Who Really Helped Pass Prop 8? And Who Is Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage? UPDATEDX2

Excellent essay, RRRA.

I bade goodbye to the Dem..er..Obamacratic party on 5/31/08. I won’t be going back. They have proven themselves to be hypocritical, selectively indignant, divisive, corrupt, and–yes–autocratic. I hope the party loses in November and again in 2012. The demise of that POS organization cannot come too soon for me. RIP.

I am thrilled that this has happened!  Marriage ought to be defined as a partnership and commitment between two people that love each other, period.  Who you marry is your business, not the governments.  You can’t legislate love.

Thanks, Ferd.  And you said it abt the DNC!

When I heard this, I immediately thought of you RRRA. I’m happy this happened.

As I said on another site, most AA’s I know are against the gay lifestyle, BUT that does not preclude the men from being on the down-low and partaking in sex with other men on the sly.  Such hypocrisy, and they certainly fit in with obama and those of his ilk….lying, conniving, cheating sissies.  It is obama’s self-loathing that causes him to crusade against same-sex marriage.  For all we know, Michevil is a Michael in drag! 

“Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

“Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

Thanks, EllenD!  Sweet! 

Me too. I ran from DNC May 31, 2008 when they took those delegates from Hillary behind closed doors (Donna brazilian nut) I’ll never forget or forgive them for that.  Look what we got.  Our country is a mess

It’s ironic, isn’t it? Dems, including black voters, voted to ban gay marriage. The judge who ruled against the ban was a GW Bush appointee. Ted Olsen, conservative, made the winning argument. The Republican Governor of Ca. praised the ruling.

Me too on the same day.  I walked out via the TV with Harriet the waitress.

Harriet was in Denver, I went all the way and gave up the day of Hillary’s convention speech!

Harriet was in Denver; I went all the way and gave up the day of Hillary’s convention speech! Never to return..

After working with the parents of pre-schoolers up through high school and high school aged kids in legal custody, I agree.

The schools have been very adept at hiding the social engineering agendas in the guise of teaching kids to be tolerant and helpful.  The agenda has also been since about 1980 that no child should feel the pain of failure ie we’re all one…oh and blacks are especially special…they get their own month!

As I worked with parents, the ones that cared were very upset about the schools taking over their role and rights.  They still are.  The ones that really care are not overly enthused about having kids labeled as this that or the other and that somehow their differences and choices are more correct right now than say, poor ol’ Johnny the white straight kid.  

The pendulum will swing.  The kids whose parents are absolutely involved in their lives will find homeschooling more attractive.

I agree.  Parents need to take back their rights.  

~JustMe~ I wish you could write a post about what was going on in Denver ——–what it was like, from your perspective. I’d love to read that. It’s probably too painful for you to think about, still!

I blogged here along with some others Cindy! ~~NavyVet~~ and her husband comes to mind (may she RIP~~) They use to post diaries here at NQ. I met some amazing people….It was a eye opening journey in more ways than one……. right now, sadly there is too much water under the bridge for me to put anything into words! Guess moving on happens!!!!  

RRRA , I know that this is good news for you on a personal level.

BUT, I completely disagree with the process which produced it.

How many times will the people have to say they are against gay marriage and how will they have to say it before they are heard.

The fact that AA or Dems voted for prop 8 in this or that number is irrelevant. They voted, period. They expressed clearly an opinion, and for the matter, they expressed it across political and racial lines.

The fact and the matter is that today one person imposed her view over the voice of millions. And that is not right, no matter what the subject of the referendum is.

Just like Health care was voted by a biais legislature using every trick in the book they could, over the clear will of their constituency, the law legalizing gay marriage in California was clearly the reflection of minority imposing their will over the majority.

You may not like it on a personal level. You may think it is absolutely wrong on the issue, but the majority of Californians are not in agreement with you.

Today may be a victory for the Gay and Lesbian communities but it is another sad day for the Republic.

And please do not respond/attack me on the issue of gay marriage, this post is not about that. It could as well be written about the Missouri healthcare referendum if such were to be stricken out months from now by a pro-socialized medecine federal judge.

It is about the voice of the people, about the meaning of a referendum.

From over the pond
Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, overturned by judge

• US district court rules to lift Proposition 8 immediately
• Victory for civil rights advocates following 13-day hearing

Ellen:  While there “appears to be” (there were many inconclusive statements like this made about the data) most groups were sampled adequately to arrive at some of the report’s conclusions, I was struck by this statement concerning African-Americans and Pacific Islanders:

“Although the No on 8 campaign commissioned a remarkable amount of research, it did not oversample African-Americans or Asian-Pacific-Islanders throughout the campaign. As a result, we know little about changes in opinion among these groups of voters, because the comparative data available includes so few poll participants that the margin of error is larger than any trends in the results.
Among African-Americans, the data we have indicates little movement in the closing weeks of the campaign: initially, the ban led among this group by 9 points, and ended up ahead by 14 points, for a net gain of 5 points. The difficulty is that the initial benchmark poll in May 2008, which included the only oversample of African-American voters, found the ban ahead by 35 points, a very different result. Understanding African-American voters’ views better will have to await additional research. Appendix J, guideline 10 discusses the advantages and costs of obtaining that data consistently in a future campaign.”

There “seems to be” a bit of an inherent slant in the reporting of the data itself.  When I saw the use of the word “haters” within the report to describe those who “may” have voted based on their prejudicial bias, they lost me.  All of a sudden what had looked like an intelligent and dispassionate summary of their data took on a distinctive and not insignificant bias.

Just Me, I think now would be a good time to re-post what you wrote, especially in light of this recent decision by the RBC.  Are you game? 

Not for nothing, but from what I could tell, California has more Dems than Reps.  Their State legislature sure bears that out.  So, yeah, it goes without saying (I thought) that some Reps voted for Prop 8, but a whole bunch of Dems did, too. That’s the point. 

Cindy, you are too kind!  Thanks so much!

And yes, it is a good day, though you know this is going to the Appeals Court ASAP.  So, a measured, “YAY!” 

I might add, though, for your consideration, that this is a Civil Rights issue.  Yes, the will of the people of CA is clear – they do not want same sex marriage.  But that brings into question the tyranny of the majority over a minority, and how is that rectified?  In the same way Biracial marriage was once illegal in many states, and subsequently overturned, same sex marriage may also be overturned to protect the rights of a few over the will of the many (remembert that marriage in this country conveys a tremendous number of rights not available to same sex couples).

Bottom line, one way to look at the whole issue is this: the judge is not taking away people’s votes, but saying the measure on which people voted was unConstitutional from the get-go. 

Gay ?  And now that is biased?  And when a straight judge makes a ruling in favor of straights…is that biased too?

When I was growing up, the neighbors would keep an eye on each others children. If you were playing near a neighbor’s home and got hurt, scraped knee or something, you went to their house and got tended to, same if that neighbor’s kid got hurt at or near your house. If a parent saw someone else’s child doing something unsafe, such as playing in the street, they dealt with it, got the kid to a safe place and lectured them on playing in safe places. If your mother wasn’t home when you got home from school, you went to the neighbor’s house until she got home, had your after-school snack, and then went out to play with an adult knowing where you were and what you were doing. All adults in the community felt responsible for the well-being of all the children, even ones that were not theirs. That sort of community is what Hillary was talking about when she said “it takes a village”, not Big Brother. She was talking about neighbors being neighbors and friends. These days people don’t bother with that sort of thing, they are too isolated from each other, even when they live next door. America and her children would be much better off if we did behave as if it took a village.

What you said, MrMike!

I do understand how this feels to the people who voted for it.  I do get that, and how on the face of it, the comparison can be made abt votes being subjugated. 

But, the amendment itself is unConstitutional in that it seeks to provide more rights to a majority of citizens while not allowing the same rights for a minority of citizens.  That is unacceptable. And it is to that point the judge ruled (and the Proposition could not be ruled upon until after the vote, if I understand it correctly). 

Mind you, CA is not the only state that has had such a vote.  My own state, SC, had a similar ballot a couple of years ago, too, and the populace here overwhelmingly voted to keep same sex people from legal marriage.  MOST states have this law, but that doesn’t make it right.  I guess CA is more in the forefront because they have been more vocal abt it.

Rev. Amy— A measured “Yay” indeed….But, at least it is still part of the American conversation. Compare that to the ERA.
(the what???? )  

p.s. I probably told you that hubby and I were privileged to take part in a gay marriage ceremony at our former church in Austin. It was a very sweet service. The couple dearly love each other, and we were/are so happy for them.

Exactly, Fla.  To take the phrase “It takes a village” and twist it into a call for social engineering is ridiculous and specious.  It’s the idea of communities, neighborhoods caring for one another or caring enough to do exactly as you stated–intervening if a child was being bullied, taking care of another’s child if that child was injured, recognizing that all our children–mine and yours and the neighbor’s down the street are important to all of us as a community, as a nation.

