CA Prop 8 Reeks of the Stench of Hate and Bigotry!

When did it become okay to discriminate? What country are we all living in anyway? I thought this was America, am I wrong?

Wake up folks before it's too late! This country was founded on the premise of separation of church & state. And why do you suppose that was? Because back in the day of our forefathers, (ya know, the dudes who fought and died for our freedoms) life under an oppressive British empire was more than they could take.

Living in a "my way or the highway" nation sucked! Dictation, Denial and Discrimination was the name of the game until our founding fathers decided that they'd had it!

"Let freedom ring!", they shouted. And a HUGE part of that freedom was of course separation of church and state. If you are truly an American, (and not some closeted fascist) you are part of the privileged few on the planet who get to live in a country that supports tolerance of diversity. Heck we celebrate it! We can be who we want to be, pray to whomever we choose to pray and live as equals regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.

To think that in this upcoming election there is actually a proposition to add an amendment to the California Constitution to legalize discrimination! Shame on us! This proposition is not about gay marriage; it's about hate, discrimination and intolerance of diversity. It is wholesale, unadulterated hate-mongering and it MUST be snuffed out in a dramatic fashion at once to illustrate to those behind it that in America we embrace the neighbor who might be different from us and are proud of it!

So to all you TRUE Americans, get out there and vote on November 4th, and let's reject hate.

Get all your friends, co-workers and relatives to vote too and make sure you vote NO on proposition 8.

Freedom Fighter,
Fran Drescher

Comments

[mgray80]

Good luck! The people of California have already spoken on this 2X in different votes- it took some activist liberal judges on the California Supreme Court to throw out the voice of the people- A huge crock of sh%^ if you ask a lot of people, probably the majority of people who will vote in California- there is no way this Prop 8 will not pass, even though minorities may vote Obama in most cases, most African Americans and Hispanics oppose gay marriage- be happy with your civil unions

[Marco]

You may want to look at the makeup of the Supreme Court you attempt to slander with the "liberal" adjective. You're showing your ignorance of this Republican­-dominated court which has been described as "cautious".

I have some smart Republican friends who don't believe "marriage" should have government involvement but believe that as long as it recognizes the marriages of straight couples, they must also recognize the marriages of same-gender couples.

But mostly I'm just sickened by the amount of money these bigots have wasted on their mean ads filled with lies and fear.

I am also convinced that Jesus would probably be more sickened than I am. And much more disappointed.

WWJD?

[Eastexgal]

Thank you Marco. I think you're right about Jesus.

[AdamX]

Jesus was an extremely pious Jewish Rabbi, Are you telling me he would advocate gay marriage?!?

HA HA HA HA!

[midknightryder13]

Spoken like someone who REALLY doesn't understand the PURPOSE of the court.

Allow me.

It is ENTIRELY possible to pass an unconsititutional law. AND possible to have it enforced until it comes before the court to be ruled upon. NO group or legislative body or vote can circumvent that. One of the purposes of the court is to determine if a law is unconstitutional. The margin by which said law may have passed IS IRRELEVANT! An unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law.

I won't even dignify the condensension of the "be happy with your civil unions" comment with a response.

[AdamX]

Spoken like someone who really doesn't understand what marriage represents.

[Balancement]

mgray80,

You handily overlook the genius of the American form of government. The courts were instituted in part to protect minorities from the TYRANNY of the majority. Apparently you flunked your civics class. No matter how large your *majority,* You are wrong--and unconstitu­tional--in attempting to strip minorities of their rights. You are wrong--and un-American. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

[kellygrrrl]

$30 million -- that is what these people raised to push this

how many starving people could have been fed?
how many sick children could have been treated?

[MagisterLudi]

Do you think this argument apply to the moneys raised and spent by No on 8? Let me guess....

[kellygrrrl]

there was little or no money raised for No on 8 until very recently.
No one saw what was coming from outside forces.
The money for Yes on 8 isn't even coming from Californians.
We were all quite shocked when we saw the Utah Army move in and bring their $30 mil.

