Strollerderby

Wonderful post!! I am going to read the LA times article now.

Actually, Mormons teach and practice not working on Sundays. See for yourself: www.mormon.org/.../keep-the-sabbath-day-holy

But Mormons did not just spend billions of dollars to pass a constitutional amendment banning everyone in the state of California from working on Sundays.

A religious friend sent me this link that I found interesting, about Christians who argue that the Bible doesn't even talk about homosexuality...

www.soulforce.org/.../whatthebiblesays.pdf

Regardless, I fervently hope that someday we can get to a point of equality on this issue and the "Christians" will stop trying to force their opinions into law.

Name calling doesn't help other people want to hear your side. I'm sure there was a lot of name calling on the pro prop 8 side, and I'm not excusing that in any way. I just think that if you want more people to be willing to talk about the issue, calling them bigots isn't going to open any doors.

Mom, I think there is a serious problem if decent people don't call out bigotry when they see it. Everyone needs to stand up and say that we won't take it anymore. I am a straight, married mother, and I am bitterly disappointed to find how many bigots there are in this country. It IS bigotry to discriminate against others, plain and simple. If people don't want to be called bigots, they should probably cut way back on the bigotry.

I don't remember the people fighting for Civil rights sitting down with the bigots and hates and saying: "Look, I know you are a good person... Why can you see my side..."

The women fighting for suffrage didn't say: "Gee guys, you aren't wrong - we just have a difference of opinion..."

Call these bigots what they are... Don't coddle them and validate their "feelings" about this issue. Do they worry about the feelings of the people they are hurting?

As was said in the other gay marriage post:

Get over yourself, it's high time that people came out and just said it, discriminating against gay people makes you a bad person.

I just wish I had been the first to articulate that.

for the millionth time.....prop 8 had NOTHING to do with bigotry and not wanting gays to get married. It is the RIGHTS that would be taken away from the family's in this nation that was fought for and won.

We also took back the vote that the Californian's voted on and was taken away by a few liberal judges.

That is why there is even Gay groups that supported prop 8, because they knew that their sexual preferences shouldn't take priority over the rest of the citizens of California. And this was much much more than just letting gays get married.

The difference between the black movements orthe civil war is that the black men and women were BORN black, and the difference with the women's movements is that women are born women. You can't change these facts.

Gays choose to be gay, no one is forcing you to be gay. It is your free will and choice.

So don't you dare compare those two issues with being a suppressed gay. You can be gay all you want, you have the same rights and privileges that any of us have.

You just can't have that piece of paper, and the reason is because it takes away too many rights from everyone else.

moviegirl; explain to me - in specific detail - what would be taken away from my (heterosexual) marriage if my two good friends, who are lesbians with a domestic partnership - could get married.

How specifically would my actual marriage suffer?

WOW - movie girl - you are one bad ass troll... It hurts not to take the bait you lay...

I will respond to one thing and break the cardinal rule of the internet (don't feed the trolls) -

I don't know a single person who chooses to be gay. Not one person I know who is gay decided to be gay. With the way hateful people like your treat gay people why would any choose it? If being gay was simply a choice so many people wouldn't kill themselves over the agony of denying who they are.

I will compare those issues - I will till my dieing breath - You just don't like it because it is clear which side of the analogy you fall on and it makes you uncomfortable.

Marriage is a civil right - marriage is granted civilly by the government.

Oh and about the courts overriding the will of the many let me quote myself:

The point of having courts and constitutions is so the majority can not impose its will on the rights of the few. Just because a majority support something doesn't suddenly make it right.

The internment of Asian Americans (mostly Japanese) during WWII was not right or legal even though it had popular support. Jim Crow laws were not right or legal even though they had popular support. Slavery was not right even though it had popular support. It is the job of the judiciary to impose right even when it isn't popular.

Why do you think the court appointments are life time? So the judge/justice can be free to make the right decision not the popular one.

Yeah.. not that I've read this proposal, but is there more to it than just forbidding gays to get married? Because if that is it, I don't see how it is taking away anyone else's rights.

I am not sure people actually "choose" to be gay. if anything, people may choose to pretend they aren't gay.

Now, I will say that people aren't born idiots. That's a choice...

