After reading many of the posts here, and hearing so many people in, and yes, a lot of them outside of California make the argument that homosexuals have not suffered the same type of persecution as did the black people, I would like to clear up a few historical facts.

1. "Hate crimes are down, but anti-gay incidents rise

Just over half 7,624 hate crimes reported last year fell into that category, followed by crimes motivated by a religious bias at 18.4 percent." Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/nation/33357944.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

2. Matthew Sheppard (received a lot of publicity, but by far NOT a rarity according to the anti gay hate crime statistics)

"Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Shepard met McKinney and Henderson in a bar. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car.[3] Subsequently, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address and intended to rob his home. Still tied to the fence, Shepard was discovered eighteen hours later by a cyclist, who at first thought that Shepard was a scarecrow. At the time of discovery, Shepard was still alive, but in a coma.

Shepard suffered a fracture from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He had severe brain stem damage, which affected his body's ability to regulate heart rate, body temperature and other vital signs. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. As he lay in intensive care, candlelight vigils were held by the people of Laramie.[4]

He was pronounced dead at 12:53 A.M. on October 12, 1998 at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins.[5][6][7][8] Police arrested McKinney and Henderson shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun as well as the victim's shoes and wallet in their truck.[9]

The two men had attempted to get their girlfriends to provide alibis.[10]

"In court the defendants used varying rationales to defend their actions. They attempted to use the "gay panic defense", arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard. At another point they stated that they had only wanted to rob Shepard and never intended to kill him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

3. Holocaust
From 1933-1945, about 100,000 men were arrested under Paragraph 175 for the crime of homosexuality. Some were sent to prisons; others to concentration camps. The death rate of gay prisoners in the camps was 60 per cent, the highest among non-Jewish victims.
http://www.petertatchell.net/history/survivors.htm

NOTE: The "homosexuals" of these camps were not set free along with the rest of the prisoners at the end of the war, but were sent to different prisons to "finish out their sentence for committing a real crime"!

4. Hate crimes committed by POLICE OFFICERS against gay people.

Research findings in the USA indicate that 20% of all anti-gay hate crimes are committed by police officers (Berrill, 1992:32). The most common forms of police victimisation are: verbal harassment, physical abuse, soliciting, blackmail, application of the law in a discriminatory way, and handling complaints concerning anti-gay hate crimes in an inefficient and an unfair manner.

The committing of hate crimes is not a new phenomenon as it has occurred throughout history. In addition to the fact that hate crimes have been committed unabated for so long, a further matter of concern is that the frequency with which these crimes are committed is escalating and that the victims are increasingly members of minority groups (Levin & McDevitt, 1993:ix). Groups that are especially vulnerable are those belonging to specific racial groups (e.g. African-Americans), groups with specific religious affiliations (e.g. Jews), and groups whose sexual orientation (gays and bisexuals) differs from that of the majority of society. When the extent to which gays are subjected to hate crimes is compared with that of other groups, it appears that gays have the highest risk of being victimised (Herek & Berrill, 1992:7).

http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574

THESE ARE ONLY A FEW EXAMPLES!

@ SN

Funny, that, you should say that Proposition 8 doesn't take away the rights when, currently, same-sex couples have the right to marry up until voting time this November. Additionally, let's not forget that domestic partnerships lack the full benefits of a marriage under law - state and federal.

Your statement about homosexuality being a matter of sexual preference and then comparing it to a matter of skin color hurt your argument.

People can CHOOSE to NOT date or have a relationship with someone of a different race, background, social status, whatever.

The whole purpose of the so-called conversion therapies was to see if homosexuals could CHOOSE to NOT be attracted to members of their same sex. The only real success it saw was in people who were BIsexual and not HOMOsexual.

The fact that the conversion therapies didn't work, the fact that SO MANY homosexuals seek counseling at some point in their lives because of the conflict they feel with their sexuality or even sense of attraction (personally speaking, my brain and heart thought first, and not my nether regions, thanks) speaks of the lack of 'choice' that so so many homosexuals have in regards to their 'preferences'.

Think about it, if we could actually CHOOSE, do you think we'd WANT this kind of backlash we're receiving from people like you who think we're a bunch of deviants? It's not fun or a walk in the park, let me tell you! There is a REASON so many homosexuals go into counseling and it isn't because they're diseased! It's because they FEEL conflict from everyone ELSE telling them that they're weird, deviant, and/or even works of Satan.

