Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

64°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Prop 8 needs a closer look

Editor: Although the election is still a few months ahead, I feel it is important to get the truth about the marriage amendment out early as opinions are forming. Californians resolutely passed Proposition 22 by more than 61 percent in 2000 in favor of marriage between a man and a woman only. As our judicial system overturned the will of the people they not only affected our state but the western United States. Critics say that Proposition 8 -- the marriage amendment is about hate and discrimination which is not true. It is about legalized love, obligations, privileges, that affect the basic ideal or building block of our society. Anyone who votes for this amendment because they hate homosexuals is voting for the wrong reason. Any homosexual who votes against this amendment because they think it is based on hate and discrimination is voting for the wrong reason.

There are leaders in the homosexual community urging their voters to vote for the amendment. They are smart enough to know the chaos in society that will come about if it is not passed. Catholic Charities who among others who have helped with adoptions have been forced to close for religious reasons.

Clergy may be accused of hate crimes if they preach against the practice of homosexuality based on religious beliefs.

Most preach love of the person and disfavor of the practice. Will clergy be forced to marry homosexuals or not perform marriages at all? Will this be the end to public service organizations like Catholic Charities and the Boy Scouts of America?

Thanks to the governor, from kindergarten up the ideal of marriage has been diminished in our schools with serious implications.

Homosexuals have all rights of married couples except marriage which is an ideal that needs to be preserved. Marriage is an ideal and many heterosexuals have tainted it but it is an ideal worth pursuing.

Stephen Todd

Lemoore

(July 30, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

mike moore wrote on Jul 30, 2008 3:12 PM:

" I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this.

The government is a civil institution that grants many civil benefits (inheritance rights, decisions over health care, tax benefits, property rights) with marriage, and any two consenting adults who choose to marry should be allowed to do so under civil law.

And while heterosexual marriage may be your "ideal", it isn't mine, so why should you be able to force or legislate your faith and/or values upon me? If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex ... then don't! But don't try to tell me who I can or cannot love and marry ... I'll fight you in the courts and in the voting booth every step of the way.

Freedom of religion in this country is as much about freedom FROM religion as anything, and thank God for that! I sure don't want to live under Southern Baptist or Islamic rule.

And as for the will of the people, since when did it become OK in the USA for one group of people to vote away the rights of another?

Let and let live, people. "

Tom in Houston wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:42 PM:

" Who in the Gay community is supporting the anti-Gay amendment? There was one (really just one) guy down in San Diego who started a blog called 'gays defend marriage' or something like that. (Whether or not he is actually gay was in question). He has apparently since renounced his campaign. You'll have to find someone else in the Gay community who supports anti-Gay legislation.

You made lots of unsubstantiated (I'd call them flat out false) assertions about Prop 8. Prop 8 has nothing to do with hate crimes laws (name ONE person that has been convicted in the USA for simply preaching the gospel in a legal manner), the Boy Scouts (who by Supreme Court ruling have a right to be a bunch of discriminatory bigots - albeit without taxpayer subsidies), or the Catholic "Charities" (They can do all the 'charity' they want - without tax dollars). Even in the Netherlands, private property (non-taxpayer subsidized) churches are NOT required to hold same sex marriages.

Your letter was rife with inaccuracies. Is this the best argument the anti-Gay movement can come up with? "

Leo Brown wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:45 AM:

" “I’ll fight you in the courts” is the key phrase. “Gay marriage” will ultimately unleash a torrent of litigation and anyone, including schools, individuals, and religious institutions, opposing “gay marriage” will be the target. And this will be nationwide, since the next argument will be the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Homosexual households already are prospering economically more than straight couples. The California legislature previously granted all sorts of rights to homosexual couples. We had live and let live in California. At the state level we already had “gay marriage” in all but the name. But the name is important precisely because of the lever it provides in the courts. “Gay marriage” in California will be used to force one vision of marriage on the whole country using the courts.

Tom in Houston carefully limits his challenge to the USA. Can he guarantee that what happened in Sweden won’t happen here? Can he guarantee what the future definition of preaching the gospel “in a legal manner” will be? "

jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:30 AM:

" This is just more ignorance disguised as reasonable thinking.

1. Do you think slavery should be legal because it used to be the will of the people?
2. Do you think women should not be allowed to vote because it used to be the will of the people?
3. What homosexual leaders are urging their voters to vote for the amendment?
4. How has the ideal of marriage been diminished?
5. What are these ‘serious implications’?

People should vote against this simply because religion has no place in our government. Keep your God out of my life. "

Sid wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:45 PM:

" The Problem with proposition 8 isn't what you guys are exactly talking about...