We are just raising money now in the 4th quarter to fight back against this

[not2str8]

In reply to sdskelton: he said,
Don't you just love how they said, *choose to allow*....­and how they are forced on the people? OMG Does Prop 8 mean my mother has to go marry a woman now?? Did Canada burn down? Are their kids reading all gay books? Isn't it funny how they also compare us to murderers and prostitutes when MOST murderers and prostitutes are str8? Also they want to "protect" their children from "homosexuals" but failed to protect them from child molesting priests??
Why is this even on the ballot?? Maybe we should also get to vote on the tax-exempt status of the church. I'm sure we can get up enough signatures for that!
I asked a friend if his marriage was getting better and he replied, "Well, I guess so. We've been separated twice, and if this time it doesn't work out we'll probably get a divorce."
I grabbed his arm and asked him, "OMG This is all because of same sex marriages becoming legal! We have ruined your sanctity of marriage!"
He looked at me and laughed and said, "No, we were capable of ruining our own sanctity."
Ok I'm done ranting. DON'T HATE!! VOTE NO ON 8!!!!!!!!

[not2str8]

argh...the­y posted this all jumbled! Just read the post without the "In reply to sdskelton: he said,"

[CaptainStormfield]

Fran, thanks for your posting. I dont live in California but I dontated to the NO on 8 campaign.

[mercury613]

I've always admired you, Fran. Now I absolutely adore you!

Thank you for your support.

[MagisterLudi]

Absolutely fabulous.

[sjmaureen]

Thank you Fran. You are right this is about Hate and discrimination. No one has the right to opppose a marriage between any 2 adults. They do not need to support it but they should never feel that they have the right to impose their beliefs. My god thses are real people we are talking about. I heard a woman running the bay area group for yes on 8 and she said she had to oppose it because if gays are allowed to marry the marriage license would not read Bride and Groom but applicant 1 and applicant 2. Is she kidding?That isnt true but even if it was, that is a reason to discriminate? Everyone vote! Just because straights are the majority doesnt make it right,

[MagisterLudi]

"No one has the right to oppose a marriage between any 2 adults."
REALLY??? How about brother-to-sister marriage, sister-sister, son-and-mother ( remember Oedipus Rex)?!
By the way both gay marraige and siblings marriage are genetically harmful to the human race' well being. First results in disappearance of genetic lines, second, in genetically harmful mutations.

Fact: Society always has the right to decide which patterns sexual behavior it endorses and which it opposes. You probably approve regulations of some... as long as it is not yours. NIMBY.

[hapiguy]

From Az, Thanks Fran,,your words are so true,,,just think of the money spent by that hateful group, that could, in fact, be put to good cause....w­hat are they afraid of? No one is bothering "Them" Real Jerks if i may,,,oh, and i am not gay, but wish gays, if they want to unite,,,the very best ,,,and above all happiness, peace and tranquilit­y.....

[CalDoug]

I already voted no on 8. However, I don't think all of the "Yes on 8" vote necessarily reflects hate. It does, however, reflect a failure or inability to distinguish between the state function of marriage (property, etc.) and each religious institution's ability to impose whatever requirements on marriage it wishes within that religion.
I am constantly amazed at how some "Yes on 8" voters argue that they have a right to have their religious preferences enshrined in law.

[MagisterLudi]

I am an atheist. I voted YES on 8. Yes, there are people who oppose gay, lesbian, transsexual marriages not out of religious conviction, but simply because they think it is a bad idea culturally, genetically, aesthetically and/or morally.
Since Prop 8 is deadlocked right now, it is highly doubtful that 50% of YES voters are all religious.
YES on registered domestic partnerships, NO on gay marriage.
Regardless, I will support the vox populi, whichever ever way it goes.

[Strepsi]

re: "Yes, there are people who oppose gay, lesbian, transsexual marriages not out of religious conviction, but simply because they think it is a bad idea culturally, genetically, aesthetically and/or morally."

None of which, of course, should be a reason to deny someone equal civil rights.

And if you want to go down the "genetics" (eugenics?) path, which is better for the human race -- me and my husband (childless) or the genetic spawn of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline? Case closed.

Again, nothing to do with civil rights, estate law, immigration law, medical benefits, kinship law, and everything else that will be taken away from tax-paying citizens if this Proposition passes. The purpose of a civil society is to PROTCT the minority FROM the majority.

