Home > Uncategorized > Joe Bonino, proud supporter of Prop H8 bigotry

Joe Bonino, proud supporter of Prop H8 bigotry

Joe Bonino: proud supporter of Prop H8 bigotry and anti-gay constitutional amendments, from a 2/25/2004 Times-Standard article.

“While same-sex couples can enter into domestic partnerships, “in California, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman,” Bonino said. He said that was decided with the Republican-supported ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000. Bonino said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose staff has performed thousands of gay marriages in the last 10 days, is “just grandstanding.” Bonino said he favors a constitutional amendment to prevent further ongoing legal debates and costs.”

(complete article after the break)

Bush proposal sparks local dialogue

Sara Watson Arthurs The Times-Standard

From the “propaganda of fear” to a way to “expedite the whole debate,” many Humboldt County residents have strong views to share on the recent developments in the gay marriage debate. Margot Gallant of the Humboldt County Gay and Lesbian Alliance had come to the Downtown Express coffee shop to discuss upcoming gay pride events with coffee shop owner Karen Phillips on Tuesday — the morning President George Bush announced he planned to seek a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

“How can someone legislate and make me illegal?” Gallant asked.

Phillips said Bush’s announcement stems from an ongoing prejudice she called “the propaganda of fear.”

“I went through my angst at being gay,” Phillips said. “I’m over it, and they can get over it too.”

Locally, she said, most people have. Her business, near the Humboldt County Courthouse, attracts a diverse clientele from bankers to attorneys to trial defendants — nearly all of whom treat her with respect, she said.

Joe Bonino, vice chairman of the Humboldt County Republican Party, said he supports Bush’s proposed amendment.

While same-sex couples can enter into domestic partnerships, “in California, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman,” Bonino said. He said that was decided with the Republican-supported ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000. Bonino said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose staff has performed thousands of gay marriages in the last 10 days, is “just grandstanding.” Bonino said he favors a constitutional amendment to prevent further ongoing legal debates and costs.

“I think it’s a good idea to expedite the whole debate,” Bonino said.

The Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee’s position on gay and lesbian relationships is to “affirm their right to equal legal recognition of their committed relationships” and their right to become adoptive parents, said committee chairman Brian Mau. The party opposes constitutional amendments that would abridge such rights, but its platform does not have language relating specifically to gay marriage, he said.

In recent years some local gay activists have staged a protest by coming into the county clerk/recorder’s office each Valentine’s Day and trying to apply for a marriage license.

“I believe we had as many as 60 couples in line at one time,” said Clerk/Recorder Carolyn Crnich.

When the same-sex couples asked to apply for marriage licenses, she said, her staff responded that they could not do so under California law but were welcome to pick up domestic partnership applications. The protest did not take place this year.

Humboldt County residents Eric Rofes and Crispin Hollings were among the first couples to get married at San Francisco City Hall on Valentine’s Day. They’ll travel to Boise this weekend for their honeymoon.

Rofes, assistant professor of education at Humboldt State University, said the wedding was intended as an act of civil disobedience. The couple has been together for 15 years and had a commitment ceremony more than a decade ago.

“The spirit was upbeat and renegade and loving and exciting,” Rofes said. “Cars were going by tooting their horns and people were bringing flowers and donuts and wedding cake.”

Rofes said he sees the gay marriage debate as part of a larger debate “about who gets to participate in the institutions of our democracy — is it just certain kinds of people or is it all people?”

HSU government and politics lecturer Cary Frazee, a lawyer whose background is in civil rights law, said the proposed amendment would deny gays and lesbians their civil rights.

“The purpose of the Constitution has always been to protect civil rights,” she said. “Never has it been amended to take rights away from a class of people.”

Frazee added that marriage has always been regulated by states rather than the federal government, and that Bush had previously stated his support of state’s rights.

  1. Anonymous
    August 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    His objection to same-sex marriage is that it’s too expensive to fight in court, so let’s ban it in the US Constitution. A bigot with a pretext.

  2. Mitch
  3. Goldie
    August 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    I think his objection may stem from his deep Catholic involvement: Italian Catholic Federation , Eureka Sons and Daughters of Italy, St. Bernard’s Parish. Combined with that friendly Republican denunciation of big government unless it involve laws about personal rights and women’s personal choices.
    I don’t think Eureka is going to embrace a Yes on 8 sort of guy for city council.

  4. tra
    August 29, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    “Anti-LGBT Prop 8 activist confesses to molesting young boys.”

    So this Hesse guy owned the ProtectMarriage.com website and supported Prop 8 to prevent the consenting adults being able to marry their same-sex partner, all while he was repeatedly molesting young boys. Yeah, that’s, um…a bit awkward. Have fun in prison, creep.

  5. Ponder z
    August 29, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    So, you people have available domestic partnerships, yes? All your rights are covered with this law, correct? But you want normal people to publicly witness a marriage. Do you think this will legitimize your lifestyle? It wont. We all think what we think no matter what laws you get passed or overturned. Live your life and get off the political protests. Normal people are getting bored with you.
    Its not to late too H8.

    Whatever happened to a day without a gay?

  6. Mitch
    August 29, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    I admire your reliability, Ponder. Here’s wishing you love.

  7. What Now
    August 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    “But you want normal people….”
    Ponder, YOU’RE “normal people” are from that shallow edge of the gene pool called “mud flats”.
    Churches will still be able to refuse to perform the nuptials, just like the racists in the south last month but civil ceremonies shouldn;t be allowed to diusciminate.
    These reich wing goose=steppers in Tampa wanna’ claim that rights are Gaw-duh given-they why the hell are they trying to use government to take ’em away.

  8. Anonymous
    August 29, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that “NAMBLA is not a gay organization … They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights.”[29] NAMBLA responded by claiming that “man/boy love is by definition homosexual,” that “man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture,” and that “homosexuals denying that it is ‘not gay’ to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it’s ‘not heterosexual’ to be attracted to adolescent girls.”[29]

  9. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 7:30 am

    God save me from being “Pondernormal”. I didn’t realize that the whole purpose of Prop. 8 was so that “Pondernormal” people could witness “A Marriage”. Being the abnormal screaming hetero sexual that I am I have witnessed “A Marriage” I have also seen evidence that a change in national law has had the effect of changing the attitudes of people who “think what they think”. I’m not so naive that I believe “Pondernormal” people will accept societal changes as they come along. I have seen enough in my 60+ years to know that there will always be people who put their heads where the sun will never shine. I bet having a cup of tea is nearly impossible with ones head in that position.

  10. just middle class
    August 30, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Mitch, don’t you live in Trinidad and not in Eureka where Joe is running? I guess that the Herald is going to obsess over Joe like they did Rex, Virginia, Ryan, etc. What do all of these people have in common? They won! And Rex with 63%. So a negative post here is a kiss of death for the opponent of Joe.

  11. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 7:57 am

    Thumbs up with #9

  12. August 30, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Idn’t great how they focus on these issues which in everyday life have little to do with trying to survive in the New American Century. They’ll protect us from Gay-Marriage and Abortion, while they charge “Tony Soprano” interest rates and move the “Middle-Class” into poverty and “Debtor’s” prisons.

  13. Mitch
    August 30, 2012 at 8:18 am

    just middle class,

    Surprise! The Herald occasionally posts things OTHER people worry about.

  14. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 8:45 am

    What does his stance have to do with running for the city? Joe seems to be in favor of cycling and public transportation with his long time use of it. Which is an actual impact on the city.

  15. Thorstein Veblen
    August 30, 2012 at 9:35 am

    #13 I’m starting to think it matters a lot, as city councils and supervisors and special district people are groomed for legislatures where they can really focus on these so-called ‘social’ issues.

    Elected officials are our leaders. What they say and think about stuff can influence the community. Pretty soon it’s just common knowledge that “gays are an abomination, everybody knows that”.

    Lets say somebody was anti-catholic, which really has nothing to do with running a city either. Would that matter?

  16. Goldie
    August 30, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Do you want the city governed by someone who feels strongly that some people have more rights than others? Heterosexuals have more rights than homosexuals in his belief system. That’s discrimination. Someone who discriminates will not be representing all of the citizens of Eureka. It also shows a lack of awareness of being able to embrace the concerns of others. We have older citizens in our city, people with special needs, the youth, the working class, and young families and a future to build. Will his ability to discriminate be of service to these neighbors when their projects come before the council? Not so much.

