Posted by Dan Villain, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Here are some reactions I had to that joyful gathering:
1 -- it was very positive. There wasn't much -- if any -- baiting of the few drivers who registered disapproval. That's incredibly important to maintain, and much in keeping with the peaceful civil rights movement legacy this group is inheriting.
2 -- it seemed that the overwhelming majority of cars were enthusiastic in their responses to the rally. Honks, smiles, thumbs-up and waves aplenty. Exhilarating for both drivers and participants. Thanks for honking Danvillians!
3 -- nice to see so many "traditional families" rallying together against this Prop that would exclude some Californians from having fully-recognized families of their own.
3 -- Pretty cool, and very appropriate, to have both Uncle Sam and Miss Liberty's brother aboard.
4 -- a lot of people still use their cell phones when they drive. ;-)
Come on out and join the important fun, on Saturday or Monday!
Posted by Patricia, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:59 pm
This was indeed a wonderful and friendly gathering of folks from our community standing together in opposition to Proposition 8. I was delighted to see a strong turnout from members of my faith community at St. Timothy's, publicly demonstrating their support of marriage equality. I do hope your headline is changed to reflect that we were "opponents" rather than "proponents" of Prop. 8. After all, CNN picked up this story on their website.
And I agree with a previous comment: a lot of people do talk on their cell phones when driving. It's kind of scary when they are talking, waving at you and honking at the same time!
Posted by Robert, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I have been in e-mail contact with the person who wrote the article and he said it will be changed to opponents in the morning.
I drove through there on my way home and thought it was very orderly and well managed. No one was acting out, the streets were clear and traffic was moving. I didn't think you all slowed anything down at all. Good job!
Posted by Rick, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 8:00 am
No matter what you may think about the holy state of matrimony, this is another instance where the government wants to come into my home and control my core values. That just isn't acceptable. Keep them out.
Posted by Dan Villain, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 10:37 am
Drive-by: I drove-by most of Danville yesterday afternoon, and sure didn't see anything happening on either side.
Yes-on-hate: I doubt anybody much likes your #3, but the others? Sure. I think you've really isolated yourself from most folks around here, including quite a few who wouldn't call themselves very "liberal."
Posted by Brian R Cameron, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:02 am
It is a sad time when the courts overturn the will of the people.I am ashamed when our country,founded on Christian beleifs and principals has sunk so low as to not understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Posted by Brian R Cameron, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:02 am
It is a sad time when the courts overturn the will of the people.I am ashamed when our country,founded on Christian beleifs and principals has sunk so low as to not understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:45 am
To Dan Villian: Maybe you folks in the BH area see things differently then we do in the flats. Most of the people I know living in Danville are families with solid Christian values and I wouldn’t hesitate to bet that the majority think that my list is dead on. But just to clarify: I’m not saying bring your prayer mats to school but at least allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be said with the words Under God. This could be what ever god you believe in and if you don’t - don’t say it. I’m just tired of the minority dictating what the majority should do and not do. I’m just glad that my vote negates yours.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:53 am
Dear Brian and others: as you have made reference to "Christian principles," perhaps this is as good a place as any to repost a request made in another thread, The response so far has been "crickets."
It goes as follows:
"As someone brought-up well-churched in the Protestant traditions, I am surprised when I read that most of the funding for the amendment sought to be imported into our state constitution comes from some churches. Really?"
"The Jesus whom I came to revere stood for the transcendent power of Love, for compassion and acceptance (cf. Beatitudes, Sermon on the Mount). And if we're to be guided by the principle WWJD ("what would Jesus do?" -- one could do worse than to follow this precept), I'm interested to learn how Prop8 supporters square their positions with the best angels of Christian theology."
"Given that this is a Town Square discussion, would someone kindly enlighten me as to where you think Jesus would come out (no pun intended) on this issue? Please note that I can find the rote condemnations of homosexuality in Old Testament fire-n-brimstone verse on my own. Kindly concentrate on Christ's teachings -- did he ever opine on the subject, directly or obliquely?"
