This just came to me over the transom (consider this a reminder after last week’s Prop 8 update). Let’s get out & tell these extreme-right nutjobs that we won’t allow discrimination to be written into our Constitution! Let’s show them what real people power is made of. Be here tomorrow from 5:30 pm – 8:30 pm if you want to show Schubert-Flint how unpopular discrimination is… Even here in OC! 
OK, OK, Matt. Of course my last comment was tongue in cheek. My claiming to be your guest was about as big a lie as your “yesterday’s attempt” comment. Not big. Congratulations on your open house. This thread’s gone on long enough.
Juice boys? Please refrain from blogwhoring your OJ posts here. When I get back to my PC, comment 49 will be gone
I did not do that, Dan. It seemed to happen automatically. I don’t even know how. (seriously)
I think it must happen automatically when one of our posts links to one of yours, or to some comments in your thread. In this case, I linked to a LOT of comments in this thread.
Yeah, now I look at it, that nonsensical out-of-context quote is right where my first link to you was.
Remove it if you want, I didn’t intend to put it there.
Why Vote Yes on Prop 8
The people of the State of California have approved state licensed marriages only as between a man and a woman. We, the people, want to have state licensed marriages to demonstrate our societal approval of and support for a monogamous sexual relationship between those being married because we believe the relationship is morally acceptable and is good for our society. By voting for Prop 8, we, the people, are saying that we desire only to approve monogamous sexual relationships between men and women, and have no interest in promoting any other sexual relationships. We are NOT saying that the state should prohibit all sexual relationships which are not between monogamous heterosexuals; it’s just that we don’t want to promote them.
Whether or not a particular sexual relationship should be encouraged is not always an easy decision, and people can have differing views. For example, in most states, marriage between first cousins is not permitted, but in other states, including California, this is allowed. Where marriage of first cousins is permitted, the people of the state determined that it was morally acceptable and beneficial for our society.
The State of California does not make illegal many sexual relations. In fact, any consenting adult may lawfully have sexual relations with any other consenting adult. For example, a man can live with and have sexual relations with two women, but the State of California does not want to promote this so the state does not permit a man to marry two women because we, the people, believe polygamy is not morally right and good for our society. Likewise, an adult woman can lawfully have sexual relations with her father’s brother, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a woman to marry her uncle because we, the people, believe the relationship is incestuous, and is not morally right and good for our society. Even a group of men can lawfully have sexual relations with a group of women, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a group of men to marry a group of women because we, the people, believe polyamory is neither morally right nor good for our society. By voting YES on Prop 8, we the people are affirming that even though two individuals of the same gender can lawfully have sexual relations, the State of California does not want to promote homosexual relations because we, the people, believe homosexual relations are not morally right or are not beneficial for our society.
Are homosexual relationships morally right?
Whether engaging in homosexual relations is morally right is a decision for you to make, based on your sense of right and wrong and your religious beliefs. You will need to determine where you stand regarding homosexual relations. If you are not sure, you may want to talk with family, friends and your pastor, priest, rabbi or other religious leader. If you believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.
Are homosexual relationships good for our society?
Whether homosexual relations should be approved and encouraged by the people of the State of California as good for society, is another decision you will need to make. A few of the related arguments for and against Prop 8, set forth below, may be helpful in making this decision. If you believe that promoting homosexual relations is not beneficial for our society, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.
Arguments For Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)
In all human societies throughout history, marriage has always existed, has always only involved men and women, and has always existed to serve the family. It has never existed solely for individuals or for couples, and though marriage benefits adults, offspring are the primary reason societies favor marriage. Anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation. Marriage, as a fundamental tool of society, is used to promote the best home life for children, that being the child’s father and mother who are married to each other. Children have a fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father. Marriage between same gender persons will encourage and give approval of children being conceived by artificial means and born into a family where they will not be raised by their mother and father. Scholars agree that the best for every child is to be raised in a loving home by its own mother and father who love each other. (The rebuttal to this argument is that being raised by a mother and father is not necessary as evidenced many individuals that are healthy, stable and successful in life and who were not raised in a two parent home. One, two, or more, caregivers can raise children successfully. In addition, there is no data available yet to support the idea that just because they are raised by two homosexuals, children will not be healthy, stable and successful in life.)
Arguments Against Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)
The primary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that “getting married” is a fundamental human right of every person in a committed loving relationship, and therefore should not be denied to homosexual couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that marriage is not a fundamental human right available to everyone, as evidenced by the fact that incestuous, polygamous and polyamorous marriages are not permitted. Only certain relationships that society wants to encourage are afforded marriage rights.)
A secondary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that the rights afforded to married couples are not the same as the rights given to domestic partners. (The rebuttal to that argument California law grants exactly the same legal rights to registered domestic partners as every married couple has. “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.†2003 Domestic Partner Act, California Family Code, Sections 297.) A related argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that because health care providers and other people in society do not understand the rights of registered domestic partners, homosexual couples are not treated the same as married couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect the rights of individuals in domestic partnerships.)
Another argument is that discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations will continue until homosexual relationships are respected by society, so by allowing homosexuals to marry, the State will give homosexual relationships respect and dignity so that there will be less discrimination. (The rebuttal to that argument is that laws already exist to prohibit discrimination, and the State has just as much an interest in protecting against discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations of those engaged in multi-partner or polygamous or other lawful sexual relationships, as it does in protecting against discrimination against homosexuals, yet we do not grant them the right to marry.)
Another view is that encouraging marriage between homosexuals will encourage monogamy between homosexual individuals, which will be good for society because promiscuity, whether between same gender or different gender people, tends to spread sexually transmitted diseases and is otherwise not good for society. (The rebuttal to this view is that individuals in committed relationships do not need to be married to be committed to monogamy, and there is no data to support the view that homosexuals in committed relationships are less monogamous than married homosexuals.)
For more info, go to http://www.protectmarriage.com
I think that if marriage ends up recognized as only a union of a man and a woman at the state constitutional level, then to be fair, it has to also be defined as just a special sub-case of a civil union for legal treatments and gain no additional benefits that are not inherited from that. That way you can still be “special” in a way that doesn’t interfere with the needs of the general population.
And really, marriage has always been more of a religious construct that should not be recognised at any government level, in any form.
also, Sam: What a horribly misplaced wall of text, you’re preaching to the atheists, as it were.