Prop. 8 * This is flat-out wrong

But they are SUDDENLY LOSING MY SUPPORT WITH THIS SELECTIVE ATTACK METHOD.

Just like how the AA called us racists in the primaries. My cousin is the lead singer at Saddleback and has nothing but empathy for all peoples. For those militant jerks to target them just makes me angry and less likely to support liberal legislation.

On no! What will we do if Stephen Baldwin never gets to make another movie?

I understand the focus of this thread are extremists. But please indulge me as I make a more general point. Before I do that, I wanted to state I fully embrace sane and level headed activism from all points of view.

Larry has a great POV on this. Whatever people do in their bedrooms is their business, and if they want to get married, let ‘em. Nobody should worry about that stuff.

I’m with Larry. Let same gender couples suffer along side the suffering hetero couples!

Its a bit more complicated than that. This is a real eye opener, why its critical to allow full equality on the marriage issue:

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
-joint parenting;
-joint adoption;
-joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
-status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
-joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
-dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
-immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
-inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
-joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
-inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
-benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
-spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
-veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
-joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
-wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
-bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
-decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
-crime victims’ recovery benefits;
-loss of consortium tort benefits;
-domestic violence protection orders;
-judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
-and more….

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

It is also important for the health and well being of LGBT children that our society accepts same gender couples. These vulnerable kids face unique challenges and need responsible monogamous role models in society if we wish them to have a fair shake at a decent life. Its hypocritical for those who complain about promiscuity in LGBT people, when they fight allowing these kids to have proper role models by trying to stop same gender marriage.

I think i said that. Not in such a sophisticated way, with such a wonderfully thorough list, but I certainly agree.

But this selective attacking? Making a man lose his job? Attacking a wonderful restaurant in L.A. because some floor manager gave a $100 to Prop 8′s supporters? JESUS!

Then leaving all the black churches and mosques and blacks and Muslims alone?

But it’s okay to hammer the Mormons?

WTF???????

I agree with you that does leave one scratching their noggin. And it is reminiscent of the more disgusting Oborgbot campaign behavior of harassment, threats and stalking. UGH!

I was determined not to let myself get into this end of the discussion. I’m still nursing my wounds from the campaign and have blinders on a lot lately. But that did not hurt too bad.

When state and local governments issue marriage licenses they do so without regard to religion because RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MARIAGE LICENSE. RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIP. Like it or not, religious ceremonies come after the fact and have no bearing on the legal recognition of a relationship. Somewhere along the way everyody – gay people included – got lost on this issue. I believe that marriage is a fundamental civil right for every American citizen. The right to marry ought never pend the approval of a church or religion, a family member, an enemy, nor a friend. No one denies the state the right to issue marriage licenses – the sole purpose of those licenses being to recognize a relationship between two individuals, NOT to destroy Christianity or Islam, or some notion of the traditional family… why expend so much energy, waste so many resources so unnecesarily on something that is NOT a problem? What about education or hunger or SOMETHING solution oriented (meaning that it would address an ACTUAL problem)? WTF!

what the gay and leftie communites are doing is shooting themselves in the foot. people who are worried about just getting by have no patience to listen to their whining. that’s right whining. now reasoned debate, righteous outrage, and discussion is fine. i have no problem with “enough is enough”. none! i have a problem with bullies no matter what your sexual orientation. you have no excuse for acting the fool. people just won’t put up with it. bad choices being made.

obama’s campaign unleashed the crazies on the left just like it did on the right with the religeous fundies. i have no patience with either side.

Did any organized Muslim group spend millions of dollars in California to get Prop H8 passed?

The Mormon Church conducted a massive campaign that included lying to the public. They didn’t just target their own members. They targeted every voter.

They’re fair game. Blowback’s a bitch.

And why shouldn’t gays target businesses whose owners support stripping gays of civil rights? Who n Seems pretty fair to me.

Are you suggesting African-Americans shouldn’t have targeted segregated businesses in the 1950s-60s?

“When state and local governments issue marriage licenses they do so without regard to religion because RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MARIAGE LICENSE. RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIP. Like it or not, religious ceremonies come after the fact and have no bearing on the legal recognition of a relationship.”
*****
Good point..has any suit been filed based on due process and equal protection?

talk about blowback. want to play the bully? expect it. the shame of it is i support gay marriage i don’t support harrassment or bullies of any orientation.

Ooh, poor little helpless LDS church is being persecuted by the mighty gay juggernaut!

You have to wonder why God isn’t standing up for the Mormons…

Poisonitte…

I have really bad news for you..The American people from all walks of life are getting pissed off by the methods used by these gay Nazis

Your cause has not been helped…Just watch!

i hear you; i’m gay, and the pass that “progressives” give non-whites and muslims on their gay bashing (and woman bashing) is really embarrasing to true liberals. if there was a christian group here in america that treated non-whites the way non-whites treat gays and women, the obamacrats would be ready to start Civil War 2 over it.

i also agree that promiscuity (whether gay or straight) spreads diseases (and is tacky, IMHO, but i try not to judge), and a lot of gays (men in particular) tried to make criticising promiscuity off limits. i think that we could all benefit from people giving up their particular partisan orthodoxies and applying objectivity and equal standards to everybody.

the black churches did NOT campaign FOR proposition 8. You cannot control how an individual casts his/her vote, but to actively put out so much money to pass this thing like the Mormons and various evangelical and Catholic groups did is something else. What are we supposed to do, picket every person we think voted yes?

Great Movie. I saw it when it was first released. Very powerful. The irony, I lost my best friend to AIDS a few years later because her fiance received a bad blood transfusion during the time talked about during the movie.

whether they were organized or not, or spent any money or not really doesn’t matter; we all know where world islam stands on homosexuality: off with their heads. not saying mormons don’t deserve to be called on their hate; but so do muslims.

strawman. when the majority of blacks are against equal rights for gays, i’m damn sure going to call them out on their ignorance.

Gays have done it before — shoot themselves in the foot. That’s why I put up the info about the HBO movie. There were many radical gay groups who did NOT help with getting the HIV virus under control and helped it spread. It was really idiotic. THen there were the scientists who were so political, it was disgusting. It’s a hell of a story. And it’s all true, with some fictional characters tossed in to make it a compelling story.

[...] Prop. 8 * This is flat-out wrong : NO QUARTER The Clinton Wars +++ Sidney Blumenthal’s most recent, and smartly prescient, book: The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party · Amazon.com Widgets · Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton … [...]

The business OWNERS were not the ones who donated money — in the case of that restaurant. It was an employee!!!!

The policies and activism of the Mormon church are different than those of other religious institutions.

I’d suggest that if you’re really interested in using your voice against LGBT people who are fighting for their right to exist in our society that you’d do better to educate yourself better on the intricacies of the issue. There is alot going on beyond the soundbites available on Fox News.

ELTON JOHN SOLVES GAY MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY

One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution.

I’m so very sorry for your loss.

My best friend in high school died in the late 1980s. Oh god, I wish he were still alive so he could take advantage of all of today’s treatments! — I think about him nearly every day. What a special human being and what a devoted friend.

What sickens me is that I had NO idea he was so ill. Everyone hid it. His parents stuck him far away in some tiny, bad hospital in the hinterlands. When his other best friend from high school called me after his death, I said how sad it was he died of AIDS. The friend SCREAMED at me, “HE DID NOT DIE OF AIDS! HE DIED OF TUBERCULOSIS!!!!” Man oh man.

He is someone who would have adored Old Grumpy Guy’s music series. Sweet Smart Steve, I’ll never forget you.

Thank you for bringing this up. The Prop 8 opponents in LA have embarked on a calculated effort to harass, intimidate, threaten, boycott and blacklist individuals who simply gave money or otherwise supported Prop 8. It’s disgusting, and just as bad if not worse than the Obama thugs intimidation. I have already received a nasty e-mail at work telling me what a horrible person I am and how I basically don’t deserve to live since I voted for Prop 8. These people have gone nuts. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DEMOCRACY!!

Because he doesn’t have to.

say what??

Yes, the story is pretty powerful, I agree. Randy Shilts, who wrote the book the movie is based on (And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic.) was criticized for his stance against bathhouses. He wanted them closed to slow the spread of AIDS, some thought he was a “traitor.”

The book was amazingly well written and researched. It was really hard to convey in a movie, but HBO did a great job.

Sadly, Shilts died of AIDS in 1994.

Thanks No Quarter, Stephie was one of those lights that burned half as long because she burned twice as bright, just like your friend. She also died alone in a hospice because her family abandoned her. The world has seemed just a little less colourful ever since.

That’s an interesting statement, “Gays have done it before.”

Since you follow it up with “There were many radical gay groups who did NOT help getting the HIV virus under control and helped it spread.” I’m assuming that you’re referring to that time in latter part of the 20th Century when getting AIDS amounted to a death sentence and there were people watching friends and loved ones drop in huge numbers while the government and many people in our society stood by and did little or nothing to fund research.

I was in New York in the late eighties and I can tell you from first hand experience that the truth of losing friends and comforting survivors was far more “compelling” than anything ever written on the subject. And this was at a time when it was far more “under control” than it was a few short years before I moved to the big city.

Frankly, I’m shocked that someone who speaks with the voice of No Quarter sees fit to blame the victim of that horror…and, yes, it was a true horror to live through that.

That’s crap. Don’t you dare compare racism and segregation to gay marriage. Gay’s aren’t being told to go sit in certain places, go to certain schools, forced to sit at the back of the bus, etc. Marriage is in a sense of privilege, not a civil right (hence you get a marriage license).

Kathy,
i know exactly how you feel.

There is a certain restaurant close by that doesn’t give me the warmth it used to. Probably because it’s an extreme liberal granola spot that was in the tank for Obama. I think some of them must of overheard me talking about how I was for Hillary and then for McCain…I must be one of those evil bastards.

You think people weren’t saying the exact same thing about MLK 50 years ago?

This anti-Gay marriage movement will be seen in the exact same light as the anti-integration movement 30 years from now.

It’s no different.

Have your fun now. You’re on the wrong side of history, and you will lose this war.

“Our cause?”

No, it’s America’s cause. For freedom and equality for all.

Freaking bigot.

Gay Nazis indeed. How dare they go after people’s livelihood by trying to get them fired simplyo because they exercised their civil rights and voted!!!

I agree with Sir Elton John.

What’s in a name? A rose by any other name, yada… yada… yada.

That word marriage puts too many people off. I don’t think anyone can dictate to religious groups if they feel it goes against their scriptural beliefs.

There are enough independent churches and clergy who will perform spiritual ceremonies. And nowadays, many heterosexual couples write their own vows because the traditional ones seem antiquated to them or don’t cover the full scope of their feelings and spiritual commitment.

If all the benefits outlined above are granted under civil partnerships, then what’s the problem? I thought it was about rights.

I asked this question a couple of weeks ago and I ask it again in sincerity: if anyone can give me a historical reference, backed up factually, when any civilization or society in the past recognized homosexual marriages?

I really do not know the answer. If there was a time, then I say fight on! But if not, then go with the civil unions, at least for now, then wait for the anti-gay marriage crowd to be bred out.

And they will be.

Elton John chooses not to marry? Good for him! No one is forcing anyone into a gay marriage! When gay marriage is legal, the authorities don’t round up people and demand that they marry other people of the same sex.

That Elton John isn’t bothered by laws that treat gays as second class citizens is sad, but it’s as irrelevant as the fact that some African Americans supported laws against interracial marriage.

Yes, nothing like a little “separate but equal” to start your day.

This is not the same as Blacks getting their rights…Sorry buddy!!

In fact you are turning off the very people you need for the rights you already have.

Keep pushing the envelope!!

It’s scary. I can’t imagine or even conceive of digging up a list of donors who were against Prop 8 and then go after them at their jobs, tell their employers they’re “bigots” (ridiculous) and boycott/harass the business’s clients to get the person fired. It’s a person’s right to vote yes or no on an issue. I wouldn’t dream of going after people and try to ruin their lives.

You are a horrible person for voting for Prop 8.

How can you live with yourself?

