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 )
Phone-Banking
Ok so I hate the people that call during dinner.. I do.. just like the rest of you, I'm sure. Selling something, convincing you of something, a "quick survey"... whatever.. we just want to hang up on all of them, right?
Well last night, I have to admit, I did a little calling for the "No On 8 Equality for ALL" campaign and had one call recipient in particular that I just fell in love with...
So I call him and, out of pity for people getting barraged with campaign calls, try to shorten my spiel as much as possible. So I come to the point where I ask him if he's heard of prop 8, the proposition that would eliminate the right for same sex couples to marry the person they love and his response was:
(ok now picture apu, the "would you like a squishy" voice from the simpsons saying:)
"Oh, yes, is that the one where a couple who has a baby out of wedlock can't get married?!
Is that the one where a man out screwing anyone he can can't get married?!
Is that the one where.... "
(insert continued rant...)
Anyway... by this time, everyone in the room is crowded around my phone because they can hear this mean yelling into the receiver at me... luckily he was on our side...
He ends up saying this:
"If we begin to discriminate against gays getting married, we have to discriminate against the other things too...
Someone could tell me that my eyebrows are too close together, therefore I cannot get married" he said. "Discrimination is discrimination. Period"
To which I replied:
"sir, you're my favorite person I've called all night."
Well last night, I have to admit, I did a little calling for the "No On 8 Equality for ALL" campaign and had one call recipient in particular that I just fell in love with...
So I call him and, out of pity for people getting barraged with campaign calls, try to shorten my spiel as much as possible. So I come to the point where I ask him if he's heard of prop 8, the proposition that would eliminate the right for same sex couples to marry the person they love and his response was:
(ok now picture apu, the "would you like a squishy" voice from the simpsons saying:)
"Oh, yes, is that the one where a couple who has a baby out of wedlock can't get married?!
Is that the one where a man out screwing anyone he can can't get married?!
Is that the one where.... "
(insert continued rant...)
Anyway... by this time, everyone in the room is crowded around my phone because they can hear this mean yelling into the receiver at me... luckily he was on our side...
He ends up saying this:
"If we begin to discriminate against gays getting married, we have to discriminate against the other things too...
Someone could tell me that my eyebrows are too close together, therefore I cannot get married" he said. "Discrimination is discrimination. Period"
To which I replied:
"sir, you're my favorite person I've called all night."
Monday, October 13, 2008
Don't you worry...
While I would consider myself a person of faith and occasionally attend a wonderful little church in San Diego called mission gathering... I understand that there are (many) other churches and faiths that don't quite belive that a person can be both Christ-centered and "religious" AND gay.
So for all of you, I reassure your right to still believe that you can't quite be both:
the court decision officially states: "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious official will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
So never fear. My rights won't take away from your right to continue to believe it's wrong and or deny me from getting married in your church. That's fine.
:)
Oh... and this might be helpful:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10757746
So for all of you, I reassure your right to still believe that you can't quite be both:
the court decision officially states: "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious official will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
So never fear. My rights won't take away from your right to continue to believe it's wrong and or deny me from getting married in your church. That's fine.
:)
Oh... and this might be helpful:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10757746
A word from Courtney:
Gay marriage isn’t a gay issue. It’s a civil rights issues. It’s on the same plane as black suffrage and woman’s rights. Their basic principle is the same. And it was deliniated in our constitution as far back as 1868, in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws… deny state power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the object of that statute.. so that all persons similarly circumstance shall be treated alike.Here’s the first and the last of it: ALL rights and privileges afforded by the government CAN NOT (by this principle set forth in our constitution) discriminate on the basis of race, gender or SEXUAL ORIENTATION (thus, including marriage).
-Courtney Orsinelli
-Courtney Orsinelli
Friday, October 10, 2008
studys show...
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/gaymarriageinformation/a/UnionNotMarriag.htm
(that civil unions are not equal to marriage)
(that civil unions are not equal to marriage)
grey matter...
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female:
one in 100 births
(-http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency)
So if a person has male genitalia but two X chromosomes... who should they be ALLOWED to marry?
Do our genitals decide? Our chromosomes? What gender we IDENTIFY as?
Is there a true black and white in this area?
one in 100 births
(-http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency)
So if a person has male genitalia but two X chromosomes... who should they be ALLOWED to marry?
Do our genitals decide? Our chromosomes? What gender we IDENTIFY as?
Is there a true black and white in this area?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
In The Correct Context...
"And yes, it's true that there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible. But that's what we'd expect anyway. Same-sex marriages weren't a part of the cultures in which the Bible was written, so obviously we wouldn't expect to see stories of men and women with same-sex partners. [2] In ancient Israel especially, marriage was as much about inheritance rights as anything, which resulted in such bizarre practices as levirate marriage (where men were required to take a dead brother's wife and produce heirs for him - Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29). There's a lot more that could be said about these practices and the rationales behind them, but that would be a bit off-topic. The point is this: Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture both in what they include and what they do not."
