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

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

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

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

    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.
  • 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
    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/ser... "
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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...
    Blessings.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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. =)
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • Blackrose
    Great post BTW. I am really glad you wrote this. People need to be informed.
  • Blackrose
    I find it quite ironic that a kid with whose parents let him listen to Bad Religion, of all bands, was there. Isn't this the kind of stuff that this band speaks out against? I mean seriously...
  • Sorry
    I was also at the rally yesterday. I myself support prop 8 but was not aware of some of the more hurtful or what you might call ignorant remarks that were going to be made. I'm regretful for some of the poor representation we had.
    Some who support prop 8 are ignorant, yes. I would argue ome who oppose prop 8 are ignorant as well.
    I want to say I'm sorry many of the represntations yesterday hurt you. I can't speak for everyone who supports prop 8, but I can say for myself that I don't hate homosexuals. To me, that isn't what it's all about. You might not be able to understand that, but I want you to know that for me and many others it isn't about hate. Hate crimes like Lawrence King appall me also. Hate and intolerance make me sad too.
    I hope you will look at that rally and just see people who just honestly believe what they believe, are teaching their children like any other parent would (hetero or homo sexual... we've seen them on both sides), and who were using their freedom of speech to do what they feel is right.
    God bless
  • I really appreciate your kind comment. And I believe you when you say you don't hate. I believe you when you say the Lawrence King murder pains you, too.

    Help me understand how allowing gays equal access to marriage threatens in any way your core beliefs? And how does exclusion square with inclusion.

    As to painful remarks, let me be clear that they did not come from the crowd. The speakers were the source. I was not in any way characterizing people I encountered as rude or hurtful. At the same time, I don't see how exclusion is anything but hurtful and alienating.
  • Carrie
    I absolutely agree with the original author's post. I, too, am a Christian and oppose gay marriage. I do not oppose civil unions. I think if you looked around a bit more, you'd find where the hate is truly originating to whom it is directed.

    People have been assaulted for simply handing out signs in a church parking lot; cars bearing "Yes on 8" stickers have been keyed with words like "gay sex is fun;" someone parked an suv in front of a pro-8 house with their own signs reading, "Bigots live here!" and multiple signs have been stolen, including one of mine. And we're the ones harboring hate? Really? C'mon now.



  • BR
    You are a braver soul than I. Beautiful and eloquent post.

    Assuming noyb is who he claims he only reinforces your perception of the event by resorting to attacking things he doesn't understand, or purposefully limits his knowledge of. I live near San Diego and am disgusted by the ignorance of some of our own family members regarding 8.

    Having an 18 year old nephew who recently came out, most of his immediate family are still clinging to their "Hate the sin, love the sinner" backhanded Christian claim. Even one cousin who is engaged to be married is under the delusion that "they" can have all the same rights as a hetero couple without being legally married.

    The only thing qualified to define marriage is the love of those involved.

    Keep up the great blog!

    No on 8
    Don't discriminate.

    8 teaches HATE
    NO ON 8!
  • Brooke
    Insightful, thank you for your compassion.
  • It's quite clear that Jesus is against Proposition 8. The majority of Americans belong to Churches that agree.
  • ursulas
    Excellent coverage and information. Wish I lived in California. I'd be voting against taking more rights away from adult human beings who love each other. Those of you with a heart and conscience, vote NO on question 8!

  • Many Christians are starting to realize that NO on 8 is the correct answer.
  • noyb
    With respect to the misleading lop sided view on your blog. First, I was not wearing a
    “Suit and tie”, I was wearing blue jeans and a button up polo short leave shirt. Obviously the fact that you were not that observant leads me to believe that the large part of your blog is also misleading. Second, is the exchange as you of course recollect it? If you felt afraid it was probably because of your one sided agenda and the fact that what you had intended on reporting was factually false. Now lets examine the facts as I remember them. 1. The reason why I had to shout was due to the amount of noise that was coming from the rally, proponents and traffic. 2. It shows your insecurity in answering some one who is actually informed on the issues as opposed to interviewing small children and teenagers as to expose some ignorance as it relates to our ability to support a cause that we believe in. This is a typical tactic that you on the left use as evident in your blog. 3. You did answer my questions what seemed to be without fear or concern for your safety. However, the fact that you had stated that you were a Christian was false. 3. “Which way does it lean” Now if you were any kind of responsible and ethical reporter you would have not taken my words out of context. In response the above quote, I asked what side of the aisle do you lie on. Your answer was correct, however I never walked away, it was you that were walking away making your earlier statements about being a proud liberal. So again false. 4. My response to you stating, “Jesus was a liberal” again was false. (Again as you were walking away) Lets really examine the facts. My response to you like so many others who have made the same statement was “Jesus was neither a liberal or conservative”. Unfortunately that fact that you were walking away is most likely the cause for you not hearing me. So it will be up to your very few listeners to decide who is really telling the truth taking into consideration that you did not have the confidence nor the intellect to confront some one who is well versed on the issues and not to a couple of 11 year old school children.
  • Thank you for visiting and adding your perspective. It was not my intention to mischaracterize or demonize you in any way.
    As to the truthfulness of my account, I was sending messages in real time to twitter to keep my overal impression accurate.

    I did indeed say I was a Christian The fact that you chose to ignore that or simply didn't hear me does not, however, mean that I am challenging your veracity the way you challenged mine. As any investigator will attest, memories of what people wear and what they look like is often mistaken. This is why eyewitness identification in criminal cases is so unreliable.

    As to the fear, I don't believe that I said I was shaky-afraid. I clearly stated how I felt, but I certainly did not feel as though I was in any physical danger.

    I have not attacked you. I took care to limit my remarks to my own reactions. Yet in this comment, you have chosen to attack my intellect, my veracity, and my motives. I submit that speaks volumes to your attitude and affirms my original concerns.

    If you choose to respond, please do so without the personal attacks. The respectful tone I witnessed today with most who were there was far more productive than shouts and pointed fingers. I can and do delete comments which do not advance the discussion. Thank you in advance.
  • noyb
    My reasoning for attacking your intellect was due to the fact that you deliberately avoided anyone who would challenge you on the facts. No other reason than that. As for your other arguments I will take your word for it as a fellow Christian. As far as the people who were standing across the street was a different matter entirely. You can read my response to Kelly. I only wish you would have given more credit as to the over all positive and up beat atmosphere the rally was about aside from focusing on a few people that may have been less informed. We both know that there are plenty of those to go around on every issue on all sides of the political spectrum.
  • I didn't avoid anyone who challenged my facts. You were walking away and shouted back at me over your shoulder. My purpose was not to provoke anyone into a confrontation. Truth be told, I regretted making that comment about Jesus being a liberal as soon as it left my mouth. I had no desire to engage on any kind of argumentative plane. My choice was to learn without the inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the issue.

    If you viewed that as avoiding issues, I can assure you that it was far more to do with a desire not to disrupt any more than I already had.
  • Thank you for this beautifully written post. As a Christian, it pains me that some Christians are so virulently pro-Prop 8. Christians aren't exactly famous for getting along with each other, but the mean-spiritedness at the center of the Yes on 8 folks is crushing. Again, thank you for writing.
  • noyb
    As a fellow Christian, I respect the views of others. However, it crosses a line when you only have the courage to interview small children. My niece is gay and is voting no on prop 8 along with her mother who is my sister. That’s not to say that I love my niece any less. She means the world to me. It is a fundamental disagreement that we have with one another. I was at the rally and it was a peaceful rally with a lot of God-fearing Christians. As for the people holding the large banner across the street is another story. I walked over asking two people to be respectful to them and that they had every right to be there as we. did. I learned after being next to them that the woman was telling the kids not to get any where near her, not even close and shouting at the kids. When they started to leave they started shouting at us calling us bigots and hate mongers. So perception is everything. Don’t read everything you believe especially when this blogger has a clear agenda.

    They went so far as to plant a speaker at the rally who was saying some very terrible things about gays. The people at the rally booed him off the stage and told him he is not welcome. How do I know this, well it’s because one of the few no on prop 8 people came over and congratulated the woman next to us holding the banner and called her a hero for planting the speaker. Shameful. And yes, I’m sure most of us knew who Lawrence King was. We were all very touched by that horrible hate crime and would never ever condone something like that. But to make the comparison that we support yes on prop 8 to a hate crime that ended up in murder is unconscionable and a disgrace.
  • I never heard anyone booed off the stage yesterday. Granted, I was on the other side of the street for awhile, but that was before any speaker took the stage.

    Also, I took a ton of photos of the two with the sign while they were on both sides of the street. I didn't see or hear (and my photos don't indicate) that there was any confrontation with children. They were silent as long as I was there. I left after the last speaker and before the crowd dispersed. They were on the other side of the street, not talking to anyone. I'm having difficulty understanding how they could have been mean to kids that were across the street on the other side.

    I wasn't there when they left, so I can't speak to the rest of it. But I do know that the people who were representing the No folks were very pointed with me -- they did not want confrontation.
  • I did not interview them. I asked questions. When you put children on a
    public street with a sign, it is fair to ask them why they are holding the
    signs.
  • noyb
    With all due respect I think the answer would be obvious. It is because they support the views of their parents. The same applies for the opposite view, at least until the kids are old enough to due their own due diligence, which I implore my son to do as, he is more responsible.
  • As a parent to three kids, I can't fathom any of them taking up a sign and standing on the street without a clear explanation of why I was asking them to do it.

    I actually appreciated the frank honesty of the preteen kids, especially the one in the Bad Religion t-shirt. He was clear, he was pro-8 because the man on the stage said he'd have to learn things in school that he'd rather not learn. Fair enough.

    I opted all of my kids out of the health, sexuality and family classes in school, choosing instead to educate them myself. This is a right that any parent has. Yet the Yes on 8 campaign continues to make this a centerpiece of their campaign. It's fair to challenge it in a blog.

    As a final note, I have not ever hidden my lack of objectivity. I confess to it. I went there to try and understand what real people in my community were thinking and feeling. I did. And it saddened me. More than I can really express here. It saddens me more that children who have no clue are getting more of an education about same-sex marriage than they would ever get in a classroom, and most of it is extraordinarily negative.
  • Carrie
    You were fortunate that you were able to opt out your kids. That time has passed in many states, apparently, including California.

    For instance, here's an exerpt from WorldNetDaily, "SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

    One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school."

    Another from Boston.com, "In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first."

    And then there's the Parker family. The dad was arrested for doing as you did. He asked to be told when they were going to teach his kindergartener about same-sex so he could opt his son out. They refused to tell him, and he refused to leave until they did. So they arrested him for trespassing. Sound fair to you?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    We already voted on this. But 4 people overruled the 60% of voters who said they wanted only hetero-sexual marriages recognized. Is that ok with you that an oligarchy rules this state?

    Futhermore, not a single, additional, legal right is gained over a civil union. Gay marriage is NOT the same as hetero-sexual marriage. It is not equal. It simply, biologically is not.

    Yes on 8.
  • It doesn't sound true. At the beginning of each school year, including this one, I receive a notification, which allows me to opt-out. I opt out. Simple as that. Parents who do not receive opt-out material or who do not sign it may have a problem.

    Charter schools may operate differently, because they are sponsored by private interests. There may be different provisions. Attendance at a charter school is also an opt-in, in its entirety. Parents whose children attend charter schools appy for them to attend that school and are presumably bound by the policies of each individual school.
  • Carrie
    I know. Amazing, isn't it? You're obviously a talented individual. Research it a bit; I provided sources. I'm sure there are more examples than the ones I gave.

    It is true. I attended a lecture where the Parker couple spoke a couple weeks ago. Their case went to court twice in Mass. then to the Surpreme Court, who recently declined to hear their case. What if you were they?
  • Gingerken
    I am crying just reading this. Over the years I have known a number of deeply committed homosexual couples, and though I have lost track of some in the course of several moves,
    I would bet they are still together, still caring deeply about each other and bolstered by that love, reaching out to the community, giving back in a number of ways. I am not in CA any more but
    would be voting No on 8 if I was.
  • Heather
    While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.

    Prop8discussion, your argument is ludicrous. First of all, you write as though gay marriage is a response to bad heterosexual parents. Because...what, gays are trying to one-up straight parents and show them how to do it right? I'm really reaching here.

    And the assertion that gay marriage deprives a child of the "right" to a mom and dad is equally absurd. Nobody has the right to a mom and dad, any more than I have the right to a pony on my birthday. You have the right to a grave, and everything else is icing on the cake.

    Besides which, if you're so concerned about the right of children to have a mom and a dad, I can only assume that you're campaigning with equal passion to make sure fathers pay child support and stick around for their pregnant girlfriends, and that couples face dire consequences within the church for divorcing. But of course you're not; it's all about the gays because you think it's gross and weird. Get over it.

    Homosexuals don't want to be parents instead of heterosexuals; they want to be parents alongside heterosexuals. And if a child has "a stable home, love and support", then I fail to see why it's so all-fired important to do a pants check on the parents. What's so special about heterosexuals?

    Oh, and by the way: I absolutely agree that society should sacrifice for the health and well-being of their children. Starting with you. Sacrifice your narrow views so that more children can live happily ever after with their moms or dads without having to bear the burden of your ignorance.
  • wcr
    I was in Florida last weekend and they also have an Amendment to the Florida Constitution as does Arizona with it's Proposition 102.

    Personally, I think it's disgusting that these groups are attempting to legalize this type of discrimination.

    What ever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
  • Somehow I think it got forgotten in the rush to 'protect the children'.
  • Lezzymom
    I don't even know where to start. Thank you. Thank you for getting it. I just want my family, which includes my partner and two kids to be loved and protected. I can provide the love but need some help from the government when it comes to providing some basic protections. Marriage is the way we do that in this country. I don't need to go into anymore here because again you GET it. Words can't describe my deep appreciation for your time participating in this today, sharing it, and mostly for being as upset as I am by it.
  • Thank you. I am going to do everything I can to help people choose to vote no on Prop 8. I owe it to MY kids. And the world I live in.
  • Yod
    Every time I read something like this, I feel like Yes on 8 is some sort of crusade/jihad being waged in California by zealots from the parts of America most of us moved to California to get away from. Maybe the people around me are really good at hiding their true political views, maybe I'm around a very insular group of people (doubt it) but I don't know a soul, on EITHER side of the issue, that spouts the kind of hate, bigotry and ignorance I hear from the Yes on 8 camp.
  • You must be lucky. The same battle is being fought in Arizona and Florida too, I'm sure with the hope that it will make its way through the courts to the Supreme Court. And at that point, I think someone will have to decide that amending a constitution to exclude citizens is a very, very bad idea.
  • This post gave me chills. I'm so tired of people who hide behind religion, who distort religion into a weapon of hate & exclusion & discrimination. As a person of faith, like you, I'm trying my damnedest to stand up for the kind of faith that manifests itself in love & inclusion & equality. May Proposition 8 fail by epic proportions.

    Thank you for this entry.
  • Thank you for coming and commenting. I'm with you on the 'dad' thing, too.
  • jptrenn
    Hey waita minnit there Karoli. We dads count too.

    In fact, I need to write a blog post on something happened today.
  • Absolutely. I'd be fine with two dads, too. Good ones. Ones that love me
    and each other. No problem. Didn't mean to exclude :)
  • Adriennevh
    You are a very compassionate and intelligent woman and writer. Thank you for your time and your views.

    This is a battle of rights, a hundred years ago the rights of women were fought for. 50 years ago the rights for people of color and now we are fighting for the rights of GLBT's. Someday everyone will remember the part of that constitution that reads all men are created equal.

    For the previous commentor that states children should have a mom and a dad, that is, well, I can'teven begin to tell you what that is, let's start with archaic, or sexist, or even downright idiotic. Can your daughter not play with trucks or your son with a doll? If so, that is a sad and deprived life you provide for them. ANd no, I am not GLBT, I am however a single parent who was a girl scout leader for my daughter and a Little League coach for my son. I can do anything for my kids that any dad could.
  • Thank you, Adrienne. Yes, you've nailed it. It is a battle of rights. The correct approach is NOT to amend our Constitution, but leave it in place as a document of inclusion.
  • The "priest" is a Lutheran minister named Brian. I met him when I did an article on Pride in the Park and wrote about his church having a booth there. The article got some ugly comments. He was also at the Lawrence King memorial march I went to. He's a very sweet guy.
  • Thanks, Suebob. I honestly didn't want to interrupt the discussion in any way, so I took a guess. :) When the server gets calmer, I'll fix it in the post.
  • jptrenn
    prop8discussion

    Your point doesn't make sense. It is a false argument. Voting against this proposition will not ensure that every child maintains the right to a mom and a dad.

    Are you working to directly ensure that every child has that right to have a mom and a dad? Do the divorce laws in your area favor one side? Are you doing anything to help young/teen parents cope with parenthood?
  • Heather
    Ha, this is what I get for zoning out before I post--you've said just what is on my heart, man. Good on you.
  • I have no words. I'm glad you went though. We all needed to read this.
  • Thanks, Erin. I hope that if anyone reads this who is undecided, they will choose inclusion.
  • jptrenn
    I think what happens is that people look and have seen marriage fall apart for decades now. They view marriage as a sacred institution that holds society together. And the foundation of marriage is in religion. But what they don't get is that marriage is also a legal arrangement and an act of free will. They can't separate the two. Because, often, they can't separate religion from practically any aspect of their lives.

    But they then seem to see it a black and white. And then, somehow, from their religious righteousness, they create falsehoods (like homosexuality is a choice) and then react with hate. Pure hate and intolerance.

    Great post.
  • Thank you. I couldn't agree more with the absolute approach. I heard more of that today than I care to even write about.

    The part that makes me saddest is how much fear I heard in their voices.
  • Children have a right to a mom and a dad. The state of California allowing same-gender marriage may seem progressive to some– –but what it says to me is that the state of California sanctions a relationship that does not best serve children.

    While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.

    While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ld...

    Society should sacrifice for the health and well being of its children.

    This is why I am voting “yes” on prop 8 (on my absentee ballot).

    http://prop8discussion.wordpre...

    yes on prop 8!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • And my dad passed when I was 10. My best friend's mom had him out of wedlock & has never met his father. Another close friend's parents divorced shortly before she was born, & she rarely hears form him. As children who all grew up in single-parent households & turned out absolutely normal, sane & stable, I simply cannot buy this argument. What's best for children is to be parented, period -- by someone, anyone, who loves them & cares for them, be it a mom, a dad, a mom & dad, two mommies or two daddies. Love is love. If you truly cared about children, as you say you do, you would support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children and become parents the same way heterosexual couples can -- rather than leaving thousands of children in foster care when there are families who want them but aren't allowed to adopt them.

    And for the record, that basically has ZERO to do with Proposition 8.
  • Blackrose
    My dad died when I was 9. It doesn't matter what sexuality your parents have, or if you only have 1. If they love you, you'll be just fine, like Kate said
  • I just want to say this: I had a dad. He died two months ago. He wasn't there for me. He hurt me, left me a damaged adult. Yes, I love him. I have regrets that we couldn't reconcile. But I would have been less damaged by another mom like mine. Two of my moms would have been far better than my dad.
blog comments powered by Disqus