Author Topic: California college students support endorsement of Marriage Protection Amendment  (Read 2227 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Maybe, all is not lost, after all.

'Gay' advocates fail to unseat AmendmentChristians
California college students support endorsement of Marriage Protection Amendment
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78982


By Chelsea Schilling


SACRAMENTO, Calif. – After a student council at California's largest two-year college endorsed a ban on "gay" marriage, critics were infuriated and called for the members to be removed – but support for traditional marriage ultimately prevailed.

The American River College Student Council, facing fierce opposition and curses from peers Sept. 30, voted 8-3 with three abstentions to support Proposition 8, known as the Marriage Protection Amendment. Students who support "gay" marriage were furious and collected more than 200 signatures to recall the students who voted for the resolution. The resulting turnout broke statewide records for college campus elections. With 3,531 ballots cast Oct 21-22, members targeted for recall won by a 200 to 300-vote margin.

Councilman Vladimir Musorivschi said the vote reflected student support of traditional marriage.

"Our campus is made up of a fairly conservative, Christian student body," he said. "Our vote to endorse Prop 8 was simply a reflection of the attitude of the majority of our students."

Student council President Jacob Johnson said groups that support state-recognized "gay" unions at the college are in the minority, but they are "very vocal about their opinions." He said the council properly represented the student body.

"I believe that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Johnson said. "Otherwise, we wouldn't have brought the resolution up if we didn't think so."

Popko said "gay" groups at the Sacramento college have had a history of being divisive and pushing homosexuality onto students.

"Even before the California Supreme Court decided for same-sex marriage in California, the Interclub Council put on a Valentine's marriage ceremony where they actually 'married' homosexual couples," he said. "They gave them 'certificates.'"

Also, he said the campus GLBT club promoted homosexuality with risqué material.

"They put up very obscene posters on campus of pornography," Popko said. "A lot of people didn't like that."

Several of the students in the audience yelled profanities after the original endorsement."Gay" advocates chanted "2,4,6,8 we are here to stop the hate; 2,4,6,8 we are here to stop Prop. 8!" and one held a sign that said, "Lesbians are My Posse!"

"They were cursing, 'F--- you!'" Popko said. "They were people who didn't support Prop. 8. They were disruptive, and they couldn't contain themselves, so they were escorted out of the building during the council meeting."

Johnson said there were some heated exchanges prior to the recall as well.

"There was a lot of yelling back and forth between some of the members on both sides," he said.

Councilwoman Veronika Vorobyov said she noticed hostility toward her because she supports the Marriage Protection Amendment.

"I'm very, very surprised that the recall election failed because it seemed like a lot of people really hated us and wanted us out of there," she said.

Musorivschi said he believes it isn't up to Californians to ultimately decide whether "gay" marriage should be accepted.

"My personal opinion is that people don't have the right to change the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman," he said. "God created marriage, and they don't have that right."

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
[quote author]
Maybe, all is not lost, after all.[/quote]

I don't think all is lost, but I don't really see how the article quoted below demonstrates that, or anything, really.

Quote
After a student council at California's largest two-year college endorsed a ban on "gay" marriage, critics were infuriated and called for the members to be removed – but support for traditional marriage ultimately prevailed.

Community college student council politics?  Are you kidding me?  I get that WND has no standards, but seriously now.

Quote
The American River College Student Council, facing fierce opposition and curses from peers Sept. 30, voted 8-3 with three abstentions to support Proposition 8, known as the Marriage Protection Amendment.

And the support of a divided student council at a community college means exactly what?

Quote
"I believe that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Johnson said. "Otherwise, we wouldn't have brought the resolution up if we didn't think so."

So, he's clearing studying politics 001, not Syntax 001. 

Quote
Popko said "gay" groups at the Sacramento college have had a history of being divisive and pushing homosexuality onto students.

By doing things like introducing resolutions in support of or in opposition to state ballot proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with student body governance? 

Oh, no, wait...

Quote
"Even before the California Supreme Court decided for same-sex marriage in California, the Interclub Council put on a Valentine's marriage ceremony where they actually 'married' homosexual couples," he said. "They gave them 'certificates.'"

Oh teh noes!!! Really?  Some gay folks made up little bits of paper that declared they were married, and they didn't even have the state's permission?  How divisive and pushy of them.  It's almost like they came as close as they were able to living their own lives teh way they wanted do.  Oh, wait...I totally missed the pushy and divisive part in that.  Can you point it out to be again.

