Yes on 8 Bus Tour: Impressions at an Exhibition

October 26, 2008 · Posted in Election 2008 

I don’t know exactly how to tell the story of my attendance at the media bus tour rally for Proposition 8 in Camarillo today. If told in a linear fashion, I doubt you’d make it to the end. Ultimately, it may be best to tell it in vignettes, not necessarily in time sequence, but as more of an impressionistic landscape of conversation, observance, and ultimately, sad conclusion.

Remember Lawrence King

  • The No on 8 representatives were a very small contingent, maybe 10 or 12, a handful at best. As one of them explained to me, they did not seek a confrontation or wish to disrupt. They were there to represent, no more, no less. The most poignant pair were the couple (a man and a woman) holding up a sign reminding us to remember Lawrence King and what his murder represented. They were silent. I never heard them say a word. As they struggled to get around the Yes supporters trying to block visibility, they said nothing. As if they were reading each other’s mind, they crossed the street together and stood on the opposite corner, unblocked, serious, respectful, and silent, standing with the sun in their eyes, facing the group on the other side with their tragic reminder of what happens when hate transforms to action.
  • Getting the kids involved

  • The little girl and the big girl As I crossed the street to come closer to the rally itself, a girl of about sixteen handed a small girl of about five or six a sign that read “Yes on 8=Parental Rights” and told her to stand on the corner closest to the driveway. I asked the little girl what that sign said. She didn’t know. I asked her what it meant for her to be holding it. She was quiet. The older girl, in a somewhat hostile tone, asked me why I was asking such questions of a little girl. I said I was curious to understand what little kids were thinking about holding signs and being part of the political process. Her response: “She doesn’t have a clue.” Mine: “I guess that’s my point.” She looked at me quizzically and turned away.
  • The preteen boys, especially the one with the Bad Religion shirt on. Two boys, around 12 or 13 stood on the north side of the rally holding Yes on 8 signs, squinting into the sun. As a car drove by honking madly for the Yes on 8 folks, they cheered like they were at a soccer game. I asked them why they were cheering.

    Boy in the Bad Religion shirt: “Because if this doesn’t pass, we’ll have to let gay kindergarten kids hold hands, and that grosses me out.” His friend nodded vigorously. I asked him whether he had ever seen such a thing. “Well, no”. What made him think it would happen if Prop 8 were defeated? “The guy over there (on the podium) says so.” What else made him want Yes on 8? “Well, we’ll have to learn about gays marrying, which is totally disgusting. And my religion says it’s bad, and I’m like, totally religious.”

    In my mind, I’m trying to reconcile the Bad Religion shirt with being “totally religious.” I thought about asking. Thought better of it, decided on a different approach. Repeating my earlier question, I ask them whether they’ve learned about gays marrying in school yet. “No, but they say we will.” I remind him that nothing changes if Prop 8 doesn’t pass. Changes only happen if it does pass. At that point, the man in the suit holding a sign a ways down intervenes, asserting rather strongly that state law requires it. (Note: This is false. All family and health education is opt-in, as any parent knows who has a child in the public school system)

  • The man in the suit and tie in the jeans and polo shirt (see comments for correction). This was the only time that I felt even a little afraid. He was a bit intimidating, and shouted across to me, asking who I was “with”. I said I wasn’t ‘with’ any organization; I was a blogger. Next question: Who did I blog for? Answer: Myself. Next: What site? I gave him my site URL. Question: Which way does it lean? Answer: Proudly liberal. and Christian.

    He turned and walked away. I said, rather loudly, that Jesus was more of a liberal than anything else, to which he turned and rather furiously shouted back that Jesus was certainly not a liberal.

    Later, one of the observers of that exchange admonished me as he was leaving to “tell the truth”. I reassured him that I absolutely intended to do exactly that.  The truth as I understood it, as fairly as I can tell it.

