A few days ago I posted on Proposition 8 gaining traction in California. The newest SUSA polling on this confirms this, with Prop 8 advocates leading with 3 percent thanks in a large measure to black voters who are in favor 58%-30% and to a small degree Hispanics who are in favor 47%-41%.
One of the arguments constantly espoused by Gay Marriage advocates, or even those who just don’t have a problem with it, is the old line, “How does gay marriage hurt your marriage?” It’s a nice black and white oversimplified question to a complex question with larger ramifications than those who oppose prop 8 will admit to (common-sense restraint=stealth slippery slope, but I digress).
Well honestly if gay marriage was to be enacted, I am sure me and my wife would continue our marriage just fine. All the gays in the world could marry, and I would still love my wife and children.
But we aren’t protecting the one-man-one-woman of definition of marriage to protect my marriage. We are protecting marriage to protect a whole host of other things:
…and many more.
You see when gay marriage is allowed, it only serves to codify gay couples and their relationships as a protected status. In other words, if I disagree with their actions and I act out my thoughts through refusal to offer a service or even refuse to accept their lifestyle against my conscience I am now violating their status, and unfortunately for me, that trumps my religion, thought and speech.
A few examples:
“It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation’s constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society.”
The other option I would assume for Massachusetts parents who want final authority on what their children are taught would be homeschooling. Yet that is under attack from the liberal left wing as well:
“You know, just to put it frankly, the evangelical movement that I grew up in as a child used to be a fairly respectable and respectful group of people. They regarded themselves as Americans and part of the system. And now, I really think it’s been taken over by a group of people that have to be described fairly as just wingnuts…And the fact of the matter is, the movement has gone off the rails. ”
Mr. Schaeffer raises an important point that cannot be overlooked here. The advent of home-schooling, once the purvue of only a tiny sliver of the population, has boomed in recent years. Public schools were considered secularist, even anti-God, and so more and more Christian homes began to teach their children at home, even as private, church-supported Christian schools also began to proliferate. Link
The systematic, forced indoctrination of our children has begun. Education and freedom of thought are clearly hanging by a thread.
Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and “a martyr for gay rights”, according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak.[1] While established political organizers in the city insisted gays work with liberal politicians and use restraint in reaching their objectives, Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to use their growing power in the city and support each other. His goal was to give hope to disenfranchised gays around the country. In 2002, he was called “the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States”.
The bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
When Connecticut Courts legalized Homosexual marriage a week or so ago, the AP reporter Dave Collins wrote a chilling line in his report: “It was a logical next step for a state that was the first to voluntarily pass laws affirming and protecting civil unions.” Confirmation of the slippery slope (not a theory), and a real open ended statement: If this was a logical step after civil unions, what is the next logical step? See Canada.
The point is gay marriage does not operate in a vacuum. The agenda to give marriage to homosexuals is driven by the same group of people who drive the other agendas referenced above. We aren’t protecting our marriage from Homosexuality, we are protecting our freedom of thought, freedom to practice our religion, and freedom to speak our conscience from those who feel they know best.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Nice post, Jason.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
You don’t post often enough. I miss your posts.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 am
I agree. Thanks for the post.
The worst thing that could happen to this issue is for it to get removed from the people by activist courts because it would ensure a divide similar to the one we have over abortion. Unfortunately it seems that is exactly where we are heading.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
I should note that several fellow medical school classmates and I have discussed this issue and they absolutely think that my support for traditional marriage will make me less of a doctor. I know that my view is shared by a large number of my fellow classmates, but the fear of being labeled a intolerant or a bigot keeps most of them silent. I’m sure the same thing is going on in many, many other business and professional settings where a silent majority is being shouted down with threats of unwanted labels like “bigot”.
