Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us
Currently
41°
Clear

Advertisement

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH



Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


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

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Another View: We must protect marriage

Proposition 8 is a simple and straightforward voter initiative. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61 percent of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

What does a YES vote on Proposition 8 mean?

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

What does a NO vote on Proposition 8 mean?

If Proposition 8 is defeated, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and its powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost. The defeat of Prop. 8 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults. No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration. We will no longer celebrate marriage as a union of husband and wife, but rather a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time. It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage. And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.

Will Proposition 8 take away any rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners?

No. Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses. (Family Code S297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

If Proposition 8 passes, what will happen to the same-sex marriages that have already taken place?

Under Proposition 8, the validity and recognition of all marriage in California would be limited to a man and a woman, including past and future marriages, as well as marriages from other states or countries. The rights and obligations of same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses before Proposition 8 passes will be up to the courts to decide.

If Proposition 8 does not pass, will my children be forced to learn about gay marriage at school?

Yes. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code S51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

Why is Proposition 8 needed? Didn't we already vote on this issue?

In 2000, over 61 percent of Californians voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (Proposition 22). However, because this language wasn't put into the California Constitution, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote in a closely divided 4-3 decision. Proposition 8 reverses the court's decision by restoring the definition of marriage as a man and a woman in the state Constitution.

Could the California Supreme Court overturn the people's vote again and declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional?

No. By amending the state Constitution directly, the court cannot declare Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, as it did with Proposition 22. Proposition 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code. Regular statutes are a "lower" law than the state Constitution. By adding the language of Proposition 8 to the state Constitution, which is the highest source of law in the state, the California courts would be required to uphold traditional marriage.

Source: www.protectmarriage.com.

(Oct. 8, 2008)

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

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" 1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. [§51890]

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

This is a lie. The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat [or passage] of Proposition 8.

The entire text of Proposition 8 [PDF] reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The anti-gay forces are counting on voters not to read the California Education Code for themselves — so we'll be happy to read it for them.

The section of the California Education Code [§51890] cited defines a long list of terms as used in Chapter 5.5. Comprehensive Health Education, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977.

Citing the need for 'an adequate health education program in the public schools,' this chapter focuses on education about, and prevention of, 'the abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; emotional instability; forced marriage; self-medication; dental caries; nutritional disorders; suicide; and accidents,' as well as 'fostering in students an understanding of their role in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding themselves from other health and safety dangers which may be posed by hazardous substances.' "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" There is only one reference to marriage in §51890, and it is this:

[1] Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: ...

[D] Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

In addition, a section of the Code the pro-8 forces conveniently neglect to cite, §51914, specifically prohibits arbitrary changes to the comprehensive health education program without extensive input and review: "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" 51914. No plan shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.

And: §51890 itself mandates 'community participation' — defined in §51891 as 'the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies' in 'all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system':

[3] The community actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in the community. "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Yet all of the above is moot, because the California Education Code already requires schoolchildren be taught respect for all committed relationships.

You read that right. It's in yet another chapter and section the anti-gay forces fail to cite, §51933, Chapter 5.6. California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act, Article 2. Authorized Comprehensive Sexual Health Education:

51933. [a] School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. ... "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Not 'must,' mind you, but 'may.' Note also the word 'elects' in the first sentence quoted immediately below; whether or not to 'offer comprehensive sexual health education' is left entirely to the discretion of the school district:

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

[1] Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.

[2] All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.

[3] Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code. "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" [4] Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.

[5] Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.

[6] Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.

[7] Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Thus, the California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat of Proposition 8. The Code already includes the very thing the anti-gay forces are trying to make you think looms on the horizon.

On a related note, the anti-gay forces really hope you won't read Chapter 5.6 in full, because it annihilates the argument that comprehensive sex education [including accurate information about contraceptives] cannot exist in harmony with 'abstinence-only' teaching:

[8] Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. ... "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Dropping down past points 9 through 12[a]-[c] [which deal with accurate information about pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, what to do with an unwanted baby, and the age-appropriateness of materials used for grades earlier than 7], we come to 12[d]:

[d] If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision [a], whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following:

[1] Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.

[2] Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.

Note the 'if' and 'elects' again.

[Also note the prohibition of religionist materials — another reason the anti-gay forces don't want you to read this chapter.] "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Section 220 cited above reads:

220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. "

jeff wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:42 PM:

" In other words, you can't promote bias against anyone in public schools — including, but not limited to, gay people... and religious people.

The radical religionists really hate the fact that we're legally protected from hatred here in California, just like they are.

They also hate the fact that California prohibits forced religious instruction on public school students — while claiming that California is forcing pro-gay 'instruction' on those same students, which it doesn't.

Also of interest is §221 [same link as the last one above], which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:

221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization. "

Deb wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:21 PM:

" I know this is in the opinion area of the newspaper, but this certainly looks like an ad from protectmarriage.com . "

Melissa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:59 PM:

" This is just outrageous. Children are not taught about marriage in kindergarten. What will happen to same sex couples who are married now? I will tell you, thier marriages will be dissolved with out thier consent. Is Prop 8 and attack on gays and lesbians? YES. People want to change the constitution to read what they agree with nevermind the fact that they are not the only ones who live in this state. Prop 8 supports segragation and discrimination. There is no other way of looking at that. When you try to amend a constitution to eliminate one group of peoples rights that is what it is, discrimination. The supporters of Prop 8 want society to be what they believe in, they forget that this is a free country and we all have the right to persue our happiness. But our happiness makes them uncomfortable so they want to change the constitutional rights of gay and lesbians. It is legal now is any of these things in this article happening now? No. Stop the discrimination, do not let scare tactics fool you, we just want equality under our current constitution. There is nothing wrong with that

NO ON 8! "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Vote for Prop. 8 friends. Keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Wait, didn't we already do that with California Proposition 22 (2000) eight years ago?

Even change-agent Senator OBAMA and his VP pick are against homosexual marriage.

Let's choose to keep something sacred for ourselves, our children, and our free society. "

Former Resident wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:28 PM:

" It sounds like the Yes proponents are becoming a little bit panicky and are really try to scare voters into seeing this ridiculous arguement going all wrong for them. I bet they're looking at polls that I'm seeing lately that show them losing by a surprising margin. At this point they should probably just get ready to admit a final defeat once and for all and focus on the real problems of our country such as the economy, the middle class disappearing, the rise of violent crime, etc. that will definitely affect their lives more directly than 2 consenting adults legalizing their love & commitment to each other. Those are the real issues that we are facing, not civil unions of same sex individuals. I can hardly wait for this nightmare to be finally over. "

gees wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:38 PM:

" Here we go again....DING....Round 2 "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:41 PM:

" Defeat discrimination and inequality aimed at fellow citizens. Vote NO on Prop. 8! "

equality wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:45 PM:

" I wouldn't mind if my child was taught about same sex marriages, I will teach him myself. He will see it himself. Homosexuality is not just going to magically go away. I don't think there is anything wrong with it and I believe that if two people love each other, no matter what sex they are, they should be able to show that love with marraige if they so choose. Welcome to the year 2008, and get over it already. The sooner we accept people for who they are, NO MATTER WHAT, the sooner we can all be happy.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8 "

WitchOne wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Whatever happend to tolerance? Hitler hated jews, gays, blacks and anyone else that didn't fit his idea of the perfect person. Although I am not gay, I don't understand why so many are so against gay marriage. I don't understane what you feel you are protecting? A gay couple being married does not make my marriage any less or any more of a commitment to my husband. I've taught my children to be tolerant of others. They didn't choose their eye color, skin color or heigth. They have to live with what they are and I want them to be proud of themselves no matter what. Do gays choose to be gay? I don't think so. Why would anyone choose to be hated and treated like a second-class citizen? Let gays have their marriage. They already are living as married couples and raising children. Let them have the same legal rights as all other Americans. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:52 AM:

" Let's see:
"[2] All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective."

How would a trained educator answer their student's questions to comply with the letter of the educational directive above?

- "So homosexuals cannot procreate? Mr./Ms. Teacher, please explain WHY?"

- "How do homosexuals express physical ‘love' for each other then, Mr./Ms. Teacher? I mean, what can they possibly do if they are the same sex?"

- "Mr./Ms. Teacher, what sex is considered normal and what is abnormal . . . or can we do whatever we want to in California if is an expression of our love and is one of our civil rights?"

- "Mr. Teacher, who decided in the state of CA. that two men or two women can now get married?"

- "Why doesn't the rest of America and the whole world let gay people get married?"

- "Since homosexuals can't get pregnant and don't need to practice abstinence, it's ok for me to do this same-sex stuff, right?"

No religion, no other bias here folks; just answer the questions factually.

Then let the kids and their parents work it all out.

Outstanding! "

Sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:13 AM:

" I'm confused...I thought "The Constitution" was written for the United States. California State Laws or any other 'specific' state should NOT be rewriting "The Constitution" to justify individual liberties, based on religious beliefs.
Can't we all just get along? "

Melissa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Alihandero here are the answers to your questions

So homosexuals cannot procreate? Mr./Ms. Teacher, please explain WHY?"

They can pro create with the aid of the science community and do all the time and have beautiful healthy productive families

- "How do homosexuals express physical ‘love' for each other then, Mr./Ms. Teacher? I mean, what can they possibly do if they are the same sex?"

In case you did not take sex ed they teach many ways to show your affection without intercourse so they you do not have unplanned pregnancy. There is more to physical expression than just male and female intercourse.

- "

Melissa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:16 PM:

" "Mr./Ms. Teacher, what sex is considered normal and what is abnormal . . . or can we do whatever we want to in California if is an expression of our love and is one of our civil rights?"

- "Mr. Teacher, who decided in the state of CA. that two men or two women can now get married?"
The people of California choose to uphold the constitution and give equal rights to all citizens. It is not ok to discriminate against anyone in this country (they will be taught about other discrimination by the time they reach the grade for sex ed)

- "Why doesn't the rest of America and the whole world let gay people get married?"
(Before i answer this do you see anything wrong with the phrase "let gay people"? like America or the world is in control of our lives.)

There are groups of people in this country thru out history that have had to fight to have the same rights and the homosexuals are having to fight that fight now. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:37 PM:

" - "Since homosexuals can't get pregnant and don't need to practice abstinence, it's ok for me to do this same-sex stuff, right?"

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not an alternative to male and female intercourse. Abstinence is always best until you are old enough for the emotional responsiblity of a sexual relationship.

"Mr./Ms. Teacher, what sex is considered normal and what is abnormal . . . or can we do whatever we want to in California if is an expression of our love and is one of our civil rights?"

In the USA you have the freedom to persue your happiness. There is nothing normal about a sexual relationship with anyone. A sexual relationship is a special bond between the two people and what goes on between them is what is normal to them


Those were not to hard Alihandero, and the answers in no way promoted Homosexuality, only the facts. I do not believe it would be wrong to teach our children to not discriminate against other human beings. But I do not think any sexuality should be taught to young to children heterosexual or homosexual. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:03 PM:

" To Alihandro in Melissa's response to you I see room for major mistakes. Fresno School District is dealing with an issue that was a direct reflection of someone trying to teach the students words not acceptable in their school. Instead a teacher taught them the words as written in a document provided as a teacher's aid. Miscommunication isn't it wonderful. When you turn over subjects to teachers that they are not trained in conveying to their students this is what you are gonna get. Now all students in that class know the unacceptable words by heart, the teacher accomplished their teaching but teaching them exactly what, what words to say if you want to be sent home? Words that many family members have agreed never would have been spoken in their own homes. Is that really education? How would you feel if it were your child that was exposed to those words?
We are not a perfect society by any means and parents expect teachers to do too much of the child rearing as it is. Don't set another confusing sex education lesson on their backs because four Justices changed it up. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Watchdog Fred I guess its been awhile since you have been in sex ed but that is the language in which they taught us in JUNIOR HIGH. Really there is nothing any worse in my language than Alihandero. If you are referring to the word Homosexual then i think you do not realize that children know about that long before sex ed. Get over it. Did you know that parents have to give signed written persmission to take sex ed? That paper outlines what is being taught and the entire curiculum. I did not ask the questions Alihandero did, I just answered them for him. Do not make this into something it is not, This propostion is about taking away the rights of other citizens, stop spilling untruths the school curriculum will not change it has not yet and it is legal now. That is just a last ditch scare tactic. Lets get real people stick to facts, do your research. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:57 PM:

" To Melissa,
In a perfect world your answers might be correct, but we don't live in a perfect world, not every lesbian mother or gay father is going to explain each of those answers as you did. So are there going to be a lot of confused children running around confusing other children probably and most likely. Not many of them get the whole hetero thing right as it is, so yes it will provide more confusion. I think it is tuff enough to rear children when all things are perfect not to mention confusion and desention among children themselves, as we know there will be. Some of the most hurtful things are said by children we have grown up with and many have a long lasting effect on us all. So why hand them a biased subject to deal with and force feed all this love and peace. They tried that in the 60's and it didn't work, won't work, we still went to war. I think anytime we add to the confusion of a childs life we are not demonstrating parenting. But rather forcing our own opinions on them. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:03 PM:

" To Melissa,
As for the educational aspect, teachers are charged with giving students the tools to obtain information. They are not and should not be charged with supplying every piece of information our children may need in their lifetimes. I think sex education belongs at an age when students are prepared to deal with it, not in the 2nd and 3rd grade as part of their lesson plan. Indoctrinating children into the different sexes and how they cohabitate, is something I would have expected to see in a German Classroom during WWII. Oh that's right Hitler only thought there should have been one race and that all others should be abolished, much like the gays think marriage should turn out in the end. Just for same sex partners to glorify in and take the heterosexuals completely out of the mix. You say it isn't but clearly until you can put a hetero and a gay relationship on the same scale and balance it in your favor you will not be satisfied. As I've stated previously if we don't protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, what else goes? "

Melissa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:29 AM:

" To Watchdog Fred

I too believe sex ed should not be taught until an older age. That is the way it is. Children are not taught sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade, they are taught in junior high. I was taught in 8th grade. I had to have my parents permission. Children can be cruel you are right they use cruel language including Homosexual slurs. Children are already cruel when it comes to this issue why do you think it would be any worse if we are allowed to marry? There are many children now in schools of same sex families and they are happy well adjusted and are taught about tolerance and understanding. When I was a child my mom told me that there will always be bullys to ignore them and turn the other cheek. Bullys are and always will be around, same sex marriage will not change that. Our children are not confused. They are taught that there are many forms of love. They are educated just has children from a heterosexual home are. We can answer our childrens questions the same as heterosexual parents can. No confusion there. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:33 AM:

" To Watchdog Fred

I do have a burning question for you. Where did you get the idea we are trying to push the heterosexuals out? I would not wish that right being taken away from any of my heterosexual family and friends. It is a right homosexuals believe all people should have. It is not anyones right in this free country to tell anyone else how to live. As for what else goes, I do not see how that applies. I am afraid I do not see what else you think can derive from us being able to get married except our right to be equal. The issue at hand is same sex marriage is it not? Wether or not we deserve the same civil rights you have? What do you mean by "what else goes"? "

cynic wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Melissa said "They can pro create with the aid of the science community "
Sorry, Melissa - even with the help of the "science community" it still takes someone of the opposite sex to procreate. I don't think the "science community" has been able to produce artificial sperm or eggs just yet. Just not gonna happen unless someone in the "community" gets PERSONALLY involved if ya know what I mean. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Some good news today...

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Another step on the road towards equality.

This is important, because it proves that the CA Supreme Court decision was correct. Precedence is being established and one way or another movements such as the one supporting Prop. 8 will ultimately fail.

Vote NO on Prop. 8! "

Melissa wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:18 PM:

" To cynic..
People of both sexes donate to banks all the time for the further advancement of science. I do not believe my answer said anything about artificial eggs or sperm. IVF is available to all people. Do you think heterosexual women who need the help of IVF have to get personally involved with the science community? You do not have to get personally involved with anyone there are special banks for that. Yes same sex male partners need a surogate, again services are made available for that as well. There are women willing to surogate for loving same sex couples who want to have a family. So as you can see there is no need for "PERSONAL" involvment you know what i mean. As you can see we do procreate, we spend time money and effort into having our families. No unplanned pregnancies, no "accidents" just planned children we will love and cherish. Not to mention something I did not mention in my answer, adoption. Same sex families have been adopting the children of heterosexual couples who have abandoned, neglected and abused the children they procreated. Guess there is more than one way to start a family huh "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:59 PM:

" To Melissa you've always been a favorite orator of mine. I can tell you what effect it will have, just like many others you will need to hire more gay lesbian/gay men teachers who can understand your way of life so they can explain it to your children in school. Because although the present teachers have the 3 r's down and do a fantastic job of teaching your children you will not be satisfied with their ability to teach sex ed to your children. Personally, I think sex ed should be taught at home by childrens parents not even be in the schools. After all in most instances I've been told it is more of a how to than a no you shouldn't scenario anyway. I still think abstainance at that age is the appropriate sex education. We are so worried that all the correct terms be thrown out there that we don't think about the effect they have on children/young adults who haven't crossed that line yet must think of the sex ed course. You know sometimes education can damage one who is not prepared for the subject matter.. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 10, 2008 5:08 PM:

" To Melissa this has a never ending effect throughout life, then you need gay/lesbian teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, physician assistants, cafeteria workers, librarians, student counselors, vice-principals, principals, the list goes on and on where you will want special privilege for your children. What about all these displaced heterosexuals who have done such a fine job for all these years. Don't tell me it won't happen, it's happened because of language differences already. Once you've made your case for changing marriage, there will be no end to your forcing your way of life on all heterosexuals,.Because that is the true reason for your cause. You don't want equality, you want to force dominance and dictate to us how to think, how to love, how to procreate and the only reason you want to keep the men in the click is for the donation of the necessary sperm to provide you with children. Yet you say you don't want to change society. My proof of this is the four justices overturning the vote of 61% of the electorate and the celebration that ocurred when it happened. No effect; bolderdash! "

B. wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:14 AM:

" To Scott Tucker....Your liberal supreme court was not correct....it was the 61% of the voters who passed Prop 22 who were correct. And you & people like you have to file phony lawsuits to try to get your way.
As for Mass. & CT. what do you expect from Kennedy country. All liberal. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:41 AM:

" To Watchdog Fred

Thank you for the compliment as you too post many blogs that I find intriguing. I truly respect your thoughts on sex education in the schools. I think that only parents know thier children well enough to know when they are mature enough for that sort of information. It is true that it is more of "how to" and "not to" though they do not actually teach the act itself. They taught us about our bodies and how to protect them. I agree totally that abstinance should be taught at those ages, you can not be emotionally ready for the responsiblity of any sexual relationship. Maturity is a big factor in those relationships. I think children should be encourage to just be children for as long as they can, you can not get those years back. Unfortunatley sex ed is part of the curriculum in jr. high so I believe correct terms and how things are said is very important. At that age children are just begining to find out who they are and should not be encourage one way or the other. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:15 AM:

" To Watchdog Fred
I knew I was gay at the young age of 12, which is when these classes are usually taught. Showing any preference one way or the other can be damaging to a child just learning about thier sexuality. Teachers do have a big job in our society today and I do believe they do a wonderful job. We do not have to hire more gay and lesbian teachers as there are many already in that field. All teachers should be knowledgeable on the different families in todays society, it will better help them in thier daily task of understanding each student. There are many different families today not just nuclear families and same sex families. Our children are taught to be proud of who they are and where the come from same as heterosexual families teach thier children. That is taught at home, not in school.
There are already gays and lesbians in all those postions in which you named. We are a big part of todays society. We do not want to dictate to anyone how to live, love or procreate. Is that not what you are trying to do? "

Melissa wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:18 AM:

" To Watchdog Fred
Is it not you telling us we are wrong for loving who we love? Is it not you telling us we can not procreate in your way so we should not be allowed to marry? I think you have that a little turned around. We want equality, you want domination. We want to be a part of, you want to keep your way of life as the only way of life. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Melissa,
The part the confuses me is you yourself have done this, you point out all the flaws in heterosexual marriage and put Christians down for their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But you so desperately want to be like us, well you can be like us and still not call it marriage. I don't understand the facination on your part to be married like a man and a woman when you seem to have so little regard for the union and the people in it. I am not trying to keep you from having anything, you tell me this is about rights, but we offer all the rights including the tax laws to you and it still isn't enough. So is it about rights or is it about jealousy of an institution that for years gays and lesbians couldn't think of participating in? You have the same ceremonies, you wear the same clothing as men do, but you seem to have such disdain for them. You single out such a hard working person as Alejandro who takes pride in his position of father to his children. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Melissa,
You single out Alejandro, you say; "Alihandro is the worse word in the language". Come on, let's be realistic here, Alejandro represents what you can't stand. He is the father you probably never had, he is the stand up guy who is there not only for his wife but for his children too. He sees himself as an example for his children to guide them into adulthood and hopefully be a productive part of society. There is nothing wrong with Alejandro not wanting to become extinct and that is all he has voiced. Yet you attack him, degrade him and indicate your somehow a better parent. Why because you are a liberal lesbian woman, I hardly think that qualifies you to be a better wife than any other on this planet. In all adolescent psychology writings male role models, father figures are listed as important elements of a little boys life, yet you wish to change it. You somehow think your spouse is an adequate role model for your child. Who is it that is trying to change what Melissa? I think the changer is in your mirror. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Melissa,
You say you don't want to force change, but in reality you are doing exactly that; by eliminating the male role model from your childrens lives. Have you ever heard the term "Daddy's Little Girl". Every father is proud as punch to have a healthy son or daughter and most take their responsibility to that child seriously. There are a few who don't but I would imagine there are some in gay relationships who also are lacking in that department. You are a population of choice in the first place so if child rearing doesn't enter into it then it doesn't enter into it. You can't pick up a wand and make it happen anymore than a heterosexual person can. So who suffers in that scenario, the child that is who. You write your legal forum for parenting based on your own experiences not those of the gay community. Take a census and see where more children reside with gays or straight people and you will see what I mean. The broad brush with which you paint is not appropriate for all gay/lesbian relationships, they don't all include children. "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:37 PM:

" I really do not want to go at it over the politics of all this...I think blogs are great as we can share our thoughts and beliefs etc....but when it becomes target practice I think grown men and women turn to children and do the pointing game my kids used to play...you know...a problem comes up and the kids start blaming eachother for it...Christians have their beliefs...that gay people are wrong and will ruin our moral fiber...somehow attack our homes and children,,and on it goes...they bridge it with the fact that being homosexual "used" to be a mental illness...all the time homosexuals have worked in and around people for decades "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:51 PM:

" cont...your favorite teacher..your coach...they could have been your aunt...and wow as we learn as people come out of the closet more and more Hollywood stars..or maybe your mom or dad led a secret life that may or may have not ended the marriage...and if it did that is one more way of saying homosexuality corrupts our marriage's...but it was that the gay or lesbian who married to "live like they are supposed to" that ruined the marriage...soooo..here we are and people who are no longer labled mental cases but still sinful and a poisin in the viens of America!!!... "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:25 PM:

" ...people throw out things like they cant pro create..well I have read about many many people who use a sperm bank and that is okay so why is it wrong for homosexuals???...which leads to (they will teach their childre to be gay)...well I assure you my parents are far from being homosexual..I lived that life for a while but have been celebate for many years...my kids??..one is a lesbian...did I teach her???she got the same talk the other got...and please the schools and health department do not teach our children to wait.(for straight or homosexual)..not if they come home from school with pockets of condoms and other methods for birth control.sex before marriage is a sin as well do you guys jump on that one too??....and as my daughter said that was no where close to the younger grades....I am sorry if I am jumping here..I have a lot to share after listening to my daughter read the blog every day and I have brain damage...so I jump when I have things to say that really need to be in order to make more sense of it all.. but oh well..I guess my point is this... "

cynic wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Sorry Melissa - however scientific or donated they may be - those eggs and that sperm came from the opposite sex - until cloning is perfected in humans, you still need the other team. "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:42 PM:

" we all have civil rights....if you are against this because of your church beliefs your are out of order....there is a separation between church and state...if you think they have some type of powers to ruin our country...please...when I lived with the woman I was with...all five of our kids went to school...we as a couple sang in the K-1st classes...we did other things for their school...they were all in Karate....we had two vacations a year camping on spring vacation and every other year on Christmas vacation we went to visit Mickey Mouse and friends...the kids loved it down there for Christmas....they had wonderful birthday parties....Showbiz Pizza,McDonalds...Rollerskating Parties...they had lot's of friends we had friends homosexual and straight...our families....they had hard times as well...I wont sit here and act like it was all peaches and creme....there are bad families gay or straight period....I feel if it is a church thing...sin is sin...there is no reason to act like one sin is worse...the thing about some sin it's not out in the lights....everyone of you whoever you are have glaring sins that only you and God know about... "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:47 PM:

" we all have civil rights....if you are against this because of your church beliefs your are out of order....there is a separation between church and state...if you think they have some type of powers to ruin our country...please...when I lived with the woman I was with...all five of our kids went to school...we as a couple sang in the K-1st classes...we did other things for their school...they were all in Karate....we had two vacations a year camping on spring vacation and every other year on Christmas vacation we went to visit Mickey Mouse and friends...the kids loved it down there for Christmas....they had wonderful birthday parties....Showbiz Pizza,McDonalds...Rollerskating Parties...they had lot's of friends we had friends homosexual and straight...our families....they had hard times as well...I wont sit here and act like it was all peaches and creme..there are bad families gay or straight period..I feel if it is a church thing...sin is sin...there is no reason to act like one sin is worse...the thing about some sin it's not out in the lights....everyone of you whoever you are have glaring sins that only you and God know about..judge not least ye be judged..the biggest point is..your salvation is between you and.God "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:07 PM:

" I am really typing a large blog and I am not sure how it is working as some times it clears some it does not...so please if these go through them I will know the politically correct way to blog here..I am trying here..the majority of people always try and mold the rest..the rights have been there but people still try to repress others..race,liberals,..even the people who are voting yes are put down by the ones who say no to prop8...those who will vote yes for the most part have has their head in the sand on what homosexuality for so long they are finding it hard to get the sand out of their ears to hear their side.it just seems like somebody always has to be picked out so they can make their big statements and push some group down...did you all wear white robes and hoods in years past??.it's always someone...at any rate...will my sin in dark that nobody see's make me a worse person in the eye's of God than the so called "sin" in the light of homosexuals??and remembers the things you gripe about them you really do not know either...you have no studies.or facts "

mom4mine wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:29 PM:

" I believe I have made my point...being a mom of 3 and grandma to 5 I do have to say in closing..those 8 lives I love...my youngest is a wonderful woman..I am proud of her..my son is a awesome man...takes care of his family as does my son in law....they are both married...wonderful with the grandkids...work hard...and then my other daughter....her and her partner are great with the kids..work hard..they took me in as I have been diagnosed terminal....my daughter does what she needs and her partner does the same....do I agree????..I agree my children have made their choices...and as born in America that gives them rights...my children in straight marriges have caused me some worry that rivals their older sister but sexuality is never an issue..why???..it is NONE of my business...I wish them all happiness..I pray they continue to grow and change as staying the same causes things to rot and die..as I said a persons salvation is between them and God...not people who spend their time spitting hate about people who are different..we should be different but we do not or should not go about changing others lives...I vote No my child deserves the same rights "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Dearest B.,

My "liberal" Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of California doesn't belong to me. It belongs to all of us, as we all vote to retain appointed judges during general elections. So, if you are unhappy with the Supreme Court's decisions, you only have yourself to blame for either voting for the current judges, or for not rallying enough support to prevent them from being retained. Maybe next time, you will choose more wisely whenever a judge is appointed by the governor.