"Please know that this is an honest inquiry. I've always liked the quote that the role of religion is "to comfort the afflicted -- and afflict the comfortable." And I wonder -- have some of our churches themselves grown too "comfortable?" "
Posted by Jim, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Oh Tom – Where to begin: The bible clearing states that man shall not sleep with man. In 2000, 61% of this Blue state voted down right for gays to marry only to be overturned by liberal courts. If the people of CA want gay marriage then be it but if not – live with it!
Posted by Jim, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Shawn - Please stop the "Hate" propaganda. It's not about hate; It's about keeping the family unit as it was intended. I truly believe that they should have the same rights. Just don't redefine marriage.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:39 pm
You'll forgive me if dismissive hand-waving in the general direction of "the [B}ible" is unpersuasive -- that's not the shallow depth of analysis that would be helpful. I am not seeking summary conclusions; I'm seeking evidence.
"Where to begin?" With Christ's ministry -- His teachings. I tell you, I'm stumped, and I've looked.
Posted by A.T., a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I agree with Jim. I don't hate gays, i do have friends who are gays. They should have the same rights. But i truly believe that our kids,especially young at age should not be exposed to gays, nor growing up thinking that is normal. I accept gays, but i don't think they are normal. I've seen straight teenagers trying both sexes because they've seen gays dating in school,TV, Internet, and they get curious so they want to try it. My children told once "welcome the new generations". It's all messed up! Marriage should stay between a man and a woman.
Posted by Prop. 8 supporter, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I have witnessed a teenager destroy a "Yes on Prop. 8" sign and have heard of many others being destroyed in the news. I have not heard of "No on Prop 8" signs being vandalized. Why dont these opponents respect others opinions?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Dont redefine it. They have the same rights via a civil union.
Posted by Don, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 2:48 pm
"Prop 8 Supporter" and AT your arguments are beyond homophobic, bigoted and above all igorant. WHat are your kids going to do when someday the leave Danville, and gasp, get a job working in San Francisco, New York, LA, whereever and they have a gay boss, or a gay client? And then they are all weirded out because YOU raised them to believe it wasn't "normal" Homosexuality is NORMAL. Its been around since the begning of time, main stream business (see all those that gave money against 8) accept and embrace LGBT people. Believe it or not, there is a whole WORLD outside of Danville! Obviously you 2 don't participate in it.
Posted by Mike, a member of the Greenbrook Elementary School community, on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm
As a disabled combat Veteran, proposition 8 sickens me. I and my fellow vets fought for ALL of our freedom; so that ALL citizens would be treated equally and fairly under our constitution. If we think back to the not-so-distant-past, it wasn't all that long ago that citizens were treated differently because of their religion...or color of their skin...or even their gender. What are the proponents of Prop 8 so afraid of?? This so small number of same-sex couples who dearly love each other, and merely desire what the rest of us take for granted? TOLERENCE for all should be our guide...even those who are different than we are.
Posted by No on 8, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This country was not built on "Christian beliefs and principles." Our forefathers were of varying faiths. Many early settlers left Europe to seek refuge from religious persecution. Per the First Amendment, all Americans are afforded the freedom to believe whatever religious beliefs they have. In order to preserve this right to all Americans, we need a separation of church and state. It is extremely dangerous to use our religious beliefs to write our laws, especially if it means discriminating against a minority group, removing existing civil rights. Please vote NO on Prop 8.
Posted by Jim, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Mike – I too am a vet and I really disagree with all of the No on H8 propaganda. For “most” of the people that agree with Prop 8, do so NOT out of hate but protectionism; to protect the sanctity of marriage and the traditional family. Again, most agree that gays should have the right to have a happy life and be with the one they love plus enjoy the benefits. But…. simply put – don’t redefine marriage. Call it anything else and if they really cared what we thought and really wanted to be welcomed then they should agree.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Jim - Prop 8 does not say "change the terminology of all civil unions to 'civil unions' " which would afford equal rights to everyone, and avoid the confusion of merging the civil and religious meanings of marriage. On the other hand, the way it is written, Prop 8 is actively rewriting our state constitution to remove the rights for gay couples to have their unions recognized with equal merit by the state. We can't vote to change religious terminology. We can only vote on whether government laws apply to all citizens equally or not. I'm voting no on Prop 8.
Posted by Maxwell, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Mike- Thank you for your service to this country, and fighting for all of our rights as citizens and human beings.