It is also a shame that some conservatives on this site use those same lines of attack to try and shut down debate.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 am
Can’t the same be said of interracial couples, or even moreso (speaking towards your religious freedom infringement issues) marriages between two religions? If you believed that races shouldn’t mix, is it ok to refuse business to a black and white married couple? If that same wedding photog felt that Christians should only marry Christians, is it acceptable for him to refuse to shoot a Jewish-Methodist wedding based on those beliefs?
See, I was anti-gay marriage for a long time, based on my own religious views. That is, until I started hearing others claim that a gay couple getting married somehow infringed on their own rights as law-abiding Americans. But all the typical examples against it, similar to those above (the wedding photog, Harvey Milk education, and teaching homosexuality in schools), all happened without gay marriage being legalized. So it’s not gay marriage people are upset at, it’s the underlying homosexuality. Which is fine – Americans have the freedom of thought and religion to BELIEVE what they want. But, the argument against gay marriage assumes as fact that homosexuality is wrong, when in fact it’s a religious belief only. Which means banning gay marriage, in effect, does infringe on someone’s rights, but it’s the rights of the homosexuals to practice their beliefs without the religious beliefs of another forced upon them.
Ironically, it’s articles like this one which have brought me over to the pro-gay marriage side.
And to #3 above, equating gay marriage to abortion is a false comparison. Abortion most definitely infringes on the rights of another human being, namely the unborn child being aborted. Gay marriage, as I argue above, infringes on no one’s legal rights.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 am
Wait. . .gay marriage infringes on someone’s “freedom of thought”? How does that happen?
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 am
5. You haven’t argued that is doesn’t happen, only that it is ok. I can’t help you if you think freedom of speech and religion are less important than freedom to not feel discriminated.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Jason. . . You haven’t convinced me that your freedom of religion and speech are being infringed any more or less with gay marriage legalized than you already are now. Your examples above all happened before gay marriage is legal.
And what did I argue is ok? I don’t get your first sentence.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Alaska,
The last paragraph of #5 shows how much you miss the point, or at least avoid it. There is an absolute connection behind the people who promote gay education in public schools, suijng photographers who refuse to take pictures of their weddings for moral reasons, and those who want Gay days in schools. The people who promote all of those are the same. They connect the dots in the implementing of their agenda.
Wait. . .gay marriage infringes on someone’s “freedom of thought”? How does that happen?
Um, when you are forced to photograph something you disagree with or pay of fine, that’s freedom of thought being usurped. Should they be required to photo pornographic activities? How about bestiality? How about incestuous couples kissing? Where exactly do you draw the line with what the state can force one to do? Do you think artist who use the camera are properties of the state?
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 am
8. You seem to be arguing a photographer being forced by Human rights tribunal to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony is ok, because bloack and white people get married too. It’s ludicrous logic. See #9.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
9. I should add, gay marriage/civil unions establish homosexuals as a protected class, and that is used in turn to persecute those who disagree with Homosexuals lifestyles. W
Why do you think the mayor of San Francisco was stating that gay marriage in CA will open the food gates, or the AP reporter claiming gay marriage is the next logical step? It doesn’t end there.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Jason. . .
“Um, when you are forced to photograph something you disagree with or pay of fine, that’s freedom of thought being usurped. Should they be required to photo pornographic activities? How about bestiality? How about incestuous couples kissing? Where exactly do you draw the line with what the state can force one to do? Do you think artist who use the camera are properties of the state?”
That’s not a gay marriage issue. That’s a personal freedom issue – which would include the right to photograph anything: porn, incest, puppies, cars, bobble heads, etc. You’re saying you don’t think a photog should be forced to photograph anything he doesn’t want to. I’m with you there. But singling out gay marriage is irrelevent to that argument.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 am
I guess we just differ on the extent to which homosexuality will lead to the end of days. Personally I don’t think that will ever happen. Therefore, if gays want to marry, I say go for it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 am
11. . . If homosexuals are being persecuted strictly because they are gay, then I’m ok with homosexuality being a protected class.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 am
12. What you miss is that gay marriage and civil unions are part of the effort to create homosexuals as a protected class. When they are a protected class, then comes the need to protect them. Then comes decisions like these and in Mass.
In california, schools are required to teach about marriage by law. With gay marriage comes required education about homosexuality. It’s all related.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 am
alaska jake,
You missed the point in #3. It has nothing to do with the morality of either abortion or gay marriage. It has to do with the fact that judicial activism inevitably creates enough division that the issue will remain hot politically for a long period of time. Liberal, socialist, Europe let the voters (or their representatives) reach a compromise on abortion so the issue is mostly settled politically. I’m sure there are still many people on both sides who are unhappy about the results, but the majority are okay with the status quo whereas we have at least 40% of the electorate that votes based on abortion, one way or another.
Also, regarding not infringing on someone’s rights, I think you missed Jason’s point. The people who are driving these gay marriage initiatives are lying about their intentions. The examples Jason mentions show that they are already going beyond what they claim (we just want the same marriage rights, nothing more).
AZ is a perfect example. The current law in AZ makes gay marriage illegal, and the ballot initiative, prop 102, will make that a constitutional ammendment so that any future changes to the law would have to come through the people and not through the judiciary. The only reason to oppose the initiative is if you hope activist judges overturn the AZ law in the future (something no prop 102 opponent would ever admit).
The justifications given for their positions are totally disingenuous because these radical activists are are actually trying to shape America by judicial fiat because they know the American people would never support them. Just like with abortion during Roe v Wade, the left is lying about the facts and about their intentions in order to trick America into going down a rabbit role it can never get out of.
Also, the CA judicial farce of a decision about gay marriage made marriage a “fundamental right” meaning that it will receive much more consideration in future court decisions. Churches might lose their tax exempt status if they don’t marry gays, or they might lose their own ministers ability to marry other people. Doctors, pharmacists and practically any other profession will eventually be affected.
Also, yes I believe that any private business should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they choose. I think that taking any unreasonable position would lead to such a huge backlash that no businesses would be able to sustain such discriminatory practices. Government should not be allowed to discriminate (which I might ad only affects white people).
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 am
14. You need to define persecuted. It’s like schools saying nothing homophobic. Was refusing to photograph persecution? The problem is, the homosexual agenda views every disagreement, every moral argument against as persecution.
Besides, protected classes against persecution is the foundation for hate crimes legislation which, in it’s purest form is thought control. It’s already illegal to threaten or beat someone up. We don’t need to control the thoughts.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 am
Thanks guys for informing me that I missed Jason’s point. I didn’t miss it, I disagree with it. There’s a big difference. I don’t see homosexuality as wrong. Therefore, any laws prohibiting it, or descrminating against it, or prohibiting gays from doing anything straight people are legally allowed to do, is wrong and should be illegal. It’s simply a difference of opinion. Your arguments all assume as fact that homosexuality is wrong. I totally reject your argument’s premise, so there is no point to miss.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 am
alaska jake,
Gays can go get married in whichever church they choose (assuming the church agrees). They aren’t entitled to a government issued marriage license anymore than all people are entitled to drivers licenses.
Government issues the license so the people get to decide what the qualifications are in order to get that license. States set those requirements as being one male and one female, being old enough and not being too closely related. Every person is eligible for those same standards, thus discrimination is not an issue.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 am
17 con’t
For a class to be protected would mean one of two things:
1. Something that is ok to say or do to another group is not ok to say or do the protected class
OR
2. Something to that is not ok to say or do to any class is now made worse by the thoughts behind it.
1=preferential treatment.
2=thought control.
I guess we just differ on the extent to which homosexuality will lead to the end of days.
I have argued nothing of the sort. I have argued that there is a slippery slope, there is no legal basis for the public to be forced to recognize a relationship the deem immoral, and that we can see what the future holds for us by taking a sharp look at Canda and New MExicos Human Rights Tribunals.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 am
17. . . I reject the idea of hate crimes. All crimes are hate crimes. That’s not a gay marriage issue either.
