My letter to the No on 8 guys.

[Athelwulf]

I'm sure I'm not the first guy to send them a letter like this, but I figured adding my thoughts would help. It certainly couldn't hurt.

To whom it may concern,

I believe the next course of action if the legal challenge to 8 fails is to get a measure on the ballot that repeals 8. I think things will change by 2010. Maybe not by much, but I think they'll change just enough that we can regain the right to marry. Look how much has changed since 2000's Knight Initiative!

A better case needs to be made to the voters that, no, the churches will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and no, homosexuality won't be taught in schools. It's worth it to check out Canada's bill that legalized same-sex marriage. It's called the Civil Marriage Act. It explicitly states that churches do not have to marry same-sex couples if their religion opposes it. Here is the link to the bill:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=e&chamber=c&startlist=2&endlist=200&session=13&type=0&scope=i&query=4381&list=toc

It might be highly beneficial to reaffirm the separation of church and state in California by explicitly saying, in the measure to repeal 8, that churches retain their religious freedom. That would probably make some Yes on 8 voters feel better about allowing same-sex marriage. Maybe not a huge number, but just enough.

An effort also should be made to reach out to minority voters, especially blacks. It is unfortunate that voting blacks overwhelmingly approved 8, and it's caused an unfortunate backlash against blacks among some in the gay community. Roughly 30% of voting blacks were on our side, and we need to try to build a relationship, a camaraderie, with the other 70% and help them understand that allowing all gay people to marry, including gay blacks, won't hurt them one bit.

I might live in California someday. Please give my idea a lot of thought. I hope this will turn out to be your course of action. I can see beautiful Mt. Shasta from up here in southern Oregon. After the California Supreme Court's ruling, I would occasionally look out my window at Mt. Shasta and feel happy that I only lived a couple dozen miles away from freedom. I want to be able to do that again someday. I want my brothers and sisters in California to have freedom again.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Compelling, but why shouldn't homosexuality be taught in the schools?

>>>>>A better case needs to be made to the voters that, no, the churches will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and no, homosexuality won't be taught in schools.>>>>

And really what connection does this have to the question of who can marry whom?



The churches can do as they please, and it's probably a good idea to make that explicit in any future measure... but shouldn't the ( public) schools teach about....well... everything?

[Athelwulf]

2. My point was precisely that the two issues are unrelated.

Specifically, legalizing same-sex marriage won't automatically pressure schools to acknowledge homosexuality anymore than they are pressured to do so now, except possibly for the fact that the government will have granted their relationships recognition, and therefore an air of legitimacy. Neither the California Supreme Court ruling nor Proposition 8 mentioned education.

And I'm not saying kids shouldn't learn that homosexuality exists and learn the basic facts about it. Just that it's an issue totally separate from marriage.

Oh, and thank you for the compliment. :)

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. A KICK 'cause the letter is good, but I still think....

schools should be left out of the discussion entirely. Their inclusion here complicates the issue unecessarily.

Did the YES people conflate the marriage issue w. schools? I wasn't aware, if they did. That's the only way it ( your reference to it) makes any sense at all to me.

[keepCAblue]

4. Yes, they did n/t

[Maat]

5. We have to address it because the other side hammers it ...

they fail to mention California's opt-out provision and insist that children will be FORCED to learn ideas that conflict with their "religious values."

It's untrue. We have to point out that the other side is LYING.

[Maat]

6. Great letter.

I wrote a similar one. We need to keep putting a repeal on the ballot until we get rid of that thing.

[sui generis]

7. yes, and a church should also have the religious freedom TO marry

a same-gender couple.

Why is it always the people who want the right to deny something as an exercise of religious freedom, that we have to worry with. They already have "religious freedom" but somehow my right to be free of religion doesn't count for a damn.

I am truly sick of religion having anything to do with this at all.

Marriage is about property rights. Period.

If we can't decide who we choose as family, as Americans and as adults then it's time to get up close and personal in their faces, just like any other red blooded American would do if their family was threatened.

I promise you, cries of pity and anguish will get us nowhere and only serve to give our enemies immense satisfaction. This American is married, and the U.S. can take away my citizenship if they disagree, and I will happily let them, but I'll still be married.