And as for those who argue in favor of 8 by saying, "Gays can have civil unions" California does not even have a civil union law in place. It's either marriage, or domestic partnership (which lacks 1,138 rights given to heterosexual married couples)
Argue how that is fair. Separate, but equal, is NEVER really equal.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Jim: You say "I'm not the guy that needs or can give spiritual enlightenment but there are plenty of mainstream churches that can."
I'll take that for the deer-in-the-headlights answer. Frankly, I'm glad I wasn't asked, because I couldn't find it, either. As a person steeped in Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal traditions, however, I do doubt your conclusion(s).
Okay -- try this one -- who are all these "mainstream" churches? How many of these so-called mainstream churches or their affiliates (like the K of C) have contributed to your crusade? My understanding is that it's a pretty exclusive exclusionary group.
Yours is a much narrower base than you seem to think -- maybe they couldn't find it, either?
Posted by Allie, a member of the San Ramon Valley High School community, on Oct 31, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Eventually gay marriage will be allowed everywhere. It's simply how long it takes for people to accept it. Deep down, everyone knows that banning gay marriage is taking away people's rights as human beings, and that is wrong. Perhaps marriage was originially defined as a union between a man and a woman, but times change. Like Mike said, we once discriminated against people for their gender, race and religion, and now we're discriminating against people for their sexual orientation.
Posted by Judy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 8:32 pm
It makes me proud to live in a community where people can, for the most part, respectfully disagree on such a hot issue. Still, it breaks my heart that such a proposition is on the ballot. My husband and I have been married for over 25 years and to us, marriage is made more meaningful when more loving, committed people enter into it - regardless of gender. When the argument is made that marriage is for the purpose of having children, I wonder what we then make of people who are unable to have children of their own? Do we then think they are less married than others? I just hope everyone who votes understands the impact of that choice on others, and considers the impact of their decision on all families - includng those that are made up of same gender parents and couples.
Posted by Dick, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2008 at 11:42 pm
What's in a name?
Let's do away with the term of marriage. If people really think that there is no real difference between a marriage and a civil union, then they should have no objection to calling ALL such arrangements between two people civil unions.
Posted by Prop. 8 supporter, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hey Don from Diablo,
I am not a homophobe. Two of my best friends were gay and died from AIDS. I have attended a lesbian wedding with my husband. I also helped another lesbian couple adopt a child.
You really need to calm down. Our kids know how I feel on Prop 8. and also know that I have many gay friends.
So Don tell me again I dont participate in a world outside Danville. Stop spewing your hatred toward people who dont believe what you believe. You are closed minded and dont understand people. You totally misread me!
Posted by Don, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Prop 8 Supporter
You are full of lies, if you REALLY lived outside of Danville and had all the life experiences you claim, you would NEVER support prop 8. CLEARLY I struck a sensitive spot for you, its tough knowing your background and life don't compete with the rest of the world, truth hurts huh? SHAME on you for still supporting prop 8 when you have had gay frineds die of AIDS and have attended a Lesbian wedding. Instead of posting here, YOU need to be reaching out to those friends instead and letting them know your views, so they can decide if you are really worth being friends with.
People, please look at this prop 8 supporter is so desperate they will go to any length to lie, manipulate and change everything around to spread hate and stop this historic civil rights movement, infact its almost comical, "I support prop 8 and don't want my kids taught about gays" but yet"I've had 2 gay friends die of AIDS and helped a Lesbian couple adopt a child?" I mean that post is so sick the editors need to have it deleted.
Posted by moron with an m in the middle, a resident of another community, on Nov 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm
If all the Prop 8 folks really wanted was to keep marriage between heterosexual men and women then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But these same folks (Prop 8 organizers) have worked in other states to eliminate or prevent domestic partnership agreements. These same folks (Prop 8 organizers) have also worked to restrict gay people from having or adopting children. Once these people (Prop 8 organizers) take away the right to marry, they'll be back to take away more rights. That's the primary problem with this legislation. Once you start to strip away rights from people, it becomes easier to strip away even more rights. And, if Prop 8 organizers don't want to strip away parenting rights from gay people then why have they couched their argument for Prop 8 by saying we need to protect children? Why does the website advocate that a married mother and father are the "best" arrangement? Mark my words, these hate-mongering bigots (Prop 8 organizers) will be back to take away more rights! I do make a distinction between the Prop 8 organizers and the Prop 8 supporters. Most of the Prop 8 supporters are simply uneducated about the hatefulnees of the folks sponsoring this Prop.