Let me guess, you thought those black-only school were perfectly fine too.

How could you possibly sit here and try to defend yourself? You voted for an unconstitutional proposition which makes it possible for equality to exist in your state.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

How can you even sleep at night?

you dont look evil to me, seattle.

It’s your right but it doesn’t mean your not a bigot.

I fail to see any argument you could make to prove you DIDN’T vote against our constitution on November 4th.

This is a typical example of the ludicrous hair0-brained nonsense Prop 8 opponents are spreading around. I sleep very soundly thank you very much.

How? How is this any different? I really do not understand how you convince yourself that this is any different from saying that separate but equal was OK.

Your depriving an entire group of people from rights given to all other Americans simply because of their genetic makeup.

How is that any different?

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-11-24 23:41:19

Poisonitte…

I have really bad news for you..The American people from all walks of life are getting pissed off by the methods used by these gay Nazis

Your cause has not been helped…Just watch!

In light of the fact homosexuals amongst other groups were targeted for extermination in NAZI Germany I personally would never use the term “gay Nazis” even if a gay person was being militant and extreme.

Don’t bother Seattle. This is like reasoning with an Obot, an exercise in futility.

It’s a privilege enjoyed by all Americans other than those with a certain sexual orientation.

It’s a right. When’s the last time you heard of a State denying a couple the Privilege to marry for any reason other than their sexual orientation?

The segregationists like to rationalize too. Black children could NEVER learn if they had to go to school with other whites. It’s seperate, but EQUAL.

Keep blathering on. You’re on the wrong side of history, and if you really don’t know it in your heart now, you will soon enough.

Those uppity gays, demanding equal rights!

no gay-bashing here, please.

Well then there’s something wrong in your damn head.

This isn’t a complicated issue. It’s right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, love vs. hate.

Fear vs. Hope

If you haven’t figured it out yet, right/good/love/hope always wins in good time.

Enjoy it now while it’s still OK to be outwardly hateful towards Gays. Just because homosexuals are about 50 years behind blacks in getting their rights and acceptance doesn’t mean they won’t follow the same path.

And you’ll probably be too ashamed to actually tell anyone that you voted for Prop 8.

Gays have civil unions, they are not restricted from going to certain schools, places etc. because they’re gay. The comparison of gay marriage and racial segregation is ABSURD.

Randy…I’m just really sorry

I believe in civil unions for all partners not just gay people with the rights that married people enjoy.

However, Marriage is between a Man and Woman. Civilization itself depends on a strong culture of family.
Mankind has prospered all these centuries because of laws which protect life and the family.

Go ahead and call me a bigot..See how far that attitude gets you next time around.

Yea us who want equal rights for all are just stupid robots like those morons who just beat y’all in the election.

Whatever floats your boat lady….

How’s life on Mars?

Kathy,

It’s nice that you can sleep soundly. If you’re heterosexual you can even marry whomever you sleep beside, if you choose to sleep beside someone.

Now, could you explain why you feel a gay person shouldn’t be allowed to marry someone they sleep beside?

It’s hard to think of a reason you might give that doesn’t make you seem like a horrible person.

Question, if there are really Gay Nazis, shouldn’t they all have thrown themselves in to the ovens?

I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a tricky legal problem here. In order for their to be equal protection under state and federal law as it currently stands, civil unions may not satisfy this. It might be easier to call all unions marriages, than to rewrite potentially thousands of laws, statutes and regulations that use the term marriage to protect and offer benefits to married couples. See the huge laundry list I posted above. This issue is not so cut and dry as it may appear.

Seattle Moss,

Don’t boycott that restaurant whatever you do! Haven’t you heard? You’re not allowed to choose where to spend your money anymore.

Oh, wait, maybe that rule only applies to gays.

I believe in the Bible. Go argue with God if you don’t like what it says.

I think that was snark. In light of the sensitive nature of this topic, probably should have been labeled as such.

But why aren’t they harrassing 0bama? He supports Civil Unions.

DefCon
I only use that term to describe these militants down thread..”Your not going to shove this down my throat”

You are a horrible person for voting for Prop 8.

How can you live with yourself?

Let me guess, you thought those black-only school were perfectly fine too.

How could you possibly sit here and try to defend yourself? You voted for an unconstitutional proposition which makes it possible for equality to exist in your state.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

How can you even sleep at night?

52% of California voters voted for Proposition 8. Mormons are 2% of the population there. Although more money was spent by those opposing Prop 8, it still passed.
“Opponents of Proposition 8 had a slight lead in contributions as of Monday,[Nov 3] having raised $37.6 million. Supporters of the gay marriage ban had raised $35.8 million.”
http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

I disagree with the voters’ decision in California on this issue, but that is the decision Californians made. Focusing on Mormons is wrong. Catching one of their churches on fire is not only illegal but appalling. It’s bigotry. Period. My brother married his partner of 26 years recently, and I’m happy for them. But I would be extremely disappointed if they chose to single out a specific group to target because they were angry that a vote didn’t go their way.

Thank you for giving a real-life first-hand example of the harassment, gang-bang, jump on the bandwagon antagonism, thuggery and disparagement towards anyone who supported Prop 8. Confirms even more I made the right decision.

Read it for yourself folks. You saw it here first.

I’m really sorry too.

I think you’re casting a little too wide of a net.

I don’t think marriage is between just any man and a woman.

I think marriage is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. Civilization depends on strong families, and those blacks simply haven’t proven they can stay in the family structure. All those fathers getting married then leaving. If we can just make marriage like it used to be, only between a white man and a white woman, then we can really have a strong family culture.

While we’re at it, education is also a foundation of our civilization, and those black kids just disrupt class and bring guns and shoot things.

How the FUCK does a kid growing up with divorced parents who refuse to speak strengthen our culture of family and our civilization, but a kid growing up with two loving moms suddenly make our civilization on the brink of failure.

Say whatever you need to to justify your bigorty, and I’ll continue to call a spade a spade for as long as necessary. You might have won this battle but you’re going to lose this war because this country will continue to perfect itself. it’s our destiny. For every man woman and child (and transgender) to have equal rights under our great constitution.

So, once again. you’re a bigot.

Have a great night.

Your refusal to admit that Civil Unions are separate but not Equal is what’s absurd.

The human mind will go to amazing lengths to rationalize the bigotry we all have inside ourselves.

I have gay people working for me..

What gives!!

They seem to have all the rights they want

and like smart people they voted McCain

The Bible? You think everyone has to live according to the rules (as you interpret them) in your bible?

Do you treat your slaves the way the Bible says they should be treated?

Wow you really do live in an alternate reality.

So you have three log cabin self-hating Gays working for you, so there’s not problem?

You’re like the slave owner who said “hey, may slave’s seem pretty happy. Doesn’t seem like they want anything more than what I give them right now. What gives!”

I thought I was arguing with a lost but intelligent soul. Don’t really have much else to say to you after that comment other than, good luck with that buddy.

Hope you haven’t eaten shellfish lately..

although I haven’t been to a good public stoning in awhile.

You got plenty of rights buddy!

Nobody isstoppoing you from making a living.
Nobody is checking your bed room at night

Nobody is arresting you for hanging effigy of Sarah Palin

Yeah..You have plenty of rights buddy..

Like the right to come here and Stink up the place

Different people have different priorities. Passions runs high on different subjects.

Kathy, I got popcorn and coke. Want some?

Kathy,

You seem like a professional victim, who compares disagreement on a political blog with harassment and even rape.

That’s disturbing.

So you feel good about taking away people’s rights because after you did those people got pissed off and got up in your face?

You people are even fucking dumber than you seem on TV when you’re telling all your “Christian” buddies that the world’s going to end if I marry my boyfriend and adopt a kid.

You think you’re a good Christian? You’re breaking the most important commandment. “Love thy neighbor as theyself.”

I forgot. Which commandment is “thou shalt not marry your same-sex partner?”

Yowsa!! Angry much??!!

Actually they’re biker chick type lesbians that enjoy arm wrestling me. They deliver my products and give the best service to my customers.

Unlike slaves they get paid real good like everyone in my plant that shares in the profits.

I wouldn’t hire you Randy!

You don’t have what my girls have…Balls

Let me attempt to be peacemaker here. Clearly, many people are extremely upset about Proposition 8 and losing the right to marry. Now, some activists are being heavy handed and those suffering at the hands of this are being harmed and now are also extremely upset. Observers of both sets of harm are getting very upset. Add to the mix are people with other axes to grind only making matters worse. I suggest taking a step back and using our energy to seek a way out. First step is to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. This does not help. My question is, how do we achieve equality and equal protection as guaranteed by the USC while respecting traditions not so eager to embrace this? How do we resist the temptation to look at the actions of some activists and use this as a blanket indictment against the movement for marriage fairness and equity? I hope this helps as a place to start. I tend to shy away when barbs are being thrown around the blog.

Hey, if folks have different views, just agree to disagree. Dont go on bashing the other persons views. That is counterproductive.

Read up on the latest stats on the actual percentage of gays in the population. It’s far less than the 12% that Kinsey assumed in the 1950′s. Closer to 4% of the population. Now read up on the stats of how many in that small percentage exhibit and engage in mental illnesses, depression, and suicide. It’s staggering for such a small population. It hovers around 60-65% and that number is for those that actually seek intervention and help. Do stats like that point to a stable gay population? Hardly.

So this is blown out into a witch hunt for those who simply voted to end Gay marriage.

Now, in the big picture of things, how much of Proposition 8 is really relevant to the majority of the population of CA or the US for that matter?

AH, before anyone whines…DO the homework.

Of course I’m angry.

YOU JUST TOLD ME I’M NOT AS GOOD AS YOU

You fucking asshole.

Of course I’m angry.

Would you be angry if I told you that you could NEVER marry your loved one?

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS HERE LADY?

What’s your diagnosis?

Do the homework.

Obama didn’t vote on Proposition 8. He didn’t donate money to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign either. He publicly stated opposition to Proposition 8.

Protesting against Obama in regards to Proposition 8 would be almost as stupid as targeting Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And ps.

You people are going to regret the day you made me and millions like me this angry.

Most of us were content before, but now you’ve just gone and thrown it in our face.

the day you passed Prop 8 is the day we started marching towards NATIONAL LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE.

And lady, there’s no way I’m stopping until we accomplish our goals.

Go cry to your sick interpretation of the Bible.

I’ll go pray to the God that I know loves me just as much as he does you. Well probably more, since I’m just a better person than you.

randy, even if you’re angry, you have no right to use abusive language to another poster. so please stop.

Why don’t you get this Benny?

This might be about Kathy’s VIEWS.

It’s about our LIVES>.

As long as you fail to realize that you’re going to continue to underestimate us.

This isn’t “I think lower taxes are better” or “I think higher taxes are better.

This is about equal rights, fairness and equality.

We’re not just gonna agree to disagree.

We’re gonna battle until we have equal rights.

Just like women
Just like blacks
Just like everyone else who has ever been told “you’re not equal to us”

Another example of what’s been happening in CA since Prop 8 PASSED. This is the kind of vitriol people are subjected to on a daily basis. Oy vey.

All this blather and no one makes a cogent argument as to why Gays should not be allowed to marry.

“civilization depends on straight marriage??????!!!” HA! No wonder we are going to hell.
Straights ruined families. Not gays.

Get out of the stone age – or at least the ancient palestine. The best families I know are ones with 2 parents of the same gender.

As for “God” being against it. My My this one is tired. THe “God” of the hebrew bible is certifiable. “He’” is also for slavery, stoning and the random plague. Eat pork? you’re going to hell. Also – Jesus is clear as a bell about divorce – it is BANNED. Funny, he never mentioned homosexuality. Guess he forgot. Don’t see any evangelicals foaming in the streets about divorce. Cherry picking the bible is a fool’s errand. Besides it is not the LAW in the United States. Keep your sex life and your BIBLE to yourself.

Dem fags should stop complainin’. Dey gots plenty of rights! Why should they have as many as Seattle Moss?

Randy,
Maybe you should have your levels checked.
You know they have testosterone replacement for ditherers like yourself that think everyone is either a bigot or a slave owner.

