Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

A Newspaper Endorses Proposition 8

Timothy Kincaid

October 11th, 2008


Well, we knew it had to happen and finally it has.

Although there are a string of newspapers opposing Proposition 8 and although that list ranges from big city behemoths to rural community news sources, from liberal to conservative, English and Spanish, we knew that some day, somewhere, an editorial board would favor the anti-marriage proposition.

They came close with the Modesto Bee. Although the editors in Modesto discussed the proposition in terms of “defining marriage” rather than taking away the rights of citizens, they ultimately decided to leave it up to the voter and made no recommendation.

But now supporters of Proposition 8 have cause to rejoice. They finally have a newspaper endorsement, the Paradise Post.

The Paradise Post is the local newspaper for Paradise, a mountain town in Butte County, a conservative area that supported Proposition 22 by 69%. Paradise has a population of perhaps 30,000 and the Post has a circulation of about 8,000. It’s not much surprise that the supporters of the anti-marriage should have found an ally in this local paper.

The Post editorial goes on a bit about how they are not homophobic (“Nothing could be further from the truth”) but the bulk of their editorial is about “radical redefinition”, warnings about polygamy, and fear about the evil intent of “gay activists”. Their closing argument is a masterpiece in unintended irony:

Tolerance of homosexual couples is one thing. And we are certainly all for tolerance. But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Tamara
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

“Tolerance of homosexual couples is one thing. And we are certainly all for tolerance. But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.”

This IS what it means to tolerate. To do any more is to embrace, support, and even admire. Homosexuals continue asking for “tolerance”, when in reality they want complete acceptance. That is an entirely different thing, and I don’t believe you will receive it from the majority of Christians who believe it (homosexuality) is against the natural purpose of humankind.

Timothy Kincaid
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

What gay citizens want is equality under the law. It isn’t yours to grant or deny, Tamara.

It is an inalienable right (look it up) granted by the Creator. Sometimes you have to fight for your rights, but it is good to know that it exists outside the will of bigots, homophobes, or “the majority of Christians”.

Pomo
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Another Newspaper has come out against Prop 8. Not sure if its big enough to add to your list: Vacaville Reporter

http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_10686316

Timothy Kincaid
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks Pomo

I absolutely want to include the Vacaville Reporter. Often times these smaller newspapers reach rural conservative voters that are suspicious of the Times or the Chronicle.

Tavdy
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

I just did a quick calculation and at a guess the total circulation of the papers opposing Prop. 8 is around 3.5 million and may even be as high as 4 million. In other words, the Paradise Post is outnumbered almost five hundred to one.

If only the Yes/No campaigns’ funding balance was the same; the “No on 8″ campaign would be able to solve California’s budget crisis with the left-overs!

Duncan
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

To “tolerate” by origin means to endure pain; I would understand it now as allowing something, without any implication of condoning or approving of it. On a purely semantic basis, I agree with Tamara. We should rather speak of respect, or emphasise that this is purely a matter of law: if you consider marriage to be sacred, and think of it as defined by law, then you are in effect idolising the state.

It seems to me that talking of “tolerance” implies disrespect towards others

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Duncan:

Where did you derivey the etymolgy of “tolerate” to be to endure pain?

Pain is not the etymology of “tolerate” to “endure pain” is simply one of many examples of what one might endure.

The etymology of tolerate is from the Latin tolerātus to endure or to bear. And in this context to tolerate would mean to endure without hindrance.

While your symantic use of “respect” in this context would mean to give deference to.

Either way, what are you suggesting? That those of faith should be above the law? In other words that we should be ruled by a religious theocracy rather than a democracy?

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

BTW: Our form of democratic governments already “respect”, i.e. give deference to, the rights of individual personal religious beliefs by not imposing state interference upon religious internal affairs. The government makes no decisions one way or the other with regard to deciding religious theology or dogma. And the government is not being asked to do so.

However, some people of faith such as Tamara are demanding that neither respect or endurance of homosexuality be given to homosexuals specifically with regard to democratic laws and often times extending that further to mean no endurance of or respect for in any way or manner.

Tolerance has nothing to do with either condonement or embracement but endurance.

Therein lies the irony of

Tolerance of homosexual couples is one thing. And we are certainly all for tolerance. But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another.

JaredMD
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

I immediately recognized the Welcome to Paradise sign when the page loaded, because I have lived in Paradise my whole life (21 years). No wonder it was so difficult for me to come out. This is my first election as a registered voter, and I’m proud to be one more no vote. =)

Tavdy
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

“Where did you derivey the etymolgy of “tolerate” to be to endure pain?” – Stefano A

There are many words which have meanings that have changed over time to become something completely different from the original. Gay is a perfect example: its original meaning is synonymous with happy, bright or colourful, yes now it is used – derogatively – to mean debased, inferior or bad.

Likewise empathogens are a class of serotonergic drugs that induce a powerful feeling of happiness and love – even though the Greek root “pathos” means “suffering”.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

The Post editorial says they are not homophobic but that they don’t condone, embrace, or approve of gay couples. That is the essence of homophobia.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

There are many words which have meanings that have changed over time to become something completely different from the original.

Duncan stated that “by origin” the etymology of tolerate meant to endure pain. That is an untrue assertion.

And your point, while having a certain degree of obtuse relevance does not discount my statement about the etymological origin that Duncan claimed.

And none of the following:the Unabridged DictionaryAmerican Heritage DictionaryWordNetAmerican Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, orThe Oxford English Dictionaryattribute the meaning of “tolerate” to be “to condone or embrace”.

