SAN FRANCISCO – As the California Supreme Court weighs the legal arguments over same-sex ”marriage,” pro-family coalitions are continuing in their efforts to collect signatures to pull forward the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
While over 61 percent of California voters voted on Proposition 22 back in 2000 to “keep marriage between only a man and a woman,” the measure added language only to the California Family Code, not the state constitution.
And without an amendment to the state constitution specifying marriage between only a man and a woman, the institution of marriage cannot be guaranteed.
“The only fool-proof way to protect the traditional definition of marriage from the hands of legislators and judges is to place the language of Proposition 22 – passed by over 61% of voters – into the California Constitution,” the California Family Council, a coalition member of the petition drive, writes on its website.
As of April 2, the petition drive has gathered over 951,000 signatures and aims to collect 1.1 million signatures by the end of next week.
Organizers set an early deadline of April 1 to receive the signatures, but allowed several extra weeks to process stragglers and assess the final vote tally. All petitions need to be turned into county registrars by April 21, said Ron Prentice, primary spokesman for Protect Marriage, the coalition sponsoring the effort, to the Christian Examiner.
“The effort continues to look strong,” he said. “We will need every petition in order to meet our goals.”
In order for the petition to become law, 700,000 signatures will have to be verified as valid by the end of next month; California voters will then have the option of voting on the amendment during the next election in November.
If over 50 percent of California voters vote for the amendment, it will officially become law, nullifying all legislation and court rulings favoring same sex “marriage.”
So far, 26 other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex “marriage.”
Massachusetts is currently the only state to allow same-sex “marriage.”
RSS
<<Let's get those petitions signed and sent in, they are within 5% of their goal, 1.05M of 1.1M signatures! >>
Mike234, so that's why you were providing ALL the misinformation, to get more petition signature? Is fabricating, hearsay, rumor and assumption a part of the so-called Christian Pro-Family Agenda? People aught to know that there is a proscription in the 10 Commandments about bearing false witness about the neighbors. Remarkably, your posts have all been FALSE WITNESS, is that Christ-like in your estimation?
Let's get those petitions signed and sent in, they are within 5% of their goal, 1.05M of 1.1M signatures!
<<How is it that a homosexual cannot do this? Are you saying homosexuals are automatically morally superior than heterosexuals? If not then your point does not matter. >>
Did I say that homosexuals can not do this? No. Did I insinuate homosexuals are morally superior to heterosexuals? No I did not. You are creating straw man arguments because because you couldn't articulate a proper answer to my counter about how you used "balance" and about where you found the information I proved had been discredited. I went to every website that claimed the study was done and the link was removed, it was removed as I found out, because it was a prevarication- it was a false study, and NARTH uses only discredited studies and dishonorable people to represent their prejudice against homosexuals.
<<Are you kidding me? The APA lists homosexuality a Sexual Orientation same as Beastiality, Pedophilia and Necrophilia.>>
No it does not! That is an outrageous accusation that is easy to disprove.
Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf
Furthermore:
Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to individuals of a particular gender. The three other components of sexuality are biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Three sexual orientations are commonly recognized: "homosexual", attraction to individuals of one's own gender; "heterosexual", attraction to individuals of the other gender; or "bisexual", attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as "gay" (both men and women) or "lesbian" (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
Sidebar:
Homosexual orientation is not limited to a particular type of person. Gay men and lesbians are of all ages, cultural backgrounds, races, religions and nationalities. They work in all occupations and live in all parts of the country. http://www.gps.org/Papers/apa_stand.htm
<<You obviously haven't looked into the adoption racket that this country has either, Me and my wife are unable to have children, yet to adopt it will cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 85K dollars to adopt (including legal fees, adoptions fees and such) to adopt 1 child,>>
Oh yes I have, and yes the adoption process is expensive. But instead of "Family Values" organizations lobbying for legislation that makes it easier for heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to adopt children they are lobbying against same sex couples with lies and propaganda.
FWIW, I know of several obese heterosxual couples who attempted to adopt from organizations in both Asia and The Chezch Republic but were denied because they were obese and considered a risk that they'd die before the children grew up.
<<so think about that before you call all heterosexual couples "child abusers". >>
I never said ALLheterosexual couples were child abusers. My comment was directed to the ridiculous presumption that homosexual couples provide no balance- some might consider abuse, neglect, torture etc. "balanced" I don't. I think it's fair to agree that the statistics prove more heterosexual couples abuse their children than homosexual couples do- at least that's what I'm reading on the pediatric psychology websites.
>>There are bad parents out there, both Straight and Gay, don't stereotype straight couples because of your own biases... >>
Your accusation is preposterous, I was defending my point with what I believe to be facts- I was not stereotyping heterosexual parents.
By the way though, who is FACTUALLY responsible for the high rate of fetal alcohol syndrome? Who is responsible for the crack addicted infants removed from their mother at birth? Who is responsible for the unwanted child born into poverty? Oh, that would be the heterosexual couples who conceived these children. Do not accuse me of stereotypes when I present the facts-- I'm not making up these problems, I am not the one out breeding children just for kicks.
So why aren't the Pro-Family people lobbying to reduce unwanted pregnancy, fetal alcohol syndrome, drug addicted conceptions etc.?
Oh, it's because they're busy trying to block the equal rights of homosexuals.
Half of all marriages ending in divorce. . . kids growing up abandoned by one or both parents. . . couples running off to Vegas on a whim to get married. . . Frankly, I commend these pro-family groups from wanting to protect gay citizens from the likes of heterosexual "marriage."
myTmuus,
"And I like all the denial about the truth about abuse, neglect etc. A family member worked for the DPSS, the stories about heterosexual couples who tortured, maimed, abused, raped and did all sorts of horrible things to their children and after "some rehab" got them back, only to have the cycle repeat until Child Protective Services had to make sure the children were placed in suitable homes. It's obvious you haven't researched the statistically high rate of damage heterosexual couples have done over the centuries."
How is it that a homosexual cannot do this? Are you saying homosexuals are automatically morally superior than heterosexuals? If not then your point does not matter.
"So if there is only complete balance in heterosexually coupled parenting situations why is the ABNORMALLY high rate of child neglect, child abuse, poverty, spousal abuse etc. in our faces in the news every day? In a parallel universe balance equals all those negative affects, right?"
Because the Media is biased towards all the bad stuff that happens in society, for giggles look at Fox News.com and count the number of uplifting, goodfeeling stories on that site, I can answer that now, 0, the media is biased and sensation sells. That is why you only hear about the abuse and neglect because that is what sells, or I should say that they think sells.
"And I like all the denial about the truth about abuse, neglect etc. A family member worked for the DPSS, the stories about heterosexual couples who tortured, maimed, abused, raped and did all sorts of horrible things to their children and after "some rehab" got them back, only to have the cycle repeat until Child Protective Services had to make sure the children were placed in suitable homes. It's obvious you haven't researched the statistically high rate of damage heterosexual couples have done over the centuries. "
You obviously haven't looked into the adoption racket that this country has either, Me and my wife are unable to have children, yet to adopt it will cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 85K dollars to adopt (including legal fees, adoptions fees and such) to adopt 1 child, so think about that before you call all heterosexual couples "child abusers". There are bad parents out there, both Straight and Gay, don't stereotype straight couples because of your own biases...
Child neglect is the exception, not the rule. What I am saying is your logic is faulty. You are taking a special group (parents who tortured, maimed, abuse, rape ,ect) and associating it with the parenting ability of the general group of heterosexual parents. For you point to make sense torture, abuse, rape would have to be a characteristic of every heterosexual parents. And what exactly is abnormally high rate of child neglect relative to? Or, what is the normal rate of child neglect?
<<Child neglect is the exception, not the rule. It occurs when people care more about themselves than there child.>>
And that "proves" your point HOW? So why are these heterosexual people having kids if they care more about themselves? Your point makes no sense at all.
<<Kinda like the gay activist who care more about getting social acceptance for their sexual behaivor than helping children. >>
And you can prove gay activists are factually working for acceptance while being unconcerned with the abused, abandoned, drug/fetal alcohol conceived babies born to heterosexual couples who have children JUST because they can. PROVE it!
<<I really like the one about how we need gay marriage so that the homosexuals will adopt the hard to place children. Yeah, right. >>
And I like all the denial about the truth about abuse, neglect etc. A family member worked for the DPSS, the stories about heterosexual couples who tortured, maimed, abused, raped and did all sorts of horrible things to their children and after "some rehab" got them back, only to have the cycle repeat until Child Protective Services had to make sure the children were placed in suitable homes. It's obvious you haven't researched the statistically high rate of damage heterosexual couples have done over the centuries.
"So if there is only complete balance in heterosexually coupled parenting situations why is the ABNORMALLY high rate of child neglect..."
Child neglect is the exception, not the rule. It occurs when people care more about themselves than there child. Kinda like the gay activist who care more about getting social acceptance for their sexual behaivor than helping children. I really like the one about how we need gay marriage so that the homosexuals will adopt the hard to place children. Yeah, right.
<<But a heterosexual relationship can be completely balanced, with a mother and a father.>>
So if there is only complete balance in heterosexually coupled parenting situations why is the ABNORMALLY high rate of child neglect, child abuse, poverty, spousal abuse etc. in our faces in the news every day? In a parallel universe balance equals all those negative affects, right?
<<A homosexual relationship cannot be this balanced. Even if both raise children well, the one cannot attain the standard the other can. Little boys and girls need to learn how to relate to both fathers and mothers. This isn't always met, but it is ideal.>>
Indulge me if you will, but prove it. Prove it with REAL scientific information and facts from the AMA, APA, the AAofP and any other qualified, medically acredited, licensed and certified peer reviewed study that hasn't been discredited.
<<Strange according to IMAP, Sweden had some slightly different results.>>
Are you referring to IMAPP the blog site or The NARTH site which references the blog? NARTH by the way had to remove the actual study because it appears they were messing with the figures. The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy is an anti-gay blog site which doesn't use credible, peer reviewed or scientific studies. NARTH has been discredited for their unethical use of these studies, so I'd never believe a word they say. But it doesn't surprise me in the least to witness the use of discredited information, happens here on these comment sections ALL the time.
<<So you are saying that same-sex parenting does not affect children? I just want to be sure that is what you are saying.>>
Same-sex parenting does not negatively impact or affect children. The American Psychiatric Assn. and a variety of child welfare groups holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a 2002 review of the literature, also found no negative effects. "Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children's activities," the group wrote.
"It's not a false conclusion, DIVORCE affects children, while same-sex parent parenting does not."
So you are saying that same-sex parenting does not affect children? I just want to be sure that is what you are saying.
"In countries where homosexuals can marry legally, i.e. Denmark (have since 1989) the divorce rate is slightly under 17 percent to the 46 percent and still increasing annually for heterosexual marriages."
Strange according to IMAP, Sweden had some slightly different results.
"male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples."
You said,
"I'd say your theory about homosexuality being more unbalanced is a fallacy."
But a heterosexual relationship can be completely balanced, with a mother and a father. A homosexual relationship cannot be this balanced. Even if both raise children well, the one cannot attain the standard the other can. Little boys and girls need to learn how to relate to both fathers and mothers. This isn't always met, but it is ideal.
"In" "the" "spirit" "of" "this" "article," "I" "am" "putting" "every" "single" "word" "of" "my" "post" "in" "quotation" "marks." "That" "way" "writers" "like" "Sheffrin" "and" "Katharine" "Phan" "will" "be" "more" "likely" "to" "understand" "it." "When" "they're" "old," "they'll" "think" "of" "all" "the" "things" "they" "could" "have" "accomplished" "while" "instead" "opposing" "same-sex" marriage.
<<I wonder how the divorce rate for homosexuals looks?>>
In countries where homosexuals can marry legally, i.e. Denmark (have since 1989) the divorce rate is slightly under 17 percent to the 46 percent and still increasing annually for heterosexual marriages.
<<I have heard gay is very high and lesbian is lower.>>
Wrong according to studies. Male-male divorces are 14 percent compared to female-female divorces at 23 percent.
<<Nonetheless, a homosexual lifestyle is never balanced.>>
According to whom? Christians? God? Homophobes? Scientists? And why?
Really, when you look at the studies, heterosexual marriages which statistically end in divorce with figures increasing annually, unwanted pregnancies which often lead to poverty, alcohol/substance abuse, spousal abuse, child endangerment/abuse, crowded orphanages and an over burdened foster care/child protective services system, I'd say your theory about homosexuality being more unbalanced is a fallacy.