The petition to place it on Novembers ballot had it written up one way and I paraphrase: "To define marriage as being between a man and a woman"

Now our state Attorney General, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown has taken it upon himself to change the wording that every signatory of the petition signed up for!

It doesn't matter WHERE you come down on this issue, but it SHOULD MATTER that one person (Brown) is changing wording on what was legitimately petitioned for based on his own politics/political beliefs.

Liberals and Conservatives and all in between should object to this shallow assumption of power that brown doesn't ebven posess by his job definition!

If you subscribe or "like" what Brown did, they you are also a fan of anarchy, but only when it satisfys your own politics. What will you say then when ift comes back around? "

mike moore wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Leo Brown, you're saying black=white.

You say “Gay marriage” in California will be used to force one vision of marriage on the whole country," but it's you and people like you are the ones who are trying to limit marriage to "one vision" ... i.e., your vision.

Today marriage in California has multiple visions - man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, citizen/non-citizen, mixed-religion, mixed race. The great news is adults in CA can now marry the person they love and cherish.

And guess what? No one is ever gonna try to force you to marry in way that goes against your personal values.

So what is your problem that you feel the need to tell me, a stranger you don't even know, whom I can or can't marry?

And by the way, I said I'll fight you in the courts AND in the voting booth. BOTH.

Right now it looks like Prop 8 will lose, which is great, but I repeat ... you shouldn't be able to vote away my rights, so thank God for the courts. "

MarineVet wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:47 PM:

" You know that proponents of Prop. 8 are getting desperate when they resort to outright lies.

Some churches refuse to marry people of different races, even though inter-racial marriage is legal. The Catholic church will not marry you if you have been divorced, but the government will. Many conservative churches and synagogues will not marry two people of different faiths, but inter-faith marriage is legal.

Now that gay marriage is legal and California (and has been for many weeks now), any church is free to preach that gay marriage is wrong, never perform a gay marriage, etc.

All proposition 8 would do is take away the Constitutional right to marry that gay and lesbian families currently have. It would harm these families and make discrimination the law of the land.

No on Proposition Hate,

NO on Proposition 8 "

Scott Tucker wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:46 PM:

" As I have stated before, I will also be voting against any initiative that attempts to destroy human and civil rights. "

Leo wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:55 PM:

" California currently doesn’t allow polygamy. Will that be the next civil right? Will you go to the barricades for that? Historically, polygamy is far more common than”gay marriage.”

I can’t think of any right that the state of California hadn’t already granted to gay couples except the right to sue anyone who favors traditional marriage. That is the problem. California gays had plenty of freedoms and rights. The right they were after was to sue the socks off anyone who dared to stand publicly for traditional marriage, which has been a consensus gentium across all world civilizations.

The gay lobby was so desperate to avoid democracy that they even tried (unsuccessfully) to block Proposition 8 in the courts. Since gay couples are out-earning straight couples, I hardly think this issue is like slavery. This is like more tax cuts for the rich and more legal tools for what is perhaps the most powerful lobby in California.

If the gay lobby wasn’t so quick to label any opposition as motivated solely by hate, I might be less concerned about the expected torrent of litigation. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Well all I can say on the subject is next time I'm called for Jury Duty, I am gonna tell them when Scott Tucker seves I'll serve! Because if Scott Tucker can vote in this community, he should have to serve Jury Duty as well, don't you all agree? Wait what's that you can't serve because you live in Switzerland, utoh now what do we do? Well if you can't serve jury duty you shouldn't be voting, whoops FELONY! "

Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:56 PM:

" Boo hoo, Fred, boo hoo.

By the way, how was the Hutzelbrot recipe that you asked me to send to you? "

henreallen wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:02 PM:

" First off lets keep religion out any argument for or against prop 8. This is not a religious debate, but one of our governmental rights. What happened to "All men are created equal?" This proposition if passed will undoubtedly deny certain human beings their civil rights. Plain and simple. The separation of church and state automatically protects religious institutions from having to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. So what here is the issue? It can't be family values since over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Now tell me thats an ideal worth saving! "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Watchdog, Scott outed you for this?

"Hutzelbrot
Black Forest Fruit Loaf"

I thought you had enough of that in California!

And did his recipe describe "a marriage of fruits, nuts, and spices?"

Yum, Yum! "

Dandre wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:56 AM:

" Scott...you haven't figured out when fred is out of argument?
Trying to 'debunk' the logic in the pro civil rights comments here would 'melt' his wikopedia, sooo...he wants you arrested....round and round and round "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 3, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Something dosen't have to be illegal to be just not right at all, eh? "

Ross Archer wrote on Aug 3, 2008 8:14 PM:

" Facts are facts, and Prop. 8 is entirely based on a desire to exclude homosexuals from access to marriage. One can quibble about whether that's "hate", or merely an exclusionary mentality borne of narrow-mindedness, but the bottom line is that these kinds of (civil rights) questions have never been legitimately decided by majority vote.