To all the Morms voting for this - you think you've found a friend in the southern baptists but be forewarned they'll be back for you too. I grew up southern baptist and they still teach us that you are nothing more than a christian cult. Why do you think Romney didn't win? The Evangelicals will be back for you when and where they can.
Interestingly, Morms and Cathos are so worried about abortion but you haven't seen either one of them spend large sums of money on the parental notification proposition on the ballot.
Also, I'm so tired of hearing "...some of my best friends are gay." Give me a break. That's just the typical guilt spewed by so many Californians who are really no different than the racist people from Mississippi they are so busy looking down their noses at.
You might be a redneck if...you vote yes on Prop 8.
Has there been a sale on white sheets in the area?
Posted by Kelly, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This NO ON PROP 8 demonstration, the rainy one we had yesterday at the Livery, and the one today in San Ramon were GREAT! All the thumbs up, applause, and many, many, many choruses of horns we had made me so proud of my neighbors! People at the rally were from all walks of life and included moms, dads, young adults, people of color, teachers, Republicans, and Catholics - just goes to show that this is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue folks.
Posted by Stewart, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm
See below excerpts from Lowell Brown blog at Web Link concerning the TRUE agenda of same sex marriage proponents regarding indoctrination of our kids. Schools will force feed our kids homosexual marriage and parents will have NO say about it. This is the hidden agenda of No on 8.
Read the TRUTH
Perhaps the most hotly-debated question about Proposition 8 is the measure's impact on schoolchildren. If Proposition 8 fails, will young children be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage? Opponents of Prop 8 have adamantly -- and falsely -- claimed this will not happen.
The fact is, Prop 8's leading opponents have been very public for a long time about their goal of teaching schoolchildren about gender orientation at very young ages. What is worse, they have openly promoted strategies for overcoming or circumventing parental objections to such teaching. It is foolish to believe they will not use the same approach to teaching children about same-sex marriage.
Why this matters
When it comes to private sexual practices generally, I've long been attracted to the view of English actress Beatrice Campbell: "I don't care what [people] do, so long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses." My work colleagues and friends, and anyone who really knows me, know that I consider their personal lives to be just that: personal. All my friends, gay and straight, know I support them in seeking personal happiness. I support California's already very expansive laws providing for domestic partnerships, which, in Family Code Section 297.5, guarantees to registered domestic partners "the same rights, protections and benefits . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
But marriage is different, and so is teaching schoolchildren.
Most seven year-olds still need to learn how to sit up straight and cover their mouths when they sneeze. Kids don't need the schools teaching them about gender orientation -- an arcane and confusing subject to even the most precocious children -- before they have even thought about their own sexual identities.
Besides, if we are going to start teaching six year-old children that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, that's a decision that should be made by the people, not by four of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court.
The law on teaching schoolchildren about marriage
Misinformation about just what California's Education Code says about marriage has been flying around the internet and on television and radio ads by the No On 8 campaign. There is no doubt, however, what the Education Code requires as to teaching about marriage and families. Here's an excerpt from the key statute, Section 51933:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
. . .
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
(Emphasis added.) According to the California Department of Education's website, 96% of California school districts provide sexual health education that places them under Section 51933's requirements. Can anyone reasonably deny that if Prop 8 fails, the instruction about "marriage" this statute refers to will include same-sex marriage?
What Prop 8's leading opponents have said about parental rights
The response to these concerns from from Prop 8's leading opponents has been that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools. Amazingly, even the State Superintendent of Public Education has filmed a television ad promoting this falsehood.
Think about it: If the State Supreme Court has defined marriage to include same-sex unions, and schools are required to teach about respect for "marriage and committed relationships," well, it seems pretty obvious that from kindergarten on, kids will be learning about same-sex marriage, doesn't it?