  • Rallying the faithful

  • The speakers on the podium. I’m not sure who they were, but they stuck to the talking points. It’s a strange thing to see Baptists allied with Mormons. In any other context, the Baptists would be furiously decrying the Mormons as a cult. Yet, they were up there on the podium cheering each other on and adding exclamation points to the points. I was having difficulty reconciling the cognitive disconnect. Everyone dressed in their Sunday Best, suits, ties, Easter dresses, children properly cleaned up and strategically placed, while hearing talking points that made no sense, yet everyone was cheering as though they’d been hypnotized.
  • The talking points. First point, repeated many times: This is a campaign of love. The first time it was repeated with no explanation for how that could be true. Several repeats later, I heard this phrase: “This is a campaign of love that should not be subject to the tyranny of the minority.” I also heard this: “They’ve got it all. Don’t let them have this, too.” The term “they” referred to gays. “This” referred to marriage. When I heard that, I immediately wondered what they meant by “got it all”. I also wondered how they were reconciling that statement with the idea of it being a campaign of love. Could it be that they were limiting the concept of love to the religious, the heterosexual, the married heterosexuals? Was that kind of intellectual dishonesty truly possible? It reminded me of the kind of love that abusive parents administer. They hold you close and hug you before knocking you across the room with one backhand to the face. That kind of love.
  • The cheerleading The final, and presumably key speaker could preach like a revival preacher in the Deep South. Lots of amens and calls to preach it from the crowd. At the end of his speech, he drove up the passions by calling for them to shout out “I do!” to each talking point. The first point was to affirm marriage as only being between a man and a woman. With rising pitch, he would ask the crowd “Do you swear to….(insert talking point here)”, and the crowd would rise and shout as if lifted by God Himself, “I DO!!!”. Each successive call for affirmation was louder and louder. All I could think of was the children who had no clue what the fever was all about, but would go along because they were in an exciting and energized group of people, driven by emotion and inspiration.
  • The men who didn’t know who Lawrence King was or why he should be remembered. Two men overheard as I was about to cross the street to leave, upon observing the couple with the “Remember Lawrence King” sign crossing the street: “Who is Lawrence King? Do you know?” “No, I don’t.” Barely able to contain myself, I turned with a smile and said “Lawrence King was murdered in cold blood in his homeroom class in Port Hueneme last February. In front of 40 eighth-graders. By a kid taught to be afraid of and hate gays.” I turned on my heel and left. This was front-page news here, and ultimately made the national news as well. It wasn’t a secret. Yet here were two full-grown men who had no clue who that poor boy was. Lawrence King was a resident at Casa Pacifica, a resident facility for troubled teens. It’s always struck me as ironic that, despite being part of a so-called traditional family, those traditional family values failed him. His killer is a troubled boy as well. I certainly don’t see where the ever-sanctified family was an asset to him either, other than to make sure a gun was accessible so he could put two bullets into Larry King’s head at point-blank range in front of his classmates.

    I was glad they couldn’t see the tears welling up in my eyes at the affront.

  • A reasonable discussion

  • The priest and the parishioner. Among the handful of people standing in opposition to Proposition 8, the one who most stood out was the gentle-looking man in the priest’s collar. He was involved in a respectful, intense conversation with another man who was arguing respectfully, but passionately, that homosexuality was a perversion. There was no question that the conversation was pointed and intense, but not confrontational. At one point, one of the Yes on 8 people brought a bottle of cold water to the priest. He accepted and said “I think I’ve just seen the face of Jesus today.”, as a way of thanking the water-bringer. What a generous and clear-headed spirit that priest had. I think I saw the face of Jesus, too. But it was on the priest, not the parishioner.

I have other fragmented, less clear impressions. Impressions of people, well-intentioned, sincere people, who somehow had been duped into thinking that somehow allowing same-sex marriage threatened their own heterosexual marriages. Impressions of children, happy to be at a big party, with no clue what the party was celebrating. Children being misled and taught falsehoods about what being gay was and what it wasn’t. Children being raised to be afraid, to not speak their minds or their hearts. The quiet determination of the two people on the corner. The TV cameraman who asked me which side I was on, and applauded my answer: That I was a Christian on the side of love and inclusion, strongly opposed to the idea of excluding anyone from entering into a marriage contract and a lifelong loving relationship.

BackstopImpressions of middle schoolers, anxious to be included in the event, but young enough to be distracted by the idea of tossing a baseball against the gargatuan Yes on 8 sign on the side of the truck. Impressions of a crowd stirred by the charismatic words and delivery of the preachers in the pulpit, fiercely guarding their right to be married to their loving spouse on the other side, believing in their deepest heart that they were somehow threatened.

And there is this: the impression that Christianity has been somehow twisted into an exclusive club where an entire segment of the population is to be toughloved out of the mainstream into the fringe. A sense of deep disappointment, of loss, grief that people could be led in such a way and in turn lead their children. Disappointment that there was not one mention of what Jesus did for those on the fringe, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the unwanted and the unwashed. For Jesus, it was all about them. And us.