This is just another fine example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  Give it a rest!

I will go check it – and for anyone wondering, it was to Candymarl that I said great examples!!!

FED UP – you are exactly right.  When Donnie Brazile claimed that gay rights were NOT a Civil Rights issue during the 2008 election, many of us were shocked and appalled.  Of COURSE it is a civil rights issue.  When a segment of the population does not have access to the same rights and benefits as the majority, hell to the yes, it is a civil rights issue.  You said it perfectly.  Thank you!

I’ll give it a shot Rev Amy. Thanks for trying.

It wasn’t just bi-racial marriage Rev Amy. At one time it was illegal for AA’s to learn to read and write.  That was a majority view in some states.

It was a majority view in some states that lynching was no big deal.  It was also the majority view in some states that segregation should not only remain legal  but that it was morally right.

It was also the majority view in some states that AA’s and other people of color should not have the right to vote.

These are examples of why we are supposed to be a Republic and not a Democracy.  The view of the majority is not always right or humane.

Well said (again), CandyMarl! 

I have said this before, but I’ll keep saying it – y’all are such great people.  I love that we can have these kinds of covnersations without it dissolving into ad hominems.  The level of respect shown here just warms my heart.  Way to go, friends!

So much good cconversation. May I take it in another direction for a moment?
Re the “Super” delegates. I am not surprised at the DNC keeping the mechanics that allowed the minority to override the majority. Without the back stabbing supers- who in many cases clearly voted in oppostion to the people of their respective states (Kennedy and Kerry come immediately to mind), the fraud currently in residence would never have won. And the wya the polls stand today, if he chooses to attempt to run again, he is going to need those “supers” again.

Brazille actually said that?!!!!  My opinion of her is even lower than I thought possible!

Just the facts.

read….personal responsibility in paragraph 2.

The majority does not get to vote on civil rights.  Sorry, but if 51% of the people viote to enslave the other 49%, no they don’t get to do that.  That’s the whole purpose behind the Bill of Rights, dude.  Even James Madison said that it protects us from our own encroachments against ourselves, that the “tyranny of the majority,” as he himself called it, could not remove certain rights that were so fundamental that NO GOVERNMENT COULD TAKE THEM AWAY.

This ruling states that marriage is one of those rights.

It amazes me how people who enshrine Uhmurka and their deep love of it fail to comprehend our most basic documents.  NO THE MAJORITY DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO BECOME TYRRANICAL ANY MORE THAN ANY OTHER RULING CLASS.  Read the Federalist Papers and keep your eyes open this time.

Janis: Rather cynical and flippant to the issue.  But, hey, don’t let anger stand in the way of knowledge and understanding or any thing like that.

Your behavior preceeded your brain.

but you are the one that said “Yes, people have an invested desire to protect their children from the less than desirable behavior of gays.”

do only gay men exhibit less than desirable behavior…. i think not.

Game?? LOL
18 million Hillary supporters would have made a huge impact in Denver but of course many had already switched to “O” we all saw how that played out. There weren’t that many PUMA’s due to financial constraints and work commitments who made it to Denver! And we certainly had no organized mass protests/gatherings like we see with the “Tea Party” Those who made it continued to try getting their voices heard…….   Puma was laughed at when representatives did appear on TV and it was no different in Denver it was a continuous struggle! As I said above I have moved on. Times and circumstances have changed!  

In today’s narrative it is difficult to about the downside of gay behavior. Gays are not immune to committing crimes. Period.

Look at your comment.  You are not able to extrapolate beyond the popular narrative that gays are downtrodden and therefore they must be immune from responsibility of their own behavior, if indeed they fall within the percentage that do perpetrate crimes.  

I read after prop 8 passed, that the Latinos (mostly Ds), who voted for Obama, were the ones responsible for the tilt.  This is the first time I’ve read that white young Ds tilted the scale.  That’s surprising because, as a rule, (not all), young voters are more accepting of gays.

In CA the voter block of Latinos is larger than the voting block of both blacks and gays.  

Oh, yes – do you remember the whole deal abt including GLBT people in the Civil Rights part of the DNC for the Convention?  Sorry – that’s convoluted.  Here’s one link abt it, and here’s another. To be clear, as I understand it, she made those comments in terms of representation to the Convention and GLBT people, but claimed it was “an affront to the civil rights movement.”  I guess that says it all.