As far as lawsuits are concerned, I personally have never filed one. But, by the tone of your comment, it is apparent that you don't like people such as Oliver Brown, a black man, who filed a "phony" lawsuit so that his children could attend school as equal citizens of this country. And you must despise people like Mildred and Richard Loving, a black woman and a white man, who filed another "phony" lawsuit so that they could get married, even though racist bigots did not want them to.

No, it is not the people like me that you dislike. It's the idea of equality, liberty, and justice for all that you abhor. "

Dandre wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:57 AM:

" Marriage in CA has been available to gays for a while now and I have not heard one thing that has been affected by it to justify taking the right away again.
Other than the perverse rantings of the 'closet' conservatives that took the opportunity to express their attraction to everything from their pets to their toasters, most people couldn't tell the difference.
And those of you who think you can be coersed into the 'gay', YOU probably are....no wonder you guys can't seem to get the marriage 'thing' right.
PROTECT MARRIAGE - make 'adultery' a CAPITAL CRIME and make DIVORCE (the enemy of marriage) ILLEGAL! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Hey Alejandro do you think Scott Tucker is registered to vote in Mass. and Connecticut too?
Wouldn't surprise me, he has all the answers to the World's Problems, he just can't get them out of the jumble puzzle.

B - I couldn't have said it any better myself. The teacher forgets that the majority of his paycheck comes from the straight population. Another case of the dogmatic mad dog biting the hand that feeds it.

lawdog - yes you are right many of us made a mistake in the last election of Kings Co. Sheriff, bet this history doesn't repeat itself.

Melissa - I guess I should apologize upon the behalf of the straight population that you feel so infringed upon and mistreated because we won't burn all our bibles and repent at your feet. But the Bible states "you shouldn't worship false idols". "You shouldn't covet another man's wife" is mentioned there also, I believe. But happy hunting and good luck on changing the world, In my education it was Dick and Jane not Dick and Dick or Jane and Jane. Perhaps progress isn't always a progression? "

moved away wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:02 PM:

" I might no longer live in CA, but if I did, I would vote YES on this proposition.

I have a question....if we are going to pass a law giving the right to same sex marriages, thereby disrepecting the hetero marriages, then why even have marriage at all? If the gay and lesbians are allowed by the state to register as life partners, then why is marriage such a big deal? Let them live together as registered partners.

I think I am just too old to understand all this "alternative lifestyle" tripe. That which was good enough for my grandparents is certainly good enough for me. I am in no way homophobic, but I am so bloody sick of having gay and lesbian lifestyles blaring at me from every possible source. .

Guess I have stirred the pot enuff here, and have gotten that out of my system, I will watching for the results of this propostion on election day, Those who respect marriage, rely on the Bible for their day to day living, those people will vote a resounding YES. Those who vote NO, will have to answer for that one day. "

Inside the Fire wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:30 PM:

" Dear Melissa, please do not cry discrimination. No one is discriminating against you. For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a women. You do not have to sit in the back of the bus, or drink out a separate water fountian. That is discrimination. Preventing you from getting married to someone of the say sex is not. It is a right you have never had nor or you entitled to.

Also supporters of Prop 8 are not in a panic. A new San Francisco CBS pole has the Prop gaining and show it up 47% to 41%. "

Inside the Fire wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:34 PM:

" Dear Melissa, please do not cry discrimination. No one is discriminating against you. For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a women. You do not have to sit in the back of the bus, or drink out a separate water fountian. That is discrimination. Preventing you from getting married to someone of the same sex is not. It is a right you have never had nor are you entitled to.

Also supporters of Prop 8 are not in a panic. A new San Francisco CBS pole has the Prop gaining and show it up 47% to 41%. "

Mrs.D wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:08 PM:

" If you really want to protect marriage, make it law that no married heterosexual couple cannot have their problems fixed by going on the Jerry Springer Show. That ought to toughen things! "

NoonEight wrote on Oct 13, 2008 7:49 AM:

" I love all this quoting of 61 % and 4 million votes numbers that has been happening since the Supreme Court ruled. Less people forget when Prop 22 was passed, it was June 2000....right after the 2000 presidential primary. As this year showed, voter turnout is extremely low after the primary and not a good representation of the will of the people. The poll numbers already show that the majority of Californians do not support Prop 8. When this loses, what will Prop 8 supporters have to say then? With all the bigger issues at stake facing our country, this proposition is just a waste of time. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Melissa,
There is a significant difference between wanting to be part of something and dictating a re-write of the entire subject matter. Furthermore, as you readily point out there are gays/lesbisans in all professions but not siginificant numbers to make you happy. That is where the lost jobs will come from, you will want your way of life talked about from the standpoint of a gay/lesbian the only one according to you who will sufficiently explain the new way of life. I've stated before a man Alehandro questions your way of life and immediately his name beomes the worst word in the English Language. Now how biased is a statement like that one, because he prefers to maintain his position as his childrens father and thinks a positive straight image is the correct one for his children you take offense to it. What, he doesn't have the same right as you to determine his way is the correct way for his own family? He doesn't cowtow to your way of life so he must be evil somehow? I think it is you, who has the scenario backwards, upside down and doesn't understand it. "

lvilla wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Then I guess the only people that should be allowed to vote on this are legally married couples...not "in a relationship" or "common law", but married in the state of California. Ridiculous..I am in an interracial marriage and realize that there is no difference; people who want Prop 8 to pass, are the same people that would like to see couples "marry in their own race." It's all prejudice...no matter how you slice it. "

ronbeg wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:16 PM:

" This discussion seems to be about tolerance more than the bill, which is not the reason for this discussion. My point of view is that, in my belief, a man and woman can be married and that is all. This does not refer how I feel about gay or lesbians and shouldn’t be misunderstood by anyone as I am very tolerant. This doesn’t mean I am not tolerant or that I am predacious, it just simply means in my belief in the bible and that only a man and a woman can be married. Our nation has been independent and our constitution has been formed on values along with religion and The Pledge of Allegiance state one nation, under god. With that said, we are a nation built on religion and we should respect others differences, however, that doesn’t not mean we needed to change the laws for same sex marriages. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Hey Watchdog,

I don't know for sure, but I wonder if there is a chapter of ACORN in Switzerland?

Sign up those expatriates dissatisfied with America to vote and all . . . Johnny Depp is still in France so that end is covered . . . "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Fred,

Sorry to disappoint, but I am only registered to vote in Kings County, California. You guys must fantasize about me all day long. I love the nutty stuff you come up with sometimes. It is clearly not based in reality, but I do have to admit that it is at least creative.

Instead of wasting all that creativity to promote inequality and hatred, you should try to be creatively progressive by voting NO on Prop. 8. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:12 PM:

" And may I remind us here that ALL 4 Pres./V.P. candidates are AGAINST homosexual marriage?

The Democrats got this one right.

Wadayouthinkaboutthat? "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Dear ronbeg,

What exactly would you prey on if you did happen to be predacious? Rabbit? Deer? Muskrat? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

By the way, don't you know that the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words "under God"? They were added sometime in the 1950s. So much for that flimsy argument. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Hey Alihandero,

You will let me know if you ever find out, won'tchya? Thanks.

I will even be kind enough to offer you some information in return. I will let you know when my ballot arrives, when I cast my vote, and when I send it off in the mail to be counted in Kings County along with your vote. I am sure that will make your day, since that is all you guys have been thinking about for the past few months.

Those pesky American cititzens living abroad! How we love to hate them. "

Deb wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Alihandro - your veep pick got it right though, this must be left in each state's hands.

Oh and for those who might read and believe - the Pledge of allegiance did not have "under God" in it until 1954

And the country was based mostly of freedom of religion. It was also believed at that time by the forefathers that people could "not be religious" and still have value. "

NoonEight wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:04 PM:

" They may be against gay marriage but they are also against Prop 8...Mr Obama stated that as soon as Prop 8 was put on the ballot. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Watchdog Fred
Let me clarify something before you run away with it to paint a picture of me that is untrue.

"Now all students in that class know the unacceptable words by heart, "-Watchdog Fred

"Words that many family members have agreed never would have been spoken in their own homes. Is that really education? How would you feel if it were your child that was exposed to those words?" -Watchdog Fred

My response to you I said and I quote
" Watchdog Fred I guess its been awhile since you have been in sex ed but that is the language in which they taught us in JUNIOR HIGH. Really there is nothing any worse in my language than Alihandero."

So let me clarify for you, that means my response to Alihandero's questions included language no worse the that of the language Alihandero used. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Watchdog Fred

Now I have never put down a Christian, my entire family is of that faith and they love me for me. Not all Christians use thier faith to judge others. Many Christians know that is not thier place. There are radicals in religion. The ones who are preaching false and misleading messages to the public are the ones I speak out against. They know they are misrepresenting the facts yet the will do anything to have thier way pushed on all citzens regardless of freedom of religion.

Obviously I do respect the union of marriage, that is why I do not want to be told I am not good enough for it because I love another woman. There is no reason why we should not be able to call it the same thing as you do, you are no better than I. It is not about jealousy, it is about rights, the fact that you have the right to marry who you love and I do not. That is what this is all about. No our rights are not enough, they will not be enough until we are no longer put in a seperate catagory. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:30 PM:

" To Scott Tucker,

Scott I have a very pretty wife if I want to fantasize, she will win out over you anytime!

You seem so involved in hometown politics, but no longer reside in hometown. I was allowed to vote overseas. But it was because I wore the uniform of the country. You are so anti-american yet your vote still counts, what a great country we live in. Yes when you are anti-presidential decisions during a time of war you are considered anti-american, in fact some people have been hanged, it is called treason. During WWII many of the comments you make could be considered of a treasonous nature, while in a foregin country.
One citizen of the country was questioned at length last week because she told a volunteer caller on the phone she would not on any terms vote for Obama. Shortly afterwards two agents from the Secret Service showed up on her doorstep and questioned her about supposed threats she had made. All lies made up by an Obama volunteer, do you think the supporter had the power to call out the SS, No but Obama does. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:43 PM:

" Watchdog Fred

I do not dress like a man, I am very feminine. My partner wears what makes her comfortable, Jeans and a teeshirl are not just for men last I checked. This again is where the uneducation comes in. Women who want to be men are transgendered. Lesbians are women who are attracted to women. They do not want to be anything other than a woman. We are happy with the gender we were born, we are just attracted to the same. Both transgenders and gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as anyone else. None of us are any less human than any of you.

You say I singled out Alihandero. He is the one that put a long list of questions out and I answered them. That was all I did, all those other things you are trying to imply are just speculation on your part because you seem to have a problem stereotyping those who do not believe the same as you. I do not tell anyone how they should live thier life, that is there life, they are responsible for themselves. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:46 PM:

" To Alihandro,

I get confused with your change in moniker sometimes. But no I don't believe they have a chapter of ACORN in Switzerland. The reason I believe they don't is nothing is being interrupted in Switzerland. No one is being threatened with a march on their personal residence to scare their family members, to sway votes. The intimidation level doesn't meet the criteria of a Chicago or a Boston where they are heavily entrenched.

ACORN is an interesting read for anyone willing to google it, the Obama ACORN not the glossy version in wekipedia's encyclopedia. Intimidation as a political movement should never be allowed in this country. It states in the article that this agency grew from the "1960's Welfare Reform" intimidators who brought us our current problems in our cities and counties. Through sit-ins protesting equality of Welfare. Did you ever realize there was such a program launched against our government no wonder it's in
shambles.

Obama is listed as one of the teachers of the correct manner in which to conduct ACORN business. The largest and most effective chapter exists in Chicago, Illinois. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Watchdog Fred

Alihandero's postion as husband and father is not in any kind of danger. My marriage is not going to have any effect on his life period. This is again another misleading statement made by those supporters of Prop 8 who want to scare the undecided. Right now there are alot of gay couples who got married this summer and nothing has changed. Except that right now we have the same rights as you.

You are right Alihandero and yourself and others like you do represent something I can not stand, you represent the close minded. The one thing I can not stand is someone who thinks they are better than others for one reason or another. That is the only thing he or you have that I can not stand. I have never suggested that I am a better parent than anyone, only that I teach my children about tolerance, and understanding take that as you will.

We are not a community of choice, we are born this way, and that is a fact. Your beliefs will not change science my friend. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:27 PM:

" Watchdog Fred

Correct me if I am wrong, but not all heterosexual couples can or want to have children either so what was your point in this statement:

The broad brush with which you paint is not appropriate for all gay/lesbian relationships, they don't all include children. "-Watchdog Fred

As long as children have parents who love them they will turn out fine. Heterosexual marriages are hardly an example of the perfect family as the 50% divorce rate shows. There are good and bad relationships in both communities. But to say that we will destroy marriage is just ridiculous. We did not contribute to that statistic. "

Deb wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:12 PM:

" Watchdog - while I realize your comments were directed to Alihandro, I thought I'd share this link with you and demostrate that even your favorite candidate, McCain has enjoyed ACORN

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/a_lifetime_ago_sen_john.php

I'd suggest that the right-wing efforts to demonize ACORN is pure political desperation. "

B. wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:52 PM:

" I heard some interesting news this evening on KMJ580 Inga Barks show...it seems a 1st grade teacher in SF took her class on a field trip. And where do you think she took them.....to her lesbian wedding to watch her be married to another lesbian. All done without parents approval. The parents didn`t find out until the kids got home. The parents are furious over this. I sincerely hope this so called teacher is fired and never allowed to teach again. Goes to prove how dirty & scandelous gays & lesbians are. With all the support against homosexual marriage it looks real good Prop 8 is going to pass.......Get out & vote on this people.....YES ON 8. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:57 AM:

" Fred,

I have no doubt that your wife will win out over me anytime when it comes to looks, but when it comes to voting rights and who is entitled to them, it is rather clear that I am and have been for some time now the object of your skewed fantasies.