As I reached my car, I smiled at the woman across the street who had told the Yes on 8 people they couldn’t park in front of her house. I got in the car, turned around, and cried all the way home. I remember sitting in front of my own house wondering how such ignorance, such venom, could be celebrated by a church. I will never forget the tone and manner with which the line “Don’t let them have this, too.” was delivered. That tone will haunt me for the rest of my life, as will the image of Lawrence King’s sweet face.

I printed his picture. I put it in my wallet. I will carry it with me to the polls on November 4th, and when I draw my line across the arrow on my ballot pointing to “No” next to Proposition 8, I will say a prayer that he is up in Heaven sending love our way.

This question of marriage is about love. Allowing everyone to celebrate and express it. Allowing each individual the basic human right to fall in love, and make a public commitment to remain true to one another, and that commitment is as valid for same-sex marriages as it is for heterosexual marriages. In a world where there are true threats to our well-being — disease, poverty, hunger, abuse, abandoned, unloved children — we should celebrate those who want to affirm commitment and a pledge of love to one another, not condemn it.

I don’t pretend to be objective. I’m not. I truly in my heart believe that excluding a group from something as good as marriage is wrong. Teaching children to be afraid of, or ridicule those different from them is wrong. Please, instead of making it an us versus them thing, vote No on Proposition 8 and make it only an US thing. Because we are all US. Aren’t we?

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

  • RedLivvy

    Wow. I am continually amazed an outraged by the “swelled up with pride” bible folk who are so vehemetly going about getting this “yes on 8.” I'm a straight, Agnostic person who was raised a bible-knowing-every version out there-strait-laced “Christian.” I am well aware of the bible and it's stories, and ideas, and morals, and laws. I do not however, believe that in today's world, you can hold up this claim of only a man and a woman should be allowed to be married, and that this proposition is protecting the sanctity of any institution that more than half of the heterosexuals of America do not treat as a mere choice, a whim, or a decision easily reversed by divorcing. Or staying together, but cheating; or staying together for the sake of the kids, but do not truly treat their union with respect. There is so much hipocrisy in this whole idea behind yes on Prop 8. It shows no love like the bible teaches, it does not teach tolerance, it shows no respect for the children they are so desperately trying to claim they are “protecting.” It certainly has only done more to confirm my beliefs, that men and religion are a powerful, but hypocritical unit that deem it ok to lie and twist the truth when it work best for them. Once again, the bible becomes a menu, where certain things are chosen to be upheld as “law” and others are deemed interpretive. And to each one, there will be their own interpretation. Mormons have long struggled to be “accepted” as a real religion, and not stoned by the “true christians” in their towns where they began their “ministry.” And now they are welcomed as long as they happen to be on the same side on one issue? Interesting where tolerance is allowed to play, and at what point. The most important thing here is that gay people will continue to make a home for themselves and their partners, and their family. Prop 8 will not change that. It will not stop there from being gay people, falling in love, and making a life together. And children wil continue to be a product of that environment. Children who had no choice to be a part of the matter. And they will learn about gay people, and homosexuality at school – from other children – just like we all learned half the things we learned about sex and people in those years. Would it be so bad if these children were taught to accept everyone for their differences by an adult that they hopefully respect? Can parents take a little more time to teach their children what they think is right at home, and be involved in their childrens' upbringing, and create a household where a child can come to them with their questions and, perhaps their own DIFFERENT ideas? Are these parents really so ignorant to the fact that they may actually have a gay child, even if they are heterosexuals, and shun the homosexual lifestyle, and are devoted Christians? Love from a parent, whoever, whatever they are, is the best thing a child can have. And one of the best ways to teach that to a child is through example. What example are they setting for their children by continuing to teach them hatred, or at the very least, that other lifestyles are around them all the time, and they should be tolerable of that? Isn't that what Christianity is about? Love thy neighbor. Handle the truth aright. I know I read both those things in the bible. Again, I go back to it not being a menu, and you can't change some things, and uphold others. Are substitutions allowed or not? This fight is ridiculous. Live your own life and allow others to live theirs. Give everyone the same rights we all want. And please, let me ask that the love of my life be allowed to be recognized as so, and allow me to take care of them, and put them on my insurance, and vice versa. Ok, I've babbled on here, but this issue just makes me so angry. No on 8 is the only fair thing to do. In a country where we are all about freedom, give everyone the freedom to do the same things you can. Vote, be single, be married, believe in whatever God you want, or none at all, marry whatever race of person you want, and whatever gender!

