So I'm not in anyway suggesting a mass boycott of all yes on 8 donors, but on a personal level, I do not care to give my money to these people.
I imagine, if you were gay, or just a fan of equal human rights you'd want to at least know.
So... here's a growing list of people and bbusinesses you might at least want to be aware of.
Terry Caster and family- A-1 storage.
James Dobson- Focus on the family
Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA
Grand del Mar Resort, San Diego, CA
Whitetail Club and Resort, McCall, Idaho
ROBERT HOEHN
CARLSBAD
CA
HOEHN MOTORS
DANIEL MULVHILL
LA JOLLA
CA
PACIFIC SOUTHWET MORTGAGE
PETER LEPARULO
SAN DIEGO
CA
NOVATEL
WILLIAM ADSIT
SAN DIEGO
CA
CA. ORTHOPAEDIC INST.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
LA Times Says:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story
(about homosexuality being "taught" in school)
which by the way... I can't stop thinking...
If you are straight... and someone teaches you that it's ok to be gay... will that make you gay?
And if you're gay, but someone teaches you that it's wrong...
does that make you straight?
Hmmm.
(about homosexuality being "taught" in school)
which by the way... I can't stop thinking...
If you are straight... and someone teaches you that it's ok to be gay... will that make you gay?
And if you're gay, but someone teaches you that it's wrong...
does that make you straight?
Hmmm.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
From an Unlikely source:
Prop 8* Musings Two Weeks Before Election Day
by Phil BowlesOctober 21, 2008
(professor from PLNU)
If you attend a church that spews anti-gay language from its pulpit, if none of your gay friends and relatives has felt safe enough to come out to you, if you prefer a literal reading of the seven or so biblical verses some call the gay "clobber passages," or if you consider amending the state constitution by popular vote a quick fix to a social ill, you may have decided to vote Yes on Proposition Eight.
But if your church emphasizes Jesus' radical love for the outcasts of society, if one or two of your gay friends or relatives have shared—as several of mine have—accounts of years, even decades, of agonized prayers for God to make them "normal" and straight, only to conclude at long last that they are what they are, if you bother to study a variety of scholarly interpretations of the clobber passages, or if you believe that constitutional amendments should be about empowering rather than stripping the rights of little understood and under-represented minorities, you may be inclined to vote No on Prop Eight.
When a church takes a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin position, as one gay person recently mused, "All I take away from that kind of talk is the verb hate." That h-word is what rings true to those who already feel disenfranchised from the church. Most protestant denominations consider gay persons eligible for membership but condemn same-sex intimacy, thereby causing many who wish to join those churches to be closeted. Estimates suggest that three to ten persons out of 100 in the population at large are gay. So virtually every church includes gay persons, closeted or out.
One of my college professors recently confessed to me that she is lesbian and that she never acted on her desires, she said, because the church meant too much to her. It would be much easier for denominations today if most churched gays were as willing as my professor to give up their desire for personal intimacy for the good of the Body. St. Paul called for singleness, but few Christians—gay or straight—take this teaching to heart. Sadly, most gays who grew up in our evangelical churches feel disenchanted with the church and attend nowhere because they do not feel that they now belong anywhere.
For a number of years now, several persons out of Sharon's and my past have entrusted us with their coming-out stories. Almost all of these are individuals we had already admired through the years as practicing Christians. That is, they have worked hard at the job of behaving as they understand Christ would behave. Then they determined somewhere along the way that they are gay. Some have chosen to remain celibate, some have been in committed long-term relationships and are at peace with that decision, and others—like some of our straight friends—struggle to be chaste. All of these persons are teaching us a great deal about what it means to be gay and Christian.
There are several good books and scholarly articles on line and in Ryan Library on the biblical clobber passages. For example, chapter five of Scanzoni and Mollenkott's Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response (HarperCollins, 1994) offers a fairly thorough discussion of key passages from several points of view. As one beloved professor said in a recent PLNU program on this topic, the overriding message of Jesus Christ is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we as a New Testament Church could get that main message of the Gospel right, I am inclined to think that the other lesser concerns would take care of themselves.
(* Proposition 8 in California proposes to amend the state constitution by popular vote to end the short-lived option of same-sex marriage.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 reasons I oppose Proposition 8 – by Rev. Molly Vetter, First United Methodist Church, San Diego
On our November ballot here in California, we will be asked whether we support a proposition that would remove the right of same-sex couples to enter into legal marriage. As a heterosexual, married, Christian woman, I oppose this proposition for many reasons. Whether you agree with me or not, I would be honored if you'd consider these 8 reasons why I'm voting against it. In my mind, any one of them is enough reason to vote against this proposal.