Fred, when I voice my opinions, even critical ones, regarding the President of the United States, be it overseas or on US soil, it is not called treason, it is called a right. You see, we have this document in the United States called the Constitution. You should try reading it sometime.

"in fact some people have been hanged"

Do you feel that I should be hanged because of my critical opinions? Is this what you are saying here? That is pretty strong stuff, Fred. You always harp about putting country first, Americans first. You might try showing your fellow Americans a little respect by not calling for their hanging if you want us to start believing you. Again, I ask, who here is the true practitioner of anti-americanism? "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:33 AM:

" To Ivilla, I too am in an interracial marrige, first because nobody is the the exact same race as me, good old Heinz 57, and my wife is a different race, makes my kids at least Heinz58, and I am positively 100% for Prop 8. I am sort of like Archie Bunker, I do not discriminate, as I hate all people. Not a true statement, but I share my emotions to all, regardless of reace, creed, gender, etc. We who are for Prop 8 are not discriminating against anyone, everyone has the right to marriage as presently defined. Now others are trying to cry discremanation while changing the definition? Who exactly is discremanating? And I am sure that your "interracial" marriage is between a man and a woman. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Melissa,
I found evidence of what you said would never happen it appeared in WorldNetDaily. Posted on October 11, 2008, not only were children from a Public School bused to a same sex marriage of their teacher but missed the opportunity to learn something in school that would have been part of the normal curriculum in the process.

Instead six year olds were used to support the No on 8 campaign including buttons pinned to their shirts saying so. Instead of participating in vital lessons at school they were on the streets of San Francisco distributing rose pedals on the steps for their teachers same sex marriage. I wonder do you think a heterosexual couple could take their class to their wedding with the blessings of the parents and the school? This happened with students from Creative Arts Charter School and is well publicized with but who else officiating but Mayor Gavin Newsom.

"As WND reported, supporters of California's Proposition 8 have claimed that combining legalized same-sex marriage with the state's mandate that schools "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships" would result in kindergartener's being taught the virtues of homosexual marriage. Continued "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Melissa,
Continued from above blog - "Opponents have called such arguments fabrications and scare tactics."

"Yesterday's field trip wasn't quite kindergartner's, but it was close".

So much for your comments about this being everyone's imagination and sex-education not being taught to first or second graders. That is all this is, an exercise in sex education, isn't it?

Public School, Public Funds, San Francisco liberals, yep it all makes sense to me. Who will be the next teacher to provide a day goofing off from school to attend a same sex marriage? I wonder how many heterosexual marriages will be considered "educational field trips". After all shouldn't heterosexuals get equal time. Pretty soon that's all schools will be teaching "field trip weddings" and we'll wonder why students can't add or spell, can't find jobs, oh I guess they could all become "same sex wedding planners".

So much for 1st and 2nd graders not being pulled into the same sex marriage thing. Not only pulled in but adorned in buttons supporting the No vote on Prop 8. Those parents, teachers and Mayor of SF should be ashamed. Using children! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:39 AM:

" To Scott Tucker you give yourself way too much credit and accountability. If you think all I do is sit and think about you and your ability to vote. In fact I can't wait to meet you in 2009 so we can sit down and look each other in the eye and have an intelligent conversation, without all the banter and sword clanging. Consider it on!

You don't think that treason can take place in today's society Scott, then you are far more naive than I ever thought you were. The constant anti-american tone is coming from you and the other liberals here, not from me. I believe in this country and I support our CIC in fighting terrorism, wherever we find it. Be that Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever it raises it's ugly head. You see unlike you and I terrorist aren't focused with their attacks, they kill women and children because they consider them legitimate targets in their war. We don't do that, when we do that it is a mistake, a misplaced bomb and we apologize for it. But we should never apologize for is being right. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:49 AM:

" To Scott Tucker we choose to disagree upon the war and many political issues. I do not have a dislike for you personally, like a child I may not approve of your behavior but I don't dislike you. I just think you sometimes forget to turn the brain on and just spew venom from a liberal point of view. I think you don't stop to think of what people who don't know you love america; truly feel about america. Your Swiss friends for example, do they understand that when you put down Bush and all other resemblances of Repbulicans that you don't also put down america itself? When an American is abroad and speaks poorly of his country in a forum then many take that as a disapproval of the entire country. We were cautioned on this in the military, what you say, what you do, what you represent; also does represent your country. These aren't just words they are truths that should be taken to heart. After awhile and with long disertations about the evil americans, "foreigners" tend to believe you are a radcial discident, open to God knows what. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:06 AM:

" To B;, I also heard of this report but the parents were made aware of it, they sent notes home for the parents to sign and return. All but two of the notes were signed and returned those two students remained at the school and attended another 1st grade class for the day.
What child wants to be the one who doesn't attend their teachers wedding. Like our parents many of us seek favor of the teacher when in school. This is undue pressure placed on a 1st grader to be dealing with, Melissa herself said "a child should remain a child as long as they can" without having to deal with adult decisions.
In the town of liberal San Francisco, I am surprised two parents stood by their morals and demonstrated character by choosing curriculum over "field trip" in the best interest of their children. Isn't that what education is truly suppose to be about, teaching the three r's and one of those r's is not reality, at that age. When our children don't show up for school we get a call from the attendance office. The state excepts this as education? "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:08 PM:

" "I believe in this country and I support our CIC in fighting terrorism, wherever we find it. Be that Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever it raises it's ugly head."

Fred, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment above. Terrorism must not be tolerated, ever!However, we should not compromise our principles and integrity in the process and our government should not expect us to do the same. That is where you and I differ on the subject. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Fred, Have you ever stopped to consider my position? I mean really consider it? I am an American citizen living abroad. Unlike you during your days of international travel, I don't have the luxury of being surrounded by fellow citizens and I don't have the added comfort of knowing that should something go awry, I can rely on my brothers-in-arms and their guns to protect me (and please don't misinterperet this as some jab at the military).
Of course I am conscious of how people may perceive me, my words, and my actions. I choose my words very carefully when discussing the United States with non-US citizens, because at the end of the day, I represent the United States. As an American, I have to defend the actions of my country, no matter how ill-conceived and stupid they may be. I have to convince people that, while our governement is illegally invading another country, we really aren't bad guys. So please, until you have really lived in my shoes, please stop your "you're-a-traitor-to-the-country" spiel. Your words insult my intellegence, as well as the intellegence of my Swiss friends, who you assume can't tell the difference between constructive criticism and treason. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 14, 2008 1:54 PM:

" And I insult my own "intellegence" by incorrectly spelling the word intelligence! Twice! :-) "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 14, 2008 1:55 PM:

" To Scott Tucker, how exactly is the war in Iraq illegal? If it were, then why isn't the United Nations calling us out on it? We had UN resolutions, that even Switzerland probably voted for, that gave permission based upon Saddam's failure to comply. I do think that Bush used the wrong reason for going in, that is the WMD questions, whereas he should have simply stated Saddam's failure to comply with the resolutions and his past actions were cause for his removal. I believe the war is just, and I also knew it was going to be another Grenada and only last a week. I too have been overseas, both as military (Vietnam Conflict), and as a civilian. I have had to face more rebellion than you have to fear in Switzerland. I was in Iran during Carter's failed deplomacy, and have looked down the business end of a loaded rifle. Some my students unfortunately most likely fared worse than I. I was not a school teacher like you, but rather worked within the confines of the military. "

Angie wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:37 PM:

" BIG THUMBS UP for all the people who stood with signs stating YES ON 8 on Lacey Blvd. on Sunday! Way to Go!
Marraige should not be compromised! "

chuck21 wrote on Oct 14, 2008 4:11 PM:

" So if Prop 8. does not pass, can I go marry my dog? Would I be partner A and she be Parter B? Frankly I don't think schools should be teaching anything other than reading, writting, and arithmetic. Maybe if more parents actually taught their kids anything and pay more attention to what schools are doing they would not have to worry about anything. As the religious aspect goes, christians or any other faith should be able to operate the same and deny employment of gays in various non-profit faith based organizations, and deny gays from being able to take head roles in churches. In various non-profit faith based organizations. I know how this works, when this proposition gets shot down gays will be able to marry, whatever, but it won't stop their. They will eventually want more like being able to become ministers of churches regardless of the churches beliefs. Anti-Gays and Pro-Gays will keep trying to cram their beliefs down each others throats as with anything else. This is just how it starts. "

FarAway wrote on Oct 14, 2008 7:48 PM:

" VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!! Homosexuality is WRONG people! Read your Bibles! Everyone keeps asking "Why is the world just getting worse and worse?" Well, here is your answer, we keep wanting to seperate our lives from God. "Your belief in God should be left behind closed doors, it has no place in our everyday lives", right? Well, this crappy world we are living in, is exactly what happens when we shut God out! The end is extremely near everyone, time to wake up and smell the coffee! Who do you live for God or yourself? Choose wisely! "

Melissa wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:15 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, you respond to me with an issue like children being taken to thier teachers wedding, and how that is using children and a wedding being sex ed? Weddings are about love. The sexual relationship is private. Then you turn around and respond to another Prop 8 supporter and say that these childrens parents gave them all permission? You and B. are perfect examples of twisting things to make a point. You tried to shut down my response by saying something I said would not happen happened. B. put that teacher down and acted like what she did was unthinkable. All she did was invite her class to her wedding with parents permission. Tell me something if the teacher had been straight and invited her class to her wedding would you have a problem with that? Would you be so upset about them missing school then? No. Lets be real here, I do think children should be children for as long as they can but there is nothing wrong with teaching your children about love in all forms.

B. There are as many straight people who are scandalous and dirty, I have met many. Your prejudice shows. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:12 PM:

" MELISSA, Please forgive me if I don't bow down and kiss your feet, o.k. First off what are the chances in San Francisco of all places that a heterosexual would be allowed to dirupt their class for a day to attend their wedding. (While we are on the subject I usually don't correct spelling but thier is spelt their.)
Further, this is an example of 1st grade students being removed and taken away from their assigned curriculum to attend a same sex marriage to learn what exactly? How people of all sexes can love each other, then are we going to take a day for hetero's and a day for mixed marriages a day for the guy who wants to marry his chicken. Do you begin to get my point, or am I going too fast for ya? Lessons you speak of belong in the home and taught there on weekends not interrupting valuable school time to mislead students, what do you want to go to school or go on a field trip? Any Kindergartener could get that one right? Come on it's a misuse of funds, time and people, admit it. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:22 PM:

" MELISSA, If I wanted to take your child out of school and take them in the 1st grade to a firing range at a military base and show them how to fire a .45 caliber pistol on a firing range would that upset you? I mean after all he or she will have to learn how to fire a weapon if they go in the military. But then how many students actually go in the military out of school?

Guess we should indoctrinate all of them just in case they are wanting to try a career in the armed forces. Are we introducing same sex marriage just in case our kids want to be married to a same sex partner? Does that somehow make the same sex marriage more glorified and sanctified in your eyes. Perhaps we should teach homosexuality 101 in the 3rd grade, what do you think? That is what I meant before about where does it all end?Do we have classes on interracial marriage, heterosexual marriage, or do we just jump to showing them how to load the bottle to stop where they want it to? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:29 PM:

" To Scott Tucker, I am sorry you've never shared the fullfillment of sleeping with 60 or 80 other guys in the same barracks. Never having a privqte moment for a private thought because of all the jibber jabber that takes place. Trying to write a letter home, handwash your uniforms, brush your teeth, take a shower while be interrupted by other guys passing gas in your face as they walk by and all the other lovely buddy things you do in the military. But with all that considered you are right about one thing, they always had your back and you always had theirs. They may hate your guts on liberty but they had your back in harms way. Because that is what the military does.
I'm sorry you don't feel that association but I would imagine a smart fella like you could get a job at a military base somewhere in the region and be close to your family. Dependants need to be taught all over the world. Some might even consider that a way of giving back to the one's who put their tails in harms way for us. Thoughtful! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:37 PM:

" To Scott Tucker, no many of the comments you have made are derogatory to the point of disgracing the leadership of this nation. That to me is treason, Patton use to say; "Think it but don't say it till your back on American Soil". Even though he had ill thoughts of the President, he didn't let anyone in Europe know it, many didn't know there was a problem until he came home. Truman's problem was with Patton and Bradley cause he felt they wanted to be President when he completely overlooked Dwight David Eisenhauer, who became President.
He also couldn't see the forest for the trees. Many great military minds thought Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima to prevent Brandley from becoming a larger hero than he was.
It's not always what you say that makes an important statement but what you don't say. You seldom brag on America in a blog, you seldom give credit where credit is due. I'll give you an example, when McCain stopped his campaign to return to Washington did you say anything respectful in that regard. I believe the popular comment by most liberals "avoid the debate". "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Melissa and anyone else concerned please go to the following: http://tinyurl.com/4199ec to read the entire article on the 1st grade class.

I still say a heterosexual marriage would not have been authorized to do this and I challenge anyone to show me one that had taken all but two students out of a class day to attend a heterosexual marriage. I;ve certainly never heard of it happening. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:01 AM:

" Dear NotHomeGrown,

Thanks for your reply. I made no reference to the war in Iraq, but to answer your question, we attacked a country that was not a direct threat to our security and had nothing to do with the attacks which transpired on 9/11.

If you will remember, Switzerland only became a member of the United Nations in September of 2002, so any UN resolutions involving Iraq before this date could not have been voted on by the Swiss. Nor has Switzerland ever been a member of the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, they could not have voted on UN resolutions regarding the war in Iraq. So much for your argument. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:38 AM:

" Now regarding the rest of your comment:

I thank you for your military service. However, I was never trying to compare who was in greater danger while living or serving abroad. I think that is clear (US citizen in Switzerland are very safe, whereas US soldiers fighting in Vietnam were not). My point was simply this: you were a member of the US military who served abroad. You had no opinion (or, to put it dfferently, let's say that, as a soldier, your official avenues of expression were somewhat restricted), because as a soldier you had to follow the orders of the government. You were protected as a soldier and surrounded by a military culture that was familiar to you. You most likely spoke your mother-tongue, ate familiar foods (although I can imagine that military food wasn't always the best), and enjoyed the comforts of knowing that you are, at least in your role as a soldier in the company of your unit, not entirely an alien.

I, on the other hand, am an independent citizen of the US living in a foreign land. As a civilian, I can say whatever I want (Continued below) "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:40 AM:

" (Continued)

and express myself freely (and I thank people like you and Fred for securing that freedom for me). My daily language isn't my mother-tongue. The culture I live in isn't the culture that I grew up in. Now, don't misinterpret these statements as complaints. I have a good life in Switzerland and enjoy living here.

What I am trying to say is that your experiences and my experiences are completely different. You have no idea what my life is like here. You don't know who my friends are, you do not know how I conduct myself with regards to my and other's attitudes and criticisms towards the United States. Just because I openly express certain opinions in this forum doesn't mean that I'd openly express the same opinions with a group of Swiss people. So before you call me a traitor and go as far as to make reference to hangings like Fred has done, I politely suggest that you try to understand the context of my situation. You suggest that I am anti-American without knowing one iota about me, when in reality I am a firm supporter of the principles that the US stands for. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:34 AM:

" To Scot Tucker, obviously you did not read my entire post, as I stated that I too worked overseas as a civilian. I too had to live off of the local economy if far more remote and 3rd world countries than you and your Swiss chocolate. I recall purchasing a local brand of corn flakes in Egypt and figured later it probably would have been more flavorful to eat the cardboard box. I also recall buying meat from an outside stall in Kermanshah, Iran and survided not having any Television or other western entertainment. I also lived in Saudi Arabia where alchohol is banned, there are no movie theaters in the entire country and my wife couldn't drive and had to wear an abaya. If you are married, I am sure your wife has had to make too many adjustments between the American way and the Swiss way. continued "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:40 AM:

" To Scot Tucker, continued. That should have said "has not" in regards to too many differences.

I cannot comment on what some of the other posters have said, as I don't really know the intent, but I am not sure that they are actually calling you a traitor that needs to be hung, or that your actions in the past could be construed as actions of a traitor and therefore in the past could have been punished by hanging. I do not consider you a traitor, as I haven't seen you making video's with Osama, like Jane Fonda did with the North Vietnamnese, have you? But I do challenge you again on your use of "illegal war". The war was and is not illegal. And again as I stated in my previous post, I do disagree with Bush for the reason that he used (WMD), vice the legality of breaking UN Resolutions.
Thanks for informing me that Switzerland did not become a UN member until 2002, I truely did not know that. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:15 AM:

" To Scott Tucker and Not Home Grown, first off Scott, I didn't say you were a traitor I simply stated the circumstances of what happened in WWII. Some of your statements during that time period would have deffinately qualified you as a traitor. Any remark defaming the President of the United States and CIC would have cost you dearly.
But for you both, I disagree with your presumptions of Iraq and our reason for entering it. First off the madman leading that country killing civilians, beheading them, his two rapist sons and Chemical Alli, I believe all qualify as weapons of mass destruction. They collaberated to try and exterminate the Kurds in the north. They used chemical weapons against Iran and their own citizens. The death and destruction they caused couldn't have been caused by a single weapon of mass destruction. They needed to be removed from leadership, even the Iraqi's said so during their trials. I don't mean to repeat myself on this matter, but what description do you have of weapons of mass destruction that these crazed madmen didn't commit? Collectively they were worse than an H Bomb. "

jeff wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Scott and Melissa, what is the point of continuing this conversation? The arguments being put forth by Fred, NotHomeGrown, Alehandero [sp], and the rest are either complete falsehoods or unintelligent incoherent ramblings. It is quite obvious that they live in a world of fear. I doubt they represent any sort of majority in California. They don't understand their own Bible or the history of our country. People like this are a dying breed. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:23 AM:

" To Scott Tucker and Not Home Grown, further more, Sadam had plenty of time to get the weapons of mass destruction buried in the vast desert or to transfer them to a neighboring country to hide them from the coalition troops.
There were no terrorists in Iraq but they sure got their quickly after we did, now didn't they? They came from all over the region and none of them were based there were they? If you believe that I've got some swamp land for sale down in Florida, I'd love to sell ya.
Sadam poored money into every terrorist organization around the world and yet you say he had nothing to do with 9/11. How naive can you be, because there isn't a blood trail leading to Iraq you find him innocent. Yet it is proven Iraqi's met with the terrorist in European countries prior to 9/11. What were they doing passing along money and support or just wishing them well? Terrorist create terror that is what Sadam and his entire regime practiced to control Iraq, beheadings, firing squads, chemical weapons, they didn't care which method they used. Open your eyes Gentlemen. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:31 AM:

" To Scott Tucker regardless of who belonged to the U.N. Sadam very deffinately violated all the U.N. Regulations passed against him and his country. I believe that is the point that Not Home Grown was trying to make and Sadam was warned various times by President Bush to conform or suffer the consequences. Sadam chose to ignore the warnings and left Bush no alternative but to follow thru with the military threat. Why is this so difficult for you to see and understand? You act as though the discovered plot on the Senior Bush's life and other terrorist plans don't come in to play in the decision to enter into Iraq and defeat it's leader. If Iran doesn't listen they may suffer the same consequences for the same reason. The current President of Iran, thinks Isreal should be blown off the map and is a stinking mess that should be obliterated and you don't find those remarks threatening? You don't see the possibility when a nuclear plant is developing centrifuges to make nuclear weapons with, that an attack may be on the horizon? Welcome to the game board of life. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:42 AM:

" To Scott Tucker, this is so thrilling, Not Home Grown actually got you to go over the word limit. Congratulations Not Home Grown.

Blue if you are out there can you believe the history teacher doesn't understand the use and existance of the military threat. When someone calls our bluff Scott we must be willing to answer with shock and awe and win in a matter of days the original conflict, which by the way our wonderful military accomplished. It was the Secretary of Defense who didn't have his plan in effect as to what to do with the country once the battle was concluded. Perhaps our fine military caught him off guard by performing so well and so quickly. Did you not see the number of tanks and retreating forces during the news coverage in both wars with Iraq? At the end and fall of Bagdad we should of had constitutional law experts on site to aid in the drafting of a constitution and formation of a democratic government for Iraq. Civilians, with experience in constitutional law governmental functions. That's the help Iraq needed along with rebuilding forces. "

chuck21 wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Read this article about a gay priest.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaypriest13-2008oct13,0,2646781.story "

Angie wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:21 PM:

" I don't know if this was brought up already but did you guys hear about the man in Modesto who was attacked by a gay man while trying to put up signs supporting prop 8? What a way to show tolerance. If that were a gay/lesbian who was attacked there would have been a HUGE uproar! "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:56 PM:

" To WatchDog Fred, you and I agree 100% on the war, just not why we went into it. Unfortunately by using the WMD reason, Bush left himself vulnerable if they were not found, and by many people they were not found. But you are quite correct, what defines WMD, is it chemicals as you stated that Saddam used on both the Iranians and on his own people (the Kurds)? Again as I stated that I believe the war is just. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:11 PM:

" To jeff, you are right, I am apparently part of a dying breed, someone that will volunteer to protect someone like you from harm. I have never stated a single falsehood, unlike some others, and yes I am big enough to state that both sides have posted some untruths. And I believe that I do represent a larger majority than your minority, have you ever heard of the silent majority? We will see who is part of the majority and who is part of the minority after the election. I guess when you can't respond in a coherent positive reply to any of my questions, you want to take your ball and run inside? Provide one example where I have posted a false statement, otherwise you are guilty of slander. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:39 PM:

" Melissa don't listen to Jeff; Alejandro, myself and Not Home Grown have defeated his arguments so often with intelligent, articulate answers and have rebutted his statements to the point he'd rather give up and not comment. Even in my absence I watched as he was constantly shot down as if an untested and untrained pilot. Not grasping the true combat of a dog fight and not able to do battle with men who actually can think on their own and defend their platforms. You are one minute anti law enforcement then the next one of their own, I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways Jeff. Those of us who pick a side and present logical demonstrations as I did recently to Melissa on the Gay same sex marriage in San Francisco that brought 1st graders to the Political battle on Proposition 8. Adorning these children with No on 8 buttons, and pulling this publicity stunt to try and gain support for an ill fated soon to be defeated coalition attempt at ignoring the vote of 61% of the population. Nov. 4 is right around the corner. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:46 PM:

" Jeff, I received my voter ballot in the mail today. I will be completing it tomorrow with McCain and Palin at the top of the list. I will vote yes on Prop. 8 not because I wish to take another persons right away but because I want to preserve my own right to marriage being between a man and a woman.
I believe when you read the Bible you must hold in your hand a different version than most of us who worship. The words come out tangled and misconceived in the short distance from the page to your intellectual concept of what they say. Then you attempt to tell us we are the one's misquoting and misreading the written word. Jeff I got to hand it to ya, anybody buying what you are selling "proves Barnum and Bailey right" there is a sucker born every minute. You have your beliefs and we have ours the difference being we allow you to speak yours without a insulting response, until you lambaste those of us who differ with your sacred opinion, it is only sacred to you. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:32 AM:

" Watchdog Fred I was invited to one of my teachers weddings, I even went to the home of my 6th grade teacher after a mexican celebration in which i was invited to dance at instead of going to school. School is more than just reading writing and arithmitic. It is also grooming children for society. What is wrong with teaching children that heterosexual, interracial, same sex marriage is all forms of love.

What in the world does my child going to their teachers wedding have to do with my child being taught how to use a dangerous weapon?

Jeff is right, you spit falshoods, and I to believe you live in a world of fear. This country was founded on freedom of religion and we do have the right to persue happiness, that is a tough pill for a conservative to swallow. If you had it your way, anyone with different beliefs than you would be outcasted and sent to live in exile. Democracy is great.

I agree Jeff it is pointless to continue this conversation, it seems to come down to our words being twisted and of course facts being totally ignored. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Watchdog Fred I will give you this much, you do try to use information you know to be true. That is the problem with preception. One story always has at least two sides and while you are a supporter of Prop 8 you see the one side of the story of the teacher, and I will always see the other. There are many falsehoods that are being quoted in this very article in which you, Alihandero and NotHomeGrown defend. Maybe I should not say you spit falsehoods, I will correct myself, but you do defend them. I do believe however that the supporters of Prop 8 live in a world of fear. I think the preconcieved prejudice notions you all have that we are trying to take over the world and many other outrageous implications have you all running scared. These assuptions are just not true, nor is there any fact based support for your claims. Your belief of what marriage is in your eyes is not a right, that is your belief. Your belief is not what a law is based on, It is based on what is just and fair to all citizens. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Watchdog Fred I also want to point out that supporters of Prop 8 use thier children for publicity, they are also using their children to scare voters to vote for Prop 8. Have you not seen the commercials? It is only bad when the buttons the children are wearing say Vote No On Prop 8 right? I will let you in on a little secret, I do ALOT of research on the polls, and right now it is to close to call, to much room for error for anyone to say yes or no. Until recently when the supporters started spitting their lies on television we were in the lead, it is only a 5% difference and yes there is a silent majority, a silent majority that can go either way. I have faith in the people of California to see thru the smear campaign and do the right thing and Vote No Prop 8.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8. "

RobertD wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:38 AM:

" Melissa wrote: "This country was founded on freedom of religion and we do have the right to persue happiness, that is a tough pill for a conservative to swallow." The pill that is tough for liberals to swallow is the one labeled "limits on rights." Anyone who really knows the intent of the Founders or the documents that created this great nation would know that unchecked freedom leads to anarchy. We have freedom of speech but we can not slander. We have freedom of the press but we can not libel. One's right to happiness is not boundless. Are we a nation of laws or one of a multitude of personal whims of equal weight? "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Melissa, again I think you have missed the point that WatchDogFred was making, not so much the children attending the wedding, which to me no matter who was getting married, should not have been during school hours, but rather the fact that these intellectual elementary children knew what Prop 8 was and had determined that they were against it. NOT. Did your whole class leave school to attend the teachers wedding? I don't recall ever having any field trips like that, instead we went to a factory to see how snacks were made, or visited a local park to investigate the tidal pools. But how can you tell me that attending someones wedding is educational? You can attend those all of the time, perhaps an Aunt or Uncle, or perhaps an older sibling or even sometimes one of your own parents new marriage. And I never had to wear any buttons showing whether I did or did not support any proposition that it would be illegal for me to vote on. Do you know for fact all of those children were against Prop 8? "

jeff wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:48 PM:

" NHG, you have never stated a falsehood? Your very first sentence in your reply to me is a falsehood. You not only lie but disrespect every person who wears an American Armed Services uniform. I can’t respond in a coherent manner to any of your questions? I have done nothing but that. You and the rest of the bigots use the same tired arguments over and over. One of you makes a point, it gets completely blown out of the water and that person disappears. Another one of you shows up and repeats the process until you’ve hit the end of the wheel and you start all over with the same false arguments. I have asked you twice to explain to me how letting two consenting adults marry ruins marriage for you and you have never attempted to provide an answer.

Here is another falsehood for you “We who are for Prop 8 are not discriminating against anyone, everyone has the right to marriage as presently defined.”
Marriage is not defined between only a man and a woman which is your meaning, if this isn’t your meaning this sentence would put you in favor of gay marriage. "

jeff wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Fred,
You’ve basically done nothing but prove me right about you so hey thanks. You have no personal right for marriage to be between only a man and a woman. No one cares what your Bible says Fred, if you want to live in a country that doesn’t allow its citizen’s freedom of religion move to Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria or Iran. They hate gay people there just as much as you do and they run their government based on the word of God – the exact same God you worship. Where does Jesus speak against homosexuality? Oh right it’s only in the OT but wait don’t Christians believe the NT did away with the OT? Oh wait you still follow the Ten Commandments (Didn’t Jesus only talk about half of them and even make up a new one, something about defrauding people) but many of you will eat pork and shellfish. How do you pick and chose which parts to follow and which ones God messed up on? And didn’t the OT state something about it being easier for heaven and earth to pass then for one law to fail? You’re right a sucker is born every minute. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 16, 2008 3:54 PM:

" WOW:

" I was invited to one of my teachers weddings, I even went to the home of my 6th grade teacher after a mexican celebration in which i [sic] was invited to dance at instead of going to school. School is more than just reading writing and arithmitic. It is also grooming children for society. What is wrong with teaching children that heterosexual, interracial, same sex marriage [sic] is all forms of love."

- Does anyone else here think that this is more than just a little inappropriate?

"School is...grooming children..."

- GROOMING????
Don't sexual predators and child molesters do that?

"I even went to the home of my 6th grade teacher after a mexican celebration in which i [sic] was invited to dance at instead of going to school."

- INSTEAD of going to school? Cutting or skipping required school to do a hatdance at a teacher's house?

"What is wrong with teaching children that heterosexual, interracial, same sex marriage is [sic] all forms of love."

- What kind of "love" is this now, really?

This is way too creepy for me to continue. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:12 PM:

" Alihandero why do you take a wonderful experience where I got to participate in a cultural event and turn it into something ugly? Can I venture to say that it is because I am gay and everything I do has something wrong with it? Grooming, training, teaching mean all the same thing, I do not know what child molesters call it as I am not one. Your arguments are tired, not to mention insulting. You turn something perfectly normal into something sick and twisted or in your words "creepy". Notice how you had to use dots to connect words from my response? That is because as usual you are taking my words and twisting them. You do a lot of twisting. What is with the "[sic]" after any reference to myself or gay marriage? Is it you attacking me for my lifestyle? Love is love, it is a beautiful thing that is shared in many different ways and between many different people, children should be taught to be loving, and accepting, not judgemental and prejudice, children should not be taught that one group of people are better than another just because they are different than they are. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Alihandero cont...it seems to me you are the one who is [sic] as you seem to turn something educational like me participating in a cultural event and make it "creepy" I think it is creepy and [sic] you would bring child molesters and predators into a conversation at all. Those people have nothing to do with love or same sex marriage, they do not have anything to with marriage at all. Nor do they have anything to do with the topic of school field trips. You have no better argument so you turn my response into something it is not.

RobertD there are laws against discrimination. We deserve to be treated equally because we are citizens of this country. I hardly think same sex marriage is going to lead to anarchy.

NotHomeGrown I know what Watchdog Fred meant as he and I have been having this conversation for awhile now. Again do you think those children in those commercials supporting Prop 8 really know what they are doing? If your going to throw stones make sure your not in a glass house. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Melissa, I do not throw stones of items that I am not involved in. I was responding to your own post about the children attending the gay marriage. I have not seen any commercial with children wearing Vote Yes for Prop 8. But for once you and I will agree, because yes I too would be offended by such. First, as we both point out is, does the child even know or care what the button is about. Second they have no say in the matter as they are not authorized to vote.
Now I am not a grammar expert, but whenever you see [sic] whenever someone is quoting someone else's statement, I know that it means that there was something gramattically wrong with the original statement, it is not a reference to the word sick. Perhaps Alihandero can provide the exact reasons for the usage of [sic]. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:12 AM:

" Melissa you finally did it, thank you very much. You finally stated the belief I have is not a right anymore than the belief you have is not a right therefore those Justices were wrong in overturning the public's popular vote. If it is the feeling of the general public by popular vote that marriage is between a man and a woman it never should have come to question if it were right or not. It was put on a legitimate ballot voted upon and four questionable Justices overturned it.
If my right to believe a man and a woman is what constitutes a marriage and you say I don't have that right. Then your right to marry under your beliefs is a true falsehood, because as you have admitted you shouldn't have that right. No single persons rights should carry more weight than that of the collective body of it's citizens. Why have the voting process established by our forefathers in the founding of this great nation. If we are going to allow a few Justices who are not to rewrite law but follow the letter of it, to change it up? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Jeff, once again the venom does spirt from your pie hole. I just wish you would realize their are people in this world who read and understand the written word and who disagree with your interpretations of it. That is the great thing about religions even though it is written, it is really each man/woman's interpretation of what it says; is it not? You can get four preachers together preaching on the same subject and receive four different perceptions of what is being taught in their individual sermons, can you not? I don't think religion/belief in God should be utilized in this decision on Prop. 8, I know it should be, because that is my belief. You certainly are entitled to your own belief system, but isn't that what voting was designed. So individuals can use their own faith based/clinical background to make a decision on a ballot? If we all thought alike there would be no purpose for voting at all. Just because we are on the opposite side of the fence doesn't mean we shouldn't be neighbors. My uniform was U.S., I think I deserve to live here. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Alihandro my friend don't take offense, regardless of the justification you make for this argument you will be chastised and called prejudice because there is no defense left to discredit your words. If you'll notice many on here pull the prejudice card everytime they run out of a viable argument and point fingers and try to destroy your creditability because there's not an intillectual argument to be made. You are very thorough in presenting your case and leave very little wiggle room, therefore what is left but a personal attack on you and your thoughts. But keep in mind, your thoughts can only be owned by you and no one else is justified in exchanging their thoughts for your own. One of the few entitlements we all share and should be appreciative that we do. I for one think you bring a lot to the table here and enjoy reading what you have to say, anytime you care to take the time to share it with us. Remember, they haven't marched in your shoes or placed themselves in harms way. So they no not the sacrifices we've made to have these rights. "

RobertD wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:16 AM:

" Melissa--If gay couples were guaranteed a situation in whcih they had all the same protections and benefits of marriage but it was called a civil union or anyhting other than "marriage," would you be in favor of that? I would be. Just google "marriage" and it is undeniable that the roots of such a union IS religiously based and IS a union between a man and a woman. Unlike the religious zealots taht post here, I see no reaosn why such "equity" shouldn't exist; however, I also see no reaosn why the term "Marriage" could not be reserved for the traditional male-female partnership. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

" Melissa,

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my proper use of the English language, but I do not mean in any way, shape, or form to call you ‘sick' when I write "[sic]." I would never attribute that word to you or yours, not ever.

Here is what [sic] means:

"Sic" is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized—[sic]—to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error."

Source: Wilson, Kenneth G. (1993). "sic (adv.)", The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Columbia University Press. Quoted in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Sic#cite_note-cgsau-0

And you say this:

"Grooming, training, teaching mean all the same thing,..."

No, they really don't all mean the same thing. Not hardly.

I would let the readers here decide for themselves, yes? "

jeff wrote on Oct 17, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Fred, you said

“That is the great thing about religions even though it is written, it is really each man/woman's interpretation of what it says; is it not?”

No it’s not; it is supposed to be the infallible word of God. If that is the case there is no interpreting. The reason four preachers will give you four different answers is because religious scripture was written and by fallible men. If you’re allowed to interpret as you see fit you’re really just following your own ideas not God’s.

If you don’t think religion should play a part why do you bring it up? If you were my neighbor I’d move and I never said anything suggesting you don’t deserve to live here.

You said to Melissa,

“You finally stated the belief I have is not a right anymore than the belief you have is not a right therefore those Justices were wrong in overturning the public's popular vote.”

Wrong again, laws of this country must be constitutionally valid. It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks. Using your logic black people should still be slaves and women should be second class citizens. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Watchdog Fred those judges overturned Prop 22 because it was against our contitutional rights as citizens. There is the check and balance, Prop 22 was just as discriminatory as Prop 8. The reason Prop 8 was drafted was because a group of religious fanatics wanted to ammend the constitution so that our rights would no longer be protected under the law making it possible for Prop 22 to be upheld. The supporters of Prop 8 are using thier own personal beliefs to take constituitonal civil rights away from us. We are not using our beliefs to amend the constitution to take the civil rights of heterosexuals. We are not trying to take anything, we just want equality. It is not my belief I was born gay, that is a fact. I have seen many responses from supporters of Prop 8 who say this is a lifestyle of choice therefore we should not be able to change the law. First of all we are not changing any laws. We are fighting to keep our rights protected under the constitution. Second we do not choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:52 PM:

" Watchdog Fred cont..my statement was this

Your belief of what marriage is in your eyes is not a right, that is your belief. Your belief is not what a law is based on, It is based on what is just and fair to all citizens. "

Let me clarify my point, just because you believe something does not make it law. There is process. That process is what keeps people from getting carried away with imposing thier personal, or religious beliefs on the other citizens of this country. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:12 PM:

" Alihandero thank you for enlightening me, I was not aware of what that meant. You really do learn something new everyday

Jeff, Thank you for clearing up that definition for me. You were one step ahead of me good looking out. I really liked your response to the religous aspect, I could not have said it better myself.

RobertD I gave great thought to your question, and I appreciate your postion on equality. I have to tell you though that I would have a problem with it being called something else because I feel I should not be put in a separate catagory because of my sexual orientation. To me calling it something else is basically saying I can have the rights but you do not want me associated to you by the same term. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 18, 2008 1:20 AM:

" Jeff,
If you are trying to squeak it through under the right to pursue happiness, then that gives license (as Not Home Grown) has stated to "every Pedophile in the Continental United States." Before you even go there we certainly don't support that, but it could apply under your theory of the Pursuit of Happiness.

Then what, we can't charge Serial Killers for pursuing their pursuit of happiness, Rapist for theirs, Burglars for theirs, Terrorist for theirs the list goes on and on to infinity. With no laws effecting all criminal acts, is that what you support Jeff?

The Constitution like you said is not for mortal man to interpret therefore those Justices who are saddled with the responsibility of enforcing the laws as written are not empowered to rewrite or reverse those laws. It is an embelishment of their power and delegated authority as assigned by the people of the state of California and the behavior is illegal. Thus, the Justices decision should be overturned in the United States Supreme Court. When Prop 8 passes and it becomes part of the Constitution of the state of California it won't matter. "

Alan G wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Seriously Watchdog? Did you post that with a straight face? I'm a student of the rules of persuasion, but come on! "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:53 PM:

" Hey Alan G.,

You said this:

" I'm a student of the rules of persuasion..."

I did not know that a word like that has "rules" so I looked it up:

"PERSUASION

(noun) Communication intended to induce belief or action;
(noun) Opinion, sentiment, persuasion, view, thought (a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty) "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"..."

(Source: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=persuasion)

Isn't that just another description of ‘propaganda?'

So much for the media claiming they are indeed ‘fair and balanced.' "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:17 PM:

" To Alan G. Not only with a straight face but with two votes Yes on 8 from our home. We firmly believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and anything else should be justifiably called a civil union.

When children are used as they were in San Francisco while taken out of school for the day adorned with No on 8 buttons bused to their lesbian teachers wedding and paraded for the media to see, I have no other choice than to vote yes on 8 and I am sure I am not alone on these feelings. When children begin to become photo opporunities wearing political buttons, I think someone has overstepped their bounds of moral character, public fiber and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Thereby should be immediately terminated from any public position where they would come in contact with impressionable children. There is right and then there is right and when it comes to using innocent children for political gain The political process has gone too far in the wrong direction in my humble opinion.
Vote Yes on 8 and Mccain Palin "08" "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:31 PM:

" To Alan G. Just like this morning in an interview with Collin Powell who just endorced Obama for president. He made the statement "RACE' isn't the only reason for my endorsement." So I guess the media is correct RACE is playing a part in the election. I had a lot of respect for Collin Powell, the man who sat before the United Nations and told the boldest lies going in to Iraq, until he did that and didn't accept any of the blame. Then his comments today, regarding race as part of his decision to back Borack Obama.
Wasn't it Collin Powell who sat before the U.N. and produced picture after picture of suspected sights were weapons of mass destruction were suspected to be in Iraq? Then didn't step forward one time after the entrance to Iraq and say; "Whoops I must have been wrong," in fact he blamed it on misinformation, well who's information was it? Wasn't that information gathered on his watch? "

Deb wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:00 PM:

" Watchdog: You typed: "RACE' isn't the only reason for my endorsement."

I listened to meet the press today and did not hear that statement, so I decided, well, maybe I heard wrong and Watchdog is right. But, I just went through the transcript and nowhere was there such a statement.

When Brokaw indicated that it would be said - (the race issue) much like you said it, he said: "If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago."

That's a bit different, but I'm certain you'll disagree. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:57 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, what about those children on statewide ads saying they learned about same sex marriage in school? Not only are they using those children for politcal gain, but they are having those children speak falsehoods on statewide television! But I guess it is ok since it is on the Yes side of Prop 8 right? Cause then your just teaching your children right? If that is not hipocracy then I do not know what is! "

jeff wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Fred,

Wrong again, pedophiles want to have sex with minors, people in our country who cannot legally consent to the action. Therefore it’s the same as stealing, taking something away from someone without their consent to do so. The same goes for people who think this will open the flood gates for people to marry appliances (The dumbest statement ever made). Personally I don’t care if people marry their toaster, by doing so they are insuring they will not procreate and that is good. We don’t need more people like that in our society. You all whine about plural marriage too, well far as I’m concerned it should be legal. If three consenting adults want to be married I could care less. Your serial killer analogy is false and in no way applies. All of the actions you mention infringe on another’s rights. Two gay people getting married infringes on no one’s rights. It takes nothing away from anyone. If your marriage is so flimsy that two gay people calling their union marriage ruins your own then you didn’t have much of a marriage to begin with. "

WalleyV wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:19 AM:

" A no vote on prop. 8 does not mean that I condone homosexuality; it means my faith is strong enough that I do not need to judge others to prove I am worthy of God's love. Judgment is God's job; ours job is to follow his will, not to to punish those who do not. God's love is universal and all powerful; it cannot be weakened by the "state" giving or taking rights or privileges. I'm troubled by devoted Christians who think California or the USA for that matter should be man's "model" of God's Just Kingdom. What prideful people we are to assume politics is the path to pleasing God. "

Alan G wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:16 PM:

" WDF - I should have said persuasion techniques. What I was suggesting is that your attempt to somehow compare pedophiles and serial killers and their pursuit of happiness (even though you "certainly don't support that") with those who pursue happiness in a gay marriage would have made even the most prolific WWII-era propagandist blush.

Let's create a new argument based on your techniques...

"If we make special accomodations for handicapped people, like ramps, curbs and braille, then we'll have to start making special accomodations for rapists, pedophiles and serial killers because they are most certainly mentally handicapped too. Before you even go there we certainly don't support that, but it could apply under your theory that accomodations must be made for all handicapped people."

I know, it's an unwarranted extrapolation. "

jeff wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Alihandero [sp], I posted this last week but the Sentinel missed it somehow. Unless you're the only one allowed to define words on here now.

GROOMING:
Noun
• S: (n) training, preparation, grooming (activity leading to skilled behavior)
• S: (n) dressing, grooming (the activity of getting dressed; putting on clothes)
Verb
• S: (v) prepare, groom, train (educate for a future role or function) "He is grooming his son to become his successor"; "The prince was prepared to become King one day"; "They trained him to be a warrior"
• S: (v) dress, groom, curry (give a neat appearance to) "groom the dogs"; "dress the horses"
• S: (v) groom, neaten (care for one's external appearance) "He is always well-groomed" "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Jeff, you say that gay marriage effects no other man/woman differently just because they call it marriage. Wrong again obeewan, the first thing that happened is Bride and Groom were done away with on the marriage license. If it is the same marriage why can't bride and groom stay part of it. Why did it get replaced with party A and Party B sounds like we are assembling some kids toy instead of joining two people who love each other in a holy matrimony. Oh that is right in the eye of many churces, preachers, and those of faith this joining can't be considered holy, now can it. Once again this can't mean the mere fact gay's are joined in marriage changed anything. Oh and in this case who carries who across the threshhold another tradition gone by the wayside due to confusion over who is who. No your right Jeff this change of a 200+ history between man and woman hasn't been effected in the least. Was it done with our consent? No we voiced our opinion IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2000, in a 61% marjority vote. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:23 PM:

" Jeff, that is the other baffling segment to your argument. You state religion has nothing to do with it but the year of every important document since the signing of the Declaration of Independance has been said to have been signed IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD! followed by the numerical year. This tradition was brought with the settlers from Europe when the term then meant King. Well who is the truest King of the land if not Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. So I think religion does apply here and everywhere else in our lives. Because you chose that it doesn't, does not change that for the rest of us of faith. If you doubt what I say then all those land treaties signed on our behalf are not legitimate if you want to take God out of everything. Our currency even states in "God We Trust". The Lord's Prayer begins with our "Father" who art in heaven! Do you people really think you can turn your back on all these teachings and consider yourselves the true richeous people in all decisions. I'll pray for you all. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Nowhere Jeff have I ever heard of anyone praying to their "Lesbian Mother in Heaven" or their "Gay Father" simply their "Father in Heaven". What's next because Jesus wore sandals he was gay, how ridiculous can you get? Your argument grows rampant with heresay, enuendo and nonsense most athiest spew. I guess come judgement day we will all find out who was right and who was wrong. Remember if you turn your back on Jesus he will turn his back on you before his father. That is the scripture Jeff, not who supports who's constitutional rights, this issue is about family values and many more important issues than someones choice to be gay or lesbian. Because after all that is what it is, they choose this way of life they aren't born into it. Show me the gay gene and I'll think about it somemore. But good luck finding it, hundreds and thousands of professional scientists before you haven't been able to yet. Because it doesn't exist, isn't protected by constitutional rights or any other rights for that matter, because it is non-existant. "

jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Fred,

You’re inventing arguments. Any church will still use “Bride and Groom”. Straight people can use whatever traditions they would like. People can already chose to carry no one over the threshold if they want this law affects nothing in that regard. Again it doesn’t matter what 61% of the population think. It is unconstitutional, if you hate our constitution so much leave the country. The majority wanted black people to remain as slaves hundreds of years ago, were they right? NHG’s marriage used to be illegal in this country for all the same reasons should it still be? Please enlighten me as to which important documents have been signed “In the year of our lord” and please show me where it says this on said document. Please remember you also stated on Oct 17th that “I don't think religion/belief in God should be utilized in this decision on Prop. 8” Who cares about the Lord’s Prayer? It is not a federal prayer, church is a private club. In God we trust wasn’t added until the 50’s. We have been over this before Fred try and keep up. "

jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Fred,

What does praying to a straight or lesbian anything have to do with this? Your religion has no bearing on law in this country. You really must hate the beliefs this country was founded on. If you love governments that rule by the hand of God then please move to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Those countries are what you want. You are very un-American, you hate our constitution and the entire reason the U.S. was created. I’m sorry your marriage is so broken and fragmented that something two other people do between themselves hurts you so much. Maybe you should spend less time writing on these boards and work on your marriage. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:13 PM:

" jeff, I don't know how you know so much about my marriage and Fred's to say that they must be broken. I do know that mine is a normal marriage with it's ups and downs, and trust me I have no fear of a gay marriage disrupting it. But I am allowed to stand up for what I believe to be my rights, and so I am doing that. I am telling you and everyone else my beliefs in regards to marriage.
You again make misstatements about even the civil war, if the majority believed in continuing slavery, then why did we have our own worst war? Tell me exactly when it was legal for mixed marriages to take place? I seem to remember something about Pocohontas marrying a settler, moved to England and died of pnuemonia. Oh that is right that is before the USofA. And I guess all of those people like Desi Arnez and Lucille Ball didn't really get married before 1952, so instead she appeared on TV as an unwed mother? NOT!!! The censors all would have died. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:20 PM:

" jeff, I can not comment on things other than what I know for fact, so I have to start out that the following is heresay. There are stories of children being introduced in the first few years of un-common unions. That doesn't mean they are taught the mechanics of sex, but rather than the old time stories of Dick and Jane, they have been provided stories of homes with 2 mommies or 2 daddies.
This might be what some of the other writers are trying to allude to in regards teaching sex education to 2nd graders.
jeff, do think muslim women should wear the hijab? If so why, it is only a religious thing. But yet our courts uphold that religious belief. Yet they can't uphold the religious belief of the majority of Americans that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. What a bunch of hypocrites. Yet a witch or warlock can practice their religious beliefs, as that too is covered under the 1st ammendment. But what happened to a woman who called her self a high priestess and was arrested for prostituition. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:25 PM:

" jeff, continued. Can you explain how that high priestess was arrested? After all she was just partaking in her religious belief and enjoyment of all of her members by having sex with them. Where do you draw the line? Apparently at any point that I attmept to make.
What makes a person a citizen of this country? What were the legal marriage ages 200 years ago? Or even 150? People were married before under the age of 18 without parental consent. And now you are making a majority of American citizens second class citizens, as they have to wait for some arbitrary age to be able to consent to marriage. Are all 21 year olds really mentally prepared for marriage? Does this happen overnight the day before you turn 21? "

jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:25 PM:

" NHG,

The difference between the law upholding the rights of women wearing hijab’s and not upholding your archaic beliefs is because your beliefs aren’t constitutional. If you want a government that rules by the hand of God then leave the U.S. Your high priestess witch and warlock rant sounds like you’ve lost control of yourself a little. I have no idea what you’re talking about. The rest of your babbling sounds as if you would like to lower the age of consent in this country. I’m kind of surprised someone who says gay marriage ruins family values thinks children should be able to get married but then again you’re a Christian. I won’t pretend to be able to understand the twisted logic you must use every time you pick up the Bible. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Jeff, as I stated before those who turn their back on him here, he will turn his back on them before his father. You keep right on believing what you believe, I don't mean to be preaching fire and brimstone it is you who keeps denying the existance of my faith. How wonderful of you to feel you can deny what I believe but you expect me to accept verbatum the venom you spew compliments of who the Devil, Satan whoever you choose to call him. It is written that they will do battle over our souls, I have more faith in my man than you will ever have in yours and nothing you print in this blog will ever change that Jeff. As for my marriage it is fine, that is how I can spend time responding to _ _ _ _ _ _ like you on line. My wife has the same beliefs and faith I have, doesn't yours? As for the in the year of our lord, I suppose you think that was all just people like Alan G embelishing in a movie, Why the distinction in time, for Christ? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:08 PM:

" Jeff, your constant rages and rantings everytime someone mentions God is a clear and obvious threat you. You feel this where within your heart, your soul, just why do you feel so brought to devouchery and obvious objection at the mention of his name? I don't end my argument by denouncing your marriage, or by pressing you for your Satanic Rituals you must celebrate on the night of a full moon. Athiest around the world feel the way you do, but they don't cry out at the mere mention of God's name the way you do. Did God somehow let you down and now you feel this need to use blasphemy to try and destroy other people's faith, because you've lost your own? You claim to be a student of the Bible, but you don't go on to say exactly when you gave that up for the worship of Satan. It's the only explanation I can think of for such a turn a round in your behavior. You seem to know the written word in your heart but you spew venom from your soul, why is that Jeff? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:14 PM:

" Jeff, I have just the same right to come before the blogging community to speak up for God as you do to come before it and commit blashemous remarks against him. You dare question my devotion to this country and ignore my oath to uphold the constitution as it is written, not as four justices rewrite it? I spent four years of my life in which I could of done many other things wearing the uniform of this country. Traveling into harms way during a time of war. I don't think I should have to explain to you or anyone else who hides behind the constitution how I feel about this great country of ours. I find it amazing when you suggest countries to move to your first on the list is a Democracy our latest war has brought about. Those people will for the first time in hundreds of years know what it feels to be free and able to vote on issues rather than have a Tyrant dictate to them how it is gonna be. You who never put anything on the line for any one cannot begin to understand Americans. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Jeff perhaps it is you who needs a change of scenery, I could see you and Scott Tucker getting along quite well in Switzerland. A country where service isn't voluntary but mandantory. It might do you some good. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:20 PM:

" To NHG, very well put my brother, very well put. You can't always win an argument with a person with no morals, no beliefs other than Satanic. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Fred, I don’t chose to call him anything as I don’t believe in Satan or the Devil. You’re the one who believes in that. I don’t expect you to accept anything. I do expect you to not impose your beliefs on other people. No one is making it illegal for you to believe that gay marriage is wrong. If that were the case I would be against it. Like NHG you have now admitted that gay marriage affects you in no way so stop being a bigot. Why the distinction in time for Christ? Only people who believe in Christ use it, this is not surprising. I never denounced your marriage Fred. You say that gay marriage ruins the constitution of marriage so if you were to follow your own logic your own marriage would have to be ruined since gay marriage was made legal in California. You say your marriage is doing great thereby negating your entire argument. God has never let me down. Believers have let me down and continue to do so. How could I worship Satan if I believe Satan is a superstition created by Christians? Try using logic Fred it would serve you well. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:40 AM:

" Fred, what turn around in my behavior are you talking about? I have never been a follower of Christ. Yes I understand the Bible because unlike you I actually study something before I make my mind up about it (We have been over this before, again try and keep up). I have never said you have less rights than me stop inventing arguments. I definitely question your devotion to this country when your words and by default I would have to assume your actions are in direct contrast of why this country was founded. If you don’t like having your patriotism questioned stop acting unpatriotic. If you feel you don’t need to explain yourself then why are you doing so? Saying I can never understand Americans is so illogical it’s borderline stupid. Switzerland would be a great place to live I wish I could go there. The funny thing is Switzerland is closer to being American than what you want to America to be. Your ideal America is called Iran. I could see you there happy as can be, knowing that all laws were based on a fairy tale. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:21 AM:

" jeff, explain exactly in clear concise words, how the law can say it okay for a woman to wear the hijab in America, yet a Christian girl cannot wear a hat to school because of dress codes. It is a religious belief of Muslims and not truely a religious edict, but yet you in the same breath say that my religious belief of a Man and a Woman marriage is unconstitutional. Now tell me who's religion is more important? You can't have your cake and eat mine.
The point that I was trying to address about so many of the post in support of voting no on Prop 8 is that we are trying to deny true love from having the same rights. I provided an example of a self proclaimed Priestess (suggesting religion) who was arrested for prostitution for having sex with all of her members. But using the anology of the anti Prop 8, she should be allowed to marry all of her members as she "loves", perhaps more in the Biblical sense the the proper definition. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:36 AM:

" jeff, no, I am not for lowering the age of consent, in the exact opposite in fact. I think if more people waited even a few more years before marriage, then they might actually be marrying for love and not for lust. But all people develop at different stages, so yes there are some people that actually are prepared and ready to marry even before 21, but unfortunately our divorce rate does show that too many people do rush into marriage. I reapeat again that I am not out to lynch gay people, but I am against changing the institution of marriage which is based on religion to meet a small minorities desire to change the definition. People that are not in a normal marriage situations should be given the same "rights" as people that are married as husband and wife, but they just need to have a marriage license. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:39 AM:

" NHG, I never said the law should be able to allow hijab’s while not allowing a Christian girl to wear a hat. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop inventing arguments. Your belief of marriage being between only a man and a woman is not unconstitutional and I have never said it was. What I have said is forcing your belief (Making it law) on others is unconstitutional. Whose religion is more important? No ones, I have no idea what your point is. Your high priestess analogy does not work. First of all you’ve invented it and it has never happened. Secondly I could care less if a “High Priestess” marries her entire congregation. Far as I’m concerned – and I have already addressed the issue of plural marriage – Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want. The key words here are “Consenting” and “Adults”. Unfortunately there is no plural marriage proposition available for me to vote on, so what is your point exactly? You’ve made several incorrect assumptions. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:39 AM:

" NHG, sorry but your actions smell more like lynching. Marriage is based on religion? False, people were getting married long before your fairy tale was written. Try again. Many ancient societies long before the Bible were practicing marriage and it was not founded in religion. The real truth is Christians changed the definition of marriage long ago. "

Transplant wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Jeff,

Not that it's pertinent to this thread, but you asked the question - so here goes: Christians do not throw out the Old Testatment. Approximately 2/3 of the New Testament is from the Old Testament. And Jesus NEVER said to do away with the Old Testament, since the NT wasn't written until after His death. The reason we don't still use stoning as punishment and make live sacrifices is because Jesus brought "grace" instead of "law" (10 commandments). Not that he abolished the law, but he made a way to be reconciled with God that didn't require the strict application of the law. HE became the ultimate blood sacrifice that brought redemption from all sin that had been committed or would be committed. Therefore, blood sacrifices were no longer required. Now, I know you don't believe all this, but that is what Christians should know (not all do because they don't study as they should) and be able to give answers for.
Marriage is an institution, not a constitution or a right. And even in civil marriages here and in other countries, it has ALWAYS been between a man and woman, not between same sexes. continued "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:41 PM:

" jeff, I didn't put any words in your mouth that you didn't spew out, here is your exact quote from your reply:
"The difference between the law upholding the rights of women wearing hijab’s and not upholding your archaic beliefs is because your beliefs aren’t constitutional."
You are saying that a religious belief, the hijab is upheld, but the religious definition of marriage is unconstitutional? It has to go both ways, either the constitution is to protect religious belief, or it doesn't, can't do both. I was just citing the information about where a muslim challenged the dress code and won on religious grounds. Now how can that be? I do not know how people were "married" before my God came to be, as my belief is that God created the first Man and Woman, and he then created marriage and procreation. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Transplant,

Thanks for the response but this is merely your interpretation of the Bible or your Church’s stance or your pastor’s stance. Many Christians have told me in person and on here that the OT no longer counts and that Jesus said so himself. Then they go onto to pull parts out of the OT that are convenient for them. I know other Christians who say you must completely follow both the OT and the NT yet they don’t follow the laws of the OT as they are explicitly given. I’m not sure what version of the NT you have read but the one’s I have read are not 2/3rds from the OT. You said “The reason we don't still use stoning as punishment and make live sacrifices is because Jesus brought "grace" instead of "law" (10 commandments).” First off I’m not sure what this means or how it would negate anything and secondly, are you saying the Ten Commandments are not to be followed? You said “HE became the ultimate blood sacrifice that brought redemption from all sin that had been committed or would be committed.” Then sin can never be committed again? "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Transplant,

You said “it has ALWAYS been between a man and woman” referring to marriage. This is simply not true. Homosexual marriage has been recorded in Asia since ancient times throughout the entire continent including the Middle East. China and Japan have long histories of gay marriage. Rome, Greece and very early Western Societies openly celebrated same sex marriages. Gay marriage wasn’t frowned upon until the Christian religion started taking hold of Western society or Islam in the Middle East. The first law against it wasn’t created until 390 CE by a Byzantine Emperor named Flavius Anastasius. There has not been one solid argument given by anyone against same-sex marriage – please remember your religious beliefs do not count. Life existed on this planet prior to Christianity. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:56 PM:

" jeff, I wish you would check facts before you slander me with saying that I made up something, here for your proof is this article from the New York Times:
"A Federal district judge here is considering a novel extension of First Amendment rights to a religion based primarily on ''absolution'' through sex and ''sacrifice'' through a payment of money. "
and url so you can continue to read the story:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DF143AF931A35756C0A966958260
Now you say marriage should be between consenting adults, no arguement on consenting and adults, but you did not answer my question as to what constitutes an "adult", and also before you go on, I also believe that it also requires between opposite sexes. I was trying to point out that in the past the consent age isn't the same as now, and it appears that you overlooked I think people should wait even a few more years to become even more mature before marriage. "

Transplant wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Jeff, continued
Some marriages involved a man and more than one woman, but I have never heard, until recent history, of same sex "marriages" - not even in civil only marriages. Christians didn't make up the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, that's just how it's been historically. And the Justices didn't say that marriage as defined "between a man and a woman" was unconstitutional, they said that definition was not in the state's constitution and therefore the requirement that it be only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. That's why the proposition is needed to put the definition into the state constitution. Prop 22 didn't change the constitution, or we wouldn't have to go through this now.
Nowhere in my argument did I give a religious reason for marriage, even though I am a Christian. I just believe that the institution of marriage should be maintained, as it has throughout history, as between one man and one woman.

P.S. You could state that you don't believe in gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - even though no one can "show" it to you. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:17 PM:

" NHG,

Yes the religious definition of marriage is unconstitutional. You gave an example of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab versus a Christian woman wearing a hat. Now you’re changing it. Pick one line of attack and stick with it. The Muslim belief of wearing hijab’s is constitutional, your belief of marriage is constitutional your practice of forcing your belief on the rest of us is not constitutional. What is so hard to get? There is a difference between belief and action. You apparently know how to use online dictionaries I suggest you try looking up the words. A persons dress has no affect on another’s life. That’s how it came to be. If you’re god created the first man and woman why is it there were thousands of people on this earth prior to anyone knowing anything about your god? Why is it there were entire cities, societies and civilizations inhabiting our planet prior to the Bible? How is it that Zoroastrianism and Mithraism existed prior to Christianity? Why were Jews Pagans before they became Jews? Oh right because God waited thousands of years to tell some guy in the desert who he was. "

jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:05 PM:

" NHG,

You’re using poor tactics. The reason I said you made it up is because you proposed it in a hypothetical way. If you wanted to discuss an event that actually happened you should reference the event. Also, when you proposed this hypothetically you failed to mention how the “High Priestess” takes money for sex thereby making it prostitution. I am all for legalized prostitution and 1st Amendment rights so as far as I’m concerned the “Church of the Most High Goddess” can practice their beliefs. You’re right the age of consent has varied in the past, what does that have to do with allowing gay people to marry? Who cares if you personally believe people should wait a few years? What does that have to do with the argument at hand?

Transparent,

Please reference my above reply to you. It should successfully disabuse you of any notions you had regarding marriage never being performed for same sex couples in history. If that is not enough I can cite cities, countries, sects of cultures, dates etc. Christians changed what “Marriage” means. It’s not one man one woman. History tells a different story than your Bible. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:14 PM:

" jeff wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:17 PM:

" NHG,
To Jeff,
"Yes the religious definition of marriage is unconstitutional. You gave an example of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab versus a Christian woman wearing a hat. Now you’re changing it. Pick one line of attack and stick with it. The Muslim belief of wearing hijab’s is constitutional, your belief of marriage is constitutional your practice of forcing your belief on the rest of us is not constitutional"

I have pasted your most recent coment where in the beginning you indicate marriage in the biblical sense is unconstritutinal. Then in the same paragraph you indicate marriage is a constitutional right. Which is it Jeff, are you that confused you can't keep pace with your ranting postings, that you declare it unconstitutional then you declare it constitutional. I think it is you who is confused, dilusional, who's thoughts run in a pattern of disaray between your mind and your fingers/mouth. You base your principal defense on the constitution and clearly you don't know what is or isn't constitutional. You say religous beliefs in marriage is not in the constitution, what about Religous Freedom? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:24 PM:

" To: jeff, you say that religion has no part in this argument and go on to recite the United States Constitution. How interesting it is that the 1st Ammendment talks about freedom of Religion. Isn't the most important part of any document usually listed first? Do not the guarantees of freedom of religion as religion applies to the right to marriage being between a man and a woman also guaranteed in the Contitution? It doesn't say freedom of religion with the acception of marriage between a man and a woman? Before you go there I don't think being gay/lesbian is considered/accepted as a religion. Not yet any way!
It amazes me how you tell people to research and do their homework and yet you missed this entire connection. Perhaps it is You Jeff, who needs to do the homework and research. I take it you are as much an authority on the Constitution as you claim to be on the Bible? You talk in circles and we have done a pretty good job of calling all your aces, straights and flushes, but that's easy when you're a bluffer. "

Transplant wrote on Oct 22, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Jeff,

Interesting info on same sex marriages in ancient times. Are you sure they were marriages and not just relationships? Did they go through a marriage ceremony whereby they took another as husband or wife? And it required a divorce to dissolve it? Because that is what "marriage" has historically been and what a marriage ceremony does. That's why it's considered an institution, not a right. If they did go through ceremonies, please give me some references and I'll do research. I'm always willing to learn. I just want to be assured it wasn't simply a custom/relationship (like concubines).

Someone would have to be very familiar with both the Old and New Testaments in order to know that 2/3 of the New was made from quotations/scripture from the Old. It isn't an interpretation, it's from studying the Word in both Hebrew and Greek. And anyone can do it. Unfortunately, many Christians don't do it on their own. They rely on listening to a pastor. "

Transplant wrote on Oct 22, 2008 6:13 PM:

" Jeff,

Of course life existed on this planet before Christianity, which didn't start until Jesus began his ministry. However, you and I will have to agree to disagree that there was human life before God created it. You won't convince me otherwise and I doubt I can convince you.

"Grace" means we are forgiven for the laws we break (sins) as long as we've accepted Jesus as our savior. That's somewhat simplified, but the whole concept of Christian forgiveness is really not complex.
You asked about Jesus becoming the ultimate blood sacrifice and wondered ”Then sin can never be committed again?". Of course sin is continually being committed. But Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for that sin so it isn't necessary to make blood sacrifices to cover the sin and be reconciled with God. If you don't choose to accept it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Lots of people don't accept the concept or believe in Jesus as savior. That's free will. But it is the way (Christians believe) God made for all humans to be ABLE to be washed clean of their sins.
More questions? I'll try to answer them. "

Melissa wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Watchdog Fred the freedom of religion does cover you to BELIEVE what you want to believe what YOUR marriage is. However that same freedom of religion covers me from having to live my life based on your religious belief. In your logic, only one religion would be acceptable in this country and we would all have to abide by those laws. That is not a democracy nor is it upholding the constitution. You have the RIGHT to BELIEVE what you want, however you do not have the RIGHT to impose those RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on those who do not agree with you. Marriage is a LEGAL right, it is also a LEGAL license which allows the parties certain respect, dignity and rights. Your religion can not dictate to me what the state will or will not allow me to have, as I am a tax paying citizen, and my freedom religion, right to the pursit to happiness, right to be equal with all my fellow peers is covered under the current constitution. It is unconstitutional for a group of people to use thier RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to take away those rights of other citizens. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:34 AM:

" To Melissa thank you once again for making my point exactly.

"It is unconstitutional for a group of people to use thier RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to take away those rights of other citizens. "

Under the classification of a group I believe the LGBT's are included are they not? You keep forgetting you are messing with 230 + years of history and tradition and act as if that is perfectly alright. When do you provide the respect you so desperately seek young lady?

By the way the practice of my religion or religion in general is a guarantee by the Constitution of the United States, nowhere is your guarantee contained within it's words. No where does it specifically say your right to be gay is protected. But it does say my right to religious freedom is protected. and guaranteed by it's 1st ammendment. State the ammendment that states specifically what you are claiming, you can't because it doesn't exist.

If what you are seeking was intended to be in the constitution, it would already be there. Continued "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:41 AM:

" To Melissa - In case you haven't read the Yes on 8 campaign is gaining momentum and support, according to the media. You people crack me up let San Francisco or Los Angeles try and dictate anything else to us and you are the first screaming unfair. But in this issue you think they will call the shots for the state. I don't think you are correct, I think the Religous effort to combat this will once again be triumph as it has done down through history. It's been stated over and over again that you already receive most benefits of a heterosexual marriage and the one's you don't are likely to be given to you. So why the defamation and villification of marriage, what do you possibly gain but distain by your insistence to force this issue down everyone else's throat? You have once again confused you choice with your right and continue to not understand the two are not the same. We need to turn this around simply to gain control of the Judiciary of this state and send them the message they don't make law, they enforce it. "




Advertisement

HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:

    PHOTO GALLERIES

    		 "More Photos

    Sentinel Photos (120) Albums

    Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo
    Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (14) Photos
    Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball
    Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (22) Photos
    Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football
    Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (13) Photos

    Reader Submitted (7) Albums

    Vintage Hanford
    Vintage Hanford
    Monday, December, 15 2008
    (1) Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (35) Photos
    Events
    Events
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (38) Photos

    More


    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


     
    Letters to the Editor| Comment about Web site
    RSS HanfordSentinel.com
    Copyright © 2006 Lee Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.
    All Lee Central California Newspapers pages are designed for screen resolutions set at 1024x768 or higher.
    Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use applicable to this site.