[gdcb1128]

It's really just not your call for whatever reason. It is discrimination, plain and simple and should not be tolerated. I'm an atheist too. Why should you care? Live and let live.

[liebo76]

Domestic Partnerships and marriage are not equal.

Please see these two videos to explain:

1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0sbvzI9Z_I
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8edQ-JCPdA

I urge anyone that is voting for prop 8 because you think that domestic partnerships are equal to marriage that is false, so please vote NO on Prop 8.

I thank all of our supporters of NO ON PROP 8 and I ask you undecided voters to look at the facts and make your decision and you will see that a No Vote for Prop 8 is a Vote for equality.

[Eastexgal]

If this Prop becomes law--- the next prop CA must pass is to outlaw republican marriage; these people must stop procrating. And we know all republican practice abstinance only outside of marriage.
Hate is the sharpest weapon known to man.

[MagisterLudi]

You are wrong in your contention that Republicans will decide the fate of this Prop. It will be the African-American and Hispanic Democrats, who culturally ( instinctively?) reject gay marriage that will decide the matter.

[Eastexgal]

Maybe, but the Republicans are the ones who buy prime time ads to bring the hate and oppression directly to your livingroom. Not just here, and not just now. They've been doing it for years on a wide range of subjects. Just look at how they are using the message of hate in N Carolina and against Obama ( not to mention a lot of others)
Denying someone of their basic human rights is plain wrong no matter what the group..gay­s, blacks, women, nerds, parrot heads... you name it.
And let's face it folks it's a dog eat dog world, we're all wearing milk bone underwear, and love is to hard to come by.
Besides "no fault divorce" is the biggest threat to marriage I've ever heard of. Don't see anyone rushing to shore up hetro marriages by overturning that little diddy.

[gdcb1128]

You seem to be quite the know-it-all. Where do you get your information? Oh, never mind, it is obvious you are a republican.

[sdskelton03]

Opposing gay marriage isn't hateful, and demonizing those with whom we have a political difference is divisive and counterproductive.

Fran, do you really think the only reason one could oppose homosexual marriage is hate? In your mind, is it not possibe that a reasonable argument in favor of prop 8 could not be formed without hatred?

I don't live in California, and therefore have no voice in this matter. That said, I would favor prop 8 if I did.

I have two reasons I favor prop 8 and hate has nothing to do with either of them.

1. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of civilization for all of recorded history. I think we should tread lightly should we choose to alter that.

2. If as a society we choose to allow homosexual marriage, it shouldn't be forced on the people by the judicial branch. It should be enacted either through the legislative process or by ballot initiative.

[frenchie25]

sdskelton03:

by your arguement, I imagine you would have supported a ban on inter-racial marriage pre-1960, as well, beacuse it had been society's law of the land even pre-1776.

discrimination is rooted in ignorance and hatered. therefore, ms. drescher is correct

[sdskelton03]

I can't say for sure what I would have thought in the 1960's because I wasn't born until 1972, and if I can't say for sure then I think it is awfully unfair of you to "imagine" what I would have supported or not supported.

However, knowing myself as I do, I think I would have supported interacial marriage.

[Stoppassingthebuck]

I do live in California and I voted No on 8, as did the rest of my family. I am glad that you do not live here.

[sdskelton03]

Why would you reply to my comment and not adress a single point I made?

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm sorry, but a lot of your rationale was the same rationale used for people who opposed interracial marriage.

But, I think your two reasons for voting yes on Prop 8 are shaky at best. First, in many societies marriage is not just between one man and one woman. Most civilizations actually welcomed marriage to be between a man and many women. In some parts of the world this form of marriage is still acceptable. Therefore definitions of marriage change and progress as time goes on.

Secondly, sometimes the judicial branch should set up laws that protect the minority. If the majority votes on what the few are allowed to do then the few will always be at the mercy of the many. If Ameicans had their way slavery would still exist, women would not be allowed to vote, and interracial marriage would still be outlawed. The minority must be protected from religion and dogma they may not believe it. Asking the majority to choose is wrong, but I hope Californians get rid of this horrible and bigoted proposition.

