California

[BillsWatch]

It came down to a segment of populace trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage". Let necrophiliacs, animal sex advocates and polygamists try same thing and there would a lot more opposition.

 

I expecting Hollyweird to threaten moving studios to other countries with more "accommodating" policies.

[Johnny Coli]

He voted the way he did because of how it affected him and his family, DUH!!!

 

What a bad man John in Hemut is...........Christ!!!!

And, years down the road when this gets finished being litigated in the courts, where ultimately it will be ruled that you can't infringe upon the rights of thousands by denying them what they already had, his kids will have either found out about "the gays" from their friends, the news or hopefully him.

[bills_fan]

And, years down the road when this gets finished being litigated in the courts, where ultimately it will be ruled that you can't infringe upon the rights of thousands by denying them what they already had, his kids will have either found out about "the gays" from their friends, the news or hopefully him.

 

 

Thats the whole point.

[John Adams]

Thank you. Perfect post. I dont know how many different ways you can explain it to his ass, but this one seems to me to be the knock out punch.

 

Hey John Adams you're freaking wrong, man!!

 

I posted prop 8 twice. It has nothing to do with schools. These two worry that something might--and I stress might--be taught to their kids. Something that schools can already teach.

 

I have to explain things to my daughter all the time that I'd have chosen to explain later (intercourse comes to mind as does burglary and the need for us to be present when she's on the web). That's in the dad job description. As is--for me--teaching some measured acceptance. What harm comes to a kid who hears about gay marriage? How can you not be more worried about all the other sh-- that your kid's teachers actually teach daily than the chance that they might hear about gay marriage?

 

If you voted down Prop 8 because your kids might hear about gay marriage, it's a dumb reason. Your kids will hear about it anyways, and a lot of other things, and Prop 8 has nothing to do with that.

[John from Riverside]

And, years down the road when this gets finished being litigated in the courts, where ultimately it will be ruled that you can't infringe upon the rights of thousands by denying them what they already had, his kids will have either found out about "the gays" from their friends, the news or hopefully him.

 

Uh yeah

[John from Riverside]

I posted prop 8 twice. These two worry that something might--and I stress might--be taught to their kids. Something that schools can already teach.

I have to explain things to my daughter all the time that I'd have chosen to explain later ( intercourse comes to mind as does burglary). That's in the dad job description. As is--for me--teaching some measured acceptance. What harm comes to a kid who hears about g

 

I can promise you that if that happened there would be hell to pay.

[erynthered]

And, years down the road when this gets finished being litigated in the courts, where ultimately it will be ruled that you can't infringe upon the rights of thousands by denying them what they already had, his kids will have either found out about "the gays" from their friends, the news or hopefully him.

 

 

One question. Do you have children?

 

Yes. I know that answer. God willing you'll be a parent one day. Until that time You really dont know what its like being one. To much to explain, but other parents here will agree with me, I'm sure. I remember my brother telling me I didnt know what the !@#$ i was talking about when he was already a parent and me being a wanna be. Short of it is this. When you're a parent things change, man.

 

Get busy, Coli!!

[John Adams]

But understand LA's point...he, as the parent, wants to be the one to explain gay marriage to his son, just like you did for your daughter. No one should tell LA when the appropriate time is for him to explain it to his son, just like nobody told you when to explain it to your daughter. Thats the point, it should be left to the parents.

 

I understand. Without Prop 8, teachers can teach about gay marriage. So why harm all the people who get hurt by passing prop 8?

 

Further, kids hear about sh-- in school all the time from teachers that parents would prefer not to be taught. That's life. Gay marriage might--stressing might yet again--be one of those things.

[Johnny Coli]

Uh yeah

So, you were willing to cast a vote for a ban that would invalidate the marriage of thousands of couples, tying it up in the courts for years, destroying families and costing millions of dollars in the process (and ultimately failing because you can't deny something to someone that they have already been granted) all because you were worried or squeamish about the improbable chance that some time in the next 12 months or so, however unlikely, that your child might come home from school with "My two Dads" or ask you why her friend has two moms? How long do you think you'll be able to shield you kid from "the gays"?

[John Adams]

I can promise you that if that happened there would be hell to pay.

