Help me rebut anti-gay article in my campus paper...

[David__77]

How should I respond? Also, please feel free to post what you think about this tripe on the page at the bottom. You might even want to write the editors. (By the way, he's head of the campus Republicans) Here's the article:

http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/01/41adf1e21e2bd?in_archive=1

Domestic partnership bill not exactly the will of the people
by Joe Patterson
State Hornet

December 01, 2004

Attending school in Sacramento gives Sac State students a unique opportunity to experience trends of the California government. Whether it is lobbying, future job opportunities, or the ability to organize on the steps of the Capitol, Sac State students are in a prime location to possibly influence legislation that is being debated on the floors of the legislature.
Time after time, the state legislature makes decisions that are absurd. While our time has been consumed about their decisions to cut the Sacramento State budget, which ultimately leads to our fees being increased, our elected representatives are constantly making decisions against the will of the people of California. On Jan. 1, 2005, a law that passed without the support of Californians will take effect.

The Domestic Partnership Responsibility Act is a bill that will give homosexual couples the same rights and benefits of married couples throughout California. AB 205, which is authored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, will create a registry to allow same-sex couples to sign up and be recognized as domestic partners. When a couple signs up on the registry, their ability to act as a married couple is greatly augmented.

In California, domestic partners will now be able to force insurance companies to recognize the relationship as a marriage, costing California companies billions of dollars which will be pushed onto consumers. In addition, people in this type of relationship will now be able to adopt children. While I believe some of the provisions of the law are detrimental (particularly the ability for same-sex couples to be able to adopt), the most despicable item about this law is that it goes against the will of Californians.

In March 2000, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 by a resounding 61 percent. The initiative placed a provision in the California Constitution limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman. In an election, anything achieving 55-percent approval is phenomenal support. Since the initiative hit the 60 percent mark, society has placed a clear mandate of the public's desire.

Regardless of how one feels about this specific topic, it does seem that many students agree and are concerned with the legislature's willingness to forget about the desire of the very people they represent. Jeff Given, a government major, said, "While I am sure legislators consistently have good intentions, it is horrible to think that they would ignore their oath of obligation to serve the State and the people of California."

After Proposition 22 passed in 2000, Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair of the Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Caucus, has authored multiple bills with the objective to work loopholes in the proposition. This makes me wonder if certain legislatures even care about the will of the people. While I have chosen to focus on Proposition 22, this kind of act happens all the time in Sacramento-- on both sides of the aisle. Regardless of political party, many legislators have decided that their interests are more important than the people they represent.

California politics affects our every day lives. From student fees to our tax responsibilities, our elected officials are controlling the way we are able to conduct ourselves. As students living in Sacramento, we should take advantage of our unique situation and make sure the people we elect are held accountable for their actions.

[Ian David]

1. If they don't like it...

Then the bigots can always ask "activist judges" to over-rule the will of the people.

[sniffa]

2. many students?

does he go to BJU then? "the 10 members of sacramento chapter of the coLLege repubLican cLub are very, very upset"

[sui generis]

3. Clearly everyone has an opinion, even the stupid ones.

Let's start with:

1. The will of Californians.
And who told you that the will of some Californians trumps the will of other Californians? Will is a tricky thing missy. If 6 people vote for 4 people to have to paint their ass blue and stand on their head for two hours a day, that doesn't mean that they're going to do it meekly, or agree that it's the right thing to do just because the "will" of six people tried to make it law.

2. In California, domestic partners will now be able to force insurance companies to recognize the relationship as a marriage, costing California companies billions of dollars which will be pushed onto consumers.

Guess what you creep, people who have insurance pay premiums for that insurance. It's not free. Increasing the premium population while managing risk decreases costs. I guess you'll find that out whenever you get to take Economics 101.

3. In addition, people in this type of relationship will now be able to adopt children. While I believe some of the provisions of the law are detrimental (particularly the ability for same-sex couples to be able to adopt),

And what's wrong with providing a loving home and hope for a future with an education to a child in need? Gay parents are often hyperconscious and hypersensitive to the needs of their children because we have faced challenges our entire lives. And by the way, children of gay parents come out straight in exactly the same proportion as the general population you silly little oppressed child.

Grow up. Live your own life, not other people's lives. Learn about life and stop being a bigot. As a student, you have your own life to plan and conduct and you have no business in the lives of other Americans, particularly grownups. Masking your hatred and bigotry under the guise of public prudence just shows you to be the pathetic little misguided child that you are.

[nytemare]

4. Mark Bingham

Mark Bingham, one of the heroes of 9/11, one of the guys who actually acted while Bush was busy reading about a goat in that school, was a gay man.
Had he survived, after laying his life on the line, how could he be denied a chance to marry who he wishes?

Also, I often hear the "protecting the sanctity of marriage" line to justify the argument against gay marriage. One's own actions give their marriage sanctity, it has nothing to do with other's actions. Whether Bob and Jake decide to get married has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the sanctity of Mary and Steve's marriage.

The will the majority of people in the south in the 60's was that segregation should continue. The will of the people in Germany in WWII was to follow Hitler. The will of the people does not make something right if it violates the basic human rights of another human being. As an American, one of those rights is "the pursuit of happiness". The right to marry who you love should be part of that happiness.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Wow, insurance companies will be "forced" to provide

coverage. Its time for morons, like the one who wrote that garbage, to be held responsible for their actions. The constitution is not a weapon to be used by right wing thugs against segments of society. Or, on the other hand, lets all play that game. I'm sure the lad and his fellow fascists could get 60+ percent of voters here in Mississippi to approve a measure bringing back slavery. He should spend his time and energy doing what he and his kind want to do - Build Ovens. Christian conservatism in a nutshell.

[Maat]

6. This recently graduated J.D. (law doctorate), and retired ..

social worker has two questions.

First of all, as a Child Protective Services worker in SoCal, I was placing kids with gay and lesbian couples, and to my knowledge, both names were placed on the certificate when the adoption was finalized. I could be wrong .. but that was my understanding. In any case, placing with gay and lesbian couples is definitely not a new thing. We were not allowed to (and certainly did not want to discriminate).

Secondly, two years ago, when I took Family Law, for nearly every provision in the Family Code that made a reference to marriage, there was usually an equivalent provision listed just underneath it. So, Cal. had domestic partnership laws before. This new bill enhanced them, but the fact of domestic partnership benefits is not new.

Is this bigot confused on these two points?

Now, as to my opinion, I am very proud of our new domestic partnership bill, and any attempt to modify or diminish those benefits will be met with strong resistance. Many, many Californians support these benefits. He needs to stop being such an offensive jerk, and quit trying to become a 'journalist' or operative funded by the Right (it's a dangerous game).

[Gay Green]

7. Have a friend come in, dressed as a Nazi...

...and have him read that bigot's letter, being careful to replace every reference to us gay men and lesbians with an equivalent reference to Jews! Then we'll see how well that leaden balloon of a screed will go over! The aftermath will be an opportunity to educate people and raise their consciousness.

[GrrrlRomeo]

8. Not always the will of the people...

When the will of the people is oppression, when the will of the people is bigotry and discrimination, our Government is designed to protect minorities.

It does not matter if a majority of Americans hate gays. It does not matter if a majority of Americans don't approve of gays. What matters is that gay Americans are American, and thus entitled to the same protections, rights, liberities, and benefits as every other American.

Slavery was once the will of the people and we defeated it. Barring women from voting was once the will of the people and we defeated it. This too will be defeated. No one has the right suppress the rights of others simply because they don't like them.

[Lisaben2619]

9. Civil rights shoud not be up for a vote to begin with.

There are some states who still would not allow mixed-race marriages if it were left up to popular vote. We're talking about protecting people from the "tyranny of the majority" for one thing. These people are trying to make laws against something because it make them feel personally uncomfortable. That's not what America stands for.

2) the cost of adding domestic partner benefits is minimal because the vast majority of people in LGBT relationships already have jobs with benefits. For many people, it will be cheaper to keep single policies, etc. especially since they will not be eligible for any of the federal benefits allowed married straight people.

9 out of 10 of Big Ten university systems offer domestic partner benefits and they say that less than 1% of eligible people even apply for them. In most cases, it's less than .5% For most employers, the cost of recruiting and retraining new employees is a lot more than the cost of offering domestic partner benefits. 226 of the Fortune 500 companies offer them as do 7500+ employers nationwide--obviously these companies feel that these benefits help recruit and retain the very best employees and help their companies stay profitable or they wouldn't offer them.

3) the emotional benefits are often more important to people than the financial ones and cost very little. Being able to take bereavment leave, for example, or family leave to care for sick spouses can be extremely valuable to a LGBT employee yet cost little.

4) People who are against marriage equality often say that they care about children and then on the other hand, punish some kids for having the "wrong parents" by denying their families marriage and its many benefits.

The children of LGBT parents do not have automatic and undisputed access to the resources, benefits and entitlements of both parents. They aren't automatically eligible for health coverage through one partner's plan and eligible for SS or pension beneifts if one partner dies. These families also have to incur extra expenses to ensure that both parents have the right ot make medical decisions for their children. BTW, the 2000 Census shows that about 319,000 of the same-sex couple households include children, and that about 419,000 children are being raised in those households.

5) Not allowing LGBT people to choose marriage undermines LGBT kids' sense of inclusion in their communities and damages their dreams. How many more gay children have to grow up thinking that they are second-class citizens and that their communities don't value the life-long commitments they may choose to make with another person?

[booley]

10. for one thing, the insurence bit is illogical

where it says.."In California, domestic partners will now be able to force insurance companies to recognize the relationship as a marriage, costing California companies billions of dollars which will be pushed onto consumers."

Why? I mean, if these gay people were straight and were marrying an opposite gender spouse the costs wouldn't be any different and no one would say the same.

Under this guy's logic NO ONE should get married. especially straight people.

and then this...

"In addition, people in this type of relationship will now be able to adopt children. "

First of all, gay people can already adopt. and california allows second parent adoptions so registry or not, a gay couple can both be parents to the child already.

But just as important, this writer seems to think that better a kid get left in foster care forever then be adopted because the parents are gay.

Worse, the also is advocating that children of gay parents should be made vulnerable by adding to the difficulties that thier parents have to face in raising them. How is that helping children?

As for the will of the Californians, I have always seen any Republican appeal to this as phony and trite. I'm from Missouri where TWICE the PEOPLE voted AGAINST a concealed weapons bill, only to have the Republicans in the state legislature pass the bill anyway on thier own.

Hyppocrates only care about the rules when it serves thier purposes.

don't know if any of that has helped but frankly this guy's main flaw is that he doesn't sem to even know what laws are already on the books or what effect what he wants would have on numerouse kids.

Only cons can make 'compassion" sound like a threat.