Great cause. Thanks for sharing the info.

One would have hoped it would have been a dead issue with the ruling earlier this year.

Not only are some of your closest friends gay; so are some of the writers on this blog, like me.

I’ve got no problem with gay marriage. I seriously don’t.

I really don’t have any gay friends, but that’s not by choice.

Here’s my problem with the whole thing:

How come a lot of people who are saying the “government should stay out of our business” when it comes to gay marriage – are the same people trying to get smoking banned in places like Pasadena.

I mean, if the government should allow one personal freedom (to be married, which, I think the government should have NO problem with) – then why aren’t people up in arms about smoking or plastic bags or mylar balloons or trans fats?

I don’t get it.

I may vote against gay marriage – as a protest vote. That might not make sense to you, but it sure as hell makes sense to me. Stop trying to ban my fucking personal freedoms when it comes to smoking and eating and carrying my groceries in whatever kind of shopping bag I want..and I’ll reconsider.

- AP
http://www.proctorformayor.com

(I meant to say – the government shouldn’t have any involvement in marriage..shouldn’t be any of their business)

Aaron, your point on personal freedoms is well taken. But how does a protest vote against gay marriage help with the other issues? The organization that put the prop on the ballot are against gay marriage, they are not against government interference, they are called “Protect Marriage” not “Protect Personal Freedoms.” So if Prop 8 is passed, it just looks like “no gay marriage” not “no government interference in our lives.”

Nice shoot back Julia.

I understand Aaron’s point to a degree. I liked his ps regarding government shouldn’t have involvement. I think the only involvement that was needed was the court ruling earlier this year saying a ban was unconstitutional.

I however find it more of an issue of special interest groups trying to get legislation to support only their life style choices. I have a problem with any one group trying to manipulate the constitution to fit their narrow, often one sided view on how society should look and act.

The irony in it all is so many of the proponents profess themselves to be forgiving “christians” yet they have zero tolerance for any ideas different than their own. It is just a smack down if you look at the preachings regarding tolerance, forgiveness and a host of other things they profess to be.

When this issue was last on the ballot we (my wife and I) would always ask those in favor one question. “How does a gay couple getting married affect your marriage?”. None could ever answer. A few neighbors quit talking to us because we favored allowing gay marriage. We were fine with that as that sort of narrow mindedness isn’t something we want our kids exposed to or in our lives.

The courts ruled we can’t ban. At that point it should have been dropped. If an individual church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage based on their dogma let them. They are a private group and entitled to do so. Just don’t force your opinions with legislation on all of us.

After I commented last night I pulled some info. Both my wife and I are probably going to have a few more people not talk to us. Whatever.

Now I have to find a way to get the locals here to understand the cities amendment to ban medical marijuana shops is stupid on their part.

I kind of loop all different kinds of personal freedoms, including marriage, into one category.

You can’t pick and choose what you’re going to ban and what you’re going to be ok with.

I’m just irked, and this is mainly Pasadena’s fault, that so many people are rallying behind one thing, using the “government needs to mind their own business” mantra…while also rallying behind something that is completely government interference (banning smoking in my own apartment, for example…)

I normally would vote in favor of gay marriage…like I said, I’m all fine and dandy with it. It’s none of my business who people want to marry.

On the same token, I’m pissed that a state that is pro-gay marriage and pro-marijuana wants me to carry some PBS-sized tote bag to the grocery store every week.

The ultimate protest vote would be to not vote at all. Yeah, that’s it. That’ll show ‘em.

What strikes me about this post is that the writer of the post implies that no one who reads Metblogs is gay, which is insulting enough, and at the same time she assumes that some of the readers’ best friends are gay. Where am I and what year is it again?

And that a commentor here doesn’t have any gay friends strikes me as just plain freakish. I want to help. Meet me for coffee sometime. We’ll talk. I’ll bring along one of my straight best friends.

If these two well intentioned people (both of whom I’m sure are wonderful and please don’t hit me at the garage sale) are that oblivious and nonchalantly insensitive to people who they *think* are different from them, then it isn’t too much of a stretch to assume that Prop 8 will succeed.

By the way, some of my best friends smoke, use plastic shopping bags and are gay.

Well Chal, clearly I got boned by the “no one can hear/read the sarcasm/satire” in the comment about “some of your closest friends are gay.” And I’m also curious–how do I imply that no one who reads metblogs is gay?

Aaron’s point is ludicrous to the nth degree. Would he have supported slavery or opposed the right of women to vote because these things are on par with with smoking or grocery bags? The Proctor hath insulted humanity.

Aaron, I think the simple answer to your valid concern about the seemingly inconsistent application of government restraints on freedom is the principle that “your freedom stops at my face.” Or in the case of smoking in public places, my lungs. Just as you don’t have the personal freedom to punch me in the face (unless you’re defending yourself), you should not have the freedom to blow smoke in my face and into my lungs. That’s because, as most studies have shown and most scientists agree, secondhand smoke is very harmful to non-smoking bystanders. So, smoking in your own home, ok (although not good for your kids). Smoking in enclosed public places, not ok.

I do agree though, that people and governments should try to be consistent with their chosen philosophy when it comes to regulating or not regulating so-called “personal freedoms.” Lots of folks who say they believe in “personal freedom” have no problem with governments telling women that they have no freedom to have an abortion, even though the only rationale seems to be a religious view held by a minority of people that life begins at conception.

The Proc does argue his points, but I don’t think he really insulted humanity.

Cool, Julia, thanks for alerting me to the sarcasm– I consider myself an expert in that area, shoulda known– and also, to use the transitive property, for assuring me you won’t hit me on Saturday. Want to join me for a pedicure sometime?

@ Chal — Girlfriend, we are going to be BFFs from now on!

/joke

See you Saturday.

I think there is a mistake in your original post. The Prop 8 initiative is not to overturn a law that allows gay marriage, there never was a law FOR gay marriage. There WAS a law AGAINST gay marriage that was overturned by the courts, in this case, a single judge. The original law banning gay marriage was passed with a 60% majority.