 

Hell to pay if your kid hears about gay marriage at school? Get a grip. Why in the !@#$ would you care? Your kid will probably know what gay is long before you explain it to him. Back in the 70s, it was in regular use in my schools by age 8. Good chance that's crept lower by now. I kind of remember using fag when I was about 6, with a fair understanding about what it meant.

 

My daughter's 1st grade talked about gay marriage as an election issue over the last few months. Didn't seem to cause any sort of discord.

[Johnny Coli]

One question. Do you have children?

 

Yes. I know that answer. God willing you'll be a parent one day. Until that time You really dont know what its like being one. To much to explain, but other parents here will agree with me, I'm sure. I remember my brother telling me I didnt know what the !@#$ i was talking about when he was already a parent and me being a wanna be. Short of it is this. When you're a parent things change, man.

 

Get busy, Coli!!

I can guarantee you that our children will have plenty of gay and lesbian people playing significant parts in their lives, because they already play significant parts in our current lives. Seriously, I just don't see the big deal about letting two committed people get married, and I certainly don't know why you'd want to shield your children from something like that. It makes no sense, what-so-ever.

[erynthered]

I posted prop 8 twice. It has nothing to do with schools. These two worry that something might--and I stress might--be taught to their kids. Something that schools can already teach.

 

I have to explain things to my daughter all the time that I'd have chosen to explain later (intercourse comes to mind as does burglary and the need for us to be present when she's on the web). That's in the dad job description. As is--for me--teaching some measured acceptance. What harm comes to a kid who hears about gay marriage? How can you not be more worried about all the other sh-- that your kid's teachers actually teach daily than the chance that they might hear about gay marriage?

 

If you voted down Prop 8 because your kids might hear about gay marriage, it's a dumb reason. Your kids will hear about it anyways, and a lot of other things, and Prop 8 has nothing to do with that.

 

 

Sorry. I think what LA and John are saying is, is that if at all possible they'd like to be the ones addressing all the gay/lezbo/transexual/hermafrodit/goat!@#$ingetcetcetc. without the schools/Gov getting involved in how THEY want to raise their children. I dont think they're asking for too much.

 

The only other thing I'd ask is, have you ever been to Cali? They're different there, man. You're always busting wackas nuts, he's not even close to being the bigges nut bag out there.

 

Again, you're wrong, dude.

[IDBillzFan]

You voted for the ban. The ban will invalidate probably 25,000 marriages. The ban wasn't "Banning the teaching about gay marriage to John from Hemet's kids." It was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

 

EDIT: You people voting for the ban were aware that you were invalidating thousands of legal marriages, right? You know, when you cast your vote to save your kids from reading "My Two Dads."

This is kind of along the lines of discussions about Obama's tax increases. When folks like myself argue against it, the first thing we hear is "It's just a drop in the bucket for people earning that kind of money." The amount of the money is not my issue any more than gays being married is my issue. I reserve the right to have my own priorities.

 

Here's another example: We had a proposal in Calfornia this week that called for a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy. The way the proposition read, it "changes the California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parents, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative. Provides an exception for medical emergency or parental waiver."

 

There was one ad running against the proposal. All it showed was a video shot of a window from outside a house, and the sounds of a parent beating their pregnant, under-aged child, and the message was essentially "There's a reason some girls don't want to tell their parents that they're pregnant."

 

Now the minute I saw that proposal, the only way for me to evaluate it was to personalize it. If my under-aged daughter was pregnant and trying to get an abortion, would I want to know before she does it? My first response was, "Well, if my under-aged daughter is pregnant and wants to abort the baby without telling my wife and me, we've screwed up pretty badly."

 

But nowhere in my thought process did I think that by voting in favor of the proposal I would be subjecting under-age girls all over the state to getting their pregnant selves beaten by their parents simply because I want to be aware of my own daughter's welfare. Should I have voted against that proposal so under-aged girls can have abortions without their parents knowing so many of them can avoid being beaten by their parents?

 

As with everything, it's a personal choice based on personal priorities and preferences. We can spend our entire lives regretting virtually all of our actions if we spend enough time thinking about all the other consequences that could take place as a result of our decisions. But in the end, the reason we are allowed to vote on these issues is because people have differing opinions.

[Johnny Coli]

Sorry. I think what LA and John are saying is, is that if at all possible they'd like to be the ones addressing all the gay/lezbo/transexual/hermafrodit/goat!@#$ingetcetcetc. without the schools/Gov getting involved in how THEY want to raise their children. I dont think they're asking for too much.