  • James Baxter

    The state nor any religious group has the right to tell people what is normal, either in who they love or how they raise their children. Children have been raised by every kind of family or lack thereof and in every kind of instance the children have grown up to be loving full adults and in every instance children have also grown up incomplete and hatefull, damaged. It all depends on the character of the parent(s) and the child. Yes on prop 8 is the state getting more power over our rights. Taking rights away from any of us is taking the rights of all of us. Be careful America. its not always just about the issue at hand.

  • Akolyte01

    prop8, your a total dumbass.

    Gay couples can ALREADY adopt children, marriage won't change a thing.

    SINGLE PARENTS can raise AND ADOPT children.

    Right to a mom and a dad? That's the biggest pile of bullshit ever.

    It's absolutely pathetic that you've constructed this meager excuse in an attempt to justify your bigotry.

  • Vlad

    Thank you. Seeing all this hate is making me want to go back into the closet. Every single night i look over at my boyfriend and tear up that i might not be able to marry him. I have faith that others might see how wrong Yes on 8 is.

    From a Gay Baha'i

  • Eleanor

    My parents divorced very soon after I was born, and I have been raised by my mother only since then. I didn't even realise I had a dad till I was seven. And yet I have grown into a perfectly well-adjusted adult. So how can two mothers be worse than one? It seems utterly ridiculous to me that there would be no problem with single parents raising children on their own, and yet it is seen as blasphemy that same sex couples be afforded the same rights.

  • ts

    I wish people would stop worrying about what other people are doing in their lives. I'm 100% straight, and I could care less if every person in my city were gay. It wouldn't bother me a bit because it's none of my business. No one has any right to say what is best for other people. Weren't christians taught to not judge other people? Seems that's all they do these days.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Well, some of us don't. That's just it. The Yes on 8 folks don't speak for
    me. It offends me that I get lumped in with them.

  • MailOrderBride

    If gays pay taxes for schools, roads, parks and every other amenity we enjoy as Californians, they should be allowed to enjoy all the civil rights of everyone else in this State. If you choose to deny them the right of marriage, I suggest that gays receive an immediate discount on their taxes to equal things out. Marriage is only sacred to the individuals who participate in it, gay or straight. If we want to play the “…my religion says…” card, remember that gluttony is also a sin. Fat people, you're next!

  • ts

    I probably should have worded my last sentence differently…specifically the word “they”. I know that not all christians are the same, and I hope I didn't offend.

    By the way, I enjoyed reading through your blog so much, I added the RSS feed to my yahoo homepage. =)

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Thank you! I'm glad you did. If I can hold onto my remaining brain cells for
    the rest of this election, I look forward to celebrating on the other side.

  • Rick DeLano

    I am a cochair and I have poured out my heart, sweat, blood and tears to pass Prop 8.

    I now know it will pass.

    Last night I had a dream.

    I dreamed that I was invited to address the No on 8 campaign after they had announced Prop 8 had won.

    I looked out and saw the faces of all my Catholic friends who wouldn't support Prop 8, including my old pastor, who denied me permission to have a table after Mass.

    I remember getting ready to gloat and crow about our victory, and then I saw the look on their faces, and it suddenyl hit me-

    they looked exactly how I would look if Prop 8 lost.

    I started to cry, and I woke up crying.

    We are going to beat you, and I would never wish for any other outcome.

    God grant me the grace of compassion after it's over.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    My prayer is that you take a moment and consider the price for what you support. One statean divided into two groups. One group receives rights; the other has rights denied. Rights that were never defined as a right at all.

    If prop 8 passes, it will be struck down by the supreme court, after the expenditure of millions of dollars on legal fees. Money that could have been to help the poor, those in need, those who need to experience Christ's love.

    It is disappointing to see Christians practice politics of exclusion. Even more disappointing to see them exult at the idea.

  • Carrie

    You realize that no rights will be taken away, don't you? Civil unions and FC section 297.5 already provide “equality for all,” so that's a moot point. So “equality for all” is already in the books – twice. What is really at stake can be explained in 4 minutes in this well done video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

    A ton of other stuff is addressed issue by issue here: http://members.cox.net/mamaof4/index.shtml

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Separate but equal. Your arguments were the same ones used to justify segregating schools, lunch counters and public transportation. They don't play with me or the Supreme Court. Trying to justify a claim of rights at someone else's expense is just wrong.

  • Carrie

    Exactly! Now you're getting it.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    But you're not The separate but equal doctrine has already been struck down by the US Supreme Court.

  • Carrie

    Opponents desperately wish to quelch MY rights without gaining any additional rights for gay couples. Civil Unions and FC Section 297.5 already provide “equality for all” without throwing homosexuality in my face and talking to my kids about it. If more people knew this, then I suspect that it could be agreed upon that a compromise already exists and the divisive polarity of this issue would abate.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    What rights are being squelched? Hoiw are your rights in any way threatened? Please explain.

  • Carrie

    Well, for instance, this story came out over the weekend: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html
    “During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

    The cards asked signers to be “an ally” and to pledge to “not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts.”

    The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners. “

    It would not be ok with me for this to happen to my chldren at any grade level. Why schools are so anxious to bring up the subject with children is beyond me. And they want to get them familiar with the gay lifestyle as soon as possible!
    Listen to this, “According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of ‘diversity,’ and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped. …

    From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: ‘In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents’ [p 5].

    ‘Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction’ [p 3].”

    http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/proposit

    And there go the rights of the parents who want schools to do their job, which is to provide an education in reading, writing, and 'rithmetic.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Nonsense. First of all, handing out a card to kindergartners is not
    trampling on your rights. Or theirs. If that teacher had gone through and
    taught them each individual term, what it meant, and forced them to sign the
    card, you'd have grounds for a huge lawsuit and you'd win.

    Here are the facts: Gays are here. They're not going anywhere. Lean in,
    now, so you can get this clearly. Preaching hate on street corners is a
    very, very bad idea. Discrimination against one class of people guarantees
    that you're trampling on their rights. Creating two classes of people and
    denying them the same standing as the other under the law? that's trampling
    on rights.

    Here's something I'll bet you don't know. If you are in a pension plan (not
    a 401k necessarily, but a straight-up pension plan), and you're married,
    you're entitled automatically to a spousal benefit on the death of a spouse.

    Civil unions aren't recognized the same way. So if you limit gays to civil
    unions, they do not have any right as spousal beneficiaries of their
    partners' pensions. Unequal. DIscriminatory.

    THAT is trampling on rights.

    As far as learning about GLBT issues? You people have done more to educate
    your little darlings about homosexuality and gay marriage than they would
    EVER have learned in a health class.LOL.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Ps opt your kids out like anyone would who wants to keep it to reading, writing and arithmetic. That's a right all parents have. Opt out and poof! No lil kiddies learnin' that boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls.

    Too bad we can'r opt our kids out of learning about the bloody wars fought, too. Because that scared my kids a heckuva lot more than a couple of folks proessing love for each other and committing their lives to one another. They had nightmares over that. Especially when their brother was serving after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Yep, amen.
    Sent via BlackBerry, a miracle invented by John McCain.

  • http://badgermama.blogspot.com badgermama

    Beautiful post! Thank you! I wish I had talked to more of them and written down what they said.

  • http://theatomicbubble.com Seanieb64

    Hello,

    I think that children deserve parents, but not a mom and a dad, it has been irrevalent to me, My dad was pretty much gone while I grew up, from infancy to my current age, I met him a few times at 12, but he still was uninterested in me. He was more interested in his booze.

    I think I have been happier, aside from one sad day a year, and a few days where the gap shows through, but from the few experiences I've had, I think I'm happier with being raised by my mother, MY mom also knows how it feels to grow up without a father. but was more affected. My grandfather, was kill din Vietnam in the 60's, a very celebrated fighter pilot, we have a box of medals of his honors. His body was never recovered, and they never got an opportunity for true closure. Every child deserves the right to succeed, and if that means not having a mommy and daddy like you say is “normal” than I must not have my rights, because my good-for-nothing father gives me no sympathy for your argument.

    I have an uncle, form my Moms side who is gay, and he was deeply affected as a teenager with my Grandfathers death. He fell into a spiral of tough times, and soon came out of the closet. Speed up 15 years, and him and his partner have been together, for 15 years, and they still haven't gotten married. He has not been able to get a new job, due to descriminatrion. He is a normal, healthy, hard working successful person, and he deserves as much the right as the mommy and daddy kids deserve to live in the way you think they should, as my relative should be able to marry.

    No on Proposition 8, in California, Keep rights for everyone.

  • dolphyngyrl

    Kindergartners are asked to pledge to not take drugs, even though most of them have no idea what “taking drugs” is, what it means, or what the implications are.

    Why is it so wrong to ask them not to perpetuate hate and discrimination? To open their eyes and minds that all people are created equally in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such.

    As for parental rights, get yourself a clue. In the state of California, any parent can choose to opt their child out of any lesson that the parent objects to. It is the parents' right to do so. I'm sorry if paying attention to what your child is learning in school is too much work for you, but the public school system was not created to push your religious beliefs or hate agenda.

    Also, so that we're clear: California does not have civil unions for homosexuals. It has registered domestic partnerships, which are NOT the same as a legal marriage nor are they equal in rights and protections, under the law. But since you're so convinced that it's the same thing as a legal marriage, maybe what we should do is end legal marriage entirely, and everyone can have a registered domestic partnership. Then we'll all be equals and gay folk won't be soiling your precious institution.

  • Carrie

    Civil unions vary by state, and California civil union laws should be changed to allow all the rights of a spouse if they do not already.

    I do not wish someone's alternative lifestyle — be it gay, swinging, what have you — in my face or my children's. It's that simple. And I demand the right to be free from that. As I have shown, many times in many places of this great country, that right has been knocked away.

    I would also remind you that there is another group of people who would be outraged at a reference directed toward them as “you people.” Guess you're not that pc after all, and none of this is funny.

    I am extremely disappointed in the lack of reasoning and the arguing in circles that I encounter. I am strengthened by the amazing good that has come from this: Christian groups have seen how much they have in common instead of what they haven't. There has been a coming together that is so uplifting and so inspirational. It crosses state lines and religious affiliations. I am honored and humbled to be a part of that. It feels like Christmas, and I hope it lasts for a long time.

    This is my last post. Thank you everyone for reading. I hope I connected with you in some way and that you'll read this essay http://members.cox.net/mamaof4/index.shtml
    Blessings.

  • Carrie

    You would think that would be true, but surprisingly, you'd be wrong. “The Parker Family: They were told the homosexual relationship discussion in kindergarten was “not a parental issue.” The school handcuffed the father who stood his ground and refused to leave until he was given the opportunity to opt-out his son from the homosexuality curriculum being taught – in kindergarten! Obviously, they refused to respect his parental wishes. Video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpi… “

  • dolphyngyrl

    Wow, really? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This story happened in Massachusetts. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but California and Massachusetts are actually different states, and, as such, have different laws governing the education of children.

    Didn't you wonder how school in California has been in session for over two months, now, while gay marriage has been legal, and nobody could find a similar story in California?

    Or did you just not think it through that far?

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    No, it really doesn't cross state lines, particularly when you cite an
    out-of-state case as a reason for California to discriminate based on a
    state with different laws.

    In California it is mandatory that parents be given the option to decline
    health education for their children. Failure to do so would be a huge
    disaster.

    You out-of-staters are using California as your test case, so you can take
    it to the other states. I'm not stupid, we know that. But even if you do
    succeed, and I pray you don't, the Supreme Court will recognize it for the
    discrimination that it is. If they even decide to hear it after the 9th
    circuit strikes it down.

  • Pingback: los anjalis » “Don’t let them have this too”

  • Shannon

    Unfortunately there is a vast amount of ignorance in the universe..it was inspirational to read your well written, compassionate perspective. It is truly sad to hear our youth so blindly believing in hate.

  • Nomore_Blind_Faith

    prop 8. never made much sense to me and it still doesnt. Why would it be hurtful if two homosexuals who love each other marry?? “theyll teach my 5 year old in school agians his will!” says the man in the podium, but I didnt learn about how homosexual sex worked until my junior year of highs school. Other than religious points of views, prop 8 is just another form of oppression VERY similar to the beginning of Nazi Final Solution. next well take away their right to vote, then well take to “government sanctioned camping utilities”, then the chambers, then wonder why, why did so many people die, and the best answer we could give was “they were attracted to something different, therefore they had to die, GOD willed it.” then wonder years later “could we have stopped it?” I've been hearing the answer a lot lately, so i'll put it bluntly “yes we can”. we just have to try