<<Which would be better, heterosexual biological parents with their children, or homosexual non-biological parents? Which is more balanced, and which is natural?>>
That question begs to the ridiculous. Homosexual parents and same sex couples wanting to either biologically reproduce or adopt have to WANT to have children. Heterosexuals can JUST reproduce whether or not they should. Why do you think foster care, adoption agencies and child proitective services are over burdened? Heterosexuals whom you only consider to be more "balanced" and "natural" are creating this mess!
The quotes should be around pro-family as in "pro-family" not around gay marriage. There is nothing pro-family about denying children health benefits, social security benefits, legal standing, etc. with both parents. This is anti-family and anti-children. It may surprise you, but most children who are being raised by gay parents want and love those parents. What do you propose, taking the children away and putting them in a home with strangers so they have a “mom” and a “dad”? Or are you just ok with just marginalizing these children in your “holy war” against gays. It’s ok for you to take away the legal protections of these children of gays because the children are just casualties of your “holy war”. These innocent children pay the price of your idolization of some perfect family, an Ozzie and Harriet that only exists in your dreams. In the real world a child needs the protections afforded by society and for the child’s family that marriage and adoption provide. … and I’m talking the child’s real gay parents, not your fantasy Ozzie and Harriet parents.
<<You make the false conclusion that, since Divorce is a major problem, homosexuality should be ignored, but this is not the case, we can say "Divorce is a major problem" and work on fixing this, while at the same time saying that "Homosexuality is an abheration".>>
It's not a false conclusion, DIVORCE affects children, while same-sex parent parenting does not. Society has a nasty tradition of negative thinking about homosexuality therefore it traditionally has provided unsubstantiated fallacies about it. You realize however, DIVORCE studies have surmounted enough evidence to prove how negative it's effects are on children. You also need to be aware of how many same sexed couples adopt unwanted, abandoned, drug addicted, high risk children and provide loving, nurturing homes and save these otherwise DOOMED children.
<<Good, you actually responded, I find it very frustrating when people just give me the thumbs down but stay quiet.>>
I've YET to give anyone a thumbs down, I find it passive/aggressive behavior reserved for those who can't articulate anything worthwhile.
<<They are both bad. So you are saying because we have one bad situation, it makes sense to add another one? >>
No they are not both bad. There is absolutely NO proof existing that same-sex parents produce any negative psychological damage(emotional or mental) to children. In fact, children who are adopted by same sex parents,(who by in large adopt/rescue unwanted, drug addicted, abused and neglected children who are the products of incarcerated, broken up heterosexual homes and foster care,) have demonstrated they provide loving homes which nurture these high risk children back to health.
However, it has been proven that DIVORCE negatively impacts children, damages their self esteem and can precondition them making them prone to bad relationships and divorce.
And furthermore, How dare you presume to pry into otherpeoples buisness.. You wouldn't like it so much if you had it done to you. Look, I'm a very spiritual believer in God, Christ and the Heavens above. Where there's good there's Evil.. and that's all I'm hearing here. Evil Evil Evil..
STOP THE HATRED!!
You call yourselves Christians? In all this gibberr jabber about hating people for something that doesn't even affect you, I never see the word "love". The word Divorce is used quite a bit thou. If you had one clue about the word of God, you'd stop using those screen names. Find out what it's really like to love someone before you spreading the hate. Get Over Yourselves. It's this sort of behaviour that will be the downfall of Christianity.
MyTmuss,
Good, you actually responded, I find it very frustrating when people just give me the thumbs down but stay quiet.
I wonder how the divorce rate for homosexuals looks? I have heard gay is very high and lesbian is lower. Nonetheless, a homosexual lifestyle is never balanced. Which would be better, heterosexual biological parents with their children, or homosexual non-biological parents? Which is more balanced, and which is natural? Divorce is a bad thing, something we should be adamantly against, but we can change divorce rates, and we can work on bringing families together, we can never give children of homosexual parents a balanced homelife. I also think it is easier and more understandable for a child to say, "My mommy/daddy is away" than it is for them to say, "I have two daddies".