Tolerate under no connotative reference is given to denote “condonement or embracfement”. Each and every denotative and connotative reference is related to tolerate has to do with “putting up with” to use a vernacular, or some form of endurance, not condonement or embrace.

My point stands.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Hmmm. Sorry for the runon list of dictionary references without punction. The list code did not work and I hadn’t previewed my post to see if it would be accepted.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Oh, and I meant abstruse with its “esoteric” connotation not obtuse. (My bad.)

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Now, some may denounce mere tolerance as being no longer acceptable and instead demand acceptance by all. But that is another issue entirely than what I was addressing about the meaning of the word tolerate or the phrase “to tolerate”. And even then they are not using tolerate as being synonymous of acceptance. The words have two distinct and still current meanings. Unless you are aware of some small doctrinal group that has made the meaning of the two words synonymouos. Which I do not believe to be the case in standard usage.

piper
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

As a christian (who is going to attempt to become a pastor[getting ready to start candidacy]) And a liberal I find it offensive when people refer as Tamara did to the “majority of Christians” as basically un-accepting of gay rights. Christians are a diverse, huge group, and I was raised by Christians who not only believe that the Queer community deserves full marriage rights, I am one of those Christians!

BTW as a Texan I can’t vote on any of these amendments, sometimes I feel like the hearts and minds phase of the Texas race for equality is 10 marathons strung together.

Kevin
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Piper,

As a Christian, even though you don’t live in one of these states, you may feel called to act in ways you find acceptable with the teachings of Christ and the acts of the apostles.

For some Christians, salvation is achieved through good works and faith, although some Christians have differing opinions on the topic of salvation and don’t necessarily equate good works with it. That’s a legitimate discourse, however – good works seems to me to be a good default regardless of belief or theology.

I think also by studying with an open mind and thirst for knowledge the origins of the Church, the authentic gospel of Jesus, the historical Jesus, the history of Judea in the first century under Roman rule, Jewish and Roman cultural norms during the era of Christ, and the evolution and translation of the modern bible (Hebrew bible and New Covenant), you gain a deeper and more authoritative knowledge than your typical “bible-thumper” who quotes scripture out of context in order to further a prejudice that they base in the bible.

For example, anti-gay Christians who seek to cite New Testament (aka “New Covenant”) scripture to show homosexuality as especially sinful use passages in Romans and 1&2 Timothy. Both of these references are highly disputed, especially Romans.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

Also, many anti-gay Christians either overlook or are unaware the passage in Matthew 8 regarding Jesus healing the Centurion’s “servant”, which the Centurion was distraught over. Anyone who has studied Roman history would immediately find this extremely odd – that a Roman citizen would feel anything at all for a slave, since slaves were viewed as lower than animals and Roman citizens were quite use to slaves being slaughtered for entertainment.

In fact, the original Greek calls this person in Matthew a “pais”, which the Greeks would know as the younger lover of an older man.

Jesus, upon witnessing the Centurion’s grief over his lover and the extraordinary faith of, not a Jew like Jesus and his disciples, but a Gentile (!) to follow Christ rewards him and heals the youth. There is no condemning. No reservations. Jesus rewards those who have faith, blesses them, and – even more radically – rewards the loved ones of the faithful “in abstentia”.

Kevin
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

PS Please ignore my numerous grammatical and spelling errors!

ex: “in abstentia”…correct: “in absentia”

;)

piper
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Kevin
I totally agree with you, and will read your post more in depth after I write a paper for one of my college classes. I noticed your discussion of 1&2nd Timothy, which, when in discussion with some of my friends I have mentioned and tried to go into more depth about the problems with the language, and the fact that they were written for specific people and town churches. I don;t think that I can understand the Bible new or old testament without understanding some about the cultures that birthed them

Thank you for your heartfelt words and while I can’t donate money ( I literally have 2 dollars in my bank account), I have been talking to my grandma in Florida, and my family in California about these amendments. Thankfully my Grandma is already in opposition to the amendment, but my Uncle is taking a little longer.

Dan
October 24th, 2008 | LINK

It should come as no surprise that the Mormon religion which used to forbid blacks from joining their cult are the main group behind the proposition that will eliminate the rights of another minority group. Also, does anyone know if the rumor I heard is true? Are the Knights of Columbus (another big sponsor of Prop 8) aligned with the Ku Klux Klan? I heard that they are the Catholic version of the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who supports Prop 8 should think twice before adding their support to groups such as these. They are NOT about personal liberties and freedom. Quite the opposite, their goal is to take away civil rights. They need to be exposed for who they are….

Dan
October 24th, 2008 | LINK

I get VERY tired of the religious argument when it comes to gay marriage. ALL marriages should become civil marriages, as they are in France. The government there does not recognize religious ceremonies, and EVERY couple must go to city hall to get married. If a couple wants holy matrimony in a house of worship, then they are entitled to it, but it isn’t a legal marriage. Wouldn’t that once and for all end this silly debate about what the bible has to say? So, shouldn’t atheists have a right to marry, too? Take your god out of MY government!

mary jones
November 3rd, 2008 | LINK

tell me,is there any good reasons for voting yes on 8? All i can get out of people is that “it will restore traditional marrage” and “gay marriage will be taught to our children in school”. Guess what? there are a whole lot worse things in school. Take it from the seventh grader who is typing this out. If this passes, we will be discriminating people. I thought this was supposed to be a free country. Think about it. what if your child or granchild was gay? would you want them not to be able to marry thier true love?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.