Prop. 8 supporters state their case against gay marriage

VallejoTimes-Herald ^ | October 24, 2008 | SHAUNTEL LOWE

[nickcarraway]

Supporters of Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, say a concern for children and respecting the desire of voters are the issues at the heart of their campaign. Interviews indicate, however, that preserving the traditional definition of marriage for historical and religious reasons is a priority for some in the campaign more than the welfare of kids.

Chip White, the Yes on 8 press secretary, said he is opposed to gay marriage because voters are "overwhelmingly" against it.

In 2000, voters passed Proposition 22 which amended the state Education Code to say that only marriage between men and women would be recognized in California.

More than 61 percent of voters supported the proposition, but in May, the California Supreme Court in a 4 to 3 decision overturned the measure as unconstitutional.

White said the judges "voted the wrong way."

"The judges disrespected the will of the voters, basically telling the voters that their vote didn't count," White said. "Gay marriage has been forced on Californians."

When asked, however, if gay marriage should be legal if Californians show that is what they want now by rejecting Prop. 8 in the Nov. 4 elections, White said no: "Marriage has historically, throughout all cultures, been defined as between a man and a woman."

Local Yes on 8 campaign supporter Tove Ann Purificacion said traditional marriage is an important part of society. "It's critical to the upbringing of children and for it to be considered the same as same-sex marriage is just contradictory to my values," Purificacion said. Both White and Purificacion said children should not be taught about same-sex marriage at school.

White said he doesn't have any children, but when he does he doesn't want same-sex marriage "forced" on them. "This is a matter that should be left up to parents to teach their own children according to their own timeline," White said.

The ideal is for children to be raised by a married mother and father, White said.

The campaign acknowledges in materials on its Web site that other aspects of society, like divorce and death, are also barriers to the ideal home dynamic for children.

Purificacion said she is against divorce but is focusing on gay marriage now because "you've got to pick and choose what battles are of urgency."

White said he isn't fighting against divorce because "that's not what's on the ballot."

White said that divorce is "an unfortunate reality."

Fairfield resident and Proposition 8 supporter Yvonne Fawson said even though divorce breaks up children's parents, the children still can be influenced by the parent of the opposite sex, something children with homosexual parents cannot be.

"A child deserves both a father and mother, whether or not they live together. They deserve to have both role models," Fawson said.

Fawson said she has no problem with homosexuals having domestic partnerships or civil unions, but she does not want marriage redefined.

"When you make marriage mean everything, then it starts to mean nothing," Fawson said.

[goldstategop]

If there's no clear definition of who can be married, then marriage means nothing.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Do they use the formerly good word gay corrupted
by queers to mean types of abnormal sex.

Just because a person can have perverted sex with
the same sex, with an animal or with a tree stump
has nothing to do with marriage.

It can only corrupt the meaning of to marry or marriage.

[Logical me]

To me, I am just pissed off that a rotten judge can rule on matters that does not concern the court. The people have spoken before and who is this nitwit to contradict the will of the people. Just goes to speak of the ignorance of liberal judges who think their bench is a throne of a supreme being.

[goldstategop]

If the queerly beloved can't crash in the matrimonial canopy, then they want to deny it to every one.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Dilbert San Diego]

In the three liberal states in which judges have re-defined marriage, each court has ruled by a 4 to 3 vote. There isn’t unanimity even among liberal leaning judges that the law mandates that we have homosexual marriage legalized in this manner.

So, by the narrowest of margins, we are in the process of re-defining the bedrock foundational unit of society, in order to make Lamdba Legal and the Human Rights Campaign happy.

Very little is said about whether homosexual marriage is good for society or not. Most of what we hear on this subject is that it’s discriminatory not to have homosexual marriage, not that there is benefit to society by having it as an official social policy. That’s backwards in my opinion.

[nickcarraway]

Which is what they’d like.

[doug from upland]

If a man can marry a man and a woman marry a woman, why can't a man marry two women? Or three? If the definition is changed, why can't 15 people get married? And then, there is a judge somewhere who is going to allow this --