That sounds like a great idea! I think that it is funny that Obama wants to raise the rates for over $250,000 of profit; that is such a small amount of money.

I think that the real issue Obama has with the current tax system, though, is that companies are not paying the 36% or 38% that they should. Obama is mad at all of the tax breaks that businesses get from deductible expenses or situations that allow them to keep more money than he thinks they should. He is such an idiot. They all are.

When I hear about taxes being raised, the first thought that comes to mind is, why? It is obviously the easiest way to increase revenues for the government, but when they raise taxes, it increases (in my opinion) the transactions in the black market. If you can get paid in cash, and you know that 50% of that will never be seen again, you are not going to claim that for taxes. SO does the hike in percentage really increase revenues? The amount that is claimed to have been lost already in unpaid taxes is astounding, and by increasing taxes, all one is really doing is increasing the black market.

I don’t have any numbers to back up these assumptions, it is just a theory. I have heard of money lost in unpaid taxes, and it is always in the billions. It appears to me that there is a better way to increase revenues, but that takes a lot of work, and it may or may not be worth it. But there is also another question that must be asked, why do we need to increase taxes/ government revenue at all? Is the government using all of the funds that it has efficiently?

So, in my opinion, there is a problem with the philosophy of need more money so we’ll tax higher rates. I am just not sure that is attacking the problem. I also have an issue with, punish the rich because they are a smaller percentage, therefore a smaller voting pool, than others that are not so rich. Oh well, I guess everybody already knows this and nothing is being done nor can be done. Too much is at stake for these politicians.

I have never understood how people who believe themselves to be Christians can believe that that type of behavior is appropriate.

For any sort of identity, there will be people who wear that costume whether it fits them or not, and will make no real attempt to fill it out. What’s important that we don’t be confused that anyone who waves a banner speaks for everyone who lives under that banner. The man clearly does not represent all Christians (“true” Christians or not, however one might define that), any more than one quote from one homosexual explains the “homosexual agenda”. (A friend of mine has a line I like to steal about this: “It’s like the guy who thinks that all Indians walk single-file because the one he saw did.”)

How anyone can read that book and think that verbally abusing anyone, regardless of how you feel about their beliefs or actions, is appropriate is completely beyond me.

But it is in the nature of a rich work that people can bring different things from it. I could certainly understand someone feeling that it was not through quiet charm that Jesus got the money changers to leave the temple.

Do you think that it made them rethink their position on Prop 8 for a moment?

Of course not, and that’s something that both sides face on a topic that hits hard emotionally. I have a very sweet friend who is very envious of her daughter’s ability to maintain calm in discussions with Yes-on-8 folks; for all her own sweetness, it is a control she lacks.

There is room for compromise on this issue. Sonja Brown, a representative from the Protect Marriage campaign was on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week and said, “We are willing to accommodate gay couples in every legal right they desire up to the point of redefining the meaning of the word marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

• Of course that’s what she’ll say now. At this point, they’ve energized their base, and in this close battle, what they’re really fighting for is a small portion of middle-of-the-road not-definitely-decided, so making your request seem mild is what is called for.
• What your describing as a compromise is, in the matter of 8, this yes-on-8 group winning the current battle and getting the changes they want.
• There is plenty of reason to believe that this not an accurate representation of her group. For one thing, it doesn’t at all reflect the arguments that her group has been using for prop 8, much of which have actually nothing to do with prop 8 and will not be altered by its passage. All of the legal situations from other states that show how gay marriage impinges on religious freedom? The only one of them that actually had to do with gay marriage was the Catholic Charities case… and prop 8 would not make a difference on that in California, as we have the Unruh Act against discrimination on the basis of both orientation and marital status. I don’t know if you actually remember the prop 22 campaign. There were radio ads making a claim very much like the one you were quoting, that it was only about marriage, specifically marriage. And then, after its passage, some of its backers were using it to argue against “marriage-like” arrangements.

We feel that we are being told, “Either you accept our demands that gay unions be called marriage or you are a bigot.” It is like a gun is being held to our heads with someone saying, “Agree with us or else.”

I would hardly equate holding a gun to your head with someone feeling you’re a bigot. Folks have a right to form an opinion about you based on your actions. The right to have an opinion is the most fundamental of rights.

http://www.article6blog.com/2008/10/29/proposition-8-and-californias-schoolchildren-a-primer-on-falsehoods/

I am currently teaching an early morning religious course to high school seniors. We are studying the New Testament. How anyone can read that book and think that verbally abusing anyone, regardless of how you feel about their beliefs or actions, is appropriate is completely beyond me.

Does that mean that we should not oppose things that we believe would be damaging to society or to our children? No. But it does mean that we need to do it in a way that does not seek to berate, demean or intimidate individuals.

What people don’t realize is not only does this make sense from a “how a Christian should act” standpoint but also from a simply pragmatic point of view. I have spoken to many of my friends in California who have been supporting Prop 8 by going out and holding up signs and such. They are not like what was described in your story above and would never verbally abuse anyone no matter how much they might disagree with them. But, like the atheist family who sent in the post, they have received a lot of vulgar and vicious attacks as they have stood on street corners holding up their signs.

Do you think that it made them rethink their position on Prop 8 for a moment? Do you think that so-called Christians yelling obscenities at anti-Prop-8 demonstrators brought any votes over to support Prop 8? No. All it does is further entrench people on both sides of the issue and makes compromise and rational discussion all but impossible. If the anti-Prop 8 person thinks that I must be a bigot simply because I support Prop 8 and I, as a Prop 8 supporter think that anyone who opposes Prop 8 is an amoral, evil being then it will be quite impossible to have any sort of discussion.

There is room for compromise on this issue. Sonja Brown, a representative from the Protect Marriage campaign was on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week and said, “We are willing to accommodate gay couples in every legal right they desire up to the point of redefining the meaning of the word marriage as being between one man and one woman.” (That quote may not be exactly correct, but that is the general gist of what she said.)

Would all supporters of Prop 8 agree with that statement? Probably not. But I believe the vast majority would. I guess what many of my friends and myself feel is that the other side is not interested in any sort of compromise. They don’t seem interested in finding a way to protect the rights gay couples while at the same time maintaining the definition of marriage that has prevailed for hundreds of years. We feel that we are being told, “Either you accept our demands that gay unions be called marriage or you are a bigot.” It is like a gun is being held to our heads with someone saying, “Agree with us or else.”

To say that it is impossible to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples without defining both unions with the same term is like saying that we must call a Woman a Man for her to have the same legal rights as her male counterpart. It simply isn’t true. Middle ground can be found in this debate if the debate really is about the legal rights of gay couples.

Are they cussing, screaming and running in front of your car or just sign-waving? I’m all for the later. I have issues with the former.

Just to show there is screamin’ and cussin’, as well as other forms of impoliteness, on both sides, here’s a story from the next town over: http://friendlyatheist.com/5368/a-personal-story-about-proposition-8/

(And just to give context, this is a very red-leaning area in a predominantly blue state.)

“Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,

Doesn’t seem to apply.

1. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,

Doesn’t seem to apply.

1. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,

Nothing new is being released so this doesn’t seem to apply.

1. To expose any secret affecting him or them.”

No secrets here.

In referring to blackmail the site says:

Blackmail is extortion by threatening another person’s reputation or organization with the disclosure of harmful or secret information that would be damaging to that person if released.

But since the information has been released this is nothing new. This is why I hoped to read some legal opinions on the letter.

We changed marriage in this state about half a century back to allow whites to marry other races… and yet marrying your own race is still here not just as an option, but as the most exercised one.

I don’t think this strengthens your case at all. Race does not change anything in relation to nature’s design. You still have the male and female qualities as well as the ability to procreate. I’ve already talked about this from a sociological as well as a religious perspective in a previous comment.

You mean from the people who are already spreading negative publicity about them?

This got news media coverage. Their techniques are being seen – as is the fact that their spokesperson first tried to put it off as a hoax, before verifying it.

Of course it acts against it.

We changed marriage in this state about half a century back to allow whites to marry other races… and yet marrying your own race is still here not just as an option, but as the most exercised one. And that’s with a real opening of options. I doubt that at this point, there are many gay folks who want to be in gay relationships, but are choosing straight ones instead because of the marriage opportunities. (I also doubt that we want that to be the case, if we want stable marriages.)

Information used for blackmail in California does not need to be secret.

I haven’t been able to find any legal analysis on this written by someone with any law training in California so I can’t really comment further. If you can point me to some I will take a look.

Has it done anything for them except garner negative publicity?

You mean from the people who are already spreading negative publicity about them? The same people who refer to them as bigots and haters? I’m not sure that adding “blackmailers” to the list hurts them much at all unless they lose in a lawsuit. I don’t know if it has helped them financially or otherwise.

Supporting proposition 8 neither argues against traditional marriage nor acts against it.

Of course it acts against it. You don’t have to act directly on something to act against it. Shifting to a new paradigm of marriage has an effect on the generation that grows up with that paradigm. Changing laws affects how court cases are handled. If Prop 8 doesn’t pass or the courts make another ruling that somehow negates the constitutional change then at some point in the future we will be able to look back and see what those effects are. You think it will have a positive effect, I don’t but let’s not pretend that it will have no effect.

That you perceive some possibly harm to traditional marriage down the road does not make the description of what those people or groups are doing accurate.

If we are accurate in our assessment of what the future will bring then people are in fact acting in opposition to traditional marriage. Just because a person does not realize what they are doing doesn’t change what they are doing. Granted, acting in ignorance isn’t the same as acting with full knowledge.

Nat – it has to be damaging IF released. That the companies have provided significant amounts of money to a particular group is already released under California law. You can’t ignore the fact that we are dealing with information that is already public.

Information used for blackmail in California does not need to be secret.

Do you think the General Counsel for Yes on 8 would have signed the letter and that the letter would have been sent through the mail if they were attempting to blackmail?

I do not presume wisdom on the part of the ProtectMarriage folks. If they were wise, would they have sent the letter at all? Has it gained them any money? Has it done anything for them except garner negative publicity?

Supporting proposition 8 neither argues against traditional marriage nor acts against it. That you perceive some possibly harm to traditional marriage down the road does not make the description of what those people or groups are doing accurate.