-Justin@ http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
-Justin@ http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
Thank you:)
I just wanted to take a second to thank everyone who came to Rich's on Thursday night.
You should know we raised almost $6,000 for the "no on prop 8" campaign.
My deepest gratitude.
You should know we raised almost $6,000 for the "no on prop 8" campaign.
My deepest gratitude.
What Does The APA have to say?
The American Psychological Association, the foundation for, the cornerstone of, and the most trusted name in psychology to date has this to say about homosexuality:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
including: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
and: "Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society."
(aka WHY would someone CHOOSE to be gay)
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
including: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
and: "Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society."
(aka WHY would someone CHOOSE to be gay)
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage."
RIGHTS.
Here's just a short list of rights married couples have that domestic partnerships DO NOT:
(the protect marriage guys said there are equal rights, this is a lie.)
Hospital Visitation Rights - Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Health insurance - Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there's no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
Spousal Privilege - Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
Inheritence- Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
Family leave - Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
Pensions - Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
Nursing homes - Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
Home protection - The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don't apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
Retirement Savings- Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
Taxes - Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
Social Security benefits - Unless you're married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they're adults.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
(the protect marriage guys said there are equal rights, this is a lie.)
Hospital Visitation Rights - Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Health insurance - Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there's no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
Spousal Privilege - Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
Inheritence- Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
Family leave - Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
Pensions - Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
Nursing homes - Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
Home protection - The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don't apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
Retirement Savings- Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
Taxes - Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
Social Security benefits - Unless you're married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they're adults.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
SPEAK UP.
Register: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/
Get more info: http://noonprop8.com
I heard this weekend it was at 55% yes. YOUR VOTE MATTERS.
Like I have stated before: If you are religious, and voting "NO" is just too much for you, leave it blank. Please. Do not make a "yes" vote that takes away my medical, tax, etc rights due to my orientation. You wouldn't take them away for being a different race, religion, gender, or otherwise. Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
A domestic Partnership DOES NOT offer equal rights.
Get more info: http://noonprop8.com
I heard this weekend it was at 55% yes. YOUR VOTE MATTERS.
Like I have stated before: If you are religious, and voting "NO" is just too much for you, leave it blank. Please. Do not make a "yes" vote that takes away my medical, tax, etc rights due to my orientation. You wouldn't take them away for being a different race, religion, gender, or otherwise. Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
A domestic Partnership DOES NOT offer equal rights.
what DOES the bible have to say?
http://www.missiongathering.com/mc_messages.php
listen to the sexuality and spirituality series starting with part I. It explores ways in which the bible has interpreted (and misinterpreted) what we now read as "homosexuality."
also a great point brought up by my dear friend Tammy who has not only brought her entire family to God, but also has touched and influenced every life around her for the better and loves those around her fiercely in one of the most "Christ-like" fashions I have witnessed (and is gay!) is that it is problematic to use the arguement that marriage is outlined in the bible as being between a man and a woman. It is a very slippery slope when we attempt to outlaw anything and everything that is not "outlined in the bible."
listen to the sexuality and spirituality series starting with part I. It explores ways in which the bible has interpreted (and misinterpreted) what we now read as "homosexuality."
also a great point brought up by my dear friend Tammy who has not only brought her entire family to God, but also has touched and influenced every life around her for the better and loves those around her fiercely in one of the most "Christ-like" fashions I have witnessed (and is gay!) is that it is problematic to use the arguement that marriage is outlined in the bible as being between a man and a woman. It is a very slippery slope when we attempt to outlaw anything and everything that is not "outlined in the bible."
BUT LEVITICUS 18:22 SAYS....
While I strongly believe this proposition should be approached from a purely constitutional standpoint, granting EVERYONE equal rights, and not about religion... I'm gonna take it there... just a little:)
Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm
the letter simply points out that we have thrown basically all the surrounding "abominations" of Leviticus out the window, why do we still cling to homosexuality as a so called "abomination"
a few highlights:
"I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence."
" A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?"
Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm
the letter simply points out that we have thrown basically all the surrounding "abominations" of Leviticus out the window, why do we still cling to homosexuality as a so called "abomination"
a few highlights:
"I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence."
" A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?"
A Letter From the Ventura County Star
an excerpt I liked:
"I know that some still feel uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. But, regardless of how you feel about this issue on a personal level, I urge you to remember how important the California Constitution is to guaranteeing fundamental rights. To amend the California Constitution and enshrine discrimination into it, as Proposition 8 will do, is against the founding principles of this state and nation. "
to read the rest:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/oct/05/stand-up-for-love-by-voting-no-on-prop-8/
"I know that some still feel uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. But, regardless of how you feel about this issue on a personal level, I urge you to remember how important the California Constitution is to guaranteeing fundamental rights. To amend the California Constitution and enshrine discrimination into it, as Proposition 8 will do, is against the founding principles of this state and nation. "
to read the rest:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/oct/05/stand-up-for-love-by-voting-no-on-prop-8/
rough draft letter
So I've decided to send out a letter to pretty much everyone I know.
