"Gay Marriage will eventually be legal in California.”

Now the left wing media has taken to predicting the future. It appears that the can do that because they feel confident they can ram there will down our throats.

How many times do they have to be defeated before they realize Californians want NO_QUEER_MARRIAGE?

What are you worried about? Didn't you say that these matters should be left up to the will of the majority?

In effect, you've argued yourself into supporting Gay Marriage in the future, as long as 50%+ votes approve it.

Personally, I think we should pass an initiative that forbids marriage between any hetero couples that don't want to have kids. Those sorts can always enter into civil unions but I don't see any reason why childless couples should taint the sanctity of real marriages. Heavens Forbid! If they get away with refusing to have children, pretty soon more and more married couples will stop raising families and it won't be long before families with kids start giving them up for adoption...or worse.

It's a slippery slope and we can all rest, assured that 50%+ votes will keep the majority safe.

The people have spoken. Get over it.

The angry reaction by the gay community is just serving to firm the resolve of those opposed to gay marriage all the more and pushing people on the fence to the "Yes on 8" side.

That's just not true. We both know in a few years it will be legal. You can't deny human rights to some people because some other people protest something in a way you don't approve of or are offended by.

You don't have poll numbers to back your claim up. But we both know younger people support equality and when they vote they will vote their values.

Your faction has lost the younger generation.

As we all know by now, the CA Supreme Court ruled against us today. The good news is that those who were able to be legally married in the short window of time allowed will remain married.

I am forwarding an essay from Sheila Kuhl. While she no longer sits in the legislature working on our behalf, she still has tremendous insight and her opinions are well thought out. I know all of the LGBT advocacy organizations have sent our their email blasts, but this one is worth taking some time to read.

In solidarity,

Ron Suckle, president
Stonewall Democrats of Ventura County

Yes On 8, will you support a reversal of Prop 8 if the majority of voters overturns it in the next couple of years?

On Monday, I like millions of other gay and lesbian Americans, stopped and honored the brave men and women who have defended our freedom in a military we cannot join. Tuesday, the California State Supreme Court said that 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples have valid marriages and then denied the rest of us the ability to someday marry our partners.

I am deeply ashamed of my country and disgusted by the hate and intolerance that has guided the decision making process of the CA Supreme Court, the people of California and the religious extremists who use the Bible to spout hate at every opportunity.

In my opinion, all of the legal arguments about gay "marriage", both for and against, are misplaced. This entire issue could be easily resolved if we looked at it as a problem of semantics.

The U.S. Constitution, in both the First Amendment and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly states what the law is regarding marriage and the licensing and/or permitting of marriage.

The government has absolutely NO business defining or regulating the RIGHT to marry. When I refer to the RIGHT to marry I specifically mean marriage as a spiritual and/or religious committment or covenant.

Many religions have long held that the government is not the ultimate authority when it comes to whether a couple is married, or not, in the eyes of God. In particular, I refer to the religion I was brought up in, the Roman Catholic Church, where the Church refused to recognize a couple as married if they had NOT been married by a priest in the sacrament of marriage, even if they received a marriage LICENSE from the State.

Conversely, the Catholic Church has always recognized as married those who were married in the Church, but did not necessarily get a "license".

In addition, I recall about 20 years ago a movement within many fundamental and evangelical Christian churches to recognize as "married" those couples, usually elderly widows and widowers, who did NOT want to get a license from the County clerk because it would diminish their legal benefits from Social Security and/or pensions. However, they were married in what was called "covenant" marriages and their spiritual peers recognized them as husband and wife.

There are also those cases where good friends get "married", especially when one is in the military, so that the spouse can get medical and other benefits, and the military person can get higher pay and off-base housing.

So, the REAL problem here is separating the spiritual covenant from the legal contract.

In addition, the intent of the proponents of Proposition 8 clearly was to put the State stamp of approval on a SPIRITUAL and RELIGIOUS RITUAL. This clearly violates the First Amendment. However, it appears that the CA Supreme Court did NOT address this issue.

Also, the US Constitution has long held that one does NOT need a license or permit to exercise a God-given right. Thus, no one needs a license from the State to be MARRIED in the eyes of God as they understand him. This applies to those couples who are BOTH gay and straight.

However, the State DOES have the power to issue licenses or permits to individual who wish to contract with another individual to do something that they do NOT already have the right to do. For example, file taxes together, get insurance benefits, designate another as next of kin, etc., etc. And, under the Constitution the State can NOT discriminate against these individuals based on race, color, sex, creed or national origin.

Thus, Domestic Partnership licenses, as a contractual privilege, should be issued equally to any couple regardless of their sex, or religious beliefs.

Therefore, the simple, logical and Constitutional solution to this entire situation is to ONLY use the word "marriage" to refer to the spiritual committment or ritual or ceremony and to use the phrase "domestic partnership" to refer to the state licensing procedure of a contract.

This, I believe, is where this entire issue is going, and the CA Supreme Court hinted at that in the case which originally made gay "marriage" legal.

The next case which will push this to this point is the Domestic Partnership Law which is clearly unConstitutional because it requires the two individuals to be of the same sex AND requires that a statement be made that the couple is having sexual relations.

The issue of marriage as a state regulated contract versus marriage as a spiritual ritual or covenant is on a collision course with itself, and the ONLY solution is to, as Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

In other words, separate marriage and the Church from domestic partnerships and the State by removing the word "marriage" from the state licensing procedure of domestic partnerships. Also, make these domestic partnerships available to all without discriminating based on religious beliefs or sexual preference (or sexual behavior, which is private).

Render unto the State what is the State's (contracts and legal privileges) and unto God what is God's (the spiritual covenant of marriage and the right to marry whomever you please).

Jason,

That's the very attitude that's losing your cause votes. Because some people (well, not some, actually the majority of people) believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, we are to be considered hateful bigots? That's hateful on your part, my friend.

Listen, if you're so disgusted with your State and your country, there are other places you can go. Try Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Vermont.

I totally disagree with Brian. Young does not equal pro-gay marriage. There are many young people who were in complete support of Prop. 8 and continue to be.

Yes on 8,

Show us any polling numbers that prove your assertion. Every recent poll I have seen says you are wrong.

The numbers of young people that support gay marriage is much higher than other groups.

The best solution is to simply remove government from the equation. An initiative measure is currently being circulated which would do the following: "Replaces the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership" throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Let secular or religious institutions perform "marriages" and restrict the government to dealing with the legal and contractual issues related to voluntary agreements made between (or among) consenting adults. That way gay couples can get married in those churches (or whatever) which accept such relationships, while opponents can consider those "marriages" invalid and ignore them. Everyone can live-and-let-live and go their separate ways.

It's by far the best solution, not that I expect it to actually happen. Instead, we'll have more initiatives, and each time the losing side will come back in the following election with a counter-initiative.

The Yes-on-8 campaign provided the gay marriage proponents with a perfect roadmap on how to pass the next initiative, if they're smart enough to learn from past mistakes. The most effective advertisements in favor of Prop 8 were the ones which warned that gay marriage and homosexuality would be promoted in the schools and taught to school children. If a new initiative to overturn Prop 8 were to include strong language explicitly forbidding that, it would undercut that argument and make passage much more likely. And since opponents of Prop 8 claimed that those education ads were red herrings, what would be the harm in adding wording to clarify the matter?

Eileen,

You're right on all those points but as a political issue, they have less importance.

The Marriage issue is a red herring held out by Far Right politicians and operatives to get Christian voters to the polls on election day. It is so important to the FR movement that if you were to take the Marriage issue off the table the FR couldn't get anyone elected, locally or nationally.

dpwiener,

Since you support taking government out of the equation on the issue of same-sex marriage, would you also support taking government out of the equation on such matters as prayer in the schools, funding of a host of so-called social justice programs, and nationalized health care? Thought so.

^___^,

You show me your poll and I'll show you mine. The truth is, there are no polls on the younger generation's position on same-sex marriage because many of them are not of voting age.

To Yes on 8 -

I am not asking anyone to change their personal views on whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I do not care what you or anyone else thinks about who I choose to marry. What I do care about is what the law says - it is supposed to provide equal protection.

Just because you hate gays and lesbians and do not think we should have the same protections, rights and responsabilities as heterosexual relationships does not give you the right to deny me or anyone else equality.

I don't like yellow sports cars, but does that give me a right to ban my neighbor from driving one?

Straight marriages are not threatened by equality for gay and lesbian relationships. In fact, a year from today, compare the divorce rate for the 18,000 "special" gay marriages the court allowed to those of our heterosexual couples which hover around 50% at last count. If the gay and lesbians have a lower divorce rate we can assume that your marriages are a threat to ours.

So the extreme right believes the government "Big Brother" should prevent two people who love each other from getting married, but they don't believe the same government should know who is buying ammunition for AK47s. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes on 8 asked:

"dpwiener, Since you support taking government out of the equation on the issue of same-sex marriage, would you also support taking government out of the equation on such matters as prayer in the schools, funding of a host of so-called social justice programs, and nationalized health care? Thought so."

I'm a bit confused by your "Thought so" conclusion. It almost sounded like you were assuming my answers were "no". I very much support taking the government out of the equation on school prayer, so-called social justice programs, and nationalized health care.

I found it interesting on a recent trip to Spain to learn that gay marriage is legal there. And I didn't even feel that my own marriage was in danger!

I wonder if Mr. Dennert will be doing a blog on Don Perata? Perata was investigated for 5 years by the FBI at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars and they found nothing and no charges will be brought (Rumors were the Bush Administration ordered the investigation at the request of the California GOP). I seem to remember that Bubba Kidd and the other right wing losers kept bringing this topic up and attacking Perata. It would be nice to see all those right wing losers now apologize to Mr. Perata. I wonder when the day comes that the FBI finally investigates the Strickland's if they too will be found innocent? I doubt it!

You've again proven my point with your hate-filled rants, Jason.

Don't presume to know who I hate or don't hate. Actually, I don't hate anyone (unlike you). You don't even know me. So, stop with the rash, angry, judgmental comments.

You seem to have a fixation on religious organizations with your constant attempts to demonize them. That is pretty sad, my friend.

Believe me, you and your ilk are not winning over any supporters. You're only succeeding in further alienating people.

If our friend "Don Perata for Mayor" wants me to issue an apology perhaps he should first provide a link to a post where I was attacking Mr. Perata. I don't recall posting any such thing.

But to demonstrate that he is consistent, perhaps he should first offer his own apology to former Senator Ted Stevens, who lost a re-election campaign due to a criminal conviction, only to have that conviction later overturned after it was revealed that there was gross prosecutorial misconduct. If you are going to demand apologies on behalf of Mr. Perata then perhaps you should step up to the plate yourself by offering a personal apology to Mr. Stevens. Seems to me that Ted Stevens suffered a far greater injustice.

Yes on 8 - I am not sure what you are reading that is hate filled. As for my discomfort with certain extremist religious groups - this is limited to those that seek to deny freedom and equality by perverting the message of Jesus Christ to fit their own limited agendas.

Hate is a strong word and an emotion I do my best to avoid. If anyone is exhibiting hate, I believe those who wrote and funded a ballot measure specifically to deny an entire group of citizens equal protection and equal status would qualify.

I am proud to be a Christian and do not hate you or any of the others who wish to deny full equality to gay and lesbian couples.

Please convince me that posting your comments using the hidden name "Yes on 8" is a sign of love or friendship.

Jason, here are your direct quotes:

"I am deeply ashamed of my country and disgusted by the hate and intolerance that has guided the decision making process of the CA Supreme Court, the people of California and the religious extremists who use the Bible to spout hate at every opportunity."

"Just because you hate gays and lesbians and do not think we should have the same protections, rights and responsabilities as heterosexual relationships does not give you the right to deny me or anyone else equality."

Tell me again that your not espousing hate or attributing it to me and other posters that happen to disagree with your views.

Ted Stevens was guilty as sin, he only got off because the Bush Justice Department hired people who were as inept as Bush. Stevens getting off was kind of like when a cop makes a mistake and a criminal goes free, not because they were innocent, but because the process was not followed. Stevens took big bucks in perks he should not have taken, that is a fact. Perata on the other hand was the subject of a witch hunt and they found nothing, zip. Bubba Kidd is consistent in being the chief apologist for republican lawbreakers, rumor has it Bubba is raising money for the Cheney defense fund.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

If it's a Republican being probed, it's a sinister Bush conspiracy if he was found innocent. But, if it's a Democrat, like the corrupt loser, Don Perata, it's a witch hunt.

Pay no attention to this bonehead, Bubba. He's the same old singular antagonist that we're all so used to laughing off on this blog. He hasn't made a well-reasoned, intelligent statement yet.

Yes on 8, funny that you wrote "If it's a republican being probed", what are you and Bubba not telling us? Speaking of laughing, we all laugh at all the idiotic loser comments you and your pathetic sidekick Bubba write. You just need to get over the fact that Obama kicked the living crap out of your boy John McCant here in VC and from sea to shining sea. Once Franken is seated we will finish wiping out republicans like trash from the streets. I hope Phony Tony and Fraudra get the same treatment from the FBI that Perata got. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes on 8 sounds a lot like that loser idiot from Ventura, Gibson. That clown could not be elected dog catcher!

Don't know Gibson, but I do know you, bonehead. BTW, the last two posts were from the same loser. I've seen Wyatt Earp get shut down one too many times on this blog to be concerned with him.

Back to the point though. It seems you have no defense for Don Per Diem, so you simply resort to blind rants about your favorite topic - the Stricklands. I think you must have wet dreams about Tony because you mention his name so often your infatuation is impossible to conceal.

Ahh well, I'm through with this loser. It's a total waste of band width even communicating with this young lady.

I made my post because I knew that our friend "Perata for Mayor" would make my point for me. He whines about the alleged "witch hunt" against poor Don Perata (D), demanding apologies now that a criminal investigation ended without any actual charges. But when I mention that Ted Stevens (R) recently had a criminal conviction overturned in a clear case of prosecutorial misconduct, he then declares that he is "guilty as sin", launching into allegations of a conspiracy theory.

Let me see if I get this straight... when a democrat is investigated they are presumed to be innocent, but when a republican investigated they are presumed to be guilty. Furthermore, if charges are dropped or a conviction overturned then we should, (a) apologize if the accused is a democrat, or (b) declare that the person is guilty anyway if the accused is a republican.

I guess that pretty much speaks for itself with regard to the credibility of people like "Perata for Mayor". I rest my case.

DPWeiner, GS and others who are on the same page as me:

I do not think the possibility of an initiative removing the word marriage is that out of the question. Nor is it just the religious right that would feel it does NOT support their agenda.

I have also listened to those on the left and who are in support of gay MARRIAGE and they express the exact same view on the importance of retaining this label on their relationship as do the religious right.

I have heard many of them specifically say that the main reason they want to keep the word "marriage" in the label is because they want to force society to give them the same cultural and sociological recognition as it does to heterosexual relationships. In other words, they want the LAW to legitimatize their SPIRITUAL and RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Also, the Domestic Partnership law as written, and touted as a "victory" by gays and lesbians, is also unconstitutional and should be challenged. My understanding is that it requires that the contracting partners be of the same sex (gender discrimination) and that a statement be signed that they are having sexual relationships (invasion of privacy, among other things).

There are many couples who are either heterosexual, OR do not want to make a spiritual and religious committment of marriage, but want the protections benefits and responsibilities of a domestic partnership contract. At this time those couples are REFUSED the option of a Domestic Partnership.

This is just more evidence that both laws, Prop 8 and Domestic Partnership Law, jointly and severly violate both the California Constitution AND the US Constitution on many levels.

Also, the fact that the State can not legislate what everyone agrees is a RIGHT, shows the unconstitutionality of the entire concept.

This is a classic example of the horns of a dilemma and I look forward to the only logical AND Constitutional resolution coming sooner rather than later.

You may have misunderstood me. I don't care whether or not Gays have the right to "marry". Neither do I care if the Christian Right retains the term "marriage" for their own sanctimonious reasons. I think both sides are being silly.

What I am concerned about is the cynical claim of a large number of voters that the majority has the right to decide what should or shouldn't be law. This is a disturbing trend at the state and local level and evidence of how dangerously dumb American voters have become...because they are starting to believe these claims.

Yes On 8 is a prime example of a voter who believes in majority rule...until the majority doesn't agree with him. If Prop 8 was overturned by popular vote next year people like him will be out arguing that the issue is up to the Courts...as hard as they argued against the Courts hearing the case this time.

gs,

You're so wrong. I believe in majority rule all the time.

If the voters choose to overturn Prop. 8 at some point in the future, I can accept that. That's democracy and that's what we all signed up for, didn't we? Otherwise, we'd be living in China, or Canada, or somewhere.

What I find interesting though is your comment about dumb American voters. I suppose they would have been brilliant if they'd voted Prop. 8 down, right?

Do you consider American voters dumb when they elected Barack Obama, or was that one of their more enlightened moments? You see, you can't have it both ways, my friend. Time to say what you mean and mean what you say.

You believe in majority rule? Then I guess you favor getting rid of the 2/3rds rule for the budget. It isn't majority rule and it isn't democratic to require it.

Thanks for explaining your views on majority rule. I was wrong about that.

As for me, I can't imagine an instance when the majority should have the option to ever take away the rights of a minority.

With regards to the growing trend of dumbness among American voters....absolutely! There's no question that the percentage of Americans who chronically vote AGAINST their own self interest and against the Nation's well-being has grown. Those who elected Bush a second time are dumb. Those who elected Schwarzenoggin both times are dumb. And those who championed idiots like Palin, Romney & Giuliani are really dumb. Fortunately, the majority of American voters are not dumb...as evidenced in the last blow out election.

Interracial marriage and same sex marriage isn't the exact same issue but when the California Supreme Court ruled against the ban on interracial marriage it wasn't popular with the public.

Yes on 8 would be willing to support bans like that if he believes a majority of people should be able to take away legal equality from a minority group.

I support individual rights and the best protection of majority rights is a constitutional democracy.

gs,

OK, I get it. I thought I was misinterpreting your view for a moment there.

So, Americans are smart when they elect the candidate you favor and dumb when they vote for the opposing candidate.

Thanks so much for clarifying this.

Obama wasn't my favored candidate but he was the better of the candidates that ended up on the ballot. In addition, most voters realized they'd be voting AGAINST their best interests by voting for Obama's opponent...like the dumb voters did.

It's that plain, Yes on 8.

I would hope that a Brian the blogger with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Joe the plumber who hasn’t lived that life.

There are so many technically written propositions the voters have to figure out.

These propositions are written with clauses that say the voters MUST approve any amendments to them. Now voters have to amend something they didn't understand in the first place. Can you see the potential for problems. There are people that take advantage of voter ignorance.

Nicely put Eileen!

Vitriol and emotion have replaced all sense of reason on both sides of this debate.

Marriage is a spiritual contract, not a legal one. Allow all couples who wish to "marry" the option of formalizing their spiritual contract with the state as a civil union or a domestic partnership and the problem is solved. This would preclude any challenges by either Gay Rights advocates or those from the Religious Right by treating all couples the same way and honoring and obeying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is that, as usual, reasoned and moderated opinion does not generate the same kind of heat that the screamers and whiners on both the left and the right can muster. Politicians are also catering to the extremes on this issue rather than chart a course that would settle the matter in order to grab headlines and fill their campaign war chests with special interest money.

Stick to your guns Eileen. Many people who are in favor of gay marriage perceive that homosexuals are discriminated against and denied their civil liberties. This is simply not true in the State of California. Religious conservatives are under the mistaken impression that their 1st Amendment rights are under attack and that a church's tax exempt status would be jeopardized if it did not permit a gay couple to be married in their church. Again, another false premise and assumption.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man rules. While in the State of Confusion, sometimes referred to as California, demagogues and craven opportunists like Gavin Newsome and Antonio Villaraigosa on the left and Tony Strickland and Meg Whitman on the right fill the void and cater to the organized extremes in both camps.

In this case moderation is indeed a virtue and your logic would please both Caesar and the Lord.

If it's such a State of Confusion, RJ, as you put it, why are you still living here? Why not move to Nevada or Arizona and get straight with yourself?

Yes on 8 you have your head so far up Tony Strickland's butt you can probably taste the shampoo he uses you filthy little hatemonger, the only loser bigger than you is Bubba Kidd, though I suspect you are one in the same. They say little boys like you who hate gays are often the same one's who are caught in situations like Larry Craig. I read the other day that Liberty University has outlawed a young democrats club that they initially had approved, I can only imagine how loudly you would cry like the little punk you are if that happened to a young republican group, I'm sure Jerry Falwell though, who started Liberty is happy as he sits on his thrown at the right hand of Satan. Also Chief Propaganda minister for the GOP Rush Limpdrug has announced that the GOP is for old angry white people only and any republican who does not share his racist hatred for Sotomayor will be cast out of the party. Now go away Yes on 8, we are all tired of your meaningless and stupid posts, I have a feeling you and Bubba would be more comfortable in a state like Iowa anyway.

I'll do nothing of the sort, you worthless little ranting girl.

I'll keep posting away here if, for no other reason, than to get under your skin because I know when I do that I'm doing my job and doing it well.

Despite what you'd like to believe in that little dome sitting on your shoulders that you like to think of as a brain, I don't hate gays at all. I just despise the reaction of anyone, gay or straight, to something that didn't go their way at the ballot box. At the end of the day, this is what this is all about and has very little to do with gay rights.

Gays have the exact same rights as they did before Prop. 8 made it on the ballot. So, off with you, and go get some more talking points from Laura Winchester, or whoever you're bowing down to these days. These ones are wearing thin.

Sorry "Yes on 8". I'm here for the long haul.

I love California and would rather be here, warts and all, than anywhere else I've lived or visited.

Do you have a problem with equality or civil rights? If that is the case, then perhaps the State of Denial or the State of Shock and Revulsion might be your cup of tea.

Sorry, RJ, for a moment there, I thought you were being critical of our State. My mistake?

I have no problem at all with equality or civil rights. What I do have a problem with is changing the definition of a sacred institution like marriage. I believe in upholding traditional marriage between a man and a woman as the official definition of this legal right. The majority of the voters in this State agree with me.

The people of the State of Confusion (as you affectionately? call it) voted in favor of this in 2000 and again in 2008 by locking it into the State Constitution. The State Supreme Court has affirmed this decision by the voters.

What more can I say?

When I think of institutions I think of prisons or mental wards.

Don't we already have enough institutions in society as it is?

Eileen is correct. You can devote yourself in the most sacred of ways, before God and man, and profess your undying love. That this still happens in our selfish society is truly still a miracle. As sacred the vow is to you and your church, it is not the same from state to state or person to person. To foist your religious belief upon others who might not share your passion or your zeal might damn them to hell in your eyes but it doesn't make them bad Americans or bad individuals.

The problem that I have is that, in the midst of a severe budget crisis, on the brink of further recession, with war breaking out all over the world, all the oxygen gets sucked out of the room by the nutjobs and kooks on the left and the right.

Equality demands and requires that all citizens be treated fairly and equally. If you do not wish to give up your institution, you do not have to. It will still exist through the traditions of the church. We do not need government for this purpose, that is, to define and sanction a religious preference.

Restricting the function of the government to the equal distribution of writs of Civil Union does not take away any of the religious freedoms and beliefs you wish to adhere to or practice. I know that might not sound terribly romantic, but in reality, like in any marriage, it is what you make of it.

We just need to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, preserve the Constitution, and let nature take its course.

Thomas Jefferson would want it that way.

RJ,

Can I get the same commitment from you to get the government out of the business of regulating prayer in the schools and displaying of religious symbols in public places? If not, your Jeffersonian argument holds very little water.

Republicans love public displays of religion because that's where the control, intimidation, and "the holy collection plate" reside.

Republicans insist on being the ones to decide what private citizens do in public and in private. It has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. It is about their fear, ego, and greed and nothing more.

Yes,

I think, not unlike you, that we enjoy freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion. Students in public school currently have a right to prayer and can pray all they wish as long as it doesn't disrupt or distract from the lesson or the function of an organized school event. If you mean organized prayer or an enforced moment of reverence in the classroom or in a school arena, I would contend that there is no place for it in the public schools. The public schools exist for the mind, the soul is up for grabs. The fallacy of the private school is that it has control over mind, body, and spirit, thus rendering it souless.

On the premise that all the world's great religions are those that promote peace and co-existence, I welcome all religious symbols just as long as I'm not forced to wake up to church bells or the call to mosque. I'm just not a morning person.

Yes on 8 you and your "Pro Life" friends must be really happy today after Dr. Tiller was murdered yesterday while acting as an usher in church. Let's hear your talking points you received from Rush Limpdrug on his murder. Funny how "Pro Life" people often muder those they don't agree with.

No, what happened to Dr. Tiller was a horrible, despicable act, of course. Leave it to a jerk like you to try and make a political point from a cold-blooded murder though. I'm sure his family would be very appreciative of your insensitive, childish comments.

Why don't you ever attempt to debate the issues instead of lashing out under a fake name? Because your a huge, wussified coward, that's why. Why don't you go running back and report to your women bosses at the VCDCC headquarters that you got skewered again on the Dennert blog, so they can wipe away your tears?

To "Yes on 8 = gutless punk" - Jerry Falwell was indeed anti-gay and a leader in the Christian conservative movement, but to suggest he is in hell is offensive and to condemn him for the actions of Liberty University's leadership years after his death is unfair. Though his ant-gay rhetoric was distasteful, one thing Falwell can be recognized for was his willingness to debate the issues in an equal and open public setting. When he led Liberty, oppossing views on all manner of issues were debated.

To "Yes on 8" - Several questions;

1. Why do you accuse people of being hateful while you are writing nasty things directed specifically at other posters on this blog?

2. If you are offended by people wanting to reverse or contest the results of an election and not by homosexuality, why do you use the post name "Yes on 8" rather than your real name or a nuetral sounding fake name?

There is a fine line between being angry, sad or offended by the decisions others make politically and leveling direct personal attacks at specific people designed to discredit them as individuals. That is a childlike approach to debating issues and the reason why our political system is so distasteful to such a large segment of our population.

Yes on 8 you are nothing but a filthy little hatemonger and loser who hides behind a fake name because you are afraid of people finding out who you really are because like most "conservative" males you would rather hide in a men's room stall then show your ugly fascist face in public.

Jason Oliver can you prove Falwell does not sit at the right hand of Satan? When you can prove it I will apologize. Yes on 8 if you want to debate tell me why the "Pro Life" movement has killed so many people who perform legal abortions.

"Yes on 8" is right - to suggest that anyone would rejoice at the horrible murder of a man worshiping in a church is sick!

"Yes on 8 = hatemonger" - your post shows just how nasty things have become in the debate on social issues.

How ironic that pro-life activists are killing and pro choice activists are against choice for the late term unborn who could be viable.

Also Yes on 8, I don't know who Laura Winchester is, but I suspect she could kick your sorry *ss since you are a whimp and gutless punk.

Jason you just showed yourself to be a right wing nut job and therefore anything you say from this point on means nothing. You try and act self rightous and then you claim "Pro choice activists are against choice for late term unborn who could be viable". The only late term abortions performed by Tiller were in cases that the mothers life was at risk. Oh, that's right, you pro-lifers don't care about life unless you decide who should live or die, you make me sick.

"Yes on 8 is a coward" - WOW!

First of all, I am in favor of leaving the decision to abort a pregnancy to the woman, her doctor, the father (when appropriate)and whomever else the woman may wish to include in a decision that is hers to make alone! The only exception is late term abortions that occur when the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

As for medically required late term abortions, I have no opposition to medically required abortions to save the life of the mother and believe the doctor should determine the best method at that point.

At no point in my post did I suggest anything regarding Tiller or the types of procedures he did or did not perform. I just observed that your "faux-named" post suggesting that anyone would be rejoicing after a sick murder is wrong.

BTW - If I were a "right-wing nut job" I would have used the phrase Partial Birth Abortion and not "late term unborn". Learning the buzzwords might help you with credibility more so than hurling nasty epitaphs at me.

As for making people sick, your rants and your hurling of nasty insults towards by my count - at least 6 people including two people who are dead is pure hate at its worst.

Jason you make it sound as if people are happy with late term abortion by saying they do not want to give the fetus a choice at life. Can you name one woman who has ever had a late term abortion when the fetus could survive outside the womb and there was no medical reason to have the abortion? Just one? The head of Operation Rescue just issued a statement that is was too bad that Dr. Tiller had to die with the blood of thousands of babies on his hands before he could repent. Do you think that statement will bring comfort to Dr. Tillers family? When did God make the head of operation rescue God? "Let he amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Operation Rescue is a joke and the statement made by their director proves it! If they were truly about saving lives they would work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and improved prenatal care so that overall numbers of abortions would decline. They don't want an end to abortion - - if that happened they would lose a wedge issue.

This is the same reason why most Democrats have not been vocal and active in supporting full equality for gays and lesbians except at fundraisers and the week before an election.

Having managed a Federal lobbying effort on the issue of late term abortion ten years ago, I can assure you, at that time, late term abortions using the "dilation and extraction" or "partial birth" abortion were occuring frequently and for more than just medical need.

Additionally, you would be suprised to know that many states have no oversite of abortion clinics that are not affiliated with hospitals or a requirement that abortion providers have any medical training outside of performing the procedure.

Particularly in states like Texas as of 10 years ago did not require a clinic or person performing an abortion to have any training and anyone could open a clinic and perform abortions, the safety of women seeking abortions was at risk.

I am not sure if that has changed, but think if the Pro Life and Pro Choice activists would sit down and agree that regardless of how they feel about abortion, it is an invasive medical procedure and should only be performed by medical professionals, what a wonderful thing it would be for women's health.

Nothing will bring comfort to Dr. Tiller's family except friends, family and time. I lost my mother less then a year ago and I can't imagine how much worse it would be if I had to hear or read disgusting things like the Operation Rescue statement and snide, unfair comments - like you made in a previous post - suggesting anyone is feeling joy.

A law biding man was murdered in a church while his wife was singing and his children were looking on. The only truly Christian response is to express sympathy and offer prayers to the Tiller family and to condemn the killer and offer prayer for his family as well.

Yes on 8 is a Coward,

C'mon, you know darn well who Laura Winchester is. She's the puppeteer who's pulling your strings, girlie. She says "Jump!" and you squeal "How high?"

You are ----------------------------------- who doesn't have the guts to make a well-reasoned argument. All you want to do is hurl insults and childish names at people trying to engage in serious debates and discussions.

I'm tired of annihilating you on this thread. It's so unchallenging. So, I'm signing off for now. I'll let Jason have a turn at you for a while. But, it's been a real pleasure whippin' your a** and listening to you scream for mercy.

Yes on 8 you-------------------------------------- I don't know this Laura person but if you don't like her then I do because I assume she is someone who kicked your sorry *ss as hard as I have today! Now run back to your radio and turn on your God Rush Limpdrug and drink the koolaide and curl back up in that fetal position because you are truly a waste of life slime!

Jason, again, can you prove just one woman has had a late term abortion in the past 5 years that was not done for a medical reason? Just one?

If the government won't do anything about operation rescue there are those who will. Watch what happens over the next ten days.

Make it five.

We experienced an increase in Christian terrorist attacks during the Clinton Presidency. When Bush was in Office the fanatic false prophets felt they had a nut-case on their side. Now they don't. They are desperate. There will be more religious terrorist attacks if nothing is done.

We need to go after groups like Operation Rescue just like Al Quida.

I believe a message needs to be sent in a timely fashion that's where the five days came from. I also believe it's everybodies duty to prevent terrorism and where the government fails the average citizens must fill in.

Latest National poll showed that 68% of Americans do not want Roe V Wade overturned.

Pretty obvious that Yes on 8 is afraid of Laura Winchester (Based on his/her comments above)! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Yes on 8 is a fraidy cat!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Careful Yes on 8, or you might get stepped on like a cockroach!

Far from being afraid, I think she's a joke. I was just poking fun at this other wimp who keeps prodding me because I represent the Republican perspective.

I still think this guy is a little Chihuahua dog, who likes nothing better than taking a dive through the air and landing on Laura's lap where he sits wagging his little tail and waiting for his dog biscuit after he's done her dirty work on the blogs.

Lauraphobia - a fear of women who don't bake cookies.

Actually, in answer to your question "Yes on 8 is a gutless coward", During a CNN interview yesterday, a dear friend of Dr. Tiller's who operates a clinic in Boulder, Colorado said the number of late term abortions performed as elective as oppossed to medical need was evenly split at his clinic.

By the way, you need to check your righteous indignation and anger because your posts are really crossing the line between poltical debate and nasty threats and insults.

Actually, in answer to your question "Yes on 8 is a gutless coward", During a CNN interview yesterday, a dear friend of Dr. Tiller's who operates a clinic in Boulder, Colorado said the number of late term abortions performed as elective as oppossed to medical need was evenly split at his clinic.

By the way, you need to check your righteous indignation and anger because your posts are really crossing the line between poltical debate and nasty threats and insults.

Good post, Jason. And don't let that other guy bother you too much. He's just a mental midget who's in desperate need of attention and validation.

Yes on 8 you wrote above you were leaving this blog, I just wanted to prove you are a liar as well as a filthy little coward, you are easy to bait and it was easy to get you back on here, that shows you are weak, very very weak! I win! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Again, I don't know this Laura, but obviously you are terrified of her because you obviously have some shortcomings you are trying to hide and you are insecure about your sexual identity. Jason, again, name one woman by name who got a late term abortion when her life was not in danger or the fetus. If you can't do that then step off. Since I get the last word I will not be back on this topic and again, I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The weak one is you, my little patsy girl, with all your screaming posts and exclamation points. It is clear that your ruffled little panties are in a bunch again because you've been beaten to an unrecognizable pulp by none other than - me.

C'mon, admit it now. You know Laura Winchester quite well, now don't you? In fact, you two are as thick as thieves. She wears the pants and your wear the dress. She barks the orders and you comply like the little stooge that you are.

Your turn, Jason. Im having way too much fun with this wimpified little loser here. But, someone as skilled as I am has to show mercy now and again.

Oh my GOD! "Yes on 8 is gutless....." Well since the doctors who perform the late term abortions have been getting shot at, bombed and murdered, they have for obvious reasons not been all that interested in releasing names of patients.

Thank God he/she/it is not going to write on this blog again, it will bring the caliber of debate up.

I don't trust that promise - egomaniacal children often lie, scream, kick and cry to get their way.....