Dad - all prop 8 did was attempt to insert into the Ca state constitution: marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

It in and of itself doesn't protect against one of the biggest fear mongering points the prop 8 people used: teaching about gay marriage in schools. If anything - it has probably spurred more discussion in schools about gay marriage then ever would have gone on.

I will not argue if gays are born gay or not, that is not something that anyone can prove. But you have a choice if you want to act on this or not. That is the choice that I am talking about.

Among the list if rights it takes away from heterosexuals (and there are many), this one affects me and my family the most; Is it appropriate to teach school aged children that gay is ok?

California 's already has very expansive laws providing for domestic partnerships, which, in Family Code Section 297.5, guarantees to registered domestic partners "the same rights, protections and benefits . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

But marriage is different, and so is teaching schoolchildren. If prop 8 did not pass, schools would be required to teach children as young as kindergarten that gay marriage is normal. And that would be saying to my child, "Your parents are wrong, listen to us and not your parents."  Does the government have the right to teach my child right from wrong? Especially when it comes to religion. My religion teaches me that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, the the folks against prop 8 wanted to teach my child for me, and teach them against our religion.

This is the proof........

Most seven year-olds still need to learn how to sit up straight and cover their mouths when they sneeze. Kids don't need the schools teaching them about gender orientation -- an arcane and confusing subject to even the most precocious children -- before they have even thought about their own sexual identities.

There is no doubt, what the Education Code requires as to teaching about marriage and families. Here's an excerpt from the key statute, Section 51933:

(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:

. . .

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

(Emphasis added.) According to the California Department of Education's website, 96% of California school districts provide sexual health education that places them under Section 51933's requirements. Can anyone reasonably deny that if Prop 8 fails, the instruction about "marriage" this statute refers to will include same-sex marriage?

The response to these concerns from from Prop 8's leading opponents has been that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools . Amazingly, even the State Superintendent of Public Education has filmed a television ad promoting this falsehood.

Think about it: If the State Supreme Court has defined marriage to include same-sex unions, and schools are required to teach about respect for "marriage and committed relationships," well, it seems pretty obvious that from kindergarten on, kids will be learning about same-sex marriage, doesn't it?

The other response from the No On 8 group has been that parents can simply "opt out" of instruction about gay marriage. This is another deception. As long as the instruction is part of "diversity education" encompassing gender orientation. They've even made their case in court.

State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws.

Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction.

(Emphasis added.) Translation: If you are a California parent and think you have the right to opt your second-grader out of story time because the teacher is reading the students a book about a prince who marries a prince, you should think again. As long as story time is part of a program "designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity," you have nothing to say about whether your child participates. You won't even hear about the book unless your child comes home and mentions it to you.

Do parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children from receiving education in public schools on subjects they disapprove?

Almost never. Parents have filed a number of court cases seeking to prevent public schools from teaching their children controversial literature or subjects . . . and have lost virtually every case. Courts have held that so long as the public school curricula are secular and reasonably related to educational goals, parents do not have veto power over the content of public school instruction. . . . Schools may wish to excuse students from non-essential activities (such excusing a Jehovah's Witness student from a Valentine's Day party) but are not legally required to excuse students from curricular activities such as. . . diversity education. The interests of the school and student in education outweigh parents' interests in preventing their children from being exposed to ideas that conflict with religious traditions.

(Emphasis added.) So, you see, it's all a matter of how the schools set up their program. If they do that right, parents have no voice.

Bottom line, be gay if you want.....but don't push it on me and my child. You think it is ok, that is great. I won't judge you. But it is our religious belief, and your choices should not be forced on others.

Obviously over 50% of Californians agree.

I just thought that ad was so, so sad. This little girl comes home from school and basically says, "Mommy! I learned about love today!" and her mom thinks that's a problem.

seems like my comments are not being posted, I proved why prop 8 lost and the moderator won't post............freedom of speech??

They don't moderate these comments, do they?

I live in Massachusetts (that heathen state that has allowed same sex marriage for years).  I am a married, straight woman who is a practicing Catholic.  I can guarantee you that none of my rights have been taken away because others are allowed to marry.  My marriage remains unchanged by the fact that all individuals are allowed to receive the same rights and benefits marriage provides under the law.

And as a side note, same sex marriage came to be when Massachusetts had a Mormon governor (Mitt Romney).  Romney is quoted as saying: "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have.”  Although he is known to say whatever it takes to get elected, by I digress.

We're talking about a basic separation of church and state issue here.  That's it, nothing more, nothing less.  Marriage is not intrinsically under the auspices of religion.  The state grants our marriages and the legal rights they entail.  If a particular religion does not feel comfortable providing the ceremony of marriage to same sex couples, that is fine, they don’t have to do so.  In the same way that some (narrow minded) Catholic priests choose not to marry people who have been divorced, they will also be able to choose not to marry same sex couples.  Simple as that.

We're talking about a basic separation of church and state here.  That's it.  Marriage is not intriniscally

Moviegirl - Just was able to read your lengthy post.  Trust me, just because gay marriage is allowed in a state does not mean that schools are then mandated to talk about 2 mommies.  You really are making this much more dramatic than it will turn out to be.  Nothing changes for heterosexual families and their children.  Nothing.  

It is quite possible that gay parents will be discussed in school, not because gay marriage is allowed but because someone mentions his/her two mommies/daddies, married or no.

If you choose to, you can impart your own belief system (horrid though I may find it) on to your children.  I'm sure you won't agree with every single thing taught by your child's school.  This is one of those things.  It's a great opportunity to discuss your own belief system and how we can all maintain different beliefs and yet live together and tolerate difference.

wow they teach about marriage in public school?  they only ever taught me math, history, language arts, that sort of stuff.

Moviegirl, let's do this. Let's equate gay to Jewish. One is born Jewish since it is an ethnicity as well as a religion, that is to say you can be born Jewish but never practice it as a religion.

So, would it be appropriate to tell Jews not to practice their religion because it makes Christians uncomfortable? All that believing in God but not Jesus. How about telling them that they can worship as Jews but in secrecy, you know, not where anyone can see or might suspect. Let's do that. After all, Christians outnumber Jews many times over and Jews don't have to *act* Jewish.

As for the ones that do, of course it would be incorrect of them to expect to be able to marry because it cheapens Christian marriage. Their children shouldn't have the right to be represented in the public sphere as having the same happy, loving and often boring home lives Christians have. They shouldn't have the same right to full recognition by the state because while they, Jews, are eager to make use of their civil rights, they refuse to act as the Christian majority might expect.

And heaven forbid that they call anyone who looks to deny them the right to recognition of the contract that they are making with the state and each other, a bigot. That's despite the fact that the civil side of marriage is really a contract that three parties enter to, the would-be newlyweds and the state. That's why civil marriages are counted the same as ones done in a church with all the trimmings.

Because its not bigoted for Christians, the majority, to feel threatened by the minority Jews exercising their civil rights. Its not bigoted for Christians to want to make sure that their children are taught that civil rights only apply as far as the majority is comfortable with them and Jews just don't make the cut.

Oh, and the fact that they could get married for a while and rushed to do so? Rushed out by the hundreds if not thousands to make use of that right? The fact that never before have people *lost* civil rights in American history, only gained them? The fact that a larger percentage of Christan voters voted *for* civil rights for all than did four years ago which indicates more than a few changed minds?  The fact that the very children who are supposedly sheltered from scenes of normal, boring Jewish life are in fact highly likely to go out into the world and find that Jews are everywhere and act very much like Christians by worrying about the economy, loving their families and have Fourth of July parties?

Let's not worry about that. Moviegirl, you can teach your children whatever you like and if you are lucky they will continue to believe it when they get older. I'm a Christian myself and I will do all I can to impart that to my daughter. But eventually I have to send her out into the world and I hope to do so knowing that while she may disagree with the way other people worship or fall in love, she would never deny them one of the most basic activities of our culture. Meeting the person you want to be annoyed by forever, pledging with them and gaining the rights and responsibilities outlined by the state.

Sorry for the length!

Wow, at one point, I swore moviegirl was complaining that schools teach children...

pbqon; makes the best argument so far. Amen.

Here is how my child - at age 3 - "learned" about gay couples. One day we had this conversation:

Kid: Hey Mom?

Me: What

Kid: "Jessie" has two mommies.

Me: Yep.

Kid: I have a mommy and a daddy.

Me: Yep.

Kid: Ok. Cool. Can I have some fruit snacks?

You can see it was really traumatic.

Over the next few years we've talked about it in more depth and I can tell you it's been really horrible for her to have the chance to understand and respect and love people who are different than we are.

Moviegirl, you truly are the worst kind of religious bigot there is.

There are so many words I want to say to you but I can't. You are wrong and trying to justify your bigotry in the worst way. The fear mongering using innocent children is reprehensible, and whether you like it or not your children will be exposed to kids with two mommies or two daddies. I can only hope that your children can learn from others and see exactly how wrong and hateful their mother is.

The fact that "tolerance" and "diversity" training have become part of our schools' curricula just goes to show that public schools are little more than indoctrination classes. Whatever happened to reading, writing and arithmetic? According to international rankings, we could use a lot more of these.

Also, is anyone else bothered by the way in which the word "tolerance" has morphed from meaning "I think the way you live is wrong and/or no way I would ever want to live, but I'm not going to beat you up over it" into meaning "I think the way you live is great, and anyone who disagrees with it is a bigot!"? I'm fairly young, but this change has happened in my lifetime.

A good point--what should tolerance be?  I dearly hope that it's more than not getting beaten up.  I don't mind if it's "love the sinner, hate the sin."  I don't need anyone to think that the way I live is great, I just don't want that to totally define me.  As a lesbian with a young daughter living in a rural community, I will be interested in seeing how things unfold when she starts to public school next fall, away from our closely knit preschool group.  Will there be truly be people who won't let their kids have play dates with her?  

FuschiaFinn, I think your comment illustrates very well the bigotry inherent in the arguments people like moviegirl make. I am so angry and so sad that there are even people like that out there.

moving on.........private church owned adoption agencies would be affected if prop 8 did not pass. How you ask?

Since agencies work directly with the state they will be forced to close or allow gay parents to adopt from them. While you might not see the harm in this and you think it is great.......it is really selfish.

if a young girl wants to place her baby in a home with a mom & dad,  she is not guaranteed that this will happen. Because it is against the law to discriminate. However the girl is very religious and wants her child raised by a mommy and daddy, because this is what her scriptures teach her. But she will not have this choice, because the the private religious adoption agency is not allowed to let her make this choice or they face being sued or will eventually be forced to closed down.

Gays can find agency's that will let them adopt, but the young mother would not be able to find an agency that will let her choose  heterosexual parents for her baby.

So, the rights of a young mother were just taken away.

I know that some of you don't agree with this, I am not asking you to change your ways, I am pointing out the reasons why gay marriage takes away rights from citizens.

I was just reading this, and I am shocked by who is calling who bigots & who is the bad guys? I just read the newspaper today, and this is what I read;

The LDS Temple in Los Angeles was under siege yesterday by 2,000 protesters angry over the Church's role in passing Proposition 8, forcing the temporary closure of the temple. According to reports, a gay activist called the temple saying they would be protesting outside the temple permanently until there is gay marriage.

Signs were hung from the fence around the temple and protesters screamed in anger, snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic and said, "This isn't going to stop us...If we do this we have a chance." "We're going to fight it until the world changes," protesters claimed.

"Shame on you," chanted the protesters.  Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, "Go back to Utah," and "Go to hell Mormons."  Their signs said, "No on H8."

Protesters promised to go after the Church's tax-exempt status and harass Mormons who had donated to the cause, listed on a website Mormonsfor8.com.  The promise was to make the Mormons pay for their role in the passage of Prop 8.

-----Did you  know that most of the temple workers are retired older people  ? Those poor folks were scared to death. That is just wrong to treat any one like that. Especially since the latino and black communities and catholic churches were just as active in winning this prop.

Um, Megan the mormon church was proudly the largest financial support block for Prop. 8 with orders from the highest levels of the church. - Oh no... protesters scared temple workers who voted to remove rights from others - I hear a very small violin playing a sad song for them. Being old and retired they should have lived through the civil rights movement (wasn't the mormon church on the wrong side of that movement too?) -- they should know how repressed minorities react.

The mormon church in Utah sent out letters from highest offices in the church telling all mormons to donate money and time to support prop 8. No other religion did that. - Oh and every article I read in the La times about the protest mentioned that catholic churches were protest also just not the extend that mormons were but then the catholics contributed much less money and time to the prop 8 cause.

I don't really understand why people expect tolerance in the face of hatred... My tolerance and live and let live for the mormon church evaporated the instant they decided to push for laws that implement their morality. Any group has the right to feel and think what ever they want. - I might think their crazy (two tribes of native americans where the black tribe killed the white tribe -- horses on the american continent before spanish settlers) but once they try to force their views on others (also known as being intolerant) my tolerance goes out the window as do most -- especially people who directly effected by the original intolerance.