It is a total misunderstanding of our system of government to think that the public has a right to decide whether any group of people have or do not have rights. These questions were deliberately and forever put beyond the reach of public opinion by our Constitutional form of government, to prevent a majority from tyrannizing a minority.

So here we are again. Even after the California Supreme Court reached its verdict, we have haters dishonestly linking their exclusionary initiative to everything but what it represents: small-mindedness, ignorance of the issues, and apparent brainwashing.

It can only be hoped that the people of California can see past this fraudulent attempt to strip rights away, and will vote it down. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:42 AM:

" To: Scott Tucker, in response to your question the recipe like most of your information is incomplete and not entirely there. What is 1/2 cup scalded mild, oh could that have been milk? Like I said incomplete and distorted.
If you are trying to show my heritage like yours goes back to Germany Scott, I've made no secret about that information. My ancestory is Dutch/German, I've mentioned that numerous times and I don't kinow about you but I have no shame because of that? Perhaps you do? If not for German technology we never would have made it to the moon. Balistic Missiles would not have been born. Many of the technological advances in the military are directly connected to information and planning the United States and Russia discovered when entering Germany in WWII. We captured and utilized German Scientists at the end of WWII. So your point is?
I knew when you offered up your email it was to try and gain information to try and use against me. That is fine, I extended an olive branch and you offer up Hutzelbrot. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:04 AM:

" To: Dandre' no one including educators in our great country are exempt from abiding by the law. I am merely pointing out he is either telling lies about voting or he is headed for serious trouble. You can't do one without the other. The only reason I am saying anything at all is in another blog he called me a liar when I said he shouldn't be voting in this country unless he was residing here. The only one's allowed to do that abroad are people in the military and those assigned to the Consolate as staff. So I contacted elections and various other sources and that is what I was told. I recall that from previous military experience and I simply followed up to see if the laws had been changed and they have not. So now don't you feel ridiculous for sticking your nose where it didn't belong? Also Dandre while I have your attention, I don't smear people, I tell the truth about them and should that smear them, then so be it. But I do not do what you are saying. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Fred, You, of all people, want to criticize me about a type-o! That is funny.

My question about the Hutzelbrot was sincere, but I guess you had to go and assume the worst. As far as olive branchs go, I was the one who offered you my email to discuss Switzerland off of the forums since Switzerland has nothing to do with the articles posted on the Sentinel website. I was the one who offered you the recipe on account of your namesake. I thought you woud be interested, and I was right, because you seemed eager to have it. And just because Alejandro makes some snide "fruitcake" remark, you decide to attack me instead, when I simply wanted to know if you had tried out the recipe.

My Hutzelbrot recipe had nothing at all to do with your warped ideology, I was simply sharing a family recipe that bears your name as an act of kindness. Leave it to you to turn the act into some subversive attempt to get "information and use it against [you]". Oh well, it must be sad and difficult living a life of paranoia. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Fred, I guess you never looked up those four letters I gave you. Here they are again: FPCA.

"Your 'legal state of residence' for voting purposes is the address where you last resided immediately prior to your departure from the U.S. This residence remains valid even though the citizen may no longer own property or have other ties to their last state residence and their intent to return to that state may be uncertain." (http://www.fvap.gov/reference/laws/vote-reg-guide/index.html)

I hope that will cure your fixation regarding my voting status. See, isn't learning fun?! "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Scott, you pulled some direct quotations for your FPCA reference from this source:

2008 Absentee Voting Information for Americans Abroad http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_2964.html

Those exact words written by you - taken verbatim from another source - could be a form of plagiarism. But as an educator you know that, right? I don't believe that you are dishonest either, so it must have been a simple oversight on your part.

What some of us here in Kings County are troubled by is that you may very well vote in the local and state elections while not being a physical resident of the county, the state, and the nation.

That seems not right at all: the fact that your vote affects actual physical residents here, and not you and your Swiss family and neighbors thousands of miles away.

I know you would not break the laws of our country Scott, and would not admit it here publicly if you did. So I am assuming that you follow all applicable voting laws and follow your own personal conscience.

