Fear and Loathing In California (Proposition 8)

The organizers behind Proposition 8 aren't worried about marriage, the definition of marriage or even the word marriage. This initiative is no different than any other anti-gay initiative.

It is homophobia in plain sight. Nothing else.

Those in favor of altering the California Constitution do not have to convince others who feel the way they do. They also know they will not change the mind of any liberal.

So they go after the people 'on the fence.' To lower the risk of offending people 'on the fence,' they avoid a direct and overt admission of homophobia and take a sneaky way around the truth.

They use education, schools and the children of those who are 'on the fence' as bait, hoping fear mongering and spinning the truth will reel them in.

With two outrageous television commercials, they are trying to frighten whoever they can by falsely insisting gay marriage will actually become some form of educational requirement in schools.

The California Board of Education and the California Supreme Court have both made it very clear that education on marriage -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is not required to be taught in public schools. Yet both of these commercials, and their falsehoods, are still allowed to air.

The first of the commercials shows a girl coming home with a fairy-tale book in her hand. The girl squeals, "Mommy -- look! I can marry a princess when I grow up!"

No fairy tale I ever read was a textbook, part of grammar school curriculum or an instruction manual. I was not taught about heterosexual marriage in grammar school and neither was anyone else I know.

The second commercial spotlights the story of first graders attending a creative arts school in San Francisco. They were taken on a field trip to witness the wedding of their teacher, Erin Carder, to her partner Kerri McCoy.

I don't know about you, but when I was in first grade and a field trip was scheduled, I had to bring home a permission slip. If my parents didn't sign the permission slip, I didn't get to go on the field trip.

Every child who attended the Carder/McCoy wedding was there because their parent(s) allowed it. No child could have left the school premises without the consent of a parent. This is the law.

The organizers of Proposition 8 have completely missed this point. Not only did they miss it, but they conveniently forget to tell the television audience that it was a parent who suggested the outing! This wasn't a field trip organized by the teacher getting married or even the school itself.

To my knowledge, no parent of any child who goes to that school ever stepped forward and complained. If this was such a horrific happening, why haven't those who want Prop 8 to pass been able to recruit a parent from that school district to show up on camera and say so?

It's clear: the organizers of Proposition 8 have misappropriated this story and twisted it to their own advantage. They are speaking for people that are actually against what Prop 8 represents.

The exact people they are trying to scare -- parents -- did not have a problem.

Hate-mongers and the righteously confused continue to think that the "gay agenda" is to indoctrinate and recruit. There is only one subject on their minds when they mull over this misguided fear, and it is certainly not marriage. It's not the idea of love, family or companionship either.

It's sex.

These commercials and their take on gay marriage education in schools contain a not-so-subtle insinuation that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. It reeks of it.

The righteously confused are under this ridiculously sick impression that gays and lesbians want first-graders to know how they can use their bodies for pleasure.

Gay men and women have no interest in recruiting children or teaching them about sex. As a reminder, studies show the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men.

I could not be 'taught' to be a heterosexual and no one can be 'taught' to be a homosexual. You can be told about the existence of both, but unless you actually have the feelings, you can never be 'taught' to be one or the other.

Years ago, I was watching a program that I (unfortunately), do not remember the name of. What I have not forgotten is this moment.

A man was being interviewed about his daughter, and what happened when she told him she was a lesbian. He was upset, angry and did not accept it. As the conversation with his daughter continued, he said something to her that prompted this response, which I paraphrase:

"Dad, when you see a woman you are attracted to, what happens? Do you have an immediate, involuntary reaction? Is your thought process involved at all? Do you think about a choice in the matter or is your reaction something totally natural that you're not controlling?"

The man said, "In that moment, I got it. My daughter's attraction to women was a physiological thing. Hard wiring. This was the way her brain worked. It had nothing to do with choice and her feelings felt as normal to her as mine did to me. She had my full support ever since then."

In 1997, when the Ellen DeGeneres "Yep, I'm Gay" issue of TIME magazine hit the newsstands and Ellen was about to come out on her prime time sitcom, Ellen sat down with Oprah Winfrey. I have also never forgotten this exchange.

Ellen was talking to a man in Oprah's audience who insisted being gay was a choice. Ellen looked at him and said, "So, you're saying you could be gay, but choose not to be?"

His response was "Well, I could choose to be an adulterer."

That was when it truly hit me how much of this argument always boils down to biblical sin for those who oppose the mere existence of gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, Oprah cut off this discussion by saying to both Ellen and the audience member, "You are never going to win this argument with each other."

At that moment, I wished I was also in the audience to correct Oprah. There absolutely is a way to win the argument, and that is to state that there is no physiology involved when it comes to adultery.

Adultery is a decision; a choice of the psyche. Homosexuality is not.

As long as I have mentioned Ellen, the bit she did on her show recently sums it up beautifully.

"I was raised by heterosexuals. Heterosexuals everywhere I looked. They didn't influence me!"

You cannot "teach" someone to be heterosexual or a homosexual. You either have the feelings or you don't.

This being the case, gays and lesbians in California -- not to mention the country -- should be recognized as equal in the eyes of the law.

Love cannot be legislated and discrimination cannot and should not be written into the Constitution of the State of California.

NO ON PROP 8!

Comments

[ArtCork]

PART 2 of 2

I believe that this is an argument of semantics and our government should have nothing to do with the word "marriage" but should only have the ability to talk on the subject of "unions". I believe that marriage is up to our religions and what a religion practices cannot and should not be controlled by our government (as long as that religion doesn't go around physically hurting people or breaking laws). This means if a religion believes that same-sex couples CAN be married in the eyes of their religion then they should be able to do that. If a religion disagrees with same-sex couples, why would a gay person want to be in that religion anyways?

Unions should be guaranteed between ANY two consenting adults that are not already in a union. A Union should come with all the same rights as what we define marriage as currently, without signifying any romantic involvement or belief stance. This way certain people can keep their idea of "marriage" without infringing upon the civil liberties of others.

Too after we demonize the other side instead of trying to understand them. I believe to make this country into a better place we need to try to understand/respect each other instead of calling them a "bigot" or a "special interest advocate trying to take away my freedom of religion". "Love thy neighbor" is not just for the religious people but should be a guiding principle for all.

[ArtCork]

Here's my take on this issue (2-Parts Sorry about he length). The people that oppose and the people that support this prop come from many backgrounds and faiths. I do not believe that either side is wrong but I do believe that we are having two fundamentally different issues that are being argued.

Let me explain, people voting "Yes" on prop 8 believe that marriage is between a man and a women, as their respective religions tell them. And although they may be strong advocates of gay rights and equality they may not be able to bring themselves to contradicting their faith by voting for "marriage" that their guiding principles disagree with. Furthermore they do not believe that government should be allowed to guide the principles of their faith.

People voting "No" on prop 8 believe that everyone should have equal rights, no matter what their sexual preference, creed, race, or religion. "This is guaranteed by our constitution and it is absurd we can't agree that two people that love each other do not have the right to visit each other in the hospital, share insurance benefits, or just simply be recognized as a legitimate monogamous couple". They believe that only bigotry can explain why someone would disagree with two people of the same sex being married.

[Avrom]

My parents got married this summer. Not because they"d only just decided to make such a commitment"they"ve been together over 35 years now"but because, for the first time in California, the law allowed them to. They didn"t want to wait to plan a ceremony"they"d been waiting for decades already"so I wasn"t able to be there for their quick ceremony in front of a justice of the peace.

But I was able to watch a recording. I smiled when both my parents, who had insisted this was "just to show support for the community" had to blink back their tears.

I watched the recording with my wife and son. I wanted him to see it because it was an important family event, but I didn"t really expect him to get anything out of it--what does a 2-year-old know about marriage? It was just a his grandmothers standing in a boring room, saying things he couldn"t understand. But he must have gotten something out of it, because after it was over, he burst into a grin and said, "Gammommies got married!"

I"m not looking forward to the conversation I"ll have to have with him if CA Prop. 8 passes, about how his grandmommies are no longer married and about why.

While I certainly have my opinions, I"m not what you"d call a political activist. I"m just a dad who wants his kid to have a family he knows is normal, a family that is not dismissed by his government.

[JohnBisceglia]

(I know this is fantasy, but these days it's all I can hope for)

Here's the NEW RULE - Only those TRULY affected by Marriage Inequality get to speak on this issue. That frees the gays who don't believe in marriage (but fail to realize everyone should HAVE the freedom to marry if they want to). And if you are heterosexual and believe like Pegasys9, then the only "harm" marriage equality will bring you is damage to your spiritual arrogance. To sit back after having had my life devastated due to this legal inequity, and then have to sit around and hear EVERYONE WHO IS NOT AFFECTED by marriage equality debate and vote on my worthiness to have civil marriage is sickening. Thus my resistance to the US government.

ALL of our SOULS are EQUAL. WE HAVE EQUAL SOULS. Yet you want to LEGALLY discriminate against my soul and whom God wired me to love. Cruel, inhuman, unconstitutional, and immoral.

[FormerLutheranChick]

I've been friends with a gay couple from California for years. Asked them if they were going to get married over the summer (make honest men out of each other, LOL!) and they said they weren't. They were too afraid that if they were to get married, somehow the state of California would sweep in and take away that right.

It sobers me to think that these two men who have been committed and faithful to each other for over ten years cannot be legally married in their home state. They are asking for their civil rights, not something special, just something that is permissible for most others in this country.

The only "impact" I see on straight marriage is that gay marriage may permit more gays and lesbians to come out of the closet and leave shams of straight marriages they felt they "had" to enter into because of societal pressures. They'll be as open in dating and courtship as straight couples and be able to get married to the person of their choice---so what if it's someone of the same gender?

End marriage disparity in California and continue to permit gays to marry.

[EuroRant1]

Years from now when this moment in time will be written about - future generations of Americans will look back on these days as another great black era with embarrassment. 2008 will be remembered alongside as another futile exercise of a suppression of people by another hate group. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." ... and now HERE you are.

This futile war is against human rights and in the end - you will not win. Perhaps you may win this small battle in California or another state but in the end " you will surely lose. Yes, it may be suppressed for a time by your ignorance - but in the end ... Liberty never loses. The long history of mankind proves that 100% of the time and your great nation was founded on the very concept and principle of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." After 230+ years it is a bit late to now suddenly make a U-turn and begin relinquishing liberty or forming two structure levels of human rights for its citizenry. Divided - America will not stand.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." - Thomas Jefferson

[Cybersquirt]

Thank you, Paul. You've nailed it. It's encouraging to hear so many people speak out against this sham. Now I only hope voters see through the deception, unlike the poster who created an account just to continue to spread their own bigoted views.

[txkayrose]

Just to play devil's advocate...
I happen to be a straight woman, living with a great guy, for the last 4 years. What do we do to get a domestic partnership license (as opposed to a marriage license)? I would love to be counted for his military disability benefits and my health insurance is way better than his. But we don't want to actually get MARRIED. Getting divorced if something goes wrong is too much trouble.
So, what kind of looks would we get asking for a domestic partnership? When straight people are encouraged to choose Dom.Part. because it's 'just as good' then I'll consider supporting this kind of legislation.

[Cybersquirt]

That's a good question - as a heterosexual couple, you may indeed get the same benefits. Same sex coules, however, do not because of DOMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

[iheartsmartpeople]

Unfortunately, all the awful marketing around Prop 8 appears to have worked in favor of opponents. Before all the tv commercials started airing, there was a strong majority opposing it but now the sheep have fallen for the ads with kids in them and are starting to turn for Prop 8. The fact that this proposition is even on the ballot saddens me - it's questioning treating humans equally - how can this even be left up to a vote? Saying yes to Prop 8 is no different than making it illegal to have inter-racial marriages and the religion argument has no place when it comes to the law. With all this movement forward for Obama - I'm really surprised at the potential for going so backwards with this proposition.

[Badbone]

The bill is very close. Just about 50-50 for/against. Are you suggesting that HALF the people in California are "homophobic"? Isn't it just as likely they are rationally, reasonably against a bad bill? That this is a mandate against the bill, not against homosexuality itself?

[Sezza]

I think you have it backwards Badbone. The bill would eliminate the right for some people to get married. A mandate against the bill would make the homophobics unhappy.

[Spinman]

Looks like you're confusing "for" and "against". I wonder if this backwards yes=no, no=yes problem will cause a lot of people to vote YES (to restrict marriage) when they really meant NO.

NO ON 8.

[ScottinATL]

Hi Pegasys9:

I live in Georgia with my partner of 9 years. Enlightenment and understanding is so readily available to you from so many sources all over the world. In some countries, I would be killed for daring to want to live with or touch my partner. In some countries, we could go to a company Christmas party and kiss under the mistletoe with nobody batting an eye. You say I belong to a group that has an agenda to "punish" those who believe differently. As a former Southern Baptist, I submit that there are already TAX-EXEMPT groups in existence who have punished me and are punishing me right now for something I did not choose but which makes me a fully lovable human being. I wholeheartedly agree with this article because I had to have the exact same conversation with my straight younger brother before he understood my situation. Enlightenment is what this article is all about. Understanding how it may be for those who are different and allowing them to live their lives. Understand and learn and realize that we (the "powerful" gay 5-10% of humans) most certainly want you to live your own life AND we have the right to live the lives we've been blessed with and share our lives with those we love. I'm sorry if you're angry or afraid about it, but hey! -we have been angry and afraid FIRST as a minority for far too long.

[gaydm]

Amen! From a fellow gay Georgia, native.

[Mschmal]

The most amazing thing about Christians who claim the homosexuality is against god's plan is they assume that all Christians believe the same.

The 261 year old congregation that basically founded the small Connecticut town I grew up in (the town is named after the first minister) is a member of the Untied Church of Christ which allows for gay marriage and gay ministers. This is a mainstream protestant church in a white wooden building with the steeple that you see in Charles Ives Christmas cards.

The point is, that its not religion that gives people their beliefs, its the other way around. People give their beliefs to their religion.

I refused to believe that a world that says a convicted murderer serving multiple life sentences is allowed to get married but I am not because I am gay is more pleasing to God.

[FormerLutheranChick]

My husband is a United Church of Christ pastor. It IS a mainstream Protestant body. When I hear people say that Obama is Muslim, I remind them that he's UCC just like us. Interesting reactions!

We visited a UCC church whose primary mission is to serve GLBT and their family, friends and supporters. My husband and I were one of the only straight couples there. This was the most beautiful, spiritually uplifting services I've ever attended. I could feel the love of God present in the room, and the love of the church members for their partners, families, friends and each other. But I could feel the pain that has brought together into a church these individuals who are condemned as sinners by other churches and religions simply for being the persons God made them to be.

I once belonged to a homophobic church but because I am NOT a homophobe, I was blind to the discrimination against two semi-closeted gay men in that church. I assumed they were accepted as a couple, worshipping and contributing together. The church and its associated college arrested members of Soulforce who visited the campus and wanted to come to the chapel to pray. Then I realized the church was homophobic. I projected my beliefs into the doctrine of my then-religion. I left that church and found one (UCC) with core beliefs similar to mine. You're right; people do give their beliefs to their religion. Thank you for sharing your profound thouhgts.

[KeepMeLearning]

I live in a gay neighborhood. 95% of my neighbors are gay. Many of my friends are gay.

Does that make me gay????

I don't think so. I'm a straight woman and I love men. But what my friends and neighbors do in their homes is their business, not mine.

Maybe you should stay out of other peoples' business. You'll feel better--really.

[Pegasys9]

Oh, and one other point I'd like to make on this article. Mr. Katz talks about the lesbian wedding the children attended. Even though the parents signed permission slips to go, that's not the point. The point is that it's not appropriate to take children away from the curriculum unless it's to teach them something. It speaks volumes that the Principal labeled it "a teaching moment". And it's not just about the parents who allowed their children to attend. Seeing as there now has been a precident set, other schools may now feel they can decide for themselves on whether to follow suit. This is not "twisting the truth." This is about what to or not to teach our children.

As a side note, I wonder how many heterosexual weddings those children have been taken away from school to attend? Probably none. Parents would consider it unnecessary and wonder what would be the point. Heck, the ACLU would probably sue because it's a violation of church and state. But if it's a gay wedding - somehow that's different. Unbelievable

Yes on Prop. 8

[gaydm]

I wonder how many children have a choice in attending heterosexual weddings? And whether they are even allowed to decline?

[Pegasys9]

Attending a heterosexual wedding as a function of the curriculum? Wouldn't happen, so there's no choice to make, is there?

[KeepMeLearning]

Are you a homophobe? Or a homosexual that's still in the closet.

You sure do have a lot of junk to say about the topic.

[fcsakes]

They're talking about an ad - ads are made up to sway people; unfortunately, since so many of our citizens love to hate because it makes them feel special, the hate groups often win - plus there's all that money, millions and millions of right-wing religious dollars (that they didn't pay a penny's worth of tax on by the way), that is spent to help those people who are too lazy to think for themselves.

Any field trip that any child goes on must be approved by a parent or legal guardian - it was that way when my kids were little and it's that way now.

You don't teach heterosexuality and you don't teach homosexuality - everybody is born with their own way of loving.

You are a bigot disguising yourself as someone who cares about children. As the previous commenter noted, you are most likely gay yourself and so full of self loathing that you cannot take an honest moment to perhaps find a way to have a happy life. I pity you.

[jrsjc]

Part I.
It seems like pegasys9 is like a goldfish in a fishbowl, all alone, except for the observant eyes of a bunch of curious onlookers. Not that pegasys9 is the only person with this line of thinking about Proposition 8. There's lots of fear out there. But I will resist the urge to lump all people of pegasys9's mindset into one group.

To quote pegasys9's earliest comment on this posting thread, "There's a word for classifying a whole group of people based on a few.....stereotyping. It's unfair to assume that everyone involved is exactly alike."

All I really have to say directly to you, pagasys9, is this proposition would legislate discrimination into the California state constitution merely because of your very own brand of fear and of intolerance. When my father proposed to my mother back in 1964, he did not ask, "Will you take my hand in domestic partnership". Domestic partnership is not -- and will never be -- the same as marriage.

Your interest in supporting proposition 8 has to do with preserving what you perceive as the idyllic past. You say this is about your concern for children and what they will learn in school. The language of proposition 8 is about marriage equality. if you are concerned about what children learn in school, go out and get a million signatures to legislate what you want to be taught in schools. That's a different proposition. Let's call it the pagasys9 proposition to teach discrimination in schools.

[jrsjc]

Part II.
Perhaps it is you, pagasys9, who needs a bit of schooling. You don't need to write about your agenda because all of us reading, who oppose proposition 8 have all ready got your number.

The language in the constitution was written for a certain time, a certain place. But the constitution is intended to be fluid, to move with the times. Since times are changing and you are against the progress of fairness and equality, it is this fluidity that makes you a supporter of discrimination.

Every year, Webster's Dictionary adds new words and updates the meaning of words, because -- like the constitution -- words are fluid. The word "gay" for example used to simply mean "happy". Over time, the word has come to have more than a single meaning. It's time to update what marriage means, from a more inclusive point-of-view.

It won't affect your own marriage, assuming you are even in one. It won't affect how you live in any possible way, with one exception. If proposition 8 fails, the discrimination you seek against homosexuals will be illegal. It would be quite something if you were denied the right to discriminate.

vote NO on Proposition 8!

[DeborahMS]

It's the HUMANITARIAN thing to do.