Moral of the story -- If your going to finance a campaign of hate against people either be sure to pick on a group that will turn tail when they loose or make your solution final enough that they can't retaliate...

Oh - anyone who wants to raise an objection with the IRS for the mormon church violating their role as a tax exempt church - www.mormonsstoleourrights.com

That is how you treat your fellow man? What a great example of tolerance these gay groups are showing....if you can't win.....beat them down, hang hate signs, send hate mail, vandalize private property, threaten them and wear them down. How can you be pro- LOVE when you treat other human beings this way? I don't care what your religious views are or what your sexual preference is, you don't treat anyone this way.

Talk about intolerance.

p.s. There is no denying the fact that mormon members did donate money and time, that is not the argument.

P.S. The LDS Church is, of course, in no danger of losing its tax-exempt status.  The only donation made to the campaign according to records was $2,078.97, an expense which covered the travel of church leaders who went to California to meet with the coalition.  The Church insists that by law it has the right to speak out on moral issues.

pqbon, you support this HATE?

See below:

I read an article today written by a thirty-one year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, who is also Mormon. He wrote about the violet attack on the LDS temple in LA. I am truly disappointed by the gay activists, the are not about Love, the only thing that I see is Hate--

--Election day in California saw numerous No On 8 activists distributing literature and vocalizing at polling sites in clear violation of election laws. Police were called, 100 yard distances from the polling places were paced off, yet the agitation continued.

I learned at the rally several of our ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution mounts, and addresses were published on a website inciting No On 8 supporters to target the listed individuals. Their houses and cars had been vandalized, their campaign support signs stolen, and opposition signs planted in their place.

On Thursday, however, two days after the election, rumors began to be picked up by LAPD of a large protest organized by gay and lesbian activists and their supporters to be staged outside the Los Angeles LDS temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Los Angeles.

In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protestors began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, “I hope they burn that place to the ground.”

Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, “They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.”

I'm now doing a slow burn. Not only am I watching a sacred building under siege from 2,500 angry people shouting, “ SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND HATE,” and carrying signs proclaiming MORMON HATERS and LOVE NOT HATE, I'm listening to other police officers who agree with the protestors or have the most imaginative fantasies about blood atonement armies hidden under the temple (exactly how do we feed them, drill them, get them in and out without anybody seeing, or are they all in a state of suspended animation until needed?).

The worst, however, was yet to come. The temple presidency made a decision to close the temple for the evening. The right decision, but since when do we as Americans stand by – no matter what our religion – while access to a place of worship is forced to close down because of aggressive outside influences?

The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground.

Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.

In the face of hatred, how are we to feel about this focused attack upon our church? An attack launched not because we are the only supporters of Proposition 8, but because we have been the most visible and financially supportive entity in the battle. We are an easy target.

Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian (church online newsletter) was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film.

I'm calling BullShit! I can find no record of beatings of the hispanic females for "valiantly" trying to remove signs from the mormon temple. The news would eat this up - FOX would be broadcasting it 24/7 - Bill OReilly would see it as his chance to recover from resounding defeat at this election.

I googled to see if any reports of this beating could be found. I find only a few arrests for "disorderly conduct" beating people would not be "disorderly conduct:

news.google.com/news mormon arrests

news.google.com/news mormon hispanic

news.google.com/news hispanic beating

Every article describes their being no major incidents at any of the protests...

Now as far as the talk in LA PD command center - this is the LA PD of Mark Furman and Rodney King beatings right? - How does the verbal banter of the Police have anything to do with the protesters other then to try to make the narrative more compelling.

I personally consider the closing of the temple the best part not the worst. However, I also see it as a propaganda tool by the mormon church in an attempt to get sympathy.

I fully support the targeting of the Mormon church though protest and IRS complaint. If you incite hate expect people to fight back.

Asking the gay community not to be angry and hate you after you finance an attack on their rights seems a little naive to me.

Let us not forget this is a church that 150 years ago was convinced marriage was between a man and his wives. That was until they decided that they wanted Utah to be a state and conceded to the US government that marriage was a two party system.

www.thepetitionsite.com/.../protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce

Looks like my last post was caught by the spam filter...