This was in response to a woman whose signs supporting Proposition 8 were stolen, this is my response to her.
Just because voters pass a proposition does not mean it should be absolute law. Voters in 1964 passed proposition 14 legalizing housing discrimination and the US Supreme Court had to overrule the voters of our state in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey. Supporters of the proposition may say that the state Supreme Court subverted the democratic process by overruling the votes supporting Proposition 22 where because they won the vote, these restrictions are beyond judicial review. However opponents absolutely have the right under the first amendment to petition the government for redress of their grievances.
Sign theft is wrong, even though there are signs that make people’s blood boil, buy your own No on 8 signs or make your own homemade signs at the local arts and craft store. The best way to win for either side is to tell your family and friends about your cause, not to commit crimes and make a total turd of yourself.
Let us count down the myths that the Yes on 8 people are spreading to confuse the public:
I. Parental rights are already protected RIGHT NOW.
Response: California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will
receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and
community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community
participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety
personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example,
drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health
and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual
health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age
appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed
relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents
about human sexuality.
Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that
same"sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach
respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change
II. Religious freedom is already protected RIGHT NOW!
The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform
gay marriages, which should be self evident because of the First Amendment’s
guarantee of freedom of religion.
iii. Proposition 8 will give big government unprecedented control over the lives of private citizens by usurping their, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and fundamental freedoms.
IV. Freedom of speech is already protected without proposition 8. Its just another scare tactic.
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been
convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same"sex
marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well
before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private
citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took
out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a
slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging
in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”9
The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was
overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any
speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the
speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious
subject.”10Thus, even ministers who preach against same"sex marriages in Canada
have no risk of legal liability or government fines.
This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal
freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada.11 There have been no hate
speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four
The description of the recent California case is another fabrication. This case is Good
News Employee Association v. Hicks, which was decided before the Supreme Court
legalized gay marriages and so it, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The
plaintiffs in that case were evangelical Christians (not homosexuals) who posted flyers
around the offices of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency
promoting their “Good News Association” and calling on those who read the flyer to
“preserve our workplace with integrity … with respect for the natural family, marriage
and family values.” In other words, this group was promoting the idea of ridding their
workplace of gay people—a blatantly homophobic message and highly offensive not
only to several gay people who worked there but to heterosexual co"workers as well.
The supervisors removed the flyers. The Good News people sued, claiming their rights
of free speech were violated. The court found that the agency was entitled to
eliminate the workplace disruption the flyers were causing and noted that there were
many other ways for this group to promote their message without resorting to such
This case does not hold that municipal employees are prohibited from saying
“traditional marriage” or “family values” and it has nothing to do with gay marriage,
or ministers preaching, or Proposition 8. Indeed, the court specifically found that
there were many other ways for these people to get their message out without
disrupting the workplace by creating an atmosphere of persecution.
In closing I have plenty more to say on this issue, but I am strongly for NO on 8.
Special thanks to Morris A.Thurston, where credit is is due for helping to debunk the myths that the Yes on 8 side have been spreading throughout this state.
Source @: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1972882/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1