I agree that you want to battle till you get equal rights. But other posters are entitled to their views too. So respect that. And please stop with the abusive language towards other posters.

John,

I have read your site on numerous occasions. you have persuasive manner about yourself and bring out the issue in a non threatening way.

Others that have come to this site are militant and are quick to label people bigots.
The gay rights movement better be aware..

Obama won but that doesn’t mean that we are lurching to the left..Quite the contrary..Obama is the conservatives choice

What is so revolting about the Hetero marriage is the basis of civilization is the subtext of the argument: Women exist to bare children. Keeping Gays at the back of the bus keeps women in the middle of the bus.

The state should allow adults to marry other adults. Period. The mormons, catholics, and every other religion has nothing to say about it. It is not a religious concern. No one is asking any church to agree with gay marriage.

But the same churches that are opposing Gay rights now – supported slavery as justified. Opposed equal rights for women. Etc. guess what goo book they found the basis for their arguments for their past bigotry?

And ps.

You people are going to regret the day you made me and millions like me this angry.

Anger works both ways buddy!!

I believe in peaceful demonstrations and civil liberties. I am not a Mormon, nor am I gay. Yet it is wrong to abuse people for their beliefs. The Mormons did not urinate on gays. They fought for their religious beliefs which is their right. No one has a right to abuse someone with profanity or violence of any kind. It just makes the gays look bad and the Mormons look better.

Thanks Seattle Moss – now if I could get the typing thing down.

The book is very well written and definitely worth reading.

‘“God” of the hebrew bible is certifiable’. discrimination on the basis of religion is equivalent to racism, homophobia, sexism etc.

I agree with benny. Abusive language is reflective of the character and quality or shall I say low quality of the person using it.

I leave you all tonight with a great quote from a great man.

“Lady, the God you believe in is too busy being evicted for tax fraud.”

~The one, the only, Josh Lyman/Emanuel

Goodnight, sleep tight, don’t let the fags bite.

woops, indicted not evicted.

don’t worry people no one’s losing their homes here

just their damn minds

I disagree with the voters’ decision in California on this issue, but that is the decision Californians made.

OK my prediction is this law is eventually struck down by the SCOTUS, and even a conservative court. SCOTUS are the ones that outlawed bans on so called interracial marriage:

In 1963, Richard and Mildred Loving, an African American and white interracial couple, decided to challenge the miscegenation laws of Virginia and this eventually lead to a Supreme Court ruling that overturned the ban on interracial marriages in the United States. The Lovings married in Washington D.C. to avoid Virginia’s miscegenation laws, but when they returned to their home state, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended the case as long as the Lovings left Virginia for 25 years. They eventually took their case to the Supreme Court and in 1967, the Court unanimously decided that miscegenation laws was against the Fourteenth Amendments’ goals of equality.

This is remniscent of the hostility, abuse and ranting the far left threw at the Hillary supporters during the primaries. Yet again the so-called liberal/progressives show they’re nothing of the sort. It’s my way or the highway with that bunch.

Perhaps civil marriage should be made available to gays. Ruled by law, churches shouldn’t have influence. However, if churches don’t allow gay marriage would it be seen as discriminatory and therefore law would intervene in church doctrine?

It’s a puzzle.

Latest stat: roughly just over 105 million households in the US – 550,000 headed by self identified gay persons. So what would that percentage be at just over half a million households run by gays? This is NOT a huge issue, statistically.

It becomes more clear as to why the majority of Americans don’t identify with the gay marriage issue.

I think polygamy is allowed in the Bible too.

Lena, you seem to be more concerned that they are not going after black churches, than the fact they are going after mormon churches. hmm…keep it up, slowly but surely…you’ll probably pretend that you don’t know what i mean there.

HBO made a great movie about how AIDS got started in this country, and its effect on the gay community, as well as the many, many battles between competing groups as well as health professionals. Wow.

Some of the gays’ demands were INSANE — an insistence on privacy that trumped the need to protect innocent people from getting the virus.

Well, given the fact that many right-wing extremists wanted to have people with AIDS tattooed (à la Jews in the Nazi death camps in the worst case scenario or a “Scarlet Letter” in the best case) or exiled from THEIR country, do you really blame gays who INSISTED on their privacy?
For the love of all that’s right in this country, NO ONE should be forced to be “outed” regarding a DISEASE. We’re not talking about an era when being gay was accepted or even tolerated. Many states STILL had laws against sodomy (i.e., gay sex) which would automatically lead a person with AIDS to face sodomy charges. (Remember what led to the Bowers case? A policeman arrested a gay man for having consensual sex IN HIS OWN HOME while there checking out an unrelated matter.)
You had the audacity to write this:
While I personally find abortion abhorrent, what another woman does is none of my business. I wish it could be — even Jimmy Smits’ character on West Wing says abortion is murder — but I don’t want her telling me what to do when I see my doctor. So I need to be rational, and leave her be. (emphasis mine) Then you DARE turn around and complain about gay men having a right to privacy? Please. If the fucking Reagan Administration hadn’t kowtowed to the far-right religious nutjobs and played fucking politics with a disease (which was also transmissible through blood transfusions*), then progress might have been made without this fucking smokescreen about “privacy” issues.
I’ll guarantee you that any woman who’s had an abortion would feel that her right of privacy under the auspices of doctor-patient confidentiality if people suddenly found out she’d had an abortion.
Sorry, but you don’t get any sympathy from me on this matter. Gay men were dying because THEIR government wasn’t working hard enough to find the cause of AIDS (unlike the fucking Legionnaires–remember that the government discovered the cause of Legionnaires’ Disease in roughly six months of the first outbreak). And Ronald Reagan only expressed any concern after his and Nancy’s old friend, Rock Hudson, DIED. Neither Reagan expressed much need for any sort of government action, even as Hudson was dying–it took the man’s death for the Reagans to FINALLY understand the disease. (Of course, while Reagan expressed the public sympathy, his administration was stonewalling Dr Koop’s efforts to EDUCATE the public on the matter, especially when it came to condom use. AIDS was too much of a cash cow for the religious right–they used it as “evidence” of how gays were unworthy of being treated as humans.)

*You might want to bear in mind that even NOW, the Red Cross refuses to accept blood products from ANY man who admits to having had sexual contact with another man EVEN AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR, because of “concerns” with HIV. A female prostitute who’s been “out of the business” for a year, and can prove she’s HIV negative can still donate blood. A gay man who’s been negative for over a decade and has been in a monogamous relationship with another negative man is barred by federal law. The Red Cross continues saying they cannot accept blood from negative gay men without the law being changed. THIS is part of the Reagan AIDS legacy.

What we are seeing is the far left democratic party minus the “glue” which was middle America. Obama may have had enough juice to get himself elected with his “change” tactic… that along with a manufactured financial crisis and roughly a billion dollars of advertising… don’t get me started… but the democratic party in the process abandoned it’s center. That center held the core values… or the “glue” that gave the party a larger purpose above the single special interest. Now that the glue is gone… all that is left are the disjointed single special interests. Special interests groups act like this… “I got mine” “you get yours” and I might help you but “whats in it for me”. And there is the problem. There is nothing for the rest of the single special interests in the gay marriage issue. As is the case for most of the other single issue interests. Watching the special interests and the far left fall apart will make many wonder if the far left did not step into some larger orchestrated trap. I have the feeling that the left’s party from this election cycle will be a short party.

Docelder,

Wow!!

I couldn’t have said it better..

Government needs to stay out of religion, just as religion needs to stay out of government. If somebody has a religion that accepts or rejects a certain lifestyle… it is no concern of the government. At least it should not be.

I’m gay and support gay marriage. I’m not Mormon. But I find it ridiculous that anti-Prop 8 people are trying to organize boycotts of Utah, based on Mormon support for the measure’s passage. I guess it’s a lot easier to boycott Sundance than Hollywood, or Apple—which is so fond of labelling its Asian-made electronics “Designed in California”—or Salinas Valley lettuce, or Gallo wine. Just as it’s a lot easier to blame those horrible out of state Mormons than it is to face up to the fact that it was black and Hispanic CALIFORNIANS turning out in record numbers to vote for His Majesty-elect who ensured the passage of Proposition 8. I’m not saying that boycotts are called for, but if they are, these folks ought to look in their own backyard. Though how can they, in our brave new enlightened world of O—that would be racist.

I like Elton John but does a civil union or partnership give both parties inheritance rights to social security and such? If required, would you be protected from testifying against your partner, spousal privilege, if a legal situation arose? Everyone should have the right to marry! If they choose not to then so be it.

Separate but equal is not the same when it comes to gender disparities. We have “separate but equal” bathrooms for men and women – and technically, they are not that equal. We will never have total “equality” between genders and the fact is, marriage between gays is different than marriage between two people of the opposing sex because of the issue of procreation.

I am not against gay marriage but I see the argument that is against it and do not think it is about hatred or bigotry. By your argument we should all be protesting the fact that people of different genders use different locker rooms and bathrooms.

Sorry, you are comparing apples and oranges. A marriage between a white woman and a black man can produce a child from the couple; a marriage between two men can never produce a child. THAT is the difference.

What you call the “actual” percentage is a rough estimate, one of many. The clinical numbers you refer to may be actual, but apportioning them as a percentage of an estimate does not a statistic make. Leaving aside such minor matters as the fact that homosexuals were classified as mentally ill simply due to their orientation until quite recently—and the skewing affect that would have on your beloved “statistics—I think you make it pretty clear where you stand on human rights, period. When voters decide to take away rights that have been granted to citizens by their State or Federal Constitution, it is relevant to every last one of us. You’re the one who needs to do some homework. Read The Federalist on the “tyranny of the majority.”

You’re not helping your cause here, Randy. You say you are about LOVE but clearly you are not. You are about hate. I know KathyNeoCon and she is not a bad person. I actually voted against Prop 8 but people like you make me wish I voted for it. I don’t think people should be bullied into supporting gay marriage – it is a very personal, spiritual issue.

Let’s see if I understand correctly. Marriage as an institution applied to a man and a woman has been the bedrock of civilizations, cultures and societies across the globe for millenia. Then, dating back, oh, some decades or so (if that) a fraction of the tiny fraction of the general population that is gay decided they had the transcendent right to coopt that institution (which has been the bedrock of civilizations, cultures and societies across the globe for millenia) to include marriage between members of the same sex. This is not declared as a mere innovation but is considered to be, like the Second Coming, a revelation of Universal Love, transforming society into a new and wonderous age, according to this fraction of the tiny fraction of the general population. Also according to this fottfotgp, anyone who opposes this wonderous tranformation, anyone who wishes to preserve an institution that has been the bedrock of civilizations, societies and cultures across the globe for millenia is considered to be hate-filled and bigoted. Now some questions: Can someone inform me where in the liturgy of the gay marriage movement can one discern the exact time and place of the birth of this Wondrous Concept? Who and where are its Authors? I’m eager to know: did this revelation spring spontaneously from the joys of the carnal union? Were the authors visited and advised by celestial beings? or was it an idea someone threw into the ring along with other political agendas to ward off the boredom and unbearable lightness of being? And which came first: the idea of gay marriage or the idea of destroying anyone and anything that stands in its way?

No the point is not that women exist to bear children but that MARRIAGES exist to provide a stable framework for child rearing. Otherwise, we should simply have boyfriends and girlfriends, no need for marriage without children around in the historical reason for it.

And which came first: the idea of gay marriage or the idea of destroying anyone and anything that stands in its way?

History is riddled with institutions that were abandoned in the face of progress. Flat earth, anyone…I know there are still some folks that are waiting on proof of that but I hope no one really takes them seriously. Evolution and E=MC2 are just two examples of ideas that crumbled the bedrock solid foundations of popular belief at the time. Loathe as some are willing to admit, the God-given right of White people to subjugate people of other races is another example of a moral that did not go gently into that good night.

So in answer to the question posed above, the idea of destroying bedrock ideals that promote injustice or intolerance has been around a long, long time…probably as long as have the bedrock ideals themselves have been around.