But it gets worse. The other response from the No On 8 group has been that parents can simply "opt out" of instruction about gay marriage. This is another deception. The same people who make that claim have argued forcefully that no opt-out rights exist, as long as the instruction is part of "diversity education" encompassing gender orientation. They've even made their case in court.
Regarding opt-out rights, an organization called the California Safe Schools Coalition published A Question & Answer Guide for California School Officials & Administrators. The Coalition's Steering Committee includes The California Teachers Association, Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union chapters throughout California, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, and other prominent backers of No On 8 who have already raised millions of dollars to oppose the measure.
Here's one of the questions and answers:
Can parents 'opt out' of their children's participation in school programs that discuss sexual orientation and gender identity?
State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws. Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction.
(Emphasis added.) Translation: If you are a California parent and think you have the right to opt your second-grader out of story time because the teacher is reading the students a book about a prince who marries a prince, you should think again. As long as story time is part of a program "designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity," you have nothing to say about whether your child participates. You won't even hear about the book unless your child comes home and mentions it to you.
The California Safe Schools Coalition also published on its web site a "Question and Answer Guide to California's Parental Opt-Out Laws." The Guide's goals include helping educators who are promoting "tolerance and diversity" to circumvent the opt-out laws, as evidenced by this question and answer from that guide:
Do parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children from receiving education in public schools on subjects they disapprove?
Almost never. Parents have filed a number of court cases seeking to prevent public schools from teaching their children controversial literature or subjects . . . and have lost virtually every case. Courts have held that so long as the public school curricula are secular and reasonably related to educational goals, parents do not have veto power over the content of public school instruction. . . . Schools may wish to excuse students from non-essential activities (such excusing a Jehovah's Witness student from a Valentine's Day party) but are not legally required to excuse students from curricular activities such as . . . diversity education. The interests of the school and student in education outweigh parents' interests in preventing their children from being exposed to ideas that conflict with religious traditions.
Here's the guide's concluding paragraph:
[By] carefully articulating the purpose and content of diversity education programs, schools can both fulfill their legal duty to ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory school environment for all students, and also avoid violating parents' notice and opt-out rights.
(Emphasis added.) So, you see, it's all a matter of how the schools set up their program. If they do that right, parents have no voice. The next time you hear a No On 8 spokesman tell you that parents need not worry about their kindergarteners being taught about same-sex marriage, think about the Question and Answer Guide to California's Parental Opt-Out Laws.
(Somewhat curiously, the Question and Answer Guide seems to have disappeared from the Safe Schools Coalition's web site. An e-mail correspondent sent me the Question and Answer Guide on October 23. By October 26, as I am writing this post, the guide no longer appears on the internet. The now-defunct URL is here.)
Proposition 8 raises serious and controversial issues. Instead of continually dissembling about the real facts and the law, it's time for the opponents of Prop 8 to get serious about addressing those issues.
Posted by wherearethepolice, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:03 pm
As I posted under the alternate version of this story, now both sides have tied up traffic. Can the Danville police now do their job and arrest anybody else who ties up traffic? Post signs, write letters, but stop messing up traffic.
Posted by Good Friend, a resident of another community, on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:20 am
It's very IMPORTANT to SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8. We need to PROTECT FAMILY MARRIAGE (A MAN & A WOMAN). We DO NOT WANT OUR KIDS TO BE RAISED UP IN SCHOOL that PROMOTE GAY & HOMOSEXUAL as a normal thing to do; then many kids will try. People may want to do what they like; but it is UN-NATURAL & SINFUL to do sexual thing with the SAME SEX. NEED TO PROTECT FAMILY MARRIAGE. –
TO: MY FRIENDS WHO ARE HOMOSEXUALS. I have my compassion for you. You may change your lifestyle by PRAYING & ASKING GOD change your sinful desires. GOD HAS CHANGED THE LIFE OF MANY PEOPLE WHO SEARCHED HIM AND ASKED FOR HELP! TRULY - TRULY!
VOTE YES TO PROPOSITION 8 & INFORM ALL YOUR FRIENDS!
Please watch this very short video about Prop 8. It presents the facts. Then forward it to all your friends and family.
You may click the following to see how important it is regarding Prop. 8
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:02 am
Yikes. What can you say to that?
Except: if you really want Good Friend's "agenda" of homophobic nonsense to control the public policy of our state, by all means vote for that way.
But if you want California to continue to represent a welcoming, pluralistic and non-discriminatory approach to the business of living, setting an example of how it can be done in ways that respect the rights of ALL our citizens, kindly vote NO on Prop 8.
Posted by David, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm
To Tom and the rest of the supporters of NO on 8...this is going to be cross-posted to all of the forums on this topic.
I've posted very infrequently in these forums, but I feel that I need to say something in this case. First of all, I applaud you (No on 8 supporters) for exercising your constitutional right to expression, and fighting for a cause you believe in.
I recently posted a comment in another thread about the tactics that are being used on both sides...and how disturbing they are to me. I spoke specifically about how people are supposed to be targeted individually.
I was told by several friends that I shouldn't worry about it, and that it is just someone making noise for the sake of making noise.
Well, here's an email that was sent to the employer of a friend of mine. It was sent this afternoon at 1:56 PM from an ANONYMOUS Yahoo email address with the name of Joe Schmo.
The target of this email is a friend of mine. He is a good family man. He, his wife and children, have lived here in our community for many years. The business that his company is involved in is under tremendous pressure, and he is at a very real risk of losing his job. His family is struggling with some other issues that complicate things even further.
Now "Joe Schmo" (who evidently needs a spelling lesson) has decided to out my friend to his employer and business partners for donating to the yes on Prop 8 campaign. Why is Joe targeting him now, 1 day before the election? He can't possibly get my friend to take back his donation to protectmarriage.com. So what is his motive? I'm going to wager that it is to administer as much pain as possible to someone who disagrees with his position.
Awesome job, "Joe". Well done. Way to show the world that you can tolerate someone else's opinion. I'm glad you are showing how hateful Mr. Y is, and how tolerant you are. He truly is the "biggot" here. The best part of Joe's email is how he ends it with "respectfully".
I'll sure be glad when this election is over.
I agree that we should stop the hate. Vote whichever way you feel best about…but stop the hate.
From: Joe Schmo [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Mr. X
Cc: Mr. Y
Subject: Mr. Y = Biggot / hate?
If someone said "I wish they would outlaw marriage between blacks and whites," would that be biggotry? Of what if they said "I don't think it should be legal for Jews and Catholics to marry." Would you think that was o.k.?
Well that is how Mr. Y feels. He wants to deny the rights of two loving and consenting gay adults to marry. He feels so strongly about it that he has given $X,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign through protectmarriage.com. As I am sure you know, Prop 8 is the initiative, being backed heavily by the Mormon Church and its members, that would actually ammend the California state constitution to DENY rights to a group of people... Imagine that... people wanting to ammend the constitution - not for some noble cause or to ensure the rights of a minority - but to DENY rights they already legally have. That is what Mr. Y wants to do.
I just thought you might like to know about the people working with you and that are associating your company name with their biggoted cause.
Did you know that every major paper in California is against Prop 8, including the most conservative editorial boards of the Bakersfield Californian and San Diego Union Tribune (both of whom are endorsing McCain). Most news outlets have pointed out what a ridiculously deceiptful campaign the Yes on 8 backers have run. This is a hateful and biggoted initiative.
Maybe you and your company share the beliefs of Mr. Y; I really hope not.
Posted by No on 8 supporter and teacher, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I'm a parent and a teacher,and I am voting no on 8. I am amazed at the number of yes on 8 supporters who seem to think we teachers have an agenda to turn their children into homosexuals. Any curriculum we offer pertaining to marriage and committed relationships is for the purpose of teaching responsibility around choices - it goes along with teaching comprehensive sex education - we want kids to make responsible choices that reduce their chances of pregnancy or an STD. Frankly, we don't want them to have sex AT ALL as we don't think they are ready and that is the main "agenda". To think (as the ads state when referring to the CTA opposing prop. 8) that we want to recruit your kids toward a gay lifestyle borders on paranoia. California has opt out options for parents that are used all the time (I've use them myself). Yes, it really is that simple.
The ads are deceptive and imply that teachers have a hidden agenda. We don't! Give us more credit than that!