No. and I personally don’t believe that gays should be banned from marriage.  But, let’s admit that all specific populations have criminal elements.  To ignore that is undesirable and old-fashioned.

The second point is that it ISN’T the Archie Bunker mentality that keeps non-gays from supporting gays and their civil right to marriage. It’s the behavior that some gays choose to embrace.

Also, throw in the religious aspect that teaches marriage is between an man and a woman, and you have a sizable chunk of people who don’t believe in the right of gays to have same-sex marriages.

I’m not sure that legislating the issue away will work in either direction.  Belief systems are hard to break down.  I’m not taking a side with either camp. But I will stand up when a group is given a pass or excuse because of their exclusivity. 

To wipe away bad behavior because of gayness is also misleading.

What is wrong with this country?!

We’re basically aligned with all of the major dictatorships in the Third World when it comes to civil rights for gay people–whether it’s marriage or serving in the military!

We are pathetic. Thomas Jefferson would even move back to France! 

As a sidenote along the same line of argument:  Do you agree with what the media and the killer’s family are doing in response to his killing 8 people in the beer warehouse?

Is it acceptable to say that racism against him because he was black was the cause of the murders rather than the man himself pre-meditating and carrying out the murders?

Is society supposed to forgive and give this man a pass because he’s black?  In turn, if he were gay (which he was not), is society expected to shove it under the rug as a downtrodden gay who didn’t have the right to marry.  Or do his actions transcend his uniqueness?

i think this is a VERY good point, French Nail, and thank you for making it, because I have always argued that is what we should do. Then everyone is free to have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS protected under a legal civil ceremony, and religious organizations/churches can opt to perform or not perform marriage ceremonies should they so choose. 

Absolutely.  But, in a hypothetical scenario, you would have to have only voters who do not embrace the religious tenant that marriage is between a man and a woman to vote on the issue of gay marriage to eliminate the religious bias.

It’s the voter’s belief system that will speak loudest in the voting booth. Some are beyond the man/woman qualifier – many, many are not.

Then, are the civil rights of the religious voters being violated because they cannot have their vote counted?  Are their votes and voices being ignored by a judge ruling against the 7,000,000 voters (religious or not) for Prop 8?

There’s the rub.

I agree that the panacea would be to separate civil marriage standing from religious marriage standing…but what are the odds of that being completely embraced.?

Yeah.  And as soon as we can get Obama and the Obamacrats out and get the ______ in office then everything is going to be great!  Please, someone fill in the blank!   

The point was:  Why the completely skewed view of men?

Here’s a fun website…

The stats on men and abuse is interesting

http://borngay.procon.org/

Interesting findings and statistics

Provided above.

That’s really the crux of the matter: that denying civil rights to one group really threatens the civil rights of all groups and on its face, continued denial is perverse and unAmerican. 

Something I realized when I looked at the breakdown in the numbers on Prop 8 was the fact that the late “shift” on the original vote were people with children under 18.  To me that suggests there is a still an element of fear out there.  And it’s easy to take advantage of people’s fear, particularly when kids are involved.  I don’t live in California, but if the opposition’s ads tapped into those doubts then those swings make more sense. Of course, there’s also the possibility that people lied in the early surveys and canvasses, rather than admitting they had doubts or misgivings.

In any case, I’m glad the ruling went the way it did.  It’s time.  In fact, it’s overdue.  As for the opposition?  Lagging attitudes will catch up as they have with every landmark, civil rights case. 

And then?  We’ll get to fight about something else.

Thanks Peggy Sue.  The fear is very real for parents when it comes to exposure to the gay lifestyle and premises.

However, is it unAmerican to want to protect your child from the truly criminal elements?

That is, given that a consensus has been reached that gays do have the ability to commit crimes…

It is a civil rights issue…however I don’t know if the narrative about protecting children from harm has been addressed by the gay community to satisfy the majority of center right, religious, and traditional voters into believing that no ill effects will come from allowing gays their rights.

Joining the truly great discussions above, I’ll posit my $0.02 on the issue of gay marriage. I have thought about this for a long time, having an older brother who is gay. He is now in his 70s and has never had all the benefits that I enjoy (and often take for granted). It all comes down to this: How can two people who love each other and also happen to be of the same sex be denied the same rights as those enjoyed by every other American? What harm comes to me if gays are allowed to marry? Whose business is it besides the those who would like to marry but can’t because of preconceived ideas as to what constitutes a “proper” marriage? I agree with candymarl on this issue. Equal protection under the law isn’t just a slogan; rather, it is the undelying foundation of our Representative Republic. To those who don’t like gay marriage, there is a very simple answer: Don’t marry one.