I don’t think it’s about scratching the noggin — I think it’s about denial. A lot of the Gay folks who are protesting know damned good and well that some of Obama’s supporters voted for Prop 8 — they don’t want to admit it, because they voted for him, too.

If they protest these churches and groups as well, they are admitting they were sold out or misled or that he was sending a mixed message to his voters — which he absolutely did.

He said vote no on prop 8, all the while ALSO saying marriage is only between a man and a woman.

ABC News called it a “nuanced position” — I called it b.s.

What say you?

So all those heterosexual people who are for whatever reason unable to conceive should not be allowed to marry?

That is true. It is amazing that the responsibility is not being put where it belongs.

But another disturbing thing I think people do not realize — I have read in various places, and you can determine the truth of this for yourselves, some people did not understand what they were voting for becaues the proposition is stated backwards.

In other words — you want YES on Gay marriage, Vote NO.

NO on Gay marriage, vote YES.

I don’t know if it was just a few who made this error or more than that — I do know that people are careless and people do not take the time to read this stuff carefully.

Also from the legislators point of view – they are bastards too because they do this constantly — deliberately word something backwards. What sense does that make?

Mr or Ms Whatever, you appear to be operating in a state of emotional confusion, swimming in the turbulant waters of righteous utopian morality without a much-needed life jacket. Gay marriage has nothing whatsoever in common with advancing theories of science. That’s overreaching rather badly, I’m afraid. But I do salute your efforts. Again, I ask, what is the genesis of this movement? Who are its authors?

The beginning of the AIDS epedemic was devastating. I lived in San Francisco, more or less the epicenter. I worked in the medical field, in administration, and read the reports coming from the CDC. They had no name, no postive means of transmission, but they had pretty clear ideas. I personally knew many fine, wonderful, loving people who are no longer with us.

I held people I cared for that felt shunned and cried with them. They were not just shunned by straights but by other gays as well. What a point in time it was. Moscone and Milk had been assassinated. Feinstein had become Mayor and I learned to dispise her. Having read the information from the CDC I was not afraid to hug, hold or kiss a dear person or friend who had been diagnoised as I knew (or at least at the time the powers that be were pretty certain you could not get AIDS that way)I would be okay.

Mayor Feinstein refused a request to have the bathhouses closed. I still firmly believe that it was purely a political decision on her part, not a decision of how best to try to contain an outbreak that could be compared to TB in loss of life. Closing of the bathouses may have saved countless lives.

This is to this day a debateable issue, but to those who were there and aware in the beginning when a diagnosis was a death sentence I still hold a grudge for lives lost. Sure nothing could have prevented those determined to have unprotected sex, but it might have been enough to save many lives. And the fact that it was done, imho, callously for a few votes still urkes me to this day.

Heterosexual couples who might not be able to conceive may be able to someday; they might also adopt. And yes, there is a valid reason for arguing that the IDEAL parenting situation is a mom and dad – NOT because two gays can’t love a child, but because children do best with their mother and father and it’s good to have role models from BOTH genders.

Mind you, I voted against Prop 8 – but I can see why some people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think civil unions is a far compromise and people should be WILLING to compromise on both sides with civil unions.

I meant, civil unions is a FAIR compromise.

You can lead a horse to the analogy but you cannot make them understand it.

You wrote:

Marriage as an institution applied to a man and a woman has been the bedrock of civilizations

I chose not to challenge the notion, although I’m sure there are arguments that could be made against such a presumption. I chose, instead, to accept your own premise and merely gave you examples of other notions that were considered bedrock solid popular beliefs dating back many centuries that did not stand the test of time.

In other words, just because some people (or even most or all people) think that something is true, right or God-given, doesn’t mean that it is.

Again in answer to your question. The idea of destroying bedrock ideals that promote injustice or intolerance…

In the context of this discussion that means supporting Gay marriage because of the implications it has on the civil rights of some Americans without impeding the civil rights of other Americans.

has been around a long, long time…probably as long as have the wrong-headed bedrock ideals themselves have been around.

kathyneocon, you’re absurd.

oh goody. we get to have civil unions. wait while i pee myself with joy.

you think we aren’t restricted by society if we live “out” lives in places other than s.f., l.a., n.y.c. for example?

is being gay illegal? no? then by preventing us marriage is illegal.

and, as someone mentioned the other evening at a lovely WEDDING reception for my dear friends who have been together 25 years and finally were allowed to marry (before the bigots voted), allowing the popular vote to decide civil rights is like having 2 foxes and a chicken vote on what’s for dinner.

and, i’m so sorry, but blacks do not have a monopoly on civil rights. therein lies the crux of the matter. how many of us whites fought for civil rights for blacks? how many blacks are willing to fight for another oppressed minority? right…

kathyneocon, obviously you’re not lesbian or gay, you’re probably black or you’re a radical liberal, and you do not have a clue about what it’s like living a queer life in america. well, you should get one – a clue that is.

Even the gay advocacy groups come up with these numbers.

Check it out.

The point is: This isn’t an issue affecting a huge number of people in America. Even gays themselves report numbers of only about a third of their population are in stable long-term relationships.

Pockets of Gays are known in CA up to 13 % but that number does not stay consistent outside of SF, LA, NY, etc.

Start with avert website, etc. Comprehensive long-term study is advocated by the gay community.

wonder how it would have gone over if instead of marriage, interracial couples had to have something else like a civil union or a partnership or something. hmmmm…

Me too, Docelder. You said it.

It’s a special interest group issue. Nothing more.

huh. and i suppose a marriage between a menopausal woman and an impotent man should be disallowed then – according to your convoluted reasoning, anyway.

well, that’s your first mistake (among many). this is a republic. and as i said before, this country would still have slaves if we allowed the popular vote to rule. pathetic.

Civil unions would, indeed, be a fair compromise if it applied to everyone because what we have found through experience as a nation separate can never be equal.

If everyone, gay or straight, were required to have a civil union and all rights and privileges were tied to document of civil union then there wouldn’t be a question of separation.

The problem only exists because the institution of marriage carries with it rights and priviledges that are denied to gay people.

As long as there is a “married” box on any civil form then there exists a separtion if not all citizens are eligible to be “married.” Change “married” to “united” on all legal forms and you basically solve the problem.

You’ll encounter different problems, however, because we do enjoy a separation of church and state, where the state is not allowed to dictate the religious matters of the church except in the case where it applies to civil procedings which is why you have the case where people are actually “married” as defined by a particular church, but not married as defined by the US Government.

oh for crying out loud already. because someone is passionate about their rights you’re going to throw a hissy and change your mind about giving the same rights to tax paying americans. huh.

while i don’t agree with violence, i do understand how it feels to wake up and realize the majority of your community has voted that you are less than they because of your dna. and insist that we should be satisfied because after all, we’re not getting the shit kicked out of us as often, or kicked out of our families and homes as often, or fired or arrested, or killed as often as we used to JUST BECAUSE WE WERE BORN NOT STRAIGHT.

my beliefs and marriage should be none of anyone’s business, just as a straight person’s belifs or marriage are none of my concern. what you are demanding is that the state of california and the united states deny a legal partnership to us available to straights because it offends your beliefs and sensibilities.

how about this? how about you folks who are so enamored of prop 8 trade lives with us queer folk for a year. then let’s talk about how you feel about separate and unequal.

it’s real simply, galt. at least in my opinion.

get marriage out of the church. i mean the legal aspect of it.

require all state recognized unions to have a civil ceremony in order to obtain all the rights currently afforded to traditional marriage. straight and lesbian/gay alike.

if you want a church wedding, go ahead, but unless you’ve had the state union ceremony, it will just be a religious, ceremonial event and not recognized by the state.

go ahead and call your church ceremony a wedding. call your state ceremony a union or a civil union. doesn’t matter as long as both sides have full and equal access to the state recognized ceremony and rights.

the problem is that everyone is trying to alter a tradition and looking at the same thing the same way over and over again. by changing the legal process for everyone and maintaining the religious aspect it would effectively remove the major obstacles while affording equal access to all.

based on your assertion, i guess we should have asked the slaves to compromise as well. you know, shackles or rope. whip or club. or maybe instead of beatings everyday, have two on fridays and let them have sundays off. good grief.

slaves? totally different subject.

stop your crap. majority of the clientele in that place was gay. he was earning his money because of gays and was paying the other team to take away their rights

I have gay friends who are happy and well-adjusted. You’re obviously one of those gays with a chip on your shoulder trying to blame everyone else for your own misery. Grow up.

I’m not saying it’s easy to be gay, but it’s also not easy to be a woman and it’s neither easy to be a human being PERIOD. This hatred and animosity you spew is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. You want people to respect you? Then try respecting them first, even if you think they don’t deserve it. That’s called being SPIRITUALLY MATURE.

this sounds stupid. will you stay in line waiting for a box/booth while other men r pissing in the urinal?!

that was made for your own privacy…..

Oh for pete’s sake, quit with the melodrama. Gays are lucky to live in America where they are able to live together openly and have good lives. So you can’t call your civil union a marriage legally – that is NOT the same thing as being a slave. Don’t insult past slaves with such specious comparisons.

he is convinced because his cousin has a great voice and sings the bigoted songs in saddleback church

The point is, the genders are different enough to warrant separate bathrooms, which is why a case can be made that “separate but equal” as applied in civil rights cases regarding blacks does not apply to same-sex marriages.

“you’re probably black” – you go on about people being bigots and now you’re accusing her of being black? WTF?

your screen ….or scream name says it all….. the neocon

wake up

this post is about gay bashing …… how come for days the NoQuarter did not post anything about the issue, but it showed up with this biased little clip. fox news is back to their conservative biased agenda

people wake up

This is not about my convoluted reasoning. I voted against Prop 8. If gays want to marry, I don’t care either way. But there are GOOD reasons why some people feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and those GOOD REASONS are children.

I can see both sides. You are obviously too emotional to be objective. And no, technically, a menopausal woman and impotent man can’t have children, but it’s also fair enough to say that by then, most people at that age DO have children and a menopausal woman might end up being a mother to children who had lost their mother due to death.

The idea of the family unit as being a mother, father, and children is the basis of marriage. That is based in biology and procreation. If you can’t understand or fathom that, then I suppose you’ll be stuck in your stupid pointless anger mindlessly hating people who disagree with you.

its bullshit. Obama seems to be full of “nuanced positions” doesn’t he?

melodrama. fine. why don’t you be gay or lesbian for a year, and live exactly the way you do now in a rural area anywhere in the country. or how about a conservative city in the south?

you bigoted, close-minded, homophobic straight snobby elites think it’s just fine to determine the fate of taxpaying americans who, by no fault of their own, were born different because YOU don’t believe in it or it assaults your religious sensibilities. well, until you’ve lived a life where nearly every single move you make, thought you have, relationship you have… when everything you do has to be filtered to protect your life, your job, your relationships with people who are intolerant of lesbians/gays, etc… until then, bucko, i’ll make any f*cking “specious” comparison i want. and please don’t insult lesbians and gays by implying we should be happy that we’re not arrested or beaten or killed quite so regularly anymore because we’re queer.

furthermore, civil unions ARE NOT EQUAL. what do you people not get about that?

and the only america where lesbians and gays can live openly are in liberal areas which restrict where we can live openly and safely.

I’m here in California, everyone was very clear on what the YES vs. NO vote meant, ESPECIALLY the people opposed to Prop 8.

eugeniegrandet you wrote:

Marriage as an institution applied to a man and a woman has been the bedrock of civilizations, cultures and societies across the globe for millenia.

Until the early 20th century, marriage wasn’t a good deal for women.

They were for “millenia” chattel owned by their husbands with no rights. Throughout the world cultures you praise, husbands could legally kill their wives for any misdeed, real or imagined, and suffer no prosecution.

Girls – young girls – were often sold off by their fathers in arranged marriages to the highest bidder.

So I would advise against romanticizing this institution you’re so fond of because it was, for women, a form of slavery until rather recently.

As for violent protests by gays, I didn;t watch the video but am I only the only person who remembersthe extreme violent factions in the Civil Rights movement?

Civil disobedience has it’s place.

