Here in California, the far-right has been pushing a constitutional anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8, that will be on the ballot come November.
As far as I’m concerned, this ad is pretty much everything that needs to be said on the topic. It’s beautiful, and it made me cry.
Don’t comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.
That’s beautiful.
That’s absolutely wonderful — one of the best political ads I’ve ever seen.
Are they actually buying airtime for this? I hope so. At two minutes, it would be incredibly expensive, but….
One of my most beloved parts of the Bible, presented beautifully, toward an excellent goal. It made me cry a bit too. :)
Beautiful. Made me cry too.
I think it’s a great ad, but I already favor gay marriage. I wonder how it plays with people who are indifferent or against it. In any case, it would be great to get it on TV, but Ampersand is right, it’s going to be terribly expensive.
My curiosity matches Ross’s. How is this going to play with people who are sane but mistaken, as opposed to implacably bigoted? It’s a tough question, one that I’m certainly not equipped to answer.
All the same, though, I’d like to thank Myca for posting it. It’s lovely, genuinely lovely. I feel better for having seen that and knowing it’s out there.
I’m planning on seeing Religulous on Friday, but…yeah, some parts of the bible are beautiful.
I’m a little choked up. How can anyone argue against this love. There is none.
<3
Neat concept, but was anyone else struck by the overwhelming proportion of white people?
Wow. Just beautiful…
*single tear*
And, Ross and Falstaff, here’s why I think this ad is especially powerful: for Evangelicals who take their faith seriously, but who don’t necessarily buy the whole “culture war” thing hook, line, and sinker, this ad will grab their attention because it’s people reading one of the most famous passages of all time, that everybody uses at their weddings. If they watch all the way though…again, I don’t think the target audience is right-wing robots…it’s all the others who exist in that Evangelical middle ground who might need the issue a bit humanized.
Pingback: A “Vote No On 8″ ad that just made your blogger cry « break the terror
@speck: Agreed. It’s a good concept and very sweet, and overall strong, but where are the people of color?
Since the ad doesn’t make much sense if you don’t interpret love as romantic love, I kinda feel like the Bible called me a loser for being single…
Thanks so much for posting this.
~j
This is in regards to comments about the lack of people of color in this video.
There is a Filipino man, a Japanese woman and many Latino people mixed into this video. Unfortunately, there is a lack of African Americans. There is at least one male in here with an African-American ancestor, but its not obvious. There might be someone in here who is from the Middle East? I do not know this for sure.
However, I just had a thought. Were we concerned for people of color simply because the color black seemed to have been missing? Or because everyone in this video spoke in perfect English? Just a thought.
“This is in regards to comments about the lack of people of color in this video.
There is a Filipino man, a Japanese woman and many Latino people mixed into this video. Unfortunately, there is a lack of African Americans. There is at least one male in here with an African-American ancestor, but its not obvious. There might be someone in here who is from the Middle East? I do not know this for sure.
However, I just had a thought. Were we concerned for people of color simply because the color black seemed to have been missing? Or because everyone in this video spoke in perfect English? Just a thought.”
I don’t understand the last sentence of your comment. There were no obviously black people in the ad, and it was a glaring omission. It is believed that there will be an increase in the number of black voters in this election due to the candidacy of Barack Obama, and that this increase in black voters might mean that Prop. 8 will actually be passed (due to the belief that most black voters are against gay marriage).
So it is puzzling that they didn’t add even one black person to the cast of the ad. While the number of blacks in the state has been decreasing, there are still enough African Americans in California to warrant the addition of one or two black people in this ad. I’m not saying that they had to go strictly by census percentages, but the omission will do more harm than good.
Since this ad seeks to portray gays/lesbians as “normal” people like everyone else… why are there NO BLACK gays/lesbians in the ad. Also, why are there no black people at all? Are black people not “normal”?
This ad makes me remember just why the Obama campaign felt the need to have Michelle give the speech she gave at the DNC. She could have delivered a speech with any other focus, but sadly, the one she gave was all about painting the picture of the Obama family being “normal” Americans “just like every one else”.
And I don’t see what “speaking perfect English” has to do with this ad or the comments that it wasn’t diverse enough. Do you mean that the ad contained no immigrants who have foreign accents, because the stereotype of black people being inarticulate is tired.