1. This is a matter of legal rights, not a referendum on how religious people should interpret marriage. As a part of a nation built on ideals like justice and equality, I see no reason to restrict the legal rights of people to enter into the marriage contract with one another. I would like to live in a California that affords rights, not one that adds clauses into its Constitution to deny them.
2. This proposition has nothing to do with the rights of homosexual people to have children. Regardless of marital status, gay and lesbian people are already raising children. I would contend that it does our society good to have children being raised by people who are married--that the commitments made in marriage tend to help create home environments that are more stable, especially because of the way the community beyond the couple understands what it means to be married. Allowing same-sex couples to continue to marry in California will give greater stability to families, not less.
3. Heterosexual marriage does not need protection from same-sex marriage. I do believe that heterosexual marriage needs work in our culture--too many marriages end in divorce. It is a challenge to succeed in marriage--I struggle with the difficulty of separation during deployment, with my own independence, and much more. My marriage is not, however, threatened by the marriages of same-gender couples. I wonder what we believe we're protecting marriage from?
4. Our understanding of marriage, in the church and under the law, has been continuously evolving. I celebrate that, as a woman, I enjoy rights to choose my own spouse (as well as the right to choose not to have a spouse and still own property) that have not always been available to women--certainly not always in our biblical tradition. I also celebrate that marriage does not exist only for the purpose of having children. I give thanks for the love shared between couples that have chosen not to have children, and between couples that have been unable to have children. I delight in couples far beyond their child-bearing years who are able to marry. There is not an unchanged understanding of marriage stretching back through the Bible, nor through our nation's history. The Supreme Court's decision to extend the rights of marriage to same-sex couples is another change in this evolving history. There is no one "original" understanding of marriage that we can preserve.
5. I have been blessed and enriched by same-gendered couples. Both as domestic partners and as married couples, they have shown me what mutually-life-giving, committed relationships can look like. Often persevering through immense challenges, they have demonstrated how married couples can care for each other and strengthen one another. These couples have been a blessing to our communities, too. I welcome ways that we can do more to honor committed relationships and let them be an asset to our communities.
6. Opposing this proposition does not mean that clergy are required to perform same-sex marriages. As a pastor, I always have the right to refuse to marry a couple. Opposing the proposition does not compel churches to change their definitions of marriage. Already, many churches have requirements for marriage in that church--such as requiring both spouses to be members of the church. Churches can continue to define their own rules for marriage, even without this proposition.
7. This restriction of rights does not belong in our Constitution. In my mind, a Constitution exists to provide rights, not take them away.
8. I am bothered by the fear-inducing tactics used by supporters of Proposition 8. The Gospel of Jesus Christ demands that we move past our fears to dare to include more of the world in God's love. I refuse to be convinced to restrict legal rights to members of our community because I am afraid. I do believe that there is real evil in the world, and that this campaign is distracting us from work is necessary for God's kingdom. Over and over, Jesus commanded us to care for the poor. Never once did Jesus speak about same-sex marriage. Proponents of this initiative are asking us to be afraid of the wrong thing. We have a lot of work to do if we want to follow Christ's example of love for our neighbors. This Proposition will not help us in that work.
by Phil BowlesOctober 21, 2008
(professor from PLNU)
If you attend a church that spews anti-gay language from its pulpit, if none of your gay friends and relatives has felt safe enough to come out to you, if you prefer a literal reading of the seven or so biblical verses some call the gay "clobber passages," or if you consider amending the state constitution by popular vote a quick fix to a social ill, you may have decided to vote Yes on Proposition Eight.
But if your church emphasizes Jesus' radical love for the outcasts of society, if one or two of your gay friends or relatives have shared—as several of mine have—accounts of years, even decades, of agonized prayers for God to make them "normal" and straight, only to conclude at long last that they are what they are, if you bother to study a variety of scholarly interpretations of the clobber passages, or if you believe that constitutional amendments should be about empowering rather than stripping the rights of little understood and under-represented minorities, you may be inclined to vote No on Prop Eight.
When a church takes a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin position, as one gay person recently mused, "All I take away from that kind of talk is the verb hate." That h-word is what rings true to those who already feel disenfranchised from the church. Most protestant denominations consider gay persons eligible for membership but condemn same-sex intimacy, thereby causing many who wish to join those churches to be closeted. Estimates suggest that three to ten persons out of 100 in the population at large are gay. So virtually every church includes gay persons, closeted or out.
One of my college professors recently confessed to me that she is lesbian and that she never acted on her desires, she said, because the church meant too much to her. It would be much easier for denominations today if most churched gays were as willing as my professor to give up their desire for personal intimacy for the good of the Body. St. Paul called for singleness, but few Christians—gay or straight—take this teaching to heart. Sadly, most gays who grew up in our evangelical churches feel disenchanted with the church and attend nowhere because they do not feel that they now belong anywhere.