As for gay marriage: in my opinion the only reason it offends some people is that they wish gays would go back into the closet.

That’s what the real issue is — these homophobes would rather pretend gay people, gay kids, gay teens, didn’t exist.

And that’s worse than telling folks to sit in the back of the bus. Because it’s a denial of their very existence.

That’s why suicide and drug use is so high among gay teens — they are told in so many ways they should not exist as they are.

Let gay people marry. It will only serve to stabilize and strengthen our society.

hope u get more letters. and maybe u should start thinking about it

i don’t believe anything you wrote here, especially

i voted against 8

i have a gay friend tooo ….ohhhhh i forgot …. i have black friends too ….so is sarah palin

oh for goodness sake, hillary or bust.

grow up.

the point i was attempting to make was that the people who scream the loudest about gay rights not being civil rights are blacks and the radical left who align with the black activists who are adamant that gay rights are not civil rights. i wasn’t “accusing” her of being black because that’s a bad thing. i was suggesting that that could be what was influencing her opinion that gay rights are not civil rights.

and the cute agree to disagree starts to smell like ignorance

You obviously have anger issues, and trust me, they have NOTHING to do with your being gay. You just want to blame someone else for your personal pissiness.

Two of my best male friends are gay. One of them has HIV. NEITHER of them bitch and whine and complain and make life out to be horrible like you do. That you want to sit there and make everyone who doesn’t give you a pity party out to be a bigot and a homophobe says more about you personally than it does about the plight of gays.

Unfortunately, it’s people like you who go and do stupid things like respond to your perceived persecution with violence and your own brand of bigotry. Nothing excuses your being an asshole in the name of “equality” – nothing. The equivalent would be me running out and becoming Lorena Bobbitt as I chopped off penises just because I’m angry that Hillary didn’t become president.

GET OVER YOURSELF, PLEASE. You hurt gays with your obnoxious attitude. You create backlash against your cause with this type of behavior, which is PRECISELY the point of this article.

“As for gay marriage: in my opinion the only reason it offends some people is that they wish gays would go back into the closet.”

Sorry, wrong on this one. You make assumptions based on your own prejudices. I have two friends who voted for Prop 8. I know for a fact they don’t want gays in the closet. They have nothing against gays, they have gay friends! They are traditional women who believe marriage is between a man and a woman and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting gays to be together or forcing gays to be unseen.

I guess that’s why I’m so active on this topic. I voted against Prop 8, I have a very high ratio of gay friends vs. straight friends, and I also have friends who voted FOR Prop 8. I do not like seeing my traditional friends DEMONIZED here by clueless angry people who aren’t willing to be open-minded enough to try to understand the opposing viewpoint, instead of just bashing them as homophobes.

I think you are the one who needs to grow up.

Well, I know for a fact that KathyNeoCon is neither black, nor a radical leftist, nor a homophobe, because I have personally hung out with her at the home of a mutual lesbian friend of ours, with other lesbians.

You are completely off-base here and being completely prejudiced against her simply because she is traditional in her viewpoint of marriage. You don’t know her, *I* do, and you are being completely ridiculous in your biased assessment of her.

oh hillary or bust…

so i’m emotional because i pay a shit load of taxes, am true to myself, obey the laws of my country and yet… am denied a right to marry and receive all the benefits other married receive from the government because of my sexual orientation.

furthermore, i was raised by straight parents. a mom. a dad. not that it’s any of your business, but i’ve known of my orientation since i was five but kept it to myself because everything around me told me i should. trust me, i and too many of my friends growing would have been so much better off without our deadbeat, abusive dads and our mothers would have done us all a favor by divorcing them far sooner than they did. i know plenty of same-sex households with children and i envy them – the children. had i and my friends grown up in such loving, cooperative households our lives would be so different today. i would still be gay, but it wouldn’t have taken 30+ years for me to get over the mental and verbal abuse i endured from my father.

so sorry, i don’t buy the mom and dad household is best.

also, many people BELIEVED the basis of marriage was that the couple must be of the same race. some people still believe that but the SCOTUS had a different idea.

and i don’t mindlessly hate you or anyone. i put a lot of thought into it. seriously, i don’t hate people who don’t agree with me. i just will not allow them to make me go to the back of the bus.

in that case so is the women issues ….a special interest ….. no more toilets for women …..

pointing out the obvious?!

I personally believe that a mother and father who are GOOD PARENTS and not abusive are the IDEAL. I am not even opposed to gay marriage, or even gay parenting, but I UNDERSTAND that there are reasons why people oppose it that have NOTHING to do with bigotry or hatred.

Also, I personally don’t like it when I see people here saying they want gay marriage just so they can get “benefits” from the government like their partner’s social security. So really what you are saying is that you want money, and it’s not about love or rights or anything else? Because to me the point of giving a spouse social security would be more if one partner stayed home to rear children and did not have their own income or retirement…NOT just to give money to someone for living with someone else.

Actually, many of the most prominent and vile Nazis were gay, and were known to be so. The Nazi leadership was saturated with gays, and it was understood that that aspect of their lives was tolerated unless it became too obvious, much like don’t ask, don’t tell. So, “Gay Nazis” should be an acceptible term based upon an historical foundation.

Yes, quite convenient to shut someone off who says something you don’t like by saying they are lying. I think a lot of people here are missing the point – they assume hatred when there is none. That’s sad to me, frankly.

what is a traditional woman …. in the kitchen, or on the kitchen table with the legs up ready with dinner/sex when the MAN comes home

abortions?!

please enlighten us

i don’t have a chip on my shoulder. i am not miserable. and i’m quite grown, thank you.

i happen to be a lesbian, and of course, a woman. i know far better than you, even with your plethora of gay friends, what it is like to be a lesbian in america. i am not a hater. i am quite disgusted, but not a hater.

and i could give a rat’s ass whether people respect me or not. there are plenty of people who i do not respect, but guess what? they have rights afforded to them by the constitution, just as do i. they also have some that i do not. seriously, what does respect have to do with having equal rights?

and if you’re trying to tell me your more spiritually mature than i because you say so in order to belittle my views and my passion, um… whatever, because when it comes right down to it, you don’t know me, i don’t know you and… i don’t really care what you think.

Interesting point. I’m dyslexic and was confused about this myself when I first heard about it. It took me a while to get it straight in my head, if you’re for gay marriage, vote no.

There were a lot of bumperstickers and signs about prop 8 in my town (strangely, very few for prez) and my young teen son, who is also dyslexic, kept mixing it up as well. In other words, if he saw a yes on 8, he thought they were for gay marriage and vice versa. I would think about it for a few seconds and then remind him. Dyslexia is annoying. I transpose numbers all the time as well.

Anyway, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they wrote it this way on purpose.

King Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines.

I’m going to bed, but I wanted to say one last thing to the very angry people here calling people like KathyNeoCon bigots and homophobes:

You can respond to perceived hate with more hate. And make yourself bitter and miserable in the process. Or, you might question your assumptions, try to really listen to the other side, and respond with the love and tolerance you hope to receive.

You cannot cure hate with more hate. It does not work.

If you want more love and tolerance in the world, you need to start with yourself, and that means, having compassion for those who disagree with you.

Otherwise, you will inadvertently create more of the hatred you are fighting so hard against.

Elton is British. They passes a civil union law in 2005.

Apparently you do care, since you continue to respond. And if you don’t want to come off like you have a chip on your shoulder, well, then, don’t come off like that. But I haven’t seen your dialog here to be productive, just a lot of “poor me” type of stuff. Well, we all have crosses to bear. I have my own, which I won’t get into here. But life is hard for everyone in different ways.

what kind of behavior is that, hillary? exactly? standing up and voicing my opposition to obvious bigotry? i’m not boycotting anyone. i’m not burning churches. i’m not advocating those actions either. in fact, i’m against them.

you have two gay friends. nice. good for you. i have a ton of straight friends. some of my best friends are straight. the difference between them and me is this – i’ve lived a straight life, they have not lived a gay life. what i’m trying to interject on this blog is a viewpoint. furthermore, my tone is in reaction to the tone of the comment i’m addressing.

it’s so easy for you folks to decide our fate because you say so or you think you know what being lesbian or gay is like because of some friends you have or what you see on television or in your big, progressive city. it’s infuriating. i’m sorry. oh, you people have civil unions, you should be grateful. oh, you people have marvelous lives you should be happy. that is a tone, a condescending tone, hillary, that is annoying.

now, if you are taking my tone as militant and angry and obnoxious i guess for whatever reason you’re reading passion and frustration as hating and angry.

you obviously do not get it. what you are reading is not anger. it is not pissiness. i can’t control how you interpret my writing anymore than you can control your urge to condescend.

as far as a backlash against “my” cause, i suppose we should just roll over and say, “okay,” no equal rights for us because we might mess up the fairytale. alrighty. sorry for disturbing you all and scaring you.

no.

i’m sorry. like i said, i do not agree with violence and blacklisting. but what you and others are doing is the equivalence of the obamabots yelling racism when anyone attempted to ask relevant questions about obama and his actions or past. it’s a tactic to shut us up. well, hillary, you can throw all the psychobabble buzzwords and phrases at me all you want in an attempt to belittle and shut me up, but i will not roll over because you say so.

I’m sorry if you’re offended – but, in my opinion, people against gay marriage are homophobes.

Maybe they’re in denial but they are still homophobes.

If they truly have gay friends as you say why would they deny their friends such a basic right that doesn’t harm anyone?

But you know, there are many closet racists who say, “Some of my best friends are black.”

There is NO logical rationalization to deny gay people the right to marry.

None. At. All.

“Tradition” is not a good reason.

Many “traditions” simply suck.

Arranged marriages were once a “tradition.” Women were forced to marry men they barely knew. It was a long-held “tradition” throughout the world. Should we write a Proposition to bring back the fine old tradition of arranged marraiges?

Until 1925 it was “tradition” in this country that only men had the right to vote. Should we return to this fine “tradition” and tell women to tear up their voter registration cards?

People who use the “tradition” excuse against gay marriage are really in a deep state of fear.

Of what? I don’t know. But I equate these anti-gay-marriage ilk with the anti-abortion ilk.

People who want to inflict their personal beliefs on others.

oh kumbayah.

blech.

when it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

just sayin’.

i love it. WE, by standing up for our rights – demanding our EQUAL rights – are causing people to hate us. newsflash – people already hate us. it’s gotten a lot better over the last twenty or so years, but the fact is, a LOT of people still hate lesbians and gays. and if you’re going to hate us for standing up for our rights, you never didn’t hate us before.

Kathy Neocon says she voted for Prop 8 because she believes in the bible.

This country is NOT governed by the Bible!

And it bothers me that laws are passed by people who voted based on the Bible.

That’s one step away from the Taliban.

did i not explain what i meant? fine, hillary, she knows lesbians, you know lesbians AND gays… and you both think lesbians and gays should have unequal access to marriage.

i guess i’ll just have to expand my categories of who claims gay rights are not civil rights. there. happy now?

jeez… who has the chip on their shoulder?

And it bothers me that laws are passed by people who voted based on the Bible.

That’s one step away from the Taliban.