It just doesn't feel like it's the right thing for you to do, or that it's fair and equitable, that's all. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:10 AM:

" To: Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:42 PM:
The mere fact that the Hutzelbrot recipe ended up in these columns proves my point Scott. I believe the proof is in the pudding, pardon the pun, but if you look you brought it up first. Secondly, it is not I who needs a lesson, I hardly thnk that the elections office would be giving me false information, to what end? Thirdly you keep on keeping on there scholar and one day that jury summons is gonna end up where ever you have your last known address and when you don't fly home and serve you will be contacting by the Superior Court in and for the County of Kings. So go ahead act like you win here in the blogs and I'll keep a watch in the Police Blotter and we will see who is correct, the elections office who deals with this on a daily basis or the Scholar from Switzerland It just doesn't make common sense that your opinion on anything would count in an area you have abandoned and no longer care what the qaulity of life in is. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:51 AM:

" To: Alejandro, don't worry his is but one vote, we know his wife can't vote so between us we have four votes to his one already. If that ratio continues this will pass with flying colors and all thw whiner-liberals will have to go back in the house and hide in the closet again. Which quite honestly is where many of them belong. How right can it be that a person who has sworn allegiance to another country can continue to vote in this one, oh well never said all our laws are perfect.
Besides if the info I received is true the first time he gets a jury summons we'll have our answer. You notice he doesn't claim to have received one as of yet. All voter registration and jury duty is now done via the DMV so if he isn't keeping his California Driver's License up he wil soon fall off the eligibility list anyway. That they fail to mention on his website. California uses DMV to verify registered voters and once he disappears from that, he's ineligible to vote. When they run his name through DMV he's busted. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:55 AM:

" Alejandro,

The words you reference were not written by me, hence my use of quotation marks. Yes, they can be found on the URL which you provided. They can also be found on the source which I provided. In case you have trouble with the meaning of plagiarism, this is not an example of it. It's interesting that you do not exhibit the same amount of scrutiny with Fred's blatent misuse of citations.

I am sorry that my decision to follow US law offends you. Do you often get offended when people abide by the law? Where would you rather have me register to vote? Maine? Kansas? I grew up in Hanford, my family lives in Hanford, and by law, I am allowed to cast my vote in Hanford. Get over it or petition your representatives to change the law. I am sorry that the idea of thousands of Americans who live overseas using their right as US citizens to vote rubs you the wrong way. Your attempt to question the validity of my vote and Fred's attempt to cast me as a felon don't seem fair and equitable, do they? "

Scott Tucker wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:20 AM:

" "I hardly thnk that the elections office would be giving me false information."

Fred, Are you insinuating that the elections office would knowingly give me false information? Because I got my information from the same elections office. Way to insult our public employees (again).

In order to serve jury duty, I have to be a resident of Kings County. Am I a resident of Kings Co.? No, I am not. Therefore, your accusations are, as usual, baseless.

And as far as voting is concerned, we have already established that my eligibility to vote in Kings Co. is valid and lawful.

Are you going to go out and sully the names of all Americans living abroad who lawfully exercise their right to vote in US elections? I personally know about 100 Americans here in Switzerland who dare to vote in US elections. You gonna go after them next? Are you going to go after the millions of Americans who live abroad as private individuals simply because they choose to exercise their Consitutional rights? Still fighting those windmills, eh Fred? "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Scott,
Where in the world do you get your ideas from?

I never said that your voting here "offends" me.

I wrote about my feelings concerning what are my perceptions of your voting and opinionated posting habits in our local paper. If you were a resident it would be your local paper too, Scott.

Am I not entitled to express my feelings? I maintain more than a modicum of decorum too. Did I call you any names at all? I wasn't the one who childishly replied "Boo-Hoo" to another poster out of sheer frustration, did I?

Your vote affects actual residents of Kings County, the state of California, and the United States. Yet, the consequences of your vote has little to no impact on you and your family where you make your current home. Correct?

And on this topic, you said:
"As I have stated before, I will also be voting against any initiative that attempts to destroy human and civil rights"

Prop 8 codifies the word and contract of ‘marriage' as being between a man and a woman.

For a second time in CA. we must do this, at what cost? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:48 PM:

" Well Scotty you just did it again you called me a liar. I guess my next call will have to be to the Superior Court in and for the County of Kings and investigate a little further. I didn't want to go here but you have forced my hand saying I am distributing false information. So I must defend my good name and pursue your legal/illegal actions to the place they would culminate on their own.

In order to serve jury duty, I have to be a resident of Kings County. Am I a resident of Kings Co.? No, I am not. Therefore, your accusations are, as usual, baseless.

In order to vote in Kings County Elections, you also have to be a resident Scotty. It's the law, in and for the county of kings.

By the way who did you talk with in elections at Kings County? I spoke with a lady name Michelle. But I will call back and talk with Ed Rose the Registrar just to verify the information I received.

Now if this back fires on you, don't be upset with me. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:14 PM:

" Wow all this back and forth about falsifying voting and bickering about ethnicity and that is not even the topic at hand! Sounds to me like two children bickering and I dont know that I want any child voting for or against my civil rights. There are narrow minded people in this country who feel that homosexuals do not deserve the right to marry just because our orientation is different than thiers. We work just like everyone else, we raise our families, we cry, we bleed, we love the same, we just fall in love with our own sex.
We do not have the same rights, that is why it is "domestic partnership" and not "marriage" Church and State are separate because we have the freedom of religion. Why should I be forced to live by what other people feel is right? It is my civil right to marry the love of my life as it is for anyone else. Prop 8 only allows religous people to force thier "ideology" on other individuals who believe differently. I think they are afraid of what they dont understand. "

JRC wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Mike Moore writes:

"The government is a civil institution that grants many civil benefits (inheritance rights, decisions over health care, tax benefits, property rights) with marriage,"

All above named benefits (except tax benefits) are already given to all people (even gay) through 'Wills', 'Advanced Care Directives' and 'Named Beneficiaries'. To receive tax benefits, you'd have to take on the Federal Goverment.

So why do you continue to claim that you don't have civil rights? Just fill out the proper paperwork and you have all the same civil rights as anyone else. Except those granted to married people. Marriage as defined as between a man and a woman. As nature and God intended. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 6, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Voting legality is an important component of a free society.

It is completely related to this topic.

Melissa, who has a vested interest in promoting the homosexual - gay -lesbian -transgender -q*u*e*e*r agenda, would like us to believe that voting rights are not important, now that her ‘people' had their way with the court's decision.

And Watchdog, please keep us informed as to what the local voting official tells you about ex-Kings County residents voting in state and local elections.

It is so very much related to the Prop. Eight vote after all! "

Melissa wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:32 PM:

" That is what we want! The same rights as married couples. Again Church and State are separate. What you believe God intented is not what I believe. Since we are ALL citizens of the United States we ALL have the freedom of religion. Those documents you pointed out can not be contested when a spouse is named, however, if you do your homework, then you know that a family has the right to contest those documents if the person named is other than a "spouse" A spouse has more leverage than a domestic partner period. I think you missed the point since you yourself admitted we can have the same rights "Except those granted to married people" "

Inside the Fire wrote on Aug 6, 2008 7:00 PM:

" Good job Mr. Todd! Your article is excellent and speaks the truth. Vote Yes on Prop 8! "

Melissa wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:06 AM:

" Alejandro i never said that voting rights were not important, only that childish bickering over recipes and ethnicity and who can vote and who can not vote isnt addressing the issue of Prop 8. Being adult and discussing the issue is one thing but to bicker because you dont see eye to eye on the issue is childish. Voting is very important. Why would I want others to think that is not important just because the Supreme Court decided it is unconstiltutional for only marriage between a man and woman to be legal. Are we not fighting for the right to be married? To me that would mean I would want anyone to vote who is gonna vote No on Prop 8. As for my "people" or an agenda, come on now doesnt anyone who is taking a stand on EITHER side of this issue have an agenda? Those against it stand on God alone that is thier agenda. Our agenda is what? Wanting the same right and benefits that everyone else in this country has the right to have. "

JRC wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Repeating myself:

"" ""All above named benefits (except tax benefits) are already given to all people (even gay) through 'Wills', 'Advanced Care Directives' and 'Named Beneficiaries'. To receive tax benefits, you'd have to take on the Federal Goverment. "" ""

Anyone can contest anything. When my dad died and left his entire estate to my mother, I could have contested that. I didn't, but I could have.

I can designate anyone to be my beneficiary. The exception is if I am married my spouse must approve.

So, Mike and Melissa, you have civil rights to will your items, designate someone to make your healthcare decisions. Being 'married' has nothing to do with that.

Your argument about not having 'rights' is about as silly as saying that you should also be allowed senior discournt even through you are not yet 65.

You have all rights except tax benefits and that is established by the Federal Govt. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:35 PM:

" JRC If we have all the same rights as you then why put up such a fight that we want to be able to say we are married too? If domestic partnership covers all the same it shouldnt be a big deal to anyone that we should be able to get married to, right? California does have the best rights when it comes to Domestic Partnership but it is still not marriage. Your idea of marriage is based by what you believe is right. My ideas are different. Just because those ideas are different does not mean that i shouldnt be allowed to wed. Your religion or beliefs whatever it is, is clouding your opinion, This is a FREE country which means I should have the right to the taxes, rights and titles and attain them the same way you do, by signing one document not hiring a lawyer and drawing up a million documents to protect myself when that may not even protect myself or my partner. You could only contest your fathers will if he left you nothing, again i do my homework. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Furthermore, you chose not to contest it good for you! You left your fathers will to what he wanted. Not everyone in this country believes that last dying testament should stand. You see some of us have familiies that refuse to accept who we are and fight our partners to the very bitter end just because of who they are. After loosing thier partner a person then has to undergo the ordeal of fighting to keep everything. Do you have to do that when you loose your spouse? No. You can argue all you want that we have the same "rights" but i think you know that we dont otherwise you wouldnt be fighting so hard to keep us from getting married. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:06 PM:

" LOL oh and about our arguing for our rights being as silly as wanting a senior discount, I dont find wanting the same ability to marry my girlfriend as you do silly. I do, however, find it silly that in a country that supports freedom of religion the only argument those of you who oppose Prop 8 have is God. As for nature, what is natural to you may not be natural to me. "

Dandre wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:41 PM:

" You can't legislate 'civil rights' discrimination.....
That's unconstitutional! "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:14 PM:

" See, Melissa, you have misrepresented things and dragged GOD into the equation.

Did I say anything about GOD here? You did, and that, missy, is YOUR prejudice showing again.

Society, normal everyday human society, for thousands of years has defined marriage as being between men and women. Not counting the Amazons and the mythical isle of Lesbos in Greek culture, that is. Man-woman social bonding and normal biological sex evolved around the world.
Part ‘A' goes into Part ‘B' . . . true normal interlocking pieces in natures grand design.

Evolutionists and atheists cannot dispute that the two sexes were created/evolved - and 100% accepted by societies around the world - to recognize the man-woman pair-bond universally known as 'marriage.'

So far we have not yet evolved into hermaphrodites.

When you evolve and grow a set of male organs you can marry anyone you like I guess.

Thank GOD, eh? "

Melissa wrote on Aug 8, 2008 9:49 PM:

" JRC

"So why do you continue to claim that you don't have civil rights? Just fill out the proper paperwork and you have all the same civil rights as anyone else. Except those granted to married people. Marriage as defined as between a man and a woman. As nature and God intended. "

that is where my comments about God came from Alajandro....
I am not prejudice...you should read before commenting "

get real wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:00 AM:

" its funny if a male/female high school couple are seen kissing its called sexual misconduct however if two people of the same sex are engaging in this manner its called nothing. these people want preferred treatment while stepping on other freedoms liberties. the only one who makes it an issue is them. people regardless of sex race age religion sexual orientation "NEED TO KNOW THERE PLACE" dont try and make urselves out to be the victims its not happening in my book. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:27 PM:

" Melissa, you said this right after I posted and YOU mentioned God by saying:

"What you believe God intented [sic] is not what I believe."

And also:

"...the only argument those of you who oppose Prop 8 have is God."

and

"Those against it stand on God alone that is thier [sic] agenda.

My response:

"See, Melissa, you have misrepresented things and dragged GOD into the equation."

Didn't you actually mean to say "...the only argument those of you who ‘SUPPORT' Prop 8 have is God."- not ‘oppose' it?

Misrepresentation or just plain misstatement? "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Also, Melissa, I just wanted to point out that I said:

"Did I say anything about GOD here?"

Meaning: how dare you suppose that my only motivation to support the marriage amendment was because of MY belief in God? Sounds a lot like Obama's elitist statement about bitter people clinging to religion and guns, eh?

My statement as to the utter folly of homosexual mating habits was not related to God, the Bible, and religious teachings. And you are indeed prejudiced if you think that I only follow religion in my belief that homosexual acts are contrary to nature's design.

I gave examples of why homosexual mating is not an option under the laws of evolution, or nature, or anything else in the history of man on Earth.

Melissa says:

"As for nature, what is natural to you may not be natural to me."

So let's all change thousands of years humanity's belief and nature's design for your unnatural practices, Melissa?

I don't the people of CA. think so. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:36 PM:

" Since Marriage is noted in the Bible and that is what angers the religious segment of society, why don't we give the same rights to non-hetrosexual couples and just call it something else. They can pick the prefered name and evertyone will be satisfied with equal rights for all, just a different name for the bonding. This is win-win unless the fight is about getting in the religious rights face. Personally, I am agnostic but I see no problem with the same rights under a different name. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Alejandro it was a misstatement considering that i do not mislead anyone. I reread my statements and it was a miscommunication and when i am wrong i can admit that. I did mean those for Prop 8 use religion for thier agenda. I do not control the order in which these blogs are posted and my responce was to JRC who used God in his comment. My only point to that is again Church and State are separate. We have the freedom of religion which means i do not have to live my life by someone elses god. I am not prejudice at all, i believe all should have equality and what others do with thier lives is thier business. Its when it imposes on me that i have a problem with it. Everyone has thier own belief system. That is the way it should stay thier OWN. I do not know of any valid legal reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. In my research i have found that the same arguments many are using against same sex marriage are the same ones used against interracial marrige in the 60's and 70's. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:24 PM:

" The judges in Virginia actually used God saying that God made different races and put them in different parts of the world for a reason, because he did not want them mixing. That is insane! It seems to me that those who oppose same sex marriage want the country to be the way they want it to be and hide behind God and use God as the reason why they want these laws passed. Does Freedom of Religion not mean that everyone in this country chooses the way they believe and have the right to live by that belief? Why should one group be allowed to tell another group of people how they can or can not live based on thier religious beliefs? When it all boils down to it, laws are laws, religous beliefs are religous beliefs and that is the way things should stay. It is a free country period. "

WATCHDOG FRED wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:37 AM:

" Alejandro - I will do the follow up, had some illness in the family so I had to be out of town for a while, but I'll get on it.
Do you sense the frustration as Tucker sets there waiting for us to surrender and he can hear those all important words: "Beam us up Scotty". not, never, won't happen.
Captain Kirk and Scotty Swizzkid the two most egotistical maniacs I've ever seen in print and on screen. I can see him in his class, I am the headmaster my name is Tucker, no I'm not named after the automobile. Your first assignment is to help me pull my head out of my butt, should you decide to accept this assignment you will travel into harms way and this tape will selft desctruct in 30 seonds from now.
Can you imagine having a discussion with him in class, but Mr Tucker! "Boo Hoo on you" Boo Who on You" your staying after class to dry my tears and clean the chalk boards. Oh and I want the erasers aligned so, the chalk so and remember, I'm voting today, can't stay and watch you. "

WATCHDOG FRED wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:44 AM:

" Melissa,
People can disagree with you and you won't insult them with accusations that aren't true right? I mean religion is not the only reason people don't approve of homosexuals being married in accordance with the traditional values and honors afforded a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony. Simply because the ceremony is traditionally religous, there are other reasons people find your lifestyle offensive to them. You don't want us treading on your feelings, rights and privileges but you refuse to take ours into consideration at any cost. You want to shout to the rooftops that your feelings matter while stepping all over mine, now is that how rights traditionally work? I think not, I think rights usually bring a joint agreement and take everyone's opinions regardless of how redundant they may sound into consideration. You scream you want us to accept you for who you are but refuse to even consider accepting us for who we are! So now we are in a gay and straight stand off and nothing gets resolved until the vote in November 2008. Say what you want, the supplied plumbing tells a different story. "

WATCHDOG FRED wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:47 AM:

" Melissa, you lost me, how did we go from gay marriage in California to Virginia? Now if you are finally acknowledging the Bible Belt has a strong supportive group back east and in a National Vote it would be a landslide against you all. I'm glad to see you finally have your eyes open and then and only then may you make a statement regarding religion and beliefs come into play. But don't put those people down they are simply wanting religous freedoms you say you enjoy. So now who is trying to force what on who.? "

Melissa wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Actually Watchdog marriage began tradtionally as business agreement. No one married for love, they married for security. They married a partner who was skilled in the same business they were in so they could divide up the work load and survive. When everyone started marrying for love there was controversey, when people of different races wanted to start marrying there was controversy. If I marry my girlfriend it has absolutly no effect on you at all. We dont know you, and our lives dont intertwine so if you are offended by homosexuality do not look. There is no homosexual/heterosexual standoff, I have alot of "straight" friends not to mention my family and really they do not have a problem with it. So it is again not Homosexual vs. Heterosexual but People who dont want change vs. People who want change. I hope you have not forgotten that there are heterosexuals who plan on voting no on Prop 8? 51% of the votes so far say they will be voting no, 42% say they will for Prop 8 and 7% undecided. That is from several web sources. I used the virgina courts as back up for ridiculous arguments. "

JRC wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Well I see I'm being censured again. I've seen way worse on here and my post about voting my opinion doesn't show up. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Melissa,

I give you credit for admitting when you are wrong but you are pretty smart lady so why do you wait to correct yourself until someone points out your inaccuracies. You do review what you write before and after you post it, don't you?

You made this statement:
"I do not know of any valid legal reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry."

WRONG.
The (valid) law in California stated that marriage was between one man and one woman for many, many years even before Prop 22 passed ("Californians resolutely passed Proposition 22 by more than 61 percent in 2000 in favor of marriage between a man and a woman only.")

You also said:
"It seems to me that those who oppose same sex marriage want the country to be the way they want it to be and hide behind God and use God as the reason why they want these laws passed."

WRONG AGAIN.
I stated scientific, biological, and human behavioral reasons supported by thousands of years of world-wide social mores and practices. These are religion-independent facts that even atheists and evolutionists cannot dispute. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:43 PM:

" And finally, Melissa, you proclaim:

"It is a free country period."

Not when you and others want to overturn laws you simply just don't like, Melissa. Not a free country to do whatever you want to do at all. You and I and everyone else must live under and obey the law, Melissa.

