[Me:] "Do you think it is possible to overthrow religions, or no?"

Possible, but not likely in the near future. We would need thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands, to alter the evolutionary advantage religion seems to enjoy. This is not a change you can expect in our era. Assuming, of course, that secular humanism can prove itself more useful in the struggle for survival.

(Emphasis mine.) I have to wonder, exactly what would alter the evolutionary advantage of religion? Need the qualitative change be biological and psychological, or could it be sociological on a much smaller time scale?

Unlike in humanity's history prior to modern times, we are more globally connected than ever nowadays. In prior ages, when a religion died out a new one might eventually take its place because there was a vacuum and there was still a starvation for superstition and theology. History repeated itself because societies couldn't learn from the past.

I have to wonder, though, if the information age of today could change all that. There seems to be a glimmer of hope in the real-world implications of the internet, and as it expands more, I think all we can do is expect more from it. For instance, there is Internet Infidels as well as Ebon Musings, plus a host of other smaller sites, that won't just fade away even if religion does. As another example, for Scientology, there is Operation Clambake and Project Chanology from "Anonymous".

Obviously this is optimistic speculation, but I think there is some small reason to suspect a paradigm shift that puts religion in its place where it won't be coming back so easily.

Maybe I'm making too much if this, but it seems to me that I am going to go into a booth and "decide" the intimate details of other people's lives. Just because I'm answering the question in the "just" way doesn't excuse the fact that I'm being asked AT ALL. Some questions shouldn't need asking.

Maybe it'll be clearer with an extreme example. Suppose the question put to voters was: Are black people 3/5 human or fully human? I would hope that the response would be unanimous (with the possible exception of some McCain rally attendees). But, wouldn't it be an affront to even think that something like that SHOULD be submitted for, and decided by, a vote?

I guess that's just the way we have to do things in this so-called civilization of ours.

Please forward this to the executive committee and Ron Prentice.

Mr. Prentice,

Today I ran across a copy of the letter your organization wrote to Jim Abbott, of the Abbot group. While I have never been sympathetic to your position, your organization, or your tactics, reading it was the first time I found myself literally shaking with anger. A naked attempt to influence the course of a ballot measure by blackmailing supporters of equality is beyond beyond the pale. Although my family is presently struggling, these despicable, un-American tactics on top of the despicable, un-American position of seeking to deny loving adult couples legal recognition of the families they form, and first-class citizen status, based merely on the gender of the adults involved, have motivated us to donate an additional $25 to the No on 8 campaign, on top of the $25 we already donated and the $35 we donated to the Human Rights Campaign. Our first donation was made in the honor of a friend of ours who is planning to marry her partner in the near future. The second donation was made in your honor.

We have no interest in being contacted by your organization, and will treat any sustained attempt at contacting, soliciting, or browbeating us as criminal harrassment. I have omitted our address from this note because of the history of violence from supporters of legalized bigotry, and because your attempt to blackmail Jim Abbott and his business shows that no tactic is beneath you and your minions. Any attempt to ferret out our address or other information will be considered criminal stalking and will receive an appropriate response.

I intend to publish an open letter with any newspaper or site that will listen, when I have time to compose it, more thoroughly explicating my views on this matter.

Sincerely,

Alex Weaver

I'm going to print out a copy of the letter and show it to a few people who might be undecided but swayed by the awareness that the measure's opponents had stooped to those levels.

"Your ability to raise your children to believe in your religion is already under attack; the New Puritans are quite prepared to use force to take your children and propagandize them to believe the scientifically indefensible dogma that gay marriage is "just the same as" marriage"

"The New Puritans who are forcing this on us are dictators at heart, haters of democracy if it doesn't get the results they want. Isn't it ironic that most of them call themselves "Democrats" and call their opponents "fascists"? I guess "marriage" isn't the only word they've redefined."

More quotes of the same essay:

"But they will certainly try. Anyone who doesn't accept homosexual couplings as marriages will be called names and persecuted. Our children will be propagandized to accept "marriages" that we repudiate."

"If we take our children out of school to teach them at home, the state will declare home-schooling illegal -- there are movements already under way in several states to do exactly that"

"At that point, what can we do? I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence"

BEWARE OF MORMONS BEARING GIFTS! Vote *NO* on 8!

This is an attempt from the Mormon "Church" to gain credibility among evangelicals. Don't be fooled. A simple google search on mormon evangelical relations will reveal a lot about their plan.

You'd tell your kids "Don't accept candy from strangers." Set a good example by not doing it yourself.

(See the War on Savings)

Why should homosexuals get the first crack at 'equal' rights?

This has nothing to do with your "Christian" viewpoint and everything to do with a complete internal misrepresentation of what's going on around you.

You're telling a person of color (in your best Bill Lumbergh voice): "So we should think about all the people in wheelchairs. So I'm gonna need you to just go ahead and keep using the 'Coloreds' entrance until we figure out whether or not we should build a wheelchair ramp out front. So if you could just go ahead and do that, that would be greaaaat! Mmkay?"

Yeah yeah, the civil rights movement was a fight for Human Rights[TM]. No one is arguing otherwise. But they got Human Rights[TM] by going after Black Human Rights[TM], because that was the problem that needed solving at the time and that's how social change works.

If there is a nationwide movement of elderly people who want an alternative "friendship union arrangement", where are they? Let them come forward, state their case and be heard. But gays and lesbians are fighting for their rights right fucking now! They get "third or fourth or fifth crack" (not first, or even second)at human rights because they're identifiable, they've been organized for almost 3 decades, they're demanding them and they are under threat right fucking now!

If there ever is a "friendship union" it will come about partly because the ground has been prepared by the eventual success of same-sex marriage recognition. It will stand on the shoulders of gay rights, which stands on the shoulders of the opposition to anti-miscegenation laws, which stands on the shoulders of the womens' rights, which stands on the shoulders of... How else do you think the Zeitgeist shifts?

Since it's that important to you, start the damn movement yourself. Become a "friendship unionist". Do the spade work. Fight the fight for your cause. And when you get up to the door, realize that it's wedged open just a little bit more because the "same-sex unionists" got there before you. Try to remember to say "thanks" on your way through. They not only made it easier for you, they might just have made it possible.

And yet there are those who will resent my logic because that is the demographic I represent.

Cut the crap.

So what if I sponsored the rights of the elderly who live together in 'friendship unions' and did not at all support your cause of homosexual marriages.

I would have no objection to this. In fact, I would support it. I suggest, however, that if your attempt to create "friendship unions" included an attempt to remove the legal status of marriage that it would fail miserably.

Why should homosexuals get the first crack at 'equal' rights?

Because, right now, we have a type of civil union that exists for two people of the opposite sex who wish to enter into a lifelong sexual and emotional relationship. It's called "marriage." Extending it to two people of the same sex simply recognizes that people of the same sex can also wish to enter into lifelong sexual and emotional relationships. This is a much smaller change to our laws than the eradication of marriage and its replacement with civil unions. I do not oppose "friendship unions" at all; in my ideal world there would be several types of civil unions, one of which would be lifelong marriage.