Wow you’re really reaching!

wow, that was predictable. i was going to address your response to my statement of not caring what you think, but i thought nah… that’s too obvious.

well, i really don’t care what YOU think. and it’s your own perception that my dialog is not productive and that i’m all about poor me. i’m trying to inject a personal experience into the mix. we both live in california, but i’ve lived other places in this state and other states where it is not cool or safe to be out and lesbian/gay. the world is not hunky dory for us lowly queers.

you seem to be taking my responses very personally which is why i think you’re reacting to them so. seriously, i’m just typing my thoughts in regard to certain posts without vitriol, without malice or anger. i am certainly passionate about the subject – i won’t deny that.

what you seem to be missing is that you and some other posters on here are hell bent on chastising ALL of the gay/lesbian community for not being happy happy with the “rights” we have. your attitude as i read it is that we should just accept the popular vote and deal with the hand we’ve been dealt. of course i agree that violence and blacklisting are not the way to go, but there seems to be an attitude that any dissent is verboten – might anger the supporters.

also, in an earlier post you claimed that some of us want marriage benefits so we can get social security or whatever and in your mind that just isn’t right unless the WIFE stayed home and raised the kids. well, my dear, when straight people get social security benefits whether one stayed home or not, then why is it bad that lesbian/gay spouses would get the same thing? i mean, what we’re asking is for the same benefits as our straight counterparts. that’s all. nothing more, nothing less.

we build lives together, hillary, we pay taxes, we volunteer in our communities, we buy homes together, build businesses together, create assets together, we live law-abiding lives with our partners and we want to commit to each other and we want to be a part of the american experience. we cannot help how we are born no more than a black, brown or otherwise-skinned person can.

friends of mine who have been together for 25 yrs just married. after all that time together they were so emotional that they could finally, even if just for a few days, participate in the american experience. they changed before my very eyes – it was spectacular. they felt a part of their community for the first time in 25 years and it meant something grand to them.

when people just dismiss our passion and our desire for equality as being petty and annoying… it sounds like bigotry and homophobia. there are shades of both – you don’t need to be a raving bigot or homophobe to still come off sounding like one or both.

women have fought forever to have equality with men and are still fighting. we have been ridiculed with penis-envy jokes, and kept from management jobs, and oh, the presidency. i get just as passionate when certain people tell me women should be happy with what they have.

and btw… if you don’t want to come off as condescending and superior, then… it goes both ways.

Have you all gone mad here tonight?

That’s how prejudiced white people are, generally. They assume that because people of color have experienced racism, these hated-based-on-color-of-skin ‘victims’ will empathize with those hated-based-on-sexual-orientation victims. Don’t you know anything about black culture, or the insidious preaching of the black church against homosexuality? When Ellen, who is white, danced with the Obamas, black, on her show – I saw this back when I watched t.v. – I admit, I experienced a sinister delight. By ignoring BO’s escapades with his I-Jesused-myself-into-hetereosexuality ex-gay minister, Donnie McClurkin, while questioning McCain on his views of gay marriage; the recently married award winning talk show host demonstrated for everyone to see, what racism looks like.

Clarification: Ellen married a woman; and JMc, whom she pointedly teased about his views against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (based on his oft cited stance in favor of states’ rights), is white.

I can’t believe all this bickering between heretofore allies. I am a lesbian, and I’m old enough to remember how difficult life was “back then.” Back then you could lose your job, the place you lived, been thrown out of restaurants, not get a motel room, all because you were gay – if it was known. Things have changed, but it’s still a civil rights issuse and will continue to be a civil rights issue until full and equal rights are enjoyed. Which brings me to this point, women also don’t have equal rights and we’re treated like second class citizens all the time – I mean look at this election.
But the real point I want to make is that we vote with our actions, with our voice, with our wallet. That’s how it’s been done always. So if the gay community wants to boycott someone, the community will do it, no matter what anyone says here. In fact, I’m pretty certain many of us are planning on not buying products made by sponsors of certain MSM networks. I have lots of personal opinions about prejudice engaged in by religious institutions, but I won’t bore anyone with them. All I’m saying people fight for their rights with the weapons they have. That’s how it’s always been done. Wallets, in my opinion, are better than fists. But that’s just me.

Hmmmmm….Randy It seems to me that the objection by some churches has more to do with Federal or state authorities enforcing Gay marriages in those churches when that may be against the theology of the church. Similar fighting is going on in Canada. Roman Catholic Bishops are being hauled into court and facing prosecution because they refuse to allow priests to marry Gay couples. So I think that while it’s natural for Gays to see Bigotry and only Bigotry, other folks see it differently. Many states sought a compromise but it was not enough. I have always supported Gay Rights as a sister of a Gay man and the friend of Gays ( some of whom were lost to AIDS. In the early 90′s I worked for a brief time for an activist organization that worked with members to get AZT which was still illegal as a treatment ). The point I’m making is that many Churches see this as State/Secular Authorities dictating Church doctrine. In England The RCC has closed Adoption Centers because English Laws have enforced Gay adoptions. The Anglican Church is undergoing a dramatic schism because of the ordination of Gay Bishops as well as in more traditional sects Female Priests. ( My Twin Brother who is Gay is torn over the issue, as he sees it as the death of Gay culture ) In my opinion, This is the fight Gay Activists have taken on. To not anticipate pushback or see that some feel this is an assault on Churches is naive. As with other issues that involve Church/State it is complicated and reduced to simplicity that encourages intolerance on both sides of the issue…While the politicians make hay of it.

Demnomore…Are you going to sneer Breeder next?…. *sigh*

actually wasn’t marrige instituted to protect the guys? So they could make sure the kids were theirs? Wasn’t it something to do with their ‘legacy’ and immortality?

Anyone remember the ERA boycotts? What is wrong with voting with our wallets? Geeze, it’s what we ALL do. And some of these really homophobic remarks are starting to really bother me.

Hmmmm…Interesting. I heard the exact opposite proposed as a solution…Get the State out of the Marriage business…It’s a tricky one.

Susan….Question…Would the state have the right to enforce Gay marriages in churches that theologically oppose the practice ? In other words would a Gay couple who were say Baptist have the right to sue a Baptist congregation who refused to perform the ceremony…Or as in a case in California sue a Church owned venue for refusing to rent out space for a reception after a civil ceremony? This issue gets more complicated…
Would the State have the authority to prosecute Bishops who Theologically answer to a higher authority like the Vatican if they refuse to allow Priests to perform marriages for Gay couples? Where does the power of the state intervene in a sensible way? These are thorny issues that many folks refuse to address…But that approach doesn’t make those issues go away. The State has intervened in the past…and sometimes for the greater good…Sometimes with mixed results…I’m just sayin

For some….This becomes an issue of Secular manipulation of Theological Doctrinal Authority…

first, get rid of the hate. accusing one another is counterproductive and futile.

I can tell you right now NoBama had a hand in that Prop 8 passing… I was out in CA the week and 1/2 before the election. I saw his little religious pals Donnie McClurkin et al doing their little bus tour through the State…. I even saw a piece of literature that was using NoBama’s stance against gay marriage too! In the end it was the AA community who put the nail in the coffin of CA’s gay marriage….to the tune of 79% of voters saying yes….. all other demographics were practically evenly split….
I’m sorry but the problem is the AA community likes to regard themselves as the only minority and can’t see anyone else as such…!!!

I have been saying this since Bush first brought up the “marriage amendment”. When you get a marriage license from the State, it is like registering any contract with the State and they charge you a fee for doing so. However, States do not recognize religious ceremonies unless they are accompanied by the State registration certificate known as a marriage license purchased at a State registration office. You can have both, or you can have just one, but the religious ceremony for any couple will not be recognized by the State until the registration fee for a license has been paid.

Why we are dithering over the right to register a marriage with the State and a religious ceremony in a church is not recognized by a State when we have just selected a guy for for president whose name we don’t even know and whose birthplace is claimed by Kenya! Is this supposed to distract us from a real Constitutional issue?

Hmmmm…..The way I have been reading what many churches say is that if the state recognizes Gay marriages then the state can force churches to marry Gays despite their doctrinal authority if the couples sue a church who refuses to perform the ceremony. This is happening in Canada in two cases.
In one case State authorities are prosecuting a Roman Catholic Bishop for the Bishop enforcing Vatican Doctrine and refusing to allow Priests to perform marriages in the church.
In another case a protestant preacher is being prosecuted for speaking out in both print and from the pulpit on denominational interpretation of scripture.
So whether we like it or not…The churches are watching things in other countries with regards to State/Secular Authority in relation to steady encroachment…Just like Secularists are watching for theocracy in government….

Good googley moogley! If we’d had this much energy and passion prior to the election, perhaps my candidates would have won.

For me the question is not about gay marriage but rather a question of whether the government should sanction any civil linkage contract in a religious environment. The government should not allow any religion to sanction a civl contract within a religious ceremony. If we approached the problem from this perspective than the result would be a union in a civil service at the courts or some government agency for any and all who seek them. If people want to conduct a wedding in a ceremony within the confines of their own religion than they should be free to do so but it would not be recognized by the state. Religions would not be forced to marry anyone because the ceremony is devoid of any legal ramifications other than religious ones. Arguing that religions should still be forced to marry gays in this closed door environment would be akin to saying gays need engage in heterosexual sex in their closed door environments. Leave people to pursue their own agenda without bullying others into accepting every aspect of their life.

randy, stop excusing your sorry attitde. oh and by the way i support gay right but not bullies.

i have a braclet. cut the bull! you are name calling and i am calling you on it. ENOUGH ALREADY.

Hmmmm….Unfortunately Aaron this is what is happening through civil litigation with regards to civil rights protections…This is what the Churches are arguing and why such strange seeming Bedfellows as Mormons and The Catholic Church are allies on this issue in particular…( Both Churches have centralized Doctrinal Authority which they see threatened by secular enforcement and a slippery slope which undermines their doctrinal authority )
For example. If the state has the right to prosecute a Bishop for enforcing Vatican Canon Law which is the foundation of the RCC in the case of Gay Marriage because it is descriminatory…Does the State have the right to enforce the ordination of Female Priests for the same reasons even if it goes against Church Canon Law?
A similar issueabout Authority is ongoing with regards to Abortions being offered in Catholic Hospitals or Alteration of Education Formats in Catholic Schools ( whether teachers accompany students to Mass as part of the curriculum )
Or in the case of Mormons…The Federal Government forced the Church to alter it’s doctrine and dissolve Polygamist marriages because it was Illegal in this country during the formation of the church or perhaps it was just an assumed custom until then?…And was not a Foundational principle to Church Doctrine but an adopted practice justified by revelation of a church prophet. The State in this case acted for the good of the whole of society and yet 100 yrs. later we still have sects who openly practice polygamy…So the issue gets way more tricky than simple bigotry or intolerance…Although to many it is hard to take the time to see all the angles…Which only leads to impasse…imho…

in europe most people use civil unions. they learned that any ism no matter where it comes from is not a good thing. personally i think civil unions for all and a church wedding by choice is the best answer. but then there are the extreme groups on both sides that prevent common sense alternatives. we in the people are frigging sick and tired of it all. we want to live our lives. we are trying to pay our dang bills.

moisonitte, when you are out there outing the aa churches and mosques, then we may take you seriously. till then, naw!

randy, climb down from your self righteous throne. it doesn’t become you. yawn! and by the way i support gay right but not bullies.

randy, i asked already for you to cut the crap but naw you have to rant on. look i agree with gay rights but you don’t have the right to bully in the name of rights. that’s my view.

i have a braclet, you are making an axx out of yourself.

docelder, you reflect my views.

susan, equal rights to civil union in the eyes of the state needs to be passed. after that churches then have the right to have a religeous marriage ceremoney. i think their right to determine who marries in their church should also be recognized. i may not agree with it but i support the right to disagree.

I don’t understand the logic of targeting predominately white churches. The battle over Prop 8 was not won or lost over the white vote, which was evenly split 50-50%. Asians also evenly split their vote. Hispanics were 53%. Black voters 70%. Jewish voters 70%. (I couldn’t find stats on Muslim voters.)
Does anyone realistically think that the Mormon Church had any influence at all over black, jewish, over even hispanic voters? Of course not.

Clearly, after looking over the demographics of the vote, where work needs to be accomplished for future sucess is within other minority populations. Doing the hard work of weaving thru ethnic barriers to form relationships, establishing mutual respect and tolerance, outreach, education, etc… Tedious, but necessary. Painting a target on white Christians may provide instant gratification (and is risk free in this country), but it doesn’t resolve the issue.

I’m not supporting the actions of the religious institutions which seek to keep their hold on civil contracts with regards to marriage. I’m supporting a complete elimination of their power and making the state the overseer of the union. As far as the discriminatory aspects of private institutions go I feel that the governement should only intervene if an individual is unduly harmed. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic but doesn’t follow Catholic law is not a Catholic. This the nature of religion and the function of it. Religions by nature are discriminatory as are many other institutions in our secular society. (Congressional Black Caucus- Doesn’t allow non AA to join even if they represent districts that are a majority African American.)