NObody in their right mind wants to shell out 100 bucks or more for a single trip to the shrink. To voluntarily visit tells much about the conflict that homosexuals feel in coming to terms with themselves and coming to terms with society. The 'coming out' process isn't a simple matter of 'Hey mom, hey dad!' Despite all the 'acceptance' over the years, it's still a very VERY emotionally charged subject and, like you have mentioned, for all the acceptance that's been given and 'equal rights', people still treat homosexuality as a disease and deviance. I repeat: IF we could CHOOSE, I am almost certain we wouldn't choose such a difficult and painful path to walk.

You, on the other hand, can CHOOSE to not date someone of a different race when you have a whole entire dating pool of other people OF your same race or OF your same social status or OF your same whatever it is you're looking for.

When your attraction, interest, and sexual orientation is completely tied to your same sex, where ELSE can you turn? NO where. A man is man and a woman is a woman.

Additionally, bringing up the argument about the 'If we let same-sex couples get married, then what about the pedophiles?' bit is more than a little disturbing and offensive.

Let's talk first for a bit about 'traditional family values'.

According to the traditional family values being espoused by all these people who keep banging on my door, calling me on the phone, and otherwise accosting me in public places, 'traditional family values' go back to the Bible.

And last I looked at the Bible, adultery was punishable by stoning and death, divorce was unheard of and so was re-marriage as marriage was supposed to be a lifetime event, and polygamy was still acceptable.

Funny, then, how we have a 50% divorce rate, broken families, multiple divorces and re-marriages, abusive spouses allowed to re-marry and to have kids, who-knows-how-many single parents, and talks of adultery everywhere and Proposition 8 says nothing about ANY of it.

THOSE are issues of 'traditional family values', too.

Funny, too, how people think pedophilia is related to homosexuality and somehow equate a person with a sexual fascination with prepubescent children who have no sense of what's going on to AN ADULT who wants to marry ANOTHER CONSENTING ADULT whom they have probably been with for several years.

Funny, too, how you mention polygamy, and wasn't that what the norm was in the Biblical times? Oh, but of course, times have changed and Saint Augustine amended what is 'allowed' and what isn't. Additionally, let's not forget that TO THIS DATE, polygamy is STILL practiced amongst various Mormon fundamentalist groups. And where is approximately 40% of the Yes on 8 money coming from? Mormons. Funny. And no, I don't support polygamy myself, but then again, I can't see myself ever wanting to marry more than one person, either. Maybe this issue should be taken up with the Mormons and others who have similar beliefs and still practice polygamy and quite potentially support Yes on 8.

Funny, too, how people think 'If we let gays marry, then incest will be allowed (and dogs can marry their owners)!' Incest is frowned upon by many reasons, and one of the BIGGEST reasons is the potential health risks of potential offspring. The East has had plenty of experience in ancient times with such practices and the results of it are crystal clear. There is LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC research and facts to back up the thought that incest is not a good thing. Gay people can't have kids between themselves. There is no chance for any sort of genetic 'harm'.

And about the dogs? Dogs aren't human beings and they can't give consent.

Honestly?

If you or anyone else can tell me that they're simply squicked out by the idea of two adult men or two adult women marrying or just feel uncomfortable about it in general, I have nothing to say about it and won't fault anyone for that as we're all entitled to our gut feelings and hey, we're all human.

But PLEASE don't compare my relationship with my man and my desire to marry my man to a relationship between a pedophile and a prepubescent child, a relationship between a father and a daughter or brother and a sister, or a multiple-partnered relationship.

The man I just so happen to be with is: most certainly a consenting adult well over the 21 years old mark (as am I for that matter), most certainly NOT related to me in any way whatsoever, and is NOT one out of many in a non-existing multiple partnered relationship.

Besides people going 'UGHGROSS', the only thing illegal between us is quite possibly how much we love each other.

You say you support equal rights - you pointed out the domestic partnership bit, didn't you?

And yet you compared homosexuality with PEDOPHILIA.

Last I looked, the American Psychiatric Association revoked its listing of homosexuality as any sort of a disorder back in 1973 because tests, attempted therapies, and who knows how much counseling proved otherwise. Pedophilia, last I looked, is STILL VERY MUCH a catalogued and listed mental disorder in the DSM.

And another thing? Pedophiles can marry - just not with kids. They can marry and then they can have access to their own kids, should they have their own kids and the kids of their extended families and friends. Fancy that, then, that so much child molestation and child sexual abuse happens within the scope of the child's most intimate social circle.

And if we want to talk about 'deviants', then maybe we should reconsider letting people who have a history of true mental illness and people who have a criminal history marry as currently, ALL of these people can still marry.

And if we want to talk about the preservation of 'traditional family values', then maybe we should go and look at the state of 'family values' now within the so-called 'traditional families'. I mentioned it earlier, but here it is again: Last I looked, the divorce rate is 50%, there are people who have been thrice married and thrice divorced, porn stars can still be mothers, and abusive spouses and parents can still be spouses and parents.

I have NO history of abuse. I DO have a history of long term relationships. If I marry, this will be my FIRST and VERY HOPEFULLY, ONLY. I DON'T plan on 'having kids', but if I am later able to adopt, then I plan on giving them at least as much love as my own parents gave me as a kid (which was a hell of a lot), and my occupation and free time spent has NOTHING to do with anything 'morally questionable' (unless you count going on dinner-and-a-movie or a long drive down the coastline dates with my partner to be morally questionable).

... But I can't marry?

Honestly - and without pointing to the Bible, why not?

---

SN, despite my post(s), I have enjoyed conversing with you and I thank you for replying to my response. It's good to be able to talk openly and intelligently.

Ray - Your response to "The Overhauling of Straight America" was thoughtful and well written. However, I have to disagree with you regarding the "honesty" of the article. This propaganda piece was never meant to be in the hands of heterosexuals. It was meant to be a "below the radar", for gays only document on how to carry out the homosexual agenda. Keeping in mind that homosexuals (and keep in mind that I do have homosexual acquaintances and co-workers) account for only about 3% of the total population, how would you feel if it was polygamists trying to spread their propaganda? Or pedophiles? Or people who think incest is a good thing? Would that then be problematic? But because this 20 year old agenda has been somewhat successful in "desensitizing" and gaining acceptance - it is still a movement of about 3% that wants to change everything for the 97% of the population. And if we just look the other way or say "ah, no big deal" - the radical gays will push for more of their agenda to see the light of day such as the lowering of the age of consent laws. And other groups who have "alternative sexual preferences" will use similar strategies to gain acceptance into the larger population. What will our society look like then if in 20 years from now everything goes? If anything can be called "marriage?" I, as well as the majority of Americans, do not want to see total anarchy and moral decay just to appease very small parts of the population. This is not skin color - this is sexual preferences.

Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

Vote Yes on 8.

"The Overhauling of Straight America"
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/TVCSpecialRptOverhaulingStraight.PDF

It's obvious that prop 8 is not a supported at least on this website of blogs. That's extremely sad.

For those claiming God, the Bible is clear like in Sodom and Gommorah. I find it sad that people are so educated yet don't see the real truth. Being gay is wrong. I am sure that gays have marriage rights under family code and use them no doubt. I guess LA is blinded by media. The truth of the matter is is that Christians should not be like the world. World includes those who proclaim they know God and say he is loving; He loves and has Power though, remember that!

So everyone can stay and argue against prop 8 all they want ,the truth is everyone benefited from God's blessing on this state and country. It was built on Christianity. To impose now and force me to say marriage is someone who physically can't even consumate with their partner, is the True crime. Physics doesn' t allow it, nature doesn't allow it. I don't need to be the most intelligent to know that. Just simple. Faith. I urge people no more fighting, just be true to goodness and peace on earth. Don't play with God's Commands. Find Truth and Peace.

Vote yes on prop 8.

@ SN

In addition to reading that document that was published 11 years ago, perhaps you should also look at the state of the LGBT movement during that time period - a few years before and a few years after.

During a time when people more commonly associated homosexuality with disease (The American Psych. Association only lifted the classification of homosexuality as a disease in 1973.) and consequently treated homosexuals like second class citizens and subjected them to inhumane treatments ('Therapies' like conversion therapy, aversion therapy was/is still used, despite the APA no longer being non-supportive of its use.), does it honestly surprise anyone that there might be backlash in the form of a more aggressive agenda to desensitize people to homosexuality?

I do NOT support all the ideas that were stated in that document, but I DO understand how there is so much frustration behind the agenda.

Maybe if you yourself were gay and had been subjected to people treating you like a low class, mentally ill, plague-carrying citizen and then subjected to threats of 'treatment' - or not outrightly treated - that are inhumane, then you might understand the frustration - if not outright anger - that might lead to such an assertive response.

The funny thing is, right now, it is the religious wing that's lashing out. The continuous stream of church-goers knocking on my door and calling my house and talking my ear off about Proposition 8 whether I want to talk to them or not and waving pamphlets in my face on the way to mass transit is worse than that article you posted.

The article was originally posted in a publication and a publication only (later expanded to book), not something that homosexuals took in hand and marched door-to-door with and/or phone called people about at all hours of the day and night.

Additionally, you'd have to be lying to say that there hasn't been similar literature published from the 'straight' camp.

The only difference is, the article you posted is at least honest about the thoughts and feelings and the whys and wherefores where the articles that I have seen from the 'straight' camp more recently are cloaking the true agenda in lies.

Personally speaking, I'd rather people admit to homophobia than try and use homosexuals as scapegoats for traditional marriage and traditional family troubles.

That article was brutal, but it was honest in thought.

Where is the other camp's honesty?

No suprise that the Morman cult is pouring money into the yes campaign. They have been wrong on their views of women, on race and on homosexuality since the cult started.

People really should go see Bill Maher's Religulous movie...

Ok, it's wrong for people to take anyones signs down. It's called freedom of speech. So how do you think gay people feel when the yes on 8 supporters want to take their civil right to marry the person they love away? Think about it. These yes on 8 supporters are upset about a hateful message they have placed on their front lawn being taken down. Gay people stand the chance of loosing their civil right to marry. ejesse

Mr. Pemstar, you are an old man who should know better. But then again, you probably protested the Loving v. Virginia ruling, too.

I've given No on 8 money and I post their ad for free on my blog and I probably still won't ever get married, but I'd like to know that I can.

You can not pass laws to make me comply with the rules of your religion, no matter how hard you try. Forced religious conscription is anti-American, as are those who attempt it.

I'm a No on Prop 8 donor, and I am not afraid to tell everyone. So I'm sure the companies who donate money to No on prop 8 would feel the same.

I can't believe a political organization can only think of a childish way to make companies to donate money to them. OK, I know nobody wants to donate money to Yes on Prop 8. And yes, i know you guys are frustrated. But can you just think of something more mature? It's like an elementary students who's been stolen their candies, and "threaten" to tell their teacher. Grow up man!!! Sending threatening letters won't help!!!

“Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.” This quote was taken from an article in the November 1987 homosexual magazine – Guide. “The Overhauling of Straight America,” by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill is a blueprint for homosexualizing our culture and demonizing opponents who are opposed to the normalization of sodomy.

Sound familiar? Yes, these are the tactics that the opponents of Prop 8 are using vigorously to make 97% of the population think that there is something wrong with us instead of the other way around.

This is the article the opponents of Prop 8 do not want you to read because it exposes the hidden yet very real homosexual agenda.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/TVCSpecialRptOverhaulingStraight.PDF

Now is the time to finally share this. And you should, in turn, share this with others. Knowledge is power. Be informed.

Don't be fooled. Vote Yes on 8.

The same exact arguments: activist judges, overturning the will of the people (how dare they!!), taking the law into their own hands, separate but equal, blah, blah, blah have all been made before when Supreme Court judges enacted or overturned laws that didn't reflect "the will of the people". Here is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Let's go back 54 years and allow the white majority petition to amend the constitution to re-establish segregation because they were outraged by those judges' decision, shall we? This truly is the equivalent. I may not personally feel "right" about same-sex marriage but my brain tells me that those judges did the right thing, and some of those judges that voted to overturn Prop 22 probably had to put aside their own religious beliefs to do their job as they where sworn to do. Some people here obviously ditched Government class in high school. If you are tired of people pretending to know what makes our nation great, but don't even know how or why it works, please vote no on 8.

By the way, stealing lawn signs is wrong and juvenile. Extortion? Wrong... very very very wrong. Protesting and boycotting with peaceable assembly? Not wrong. Sorry, there is no comparison.

I would like to see a list of the companies that donated to the 'No on 8' campaign :)

...please