For a number of years now, several persons out of Sharon's and my past have entrusted us with their coming-out stories. Almost all of these are individuals we had already admired through the years as practicing Christians. That is, they have worked hard at the job of behaving as they understand Christ would behave. Then they determined somewhere along the way that they are gay. Some have chosen to remain celibate, some have been in committed long-term relationships and are at peace with that decision, and others—like some of our straight friends—struggle to be chaste. All of these persons are teaching us a great deal about what it means to be gay and Christian.
There are several good books and scholarly articles on line and in Ryan Library on the biblical clobber passages. For example, chapter five of Scanzoni and Mollenkott's Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response (HarperCollins, 1994) offers a fairly thorough discussion of key passages from several points of view. As one beloved professor said in a recent PLNU program on this topic, the overriding message of Jesus Christ is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we as a New Testament Church could get that main message of the Gospel right, I am inclined to think that the other lesser concerns would take care of themselves.
(* Proposition 8 in California proposes to amend the state constitution by popular vote to end the short-lived option of same-sex marriage.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 reasons I oppose Proposition 8 – by Rev. Molly Vetter, First United Methodist Church, San Diego
On our November ballot here in California, we will be asked whether we support a proposition that would remove the right of same-sex couples to enter into legal marriage. As a heterosexual, married, Christian woman, I oppose this proposition for many reasons. Whether you agree with me or not, I would be honored if you'd consider these 8 reasons why I'm voting against it. In my mind, any one of them is enough reason to vote against this proposal.
1. This is a matter of legal rights, not a referendum on how religious people should interpret marriage. As a part of a nation built on ideals like justice and equality, I see no reason to restrict the legal rights of people to enter into the marriage contract with one another. I would like to live in a California that affords rights, not one that adds clauses into its Constitution to deny them.
2. This proposition has nothing to do with the rights of homosexual people to have children. Regardless of marital status, gay and lesbian people are already raising children. I would contend that it does our society good to have children being raised by people who are married--that the commitments made in marriage tend to help create home environments that are more stable, especially because of the way the community beyond the couple understands what it means to be married. Allowing same-sex couples to continue to marry in California will give greater stability to families, not less.
3. Heterosexual marriage does not need protection from same-sex marriage. I do believe that heterosexual marriage needs work in our culture--too many marriages end in divorce. It is a challenge to succeed in marriage--I struggle with the difficulty of separation during deployment, with my own independence, and much more. My marriage is not, however, threatened by the marriages of same-gender couples. I wonder what we believe we're protecting marriage from?
4. Our understanding of marriage, in the church and under the law, has been continuously evolving. I celebrate that, as a woman, I enjoy rights to choose my own spouse (as well as the right to choose not to have a spouse and still own property) that have not always been available to women--certainly not always in our biblical tradition. I also celebrate that marriage does not exist only for the purpose of having children. I give thanks for the love shared between couples that have chosen not to have children, and between couples that have been unable to have children. I delight in couples far beyond their child-bearing years who are able to marry. There is not an unchanged understanding of marriage stretching back through the Bible, nor through our nation's history. The Supreme Court's decision to extend the rights of marriage to same-sex couples is another change in this evolving history. There is no one "original" understanding of marriage that we can preserve.
5. I have been blessed and enriched by same-gendered couples. Both as domestic partners and as married couples, they have shown me what mutually-life-giving, committed relationships can look like. Often persevering through immense challenges, they have demonstrated how married couples can care for each other and strengthen one another. These couples have been a blessing to our communities, too. I welcome ways that we can do more to honor committed relationships and let them be an asset to our communities.
6. Opposing this proposition does not mean that clergy are required to perform same-sex marriages. As a pastor, I always have the right to refuse to marry a couple. Opposing the proposition does not compel churches to change their definitions of marriage. Already, many churches have requirements for marriage in that church--such as requiring both spouses to be members of the church. Churches can continue to define their own rules for marriage, even without this proposition.
7. This restriction of rights does not belong in our Constitution. In my mind, a Constitution exists to provide rights, not take them away.
8. I am bothered by the fear-inducing tactics used by supporters of Proposition 8. The Gospel of Jesus Christ demands that we move past our fears to dare to include more of the world in God's love. I refuse to be convinced to restrict legal rights to members of our community because I am afraid. I do believe that there is real evil in the world, and that this campaign is distracting us from work is necessary for God's kingdom. Over and over, Jesus commanded us to care for the poor. Never once did Jesus speak about same-sex marriage. Proponents of this initiative are asking us to be afraid of the wrong thing. We have a lot of work to do if we want to follow Christ's example of love for our neighbors. This Proposition will not help us in that work.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
And the greatest gift of all...
Just a thought...
But I was talking with a friend today who is decidedly in favor of prop 8, and a very good human being that I respect, yet disagree with..
And after reading the articles he had posted about the LDS church and their position on homosexuality... I had a thought...
I'm almost certain that pretty much everyone who is against same-sex marriage is against it due to their belief system... and because this is the US... many of those people believe in some form of christianity...
So my thought to the Christians is this:
the greatest gift from God (aside from love) is free will. A God so loving, he lets his children choose. They may choose Him, or other gods, or no god.. etc...
So why on earth would we take that away from people?
Their free will to marry the person they love? Does that prevent you from practicing your own religion? You believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman... so, yes! By all means! Get hitched! A man to a woman or vice versa! Please!
...But I believe that a person can be both homosexual AND deeply spiritual/ religious.
God does not limit his free will for us.
Please don't limit mine!
But I was talking with a friend today who is decidedly in favor of prop 8, and a very good human being that I respect, yet disagree with..
And after reading the articles he had posted about the LDS church and their position on homosexuality... I had a thought...
I'm almost certain that pretty much everyone who is against same-sex marriage is against it due to their belief system... and because this is the US... many of those people believe in some form of christianity...
So my thought to the Christians is this:
the greatest gift from God (aside from love) is free will. A God so loving, he lets his children choose. They may choose Him, or other gods, or no god.. etc...
So why on earth would we take that away from people?
Their free will to marry the person they love? Does that prevent you from practicing your own religion? You believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman... so, yes! By all means! Get hitched! A man to a woman or vice versa! Please!
...But I believe that a person can be both homosexual AND deeply spiritual/ religious.
God does not limit his free will for us.
Please don't limit mine!
Traditional Marriage.
Here are some changes (for the better, I might add) that have been made to the legal definition of marriage over the years:
Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment
Still think what we call "marriage" today is "traditional"?
Think again!
In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.
Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment
Still think what we call "marriage" today is "traditional"?
Think again!
In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.
by any other name...
So what I'm hearing from a lot of people is that they are "ok" with same-sex couples having a domestic partnership but not "holy matrimony"...
A lot of people don't even know that domestic partnerships and marriges afford couples different rights (see blog entitles "rights"). The assumption is sometimes held that the gays have equal rights but a different name for the life-long commitmet they have made, a "partnership" instead of a "marriage."
A lot of people are ok with this.
They just wasnt to reserve "marriage" for a man and a woman.
...it's "tradition"
So this got me thinking...
what IS in a name?
Why are so many people so emotional and enfuriated that the tital of marriage could be used on same-sex couples?
Would sex outside of marriage somehow be "ok" if it were called something else?
Would murder be openly embraced once called something new?
Would the punishment for speeding on the freeway be lessened if given a new name?
So why is it ok in most peoples minds to allow a same-sex couple to commit their lives to each-other, promising to be faithful, to love, cherish, and honor... and yet they are apalled at CALLING that committment by a certain name.
Does it change the act?
So really what we're dealing with here in November is rights. Equal human rights.
Because, let's face it, call it whatever you want..
but the committment that two people who love each-other make... is exactly the same.
We're just possibly taking away the civil rights of same-sex couples.
Please join me and other fair-minded Californians in voting "no" on prop 8 in November.
(for more info on the difference in rights between a domestic partnership and a marriage: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm )
A lot of people don't even know that domestic partnerships and marriges afford couples different rights (see blog entitles "rights"). The assumption is sometimes held that the gays have equal rights but a different name for the life-long commitmet they have made, a "partnership" instead of a "marriage."
A lot of people are ok with this.
They just wasnt to reserve "marriage" for a man and a woman.
...it's "tradition"
So this got me thinking...
what IS in a name?
Why are so many people so emotional and enfuriated that the tital of marriage could be used on same-sex couples?
Would sex outside of marriage somehow be "ok" if it were called something else?
Would murder be openly embraced once called something new?
Would the punishment for speeding on the freeway be lessened if given a new name?
So why is it ok in most peoples minds to allow a same-sex couple to commit their lives to each-other, promising to be faithful, to love, cherish, and honor... and yet they are apalled at CALLING that committment by a certain name.
Does it change the act?
So really what we're dealing with here in November is rights. Equal human rights.
Because, let's face it, call it whatever you want..
but the committment that two people who love each-other make... is exactly the same.
We're just possibly taking away the civil rights of same-sex couples.
Please join me and other fair-minded Californians in voting "no" on prop 8 in November.
(for more info on the difference in rights between a domestic partnership and a marriage: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
