Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Proposition 8: Pastors Say Prop. 8 Could Lead To Polygamy, Bestiality

Posted by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM
  • 39 Replies

Proposition Polygamy


SAN FRANCISCO — Gay people in California enjoy substantial political power as a result of nearly unanimous support from high-ranking elected officials, labor unions, newspapers, corporations and progressive religious groups, a political scientist testified Monday in a federal trial on the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College who teaches California politics and researches ballot initiatives, was the first defense witness in the trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban.

Last week, a Stanford University political scientist testified that gays do not have a meaningful level of political power.

Miller said perhaps the largest single indication of the strength of the gay rights movement was the $43 million amassed to defeat the gay marriage ban in 2008. That was $3.4 million more than initiative backers raised.

"It's exceptionally rare" for ballot measures on social issues to generate that kind of cash, Miller said.

Lawyers for the two same-sex couples challenging Proposition 8 rested their case earlier in the day after showing videotape of a simulcast in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.

The footage was shown as an example of the work of San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize evangelical Christian support for the Proposition 8 ballot measure in 2008.

In one video rally led by Garlow, an unidentified pastor warned "the polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they probably are going to win."

An unidentified woman later said "a man wanting to marry a horse, brothers and sisters, any combination would have to be allowed."

It appeared the lawyers were introducing the material to demonstrate the campaign for the ban appealed to religious-based, anti-gay bias to scare voters into supporting the measure.

Proposition 8 sponsors objected to the video, saying the content of the simulcast was not controlled by campaign managers or leaders.

However, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the material to be put into the record because the coalition of religious and conservative groups behind Proposition 8 paid for Garlow's work.

In the six-minutes of footage shown for Walker, various people opined on the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage. One unidentified speaker compared the potential social impact of "this social reengineering of marriage" to the way the 9/11 terrorist attacks made the world "a fundamentally different place."

The clips also included people saying that once same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, public schools stocked picture books that included gay couples as an example of different types of families.

"If same-sex marriage is legalized, then it must be taught as normal, acceptable and moral behavior in every single public school," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

The plaintiffs also introduced clips from promotional videos produced by other groups for distribution to churches during the Proposition 8 campaign.

In one, produced by the American Family Council in Mississippi, the chairman of the California campaign, Ron Prentice, spoke against same-sex couples raising children.

"Children need and deserve the chance to have both mother love and father love," Prentice said.

Men and women "don't bring to a marriage and a family the same natural set of skills and talents." he said.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs rested their case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

Attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies asserted that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias without justification.

by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
cagnew80
by Bronze Member on Jan. 25, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Polygamy, yes. Bestiality... I kind of doubt it. Seriously, if the traditional definition of marriage is re-defined to include same-sex marriages, it does open the door for polygamists. If they legalize same-sex unions, then they would almost have to do the same for polygamists. Gay advocates say that they should be able to get "married' because they love each other and people shouldn't discriminate against them just because they happen to love someone of the same-sex. Well, polygamists could use the same exact argument. Heck, you could use the same argument to support marrying family members.

Bestiality is whole 'nother thing though. You aren't taking about a decision between 2 (or 3 or 4 or...) human beings. I don't think this would ever even make it to court. It's a silly statement, and I have to wonder if the person who was talking wasn't just upset or trying to illusrtate a point by being purposely dramatic. I mean, really, marrying an animal... who would sign the papers for the animal? And when they divorced, who would sign those papers? Lol. It's really, really silly :)

All that being said, I am against same-sex unions being recognized by the law.

tericared
by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 8:41 PM

 Attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies asserted that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias without justification.

The quote above was about the only truth I saw....Funny I just watched Milk last night....And people who are against Gay people are saying the same idioctic, uneducated, bigot, crap they were saying in the 70's....

Join us on
         
Current Events & Hot Topics

              Group Mod

margroc
by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 8:54 PM


Quoting cagnew80:

Polygamy, yes. Bestiality... I kind of doubt it. Seriously, if the traditional definition of marriage is re-defined to include same-sex marriages, it does open the door for polygamists. If they legalize same-sex unions, then they would almost have to do the same for polygamists. Gay advocates say that they should be able to get "married' because they love each other and people shouldn't discriminate against them just because they happen to love someone of the same-sex. Well, polygamists could use the same exact argument. Heck, you could use the same argument to support marrying family members.

Bestiality is whole 'nother thing though. You aren't taking about a decision between 2 (or 3 or 4 or...) human beings. I don't think this would ever even make it to court. It's a silly statement, and I have to wonder if the person who was talking wasn't just upset or trying to illusrtate a point by being purposely dramatic. I mean, really, marrying an animal... who would sign the papers for the animal? And when they divorced, who would sign those papers? Lol. It's really, really silly :)

All that being said, I am against same-sex unions being recognized by the law.

How could it lead to polygamy - if the law states that marriage is between 2 consenting adults


 

A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate.  - Pierre E. Trudeau

2boys2love79
by Bronze Member on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:18 PM

I can see the polygamy arguments, as long as everybody involved is legal age and has fully consented, then I could not possibly care less, the rest is just ridiculous.  Why would two consenting adults committing to each other lead to marrying an animal?  How does that connection even get made in their mind? 

LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:40 PM


Quoting cagnew80:

Polygamy, yes. Bestiality... I kind of doubt it. Seriously, if the traditional definition of marriage is re-defined to include same-sex marriages, it does open the door for polygamists. If they legalize same-sex unions, then they would almost have to do the same for polygamists. Gay advocates say that they should be able to get "married' because they love each other and people shouldn't discriminate against them just because they happen to love someone of the same-sex. Well, polygamists could use the same exact argument. Heck, you could use the same argument to support marrying family members.

Bestiality is whole 'nother thing though. You aren't taking about a decision between 2 (or 3 or 4 or...) human beings. I don't think this would ever even make it to court. It's a silly statement, and I have to wonder if the person who was talking wasn't just upset or trying to illusrtate a point by being purposely dramatic. I mean, really, marrying an animal... who would sign the papers for the animal? And when they divorced, who would sign those papers? Lol. It's really, really silly :)

All that being said, I am against same-sex unions being recognized by the law.

Personally I have no problem with polygamy either, but going from same-sex marriage to polygamy is like jumping from cows to giraffes.  They are both hoofed animals (aren't they?) but not a whole lot more in common.

Arroree
by Ruby Member on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Sadly more states legally allow first cousins to marry than those that allow gay marriage. Where are all these traditional marriage defenders there? Why arent they fighting to make that form of incest illegal?

Close to half the US states allow incestual marriage between first cousins.

tericared
by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM


Quoting Arroree:

Sadly more states legally allow first cousins to marry than those that allow gay marriage. Where are all these traditional marriage defenders there? Why arent they fighting to make that form of incest illegal?

Close to half the US states allow incestual marriage between first cousins.


I had no idea...I think that is kind of creepy...

Join us on
         
Current Events & Hot Topics

              Group Mod

Arroree
by Ruby Member on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:52 PM

To me the most disturbing part is that all of these arguments are the exact same arguments used against interracial marriage. They said all the exact same things. It really makes you think.

SxyMartini
by on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:53 PM

We have that movie at home. Got to watch it.

Quoting tericared:

 Attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies asserted that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias without justification.

The quote above was about the only truth I saw....Funny I just watched Milk last night....And people who are against Gay people are saying the same idioctic, uneducated, bigot, crap they were saying in the 70's....


Arroree
by Ruby Member on Jan. 25, 2010 at 9:55 PM

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Cousin marriage legal

First cousin marriage prohibited

Allowed under certain circumstances

Alabama

Alaska

California

Colorado

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Virginia

Arkansas

Delaware

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

Arizona

Illinois

Indiana

Maine

Utah

Wisconsin

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

*North Carolina- First cousin marriage is legal. Double cousin marriage is prohibited

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)