WALL: A mandate for traditional, not gay, marriage

Due to the limitations of this site, this will have to be sent in a few posts. While the article by Ms. Wall holds a few interesting observations, it also makes uneducated claims about the gay communities experience and what the true nature of this struggle is about. As for Ms. Wall's claims that gay people have not had to face the kind of discrimination that African-Americans have had to face, I can only say that he should not paint a group with such a broad brush stroke. While there are some gays that can “avoid discrimination by staying in the closet”, there are just as many that could not pass for straight. Those that as early as grade school faced being taunted and beaten up regularly. Those whose families disowned them in their teens and kicked them out into the street. Those that lost their jobs because they are gay (and yes, there are still States in the USA where it is okay to fire someone due to there sexual orientation). This type of discrimination still goes on today.

Historically, gays have been shunned, arrested for being gay and suffered hate crimes in many forms including Gay Bashings. When I myself was bashed, I then had the extra humiliation of having one police officer tell another police officer, “It’s just a fag”. During the Nazi Regime, gays were forced to wear Pink Triangles on their clothing to single them out. Eventually they were rounded up like the Jews and sent to the death camps. In a moment of shame for the US, when the death camps were liberated, the US decided that the gays in the camps were actually there for a “crime’. So, they transferred them to prisons to “finish out their sentences”. There are still countries out there where being gay is punishable by prison sentences or in some by death. So Ms. Wall, before you make claims about what experiences the Gay Community has lived through, I suggest you actually do some research instead of relying on your misinformed suppositions. I have spent my entire life advocating for the rights of all people, believing that no one should be discriminated against because of race, religion or gender. I am very saddened that someone like Ms. Wall believes that African-Americans are the only ones that have suffered and discounts the experiences of other minority groups and their need for equal rights. As for the Majority Rule that she keeps pointing to as evidence that this measure is just, might I remind her of some other Majority Rules. Was the Majority Rule that allowed slavery just? Was the Majority Rule that forced the Mormons out of New York, Illinois and Missouri just? Was the Majority Rule that founded up the Jews and Gays and sent them to the Death Camps just? Was the Majority Rule that did not allow interracial marriages just? I for one don't believe in that kind of Majority Rule and I will continue to fight against it whenever it oppresses minority groups. Ms. Wall states: "Disagreement does not equate to hate." In a general interpretation that would be correct. In the interpretation that the disagreement is used to oppress another group of people, it does equal hate. So Ms. Wall can pretend all she wants in her self righteousness that this is not about hate, but her message sends a clear message and that message is most definitely about hate. The bile in her article says it all. As usual, Ms. Wall's tirade, she keeps invoking a definition of marriage based on religious principles. The vast majority of people that voted Yes on 8, voted for it precisely because of religion. However, if marriage is indeed to be defined as a religious ceremony, then given that this country has clearly defined that there must be a separation of church and state, the government has no business in marriages at all. The state should ONLY grant Civil Unions to opposite-sex couples as well as same–sex couples and leave “marriage” to religious institutions.

Czar2004, I respectfully must disagree with you for several reasons. I do not believe that anyone here is stating that gay people have not suffered historically including through WWII. If you have spent your life advocating for the rights of ALL people, then you should also know the history of the people that you advocate for...Latino Americans also voted to pass Prop 8 for the same reasons. Basically, Latino's and Blacks are traditionally very religious people no matter the religion. Mostly Catholic/Christian. However Jews, Muslim, Islam, Methodist, Baptist and others usually do not advocate that the gay lifestyle is either normal or healthy. Now, gay people were not the only one's tourmented and beaten up in school, when I was in school (and we are talking about from elementary through high school) we couldn't pick out the gay student if you had a police line up. The students that I knew of were beaten for shoes (basketball) or lunch money or because you had newer clothes. Of course, the old tradition of jealousy for talking to another person's girl was always good for a beating. Now, it is because of the name the parents give you at birth. Mostly because they can't spell it. Nazi, Germany...no argument...everything was fubar at the time. Just ask the Japanese. Japanese Americans were put into inturnment camps here, but they were told it was for their own protection. Basically from the white americans here in this country who were "God Fearing". How about you do us all a favor, when the Govenor of California calls out the National Guard and police dogs to break up Gay Parade, call me. Then I'll be with you. Calling Prop 8 opression is about the stupidest thing that you could ever write. Come on, be a good little activist and tell the truth about the need for gay marriage. Because what is in the main stream media is not the truth. I DARE YOU!!

It's refreshing to see someone in the news media express support for our Prop 8 in California. I'm especially impressed with this quote: "The goal is to strengthen, not cripple, marriage. Passively condoning illegitimacy, rewarding fatherlessness, advocating same-sex marriage runs counter-intuitive to that goal." A conference of scholars from History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy met in Princeton, NJ in December, 2004 and offered the following: "There remain even deeper concerns about the institutional consequences of same-sex marriage for marriage itself. Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." (From the "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good") As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I also have a strong conviction of the following: "Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out. "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married." (Gordon B. Hinckley) Thank you, Ms. Wall, for a well thought out and articulated commentary. For more reasons why I voted YES on Prop 8 you can go to my blog: http://yes-on-prop8.blogspot.com/ .

Wall's tone throughout the article is extremely condescending. She accuses Roseanne of 'fervent' behavior? I say fervor is the woman who praises 9/11 as a sign from God that our society has gone astray. Let's not draw comparisons between us homosexuals and allies and you ignorant scoundrels. Besides, what kind of appeal is a journalist making, recalling one specific instance? emotional? Illogical? But let's suppose that Wall's statement are logical (after all, she had the decency to suppose homosexuals couldn't choose their orientation)... There are two atheists who wish to be married. You present no opposition to their legally being called a married couple. If homosexuality is not the sin of all sins, then how can you allow these 'unholy' marriages? The problem is you're picking your battles. How can us gay people help but feel subject to hate and prejudice when we're uniquely targeted? A separation of church and state does not come naturally for voters. We aren't able to readily distinguish our personal prejudice from what's right (as czar has already shown). I especially enjoy how Wall acknowledges that point in defense of the media's asking who's "wrong." WTF Those who voted for prop 8 were wrong. Your punctured attempt at a rebuttal only confirms that.

Prop. 8 was in The People's Hands and the people of California have spoken. The methods that are being employed now by homosexuals bent on exerting the "Tyranny of the Minority" is outrageous. When discourse leads to "in your face" protests, a line has been crossed, and the people who cross that line need to know that it justifies a similarly ugly response from those that are being attacked.

Great article Tara, I would like to share another article with similar points as well. http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2008/11/17/no_more_mr_nice_gay!

The people who preach this doctrine of having their personal religious beliefs imposed on everyone else are no better than the Al Quaeda Terrorists. I am always saddened and horrified at what is and has been done in the name of religion.

As much as the Gay community believes in its causes, so does the Christian community. Marriage is sacred to many to the point of passion; observe the passion of the those protesting prop. 8. Attempts at logic get lost when this much passion is involved. I believe that the protesters would be better served seeking compromise with the majority and civil rights by another name. Apparently, what's in a name is quite powerful at times. If the word "gay" is acceptable for one group than the word "marriage" should be acceptable for another. This whole issue could be much ado about nothing.

Homosexuality doesn't make sense from either creation or evolution based worldview. In the first case, there is clearly no design or functional purpose for the behavior. In the later, there is no survival value. Any gene that may have contributed to the behavior would have been weeded out millions of years ago. The truth is, being gay is a behavior and one that requires recruitment, not reproduction, to persist. That is why these folks are so outspoken about their private behavior.

czar2004 suggests that, "The people who preach this doctrine of having their personal religious beliefs imposed on everyone else are no better than the Al Quaeda Terrorists. I am always saddened and horrified at what is and has been done in the name of religion." The concept that objection to the oxymoron called "same-sex marriage" is a "religious belief" - and, accordingly, to be avoided at all costs lest someone is "offended" - is an absurdity. Objection to the perversion in question is predicated on common sense derived as a logical consequence of the natural law and not, as the warped evangelists and apologist on behalf of deviance so disingenuously argue, a religious belief.

Blacks as a voting block vote democratic at their own peril... it was the Republican Party who helped free them from Slavery... not Democrats... Democratic party positions only help to hold the lowers classes of all races down... not free them... their no vote on Gay marriage only further reveals how conflicted their overwhelming loyalty to the socialist leaning Democratic party really is...

I'm out of this posting as nothing more needs to be said on my part. Goidelic has perfectly supported my supposition that there is ignorence, prejudice and hate alive and well in our country.

Um... we're supposed to trust the constitutional opinions of somebody who doesn't know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are NOT rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? These are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence but appear nowhere in the Constitution! And then to go on to say "Marriage, as clearly defined through the ages, is between one man and one woman." I suggest you start reading a few history books (and maybe even that bible of yours) because polygamous marriage was widely practiced in many ancient societies, and is still practiced in some modern ones. If you're going to make an argument against same-sex marriage, at least make an informed one. I'm all for strengthening marriage, but maybe you would do better to work on it in your own community rather than trying to take it away in somebody else's. And if "traditional" marriage is really in that much trouble, why not just make divorce illegal? Funny how seldom that one comes up...

The gay marriage "issue" and their movement, itself, are not something to be ignored at all. This illuminati camel that got its nose in the tent decades ago is pushing itself all the way in, if it can get away with it. Not so fast, say millions of Americans of every race. This is not a wedge issue, but one of fundamental concern to us all.