Posted by Maxwell, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm
To those with concerns about vandalism, hate, and more:
I am sorry for anything those on my side (No on 8) have done to speak or infuse hate or anger toward the Yes side. I am not aware of anyone I personally know doing any of this, but I don't think it is okay.
As for the election, things have heated, and tomorrow, we will know, and then it will be over. Finally over. We need to get through tomorrow, and then enter into a new era of peace, and hopefully, equality.
Posted by Crabby old Republican, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:13 pm
A simple glance at this thread shows how divisive Proposition 8 is.
The bottom line is that gay people exist in our society and we can accept reality or we can band together and pass laws to hurt and marginalize them.
The four Republican-appointed judges realized that a marriage ban is unconstitutional. Hundreds of churches, ministers, priests and rabbis are performing gay marriages as we speak. Millions of Christians have reconciled their faith with their love for their gay friends and family members. You can too.
I believe the majority of Californians are fair-minded, live-and-let-live people and Prop 8 will be defeated.
Prop 8 is un-American, un-Christian, sanctimonious and really kind of mean.
Posted by Vinny a Bay Area Native, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:39 am
I agree with the Crabby old republican. Prop 8 is un-American and Un-Christian. It's simply people telling others what they should do. They're love is right and others is wrong. Come on. When I was a youth, I remember my folks buying a home in the late 50's in a Saratoga neighborhood that did not sell homes to Asian, African-American and Mexican-American citizens. Even as a child, I could not understand such uglyness existed. I thought this was in the past but it appears I was wrong. I thought that we were much smarter today. I have two children and two grandchildren. All I want for them is the same happiness in love as anyone else. Anyone. Now that is family values. I see the "Yes on 8" group as family supportive with conditions. I believe everyone should have equal rights to spend their lives with whom they choose. Not who I choose for them. I am against anything that could possibly prevent such happiness to my children and grandchildren. That is true family values. It's not about being conservative or liberal or right or left. Its about equality. Changing our constitution is wrong. Its radical thinking. Vote NO on 8.
Posted by Stewart, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Vinny, if I'm not mistaken, the California Supreme Court "changed" our Constitution earlier this year. There can be no doubt that prior to their decision, "marriage" was clearly understood to be between one man and one woman -- and that has been the case since this state was organized (as well as the beginning of time). Even prior California Supreme Court cases accepting that obvious premise were steamrolled without much more than a mention by this activist Court hell bent to make a social change they had apparently decided was good for all of us whether we like it or not.
So, please understand that the YES on 8 folks are not trying to change anything other than an illegitimate 4 to 3 court decision. Have you read the decision? It is preposterous. Certainly the VOTERS of California can vote to change something as well understood and steeped in tradition as marriage, but courts don't do that.
Posted by ashamedofdanville, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I am ashamed at all the diatribe on both sides coming from this community. While I don't support Prop 8, I am certainly tired of reading from opponents that all Prop 8 supporters are hateful. Aren't the opponents just as guilty of the same stereotyping of groups of people and lack of tolerance of which you accuse Prop 8 supporters? Different minds will disagree, always have and always will. Prop 8 supporters clearly feel that there is equality in California via Fam Code 297.5. Same sex couples can become "registered DPs". Straight couples get "married." Who cares about the term as long as the rights are equal. After all, let's take the church out of it. All couples have the EXACT same civil rights in California right now. Californians passed AB205 and statutorily conferred on same sex couples equal rights. So how is it that a good chunk of Californians are now being called hateful discriminatory people? So if it's not about religion and there is no disparity as to civil rights, then what exactly is the problem? Is it just the term "marriage" that's got everyone so upset? Seems that way to me.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:07 am
Well, Stewart, you're right about one thing -- the struggle for civil rights and human dignity is a process, not an event. Hard-won will be well-earned, whenever the tide finally turns. So it has been for others in the past.
The outcome is still in some doubt at 1 AM, but it is looking bleak for our side, I think. Hard to tell, as the local broadcast media could hardly have been more worthless. "19% of precincts reporting" means nothing unless you know where they are. The City is as opposed as The Valley is in-favor.
SFgate does report that Contra Costa is going 54/46 against, so at least there's that.
Posted by Stewart, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:37 am
I'm kind of partial to the remarks of AshamedofDanville. The hate coming from the NO vote has been unbelievable. It has generally not been reciprocated by the Yes vote.