You make the false conclusion that, since Divorce is a major problem, homosexuality should be ignored, but this is not the case, we can say "Divorce is a major problem" and work on fixing this, while at the same time saying that "Homosexuality is an abheration". Love and respect are important aspects of a family, I would even say the most, but love and respect must be qualified, otherwise we can come up with all sorts of hideous forms of love and respect taken completely out of context.
There is still time to gert signatures on the petition and send them in. I think they would like them in by April 12. Let get this on the ballot in November.
"I think divorce is FAR worse emotionally and mentally for children than being raised by two gay parents"
They are both bad. So you are saying because we have one bad situation, it makes sense to add another one?
A hypocrites is someone who opposes a behaviour while at the same time doing the thing he opposes. This does not describe Christians who oppose "gay marriage". It does not even describe Christians who are divorced and oppose "gay marriage". They are two seperate behaviours. Apples and oranges.
With the burgeoning divorce rate now just as commonplace among Christians who swear Family Values is their top priority the proof is pointing out that the hypocrites want to squelch gay marriage while ignoring the real problem---DIVORCE.
I think divorce is FAR worse emotionally and mentally for children than being raised by two gay parents. All the studies seem to disprove your argument Chris333. Children do well as with two gay parents as long as there is love, respect and the children's needs are being met.
<<I believe it should be illegal for homosexuals to adopt children, this is just not right for the child who deserves a balanced homelife. (This is a secular argument, not a Christian argument)>>
Funny that this statement came out Friday on this very website "The Barna Group found in its latest study that born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce with 33 percent having married and divorced at least once. Among all born again Christians, which includes evangelicals, the divorce figure is 32 percent, which is statistically identical to the 33 percent figure among non-born again adults, the research group noted."
I agree that the "no fault" divorce laws that make marriage nothing more than a simple contractual arrangement that you can chuck any time you feel like it, no different than your health club membership or your gardening service, has been a major part of the breakdown of family and society.
We "care" because homosexuality being granted "mainstream" validation, by the state, as being equivalent to heterosexual marriage and family, is to tear down the basis on which all of western civilization (actually all civilizations) has been built.
"Defining deviancy down" by acknowledging, legally and by the state, that deviant sexual practices that are in violation of the natural order is to invite the wrath of God. Read your Bible. When a nation abandons God, and turns to idols, God tends to allow that nation to be punished severely, or even destroyed. Look to Israel's history. Our nation has long been inviting the wrath of God - Roe v. Wade was the beginning, in the 1970's, of the abortion holocaust. People have been falling away from the church, and turning from God, for nearly fifty years now and the church in America is on a fast, downhill slope. Now we, as a society, want to recognize homosexuality and grant it legal equivalence, recognized by the state, as traditional marriage and family? We are inviting God's punishment on our nation and have been for some time.
Also,
I believe it should be illegal for homosexuals to adopt children, this is just not right for the child who deserves a balanced homelife. (This is a secular argument, not a Christian argument)
To my Christian brothers and sisters,
Why do we care if homosexuals want to have a "union" or "state-marriage"? This does not concern us. If a non-Christian wants to do these things, and they do not force it upon us and in our faces, then it should not make much difference. We need to make sure that Christians stay morally pure, we need to judge ourselves, not others.
The Bible is clear that we are only to judge within the Body of Christ. Therefore, let us only say that a Christian cannot have a homosexual marriage, or lifestyle, and let the secular world live by its own standards. The state is not the Church, nor is popular opinion, the Church is the Body of Believers, based upon the Bible. Let's leave it at that, and let them choose their own fate. We can always present the Truth and Gospel for all that desire it, but let's not force non-Christians to adhere to Christian standards.
Thoughts?
Pro family group do not prevent people from forming families. That is a ridiculous argument. What they are doing is trying to prevent the pro gay groups from changing the meaning of marriage so as to validate there sexual lifestyle.
Regarding homosexuality being genetic...
This can be studied by looking at identical twins. Identical twins by definition have the same DNA. Yet, it will be found that while one of the twins may be a homosexual the other is not necessarily one also.
Regarding homosexuality being a result of a biochemical/brain disfunction -
This is probably it. Drug addictions are able to affect the way the brain functions at the basic level.
Yet this isnt limited to drugs, but it applies to anything that we become sensitized to, dependent and attached to for a long period of time...
In a sense, this creates a path which our brain cannot do without. A path, much like a railway track to a train, or a road to a car...where our brain has an extremely difficult time leaving it once it is built.
How else then shall we explain bisexuality, or paedophilia, or numerous other behaviours?
The mind has been trained through repetitive and continued use of that path to the point where it cannot do anything else but travel on that road.
How else can we explain drive? the drive of a millionaire to become a billionaire, unable to stop...but to keep on piling up more and more.
Or the collector of rubbish who keeps on collecting more and more rubbish till the house and the yard and everything owned is totally filled with it, but wont stop bringing more in..
Or with anorexics...can we show that it is genetic? again, using the idea of identical twins, you will find that just because one is anorexic, the other does not necessarily follow...
And with anorexics there is a particularity that should be noted. We see that although they are in every respect truly thin...they completely see themselves as fat...undermining every reality that is flung their way..
Homosexuals act similarly. Although their sexual parts are there and they can bear children on their own without any problems...they have gotten themselves in a predicament where they will not admit to their gender, or their ability to have children....
like the anorexics they are under a complete illusion as to the reality of things....
The amendment language published on the voteyesmarriag.com web site states:
"SEC. 1.1. Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable."
This wording is problematic in its chromosomal definition of man and woman. See:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm
By this definition, an XY chromosomal but "clearly femail" person would be prevented from marrying a man, and if enacted, this person would have no legal recourse. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment right to petition the government. Man should not apply such crude tests to the infinite complexity of God's creation. This amendment should be rejected outright by the voters. Efforts to trick voters into supporting the amendment mask the awesome power of God and replace His Word with the hollow shell of the hypocrite false prophet.
Go Californians! You can do it!
Quote from below: This so-called "Pro-Family" group obviously doesn't think too much of family if it seeks to prevent people from forming one. If they want to "protect" marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce, and stiffen penalties for domestic violence.
A "family" is not made up of 2 perverts practicing sodomy. This is an abomination. It always has been and always will be regardless of how far down the toilet morality becomes in this sick society. For Gods sake, look around you, read the paper--don't you see a difference from say 50 years ago? Don't call these sick people practicing this filth a "family". Call it what it is.
"One other thing: 27 (not 26) other states have approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriages and in many cases civil unions, too. "
this is the question i ask all; why does that concern you? Just because a majority of people (if it was really the people, and not a smaller number of representatives) are against gay marriage does not mean that their opinion should legally bar others from forming families. So i guess if the majority of New Yorkers are vegetarians, should meat be banned in the state? If the majority of Texans are against premaritial sex, should sex be illegal until marriage? So, so silly in my opinion. She Quon is absolutely correct, people should have the right to form a family. Just because the bible says a marriage is one thing does not mean that it should be forced into law and therefore deny gay people the right to form families legally. A gay couple's marriage is no one elses' business. if one is concerned with God and gay people's salvation, then pray for them - but don't use legal remedies for a certain religion's beliefs.
"against the will of the voters" So the other roughly 40% don't count? A mere 10% over half means that it should be a law?
Okay, I'd be fine with the idea of marriage as solely a religious institution, the parameter of which could be decided by each denomination, except that California guarantees a right of civil marriage.
For that matter, if the supports of the amendment reject, as Prsteve11 claims, "non-Christian unions," should we expect a follow-up amendment that would make it illegal to have a marriage which has not been blessed by a Christian pastor? Where would that leave atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and other non-Christians?
Or maybe the religious institutions could realize that they're blessing a union and that the state is creating a marriage as a real and legal contract.
One other thing: 27 (not 26) other states have approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriages and in many cases civil unions, too.
"This so-called "Pro-Family" group obviously doesn't think too much of family if it seeks to prevent people from forming one. If they want to "protect" marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce, and stiffen penalties for domestic violence."
Incorrect. They're pro-family because they reject non-Biblical, non-Christian unions. Gay marriage is against God's Word and against the will of the voters. What they're doing is right. I sure pray they succeed and that this measure passes in the fall. I'm a former California resident, so I watch from a distance but this is important.
This so-called "Pro-Family" group obviously doesn't think too much of family if it seeks to prevent people from forming one. If they want to "protect" marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce, and stiffen penalties for domestic violence.