  17. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Proposition 8 has been found unconstitutional in the State of California. The nation progresses towards equality for all, including same-sex marriage. Separate but equal has never worked in this country, and anyone who openly advocates for discriminatory measures should not be put into office. These elections are about values, and if you don’t accept equality as a value, then you accept discrimination as a value. Which value would you support?

  18. Amy Breighton
    August 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Joe Bonino might be a bigot, but he’s THEIR bigot. The monied interests of Eureka have never lost their political control and will make sure he has good run.

  19. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    Quick, we need Atkins to save us from the gold fringe flags!

  20. High Finance
    August 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    It is so sad to see the haters here that cannot accept the fact that Joe Bonino is a throughly decent human being and instead feel they must seek to destroy him because they disagree with his political philosophy.

    For your own sake, GROW UP !

  21. #20
    August 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    HF, Joe’s public statements made while a Republican party officer are fair game. What is best for Eureka here? A(nother) yes-man for the far right-wing establishment, or someone who will ask questions and provide some independent (OMG) thinking at City Hall?

  22. High Finance
    August 30, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    At least Joe won’t be “wasting his time”.

  23. August 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    One cannot be both a “throughly decent human being” and a bigot. Prop 8 supporters are bigots, plain and simple.

  24. Ponder z
    August 30, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    You have domestic partnerships, but want a wedding cake.
    You cant have children, but you can circumvent nature.
    You just want to live your life, but you parade around like fools.
    You are out of the closet, and into the classroom.
    You want to be normal, but you are informal.
    You want to be respected, but that law has not been passed.
    You are out of the bathhouse, and into the church.

    (You offend most of your hetero supporters.)

  25. High Finance
    August 30, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    Only a “bigot” in your small little mind Heraldo.

  26. Plain Jane
    August 30, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I tried to post Mitt’s most shameless lie tonight from his speech on the Big Fat Liar thread, but it didn’t post. So I’ll try it here.

    “Four years ago, I know that many Americans felt a fresh excitement about the possibilities of a new president. That president was not the choice of our party but Americans always come together after elections. We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than what divides u

    I must have been having a bad dream for the past 4 years about virtually every GOP leader saying publicly that defeating Obama was job #1, obstructing everything that might benefit Democrats politically regardless of the harm to our citizens and our country, downgrading our credit rating with their idiotic refusal to approve the debt ceiling increase, lying for the sole purpose of dividing this country. WHEW!

  27. tra
    August 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Ponder Z is out of the closet…and into the gutter.

  28. Plain Jane
    August 30, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    This sounds like he is talking about Paul Ryan. Why would he pick a VP he doesn’t feel is qualified to be president?

    “The President hasn’t disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.”

    Paul Ryan has flipped burgers and worked in government.

  29. Plain Jane
    August 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    PonderZ definition of supporters: We support your right to stay in the closet and STFU!

  30. Archdeacon Claude Frollo
    August 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Geez, Ponder, you seem to know more about gays than Mitch.

  31. August 30, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    You offend most of your hetero supporters.)

    And how would an ignorant bigot like Ponder Z know that?
    And what in the fuck does “You want to be normal, but you are informal” mean?
    And “You are out of the bathhouse, and into the church”?
    Jesus, what an idiot.

  32. World English Dictionary
    August 30, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
    — n

    a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

    [C16: from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin. See Bonine, Bonini, Bonino]

    Okay, I added the last part.

  33. Jesus
    August 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Yes. Idiot. Love ya!

  34. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Sadly, Heraldo, Jane and Mitch are as bigoted as some of the prop 8 supporters.

  35. Ponder z
    August 30, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
    — n

    a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

    You gay folk are bigots. You are intolerant of my church, my politics, and my race.

    I, on the other hand am not a bigot. I just dont think you need a marriage licence to wave in my face, too insult my religion. To force the public school system to teach about gay lifestyle. To have a parade, full of sexually explicit innuendo, on a public street.

    All of the Gays I know are ashamed of you gay protester types. Grow up.

  36. Anonymous
    August 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Since when should a license be required to do anything religious?

  37. Goldie
    August 30, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    I think Clint Eastwood helped PZ write his posts tonight.

  38. Plain Jane
    August 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    PonderZ post at 10:20 would be funny if it was satire. Unfortunately he’s too ignorant to understand how clearly he demonstrates his bigotry. Not all ignorant people are bigots, but all bigots are ignorant.

  39. Thirdeye
    August 31, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Heraldo :
    Prop 8 supporters are bigots, plain and simple.

    That is mistaken thinking. The voters who passed 8, which did especially well among nonwhite voters, aren’t bigots by definition. Many just couldn’t fit gay marriage into their folkloric ideas about marriage. There is substantial confusion between commonly accepted social ideas of marriage and what it means legally. Having a hissy fit doesn’t help in the battle to educate people, or win over their hearts and minds. But I’m sure such irrational outbursts make the likes of Ponder Z feel validated.

  40. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Wanting to deny any group equal rights because they make you uncomfortable is bigotry, Thirdeye. I don’t agree with PonderZ bigotry, but I would never try to deny him the right to demonstrate it. Pretending that people demanding and supporting equal rights are bigots because they don’t agree with your bigotry is self-serving ignorance. “You are a bigot because you want equal rights that would make me uncomfortable because of my bigotry.”

  41. August 31, 2012 at 9:16 am

    Bigot, in the 16th century meant “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite.” In American English, it describes racists, homophobes and other intolerant classes of ignoramuses like Ponder Z.

  42. High Finance
    August 31, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Get your head into the 21st century Joel.

  43. August 31, 2012 at 9:58 am

    If having my “head in the 21st century” requires placing it up my ass, no thanks. Carry on, sir.

  44. Anonymous
    August 31, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Yeah, the Reeps already have the 16th century…

  45. Just Middle Finance
    August 31, 2012 at 11:06 am

    What I have to offer on the blog is advise on placement of head location.

  46. not a fan
    August 31, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    How dare someone run against the peoples candidate. Linda needs to go. Most of you folks, especially you Joel have your heads up your asses. Your ego is huge without reason. Your just a nasty mouthy little man with little going for him. Who draws unfunny cartoons. Oh and you keep shitty company.

  47. tra
    August 31, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Verbal tantrum are often amusing. When the person throwing the tantrum is presumably an adult, it can be even funnier…or it can be just kind of sad.

  48. Amy Breighton
    August 31, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    I wonder what specific votes Linda Atkins cast that motivated Joe Bonino’s costly 11th hour efforts to defeat her?

    Something voters will NEVER hear from Joe….it would expose his a petty, right-wing ideological agenda.

  49. Not HuMan
    August 31, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Kiss my ass goodbye, it’s around my head … don’t get your cartoons. Shitty company, I am so funy. Joel iz stoopid. Libtards Linda iz histery.

  50. alley
    August 31, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Not long ago interracial marriage was against the law. We have come a long way since those days… (maybe yes, maybe no). Now it is time to stand up for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who want to marry. Separate but equal still doesn’t work no matter how hard you try to make it so.

  51. tra
    August 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    “Ponder Z” complains that gay marriage “insults” his religion.

    Well, tough luck, PZ the U.S. is not a theocracy. It’s a nation made up of people of many different religious backgrounds and beliefs.

    You are free to belong to a church that does not perform same-sex marriages, just as you are free to join a mosque that requires women to wear headscarves.

    But just as we wouldn’t tolerate a law being passed to require ALL women to wear headscarves, just to avoid “insulting” certain fundamentalist Muslims, we shouldn’t tolerate laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, just to avoid “insulting” PZ’s religious sensibilities.

  52. August 31, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Conservatives tend to look to the government for solutions to their problems.

  53. August 31, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Wry, Joel, wry…;)

  54. August 31, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Why can’t some people realize that their rights are only as valid as the rights of the lowest members of society.
    I’ve always been a student of the fall of German society in the 1930’s, and what the German people failed to understand was that with every “Right” taken away from the Jews and others; they’re own rights were being taken away.
    If the LBGT community’s rights are not protected; my community’s rights are not protected.
    If a member of the LBGT community does not have their “marriage” protected by law; then my “marriage” is not protected by law, regardless of the rhetoric. It also happens to be the same rhetoric the Nazi’s told German citizens.
    Some folks feel that comparing the “New American Centurions,” with the Nazi-party, is unfair. But more and more the similarities are astounding.

  55. ZombieEcon
    August 31, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Mit’s Mormon End Days Chart:

  56. Ponder z
    August 31, 2012 at 6:24 pm
  57. Ponder z
    August 31, 2012 at 6:30 pm
  58. tra
    August 31, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    For someone who claims to be offended because gays are too “in your face,” your willingness to actively search out photos to be offended by is rather ironic.

  59. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    PonderZ loves to be offended by gay men in skimpy costumes.

  60. August 31, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    It’s a good thing for the sad, repressed Ponder Z that we won’t be able to find any evidence of heterosexuals doing anything unusual if we scour the web.

  61. Anonymous
    August 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    So what can you say about people that endorse known bigots for public office?

  62. September 1, 2012 at 12:51 am

    Actually, moviedad, yours is one of the best positions I’ve ever heard on this subject, giving reason to why.

    Thanks for saying it, giving at least one person a chance to think about this. I can say as far as your model that Germans I knew in living over there still very much suffer the consequences of that period, which is for many of them well before their generation.

    One thing I’ve seen that they developed out of this has been an exacting sense of ‘what you may not suggest or say about another person.’ It isn’t any kind of political correctness, but rather a sense of responsibility to other human persons, which is grounded on solidarity, a notion I found I much like.

    To express solidarity, one would say that we don’t have at all to be like each other, but we have a deep responsibility to take adequate care of each other. When there is need, those who can contribute do. Where rights and possibilities are concerned, each person and viewpoint has them.

    By your message, it might be the other way around each next time, mightn’t it.

    I was present for the great moment of coming out in the US, which was followed almost immediately by the HIV and in those days, serious AIDS epidemic, which was so frightening in its unknowns to everyone that all went silent, except for the acts. I wonder if we’ve yet made any general realization of how much changed societally under those pressures. It was immense, and began, if you look at the calendar, the political current era.

    Which brings right back to what you’ve suggested: how very many may well lose, when some have begun to lose.

    Better we do better than that, as we can. Moviedad, a nod.

  63. High Finance
    September 1, 2012 at 7:40 am

    How did this topic about a fine fellow, Joe Bonino, into comparing people who oppose gay marriage to nazis and attacks against PonderZ a poster ?

  64. Ponder z
    September 1, 2012 at 7:52 am

    OK, on a serious note. Joe Bonino is running for a seat on the city council. Opposing the “gay?” incumbent. And he has supported prop 8. Not that the seat on the city council will ever do anything with gay marriage rights at this point, as Atkins is the only one who could possibly bring the subject up. But Mr. Bonino is the victim of H8 for his political opinions. I, on the other hand, present the opinion of most the the Black voters in California.

  65. Mitch
    September 1, 2012 at 8:41 am

    OK, here’s a serious note.

    If you don’t care about Joe Bonino’s stand on Prop 8, you can just ignore the post and comments. If you do care about Joe Bonino’s stand on Prop 8, now you know what it is. Isn’t that nice?

    Period, end of story.

  66. September 1, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Atkins is the only one who could possibly bring the subject up.

    What is that supposed to mean?

  67. Plain Jane
    September 1, 2012 at 9:42 am

    Whether or not someone is a bigot should be a matter of concern for everyone since bigotry is a clear sign of ignorance. Why would anyone want an ignorant person in public office?

  68. Mitch
    September 1, 2012 at 9:48 am

    “Why would anyone want an ignorant person in public office?”

    Self-esteem.

  69. Anonymous
    September 1, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Yes PZ if a black person was running for office and was pro H8 then I would hope that they would be the “victim” of that stance as well.

  70. High Finance
    September 1, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Prop 8, the war in Afghanistan, Global Warming and the fear of solar flares has nothing to do with the Eureka City Council.

    This topic is completely irrelevant and is only meant to throw red meat to the rabid left like PJ.

  71. Plain Jane
    September 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Bigots wish ignorance was irrelevant.

  72. High Finance
    September 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Your definition of “bigot” is anybody who disagrees with you.

    Even Joel admitted it was a big stretch, having to go back to the 16th century to justify the charge.

  73. Plain Jane
    September 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Your functional illiteracy is on display again, HiFi. Have one of your kids read Joel’s post and explain it to you.

  74. September 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Sorry, HiFi, but Prop 8 is the product of pious, finger-wagging hypocrites. Support for Prop 8 easily falls under the category of bigotry in both the modern and the historical senses of the word.

  75. Anonymous
    September 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    PJ is as bogoted as the prop 8 supporters, as is Mitch

  76. Plain Jane
    September 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Hating ignorance isn’t bigotry.

  77. #76
    September 1, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Anonymous :
    PJ is as bogoted as the prop 8 supporters, as is Mitch

    Anonymous :
    PJ is as bogoted as the prop 8 supporters, as is Mitch

    Why, how “fair and balanced” !

  78. Anonymous
    September 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    You don’t hate ignorance though, Jane, you hate those who you disagree with just like the prop8 bigots/

  79. High Finance
    September 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    I used to expect more here but Heraldo & the left have proved over & over again that they must smear their opponents and try to destroy them with personal attacks.

    Nothing proves more than this that the left has lost the battle of ideas.

  80. September 1, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Discrimination against gays wins the “battle of ideas” in HiFi’s sad little world.

  81. September 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Bigotry is so cutting edge.

  82. High Finance
    September 2, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Heraldo, you have the maturity level of a 15 year old.

  83. Plain Jane
    September 2, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Is Bonino a supporter of discrimination against gays (regardless of his excuse for it) or is he not, HiFi? For a member of the party that has taken smears down to a whole new level, you are sure quick to accuse others of smearing when all they are doing is speaking the truth. I think Mitch is right about why people like you vote for ignorance.

  84. Eric Kirk
    September 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    What does his stance have to do with running for the city? Joe seems to be in favor of cycling and public transportation with his long time use of it. Which is an actual impact on the city.

    The issue has come up in municipal and county context, and it could have a huge bearing. Before Prop 8 there were local officials who were refusing to honor the equality ruling, by refusing same sex marriages. And would you be asking the same question if Bonino opposed interracial marriage?

    Leadership is about values. The question is whether the anti-equality values are representative of the community.

  85. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Eric, if the issue comes up in a local or county context it is nothing but posturing. Local and county governments have no authority over marriage. I voted against prop 8, but Bonino was correct on that particular point about the meaningless sham put on by Gavin Newsom. It had no legal authority.

    The issue of full legal recognition for same sex couples could be dealt with a whole lot more constructively if gay marriage advocates and those who choke on the idea were less concerned with seeking political advantages around the “M” word. Can “marriage equality” be achieved? Legally, yes. Socially, doubtful. The social dimension is subjective, emotional, and nebulous.

  86. September 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    “It had no legal authority,” but it was meaningful. And seriously, “the ‘M’ word”? Why should those who demand equal rights recognize the sensitivity that backward right-wing bigots have over the word “marriage”?

  87. Mitch
    September 2, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    “Can “marriage equality” be achieved? Legally, yes. Socially, doubtful.”

    Personally, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the Catholic church is willing to marry gay people, or whether the Mormon church is willing to marry interracial couples. Legal equality is all I want — assholes are welcome to shelter together as long as they want.

  88. What Now
    September 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Mitch, the entire on-call staff here is doing the wave in your honor for the above post.
    BRAVO!

  89. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Joel Mielke :
    “It had no legal authority,” but it was meaningful. And seriously, “the ‘M’ word”? Why should those who demand equal rights recognize the sensitivity that backward right-wing bigots have over the word “marriage”?

    It was meaningful only as political posturing, which backfired. And if you think anyone who accepts certain extra-legal connotations of the word “marriage” that have been handed down to them by whatever religious or folkloric system they were raised in is a “bigot,” you’re just a self-righteous little twit who plays into the hands of the hands of the true bigots.

  90. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Mitch :
    “Can “marriage equality” be achieved? Legally, yes. Socially, doubtful.”
    Personally, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the Catholic church is willing to marry gay people, or whether the Mormon church is willing to marry interracial couples. Legal equality is all I want — assholes are welcome to shelter together as long as they want.

    As well you shouldn’t. But the emphasis on the word “marriage” and the symbol-laden approach taken by advocates of gay marriage brings a whole lot of extraneous baggage into the legal rights discussion. The DOMA could have been booted into irrelevance by getting federal recognition of civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage. But gay marriage advocates chose to fight on much weaker ground for the sake of making a statement about “marriage equality.” That approach seems more driven by the desire for a political advantage than one to achieve full legal rights for same sex couples.

  91. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    In other words, they should have settled for “separate but equal.” Sorry, not gonna fall for that one.

  92. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Legally equal is all the equality you need. Social equality of is a cultural issue. The whole emphasis on the word “marriage” is a wasteful diversion that is seen as cultural engiineering, and that rubs people the wrong way. If you want to pick fights that don’t have any bearing on the legal result, don’t expect my support.

  93. High Finance
    September 2, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    PJ, I know it is difficult for you, Mitch & some others to think outside your little box, but Joe wasn’t voting against gays but for marriage being one man & one woman. It is OK for you to disagree with him without trying to demonize him for it.

    And once again, the issue is totally irrelevant to serving on the Eureka City Council. The city council is about filling potholes & trying to balance the budget. It is not about Prop 8, Roe v Wade or the war in Afghanistan.

    Eric the lawyer at post # 83 should know better.

  94. tra
    September 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    According to that logic, Thirdeye, it would be acceptable to tell interracial couples that they couldn’t get “married” — as long as they were allowed a separate-but-legally-“equal” thing called a “civil union.”

    Interracial marriage was also seen as “cultural engineering” and it certainly “rubbed some people the wrong way” — so was it a mistake for civil rights advocates to insist that interracial couples should be able to marry?

    Those wrong-way-rubbed people happened to be a bunch of narrow-minded, ignorant bigots — but apparently it’s impolite to point out that sort of bigotry, whereas it’s the height of good manners to require others to accomodate themselves to the prejudices of said bigots?

  95. Plain Jane
    September 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    HiFi, the reason he wants to continue discrimination against gays is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it is because of religious grounds, homophobia or an ignorant belief that it somehow magically undermines hetero marriages. He is a bigot no matter what excuse he uses to justify his hateful, discriminatory agenda.

  96. Mitch
    September 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    HiFi, I know it is difficult for you, Ponder & some others to think outside your little box, but Strom wasn’t voting again nigras but for marriage being kept racially consistent. He was just concerned about mongrelization — it was nothing personal against anyone.

    Meanwhile, on the “demonization” front, the post’s headline calls out a candidate for supporting a proposition that I believed then and believe now to be an example of bigotry in action. The content of the post itself was just a news article from 2004. If that’s “demonization,” so be it.

    It continues to amaze and sadden me that people think “domestic partnership” would have been the same as “marriage.” The very need for a separate phrase exists only to distinguish something that is to be respected in a particular way from something that is grudgingly provided, like a “coloreds only” water fountain. To be offered, grudgingly, something that is “identical but in name” is to be offered, by definition, something that is distinguished in order to assert its inferior status.

    As I said, I don’t care at all about religious ceremonies. I’m a minister of the Universal Life Church (so that I could marry some friends; as I recall my ordination required a single click and cost nothing… http://www.themonastery.org/ordination), and I have faith that it is the one true religion, so I’m not worried about inferior, false religious beliefs. But if the joining of two people in lifetime commitment is to be noted at all by civil authorities, it should not be provided in a discriminatory manner.

  97. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    tra :
    According to that logic, Thirdeye, it would be acceptable to tell interracial couples that they couldn’t get “married” — as long as they were allowed a separate-but-legally-”equal” thing called a “civil union.”
    Interracial marriage was also seen as “cultural engineering” and it certainly “rubbed some people the wrong way” — so was it a mistake for civil rights advocates to insist that interracial couples should be able to marry?
    Those wrong-way-rubbed people happened to be a bunch of narrow-minded, ignorant bigots — but apparently it’s impolite to point out that sort of bigotry, whereas it’s the height of good manners to require others to accomodate themselves to the prejudices of said bigots?

    You’re making a straw man argument. Nobody ever proposed civil unions for interracial heterosexual couples. It wouldn’t have satisfied the racists anyway, since their fear of different colored genitalia conjoining and producing interracial children would not have been alleviated.

    Like it or not, ideas of marriage have revolved around reproductive function and creating families, regardless of the race(s) of the participants. Yeah, it’s corny, but if somebody carries that baggage it does not make them a bigot.

  98. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Mitch, if domestic partnerships carried the same legal rights as marriage, why should the different title bother you? I thought you didn’t give a rat’s ass whether or not your partnership fit somebody’s definition of “marriage.”

  99. Mitch
    September 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Thirdeye,

    If the Catholic church wants to engage in a ceremony called “marriage” and exclude me, that’s perfectly fine. But if the State of California wishes to provide a civil status called “marriage,” making it available to any random two persons of the opposite sex who choose to sign up, and then refuses to grant that status to my same sex partner and me, I don’t consider it acceptable for the State of California to offer me an alternative (but supposedly identical) status. The creation of such an alternative could ONLY be to indicate a desire that my status be treated differently than that of those offered civil marriage — logically, if it were identical, there would be no need for an alternative status. Just as logically, special “colored only” waterfountains could only possibly exist to distinguish their users from people held to be superior, and who did not want their water fountains sullied by the presence of colored persons.

    If the State of California wished to eliminate civil marriage and instead offer all citizens the opportunity to register a status known as “domestic partnership”, fine. If the Catholic church offered to provide a ceremony called marriage to heterosexual domestic partners, fine.

    See the issue? See the difference? It is indeed unfortunate that the religious authorities and state authorities have mixed things together. They should not have, and it has caused problems. I genuinely hope that makes my position clear, because I truly don’t give a rat’s ass what the Catholic Church or the Mormon elders have to say about my personal life.

    This is really an important point to me, and I’d really like for you to understand where I am coming from whether you agree with me or not. If the only need for an “alternative designation” is to prevent use of the existing designation by a class of people, then by definition the alternative designation has been created to support a statement of the superiority of those entitled to the existing designation. Religions are entitled to do that. The State of California is not. It’s simple. (I think previous decisions by the state’s courts, ruling that domestic partnership could be acceptable if it had no unequal results, were a set-up to eventually get domestic partnership overturned.)

    Incidentally, I never would have guessed that same sex marriage would become possible in my lifetime. I’m a beneficiary as well as an officiant, and I’m impressed by and grateful for the progress that those who have fought for recognition of gay equality have made.

  100. tra
    September 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    I’m just comparing the two situations, Thirdeye, and trying to understand how people can justify denying equal rights to one group, while recognizing the importance of granting those rights to another group. Your answer seems to be that the difference is that, in this case, denying same-sex couples the right to marry is more defensible because doing so would “satisfy” those who are prejudiced against them.

    But that leads to the question of whether, if civil unions would have “satisfied” the racists, would that have made it morally defensible to cater to those racists by forcing interracial couples to settle for a separate-but-equal “civil union?”

    If you’re arguing that the morality of denying rights to a group depends on whether doing so would “satisfy” those who are prejudiced against that group, well, we’ll just have to disagree on whether this is a good way to approach issues of morality.

  101. tra
    September 2, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    And by the way, if “the idea of marriage revolves around reproductive function” then why are post-menopausal women, and for that matter any couple who doesn’t intend to have children (or isn’t capable of having children), allowed to marry?

    Certainly marriage has traditionally been partly about childrearing, but as far as I know marriage has never been limited only to people who are capable of having children, and who definitely plan to do so, so there’s no justification for excluding same-sex couples on that basis. That lack of justification becomes even clearer when you recognize that there are many same-sex couples who DO have children and DO “create families” — whether through adoption, or surrogate mothers, or in vitro fertilization, or sperm donors.

  102. September 2, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Legally equal is all the equality you need. Social equality of is a cultural issue. The whole emphasis on the word “marriage” is a wasteful diversion that is seen as cultural engiineering, and that rubs people the wrong way…

    It looks like Forest Queen has some competition from Thirdeye for the title of Looniest Commenter.

  103. Eric Kirk
    September 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    And once again, the issue is totally irrelevant to serving on the Eureka City Council. The city council is about filling potholes & trying to balance the budget. It is not about Prop 8, Roe v Wade or the war in Afghanistan.

    Eric the lawyer at post # 83 should know better.

    Again, it’s about values. You wouldn’t vote for Bonino if he opposed interracial marriage HF, I know it. You just haven’t come around to viewing homophobia in a similar way. He’s asking to be elected a community leader. His values matter.

  104. Thirdeye
    September 2, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    tra :
    And by the way, if “the idea of marriage revolves around reproductive function” then why are post-menopausal women, and for that matter any couple who doesn’t intend to have children (or isn’t capable of having children), allowed to marry?
    Certainly marriage has traditionally been partly about childrearing, but as far as I know marriage has never been limited only to people who are capable of having children, and who definitely plan to do so, so there’s no justification for excluding same-sex couples on that basis. That lack of justification becomes even clearer when you recognize that there are many same-sex couples who DO have children and DO “create families” — whether through adoption, or surrogate mothers, or in vitro fertilization, or sperm donors.

    Geez, could you at least quote me accurately? My point was that people who believe (mistakenly, for the reasons you point out) that marriage always revolves around reproductive function should not categorically be regarded as bigots. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your reading comprehension, and not your honesty, is the issue.

    If a civil union establishes the same legal rights for a couple as something called “marriage,” then it does not deny them equal rights. The only thing that is withheld is something symbolic and not really meaningful. Frankly, it’s kind of silly to complicate the path to establishing equal legal rights by insisting on some symbolic validation to go with it that only confuses the issue. That level of validation for a relationship can’t be provided by the government anyway. It’s between the couple, their community, and whoever they associate with to support their world view.

    The whole argument about civil unions being a “separate but equal” solution doesn’t hold water. Legally equal civil unions do not result in segregation of those who partake of them. They do not result in attending inferior schools or being denied the use of water fountains. Whatever discrimination is faced by gay couples, it is not going to be solved by calling their partnerships “marriage.”

  105. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Joel Mielke :

    Legally equal is all the equality you need. Social equality of is a cultural issue. The whole emphasis on the word “marriage” is a wasteful diversion that is seen as cultural engiineering, and that rubs people the wrong way…

    It looks like Forest Queen has some competition from Thirdeye for the title of Looniest Commenter.

    Gosh, such a stinging rebuke by the resident twit!

  106. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Legally equal civil unions do not result in segregation of those who partake of them. They do not result in attending inferior schools or being denied the use of water fountains.

    OK, Thirdeye, I’ll bite.

    What is the non-discriminatory purpose of having a different CIVIL status for same-sex marriages, and continuing the use of the CIVIL term “marriage” for opposite sex marriage. What if heterosexuals were entitled to passports, but homosexuals were only entitled to “passage documents,” which supposedly provided identical treatment? What would be the non-discriminatory purpose of that? How is domestic partnership, at the state level, different?

    If it’s to increase the comfort level of those who describe their existing relationships as marriage, why is the appropriate CIVIL solution not the elimination of marriage as a civil status (and how, anyway, is it non-discriminatory for the state to pander to the comfort of one group of people by not granting another group an identical civil status)?

    If the churches wish to acknowledge that sanctified marriage is a different concept from state partnering, let them call religious marriage “sanctified marriage.” Then, the state will only be able to create plain-old-not-holy marriage, and people will need to come to me — a minister in good standing of the ULC — or other ministers in order to have their union sanctified. That’s fine by my, and if I think your marriage is deserving of sanctification, I’ll sanctify it for free and give you some good paternal advice in the bargain.

    Those who believe that the pope speaks for God can go for sanctification to his representatives. Those who think otherwise can go to other personages. If those who believe that the pope speaks for God do not believe in the “true sanctity” of marriages supposedly “sanctified” by myself or other non-Catholic ministers, that’s totally fine by me and by anyone who would ask me to sanctify their marriage. You think what you think, I’ll think what I think, and neither of us need to have the state involved at all.

  107. September 3, 2012 at 8:40 am

    If a civil union establishes the same legal rights for a couple as something called “marriage,” then it does not deny them equal rights.

    Then why would we have to call it something else?

  108. September 3, 2012 at 8:59 am

    If the churches wish to … let them call religious marriage “sanctified marriage.”

    Why should we be concerned with what churches do?

  109. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Joel Mielke :

    If the churches wish to … let them call religious marriage “sanctified marriage.”

    Why should we be concerned with what churches do?

    Excellent idea.

  110. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Mitch, if there were federally recognized, legally equal civil unions, the difference between civil unions and marriage would just be symbolic. The symbolic difference seems important to two basic groups – those who carry folkloric ideas about marriage being related to some higher power, and those seeking symbolic validation for a gay identity in addition to legal equality. Neither should be the government’s concern.

  111. Jon Brooks
    September 3, 2012 at 10:40 am

    If you don’t like gays getting married, don’t get married to one. And let other people who aren’t bothering anyone get on with their lives.

  112. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Thirdeye,

    So if there were federally recognized travel documents available to all people, and some people could get passports but others had to get passage documents (which entitled them to the same things as a passport, but would be stamped PASSAGE DOCUMENT instead of PASSPORT), you don’t see any reason why the people who could not legally get passports from their government should be concerned? Maybe you don’t. I do.

  113. Mitchgetaclue
    September 3, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Anonymous :
    PJ is as bogoted as the prop 8 supporters, as is Mitch

    Careful anonymous, the don’t like being called bigoted or intolerant, even though they are of anyone who does not agree with them. Mitch’s quote below is an excellent example. He wants respect but doesn’t give a rat’s ass about respecting other’s.

    Marriage is about more than reproduction, it is about commitment and responsibility and monogamy. Radical gay activists like Mitch don’t want the responsibility or values, it’s just a political ploy, Unfortunately the ones who suffer are lesbian and gay couples who are monogamous and faithful.

    Go ahead Mitch or PJ or one of their fan club, make one of your smarmy retorts. That’s all you got, no rational argument. When you show respect for others, you will get it in return.

    Pulling out something Joe said in 2000 is desperate.

    Mitch :
    “Can “marriage equality” be achieved? Legally, yes. Socially, doubtful.”
    Personally, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the Catholic church is willing to marry gay people, or whether the Mormon church is willing to marry interracial couples. Legal equality is all I want — assholes are welcome to shelter together as long as they want.

  114. tra
    September 3, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Thirdeye,

    At the risk of stating the obvious, “symbolic validation” of equality IS important.

    To address the analogy of “separate-but-equal” as it related to Jim Crow discrimination against African-Americans — you make a fair point that, unlike racially-segregated schools, same-sex couples aren’t physically segregated by being denied marriage rights. You don’t deny that they are symbolically segregated, but you seem to be skeptical that this is of any real social/cultural importance. This seems to be where we disagree.

    So consider this refined analogy: The insistence on keeping same-sex relationships in a different category, under a different label, is as if we had responded to school segregation by requiring that, although African-Americans could attend the same schools and take the same tests, only white students would earn a “diploma,” whereas African-Americans would receive a “civil completion.” Even if the law declared that the two documents were “legally equal,” this arrangement would still invite discrimination, and reinforce notions of difference and inferiority.

  115. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Mitchgetaclue,

    I neither want nor care about your “respect.” If you want to think I’m disgusting, that’s fine, the feeling is most likely mutual. What I care about is equal rights. I’ll support yours, even though I think the fairy tales you think should rule our lives are asinine.

  116. Plain Jane
    September 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Ditto, Mitch.

  117. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Mitch :
    Thirdeye,
    So if there were federally recognized travel documents available to all people, and some people could get passports but others had to get passage documents (which entitled them to the same things as a passport, but would be stamped PASSAGE DOCUMENT instead of PASSPORT), you don’t see any reason why the people who could not legally get passports from their government should be concerned? Maybe you don’t. I do.

    If tthe two documents are legally equivalent, why should anyone care? Is there some folkloric definition of foreign travel that people are fighting over? Do passports carry sanctified status in some traditions?

  118. September 3, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Weren’t you the one complaining about the silliness of symbolic acts, Thirdeye? And just about everyone under the age of 60 is comfortable with same-sex marriage, so your loss on this issue is inevitable. You can call it whatever you want, but the law will eventually recognize “marriage.”

  119. Plain Jane
    September 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Putting different labels on marriages or passports for different groups makes it easier to target the minority group legislatively and SCOTUS will be very conservative for decades. If there is type A passport and type B passport, either could be restricted or canceled without affecting the other type of passport. The same is obviously true of marriages labeled differently.

  120. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    tra,
    Your analogy breaks down because there is no connotation to a diploma other than that someone has completed high school.

    Ultimately, acceptance of committed same sex partnerships has little to do with the title of legal documents. If it’s called “marriage,” it’s not going to change the mind of those who don’t accept it as such socially. The pursuit of the title “marriage” for the sake of symbolic validation is effort wasted in pursuit of a warm fuzzy feeling if the same legal result can be obtained without it.

  121. Thirdeye
    September 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Joel Mielke :
    Weren’t you the one complaining about the silliness of symbolic acts, Thirdeye? And just about everyone under the age of 60 is comfortable with same-sex marriage, so your loss on this issue is inevitable. You can call it whatever you want, but the law will eventually recognize “marriage.”

    If “just about everyone” under 60 is comfortable with gay marriage, how do you explain the vote on Prop 8?

    Personally, I don’t care if the legal recognition of same sex couples is called “marriage” or something else. But the political football over the symbolic aspects of marriage, as played by both the pro and anti sides, has gotten old. Decide what your priorities are: legal recognition of your rights as couples, or making a symbolic statement against those who hold old hat notions of marriage?

  122. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Thirdeye,

    Fine. You take the “passage document” and I’ll take the passport.

    If the state were to withdraw from the word “marriage” entirely, I’d have no problem with having the state call everyone’s legal arrangement “tax break pairings.” But as long as the state is planning on providing something called a “marriage license,” I believe it ought to provide them on an equal basis to all citizens.

    “Do passports carry sanctified status in some traditions?”

    Various traditions ALREADY refuse to sanctify certain opposite sex pairings. Should the state refuse to call the joining of a Jew and a Catholic a marriage just because Neanderthals in each tradition are unwilling to sanctify it? Seriously, Thirdeye, if you allowed yourself to seriously think about this, you’d realize you are defending the indefensible. On what grounds, I don’t know.

  123. tra
    September 3, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Thirdeye,

    I don’t see where my “analogy breaks down.”

    In the (hypothetical) case of whites being granted “diplomas” versus African-Americans being granted legally-equivalent but separately-labeled “civil completions,” both terms would recognize that the person had completed high school — the only difference being that one person was white while the other person was African-American.

    In the case of opposite-sex couples being granted “marriages” versus same-sex couples being granted legally-equivalent but separately-labeled “civil unions,” both terms would recognize that the couples have demonstrated their long-term commitment to each other into a legally-binding contract — the only difference being that one couple was opposite-sex while the other couple was same-sex.

    I just don’t see any principled difference between those two examples.

  124. Plain Jane
    September 3, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    “If “just about everyone” under 60 is comfortable with gay marriage, how do you explain the vote on Prop 8?”

    Everyone didn’t vote. Prop H8 passed with 54% of the 60% of registered voters who voted with 3% not voting for or against Prop H8. With the exception of LA County with its large number of minority Christians, the counties it passed in were rural. Even a majority of Humboldters opposed it, FFS!

  125. September 4, 2012 at 6:57 am

    If “just about everyone” under 60 is comfortable with gay marriage, how do you explain the vote on Prop 8?

    Old people vote, especially old Republicans.

  126. Mitchgetaclue
    September 4, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Mitch :
    Mitchgetaclue,
    I neither want nor care about your “respect.” If you want to think I’m disgusting, that’s fine, the feeling is most likely mutual. What I care about is equal rights. I’ll support yours, even though I think the fairy tales you think should rule our lives are asinine.

    It’s obvious you don’t care about anything or anyone who disagrees with you Mitch. Where did I call you disgusting? Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you read what is written? No, you just react emotionally. Don’t project your self loathing on me. I don’t hate anyone. I don’t like one-sided bigots who use this blog to bully and intimidate.

    Facts are not your friend Mitch. You just like to whip up a frenzy of discrimination where there is none.

  127. High Finance
    September 4, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Prop 8 is as irrelevant to the issue of qualifications for city council as are most of your posts here PJ & others.

  128. Eric Kirk
    September 4, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Fortunately, the voters get to decide what’s relevant. Among the qualifications is leadership, which requires values in touch with the electorate. This isn’t Ferndale or Fortuna. You guys should have drafted somebody a little more representative.

  129. September 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    “bully and intimidate” “frenzy of discrimination”

    When “get a clue” points out examples of bullying, intimidation, and discrimination on my part, I might consider responding.

    Calling Prop H8 bigotry… is that bullying, intimidation and discrimination?

    Citing Joe Bonino’s enthusiastic position on H8, as reported in the local newspaper eight years ago… is that bullying, intimidation, and discrimination?

    Stating the truth that I don’t give a rat’s ass about the opinion of the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church but only care about their obstruction of legal equality… is that bullying, intimidation or discrimination?

    Is it only bullying, intimidation, and discrimination when someone asserts their rights to equal treatment under the United States Constitution?

    Inquiring minds and all that. Get a clue yourself. Meanwhile, I’ll pray for your enlightenment.

  130. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    It’s the logic and facts you bring to a debate that makes you a bully and intimidates your opponents, Mitch. They are unarmed but for their beliefs which don’t stand a chance.

  131. Just Middle Finance
    September 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Bootstraps! We don’t care about Prop 8 and neither will the voters. They are over indebted and fearful of loosing their jobs to overseas competition. We gotcha right where we want ya; sniping at each other for minimum wage jobs while we charge you $4.40 a gallon for gas and sell you Landfill ready $29 Microwave Ovens at Wal*Mart. You think you will find that junk at Rob Junior’s house? We’ll tell the voters what the issues are and they’ll vote for our guy, the guy who will “create” jobs, Bonino.

  132. Just Middle Finance
    September 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    losing their jobs

  133. tra
    September 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    As HiFi well knows, voters are interested in both “qualifications” (like expertise, experience, and temperment) AND “values.” Supporting or opposing same-sex marriage is a values question. Voters themselves will decide whether it’s “relevant,” and all the whining and pleading in the world won’t change that.

    Conservatives love to use the very same kind of values questions when it helps them electorally, and it’s amusing to see the conservatives now complaining that this issue should have no effect on local races.

    It’s a measure of just how far the pro-marriage-equality forces have come in the last decade or so — whereas same-sex marriage was a handy “wedge issue” for conservatives even just a few short years ago, there has been such a sea-change in public opinion that in many (perhaps most) parts of the country conservatives are finding that their favorite wedge now leaves them with the smaller fraction of the votes that are divided by that wedge. But, too bad: Live by the wedge, die by the wedge. In other words, payback’s a bitch.

  134. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    I’ve been noticing a common thread in the right wing. They don’t give a rats ass about honesty, integrity or character in their candidates. They just want someone who can fool enough of the people to get elected to rubber stamp the extreme right wing agenda at every level. They say “ignore the party platform, ignore anything the candidate says or doesn’t say, don’t worry about the details, trust us,” and about half of the country is falling for it. Never thought I’d say this, but thank the gods for the electoral college in 2012.

  135. Ross Rowley
    September 4, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Eric Kirk said:

    Fortunately, the voters get to decide what’s relevant. Among the qualifications is leadership, which requires values in touch with the electorate. This isn’t Ferndale or Fortuna. You guys should have drafted somebody a little more representative.

    Can you please explain the reference to Ferndale and Fortuna? Thank you.

  136. tra
    September 4, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    I think what we was getting at is that Fortuna and Ferndale are generally considered to be a bit more conservative (especially on cultural issues?) than Eureka.

  137. Eric Kirk
    September 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Ferndale and Fortuna are more conservative, and opposition to gay marriage would play better in those places.

  138. tra
    September 4, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Make that: “I think that what he was getting at…”

  139. High Finance
    September 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Any excuse for a smear of your opponents.

    Prop 8 is a pathetic defense of voting for Atkins.

  140. Anonymous
    September 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    It is not a defense of voting for Atkins, HiFi. There are some good reasons to vote for Linda, includng her intelligence and independence. However, Prop 8 is a very good reason to leave Joe Bonino off the list of those who set policy on behalf of the public.

  141. MitchandPJwillneverhaveaclue
    September 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    PJ you and Mitch can have your mutual admiration fan club. The same tired arguments against anyone you don’t support. Talk about your candidate’s qualifications. Besides dissenting just because.

    Mitch to make light of prayer is so like you. I don’t need to be enlightened to think like you.

    Keep up the good work. You do such a great job speaking for the gay community. Heraldo won’t have a blog or hits without hate. As long as PJ and you represent the gay community, same sex rights are doomed.

  142. September 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    It’s just amazing that some people don’t see the distinction between, on the one hand, being gay and blogging, and, on the other, “speaking for the gay community.”

    I make no attempt to “speak for the gay community,” except on alternate Wednesdays from 3 to 5 PM, the time slot that’s been assigned to me by Gay Central. Do you blather for the “straight community” 24 hours a day? It must be emotionally exhausting.

    Once again, all I’ve done in this blog entry is point out that a local candidate supported something I, along with others, both gay and straight, consider to be bigoted. If you don’t care, I can’t force you to vote one way or the other. If you do care, now you know. It’s really that simple.

    Do you know the prayer from Fiddler on the Roof? The prayer for the czar? “May god bless and keep the czar…” — looks quickly around — “far away from us.” I’m praying for you.

  143. tra
    September 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    The truth is that, by historical standards, the movement for LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, has made remarkably rapid progress over the past few decades — the concern-trolling by Thirdeye, Ponder Z, and now “MitchandPJv” @ 2:27 notwithstanding.

    Which is not exactly surprising — I’m having a hard time thinking of any discriminated-against group that gained their rights faster by asking for less-than-equal rights, and doing so timidly. That’s just not the way it works in the real world, folks.

  144. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    I happen to think that an open mind and tolerance is an important qualification in a representative. Someone who believes that some law abiding citizens should be denied equal rights because that is what his religious leaders tell him, (Jesus didn’t voice an opinion) shouldn’t be trusted.

  145. Anonymous
    September 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Mitch,

    You see someone as bigoted without knowing the person or his actual views. I don’t from the passage above where there is bigotry. And that is a quote out of context. And telling people not to vote on something that is not complete, not based on your personal knowledge of him, is wrong in my opinion.

    Being for traditional marriage does not make one a bigot. Plain Jane you on the other hand make assumptions, think only you are right, and your opinion is the one that should not be trusted.

  146. September 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Anonymous 3:48,

    We view the issue differently. I do feel that each and every supporter of Proposition H8 is a bigot. (Yes, even you if you supported Prop H8.) Actually, I didn’t say that in the piece, I said that Bonino was a proud supporter of a bigoted proposition.

    I have no problem with traditional marriage, but Proposition H8 did not defend traditional marriage. It prevented same-sex couples from marrying.

    To defend traditional marriage, which I understand to be a man and a woman bonding forever before their God and their society so that they may have religiously acceptable sex and raise “legitimate” children, you could work for outlawing divorce, or outlawing remarriage for persons who had broken their “traditional vows.” Or you could strengthen child-support requirements. Or insist that heterosexual couples be legally required to know one another for 24 full hours before deciding to get a traditional marriage. Or you could insist on premarital inspections of women, and prevent them from becoming traditionally married if their hymen is broken. It’s harder to tell whether men have had illegal premarital sex, but you could insist that the man bring five witnesses to his purity, who could sign the traditional marriage certificate to attest that he’d never had sex prior to entering his traditional marriage.

    There are lots of ways to “defend” traditional marriage, but preventing people from marrying the people they love is not one of them.

    I understand why it might seem unpleasant to have someone who has never even met you call you a bigot, but there are lots of good ‘ol boys down south who I’d call racist based on their past support for segregation, and I don’t feel any need to meet them either. I’m sure many of them had many socially redeeming characteristics and, if you didn’t happen to be a nigra, they probably seemed just fine. Well, I’m one of the nigras on this issue, and people who want to make me a second class citizen are not just fine with me — they are bigots.

    As for knowing the person’s “actual views,” if you are suggesting that Bonino campaigned for Prop H8 and called for a constitutional amendment to ban people from marrying, but these were not his “actual views,” I’m afraid that would make me respect him even less.

    Or are you suggesting that he was misquoted by the Times-Standard? He can issue a correction.

    Or have his views “evolved?” Let him say so.

    In the meantime, based on the information available, he is as much a bigot as everyone else who voted to limit the rights of people they disliked. (I know, I know, you don’t dislike gay people. You’re just defending traditional marriage. I’ll bet some of your best friends are gay.)

  147. tra
    September 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    “Being for traditional marriage does not make one a bigot.”

    No one has ever been able to explain to me how same-sex marriages do any harm to traditional marriages, so, to me, the above statement seems kind of meaningless. I’m for traditional marriage, and I’m also for same-sex marriage. I’m also for people remaining single if they want to, and I’m for people getting divorced and/or re-married, if that is what is the parties involved feel is best for them.

    If what you mean to say is that “being against same-sex marriage does not make one a bigot,” well, I guess that depends on one’s definition of “bigot,” — and those advocating inequality for certain groups have often objected to being labeled as “bigoted,” even though, by any reasonable definition, they clearly were. Many Jim Crow-supporting racists, for example, were reluctant to admit that they were being “bigoted,” they claimed they were just standing up for “traditional values,” and the “natural order of things” — just like the hard-line opponents of same-sex marriage today.

    Even if you attempt to define the word “bigotry” as only describing the most extreme examples of intolerance, it’s still quite clear that the position taken by Bonino and other Prop 8 proponents is way, way closer the end of the spectrum on which one would find the word “bigotry” than it is to the opposite end of the spectrum where one would find the word “tolerance.”

  148. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    If I didn’t think I was right I would change my mind, 3:48. Apparently you think that’s a flaw.
    :-D

  149. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I should be clear. I was born and raised in a bigoted home where interracial marriage was scandalous and unmanly men and manly women were ridiculed. Through exposure to a diversity of people and education, I overcame it. You could too.

  150. Anonymous
    September 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    “Being for traditional marriage does not make one a bigot”…unless of course, one means people cannot marry whoever they want to marry. Y’know — “freedom”.

  151. Thorstein Veblen
    September 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Hmmmmm, thats right, Jesus never mentioned gays. Seems, therefore, like it would be incredibly weak to use Jesus as the basis for banning same-sex marriage.

    But, he did mention the moneychangers, drove them from the temple in fact, so they could no longer defile it with their unclean business practices. So, where is Joe’s stand against the banks? Where is the constitutional amendment banning THEM. Are they somehow less offensive than gays, with their brazen, impure behaviors, always on tv, charging interest, dangling easy borrowing in front of the young and innocent, while trying to get them hooked on credit, etc etc.

    More into constitutional amendments based on the old testament? Ok, how about Jubilee. Where does Joe stand on forgiving all debts and returning property to its original family every 49 years or so. Where’s THAT constitutional amendment?

    I mean, really, if you want to live under a theocracy, why always ignore the economic and income-equality parts.

  152. Eric Kirk
    September 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Being for traditional marriage does not make one a bigot.

    What if traditional marriage is defined on racial terms? Can you oppose interracial marriage and not be a bigot?

  153. September 5, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Congratulations, Eric. You may actually have caused someone to think.

  154. High Finance
    September 5, 2012 at 8:35 am

    How intelligent is she really #139? A city council member has to work with the other council members on all issues. An intelligent person learns to disagree civilly on any issue because she would know that she will need at least two other votes on other issues.

    Instead she went out of her way & deliberately antagonized the other members both publicly & in private. It is extraordinary that all, ALL the other council members are supporting her opponent.

  155. High Finance
    September 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    PJ, thanks for the laugh of the day !

    It was funny hearing you of all people expousing an open mind in post #143.

    Perhaps the real bigots are those like PJ, Mitch and some others who think everybody that opposes gay marriage are bigots ?

  156. September 5, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Sure, HiFi. The real bigots were those who thought everybody that was for segregation was a bigot. There’s nothing more bigoted than thinking bigots are bigots.

    It was incredibly refreshing to watch the Democratic convention last night. No more apologies for being on the decent side of things. What a change a decade makes.

  157. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am

    I don’t believe I’m qualified for public office, HiFi, because I lack the tolerance required to deal with delusional bigots.

  158. janelle
    September 5, 2012 at 10:41 am

    HiFi, Nice offense at 8:38. Now answer Eric’s question:
    What if traditional marriage is defined on racial terms? Can you oppose interracial marriage and not be a bigot?

    And I, by the way, am for traditional marriage, I am so for the idea that two people should commit themselves to each other and work on a life together that I want all people to have the opportunity to take marriage vows and have them recognized the same as mine. I chose not to take those vows in a religious institution, so my marriage may not meet your definition of “traditional”. Perhaps we should separate “church” and state, nullify all marriage licenses, re-issue civil union certificates and let the bigots have their “traditional” marriages all to themselves. But then, it wouldn’t have the same significance, would it, HiFi?

  159. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2012 at 11:29 am

    I support any sort of relationships consenting adults choose. It doesn’t matter if it is between 2 people of different sexes or the same sexes or any number of people who choose to make a commitment to each other. It’s not my business.

  160. Jim White
    September 5, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    “It was funny hearing you of all people expousing an open mind in post #143.” (“High Finance”).

    “You people” are “debating” an illiterate who must sound-out words that he/she is reading! A true credit to republican “expousers”.

  161. September 6, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Zach Wahls, raised by two moms, addresses the DNC today. Awesome, just awesome:

  162. Eric Kirk
    September 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Yep. We’ve definitely crossed a threshold culturally. Hopefully the institutional drag won’t be so long that it hurts many more people.

  163. What Now
    September 6, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    P.J., YOU MADE MY DAY:
    “I don’t believe I’m qualified for public office, HiFi, because I lack the tolerance required to deal with delusional bigots.”

    HAHAHAHAHA!
    And ‘Fried has no idea just how badly you gobsmacked that addlepated inebriate.
    Bravo!

  164. Plain Jane
    September 7, 2012 at 6:14 am

    Thanks, WT, but I was just being honest.

  165. High Finance
    September 7, 2012 at 8:31 am

    I wish you people would speak out publicly and often. You turn off moderates and conservatives and cost your side votes every time people hear you.

    The comparison of interracial marriage to gay marriage is a specious argument. There is no comparison.

    PJ, you finally said something on which we both agree. You are not qualified to hold public office.

  166. Plain Jane
    September 7, 2012 at 8:36 am

    I think one of the problems in discussing bigotry is that some people think it means being intolerant for any reason. We are all extremely intolerant of child molesters and murderers but we aren’t considered bigots. Bigotry is intolerance without rational justification. “We hate them because they aren’t us.” Holding different views and debating them vigorously is not bigotry, but the basis for the different views may be.

  167. Eric Kirk
    September 7, 2012 at 8:37 am

    The comparison of interracial marriage to gay marriage is a specious argument. There is no comparison.

    You know, you have a habit of making statements like this as if their truth is self-evident just because you say them. Of course there’s comparison. It’s just that one form of bigotry is culturally more out of vogue than the other. The Democratic Party convention this time around took the chance that the latter bigotry is also falling out of vogue. We’ll see how it works out.

  168. Plain Jane
    September 7, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Neither are you, HiFi; but at least I’m honest about it.

  169. September 7, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Explain it to us, HiFi.

    I’ve been really clear that if the Catholic church and the Mormon church wants nothing to do with marrying gay people, that’s fine. This is not about either, except insofar as they’ve worked to disrupt the civil process of government.

    Now it’s your turn to explain why Zach Wahl’s two moms should not be treated IDENTICALLY to any other couple going to an Iowa government office to get married; why they should not be able to get the identical government certificate, why they should not gain the identical rights and responsibilities with respect to their relationship and their child as any other couple. Explain why a refusal to treat Zach’s parents identically to any other couple is not bigotry.

    If the churches want to continue in their bigotry, well, it will have to be church members that change that. But the government, ALL OUR government, should not be supporting bigotry.

    We all await your explanation, HiFi.

    And if I turn off moderates and conservatives, oh well.

    All I can do is state the truth as I see it. I understand that not everyone will agree. I have respect for many people who disagree with me, but I have no respect for people who cannot support their statements with arguments better than “the bible says it.” As someone pointed out up-thread, there’s an awful lot of picking and choosing of what they’ll believe on the part of many bible-thumpers.

  170. Just Middle Finance
    September 7, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Hi Fi is absolutely correct. Opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same sex marriage, although opposed by traditional WASP institutions, this is only a coincidence. There is no WASP agenda; people of the WASP community don’t have the same bible and same value system. The fact that the opposition sounds like it is *straight* out of the 50’s is again only coincidental.

  171. Waspy
    September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Just Middle Class sounds like he’s heard of WASPs, and this makes him an expert.
    The bigotry that prevented “interracial” marriage until not long ago is exactly the same as the bigotry preventing same sex marriage. It’s mainly religious nuts and ignorant working class whites who oppose marriage equality. WASPs tend to be affluent and educated. They don’t care much for trashy, loud religious types.

  172. tra
    September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Neither racial bigotry nor anti-gay bigotry is limited to “White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” For example, there’s plenty of anti-gay bigotry among members of other ethnic groups (for example African-Americans) and among members of other religious categries (for example, Catholics).

    But there does seem to be a particular strain of right-wing, predominantly white, evangelical protestant churches that seems to attract (and breed?) more than their share of folks with racist, homophobic, xenophobic and mysogynistic belief systems.

    While these folks represent a shrinking part of the overall electorate, they still comprise a very significant portion of the Republican base. Which presents quite a quandry for Republicans, because they need those votes and thus feel the need to pander to that constituency — yet the more they do that, the more they risk driving away the mainstream voters that they also need.

  173. Ted Haggard
    September 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    We religious folk focus our constitutional amendments on the important stuff, like people’s private parts. We just can’t stop thinking about peoples private parts.

  174. Wendy
    September 7, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    . . .and parts is parts.

  175. Anonymous
    September 8, 2012 at 1:19 am

    Last week, Maryland Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. demanded that the owner of the Baltimore Ravens take disciplinary action against Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage.

    Well, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe had a few choice words for Burns:

    I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster.

    They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children.

    You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails.

    And that’s just an excerpt…there’s a lot more where that came from:

    http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it

  176. September 8, 2012 at 7:57 am
  177. Nadia
    September 8, 2012 at 9:46 am

    It seems that society has come full circle. Those that believe that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman feel that they must be “in the closet” to avoid hate speech and harrassment. Mr. Bonino has the courage of his convictions. That is why I am supporting him.

  178. September 8, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Nadia,

    David Duke describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that “all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage.” He’s not against anyone, he’s just for preserving tradition. David Duke has the courage of his convictions. I’m sure you’ll be supporting him, as well.

  179. Ghost of Paul Wellstone
    September 10, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Just saw my first Joe B. sign on Broadway. Funny, it’s in the shape of a big round baseball, wonder what got painted over to make them? And the slogan, ‘he walks the talk’ , I think I read that right (he talks the walk wouldn’t make any sense), what does it mean?

  180. September 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    I’m not sure that “He walks the talk” makes any sense either. I’ve heard “talking the talk walking the walk.”

  181. Anonymous
    September 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    At least they could turn Rex’s signs into basketballs.

  182. Rowf
    September 10, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    “He walks the talk” is code for “I’m the safe establishment patsy”.

  183. HUUFC
    September 10, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Mitch, come on, David Duke? That’s a little over the top.

  184. Col. Sanders
    September 10, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    How about: “He squawks the crock!”

  185. Anonymous
    September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    When my wife first saw the Bonino signs she was thrilled…she thought the Antique Roadshow was in town!

    Funny thing is, these “antiques” never left….

  186. Mitch
    September 11, 2012 at 8:16 am

    HUUFC,

    It all depends on your perspective, I suppose. I’m sure many elderly southern belles consider Mr. Duke a misunderstood charmer who just happens to think society’s gone too far in certain ways.

  187. High Finance.
    September 11, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Hate speech from Mitch ? Surely you jest HUUFC.

  188. Mitch
    September 12, 2012 at 7:30 am

    “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” — Harry Truman

    Support of bigotry is support of bigotry no matter how many people find it acceptable. Anyone who voted for Prop 8 voted to support bigotry. This particular form of bigotry was more fashionable a decade ago than it is now, and is more fashionable now than it will be in ten years. But it’s been bigotry from birth.

  189. High Finance
    September 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    That same 16th century definition of “bigot” that Joel says you are using would also apply to you Mitch in your accusations of those that voted for Prop 8.

  190. Just Middle Finance
    September 12, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    You say bigot, I say Big it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

    “Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing [1]), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.[2][3]”

  191. Mitch
    September 12, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Am I intolerant of racism, sexism and homophobia? Guilty as charged. Call me an intolerant bigot any time you like, HiFi. I’ll do my best to survive the disgrace.

  192. Plain Jane
    September 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Poor HiFi, his brain is so alcohol damaged that he can’t remember that he “misread” what Joel posted despite being corrected by several posters and Joel himself.

  193. What Now
    September 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Col. Sanders ALMOST had it.
    “Joe Bonnino;His Squawk is a crock,” would be more apt.

  194. jack of hearts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Anonymous :
    When my wife first saw the Bonino signs she was thrilled…she thought the Antique Roadshow was in town!
    Funny thing is, these “antiques” never left….

    Neither did my first wife.

  195. Anonymous
    September 15, 2012 at 8:11 am

    “Money talks and bullshit walks”

  196. grouchy
    September 26, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Yo, Constitution fans! Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? Why is the government involved in marriage at all? I’m guessing two public trust issues: protection of children and (most importantly, of course!) Private Property Rights. But we have laws regarding protection of children and other legal methods of directing the orderly transfer of Private Property Rights, so there’s no need for government to interfere in the individual choices of consenting adults.
    So — let each religious or philosophical group decide whether or not it wants to bless the marriage of heterosexuals, homosexuals, monogamists, polygamists, or whoever, and keep the state out of it.
    As for Bonino — his signs look they were painted over Rex Bohn signs — proof he’s thrifty. Luckily I don’t live in Eureka so I don’t have to suffer through the second painful and overheated local election in less than six months.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s