Why is that Tom? You really have to ask that question because your side claims to be for tolerance, but is really for forcing your views on those who don't agree with you. If you want to change something as ingrained in society and religion as hetrosexual marriage has been for thousands of years, you kinda need to be a little more gentle about it and let society gradually come around to your thinking (if it will) rather than try to shove it down their throats.
It may happen this time. Maybe not. It may happen later, but c'mon, it's a huge deal, and has been an integral part of human society since the beginning of recorded time. You guys think that just because you feel differently that the YES voters are automatically bigots and worse? The No side has acted very badly throughout this ordeal. It will be hard for me to forget that gross mistreatment regardless of the outcome this time.
Posted by Renee, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:46 am
Tom, thanks much for your tireless efforts to stop the state of California from amending their constitution to REMOVE rights to a sector of the population.
Stewart, people on both sides of the issue have acted badly. It's a shame. Per your comment of November 2nd, my kids do not need to be protected by a constitution that bans same sex couples from marrying. They need protection from people who are intolerant and fearful of people they view as "different." Thankfully, they realize that to deny the right to marry based on sexual orientation is as arbitrary as denying the right to marry based on ethnicity - and we've already been there.
We heteros have done a bang up job, with a high divorce rate and allowing/forcing teenagers (whose brains are not yet fully formed) to marry because of pregnancy. Yet we'll deny that right to committed adult couples because they are the same sex.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 7:50 am
Although there was vitriol aplenty on both sides, my personal sense is that the Yes-crusade led the way in that department. To the extent that there was anger on the No side, it may have had to do with the fact that people react badly when others try to take away their fundamental rights. If that is difficult to fathom, then perhaps grace will provide you with an opportunity to understand it better in a future election.
Although my personal feelings will evolve over the next several days, I can say that right now it feels quite ironic to be lectured on tolerance or fairplay by anyone associated with your viewpoint.
On the bright side, a 20% gap in the year 2000 was closed to roughly 4% this year. I like the trend line. As gay Californians go about their business openly in the years to come, and those who may be suspicious of the unfamiliar come to understand that "the-gay" is not contagious and there's nothing to fear in the differences among us, I fully expect the rights of gays will be restored.
So enjoy this hurrah, Stewart, and try to do it gracefully. It was very expensively won, and it may be your last opportunity so to do.
Posted by Stewart, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
When you invent fundatmental rights that never existed and then kick and scream when someone stands up and says they don't exist -- yes, I can understand how people might "react badly" but they reacted very badly and very offensively. They were selfish, arrogant and immature. It was way over the top.
Tom, I'm not lecturing you, but if the shoe fits for others, then wear it. You have been among the most civil of the many NO voices on this blog, and I appreciated that.
There is no place in our society for the slanderous and ugly remarks heaped on me and thousands of others when we have voiced our reasonable and heartfelt opinion on this subject whether going door to door, phoning folks, or speaking out respectfully on blogs. That's your side doing that. That's trying to win by force, intimidation, deceit, smear tactics, sign theft, etc. -- and the good people of California saw through all of it and rejected your message.
Face it Tom. You had every advantage in this contest -- the activist Court that served up an apparent softball for you and forced us to fight an uphill battle, the hard left Attorney General who messed with the ballot description to your benefit, the left wing media who all supported you with constant bias, the fat cat left wing donors from Hollywood and the usual left wing suspects lending their support like the ACLU, ADL and gay/lesbian groups, the huge youth turnout due to the Nobama coattails, and you still couldn't do it.
Now I hear this morning about the lawsuits your side has announced because they have to try to use the courts in the face of defeat in the popular vote. Do you think litigation will win over hearts and minds??
Let me tell you what the abuse, the name calling, the hate from your side does to me. It makes me even more determined to fight the oppression. And I'm sure most Yes voters felt the same way. maybe the next time (the royal) you want a fundamental right, (the royal) you will treat others who may disagree a little more respectfully and not start calling them bigots.
I'm not gloating, and I'm just happy it's over. For now. I hope the hate can diminish and the respect for others' opinions can reappear on this and all issues and we can work together on a variety of issues for the betterment of the community.