No, of course, it’s not unAmerican to want to protect our children.  But we cannot deny the civil rights that all other Americans enjoy and are endowed with to a single group of Americans because of our fear.  Are there gay criminals?  Of course.  But there are a lot of straight criminals, too. In fact, far more straight criminals because heterosexuals are the clear majority.

It will take time for some people to let go of those misgivings. But we need to start.  Because it’s the right thing to do.  And reading between the lines, I think you realize that yourself.  We cannot deny civil rights if we wish to call ourselves a ”free” country.  It might take some time, but we’ll get there.   

BTW – I don’t know a single person here who was for Prop 8 but I know tons who were against it but didn’t vote at all.

I should have made it clearer that the people I knew didn’t bother because they were sure it wouldn’t pass. And that’s all it takes for a minority opinion to squeak through and become “the will of the majority”.

Equal protection under the law isn’t just a slogan; rather, it is the unde[r]lying foundation of our Representative Republic.
************​**********************
Well stated Ferd–I heartedly concur.

Thanks, AC. Good to see your comment. I am still getting used to this laptop, so forgive my typos.

I just don’t understand the animosity I see everywhere concerning gay marriage. Can’t fathom it at all. The saying that “your rights end where my nose begins” also works in the other direction. I do fervently wish that everyone would remember that. What is the harm?

what is the gay community doing to assuage parents who believe that their children are a vulnerable group to gays? 
 
That’s probably a stumbling block that will be to be addressed.
=======================
It is a stumbling block, for sure. Preconceived ideas about groups of people are difficult if not impossible to change, particularly if these beliefs are central to one’s religion and/or upbringing. On the other hand, a person’s rights should not be limited simply because another person doesn’t think that person should have those rights. There are a great many things people do that I don’t particularly care for but I don’t make an issue of it because there are more than likely things I do that might offend the sensibilities of others. The phrase live and let live has to come into the discussion at some point. Frankly, I am more worried about the self-evident collapse in civility and common courtesy than I am about gay marriage. But that’s only my take on it. This has been an excellent discussion here.

You said it Ferd–there is no harm.  Fear, ignorance and insecurity are inexcusable when used to deny others what Thomas Jefferson (through ideas first promulgated by George Mason) termed “the pursuit of happiness” which in my opinion is the most noble goal this Republic should endeavor to protect of its citizenry.

The cabin boy, the cabin boy,
the dirty little nipper.
He filled his ass with broken glass,
and circumcised the skipper.

Sorry guys.
Sometimes I break into inappropriate flippancy and facetiousness (at least that’s what a High School teacher told me).

That is, given that a consensus has been reached that gays do have the ability to commit crimes…

Oh, heck, Buzz – I have the ability to commit crimes. Everyone has the ABILITY to commit crimes.

To those who don’t like gay marriage, there is a very simple answer: Don’t marry one.

Is this addressed to any particular wives of congressmen, Ferd?

I have a perspective that is one of being the daughter of a Gay Parent; I was raised to understand as much as I could about marriage, the history and how that very history is vastly different between many cultures. Commonly marriage was civil long before it became part of some religious practices, being of a practical and financial nature. Marriage also took place between all combinations of human beings in many cultures. IMHO this is a civil rights issue, as I do not believe I am seeing a change in any western religious doctrine regarding what “marriage” is. For sure I do not believe there is an expectation from the LGBT community to change church doctrine; my father long ago recognized that wasn’t sensible.
But to ask to be acknowleded as a legal coupleship in the contract of marriage does not poke at what religious ideology calls marriage, They really are two different things. I cannot fathom amnesty for anyone who would beat our system of becoming a citizen, yet in the same place where an honest gay couple cannot have the benefits of the contract of marriage.  Imagine being older, and being denied the company of your loved one in a retirement community, because you are in a gay coupleship. Yes there are a few gay retirement homes, but not easily seen outside of large metro gay areas. Hospitals still deny privledges to gay couples that are granted to straight couples. Adoption, or rearing straight children also comes into play. The happiest times of my childhood were spent with my gay father and his partner and friends(who are from all walks of life), not my sadly mentally ill mother. When my son was born we had two baptisms one in the gay community and one in the straight, he has many people who love him, without a concern as to their walk in this life. Simply in practical terms, if gay citizens are taxed like everyone else, they should be able to access all civil liberties, just like their fellow citizens.

Amen, AC. Without the pursuit of happiness, life and liberty become somewhat, but not entirely, meaningless.

Let them gays marry and the next thing you know dogs and cats will be living together.

Oh wait. I have two dogs and one cat. They live together and get along. Civilization as we know it is at an end!

It’s funny. In the name of religion millions have died, been tortured, and had their livelihoods destroyed.  When will we start to use beliefs for kind and benevolent purposes vs. pitting us one against another?

The fault is not in our stars but ourselves.

 When will we start to use beliefs for kind and benevolent purposes vs. pitting us one against another? 
===========================
Good question. Those things we have in common are much greater in number and import than those in which we differ. Humans seem to get all hung up on the external trappings and the fluff while ignoring the substance.

Janis, just so you know (I am assuming you are fairly new to NQ), most people here agree with you.  You don’t have to yell at us or anything.  We’re on the same side, like abt the tyranny of the majority, sexual orientation not determining who is a pedophile, etc.  Just saying!  

Amen, Brother Ferd – you said it.

Right to marry  does not equal murder premeditated or otherwise.. I have never read or heard anything that equates the two. Marriage = death? Well us straights better knock off the marriage thing and remain single.

Love. marriage, or death?  How can a person decide?

Thank you so much for your understanding and analysis, Katmoon.

You’ve captured the intent succinctly.  

Buzz, It is so hard to put these realities into words, but I think the effort on this particular article tonight was outstanding, and thank you for your courage. It’s funny I always hated being thought different of because I have a gay father, I just wanted people to understand he really wasn’t special or different because he was Gay; he only was special to me just like most kids who love their Dads, because he was my Dad.

PS.  I’m with you.  The lack of civility from all sides is really to the detriment of all.  

Being called racist a zillion times in the last two years is a prime example of a group behaving badly towards others who do not share the same viewpoint.

Buzz, I thought of you when I came across this:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/05/our-take-the-surprising-religious-divides-on-proposition-8/

Another interesting surprising take.

BTW – I enjoy your comments.

I made a comment yesterday, see above, which lead BUZZ CRAKER to derail the issue.  This person is a complete moron and has his own agenda and short comings in his life view and for that matter “gays”.  I for one, you ass, as well as many of my friends do not and would never act in a manner to harm a child.  Sexual orientation does NOT dictate a criminal act towards a child.  My son does not fail into your anti-gay agenda.  Any criminal act upon a child, be it from a straight or gay should be dealt with the strongest arm of the law.  You do not suggest an open discussion to confront the crimes of “straight” men do to children just the dicussion of straights “fearing” their child will be harmed by a “gay” much quicker and more likely

Get a FREAKIN clue.  You are disgusting. 

My point, was and is a very simple one, please have an open mind, I was stating that our society has a belief and has been convinced of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  It’s okay to be “gay”, but stay where you belong, and don’t ruffle any of “our” feathers and we’ll be just fine.  Reminds me of a time in our history, “woman ought to be in the kitchen and not have any rights other than what the husbands tell her”, just be the “good little wife”.

Well, Buzz you certainly took the conversation to a whole new level.  To get into a debate of whether gays commit “the” crimes or not and the fear that gays will teach or worse sexually abuse your children at school is completely off the mark.  You changed the talking points to drive more fear into society and twist our cause to have equal protection and rights.

I read all your comments, and getting back to my original post, I reread yours and inserted the word “blacks” and you sound no better then a seggregationist defending the KKK.  If people like you won the argument, blacks would still be slaves, woman would not be allowed to go out without the permission of the man and certainly no vote, Jews would still be in the Ghetto, and gays would be shot on sight and a Black man would certainly not be President.

I thank god people like you will be replaced by the next generation of a more kinder, open-minded and accepting of differences that makes up the world society.

Gee…what a surprise….you read one line and left out the rest.  You are not discussing the downsides of the issue, you stated something obsurd that only feeds into the road blocks, you probably cut and paste your comments at 50 other sites spreading your ill.

“Moron” was the only word that came to mind that would be more fair to use then a FUCKING IDIOT.

Fed-Up:

Asking Buzz Latte to engage in a civil discussion regarding anything–particularly LGBT rights–is about as promising as hoping Sarah Palin can make it through a dictionary without suffering a seizure.  Aint’ gonna happen.