I'm a little afraid to ask my parents what they're voting on prop 8, but I plan to have a serious conversation about it with them and I urge you to do the same.
Feedback is GREATLY appreciated... I want the final draft that I send out to be articulate, persuasive, and hopefully provide it's reader with a more personal view on the effects of prop 8.
here it is:
" I find it poor logic to say that because women are good they should vote. Men vote because they are male and woman should vote not because they are angels and man are animals but because we are human beings, and citizens of this country" –Jo March, from Little Women.
Throughout the short history of this country founded on "liberty and justice for all" we have time after time fought to bring said equality to all its citizens. The 19th amendment to our constitution was not added until 1920, granting women not only the right to vote, but dignity and equality. Not until 1967, was the ban on interracial marriage was lifted. Imagine, a time in which blacks and whites could not marry due to the color of their skin. Imagine this is now.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are black.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are Buddhist.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are a woman.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are poor.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are gay.
Thus making you a second class citizen.
What were fighting for is equal rights. What we want is nothing short of a first class citizenship in our own country. What becomes problematic about proposition 8 is not that it disallows gay couples from making all the same commitments to one another that a straight couple will make, for I assure you they will be made regardless. No, we are asking for equal rights as a lifelong committed couple. Call it what you will a "union" a "partnership" …"queer" even. But please, do not tell me that I cannot love cherish, honor, and be faithful to one person to only find myself 20 or 30 years down the road forbidden to ride in an ambulance alongside my critically injured "partner" (whom I will, in any circumstance, lovingly call my WIFE) because I am not recognized as "family".
There was a man in Maryland, Bill Flanigan, who was turned away from the emergency room, where his partner had been taken after suddenly collapsing at work, and told he could not be given any information because he was not next of kin. He had to leave the hospital and retrieve their legal documents before he could gain admittance to see his partner when a married spouse would have been waved through without question. This is only the beginning, thousands of others will tell you a horrifying, similar story.
I ask you, simply, to put yourself in this couples shoes. Feel what it might be like to be denied such rights. I am in no way for you to make a radical change of belief. If asking for you to vote no on prop 8 is just too much. If you're just not ready to make that step… if you worry that due to your beliefs that you hold dear voting no would be the equivalent of saying "homosexuality is 100% ok"… then I'm just asking you today to leave it blank. I'm asking you not to make a vote that would take away my rights. MY rights.
I'm a little afraid to ask my parents what they're voting on prop 8, but I plan to have a serious conversation about it with them and I urge you to do the same.
Feedback is GREATLY appreciated... I want the final draft that I send out to be articulate, persuasive, and hopefully provide it's reader with a more personal view on the effects of prop 8.
here it is:
" I find it poor logic to say that because women are good they should vote. Men vote because they are male and woman should vote not because they are angels and man are animals but because we are human beings, and citizens of this country" –Jo March, from Little Women.
Throughout the short history of this country founded on "liberty and justice for all" we have time after time fought to bring said equality to all its citizens. The 19th amendment to our constitution was not added until 1920, granting women not only the right to vote, but dignity and equality. Not until 1967, was the ban on interracial marriage was lifted. Imagine, a time in which blacks and whites could not marry due to the color of their skin. Imagine this is now.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are black.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are Buddhist.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are a woman.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are poor.
You cannot marry the person you love because you are gay.
Thus making you a second class citizen.
What were fighting for is equal rights. What we want is nothing short of a first class citizenship in our own country. What becomes problematic about proposition 8 is not that it disallows gay couples from making all the same commitments to one another that a straight couple will make, for I assure you they will be made regardless. No, we are asking for equal rights as a lifelong committed couple. Call it what you will a "union" a "partnership" …"queer" even. But please, do not tell me that I cannot love cherish, honor, and be faithful to one person to only find myself 20 or 30 years down the road forbidden to ride in an ambulance alongside my critically injured "partner" (whom I will, in any circumstance, lovingly call my WIFE) because I am not recognized as "family".
There was a man in Maryland, Bill Flanigan, who was turned away from the emergency room, where his partner had been taken after suddenly collapsing at work, and told he could not be given any information because he was not next of kin. He had to leave the hospital and retrieve their legal documents before he could gain admittance to see his partner when a married spouse would have been waved through without question. This is only the beginning, thousands of others will tell you a horrifying, similar story.
I ask you, simply, to put yourself in this couples shoes. Feel what it might be like to be denied such rights. I am in no way for you to make a radical change of belief. If asking for you to vote no on prop 8 is just too much. If you're just not ready to make that step… if you worry that due to your beliefs that you hold dear voting no would be the equivalent of saying "homosexuality is 100% ok"… then I'm just asking you today to leave it blank. I'm asking you not to make a vote that would take away my rights. MY rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
