.
And what is the essential difference between altering the definition of something and altering legislation. If one defines treason as questioning the president then isn't that redefinition a de facto revision of the law, and if a revision then an addition or deletion? When you seek to redefine law you're seeking a revising of it.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Actually -- the Mormon Church does have a Joseph Smith prophecy, referred to at times as the White Horse prophecy where he claims that the elders of the church will take over the United States as the constitution is held by a thread. It was delivered on July 19 - 1840. That's a theocracy.
cryan71 3 years ago
Hive,
You need to study the law a bit. The statute does not set the curriculum; the school does. No law would be broken by them chosing not to discuss gay marriage. Your analogy to the law banning gay marriage is a false analogy. That law was unconstitutional because it denied people constitutionally protected rights. There is no constitutionally protected right to have any particular topic a part of public school curriculum.
sidiggy1 3 years ago 2