Tolerance with the Yes on 8 people?

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

this law.

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

years.

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

offensive tactics.

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

4 thoughts on “Tolerance with the Yes on 8 people?”

  1. I’m a CHRISTIAN and I’m voting NO on 8.

    Why?

    Because it seems that all the funding has come from false Christian groups like ROMAN CATHOLICS and “MORMONS” both of whom are idolaters (worshiping Men, Mary, beads, little statues of saints, etc).

    IDOLATRY is a worse sin. Voting yes on 8 supports idolatry.

  2. thurston did a good job of clarifying some of the hyperbolic language.

    he still does not say everything. for example, his comments on education:

    yes, whether or not we pass prop 8–homosexuality will still be discussed in the classroom. however, if we pass prop 8, i will know it won’t be taught as on the same level as marriage.

    his other clarifications are also helpful and the prop 8 campaign has revised its wording accordingly.

    for more arguments which hopefully provide a clear, unemotional discussion of prop 8 visit:

    http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/

  3. Fellow Christians!

    BEWARE OF MORMONS BEARING GIFTS! Vote *NO* on 8!

    This is an attempt from the Mormon “Church” to gain credibility among evangelicals. Don’t be fooled. A simple google search on mormon evangelical relations will reveal a lot about their plan.

    You’d tell your kids “Don’t accept candy from strangers.” Set a good example by not doing it yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *