At a time when large areas of the US are rejecting the neocon/theocrat/corporatist agenda,
I cannot grasp this, although I don’t live in CA and have not witnessed the media coverage, attack ads, et al.

The attack ads here in California are quite simple and trivial. Their claim is that ‘gay marriage’ will be ‘taught’ in schools.

Shallow argument, at best. Way I see it, if ‘gay marriage’ (same sex) is legal, then shouldn’t it be part of the teaching of marriage? The opponents are acting as though it will be a separate class. Again, misleading, at best.

Jed Clampett

You’ve inadvertently nailed it. It has to do with the media and the ads they put out. The public has no real clearinghouse of ‘real’ information on the bills proposed and how they will affect the laws. Since we have a contentious, dual system instead of a cooperative, plural system, the two parties can go to extremes on both sides of an issue and put in unrelated points into the debate to kill the bill and the public trust.

The media plays a big part in generating confusion and distorting the issues.

Peace

Coach,
Thanks for the clarification. Looking at the curve, it makes sense that this shape might be due to an ad onslaught. I was in Denver in 1996 when they passed that terrible law. I voted against it, but alot of people were fooled by their massive ad campaign suggesting that gays were lobbying for some kind of “special rights”. There must be some way in a democracy to keep one side from misrepresenting the actual issue.

Your right again Jed, no one has any information about Prop 8 other than actually reading the bill, but why do that?

If Prop 8 fails, I wonder how long it will take for some to file suit saying that three person marriages should be allowed, you have changed marriage already why not keep going? Or why can’t I marry my pet pig? Why can’t a guy marry a 13 yr old girl? Where does it stop?

D&C: Not sure I’m reading you right. But, are you being cynical about ALLOWING same-sex marriages? Enough with the ‘GAY’ marriages. It’s same-sex. Gay is meaningless.

And, to address your concerns about multiple party marriages, or man/animal, etc…etc…ARE YOU SERIOUS???

It’s quite simple. Marriage is between TWO human beings NOT of the same family. Period.

Besides, what’s your fear? If you’re not going to marry someone of the same sex, what’s your concern? What business of it is yours?

D&C,
I can only assume that three person and pig marriages are already a big problem since prop 8 has not yet passed. Right?

Why the hell shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry? It’s only fear-driven religious zealots that fear gay marriage. They never have a clear rationale for opposing the right. Only that it will lead to all these implausible/impossible scenarios where people are marrying pigs.

Jed Clampett

For much of human history marriage was between a man an as many women as he could afford, and tolerate I guess.
That was eroded under the NEW ideals of the ‘modern’ type religions in order to prevent the wealthy from taking all the available women into their homestead.
These days, marriage is about a legal rights debate. Republicans tend to drill into the media that they wish to protect the ‘institution of marriage’. An empty phrase at best because of their treatment of married couples in tax law and other considerations.
A business partnership receives more considerations than a civil or religious one in our current society.
It should be a civil partnership in any event, ‘marriage’ is merely a label that actually forces someone to maintain the partnership they have made regardless of whether the parties involved wish to remain in the partnership or not and gives more power to religion that it should have.
In order to dissolve that partnership one must go through divorce proceedings and other hoops that are not imposed on business partnerships, to the extent of one party having to care for the other one regardless of their contribution to the partnership.
Just like a business partnership is about two or more responsible people, not a horse and a cat or person and a horse and a cat like the right wing wants to scare people with, a civil partnership should receive the same considerations.
Therefore, a civil partnership should be allowed to people of the same sex, or people who have no interest in being married but have such a relationship that they want to have the legal authority to protect their partner when necessary, such as in the event that one partner falls seriously ill or dies, or to provide insurance through their employer to their partner or the care of the surviving partner’s children should one partner die.
Seems logical to me, unless you are just simply disgusted by how people choose to involve themselves in sexual relations… if that was really the case, then there would not be a porn industry (basically sex for pay) within the nation’s borders, or bordellos that cater to politicians and leaders of industry, and they would rile against other more deviant behavior as well.

This is merely an emply issue designed to detract from more important issues, such as that which was presented by the success of the EV1 in California and how the lease program was dissolved along with pollution law in that state even though both were highly successful.

A note, if gays were given to drop their ‘marriage’ requirement, they would enter into a business partnership and give themselves within it all the considerations they want as well as some tax breaks. Thereby doing an end-around on the right wing tactics by using the right’s own loopholes designed for business partners.

Peace

this is what happens when right wing
bigots have more money than brains.

God created everyone equal.

Not ONE gay marriage has hurt a
straight marriage. Not one.

If Pat Robertson and his ilk didn’t make a LOT of bucks scaring
little old ladies by saying that “gays have an “agenda” and are coming to get you,” gays would have been out of the closet and equal in every way a long time ago.

Shame on all you religious bigots.

This stupidity will change as soon as you have a gay couple in your family. You’ll find out that the nut in your pulpit has duped you.

Where is the Democrats that scream “violation of church and state” when someone propose school prayer? First, I am not religious, but why can the state tell a church hat they can or can’t do?

Also many people don’t want their elementary school children learning things from a teacher with a social agenda that they weren’t hired to push!

D&C: Social agenda? So, teaching the constitution, which would now include same-sex marriages, is a ’social agenda’??

Whatever. That’s like saying teachers have an agenda that teach civil rights.

Right-wingers always think that there’s a homosexual “agenda”. This is so stupid! There’s no hidden agenda folks!

Ever hear of the ‘log cabin republicans’? Gay people are not a monolith. They come from all cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, and situations. There is no unified agenda, they don’t ALL care about marriage, or rights, or Liza Minnelli (OK, maybe they do care about Liza Minnelli)

So, in future, when y’all decide to peg a groups’ “agenda”, just make sure you have some kind of thread connected to REALITY. Otherwise your argument suffers.

TinMan,

Actually, there IS an ‘agenda.’ It’s called freedom. It was articulated in the Declaration and promised in the Constitution.

That such basics should be denied some 200+ years later does NOT bode well for the future of man.

Mr. Altemeyer would doubtless point out that the submissives (my term) could easily have their biases stoked and their concomitant anger directed towards eliminating the ‘problem’ (sounds a little like pogrom).