Quote
"My personal opinion is that people don't have the right to change the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman," he said. "God created marriage, and they don't have that right."

And damn it all, our legislatures and courts NEED to make us do what God wants.  Isn't that why we have Amerika,  anyway, to make sure we make everyone do what God wants?

Oh, wait...

No, no.  All is not lost.  But there is not hope left in the universe between some kids in a community college in California decided to pick a fight with a substantial number of their constituents.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Oh teh noes!!! Really?  Some gay folks made up little bits of paper that declared they were married, and they didn't even have the state's permission?  How divisive and pushy of them.  It's almost like they came as close as they were able to living their own lives teh way they wanted do.  Oh, wait...I totally missed the pushy and divisive part in that.  Can you point it out to be again.

That would be re-defining marriage to force a de facto societal endorsement of their lifestyle.

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Hmmmm... it would seem to me that the "sacrament of marriage" existed long before the Islamo-Judeo-Christian Bible was penned.  Some birds commit to monogamous pair bonds.  Heck, I've even had FISH in my aquarium that will not mate outside their "marriage", refusing food and dying when their mate is gone.  And both have been around a lot longer than our kind has.

It matter not one wit to me whom another chooses to love so long as that other is a sentient being. Nor does it diminish me or the bonds I am engaged in if the bond betwixt A & B does not happen to fit *MY* model of correctness.  The sole role of government in such matter is one of a disinterested keeper of the records. 

"Oh bother....

A chooses to marry/bond/formally cohabitate with B, and/or C, D, E and/or F.  Let it be known that from this date forward their fiscal and contractional dealings are forthwith commingled until such time as as A and/or B,C,D,E and/or F make formal petition for this union to be annulled.

...are we done now?"

Matters spiritual in such unions remain the purview of parties A, B and/or C,D,E, and/or F and their priest/preistess/rabbi/shamen or gothi.

Mrs. Grundy and everybody else can just mind their own business, lest they find their noses suddenly missing....
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
I still don't understand how restricting marriage to 'one man, one woman' is protecting it; as is over half of marriages are going to end with both participants still alive.

Is gay marriage going to make fewer heteros marry?
Is gay marriage going to make more heteros get divorces?

It's not like a gay guy who ends up marrying a woman is going to result in a happy marriage most of the time.  Or vice versa.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,940
I still don't understand how restricting marriage to 'one man, one woman' is protecting it; as is over half of marriages are going to end with both participants still alive.
I have heard that if you remove from that statistic people who were previously divorced, the percentage is much higher. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
That would be re-defining marriage to force a de facto societal endorsement of their lifestyle.

No, it wouldn't.  These certificates had no force of law and any societal recognition of them is voluntary.  Frankly, I don't consider referring to someone by the role they designate for themselves to be an endorsement of that role.  I's just awkward trying to refer to my classmate Jane Johnson's wife as "that woman you're living with in hideous defiance of God's law".   It's just easier for me to realize that I sufficiently expressed my disapproval for gay marriage by not marrying some woman, and not complicate everyone's else's lives with my hostility, but that is my choice, not theirs.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
No, it wouldn't.  These certificates had no force of law and any societal recognition of them is voluntary.  Frankly, I don't consider referring to someone by the role they designate for themselves to be an endorsement of that role.  I's just awkward trying to refer to my classmate Jane Johnson's wife as "that woman you're living with in hideous defiance of God's law".   It's just easier for me to realize that I sufficiently expressed my disapproval for gay marriage by not marrying some woman, and not complicate everyone's else's lives with my hostility, but that is my choice, not theirs.

And if you owned a small business, and were forced to recognize someone's "marriage" in terms of insurance coverage?

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
And if you owned a small business, and were forced to recognize someone's "marriage" in terms of insurance coverage?

I agree with you that that is a more substantive issue.  However, that is not what was referred to in the article. 

The article referred to a student organization conducting "ceremonies" of no legal significance, real or purported, and issuing marriage "certificates" of no real or purported legal significance. 

That can be an act of protest or it can be an emotional expression of commitment, but I still fail to see how it is any more "divisive and pushy" than the acts of the students in opposition.  Actually, it seems a whole lot less divisive and pushy, since it is completely non-confrontational.

Modifiedbrowning

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Best Avatar on APS
Who is Popko?
Give Peace a Chance,
Kill all Terrorists.