Do you wear a scarf, gloves and wool hat on a sunny day in August just on the chance that it might snow, because that's the argument you people are making here. And snow in southern California in August has the same chance of happening as "the gays" springing some agenda on kindergartners because homosexuals have the right to call their union a "marriage."

[erynthered]

I can guarantee you that our children will have plenty of gay and lesbian people playing significant parts in their lives, because they already play significant parts in our current lives. Seriously, I just don't see the big deal about letting two committed people get married, and I certainly don't know why you'd want to shield your children from something like that. It makes no sense, what-so-ever.

 

Where did I say I that I'd want to shield my kids? Christ you people assume. And I'm not going to defend myself from that !@#$ingmorinic comment, Coli.

[Jon in Pasadena]

So, you were willing to cast a vote for a ban that would invalidate the marriage of thousands of couples, tying it up in the courts for years, destroying families and costing millions of dollars in the process (and ultimately failing because you can't deny something to someone that they have already been granted) all because you were worried or squeamish about the improbable chance that some time in the next 12 months or so, however unlikely, that your child might come home from school with "My two Dads" or ask you why her friend has two moms? How long do you think you'll be able to shield you kid from "the gays"?

For what it's worth, (and I am not a lawyer so this is just a WAG), I'd bet that it won't invalidate the tens of thousands of same-sex marriages that have already been performed, or will be shortly in the scramble before the vote is certified, and the amendment is officially enacted. For better or for worse, those marriages were/will have been legal at the time they were performed. And ex post facto laws normally don't cut it.

 

FWIW, I am the father of a kindergartner, and I am not at all concerned about the extremely remote possibility of him being taught about same-sex marriage in school. I am, however, concerned that they're already teaching him abstract graphs and Venn diagrams.

 

I don't recall much of my own kindergarten days, but I'm pretty sure we didn't go much further than petting bunnies and making applesauce.

[Johnny Coli]

Where did I say I that I'd want to shield my kids? Christ you people assume. And I'm not going to defend myself from that !@#$ingmorinic comment, Coli.

That's what the discussion is about. What should I assume from you asking me if I'm going to have kids and telling me things will be different when I do, in a thread discussing gay marriage and whether kids should hear about it?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Then it's a partnership that should have the same legal rights as partnerships (depending on which one they elect) Laws should not be for convenience. There are many rights, responsibilities and consequences that are part of a "marriage." You can't just strip it down to rights to make it work for a sub segment.

 

In the end, the battle is about a word. I think there would be far less debate if the issue was about extending the same rights, responsibilities and consequences of a marriage t same sex couples, save the word - marriage. But of course, since gays want and need the word marriage to be legitimized as well, you have a standstill.

That about describes it and the fervent religious folks don't want the word marriage to man that at all. I don't see the big deal, as long as one earlier poster says they have to comply with divorce laws too...

 

From a libertarian perspective, why would what the state calls your relationship with another partner have any bearing on your commitment to that person under God. Another words, it doesn't take the state to sanctify my marriage IMO, only God.

 

From a tax benefit position, equal laws and rules should apply.

[Johnny Coli]

For what it's worth, (and I am not a lawyer so this is just a WAG), I'd bet that it won't invalidate the tens of thousands of same-sex marriages that have already been performed, or will be shortly in the scramble before the vote is certified, and the amendment is officially enacted. For better or for worse, those marriages were/will have been legal at the time they were performed. And ex post facto laws normally don't cut it.

 

FWIW, I am the father of a kindergartner, and I am not at all concerned about the extremely remote possibility of him being taught about same-sex marriage in school. I am, however, concerned that they're already teaching him abstract graphs and Venn diagrams.

 

I don't recall much of my own kindergarten days, but I'm pretty sure we didn't go much further than petting bunnies and making applesauce.

I think the problem, legally, will be in the wording of the actual amendment, to whit "Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That right there would invalidate the current marriages, and if it doesn't you'd never be able to defend the case that another gay couple wanting to also get married wouldn't be infringed.

[bills_fan]

That's what the discussion is about. What should I assume from you asking me if I'm going to have kids and telling me things will be different when I do, in a thread discussing gay marriage and whether kids should hear about it?

 

 

Now you are missing the point yet again. The discussion is not about shielding kids, its about a parent's right to explain things to their children when they choose without government interference.