[gaydm]

1: Marriage will still be between one man and one woman. No one is advocating stopping you from marrying who you want, nor will it force you to marry a gay person.

2: It already is legislated,in the form of U.S. Constitutional law. Under free speech, freedom of religion, right to free association, and equal treatment under law. Your ballot measure is what is illegal.

[happymarried]

About the CA Supreme Court - Its role is to judge the application of state law with regards to the state constitution. If that law is at odds with the constitution, they over turn the law. Prop 22 was at odds with the rights all Californians are afforded by our state constitution Due to low voter turnout, the 67% looks good on paper but the number of votes “for” Prop.22 only represents 12.6% of the population of California in 2000.

[tasukibeth1]

The religious bigots are wealthy and organized. Money is flooding in from the Mormon church in Utah, I guess because people getting married in California totally ruins Utah's day.

Yesterday they plastered their hate signs all over my neighborhood, ending the day with a street-side rally (You know, "HONK IF YOU HATE TEH GHEY")

I didn't know about it, but my husband drove past them. He flipped them off.

It's not too late to help. Even if you are out of state, you can donate and phone-bank. Please go to www.noonprop8.com and help. Amending the constitution to INCLUDE discrimination is unthinkable.

Bigotry is not a family value. Please vote NO ON PROP H8TE.

[MarkInEugene]

The struggle of gay couples for equality and simple fairness has been a good lesson for all of us. These couples have unintentionally brought consciousness to a confused society. They show us our own bias and inhumanity toward each other. They expose the truth that our ancient religious beliefs are full of prejudice and ignorance and have long since lost their relevance.

There is nothing spiritual or enlightened about a person who wants to prevent gay couples from having survivorship rights and parental rights. This entire debate has surfaced because intelligent human beings have noted an injustice and inequality in our system and provided us with an opportunity to rectify it and refine our democracy.

[4sticklers]

Fran, words and their definition matter. I think that you would agree with me, that for the anti-abortion crowd to brand themselves as "Pro-life" is objectionable, for the reason that most of them support the death penalty, and the Iraq war. In the same manner, many people find it objectionable that the gay community has pursued the term, marriage, (which by definition is the union between a man and a woman), instead of embracing the term, civil union. Under civil union, gay couples could enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
As a union activist in the 90's, I supported and crafted contract language for domestic partnerships. It was my belief at that time, that civil union would be the ultimate outcome of those efforts. It saddens me that the radical element of the gay community chose to take the "in your face" position on marriage. If Prop 8 passes, I think that the gay community should hold up a mirror, instead of pointing fingers.

[klmebane]

civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. that is why we object to it.

[koromuso]

Go to any Islamic country and tell people that marriage is "by definition" between one man and one woman. See where that kind of ethnocentric statement gets you.

[frenchie25]

I would ask those of you who use religion as the basis for supporting this Proposition to please spend a little more time in thought about the basis for your decision, for the Jesus we read about in Scripture hated no one, discriminated against no one and never used his teachings as a rationale for hatred or discrimination.

Do you think that Jesus would have stood with Martin Luther King? Would he have supported segregation - in restaurants, schools and water fountains? Would he have sent the blacks to the back of the bus? Would he have supported a ban on inter-racial marriage, which was illegal in most parts of this country until 1964? I don't think so. Nonetheless, the same religious arguements you are you using today were utilized then in an effort to prevent the grant of basic civil rights, as well as marriage rights, to every US citizen, each of whom are not only God's children, but equal under the law and granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution.

Jesus was no hypocrite. But it would seem to me that those of you who support this discriminatory Proposition are. For aren't the majority of you campaigning on this very day for less government interference in our everyday lives?

Or is your call for less government interference only meant to bring more rights into your life...not the lives of all of God's children?

[abbeyroad]

Libsmasher (it's always violence with you "moral" republicans, isn't it):

KEEP YOUR "G-O-D" AND YOUR SO-CALLED "MORALS" OUT OF EVERYONE'S LIVES.

or we might feel the need to inject one of our beliefs into YOUR lives next election cycle.

trust me: we'll have all of the signatures we'll need to get OUR proposition on the next ballot.