Discrimination is not a dirty word but rather the application of discriminatory practices to justify or actively hold down others that is problematic. We all discriminate every day of the week, when we shop, go out to eat and socialize with others. The act of discrimination is not malicious in itself. Is a discriminating consumer a fool? Someone with a discriminating palate a snob?

Workingclass artist- I can give you an example of what happened here in Massachusetts. When state law negatively impacted religious beliefs and practice with regards to adoption- Catholic Charities didn’t capitulate, they just stopped. Made the very hard decision to get out of the adoption business after 100 years.

The Conference of Bishops recently gave Barky a similar warning regarding hospitals and health care. If his administration implements regulations which conflict with Catholic religious beliefs, the Church will get out of the business altogether.

If you think access to health care is messed up in this country now, try it when 30% have closed their doors.

Gay rights are civil rights.

Are you assuming gay people are a homogeneous group?

Look at the difference between MLK, and the Black Panthers.

The stupid and violent behavior of some did not denigrate the legitimacy of racism and rights suppression.

Same with gay people, a few behaving stupidly doesn’t discredit what is a legitimate issue, our denial, as a society, to recognize the rights of others based on, (god help us), sexuality.

…racism and rights suppression as an issue.

Sorry, if I wasn’t clear.

I feel that any group has the right to petition or support what ever they want.

I think the Mormons had the right to do what they did. I also think the gay community had the right to protest it.

Which is why I think has the gay community (and supporters) are angry; the fact that they really did nothing to rally the people to vote against Prop 8. They were sitting back, thinking “we’re in California…it will never pass!”

From what I understand it was about 70% AA & latinos; and about 50% whites that voted for prop 8. So who can we blame? Not them…we’re in a time that you will be considered racists. Let’s go after the Mormon church.

I wonder how many Mormons are in California vs. AA’s & latinos & 1/2 of the whites.

I could care less who loves who. But I do think the gay community would be better off to follow the tatics of MLK, not Obama’s “in your face” style thuggery. That tends to turn people off!

Mormons represent a church denying others rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

We, in America, separate church and state.

What you are suggesting is analogous to saying the suppression of women’s voting rights should have been upheld because Mormons believed only men are intelligent enough to make an informed decision.

(Snicker)

And no neocon is gay (bwhahahahahaha).

Even those married, with children.

Must be a bitch to live your life in the closet, terrified of being outed.

Esp as a high profile politician.

For instance.

No worse than dying of cancer. No worse than having a child die. Victimization mentality. You must be Special! Get over yourself.

I live in San Francisco, I’m straight, and support gay marriage. Many of my friends are gay, and they were all disappointed that Prop 8 passed. Yet, when I asked them what they personally did on behalf of the No on 8 campaign, only one person could say that she made phone calls, donated money, and worked on behalf of the campaign in any way. And ALL of them voted FOR The Pretender and didn’t seem to care that he does NOT support gay marriage.

Interesting article in the 10/16/08 issue of the Bay Area Reporter, the local LGBT paper:

The campaign to defeat Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative, only has 30,000 donors out of an estimated 1 million LGBT Californians, the campaign’s director said Tuesday, October 14. Many of those contributors are straight allies.

Just as sexism and misogyny will exist as long as women remain passive in its face, homophobia will exist as long as gays remain passive. As long as we support candidates who don’t support our beliefs, nothing will change. If we don’t “put our money where our mouth is” nothing will change.

You must be the change you want to see in the world. – Mahatma Gandhi

Ah, just like Washington.

Good to know!

When did this become a gay site?

Actually, it did, from election night, onward, some of us have been discussing this human rights setback.

Try a search.

Why do we view gays as “lesser” people due to their sexuality?

Because the bible said so?

Because, we, ourselves are uncomfortable with our sexuality, and we’re projecting?

Why?

Gay rights are civil rights are human rights.

IMO, he tacitly supported prop 8, he is the only democratic presidential candidate I know of who didn’t openly advocate for gay people.

Clinton took pains to insure her support of the gay community was unquestioned.

Not Obama.

I’m not sure what stand he will take now that he has the Presidency, but don’t be surprised if refuses to advocate for gay civil rights.

That’s a hard truth, btw, best not to face these politicians, naively.

shame on one minority not trying to help out another minority,

it’s bullshit, karma is a bitch, and minorities that don’t help out other minorities will get theirs,,and are most likely already living out a not so great existence anyway,

still though, shame on them,

I could care less who loves who. But I do think the gay community would be better off to follow the tatics of MLK, not Obama’s “in your face” style thuggery. That tends to turn people off!

You are aware that Obama won, right?

How come it’s ok for you to get angry, and not others that disagree with you?

Most of us were content before, but now you’ve just gone and thrown it in our face.

This is my complaint. Don’t get in my face. I haven’t done anything to you or taken away any of your rights. It’s not my place to tell you who and who not to love – I don’t want you telling me.

By you going after people who disagree with you, it seems like you want to take away their rights…their right to vote. They can…get over it.

And lady, there’s no way I’m stopping until we accomplish our goals.

Isn’t this the real problem that Prop 8 passed? There wasn’t enough people out there saying to vote NO? And now no one wants to blame themselves for not voting.

Bush won too. Look at how well that turned out in the end.

So where are the protests against the Catholic Church, evangelical churches, or other special interest groups that campaigned and donated to pass Prop. 8?
Does it really make a difference whether those who supported Prop. 8 did so out loud and in public or behind the scenes and in secret?
The Obama candidacy drew voters from every personal, religious, & political persuasion. Some were thoughtful and informed and some were not. The passage of Prop. 8 was collateral damage. People who went to the polls to vote for Obama also voted on other issues according to their personal views.
In the next 4 years, many groups will find themselves on the “oops” side of unintended consequences, particularly liberals, loyal Dems and, likely, the AA community.
Obama told each interest group a very generic, “nuanced” version of what they wanted to hear. He never actually committed to any specifics. He will continue to “stay above the fray” while his loyalists fight it out on Main Street over whose interests he really supports.

You are so caught up in your hate and anger that you can’t see my point, which is, you PROJECT hate and anger onto people who don’t have hate and anger towards you.

Sure, there are some people who hate gays and that’s why they voted for Prop 8. But I’d say the majority voted for it because they don’t believe in gay marriage, not because they HATE gays.

But if you want to continue to make yourself feel more persecuted, by all means, go ahead. Not all gays feel the same way you do on this issue, note the story of Elton John here, who is more than willing to find a middle ground and not despise everyone who does not agree with him.

SIGN THE PETITION TO FORCE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA TO PRESENT HIS QUALIFICATIONS.

PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authorities

Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;

Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;

Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;

Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;

Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;

Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

The above article appears on WorldNetDaily.

It’s not “oh I know a few gays.” Quite a few of my best friends are gay, and the same with KathyNeoCon (I know, we’ve discussed this issue previously to this topic). One of her best friends is gay and knows her position on this issue and still chooses to be her friend.

And I have stated here over and over again that I voted AGAINST Prop 8. I don’t care if gays marry. But I also see the other side and I’m just trying to explain it here because I feel people like you hurt the cause of all gays by making this out to be a simplistic “you’re a bigot” issue. It is NOT that simplistic and the people I know who voted for Prop 8 are NOT haters.

It’s not about “lesser.” It’s about raising kids in an household where there are authority figures from both genders so the kid can grow up with positive role models from both sexes. To me, that is the “ideal,” and I know a lot of other people feel that way. Not because it’s wrong to be gay, but because it’s better for the kid to have their mother and father there.

I would personally rather see an abandoned child in the home of loving gay adoptive parents than in an orphanage. I am not opposed to gay parenting personally. I am just trying to explain why the mother/father/child family is seen as ideal.

This is a ridiculous post. I can’t abide someone who says they are ready to change their mind about an issue because they don’t like some of the tactics of those in favor of the issue. As a lesbian, who was briefly married in California, whose marriage is now in question because a coalition of people decided to organize to take that right away (and even if they hadn’t I still would have had a 2nd class marriage w/o federal rights bestowed on straight married couples), I believe I have the right to be angry at people who took away my rights and boycott or call them on their hatred. Believe me, there is lots of anger against the Black churches too, not just the Mormons. California’s proposition system unfairly allows a majority to take away the rights of a minority. In this case that majority support was organized and bought by millions of dollars of contributions mostly from churches and church members, many of them from outside of California. Every movement for civil rights has had times when their supporters were angry — including the Black civil rights movement and the women’s movement. That is not a reason to decide not to support equality. For another take on this debate, very different, and which may explain why we are angry, please see my maybe spouse’s article on another site:
http://www.wowowow.com/post/brenda-feigen-why-harvey-milk-movie-proposition-8-battles-continues-148171

We will have enough problems paying for social security without adding the additional burden of paying it to people who get married JUST to take their partner’s benefits when they die. And actually, for the sake of fiscal solvency, we should probably not pay out social security to spouses PERIOD unless there is a dire financial need. I am not discriminatory on that one. I think it’s horrible that my tax dollars would pay out ss to some golddigger who married a man just for his money and his benefits, with no children to raise.

And BTW, I just don’t buy this idea that you can’t commit to one another without the blessing of the state. You can commit to each other now. You can get a commitment ceremony in an open church NOW. If you are waiting for the sanction of the state to validate your relationship, you are turning your relationship into an activist position and not just being there in the relationship.

I actually don’t think the state should validate marriages period, but that’s a whole other topic.

BTW, I think gays were wrong to go after the marriage issue at this time, they pushed it too soon and should have waited until the older generation died off. But a bunch of activists pushed it before people were ready for it, and now you have to deal with constitutional amendments against gay marriage as the backlash. A bit more realism and less emotionalism would have created a strategy of starting with civil unions and pushing for full gay marriage at the future time when the older generation would be dead and gone. But no, emotion rules the day here.

“i guess for whatever reason you’re reading passion and frustration as hating and angry.”

That’s because your “passion and frustration” IS anger. It’s so obvious even if you can’t see it.

And BTW, I have more than two gay friends, I have lesbian friends too and I know some of them are upset by the Prop 8 thing, but they aren’t coming off unhinged about it. I’m not telling you to shut up, but I am saying if you respond in this manner you aren’t winning people over to your side. And it’s up to you, since YOU are the one who has a vested interest in changing things, to decide whether YOU want to change YOUR dialogue if you want to win more people over.

I don’t have any vested interest in gay marriage, it is not an important issue to me in the grand scheme of things. Sorry, but it is not. And so I don’t care whether my communication gets through or not, since I’m not trying to change things. YOU ARE, so you might consider my feedback and the feedback of others here.

This thread has aroused passions in everybody. Everybody take a deep breath, and get rid of the hate. Both sides have the right to their opinions. Anger, abusive language, and reasoning is not gonna work in this blogosphere. Just agree to disagree. Noone agrees with anybody absolutely. Keep that in mind, and relax. Good for you to feel the way you do. Thats all.

While it is certainly true that passions have been aroused and that anger, abusive language, and reasoning? (was that a typo or freudian slip) won’t work in this blogosphere, passions expressed in frank language expose much of the rot that has been hidden behind polite conversation.

no, but it’s clear you can’t keep yourself from being a sarcastic a–h-le.

rot in your view, not the opposing view. thats what you dont take into consideration. learn to respect opposing views too. then, all can agree to disagree. Insisting that any one view is absolutely true and correct, and the rest are wrong reminds me of certain religious groups and fundamentalists.

snickers…\

thank you.

i agree with you we have to work with the tools we have to fight discrimination. i also agree with boycotts in general, HOWEVER, personally i’m opposed to the type of broad-based boycotts where a business is targeted because of the action of one employee exercising their personal rights. for instance, if a company had a policy of discrimination, absolutely. boycott the sh*t out of them. i also think violence and rioting tend to backfire. of course, without the stonewall riots where would we be today?
it just wouldn’t be my first choice.

what frustrates me is this notion that because one group doesn’t believe in something for religious or old-fashioned reasons, they should dictate how many rights another group should have or to what extent they should have them. it’s the same with abortion in my opinion. if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. don’t believe in gay marriage? don’t marry a gay person.

along with the idea that from the straight world we look so happy and well-adjusted that it’s ridiculous we should want more when all we want is equal.

at any rate, excellent input.

When I say I don’t like the “in your face” tatics, that doesn’t mean I will let anyone change my mind about my beliefs. I’m more or less trying to give advice to the people trying to convince someone against something being told they have to believe in it. People rebel.

You have every right to call people on their hatred. And you should do it. I just think that both sides should be able to argue their views respectfully.

I had a friend tell me she was gay. I knew her since the 2nd grade. She asked me if I hated her for liking girls. Hated her???!!! My friend??!!!
I already knew she was, who cares? I said, No, do you hate me for liking guys? I mean it’s the same thing.

It shouldn’t matter how much advertisement there is for or against Prop 8…people needed to get out and vote.

Getting out and yelling at churches and people won’t help. This needs to be dealt with by SCOTUS. Petitions for another vote, etc…

I’m not saying you are doing any of this, I’m just trying to give a point of view. I am on your side, but disagree with many of the tatics people are taking.

With that said, Good luck to you and your spouse!

wow. how about if we just take your existing rights away and tell you to wait until another generation when it doesn’t piss people off so much. your slip is showing – are you sure you voted against 8?

and how dare you expect taxpayers to accept commitment ceremonies as acceptable when other taxpayers get everything.

just my two cents about how to solve the situation in the most fair way. the fact is, the state is involved in providing over a thousand state and federal benefits to married people. it would be more difficult and there would be more outcry to remove those benefits then just tweaking the process a bit.

don’t have any vested interest in gay marriage, it is not an important issue to me in the grand scheme of things.

well, that couldn’t be more obvious. look, you can try and demean and belittle those who are passionate about this subject and do your little kumbayah dance, but just because YOU say i’m unhinged and angry means nothing to me. and frankly, scarlett, i don’t give a good goddamn whether other people agree with my cause or not.

the time for tea and cookies and ass kissing and begging are over. we’re done waiting for crumbs from the majority when in fact, civil rights should not be determined by the majority. scotus will throw prop8 out and then you’ll have to deal with your issues about gay marriage.

your condescending attitude sure is going a long way to getting me to see your side.

jeez, hillary, who’s playing the victim? you sure are taking everything i’ve written as some hate-laced tirade and projecting your own sh*t onto me. elton john is a person of means and celebrity who lives in a completely different world than the vast majority of gays and lesbians. what works for him is his business. because the great and wonderful super star speaks i should suddenly get down on my knees? puhleez…

it’s been real, but i’m done. YAWN. you’re boring me with you little preachy tantrums.

“scotus will throw prop8 out and then you’ll have to deal with your issues about gay marriage.”

What’s really totally stupid about your attitude towards me is that I have never been opposed to gay marriage and I voted against Prop 8. Get that through your thick skull!

But no, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think gay marriage is the most important thing the US should be worried about right now. Our economy tanking and taking America down along with it is my number one concern. If that makes me a homophobe in your book, then so be it. But you continue to miss the point that by acting in this manner, you are turning off people who MIGHT be on your side. The SCOTUS won’t help you if you actively work to undermine your cause with attitudes and behaviors like this.

Hey, continue to go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot. By all means.

Had AIDS first been described as an affliction of newborns (which of course it can be) instead of the “gay cancer,” society would have spared no effort to stop the epidemic in its tracks. Unfortunately, that did not happen. And the Band Played On.

uh, screw you, kathy. equal dignity is not (or should not be) a privilege.

whatever. calling marriage a “privilege” for heterosexuals only is not going to be well received by a lot of people. besides, she seems to be ignoring the very real discrimination and contempt gay people face every day; the marriage issue issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

exactly; if a person’s “religion” requires them to discriminate, then that religion is not really compatible with american concepts of human rights. the religion goes, not human rights.

randy it is none of your business who she voted for on that proposition. it is none of her business who or what you for vote in the voting booth. your rights end where our noses begin. think about that. allies you might have you won’t have very soon with this attitude.

What’s different is that the first waves hit queer communities, and it was so selective, with ‘outsiders’ not really knowing or caring what was happening. It was qualitatively different from individual tragedies because it was so sudden, so pervasive, so unstoppable. Not to downgrade other tragedies, but this was so selective, and it has left deep scars in queer communities.

Not true. That’s just the latest argument. Read some theology. The various churches have almost always been against it (except during an interesting period in early english history when the pope could not solve a certain problem in the royal family). ‘Sodomy’ was punishable by death because it violated biblical teachings. The crime that had no name was punishable by hard labor because of religious belief.

This sudden concern by churches for their rights of religious freedom has only surfaced since they began to lose the ‘kill all the queers’ argument and have had to face reality. In fact, churches face far fewer threats to their constitutional rights than queers have endured over the centuries at the hands of the churches, and the claim is just beyond specious. Last ditch transparent junk argument.

Dem no more is right. A lot of the ‘they aren’t the same’ claims come from homophobic racialized people who want to keep anyone else from having any kind of civil right card to play at all. This election has made it all too clear that AAs are more than happy to have the entire country wallowing in pity for the history of racism yet can quite happily turn right around and help strip another group with its own very harrowing history of its civil rights.

And don’t forget that long before prop 8, AAs — including many religious leaders in AA communities — were in the forefront of the anti-queer civil rights and anti-queer marriage rights debates. This did not just erupt earlier this month. Its been there a really long time, and is a serious problem.

Hillary or Bust — you are so way beyond wrong. The sooner the US gives up the belief in the ‘ideal’ of the male-female parent structure, the better. Look around the world; this is not human history, nor the current norm. Even in the US, those who look like they are at the moment living out your ‘ideal’ are more than likely just involved in serial monomagy and the creation of serial blended families.

The greatness of a parent comes from the parent’s character and relationship with the child, not from apparent enactment of some artificial ‘ideal.’

Actually, what is very interesting is that until emancipation, slaves were legally denied the capacity to marry without their master’s permission, but as soon as emancipation took hold, states passed mandatory marriage and marriage registration statutes. Couples who continued to cohabit without marrying within a certain period of time were liable to criminal charges, etc.

There was also segregation within these compulsory marriages. Most states require that couples who seemed to be of color had to file certificates of racial origin, and of course the same statutes requiring those certificates also prohibited marriages between people who were not both of sufficient ‘racialized’ origin. Also, many states had separate marriage registry offices, registration forms, and registry books, so that there was no intermingling of documentation (remember the purity of blood donation rules too?).

As a matter of legal possibility, however, it was never likely that the scenario you are speculating about (a separate registration of cohabitation system for freed slaves or for inter-racial couples post-Loving v Virginia), because the same rules requiring freed people to marry turned cohabitation into a crime, and then, when anti-miscegenation statutes came into effect (many were there from the get-go), they not only criminalized inter-racial marriages but also inter-racial cohabitation. So with longstanding bans on recognized cohabitation, it was not within the scope of legal imagination to suddenly say ‘ok you guys can register non-married cohabitation.’

The reason for some of these directions in legal policy?

Continued criminalization of slave classes. Anything that could be done to create criminal liability after emancipation (vagrancy laws, ban on unmarried cohabitation, movement without sheriff’s permission)could be used to put a freed slave back under the control of the state, which would then auction off the freed person’s labor in a de facto reinstatement of master-slave relations.

Marriage = social control.

Civil unions without marriage = social control without the full protections of marriage. [I have never seen a civil union statute that is 100% as comprehensive as marriage -- including Vermont, which comes the closest. And that was Deaniac's nightmare for queers there.]

Just curious, dem no more. If you and your partner received *every* benefit and tax break afforded to hetro couples, but it was called “civil union” and not “marriage”, would that do the trick?

thankyou Aaron and Tuppence411 for insightful argument…especially given the complexity of the topic. In Canada a Bishop is being threatened wth prosecution because he is upholding Canon Law with regards to this very issue…The Bishops are alarmed indeed…

That’s an interesting list. What is most shocking to me is that as a single heterosexual male I’m denied those exact same rights and priveliges. Single people (and there’s a lot more of us than LGBT’s) should rise up in protest to this civil rights outrage. It is gross discrimination when by having entered the simple man made institution of marriage, people should be given more rights than me. No justice, no peace!

Since the main argument for extending the right to marry to same sex couples always seems to be the acquisition of the perks married people have, ( for the sake of this argument let’s not muddy the water by debating the profound wisdom behind the creation of those perks) why not simply push for laws that prevent any distinction, in any circumstance, beteen married and single people. The LGBT would get all the goodies that they currently insist can only be obtained through marriage, so the argument about same sex marriage will be moot.

Then, it won’t really matter whether you call your relationship a marriage, civil union, duprass, threesome, foursome, or princes telephone, your rights will be the same.

So, they supported a President who is opposed to gay marriage and consorts with homophobes, but he’s the Messiah so they’re giving him a pass, even though AA’s voted overwhelming against gay rights. And they’re publicly attacking American citizens who have an opposing political views? Do they want to live in a country where there’s no more free speech? Don’t they take issue with all the Democrats who voted against them?

OK, I think the majority of us opposed (some in theory, I actually voted against) prop 8. We also know that California went for Obama and prop 8 passed.

Now, the need to get back at Obama supporters for anything we can is tainting this discussion. As is the need of liberals to be oh so pc when it comes to gay rights.

The point of the article is not being punished for your political views. If you believe in this, you have to defend some people whose positions you may not agree with.

In an election where we were called racist for any and all criticism of Obama, we’re all wee bit defensive and projecting all over the place. We need to calm down a little and stick to the point.

Yes, gays should have the right to marry. Yes it is ironic that enough Obama supporters voted for prop 8 to get it passed and implies that many of his supporters are hypocrites or worse. And no, people’s livelihood should not be jeopardized for their political activism unless they break the law or otherwise go beyond the limits of societal boundaries.

If that happens, most of us here are in deep shit.

Interesting. They supported a candidate who doesn’t support them, and Democratic voters for that candidate denied them basic human rights. But they’re not lashing out at those voters, because that would be oh so politically incorrect. I wonder, how many of them were active in the Obama campaign?

I don’t blame them for their anger or their activism, just their tactics.

Yes, it’s just the chickens came home to roost for the LGBT community first, but they’ll be coming home for all the other groups who supported Obama, too.

As a single heterosexual male, you do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT do. It is because of that discrimination that LGBT people need legal recognition such as marriage. It’s a matter of justice.

But remember, those militants are a minority of the LGBT community. If you don’t support gay civil rights legislation, lots of innocent people living quiet lives minding their own business, will get hurt.

You are right.

There is no way that you could possibly know what discrimination I’ve experienced in my life. When I lived in Guatemala I was called a Gringo, when I went to college in S.C. I was called a Yankee, when I moved to Massachusetts in 8th grade I was called a greaser. I’m left handed so I’ve had to adjust my life to fit into a right handed world. I’m color blind so there was no possibility that I could be a pilot, no matter how much I wanted it. I’ve recently been through a divorce that really opened my eyes about the incredible inbalance and prejudice there is in favor of the wife. Poor, poor, pitiful me.

I used the previous argument in the hope that it would smoke out someone like you Margaret. I realize that you do not speak for the LGBT community, but you revealed that the true
nature of your discontent does not lie with the benifits you’re denied by an inability to marry your girlfreind, you’re unhappy because the government won’t erase perceived past discriminations with the purely symbolic gesture of recognizing a marriage between two people of the same sex. What’s the point?

If the government were to decree tomorrow that LGBT people crapped diamonds and pissed wine, do you think that the folks who have a negative opinion about LGBT’s will miraculously change their ways and revere them? I think the opposite will happen, as it is happening now, you’re only pissing them off more.

I’ve tried to be as objective as I can on most subjects, including this one, and when I view it from a detatched position it appears to me to be another attempt by the LGBT community to poke the majority (as evidenced by the prop 8 vote) in the eye. The mindset of vitriol and revenge will simply backfire, regardless of the validity or hope of the argument.

anal sex is wrong, that why gay marrage is wrong.they dont know wich hole to put it in.