The laws of Kings County, California, and the United States, state that you and anyone else cannot murder, enslave, assault, rape, maliciously endanger another individual, and so on.

When Prop. 8 passes that will be the law once again - defined for a third time.

Not some ‘designer state law' that redefines a worldwide social institution, thousands of years in the making, and crams it down normal people's throats.

We all will just have to obey that law Melissa, won't we? "

WATCHDOG FRED wrote on Aug 12, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Well Melissa if what you say is true then we need to rewrite the Flintstone's give Wilma Barnie's job and make Betty a candidate for office while demonstrating for women's rights. All this time I thought it started with Adam and Eve under an apple tree and what business were they in, might I inquire?
Your facts are somewhat distorted, marriage did not begin with the Sultan's and Emperor's it existed long before the arranged marriage and many other traditions. Although they may seem outdated to you, for many cultures they still exist today. Your Justice can't overturn that yet, you haven't had the people pass it by a majority and got a bunch of legal closet queens to over turn it.
Your perspectives are somewhat, very handy for you to apply to your situation. I see your main problem is that if you wanted to marry a man of color it is legal, but because you wish to marry someone of your same sex it's frowned upon. I didn't realize this was about your prejudices against men. What next, do we rewrite all the medical journals because now the mice want honorable mention? "

Melissa wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:39 PM:

" As a practice yes i do reread my statements Alejandro but again i am human and sometimes some mistakes need to be pointed out. There is not valid constitutional reason i guess i should have said. That is not an opinion that is just a fact, that is why the court ruled the way they did. Yes it does come down now to a vote. No I am not wrong about marriage it only became about love when the Catholics made it a sacrament(sp?). That is why there was arranged marriages and dowrys' and so on. When it comes down to it, it is discrimination to exclude any one person from renting, buying, employment based on your race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, and a long list of others why should a civil marriage be different? Watchdog Fred, no where in any of my statements did i say i was prejudice against men. Just because i am Lesbian does not mean i hate men. My grandfather and my brother and my brother in law are amazing men, I am friends with men....whos prejudice is showing now?...try again "

Matt wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:45 PM:

" To Alejandro-

You make mention that gay people like Melissa and myself are trying to overturn existing law. We aren't! You are!

The law as it stands today says that Melissa and her wife have every legal right to be married because there isn't a valid legal reason in state or federal law that would prohibit it. In fact there are a few constitutional provisions in the state constitution (and arguably in the federal constitution) that protect the rights of all people to enjoy protection from laws like Prop 22 that are unjust.

Your "scientific" explaination as to why heterosexuality is right and homosexuality is wrong is laughable. Just because part A fits into Part B doesn't mean that Part A can't fit just as nicely into Part C. Further, history has clearly shown that male-male relationships have always existed and been considered normal by many societies. The Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly approved of male-male relationships. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Aug 13, 2008 5:49 PM:

" Matt,

Girls doesn't have any external parts that fit inside another person. Guess you didn't read the user's manual when you were growing up.

Your quip about 'Part C' is really laughable, being used in an unnatural, unhealthy, and physically missplaced way.

Like I said before, when evolution gives us both boy parts and girl parts, well then you will have a truly mix and match world.

Until then, as the old song goes, it's " . . . Boys and Girls together . . . "

And it will be the law once again. Soon.

You can't fool Mother Nature! "

WATCHDOG FRED wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Melissa, your truest statement thus far is we are going to vote on it, AGIAN. When we shouldn't have too. It was decided by proposition 22 by a vote of the California Electorate. Each decade you think you have amassed more people to try an overturn the resentment of your lifestyle and every time it goes down to defeat. Nothing different other than a few qeuer judges agreed to give you a stay for a while. We will rectify that in the election in November and you will once again begin crying foul and continue to live the lifestyle of your choice. So nothing changes, you are back at square one again and have spent many months hanging on to hope only to have it dashed by the electorate. Had you placed this on the ballot to begin with, you might have made it stick this time, but you have infuriated so many people by forcing it upon them, they are gonna show you what force feels like. So will the popular vote be a "vendetta" probably, will it be deserved most assuredly. "

Jana wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded. It is a simple and pure truth. Procreation only works between a woman and man, and children deserve to have a father and mother who are completely devoted to each other, willing to accept responsibility and who will commit to go through the best and worst that life has to offer together. Build the family and you will build the nation. Tear down the central unit of society and moral chaos will inevitably ensue. Allowing marriage to happen any other way would be opening a Pandora's box. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (120) Albums

: Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo; Friday, November, 6 2009; (14) Photos

: Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball; Friday, November, 6 2009; (22) Photos

: Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football; Friday, November, 6 2009; (13) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (35) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts