Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CA Proposition 8 Chart


During a quick respite from entering data for statewide and federal races, we've created a chart that tests California's Proposition 8 (Same-Sex Marriage Ammendment). And though California's electoral votes may not be in play this year, this ballot initiative could go either way.

If we've missed any survey testing Proposition 8 please let us know.

 

Comments
C.S.Strowbridge:

This and Prop 4 better lose. The United States is in a world of trouble if the Religious Right wins in California.

____________________

GoodRiddensW:

I received a mailer from "Yes on Prop 8" over the weekend. It used Obama's image and a quote from him that he opposes gay marriage. I wonder if Obama knows his image is being used for a position I am sure he privately does not support (but for the sake of the Dem party does not openly oppose)?

____________________

pbcrunch:

The Prop 8 battle is currently the most expensive battle after the presidential contest. It hit $60M last week and could have easily passed $70M since then.

The good news is that Yes seems to have a ceiling at 45% or so. If people are unsure about a proposition, they usually vote No.

And I agree with CSS: Prop 4 is also very important and is a direct threat to a woman's right to choose. I have no idea how we got two religious-right whacked out propositions on the ballot this year.

____________________

venpry:

Prop 7 in California is another bad idea... Even though it couches itself as a 'green' initiative, it effectively limits economic incentives (I'll spare the details unless someone asks) for the development of small scale solar projects.

____________________

pbcrunch:

Ach... there's a "Yes on 8" advertisement on this page: "Protect traditional marriage and your childs [sic] Education." What a dishonest and misleading campaign.

I also have to plug for a Yes on 2, which prohibits animal cruelty on farms. I am a meat-eater, not one of those crazy PETA people, but, come on, do you want to eat stressed-out beef?

____________________

Isher:
____________________

byronicgyro:

@GoodRiddensW

Not only does Obama privately not support Prop 8, he's actually publicly come out against it.

Also, while we're talking about propositions that should really get beaten, Prop 11 is some nasty gerrymandering that is designed to shore up Republican power bases in Southern California. As for Prop 2, it's not as simple as pbcrunch makes it sound. First of all, it is not a prevention of animal cruelty proposition. Second of all, it's gonna do major damage to the meat industry, and there have been warnings by some opponents of Prop 2 that it might cause plants to move to Mexico where standards are much lower. I haven't decided entirely which way I'm gonna go on 2, but don't fall into the trap of thinking it's as simple as being for or against animal cruelty.

For what it's worth, the CA Dem Party endorses yes on Props 1 (which is AWESOME), 2, 3, 5, and 12, and if you're in Alameda County make sure you vote yes on JJ!

____________________

GoodRiddensW:

CA's ballot initiative process needs to be reformed. I see only one initiative on the ballot this time that should be there - and that's the high-speed rail bond measure. Everything else should be decided by our elected representatives and not by Soros, Pickens, PETA, and the like. If 8 goes down, it will appear next year in another form.

____________________

Rippleeffect:

@pbcrunch:

Which part of that Yes on 8 campaign is misleading? The traditional marriage or the education?

My wife teaches in a california school. Marriage is taught in her school (9th grade health). The No on 8 campaign is flat out lying that marriage is not taught in schools.

____________________

Disco Stu:

There are No on 8 ads featuring Obama (or maybe its vice versa). But they're being overwhelmed by the Yes on 8 campaign (including ads trying to insinuate that Obama & Biden support it...they do not). The Mormon Church has deluged CA with millions to support Prop 8 (and probably 4 too).
As a CA resident, I find it ABSURD that we're being hammered with this garbage!!

Every election it seems some right wing religious group puts another anti-abortion rights and/or anti-gay rights prop. I think the strategy is to keep at it every election until one finally passes. And if it passes in CA, then it will cascade through other states, since CA is so liberal. (I think CA did pass something a few years ago, but it was struck down as unconstitutional.)

Here's an idea for a state bill: "ADVERTISING FOR OR AGAINST ANY STATE BILL MAY NOT BE FUNDED BY INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS RESIDING OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR BY ORGANIZATIONS RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA THAT RECIEVE MORE THAN 20% OF THEIR FUNDING FROM ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."

____________________

Ryguy:

ripple effect, prop 8 has absolutely nothing to do with what is taught in schools. whether or not prop 8 passes, schools have the right to teach about gay marriage. and by the way, the attack ads for prop 8 are talking about classes far before 9th grade.

____________________

flhmbn:

For all the talk about tolerance, people sure do sling a lot of hate speech toward the religious folks in California. Just look at these comments. Are you really tolerant? Think about it. Real tolerance goes both ways.

To those who might consider voting yes on proposition 8: don't be afraid. Don't let the name calling dissuade you from voting for what you know is the only way to protect the age-old institution of marriage in California. Vote yes on Proposition 8.

____________________

garbuhj:

8 is hate.

That's all you have to remember. Vote no on hate, vote no on 8.

____________________

pbcrunch:

@Ripple:

The "traditional marriage" bit. Traditional according to what? 60 years ago, biracial marriage was against the law; and a couple centuries ago, a woman was essentially the property of her husband. The definition of marriage has been changing over time; there is no such thing as "traditional marriage" and, thus, nothing to protect.

Also, I went to public school in CA. I do not remember learning about marriage, period. Maybe that's changed in the decade since I was in high school. Or, maybe like everything else I was taught in HS, it went in one ear and out the other. Regardless, what exactly will we be "protecting" our children from? Oh no... they'll "learn" about gays and their love for each other in high school instead of college. Right...

____________________

gymble:

You know, just once, I'd like to hear a coherent explanation for how gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage. The validity of the vows that I exchanged with my husband on our wedding day is not contingent on anything that anyone else did or does. Our marriage stands on its own. Two people being in love should never threaten anyone else - and if it does, I suggest that those feeling threatened take a good long hard look at why they're feeling so insecure.

Vote No on Prop 8.

____________________

Ryguy:

flhmbn,

you must think youre awfully clever. oh, youve proved to me that nobody is really tolerant, so my entire belief structure about civil rights for everyone is crumbling before my eyes.

only one problem. you dont understand the meaning of "tolerance". you see, pal... i dont like your point of view. in fact i down right despise it, but i would die to defend your right to have it. i would never suggest taking away any of your rights or priveleges. could you imagine if i went on here preaching that you had no right to marry the person you love because of what religion you follow. so while you have the right to disagree with homosexuality, making an amendment that discriminates against them is is bigotry. and me saying that your point of view disgusts me is not bigotry.

tolerance has nothing to do with everyone agreeing. tolerance just means being accepting of eveyrones rights.

____________________

Disco Stu:

@ flhmbn:

You talk about tolerance, but by supporting prop 8, you are INtolerant of other's rights! Voting AGAINST Prop 8 would continute the great tradition of TOLERANCE of Californians (and Americans) for people of all races, religions, creeds, sexes, sexual orientations, etc.

____________________

byronicgyro:

Let me also just say, since we're talking about being objective here, that I ABHOR the new No on Prop 8 ad with Samuel L. Jackson. The ad actually compares the ban on gay marriage to the Japanese internment camps. Regardless of how you feel about marriage or restrictions on it, there's no way that those two things are even in the same ballpark.

I happen to be against gay marriage but no moreso than I am against straight marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and in a country that purports to have a separation of church and state, it is unconstitutional to grant tax benefits to people for participation in a religious ritual. If the government wants to provide legal and monetary benefits to people for behaving in a manner that the government deems pro-social (dont even get me started on this one), it needs to recognize that what it is rewarding are civil (aka non-religious) unions. It is really just the word "marriage" that gets people so tripped up. Let the government recognize the union of two people (regardless of whether or not they love each other) who have chosen to spend a life together and provide the rights currently provided for marriages to civil unions. After that, if you want to go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple or coven or hippie drum circle and perform some superstitious mumbo-jumbo (aka "traditional" marriage), that's between you and your god/gods/universe/etc.

Keep the government out of my bedroom! It screws me enough everywhere else already!

____________________

pbcrunch:

Oh, another reason why the "protect children from learning about gay marriage" argument is misleading.

Prop 8 adds ONE line to the CA Constitution, that's it. No statute about restricting what teachers can teach is included so, conceivably, "civil unions" can still be taught in the class room.

Just all around ridiculous.

____________________

Ryguy:

exactly, pbcrunch

prop 8 in no way restricts the teachings of gay marriage in class rooms. we can have a discussion about school another day... this has nothing to do with it. THATS why its misleading and a scare tactic.

____________________

Banquo:

California has an ugly history of disinformation about ballot propositions--writing them to confuse what a "yes" or "no" vote really means and using massively deceptive advertising. Some years ago, there was such an anti-immigrant (or maybe anti-farm-worker?) proposition whose sponsors ended up shooting themselves in the foot. They ran an ad showing a young Hispanic woman earnestly advocating for the anti-immigrant vote. The bigots for whom the bill was written voted the opposite way and the bill failed to do what it was supposed to. Let's hope these bigots defeat themselves in the same way!

____________________

flhmbn:

Ryguy, let's be honest; this isn't about rights or fairness--it's about sameness. Civil Unions offer the exact same protection and benefits under the law that Marriage does. Gay activists and supporters have done everything possible to force people to accept their way of life. They want sameness. They want people who hold different views to be labeled "bigots". They want people who choose to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong to say that what they are doing is actually OK and morally acceptable. Proponents of traditional marriage (marriage between one man and one woman) hold an idea of marriage that has been accepted by society for as long as history can tell. Proposition 8 is about protecting that institution as it has stood for thousands of years. It is the folks who oppose Prop 8 that are forcing their world view, and their morality on people who have always held the idea of what marriage is. This is simply NOT an argument about rights. If it were, you could identify what right gays in civil unions don't have that married couples do. It's one thing to be different, it's another thing to be discriminated against.

____________________

flhmbn:

There have also been a number of comments here about how legalizing gay marriage does not affect what is taught in schools. Occurrences in Massachusetts prove otherwise.

Here below are a series of statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. They are simple indications that the aims of the No on 8 campaign are not just equality, but an effort to indoctrinate society to their particular moral persuasion:

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]
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]
“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]
(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]
“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

____________________

pbcrunch:

flhmbn:

OK, you claim that No on Prop 8 is "an effort to indoctrinate society to their particular moral persuasion."

Why do you think homosexuality is merely a moral persuasion? Do you actually think people aren't born that way, that somehow or another through mores in our society they "become gay?" I think that's your view because no other view would lead you to believe that children will be "indoctrinated" to accept homosexuals in their midst. It is time to stop denying this basic reality.

Further, please show me documentation that marriage has remained the exact same "institution" for "thousands of years." Marriage is much different today than it was 60 years ago (no biracial marriages), two centuries ago (wives were essentially the property of husbands), and, I'm sure, it was much different in Roman times. The fact that somehow or another it hasn't changed in thousands of years is talking point that has no basis in reality. Marriage -- like everything else in society -- changes as the mores of society has changed.

____________________

byronicgyro:

@flhmbn:

"Civil Unions offer the exact same protection and benefits under the law that Marriage does"

Absolutely false. Civil Unions SHOULD provide the same protection and benefits, but they absolutely don't even come close.

"They want people who choose to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong to say that what they are doing is actually OK and morally acceptable"

Wrong again. Believe it or not, the gay community is not looking for your acceptance. They're looking for you to leave them alone. You can go on believing that gay people go to hell or go to miami beach or wherever. Believe it or not, there's no law that says you can't hate black people. You just can't treat them differently. That's why they call you a bigot.

"Proponents of traditional marriage (marriage between one man and one woman) hold an idea of marriage that has been accepted by society for as long as history can tell."

Strike three. Don't confuse your society with all society. First of all, history goes back way beyond the concept of marriage (and yes, I mean written history). Second of all, many cultures BOTH THEN AND NOW believe in polygamy or polyandry. Even in our own country, the Mormon Church, the same people putting all the money into the Yes on 8 campaign, practiced a non-traditional marriage (and please don't waste your breath telling me that they don't practice polygamy anymore. I know.). So, even eschewing the issue of your ethnocentrism, unless you think "as far as history can tell" is a hundred years, traditional marriage is not as universal as you believe.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a personal attack because I don't know you, and frankly, I respect the fact that you were one of the few people willing to stand up for your unpopular (at least on this site, apparently) beliefs. But please, please, please get your facts straight. There are arguments to be made for Prop 8, but "that's the way it's always been!" just doesn't fly

____________________

flhmbn:

pbcrunch:

You asked, "Why do you think homosexuality is merely a moral persuasion?"

Because science has shown that homosexuality is in fact a chosen behavior. This is old news, really. Go do some research about Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and the "Gay Gene" (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html). The idea that homosexuals are born that way is just not true. That's also what makes this argument different from the civil rights movement--and cheapens what black folks have done to achieve civil rights. The color of your skin is genetically coded in one's DNA whereas sexual orientation is not.

____________________

ncc81701:

@flhmbn:

"Ryguy, let's be honest; this isn't about rights or fairness--it's about sameness. Civil Unions offer the exact same protection and benefits under the law that Marriage does. "

Segregation has proven beyond a doubt that separate is not equal. Defining Civil Unions as separate but equal to Marriage will degenerate into state sanctioned discrimination between straight and gays, just as it has between white and color.


"Gay activists and supporters have done everything possible to force people to accept their way of life. They want sameness. They want people who hold different views to be labeled "bigots". They want people who choose to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong to say that what they are doing is actually OK and morally acceptable."

Whether you personally are willing to accept, or whether "gay activist/supporters" wants you to accept their unions is not a legal matter of any importance. What does matter is whether the government should make a distinction on sexual preferences when deciding upon government functions and laws such as, visitation rights of family members at the hospital, bankruptcy settlements, inheritance, tax policy, etc. I happen to believe that we should all be equal before the law, and that a passage of prop 8 would guarantee that only some of us will be equal before the law.

A state/government recognition does not mean a religious recognition of gay marriage. A state/government recognition is required in order for the government to perform its duty equally and fairly. While a religious institution has every right to not recognize a same sex marriage.

____________________

flhmbn:

@byronicgyro: I still have not seen any substantial evidence showing that civil unions have not offered the same protection and benefits as marriage. If there have been occurrences of disparate protection, those cases should be handled individually.

Like I said before, this is really about people wanting to legislate sameness (in this case from a court bench). It's about married people wanting to be able to remain different.

Are people bigots and unfair for putting a "men" sign on one bathroom and a "women" sign on another? Do gays have to drink from a separate water fountain, or sit in the back of a bus? Have they been deprived of their right to vote (note: voting is an actual right afforded by the constitution, not a self-proclaimed "right" espoused by so many activists).

____________________

flhmbn:

@byronicgyro:

Thank you for your civil and well thought out response. It's good to see that people like you can converse on sensitive topics without resorting to name calling and hate speech.

I happen to believe that a passage of Proposition 8 will help to protect my family, my beliefs and my freedoms, while a no vote would bring about many of the same problems that residents of Massachusetts have faced as they deal with the effects of legalization of gay marriage there.

You are right, I have stood up for the position I've taken, and will be hated for it. I hope those reading will have this same type of courage as they enter the voting booths tomorrow.

____________________

byronicgyro:

@flhmbn:

The first and foremost difference between marriage and civil union (aside from the great separate but equal argument. Thanks ncc81701) is that the federal government provides ZERO protections for civil unions. So, for example, this means that even though a married person can help their spouse immigrate, a civilly unified (I made that phrase up but I like it) person cannot. A person in a civil union can only make emergency medical decisions for his/her partner in the state in which they were joined. Married people can give each other tax-free gifts. People in civil unions do not have to pay state taxes on gifts to their partners but do have to pay federal penalties. A married person receives his/her spouse's social security if the spouse passes away. The same is not true for a civil union. The list goes on. State and federal governments provide more than three times more benefits to married couples than they do to civil unions.

Also, you ask if "gays have to drink from a separate water fountain, or sit in the back of a bus?" If you're claiming that a civil union is the same thing as a marriage and you just don't want gay people to have what you have, you are in essence making them drink from a different marital fountain (Sorry, I took some cold medicine, and it's made me punny). The protection provided by separate men's and women's bathrooms (although this need is actually disputed by some) is that it provides increased safety for women from sexual attack. I don't think letting gay people get married will cause you to be raped in a bathroom.

Finally, we have to talk about your assertion that "science has shown that homosexuality is in fact a chosen behavior."

No, it hasn't. Some scientists have asserted it. Some scientists have argued it. But "science" has not shown anything of the sort. In fact, the leading theory among scientists is that it is a mixture of environmental and physiological causes. I don't want to start name-calling, but you're drifting down a road that leads me to want to yell some at you.

____________________

Laurie:

I'm voting Yes on 8 in honor of my grandchildren. This is not a decision I make lightly. I have a family member who is gay, as well as good friends. But I want my grandchildren to grow up in a world of order; not a world of confusion. I want the next generation of children to have mothers and fathers. This has been a difficult decision for many of us, and I'll be glad when tomorrow is over. I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussion on this post. These are difficult times we live in.

____________________

flhmbn:

@byronicgyro:

You said, "I don't want to start name-calling, but you're drifting down a road that leads me to want to yell some at you."

Come on. Are you serious?

This is happening in my home town:
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613

____________________

GretchenA:

@ flhmbn

You say, "I happen to believe that a passage of Proposition 8 will help to protect my family, my beliefs and my freedoms."

What freedoms of yours are being challenged? This is all about wanting to deny to others what you take for granted for yourself.

You want to protect your family from what? Learning about respect? Learning to be tolerant of other people? Learning to live and let live?

No, it sounds like the underlying issue for you and for Laurie is you hope government-enforced bigotry will make sure your kids (or grandkids) will grow up to be straight.

Guess what? They'll be whatever they will be. Having gay friends won't make them gay any more than having straight friends makes you straight.

Voting Yes on 8 means they will be taught that they should live in fear of anyone who is different. And that they should treat them differently because of it.

And if they end up being gay then you'll have to explain to them in 20 years why you think they don't deserve what you have.

I have plenty of straight friends in MA. And guess what happened to their marriages once it was legalized for same-sex couples....absolutely nothing. Zip, zero, nada.

____________________

flhmbn:

@GretchenA:

You said, "...absolutely nothing. Zip, zero, nada"

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

____________________

Professor T:

Time (or well past it, actually) to turn off comments on this topic.

____________________

Laurie:

"Having gay friends won't make them gay any more than having straight friends makes you straight." I didn't say that at all. I said we have a family member who is gay, and that we have good friends who are gay. I don't think it makes me a bigot that I don't agree with their lifestyle. I have many friends from many walks of life. I don't always agree with the choices they make, but I love them just the same -- and they know it. They also have learned to respect that I have an opinion or two, and they love me even though I may not agree. It bothers me very much that bloggers on many posts are throwing hatred around and calling people bigots because they can hide behind their computer screens. How about intelligent conversation and then "agree to disagree"?

____________________

GoodRiddensW:

@flhmbn
CA is not MA.

Stop using children as a shield to avoid acting like an adult and accepting the differences that surround you and will not go away. Traditional marriage is polygamy, so stop touting that argument. If it's procreation, then you are saying my wife and I should not be allowed to be married because we made a conscious decision to have no children.

I have been unable to find a single, logical reason to vote Yes on 8. It's a simple moral issue that should not even be on the ballot - everyone is equal and no constitutional amendment should be enacted to remove rights from anyone. Same sex marriage is happening today in CA, and if 8 passes tomorrow then CA is stripping rights away from a minority group. Who's next?

If 8 passes then we are left with two options: another ballot measure to eliminate it or US Supreme Court to show such laws violate the US Constitution.

____________________

Banquo:

The issue SHOULD be not what marriage means to individuals or to society, but what it means to government. The legal definition of marriage usually starts out: "Marriage is a civil contract..." As far as the State is concerned, ALL marriages should be civil unions and nothing more. As such, it should be equally available to all consenting adults and afford them all the same legal rights and obligations.

For all the claptrap about the "sanctity" of marriage, the world is obviously full of bad marriages, abusive marriages, marriages of convenience, and other unsanctifiable unions which no one questions as long as the partners are of opposite sexes. The State, rightly, does not consider the condition of these unions to be any of its business. If heterosexual couples have that right, homosexual couples should as well.

When the discussion turns, as it always does, to marriage being "for raising children," the issue grows even more dangerous. If childrens welfare were to be the real priority of the State's position on marriage, the State would have to take extraordinarily intrusive involvement in all families. Clearly, heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want to have children could not be considered married. And, arguably, abusive or negligent parents might be considered to have violated the terms of their marriage and be forcibly divorced.

The most rational solution is for ALL couples to file for civil union with the government and then go do or not do whatever religious or social rite they like, which would place whatever NON-LEGAL meaning they choose on their relationship. The meaning of the marriage contract would be the same for all, as far the the government is concerned.

It is truly amazing how often the same people who want government to stay out of their own business are happy to have it intrude into other people's.

____________________

Prop 8 need not divide liberals and conservatives. If one reasons it out rationally, voting NO on prop. 8 makes sense from all sides, from fiscal conservatives to constitutional literalists to civil rights supporters.

- Religious Rights. The first of the American Bill of Rights confirms freedom of religion. No church would ever be forced to perform a gay marriage if they didn't want to. But those that want to can. Allow people to worship in their own way; that's American.
- Economics. CNBC stated that gay marriages bring in an additional $228 million to public funds in CA annually, and the Congressional budget office estimates $1 billion nationally.
- Civil Rights. Until 1967 blacks and whites could not marry each other in many states. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned those laws (a court reviewing laws, sound familiar?), affirming marriage as a civil rights issue, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'".
- Prop 8 Takes Away Existing Rights. The CA Supreme court affirmed the right to marry whom one wants. Prop 8 would take away rights and treat people differently under the law.

____________________

Doug:

Schools teach about marriage. Marriage includes same sex unions. Therefore schools will teach about same sex unions. This is simple, why are you gay rights people so dishonest!!!!

This isn't about equality. In an institution whose primary purpose is procreation, men and womem are not interchangeable. Don't tell me about gay couples who have kids, because lots of single people have kids.

It's not about religion.
Married people with kids need a break, they deseve special benefits.

It's not comparable to race. Marriage is not a romance.

Off course it's all about the children, that is what marriage is all about!!!!

I'm voting yes on Prop 8. I think any rational gay person would also vote yest on Prop 8.

____________________

dharmastudent:

We had a whole slew of pro-8 people demonstrating down the street from me, and most of their signs stated that we should vote yes on 8 to preserve God's sanctity of marriage. When I drove by with my window rolled down, they evidently saw all my Obama stickers, and shouted N***** lover at me. Evidently, their view of God is different than mine. I feel sorry for all these pious, holier-than-thou hate mongers. They evidently don't read their bibles, and will have to answer for their condemnation of people they have no right to judge.

____________________

Laurie:

With a handle like d harm a student -- I'm supposed to take anything you say seriously? Not.

____________________

SRB:

For those who are questioning whether or not marriage is taught in schools, you need to read the California Education Code Section 51890 below:

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(E) Oral health, vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition, which may include related topics such as obesity
and diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest, and posture.
(H) Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia and
related genetic diseases and disorders.
(I) Environmental health and safety.
(J) Community health.
(2) To the maximum extent possible, the instruction in health is
structured to provide comprehensive education in health that includes
all the subjects in paragraph (1).
(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health
including classroom participation by practicing professional health
and safety personnel in the community.
(4) Pupils gain appreciation for the importance and value of
lifelong health and the need for each individual to take
responsibility for his or her own health.
(5) School districts may voluntarily provide pupils with
instruction on preventative health care, including obesity and
diabetes prevention through nutrition education.
(b) Health care professionals, health care service plans, health
care providers, and other entities participating in a voluntary
initiative with a school district may not market their services when
undertaking activities related to the initiative. For purposes of
this subdivision, "marketing" is defined as making a communication
about a product or service that is intended to encourage recipients
of the communication to purchase or use the product or service.
Health care or health education information provided in a brochure or
pamphlet that contains the logo or name of a health care service
plan or health care organization is not considered marketing if
provided in coordination with the voluntary initiative. The
marketing prohibitions contained in this subdivision do not apply to
outreach, application assistance, and enrollment activities relating
to federal, state, or county sponsored health care insurance programs
that are conducted by health care professionals, health care service
plans, health care providers, and other entities if the activities
are conducted in compliance with the statutory, regulatory, and
programmatic guidelines applicable to those programs.


It is clear in item 1-D that marriage is/will be taught in school. Naturally, if same sex partners are married, then it will also be taught in school because it is marriage. It would not be fair to teach about one and not the other. So, it's all or none.

____________________

Laurie:

SRB: Thank you. School teachers in my area have already been given packets of information from the school district on how to teach same sex marriage.

____________________

SRB:

For those who are questioning whether or not marriage is taught in schools, you need to read the California Education Code Section 51890 below:

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(E) Oral health, vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition, which may include related topics such as obesity
and diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest, and posture.
(H) Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia and
related genetic diseases and disorders.
(I) Environmental health and safety.
(J) Community health.
(2) To the maximum extent possible, the instruction in health is
structured to provide comprehensive education in health that includes
all the subjects in paragraph (1).
(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health
including classroom participation by practicing professional health
and safety personnel in the community.
(4) Pupils gain appreciation for the importance and value of
lifelong health and the need for each individual to take
responsibility for his or her own health.
(5) School districts may voluntarily provide pupils with
instruction on preventative health care, including obesity and
diabetes prevention through nutrition education.
(b) Health care professionals, health care service plans, health
care providers, and other entities participating in a voluntary
initiative with a school district may not market their services when
undertaking activities related to the initiative. For purposes of
this subdivision, "marketing" is defined as making a communication
about a product or service that is intended to encourage recipients
of the communication to purchase or use the product or service.
Health care or health education information provided in a brochure or
pamphlet that contains the logo or name of a health care service
plan or health care organization is not considered marketing if
provided in coordination with the voluntary initiative. The
marketing prohibitions contained in this subdivision do not apply to
outreach, application assistance, and enrollment activities relating
to federal, state, or county sponsored health care insurance programs
that are conducted by health care professionals, health care service
plans, health care providers, and other entities if the activities
are conducted in compliance with the statutory, regulatory, and
programmatic guidelines applicable to those programs.


It is clear in item 1-D that marriage is/will be taught in school. Naturally, if same sex partners are married, then it will also be taught in school because it is marriage. It would not be fair to teach about one and not the other. So, it's all or none.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR