Three Arguments AGAINST Prop 8...and the truth

I just read an article on prop 8 and it had four arguments against prop 8. Here are the first three, the fourth was a waste of my time to even address.

1. "Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples that same dignity and respect."

Key discrepancy: "of any couple" and "lesbian and gay couples" are not the same thing. By making the statement that "marriage ....to any couple" you are encompassing all couples, whether they are legally able to get married or not, this includes couples where one man loves one woman in city A and another woman in city B. Currently, he is known as an adulterer. If he attempts to marry both women, he is a bigamist. Bigamy is illegal.

Tolerance means not imposing criminal penalties. Therefore, we are intolerant of bigamists (and polygamists) but are tolerant of gays, lesbians, monogamists, adulterers, and animal lovers (lifetime commitments do not have to include sex--which with an animal is cruelty and illegal).

By stating that marriage conveys dignity and respect on any couple, you are excluding couples that are legally barred from marriage, and couples that should, under your premise, also be married. However, Justice George said no to polygamy in his decision and implied that humans and animals can't get married either.

Therefore, this argument has nothing to do with respect for any couple, but everything to do with same-sex marriage only. Even though your argument is a good sound bite, it lacks logic and therefore must be thrown out. Sorry.

2. "The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives."

Nope. Totally wrong. Go read both the US and California constitutions and the cases that flow from them individually.

First, this is a state issue right now. Federally, we have the right to speak, which you, as the "No" side of the issue do not understand because you have torn down every sign I have put up and silenced me in every debate. YOU have done nothing but censure me and trample mine and my colleagues' rights. Yet, as a true hypocrite, you continue to shout that you are protecting people's rights.

Second, we don't have a freedom of religion, we have a promise that the government will not interfere with our individual exercise of religion and will not establish a government church and will not require any religious test for public office. However, here we have a judge (Justice George), an actor for the government, come in and tell me that I can no longer preach my religion because I believe that marriage is divinely instituted as being between a man and a woman. Furthermore, you don't let me fight to defend my express constitutional right, because if I do fight, you call me a bigot and a hater. The only reason the terms bigot and hater exist is to have them ready to throw at a person in order to censor that person's speech.

Third, nowhere does there exist any right to get married. Loving v. Virginia was about discrimination based on race. The state was denying marriage licenses based on race. The US Constitution expressly protects race as a suspect class and will almost 100% of the time not allow a government to use race as the reason to deny anything to anyone. Limiting the "protections" of sexual orientation to people who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered is violative of equal protection, because there are other sexual orientation categories out there, such as man-boy love, parent-child love, polygamy, beastiality, etc. Again, this has nothing to do with rights for all, but just a small special interest trying to take over government and change the populace to agree with the minority.

Fourth, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government should not be able to tell you that you can't marry more than one person at a time, that you can't marry certain close blood relations, that you can't marry a minor, and that you can enter into and exit marriage agreements whenever you want. Oops, there are laws for all of this already. Marriage is licensed by the state governments. Licenses are not given out for "rights" but for "privileges." Marriage is a privilege reserved for the purpose of uniting man and woman to build society. Marriage has always existed, but when it is abused and morals decline, the society fails. Look at Rome.

Finally, the government does tell us what we can and can't watch on tv, what we can and can't read, and what we can and can't do in our private lives. I can't watch porn on channel 4, the New York Times can't print the blueprints to the Pentagon, and I will go to prison if I build a pipe bomb in my bedroom.

I love your arguments, they sound good, but are worthless.


3. "Domestic partnerships are not marriage."

I agree with you; they are not marriage, they are domestic partnerships. Domestic Partnerships, however, have all the same rights and privileges of marriage under the laws of California.

Apparently you understand at least that marriage is not just some list of rights you receive from a piece of paper, but it is something more. Then again, that special aspect of marriage, which is not legal in any way shape or form, is what makes marriage marriage. The sacredness of marriage is that it is a symbol of the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. It is a unification for the purpose of creating posterity.

Homosexual is not the same as heterosexual either. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE WILL CALL ME A BIGOT--YET I AM ABSOLUTELY TOLERANT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, I AM JUST MAKING A STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS. Homosexuality has no evolutionary purpose. Heterosexuality has a very clear and highly proven purpose to procreate, i.e., further the human race and allow our specie to continue to evolve. Homosexuality removes people from the future gene pool, thus limiting the potential of the human race.

This whole marriage thing has nothing to do with rights, because all the rights are already there under current statutes in California.

You lose on this one as well.

Really? You expect us to BELIEVE that?

No on 8 campaign has come out with ads that claim the Yes on 8 campaign is lying about the impact that gay marriage will have (and is ALREADY having) on public schools.

Remember the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wizard is controlling the machine and says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

That's exactly what is happening here. Acceptance of gay marriage and gay lifestyle is being taught, not only in Massachusetts, but right here in California. (Class "field-trip", "coming out day") It's not a question of WILL it happen. It IS happening. No amount of "pay no attention to that" will make it untrue.

The other argument, nay lie, that is being put forth, is that parents will be able to "opt out" of these situations. Mmhmmm, right. Did you see the "coming out day" article?

With the way the CTA is supporting the No on 8 campaign, do we even have to wonder whether the gay special interest groups will have a problem with pushing their curriculum plans on districts across the state??

Have you seen what the CA Association of Teachers of English (CATE) came up with for their 50th Annual Convention? The theme: "Voices at the Epicenter of Change" will offer a special "Program Strand" (one of seven) entitled "LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)." Their brochure states the following: "Explore various approaches to incorporating GLBT units into the traditional curriculum."

Also, doesn't anyone else remember the Palmdale court case from 2005 addressing this issue? Here's a little refresher:

Writing for a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, Judge
Reinhardt affirmed. The court, noting that many courts have
upheld state actions that intrude upon parental interests, emphasized
that a parent does not have an exclusive right to control
the upbringing of his child. Like the district court, the
Ninth Circuit panel relied heavily on Brown, adopting from it
the principle that parents “have no constitutional right . . . to
prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever
information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise,
when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do
so.” The court construed Meyer and Pierce as permitting parents
to determine a child’s forum of education—but not the
education within that forum—and held that the Meyer-Pierce
right “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school
door.” Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, the school’s

actions did not impinge on any liberty interest protected by
substantive due process.

See
Fields, 427 F.3d at 1203 n.6.
21. Fields, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 1220.
22. See id. at 1222.
23. 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995).
24. Fields, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 1223 (quoting Brown, 68 F.3d at 533).
25. See id.
26. See Fields, 427 F.3d at 1204–05 (collecting cases).
27. Id. at 1204.
28. Id. at 1205–06.
29. Id. at 1207.

The court rejected the notion that parents have a right to exercise control over the public school curriculum, holding instead that Meyer and Pierce merely permit parents to choose an alternative to public schools for their children. So essentially, unless you can afford private school or can make arrangements to home school your children, you don't have a say in what your children will or will not be taught.

Tell me again about gay marriage not being promoted or taught in the public schools? And what was that about parents having a say, or it being a "district by district" issue? Oh, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just keep believing what the no on 8 campaign tells you.