Tweet 

Prop 8 The Musical

I think the gay community is looking for a reaction from the Christians. They think that this musical would do the trick.

I think that this musical is very sacrilegious, but I won't do anything about it. Prop 8 supporters, please do not get too venomous in your statements.

To the Prop 8 Opponents: Is banning a father from marrying his daughter unjust and unconstitutional? After all, they love each other, and there should be no law that should be prohibiting them from marrying, right? What about banning marriage to minors? Is that unjust? What about banning people from marrying animals? What about banning polygamy? Are all these unjust and unconstitutional?

Why, exactly, is marriage between two consenting, nonrelated adults unjust?

We ban incest on public policy grounds solely because of the genetic consequences. Minors aren't permitted to marry because they're not permitted to enter into legal relationships. Animals have exactly nothing to do with anything. You can try to bury your bigotry, but this is no different than the ban on interracial marriages, or bans denying marriages to members of different classes. Why are those permissible?

If you want to say that you believe it's immoral, then why aren't you protesting marriages for money, or marriages of convenience, or drunken Vegas weddings? Why, after a divorce rate approaching 60% and having exactly no religious, moral, or other standards for marriage, is the sanctity of the institution JUST NOW threatened in this one inconsequential way?

If you and your church doesn't approve of gay marriages, don't perform them. But since when do you get approval rights for what other churches and civil officers do?

As much as divorce is a threat to marriage, there really is nothing we can do about it. If we outlaw divorce, a majority of people are going to complain. If we outlaw divorce, one spouse would probably go resort to violent ways to get rid of the other spouse, which can include murder.

I believe that people just marry for the money or for some other reason besides love. I do not like it, but we cannot do anything about it either, as we should not force people to explain why they want to get married.

Why am I opposed to gay marriage? I am worried that California would become another Massachusetts. What happened in Massachusetts? Well, for one thing, religious rights have been denied. What am I talking about?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/…

Catholic Charities believed it was immoral to give children to same sex couples. Because the state law required them to let children to be adopted to same sex couples, they had to shut it's doors. Now, is that separation of church and state?

Matters are even worse in schools.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsu…

This was a ruling by a court in Massachusetts after two families sued after their kids either came home with books talking about same sex couples or were read books on the same subject. The parents cannot opt out their children from these lessons, saying that . Is this freedom of speech? you may say that parent have as much a right to teach their children their beliefs on family at home. OK. Let the families teach their children about families instead of the schools.

There was also a story about a lesbian couple suing a church after it prohibited them from marrying in a gazebo they owned, even though it has been used for public events. The church lost. I was unable to find a source for it.

In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer declined to photograph a lesbian wedding, saying it violated her christian beliefs. The couple sued and guess who won? The lesbian couple did. The photographer had to pay the legal fees, just because of her beliefs? is that exercising the freedom of religion?

Yes, I believe that gay marriage is immoral. I was for Prop. 8. That does not automatically make me a bigot.

Oh, and about your comment about churches not having to do same sex weddings…

After all the protests at churches that supported prop. 8, if gay marriage was legalized again, would you let the church issue go? I think that it would not be the case. I think that the gay community will think that gay marriage legalization would not be enough to pay back churches for what they did.

You claim that churches such as the Mormon church should lose it's tax exempt status. If that is the case, then let all the churches that put money into the campaign lose their tax exempt status. That would include those that opposed Prop 8.

You claim that we are haters…

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop…
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop…

explore around a bit. What word would describe these actions? I know that there are those who support prop 8 that perform these types of actions, but the majority of these actions have come from the no-on-8 side.

the no on 8 side claims that gay is the new black. I wholeheartedly disagree. One cannot stand up and say that they would be white instead of black, or they would be a man instead of a woman, or they would stop having a mental disorder. It is a manner of lifestyle. It is a matter of preference. What is the problem with a gay man marrying a woman? They can easily marry a woman just like I can. Nothing prohibits them from doing such.

Your move.

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles…

Tell your comment of “If you and your church doesn't approve of gay marriages, don't perform them.” to these guys, ok?

They weren't asked to perform a ceremony. Their policy allows the general public onto the land; sending people away for bigoted and discriminatory reasons is illegal.

No one was forced to participate, conduct, or endorse any activity. If they didn't want to provide access to the general public, they didn't have to, but they CHOSE to.

Thanks for playing.

They were being asked to allow something that they viewed as morally wrong on their property. They have a right to turn them away.

I am certain that any public events have to get their approval before they go into effect. If a church owns a campground or a park, then they can determine what they can and can't allow there, even if it is open to the general public.

“They were being asked to allow something that they viewed as morally wrong on their property. They have a right to turn them away.”

No, they had no such right. Their property was a campground and pavilion for which they sought tax-exempt status. For non-religious properties (i.e. not church grounds), that status is contingent upon being open to the public. If they wanted to use it for their own internal purposes, they could have done so and paid taxes on it like countless other churches do.

“I am certain that any public events have to get their approval before they go into effect. “
What?

“If a church owns a campground or a park, then they can determine what they can and can't allow there, even if it is open to the general public.”
No. General public means general public. They cannot close their doors to some people and not others and still be complying with “open to the public”.