Yeah, I would have liked to see at least one African American in this video, but as Tina mentions, ‘no African Americans’ ≠ ‘no people of color’.
And I did like that there was a good mix of ages . . . one of the things that the gay marriage debate has really driven home is that there are plenty of gay people who are already in committed long-term relationships and who already have kids and grandkids.
It’s not about ‘should gay people be raising kids’, in other words, it’s about ‘should kids be able to have parents who are married’. Which, I mean, why on earth aren’t Conservatives behind that?
—Myca
To cuppachica:
LOL! I was asking if the ‘lack of accents’ = ‘lack of diversity.’ My answer is, No. Also, I agree with Myca’s statement of ‘no African Americans’ ≠ ‘no people of color’
I agree is it unfortunate to not have a black person represented, but I know for a fact that this production company used what little resources they had to contact their immediate community and these are the people who responded. People who have integrity, who love, who agreed with the message, AND was available on the one day they shot this in the few hours they had.
I know a black woman who is gay, but she lives in Texas. Another black woman who would have loved to participate in this, but she lives 2 hours away and could not commit. It is again, very unfortunate to have them missing, but this was the reality of this production.
I say, if this is really a large issue, go fund a production company and film more! We can always use more media. Spread the love!!
Remember the love and remember the message of this PSA. No on Prop 8. All should be able to marry. Go rally. Encourage the effort. Go to noonprop8.com
Pingback: Screaming Lemur: Femme-inism and Other Things
Don’t be picky. I’m a homophobic, racist, atheist and found the ad touching anyway. I think it is effective.
Dave, I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not.
If you actually identify as a homophobe and racist, you should not be commenting in this thread.
My comment policy is: “Don’t comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.”
—Myca
Haven’t seen this one on TV yet (in the Los Angeles area), but I’ve seen both “Samuel and Julia” and “Wedding Day” no-on-8 ads during primetime network programming (yea!), as well as the new yes-on-8 ad (which is a lot less interesting, or even coherent, to my eye). But the truth is, I saw all of them while zipping through ads on the DVR–which makes me wonder if buying airtime is the most effective use of resources these days.
I’ve only seen the one where the bride trips on her veil and gets attacked by the flower girl. The latest barrage of pro-Prop. 8 ads appear this week, with the usual barrage of not being about tolerance but about being forced to accept something.
While the lack of African-Americans in the ad doesn’t equate the lack of people of color in it, it’s too bad that there aren’t any because there are Black gay men and women certainly in Southern California and the Bay Area as well as other areas. Men and women who also have the qualities you described below.
Maybe you should look outside the “immediate community” next time? I’m trying not to be critical but I’m just surprised.
Didn’t get the connection to “perfect English” either.
This message seems to be made by gays and progressives, and aimed at conservative straight people. I wonder if perhaps a message from conservative straight people, to conservative straight people might be in order. Something like, “I’m a conservative heterosexual Christian Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan. And I think that gay marriage is wrong. But I also believe in freedom, the separation of Church and State, and the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t think the government should have the power to regulate whom we can and can’t marry. And that’s why I’m voting ‘No’ on Proposition 8.”
The wording could be spiced up a little, and maybe somebody more familiar with right-wingers could word it in order to push a few more buttons. But perhaps conservatives could convince conservatives in a way that we lefties cannot.
There’s a Republicans Against 8 ad like that out there, actually.
Hilariously, Sarah Palin makes an appearance at the end.
Evan – I’d like to see that if you can dig up a link.
It MIGHT be on my blog. I’ll check.
The revisionist history is a little bit disconcerting, but hey, it plays to the audience.
The part where the names of the members of “Republicans Against 8” scrolled by and it was like 8 names was kind of funny, but good for them if this works.
—Myca
The counter-argument would be that this attitude has been par the course for liberals regarding gay issues, abortion, and sex ed. If what I hear is true, California liberals are going to win on this issue anyway. Might as well celebrate our positions for once, rather than apologizing for them.
Thanks, Evan!
It’s a great ad that celebrates the love between all sorts of people. However I don’t think it does enough to tie that concept with marriage. Proposition 8 is about marriage, not about banning homosexual love. While the ad might soften the views on homosexual relationships, it fails to make any argument as to why they should be considered for recognition in the “institution of marriage” as conservatives see it.
2 neat things:
1) I heard about an opposite-sex wedding ceremony recently where the spiel from the officiant began with a reading from Goodridge. “Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures
love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.”
2) Dan Savage is fundraising for No On 8 by promising to print the letters of the top contributors, and to write personal replies to everyone who donates at least $25.
“I don’t think the government should have the power to regulate whom we can and can’t marry” is a position for a libertarian who doesn’t think marriage should be a state institution at all. It’s not really a conservative/ Republican position.
I totally think government should have the power to regulate whom we can and can’t marry — I’m happy for it to bar the marriage of a father to his daughter, for example. I just think its regulations have to bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state concern (such as abusive relationships) and not be discriminatory (family relationships are of concern to the law; people’s race and gender are not supposed to be).
Desipis, the institution as it exists in America today (or even the day before the Mass. ruling) often includes people reading this at weddings.
Please let Richard Peterson, the Pepperdine law professor featured in the yes on prop 8 ads know what you think of his “lies”.
Richard.Peterson@pepperdine.edu
Pingback: Ten Post Round-Up: Big News in Digestible Bits : The Sirens Chronicles
Pingback: Ten Post Round-Up: Big News in Digestible Bits « The Dark Diva Diaries
this is a really good ad
http://queersunited.blogspot.com
OUTSTANDING!
I wanted to respond to Ross who wonders how those who don’t favor gay marriage will respond to the ad. I don’t favor gay marriage. I was neither offended or persuaded by it. However, as a student of the Bible, I realize that the passage has been misused. The passage quoted in the ad is 1 Corinthians 13, but just a few chapters earlier Paul is very clear about condemning homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9, check it out). So, it’s obvious that Paul’s intent was not, to persuade others to accept love in any form. As Meerkat suggests, it isn’t really even about romantic love, but “charity” which includes service and unselfishness in our actions toward all people. The acting was great, but people who know the Bible won’t be persuaded.
Except, Lyra, that your interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9 is shortsighted and, well, simply wrong.
The word “homosexual” didn’t appear in any translation until the 20th century, when it was inserted for what were basically political purposes.
The curious thing about that passage, which fundamentalists can never answer in any coherent way, is that Paul actually uses two separate words to supposedly condemn homosexuality. It’s part of a “vice list” which includes drunkards, slanderers, and others. Here’s the thing — neither Greek word was the culturally accepted term used to refer to a homosexual man, and such a word did exist. But Paul didn’t use it. Curious. In fact, one of the words used, malakoi, is merely translated “effeminate” in the King James. It would seem strange to include “effeminate” in a list of harmful, deadly sins, now wouldn’t it?
So what does malakoi mean? Literally, it means “soft.” It was a common word of the time. Jesus used it to refer to a man dressed in “soft raiment.” (Matthew 11:8) Applied to a person, it did generally mean “effeminate,” but as such was not applied solely or even primarily to same-sex sexual relationships. Anita at Grace Unfolding sums it up really well:
“In the ancient world being effeminate had a much broader definition than in our time and included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments! Effeminate is the best understanding of the word and in its cultural context was threatening to the whole structure of society by crossing the fragile line between man and woman in a world where to be male was to be superior and to be woman was to be intrinsically inferior. Clearly, the times have changed and the chances of a preacher condemning aftershave and silk boxers from the pulpit are slim to none.”
The other word, arsenokoitai, which lately is translated “homosexual offenders,” is an even stranger case, since Paul was literally the first recorded person to use it. The truth is that scholars really don’t know what it means. Certain translators have simply decided that it’s convenient to put “homosexual” in there, and they get away with it because no one really know what the word means. The best and most scholarly guess is that it had to do with men who pay for sex.
The most egregiously bigoted thing some translators have done is to morph the two Greek words together as if they were one, simply throwing out the Biblical intent and replacing it with “homosexual.”
Lyra, One of the cardinal rules of “taking the Bible literally” (as fundamentalists claim to do, but no one does) is that you must actually dive into the text and learn the cultural context of the words that are used. If one has any hope of actually applying the Biblical principles in a way that’s consistent, that makes sense, that passes the laugh test, one must do a little research beyond “Well, it sez it right there!”
This article is a MUST READ.
It’s about ten reasons why we should be for prop 8 and not support gay marriage.
Please let me know what you think. We need to have a good discussion about this.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
Sure. I’ll tell you what I think. Let’s have a good conversation.
I think that absolutely anything put out by the Family Research Council should be ignored by all thinking people, because they are liars and bigots who do not believe in equal rights for all Americans.
Since I do believe in equal rights for all Americans, I quite simply do not support their goals.
If they were more honest about their goals, their website would argue straightforwardly for them, perhaps with a large animated “We are bigots” banner across the top of the screen, or maybe ‘Vote Hate in ’08!’. In that case, I might at least have respect for them having the courage of their convictions. As it is, they argue bigotry, but they do so with bizarre and discredited pseudoscience.
All in all, it’s a link utterly deserving of ridicule written by people I would be ashamed to agree with on nearly any topic.
—Myca
Hear, hear.
I was going to say something approximately like that, but I’m focused on after-debate stuff.
Isn’t the Family Research Council a designated hate group, or are they just a hate group in training?
My favorite line is #10, about how “women and marriage domesticate men.”
Like men are cats.
ROFL.
Seth, are those the real reasons you’re against gay marriage? If all ten of those were shown to be false or irrelevant, would you change your mind and support gay marriage?
If the answer is “no”, then you don’t want a discussion, so please quit trying to waste our time.
Evan wrote:
Wait… We’re not?
Or is this some kind of chauvinist catism whereby since I can’t lick my own private parts then I must not be a “real” cat?
Jeez, Evan… you’re so insensitive.
Two guys walking through the park happen across a dog lying under a tree, licking his crotch.
The first guy looks at him a moment, sighs, and says, “Gosh, I wish I could do that.”
Second guy thinks a moment and says, “Well, you probably could, if you pet him a bit first.”
—Myca
Ross Writes: I think it’s a great ad, but I already favor gay marriage. I wonder how it plays with people who are indifferent or against it.
I am “against it”. It was a good ad, and I do love 1 Corinthians 13. When I here those words, I think of how I try my best to love everyone, whoever they are (of course, since I’m human I sometimes fail.) But just because I love someone, doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them or compromise what I feel is right.
I will be voting Yes on Prop 8.
What’s funny, Jared, is that you believe that your own personal religious beliefs give you the right to take others’ secular civil rights away.
Indeed, if you had a gay family member (and you probably do, whether you know it or not) and you voted yes on this amendment, you would be demonstrating with 100% accuracy that you love your preconceived notions more than you love them.
You guys, did you hear? Connecticut just legalized gay marriage!
http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/whoa-the-connecticut-supreme-court-legalized-gay-marriage/
Evan said:
And this is the issue I have with the Religious Right.
Legislating freedom for other people does NOT mean that freedom is being “inflicted” upon you.
If you don’t like homosexuals, there is nothing that says you have to affiliate with them or be one. You can lock yourselves away on “non-homo” communes and segregate yourself from the rest of the TOLERANT U.S. That’s the beauty of FREEDOM. You can be a bigot. You have that freedom. You have that right.
But you DON’T have the right to legislate discrimination. That’s antithetical to both the California Constitution AND the U.S. Constitution.
And this is the inherent logical flaw suffered by pro-8ers in general and their ads in specific. They claim that the 4 judges “disregarded the will of the people.”
But the will of the people means shit when it’s in violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the “higher” law that the Constitution (whether it is state of national) represents.
The judges didn’t “disregard the will of the people”. It’s just that the state constitution takes legal priority OVER the will of the people in order to keep them for doing this very thing. We do it this way to help keep the tyranny of the majority from destroying the rights and freedoms of the minority. The judges, UNLESS they were legislating from the bench (which we know that the “Right” hates), could not have ruled otherwise because that’s what our Rule of Law is based on.
And the Religious Right’s response has been: “Well, we would rather write hate, bigotry, and discrimination into the state constitution rather than just leave people the hell alone.” That’s not love. That’s an act that is antithetical to both the New Testament and anything Jesus himself actually said.
Thus, if you are FOR discrimination and hate and intolerance, you are, therefore, acting AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD.
Damned blasphemers.
Evan, it is not just my religious beliefs. I honestly think this is what is best for society as a whole, secularly. And that I feel I do have a governmental right to try to uphold.
The problem, Jared, is that none of the anti-gay marriage arguments are actually backed up by credible facts. The anti side has to lie to make their case, which is basically, “we don’t like it and our interpretation of our religion doesn’t like it.”
And I can’t imagine what hate or misunderstanding you must have in your soul to believe that denying human beings the right to have their secular marriages acknowledged is “best for society.”
Perhaps, you are misled into believing that if being gay is “discouraged” that there will be fewer gay people. If you believe that, I’m sorry, but you’re incorrect.
Jared,
But I believe that people like you shouldn’t get married either; that it’s best for society as a whole that you be discriminated against and not accepted as full functioning members of society. Should your rights also be subjected to the popular vote of people like me? Or are you only comfortable depriving people of rights when they’re faggots?
You’re probably comfortable with that because there aren’t a whole lot of people like me who think that bigots would do well to get a taste of their own medicine, so we’re not likely to win a majority vote. Or perhaps you’re Black or Jewish or something, and you simply haven’t made the connection yet.
Civil rights are for everybody. Even bigots.
Evan, of course I don’t think that “if being gay is “discouraged” that there will be fewer gay people.” However, protecting traditional marriage, in my view, is important for society. Whether it be this case, or unwarranted divorce, or other issues, society is better off with strong family units where good men and women together bring in their unique, essential differences. (That is backed up by facts). And I think it is important to society to promote that ideal.
But, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
Except that studies show that gay marriages create “strong family units” just like straight marriages.
Darn facts.
Unique, essential differences are not backed up by facts. But go ahead and try to prove they are. Seriously. With credible links.
So can single parents, or grandparents, etc. I am just trying to promote what I consider the ideal. That’s all.
Thanks for thinking it’s okay to promote your own “personal ideals” at the expense of my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Glad our lives aren’t worth enough to get in your way.
“Unique, essential differences are not backed up by facts.”
I need to know what “unique, essential” differences you’re talking about, besides different genitals, so that I can knock them down.
I have a disease which makes me possibly infertile. Therefore, my marriage (confirmed in June) may not produce children. We may not adopt, either. Thus, my husband and I will not be a strong family unit for raising children.
Should our marriage license be taken away?
“Should our marriage license be taken away?”
Yeah, I’m interested in hearing the answer to that one, too.
Mandolin, I’m sorry if that is what you gathered. That was not my intent.
I hope you guys realize Seth is a bot. He’s probably programmed to hunt down blog posts that include the words “Proposition 8” to drive hits to that BS article.
I’m not surprised that people who are in favor of discrimination are flocking in here in explicit disregard for the rider on who should comment at the end of the post, but today’s a great day to be heartened that their position is growing ever weaker: a third state legalized same-sex marriage today and that number’s just gonna keep going up.
Jared said:
The problem, Jared, is that, though it wasn’t your intent, it is exactly what you said. That marriage should only be allowed for “your ideal” of strong family units.
That means that, in your ideal, you also GET TO DECIDE FOR EVERYONE ELSE what is and is not ideal.
Do you think that people with emotional problems shouldn’t be able to get married? What about people who are just mean? What about liberals?
Should the mentally or physically challenged be able to get married?
In your ideal world, all of these things would not be allowed for reasons as EQUALLY SPECIOUS as sexual orientation.
So, your argument is not backed by any facts. Just bias. A bias that one can only assume is based more on religion than either law or science (since neither law nor science actually back your argument).
And using religious justifications for stripping people of their rights makes you no different than the other religious tyrants in the world. You know, the same ones that think it’s okay to beat a woman to death with rocks for going outside without her husband.
Fascinating discussion.
Mandolin, if you don’t mind my asking, why can’t you adopt?
Edited: Never mind, I suppose it was just for example.
Hey Jared, do you meet the moderation guidelines for this thread?
Just as a reminder, they are:
—Myca
Plus, there are now at least two other, current threads on this blog which don’t have that restriction that you could be commenting on instead.
Well, and hey, I don’t want to assume that he doesn’t necessarily meet the guidelines, just that if he believes he does, I’d like an explanation as to how he reconciles that with actively endorsing non-equality.
—Myca
The people in Cali have fucked up, big time. WTF kind of progressive agenda do you call this??? One taken from the books of Alabama!!
It is very sad what happened on Election Day. So many white people voted for Obama because he is the best candidate, and he will change this country. Many black people voted yes on prop 8. This is very hypocritical. How can black people vote to take away a minority groups’ rights? The irony of it all is startling. I think that minorities need to take a good look at themselves and start thinking about how they can advance our society. Live and let live!
I let the previous comment through so that people could respond to it — no on prop 8, your comment is a good example of racism. Many white people voted for Obama; many did not. Many white people voted *for* prop 8. Why are you blaming the black people? It is sad and shameful that members of a group which has experience discrimination, and marriage discrimination at that, is willing to take up the cause of bigotry. It’s sad and shameful that those members have blinded themselves to the historical parallels and to the cost in human pain. But it is shockingly racist to suggest that minorities don’t “look at themselves” or “think about how they can advance our society.” Obama, who you lauded earlier in your post, is looking at himself and thinking. Every liberal black voter who voted for him is thinking that too, and every liberal non-white person I know.
It’s good that you’re fighting homophobia, but your racism does not belong in the movement. I hope that you’ll look at yourself and start thinking about how you can advance our society and our movement to be without racism.
If it were the case that minority communities were significantly anti-gay in their votes for Prop 8, what would be an appropriate way to discuss those communities without being racist? How would it be possible to express anger about their behavior and internal inconsistencies in the same way that anger is appropriately being turned against other anti-gay communities or groups, without being racist?
Here, let me try:
If _____ as a group voted against gay rights, then I think that group on average did a shitty thing. they should be ashamed, they should question their devotion to liberalism, and they should acknowledge that they did real damage to civil rights. If ______ was a group which had a civil rights agenda, be it disenfranchised voters, family-law-focused MRAs, anti-Guantanamo activists, certain minority groups, elder law folks, or anything else, then ______ should be extra embarrassed and (in my mind) _____’s behavior was extra shitty.
How would it be possible to express anger about their behavior and internal inconsistencies in the same way that anger is appropriately being turned against other anti-gay communities or groups, without being racist?
There may not be a way to do it, because race isn’t a chosen trait. It’s one thing to be angry with certain religious groups or certan political groups; you do get to choose your politics and religion, and if you choose to be a Catholic Republican, you’re almost certainly going to be giving aid to anti-gay forces even if you are not personally anti-gay. This is not true for race.
Yes… but race has no genetic link to political views. If a black community has antigay views, it’s because they chose to do so, not because they are black. There’s no “my community leaders feel this way” exception; there’s no “other people of my skin color feel this way” exception. It’s a choice.
Genetic background is not culture: it is within each person’s power to reject the negative aspects of their culture, or not. There are negative aspects of many cultures, whether they defined by race, geography, religion, or what have you. That a particular culture is defined by race does not make it immune to attack by any means.
“That a particular culture is defined by race does not make it immune to attack by any means.”
So you want to attack not racially-black people, but culturally-black people? You’re including the “wiggers” in your anger?
I watched the presentation, the reading of 1st Cor 1 ch 13, the love chapter. I’m Christian so I guess that I was one of the targeted yes on 8rs. The word for love in 1st Cor 13 is translated as charity in the Kings James version. The word is Agape in the original Greed. It’s not talking about sex. Paul the apostle rote this chapter to a church he founded in Corinth, a city in Greece. He also rote a letter to Romans in the city of , you guessed it, Rome. In the first chapter of Romans, verse 26, this same Paul describes homosexuals and lesbians as doing something that is unnatural and degrading. He goes on to say that these men and women had exchanged the natural function of there bodies for that which is unnatural. But, and a big but, in the very next chapter, verse 1, He calls on everyone not to judge because we are really all just a bunch of hypocrites and judgment belongs to God only. In verse 4 Paul calls on us to not take lightly Gods kindness and tolerance. Please note that I don’t want to take away any ones rights and feel that I have been instructed by God not to hate. I live in California and I did cast my one vote. The Bible says to respect authority and so I will respect what ever decision the California Supreme Court decides on Prop 8. I have a feeling It’s going to be overturned sense they already ruled Prop 22 to be unconstitutional.