Gavin Newsom is gay? You know, that’s going to be a huge surprise to his beautiful wife and young daughter.

Your views do not represent Christianity. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality in his teachings, but time and time again he spoke out against the hypocrisy of the ‘religious’ for their hateful holier-than-thou attitude (eg. Pharisees). The Lutheran Church allows men and women in committed homosexual relationships to serve in the clergy, and condones homosexual marriage. Your views represent ignorance and bigotry, nothing more.

Do you believe that single parents cannot raise children, because the child won’t have a mother and a father? Do you believe that adopted children live in an unhealthy home because their parents did not procreate to make them? If not, then you should can your comments about ‘depriving children of a real mother and father,’ whatever the hell that means.

The idea that marriage is, as one poster stated, a “basic human right,” is intellectually dishonest and an insult to the Civil Rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. Were marriage a right, I concede that it should not be subject to a vote by a tyrannical majority. That would be absurd. However, the fact is that the rights of homosexuals to marry has never been questioned or brought before the voting public. Those whom are pre-disposed to attraction towards their same gender have always had the right to marry. As defined by the majority of society well within it’s right, a marriage is a union between one man and one woman and does not and should not discriminate based on any attributes—including sexual orientation.

The majority in this country agrees that a marriage should be limited to two parties; agrees that both parties must be of a certain age; agrees that both parties must be human; agrees that the parties must be of significant familial distance from one another. Under the reasoning behind many of the diatribes related to R-71 (not the initiative itself), all of these restrictions are violating someone’s “civil rights.” The idea that a majority should not have the right to define the properties of a civil institution is absurd.

This has nothing to do with my personal feelings on what the properties of this social institution we call marriage should be. There are dozens of differing views on the subject, none any less valid than the other. However, accusations of discrimination or the denying of “basic human rights” are extremely serious things. I assure you that it is possible to have civil discourse on the issue without resorting to the belittling of legitimate Civil Rights struggles…struggles where rights actually were being denied to a certain portion of the population. Being unable to differentiate between the two is no excuse for unnecessarily inflammatory statements or bigotry against people who do not share your particular ideas of what the properties of a given civil institution should be.

Unless, of course “Karen” is actually Fred Phelps in drag!

For context, this was in response to an article about gay rights supporters being divided on Obama.

“Just to be clear about this, the voters of this country won’t settle either! We will not stop until traditional marriage is a part of the US Constitution the way it already is in over 30 states, until gay marriage is gone from the few states in which it is currently allowed, until there is no need for DOMA because there is no reason any longer to have to defend traditional marriage, until people like Kevin Jennings are out of any position of responsibility in our government so they never have the opportunity to mess up any kid’s life again, until parents are the ones who decide what values their kids are taught in public schools, until we stop creating laws that deprive a child of having both a mom and a dad, until schools and public facilities refuse to allow men to walk into the ladies room whenever they ‘feel like a woman,’ until organizations like adoption agencies don’t have to shut their doors because they want to give the children they’re trying to place the best start in life by placing them in traditional families, until our service men and women don’t have to worry about the sexual preference of the their fellow soldiers because no one has to ask and no one has to tell, and until our leaders have more common decency than to try to glorify a child molester like Harvey Milk by nominating him for any kind of award or recognition.

All we need to accomplish that is a new President, a new Congress, several new Governors and state legislators, several new State Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges (especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), and a Supreme Court that actually reads the original constitution rather than trying to rewrite it!

That’s not too much to ask. All it takes is for people to pay attention to what’s going on and actually VOTE!! You can make a difference, even in an off-year election!! Don’t lose this opportunity to get rid of the kinds of changes we never wanted or asked for! Be sure you’re registered and be sure you vote in 2010. It won’t happen without you!”

Going back in time, that’s like saying 60’s civil rights laws are wrong because it would penalize Christian adoption agencies for being discriminatory for placing children in white households only, or that Christian employers would be penalized for being discriminatory for not hiring anyone but white people. The Reject R-71 people made the same argument on the KCTS debate.

Hey guess what, it’s discriminatory whether it’s a law or not. Should discrimination not be allowed in a country that is supposed to be founded upon the ideals of freedom? I think so.

Further, “public nudity or public sex” is illegal under public decency laws, and after R-71 passes it will still be illegal under public decency laws, so what was your point and how would it encourage more?

EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU MAKE IS A SCURRILOUS LIE WORTHY OF FRED PHELPS! Reading your diatribe, one can feel bigotry and hatred in every word.

If anyone is still undecided, your venomous screed should be enough to make them VOTE FOR REF 71!!!!!

All people deserve to be treated equally. An APPROVE vote on R-71 simply gives gay couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples. Basic human rights. Your marriage won’t be compromised. Your children won’t be forced to become gay. It’s a simple fact; gay people have always been here, they will always be here, and it’s time to wake up to the fact. Your hate for a loving group of people who contribute in a myriad of ways to society is so ugly. Lose the hate, lose the fear.

Heterosexuals unite! APPROVE R-71!

How sad it is in this day and age that there are people who actually believe that equal rights will lead to
“even the most reprehensible public exhibitions of homosexual conduct”.

Unbelievable.

Fortunately,they are the minority in this country.
Welcome to the twenty first century,like it or not.

Don’t be fooled. A vote to approve R71 is a vote for gay marriage. If that isn’t clear, then you’re really NOT living in the real world. Look at what’s happened in other states! It’s a vote to have your children taught about homosexuality as young as 5 years of age and giving you no chance to opt your child out of such indoctrination. It’s a vote to change the law so that intentionally deprives a child of being raised by both a mother and a father. It’s a vote to force christian adoption agencies to close because they believe in placing a child in a family they know gives children their best chance for success for life: a home with a real mom and dad. It’s a vote to force christian schools to hire gay teachers because to refuse to hire a teacher because he or she is gay would be ‘discriminatory.’ It’s a vote for even the most reprehensible public exhibitions of homosexual conduct to be allowed because to arrrest someone for public nudity or public sex if they are gay would be ‘discriminatory.’ And if you think this can’t happen in Washington, just look at what’s happening in Massachusetts and California, as people like Gavin Newsom, the gay mayor of San Francisco, wield their authority to promote the gay lifestyle. Please, if this isn’t what you want for your state, you must Reject R-71.

Hmmm. . . . .

Maybe only women or those with college degrees should be allowed to vote.

Eyman as usual is doing like Ronald Reagan proposing to cutting taxes for the wealthy and tossing in a few scraps for the rest of us and saying hey I’m reducing everyone’s taxes. But he isn’t.

Renters who pay sales taxes and other fees own no property and will see no tax rebate. Renters make up 35% of households in the state. Why should renters pay the taxes for people’s vacation homes and investment properties and for corporations and businesses like Boeing and Weyerhaeuser and Microsoft.(Microsoft for the record actually opposes I-1033) and shopping malls like Bellevue Square owned by Eyman supporter Kemper Freeman and real estate developers?
It doesn’t make sense. Vote No and keep Tim Eyman’s hands out of your pockets.

That’s an unusually large gap.

Is it:
a. women don’t feel threatened by someone else having ‘everything but marriage’
b. a sense of fairness, or
c. just plain common sense