You keep bringing up examples which are not against gay marriage, just against homosexuality. You still haven’t convinced me that actual gay marriage infringes on the rights of anyone w/r/t freedom of religion, speech, or thought.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 am
19. . . I know what marriage is. The question is whether or not to allow gays to marry. Blacks were once considered property according to the law of the land, until that law was changed (despite strong opinions against it, many based on Christian religious teachings).
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 am
Your arguments all assume as fact that homosexuality is wrong.
Nothing in my argument assumes or argues that. My argument assumes that there are segments of the population who do think it is wrong, therefore forcing them to do things and to think things contrary to their conscience is illegitimate and unconscionable.
That is my argument- not that Gay is bad therefore let’s outlaw it. It’s to simple to pigeon hole my argument like that. Read what I write and say.
You did miss point and proved it for me.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
22. Huge segments of the Christianity where against slavery, including my church which was driven, raped and killed for it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
“You did miss point and proved it for me.”
Ok.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 am
25. You did.
Please find me where I stated anything remotely close to your summary of my points.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 am
24. . . Yes, and many were in favor of it. I was not condemning Christianity, only showing that religious thought was used as reason enough to descriminate against blacks. It’s still being used to descriminate against gays. Your argument against gay marriage is case in point.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 am
27. Ok totally ignore this:
My argument assumes that there are segments of the population who do think it is wrong, therefore forcing them to do things and to think things contrary to their conscience is illegitimate and unconscionable.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 am
alaska, you actually are missing the point though as you state, it is on purpose.
There is a clear argument (based on the examples of what has already occured) that MY RIGHTS will be infringed upon. You just think that my rights aren’t as important as their rights to not be discriminated against. If you believe that the people behind these initiatives are going to stop at gay marriage then you have lost all rational thought.
Also, gays and any other minority group have the exact same rights as anyone else regarding marriage. Any person can get a marriage license provided they meet several qualifications as outlined by each individual state, man and woman, old enough, not too closely related. Why is it so hard to see that is not discriminatory? It may not be the definition that you or other gay marriage proponents want, but it does not discriminate based on sexuality.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 am
26. . . As I said, all your reasons in your post arguing against gay marriage have nothing to do with gay marriage, which is still illegal. Harvey Milk has been taught in CA public schools for years. Photogs can’t descriminate now, even though gays can’t yet get married. So your examples have nothing to do with gay marriage.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
A new poll put out by Marist College Institute of Public Opinion, has it at 52% for the prop and 43% against it.
http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
29. . . Your right to think homosexuality is wrong is not being infringed.
_________
“If you believe that the people behind these initiatives are going to stop at gay marriage then you have lost all rational thought.”
Wow. I’m not touching that one.
________
“Also, gays and any other minority group have the exact same rights as anyone else regarding marriage. Any person can get a marriage license provided they meet several qualifications as outlined by each individual state, man and woman, old enough, not too closely related.”
That’s current law. The debate is whether or not to change current law.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
Alaska,
No he hasn’t, I grew up there. Never heard of him until this law. Neither had my mom, or any of my siblings.
He hasn’t been taught there for years.
All my arguments have everything to do with gay marriage, you ignore the link. You haven’t argued why it’s wrong.
You have argued you believe in protected classes, you believe in laws against persecution even though those laws are very vague, and you have argued that forcing someone to recognizes something is not thought control.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
31. good news. People define their government. Novel approach.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Never heard of Harvey Milk? Are you kidding me? Have you ever had a history class or read a book about civil rights? How old are you?
Wow.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:00 am
Nope. No. Yes. 32.
He’s not taught there in public schools.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 am
“He’s not taught there in public schools.”
Well there’s a shocker. Something that happened before 1996 isn’t being taught in the public schools.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 am
alaska,
You need to understand the implications of legal gay marriage on future judicial decisions. In MA parents who didn’t want their children indoctrinated with pro-homosexual propaganda lost their suit to be notified and to have their child opt out based mostly on the “right to gay marriage”. The real key here is understanding the implications on future lawsuits.
If gay marriage is a “fundamental right” then it will receive much more deference by judges. In the past a judge may have been inclined to allow a church to refuse to perform certain types of marriages but since gay marriage is now a fundamental right that same church might lose it’s tax-exempt status or it might lose its authority to marry anyone at all.
Also, Catholic adoption services had to stop working in MA because of a decision based on gay marriage being a right.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 am
That’s current law. The debate is whether or not to change current law.
That’s always been the law and prop 8 doesn’t change anything DSkinner wrote. Neither did the California supreme court decision.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 am
37.
Graduated in 94. I guess they were only teaching post 96 material from 81-94?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 am
I lived in MA when that happened, so I’m quite familiar with the case. I still disagree. When slavery was outlawed it affected a whole lot of current American law, including the Constitution. American law has changed a lot over the years.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 am
39 cont
Prop 8 and the CA SC ruling only changes the specifications, not who has access to the licenses.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 am
39. . . DSkinner is arguing that gays can get married if they abide by the law, which lays out qualifications (none of which include gay marriage). I’m saying that the debate is to change those qualifications.
40. . . I was being facecious. I thought that was pretty obvious.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 am
41. How can you equate emancipation to forcing children to be taught stuff against their parents will?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 am
44. . . I’m equating emancipation with gay rights.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 am
43. You’re right missed the last part of the last sentence in DSkinners line.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 am
45. So you are saying then gays have the right to have my kids be taught their lifestyle against their will?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 am
32,
My thoughts might not be infringed, but my ability to speak about my thoughts may very well be infringed upon (see example in Canada above).
I don’t know what you mean by “I’m not touching that one”. Do you really think that a whole new onslaught of lawsuits are not waiting in the wings. Against churches who won’t marry them, against doctors who won’t help them get pregnant, against photographers who won’t take pictures of their marriage, etc. We have already seen examples of this on a small scale and it will only increase. They don’t want to co-exist, they want to crush people who don’t approve of their behavior.
Regarding the last point, you stated that homosexuals are currently being discriminated against which is absolutely not true. I was merely pointing that out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 am
Gotta go to bed.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 am
Wow. If my socialist lesbian sister saw her conservative straight brother defending gay marriage, she’d swear I was on drugs.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 am
gotta go to bed. good night.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 am
48. . . Therein lies the heart of the whole gay marriage debate. You say they aren’t descriminated against. I say they are.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 am
Voted “No” on a similar Amendment yesterday here in Florida.
I miss the touchscreen voting. I could be doubly sure my vote was right before sending it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
I think it’s important to remember that the benefits and protections the state confers upon married couples is not simply to reward two people for having affectionate feelings for one another. It is because society- here acting through the state- has a vested interest in the emotional, spiritual, economic, and social health of CHILDREN. There was a time when people understood that the primary purpose of marriage was the rearing of children. That the “two become one” and produce (with the grace of God) a child.
It is a measure of our narcissistic, self-absorbed culture that so many people think that marriage can begin and end with the two (or however many people) who “tie the knot.” Everything is about self-expression, self-discovery, self-affirmation, self-esteem, self-love…… At root, the push for gay marriage is a SELFISH desire of some to have society applaud and support a relationship in which society has NO VESTED interest, since the gay union- intrinsically sterile- beings and ends with the Self.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Lights out post. Always good to zoom out and put things into greater context.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
Jason makes an intellectually strong argument, in favor of traditional marriage, but….
I honestly believe the example used of the photographer in NM, is bogus.
“Canda and New MExicos Human Rights Tribunals.”
If our politicians, not Judical system, set marriage laws, then we could protect individual rights (churches).
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Kristofer,
1. What is society’s vested interest in gay relationships?
2. As long as we are in the business of redefining marriage, wouldn’t the notion of ONE x marrying ONE y become rather arbitrary? If our understanding for the basis and purpose of marriage is divorced from child raising, what then becomes the rationale for marriage, and what is the reasoning behind establishing ANY perameters?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Kristofer,
Politicians in our current state of legislative practice have no power over judicial activism.
California is the perfect case in point. The state had a law that banned gay marriage and the California Supreme Court said it was un-Constitutional.
Judges can throw out any law they choose on a majority vote amongst themselves with no outside input. It is truly a shame, but it’s a fact. A court has, can, and will overrule the will of the People whenever it so chooses.
True individual and freedom of religious belief and expression rights will continue to be taken away until some in our society–homosexual activists in this instance–have been completely satisfied. Not by the People of this country, but rather the ‘justice’ system.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
TC,
Indeed. We need to end the Tyranny of the Judiciary. But it won’t happen until the other two branches have enough courage to say “enough is enough.” The judiciary strikes down and creates laws according to its own whims. That is NOT what our founders envisioned, nor what our Constitution allows. The lawyers in black robes have simply usurped this power for themselves, and its high time someone called them on it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
You’re taking extreme examples that virtually no one would support (the photographer thing) and trying to strip away marriage from all gays because of that. I disagree with it that, but using it as an example of why gay marriage must remain illegal is silly.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
If the examples given are not representative, then find and present your own examples to the contrary.
Examples are solid proof of a hypothesis. To prove yours, that no one would support restrictions on a photographer choosing not to photograph a lesbian couples’ “wedding pictures”, gives us some concrete examples.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
To the contrary?
What, you want me to dig up every time a photographer wasn’t fined?
If 20,000 planes take off in a given day and one crashes, is the headline going to be “19,999 Planes Land Successfully”?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
No.
Find a few legal decisions where a case was brought before a court where a gay organization was claiming discrimination because they were refused service by someone on the basis of conscience and the court decided in favor of the person who denied the service.
I’m not attempting to be ridiculous, I just want to see some examples to the contrary because you believe that the examples previously given are anomalies.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Jason has a point. If it was truly just about gay marriage and just between two people, that would be their own business. But it doesn’t stop there. Groups who advocate gay views about what marriage is and what it is for also advocate it being shoved down the throats of folk who disagree and have different views and advocate usurping the rights of parents to have their own children educated with the view of marriage they deem best. In other words they overstep the bounds of other’s rights to their own religious views and beliefs. There underlies a significant hypocrisy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
60. What is extreme today ill not be extreme tomorrow. It’s the point of my article.
BTW, I just went with three examples there are many more. Such as Boy Scouts in California being refused usage of public resources since they “dscriminate,” Yeshiva University (private orthodox Jewish school) in NYC being force to allow gay couples to live together in their dormitories, A California Lutheran school being forced to allow gay couples, Gynecologist being forced to perform invitro fertilization on a lesbian couple, a girl being suspeneded from High School for refusing to take of a “Be Happy Not Gay” shirt on a gay day of silence at her school, the establishment of gay high schools in Chicago, and I can just keep going.
I agree, this is extreme, but it’s not isolated. It’s funny how many people here who 2 or 3 years ago would have shuddered a the thought of government contolling thought and religion are now OK with it, or at least willing to sweep it under the rug- so they don’t sound discriminating.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Ir was not easy for me to support the proposition here in California, but I do have children. If what happened to those families in Massachusetts happened here in California, I would be livid. Yet, the same group pushing for homosexual education at early ages in Massachusetts is the same group pushing No on 8 out here. Homosexuality in an individual is often the result of gender confusion as a young child, as many have pointed out in previous threads, and the gay community is obviously aware of this. So, I ask you, why is there such a push to introduce homosexuality at such an early age? Draw your own conclusions…
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Cool video about prop 8…
http://www.in24p.com/prop8.html