comment #1

K. Bowen says ...

How is it homophobic to want to preserve the traditional character of marriage, the way it's been for millennia? You might want to extend it to homosexual couples, but it's hardly evil to think it best not to do so.

Also if society wants to extend the franchise, it should do so through the legislative process after careful public debate. The idea that four or five California or Massachusetts judges have the right or the authority to change the most important societal tradition is fightening.

comment #2

Geoff says ...

It wasn't a landslide loss.

I'm dissapointed, but after last night I think there's alot to take comfort in right now. I say we're only 10 years away from giving equality to all.

comment #3

Rob says ...

Please tell me you're kidding. Would you have made the same argument about interracial marriage several decades ago?

comment #4

lazespud says ...

Milk would have done nada to this vote. The VAST majority of it's audience would have probably voted no on 8 anyway. It's not like random people are going to go to this movie; it's got a specific audience and that audience occupies the same circle that occupies the no on 8 crowd.

I don't have a specific link, but I read in some paper's site this morning that one of the big problems with No on 8 was ironically BECAUSE of Obama's popularity in turning out African American voters. Apparently they will hold more traditional views towards marriage, etc, and the greater than usual turnout of the African American vote, propelled by Obama, spelled doom for the proposition.

All in all a great day though. Franken lost by like 500 votes, which sucks. Alaska picked a 90 year old convicted felon to be it's senator (which means that Palin wll probably appoint herself to the post when he steps down), and the dang Prop 8 passed. But in the scheme of things, those are pretty small compared to the tsunami that is Obama.

The force of history is on the side of gay people's rights so I hope that in the long run, this will be a short, bitter set-back.

comment #5

Nick Rogers says ...

What sickens me is when people willfully confuse tradition with intolerance. And how truly sacred can marriage really be in a society where it has a 40- to 50-percent chance of failing every time?

comment #6

Rob says ...

That last comment was directed at k. Bowen, if that wasn't clear...

comment #7

dukedog says ...

K. Bowen:
You might find it frightening, but that is how policies and laws are changed. Laws can be changed legislatively and judicially. It is in the Constitution. To actually remove some people's rights, take them from them, is just plain wrong. I hope that you never have to suffer from discrimination. Just enough to realize that you are not any less married because others have the right to be.

The traditional character of marriage has been that way due to discrimination. The traditional character of separate but equal was also due to discrimination. We Americans finally had the good sense to change that. I had hoped that we were ready to change, via defeating Prop 8. So sad.

comment #8

dukedog says ...

I didn't edit one sentence there, sorry. I meant to say, "You should realize that you are not any less married because other have a right to be." Oops.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

K. Bowen: How can homosexuals do any worse at this marriage thing than heterosexuals have? Are you really going to sit back and let the Kevin Federlines and Jennifer Lopezs of the world toss around a right that a loving couple of 30 years cannot enjoy?

It is absurd that our government treats one group of adults any differently than another. It is absurd when it comes to gay marriage. It is absurd when it comes to criminal sentencing. It is absurd when it comes to affirmative action. It is absurd when it comes to taxation.

If a church decides not to recognize a union, fine. However, government - as an objective entity - should play no part. And I shudder to think that if such a Proposition could pass in California, how long we have to go before our country gets this one correct.

comment #10

Sabina E says ...

Yeah, K. Bowen, we all have to preserve the so-called "TRADITION" of marriage between man and woman.

while we have HIGH divorce rates among heterosexual couples, while we have HIGH infidelity rates among heterosexual couples, while we have GOLD-DIGGER TROPHY WIFE BIMBOS who are married purely for the sake of money and nasty old perverts who lust after young brides.

Yeah sure. sure,

Damn those gays and lesbians who have been in long-term loving monogamous relationships!

Tradition, my ASS.

comment #11

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Good news: Palin can't "appoint herself" if Stevens is ousted. She has to call a special election. (Of course, she could then decide to run.)

comment #12

TedM says ...

K Bowen,

You do realize that marriage was mainly about property rights and that until the 19th Century, a lot of women had virtually no say in selecting a husband - the marriage would be arranged for them to benefit the families involved.

And you do also know that at one time even the Catholic Church had a ceremony to bless same sex unions? It got changed only because it was monkeying up those property rights and the Church didn't want to lose valuable real estate.

And the Arizona measure that was passed had to do with adoption by gay/lesbian parents. Where do you think most of us came from? Heterosexual parents. So how could a loving gay couple screw up a kid any more than the heterosexuals?

comment #13

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Interesting that time after time I hear about the socially conservative black vote, but nothing about the equal if not larger numbers of Latinos who are also conservative. In fact, several pundits predicted that both Prop 4 and 8 could be in jeopardy from Obama's own supporters.

But at the end of the day, bigotry is simply bigotry. 40 years ago K Bowen would be thumbing the Bible and "tradition" to support all the prejudices against blacks.

comment #14

Woodrow says ...

How old is this gay marriage debate? 20 years ago how many people were advocating for gay marriage? This has become a hot political/social topic only in the last ten years. Give it time.

comment #15

Fien Print says ...

K Bowen,

You're already being jumped on enough. And yet...

If you want, you could says that the supporters of Prop 8 aren't homophobic. I'd disagree completely, but you could say it.

What they are is intellectually dishonest, as are you when you say "the traditional character of marriage, the way it's been for millennia."

There is no traditional character of marriage that has existed for millennia. Marriage is a social construct that has changed and evolved in legal and anthropological ways over the decades and over the centuries and with each millennium. The supporters of Prop Eight, for example, included many Mormons, who should know as well as anybody that what may have been acceptable for a marriage a hundred years ago is no longer considered the norm. Our Biblical patriarchs, men whose character is considered admirable and worthy of study, had multiple wives, married slaves and bartered and traded for their wives like property. Their definition of marriage is not ours, just as their time is not ours. If marriage is a fluid and evolving process, supporters of Prop 8 seem to think they can set it in amber or in stone. And, in this case, they think they can turn back the clock. But how far? Back to a Victorian notion of marriage with wives as legally irrelevant second-class citizens? Why not? Once you're restricting and eliminating rights, it does become a slippery slope.

I'm not going to get all "The Nazis started eliminating rights..." because I hate that as an argument. It's low and cheap.

You talk of frightening advocate judges changing social tradition. What of Brown vs. the Board of Education? That's just one example of an instance in which a "social institution" was changed by pesky advocate judges. Feel free to speak out against that decision if you like. Rest assured that if many Southern states had put to vote repeals of that decision, those would have passed and by a margin far greater than 52-48. I bet that in Mississippi and Alabama and South Carolina and Georgia, you could still garner a solid vote total from proposing re-segregation.

But note how much of the Pro Prop 8 campaigning relied upon the *exact* same vernacular that segregationists used in the South. We kept hearing over and over again about how homosexuals should be happy with civil unions because they're "basically the same" as marriage. I mean, if they'd used the phrase "separate but equal" that might have tipped some slower people off as to what they were actually supporting.

Anywho...

comment #16

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Obviously, "thumping" but I guess he/she could be thumbing through it looking for justification for their actions to avoid their own bigotry.

comment #17

DarthCorleone says ...

K. Bowen>> I need not pile on with any further rational arguments. These folks have put you - the bigot - in your place.

The approval of Proposition 8 was heartbreaking. The good news is that the ACLU is on it, and there's a protest in West Hollywood tonight. This was merely a setback; we as a society are headed in the right general direction such that the strain of idiocy practiced by K. Bowen and his detestable ilk eventually will fade to the fringes.

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

The crazy thing, as I wrote elsewhere, is that Obama's presence on the ticket probably helped Prop 8. WIthout the support of a huge number of minority voters - many of which came out only for Obama - Prop 8 was doomed.

comment #19

MDOC says ...

Prop 8. The people have spoken on gay marriage, "thanks but no thanks". Case closed, right? The public has voiced it's opinion, but I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore.

comment #20

Midwest Doug says ...

Josh is right.

If I were a gay activist, I'd think hard about pro-actively pushing to have anti-gay marriage amendments in all states that don't have them. The catch is that the amendments would outlaw gay marriage but would permit same sex civil unions.

This is a cynical solution, yes, but at least would preserve some of type of formalized union between same-sex couples. Most of the anti-gay marriage amendments now also preclude same sex civil unions. Voters, in their rush to ban gay marriage, also ban civil unions -- even though most voters are more permissive about 'civil unions' than they are about the word 'marriage'.

comment #21

DarthCorleone says ...

MDOC>> I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to you.

By your logic, I guess the Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore either then. Do you figure that if a vote were held in South Carolina in 1820 that a majority of that state's citizens would have upheld a ban on slavery? See anything inherently wrong with majority opinion there? There are certain unalienable rights endowed by the freedoms of our country that YOU DON'T PUT TO A FUCKING VOTE.

comment #22

MDOC says ...

"There are certain unalienable rights endowed by the freedoms of our country that YOU DON'T PUT TO A FUCKING VOTE."

Who decides that, you? That's a slippery slope isn't it? This is a democracy right? As for your SC argument, the people of SC didn't like being told their majority opinion didn't matter, went to war over it from what I recall.

comment #23

DarthCorleone says ...

No, I don't decide it. And, no, the slope is not slippery at all. You don't amend the constitution to specifically abridge the rights of a particular minority of free citizens. That's a fairly basic element of this particular "democracy" that you trumpet.

One of these days this issue will reach the Supreme Court, and we'll see what they have to say about it. The only reason that the ACLU waited to file the suit is that California law requires that the measure pass before its constitutionality can be challenged. (That seems rather wasteful to me given the money spent on both sides in this case.)

And your point about South Carolina is? Did they return to the Union? Did they accept the abolition of slavery? Are you honestly arguing that slavery should have been constitutional with respect to the spirit of this country because a majority of citizens might have defended it?

comment #24

Kristopher Tapley says ...

^^^

Holy shit.

comment #25

Kristopher Tapley says ...

The arrows were for MDOC. Darth stole a spot between us just in the nick of time.

comment #26

Bubyubb says ...

Unfortunately the strategy of trying to win gay marriage rights through the courts has produced entirely predictable setbacks. You can rant that marriage is an inalienable right but the fact remains that there is NO precedent in American history on your side. (Unless I missed the homosexuality clause in the Constitution.)

So winning the right should have been a matter of changing attitudes on a generational basis and timescale. Approached that way, over a decade or two it would have gained momentum and inevitability. Instead, as with abortion, liberals tried to get the courts to legislate it overnight, and it's hardly surprising that legislators and citizens have rebelled at such an end-run, leaving 30 states now with laws amendments which will have to be removed, at far greater effort, one by one when the votes are finally there-- in 20 or 30 years.

There's a reason the black civil rights movement managed to get what they wanted without provoking a national segregation amendment to the Constitutiion, which could have been passable well into the 60s, I think.

comment #27

Michael says ...

@ Deathtongue_Groupie:

Interesting that time after time I hear about the socially conservative black vote, but nothing about the equal if not larger numbers of Latinos who are also conservative.

Well, they weren't conservative for Prop 8. I posted this before, but the exit polls are here. Every racial breakdown is almost 50/50 except one.

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

This was all about the Mormon Church once more dictating the behavior of America. They ruined the Boy Scouts with their agenda.

They won't be happy till we're all drinking Sprite and copying Mitt Romney's haircut.

Far as traditional marriage goes - polygamy is traditional and Biblical - why can't that be approved by California if it's all about old time religion?

comment #29

DarthCorleone says ...

Belloc-Lowndes>> As I see it, it's not "marriage" per se that is the inalienable right in this case. It's the very act of rewriting the constitution to single out any group as unworthy of the same rights as others that is a violation of an inalienable right.

Anyway, your point is taken. Philosophical change is glacial, but I can't blame the minority for fighting for what is right before the majority is ready to acknowledge it.

comment #30

Craptastic says ...

This election really reminded me of how a majority of California is made up of rednecks and desert dwelling Sandpeople.

Chickens now have more room to move but renewable energy and gay marriage get the boot.

Oh and we'll also be spending 10 billion dollars to build a fast train that will, most likely, never get made.

What the hell happened to this state?

comment #31

tommysunshine says ...

How come K Bowen is being persecuted for saying the obvious: marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality and marriage are incompatible because of the lack of a natural childbearing facility.
And ask yourself this: do you think the work of Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams or Quentin Crisp would have been so brilliant if they were in conventional "married" relationships. No. So great art will suffer as well if gay marriage is allowed. This might not be politically correct but it has the virtue of being true.

comment #32

Fien Print says ...

Tommysunshine, this was a joke, right? "And ask yourself this: do you think the work of Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams or Quentin Crisp would have been so brilliant if they were in conventional "married" relationships. No. So great art will suffer as well if gay marriage is allowed. This might not be politically correct but it has the virtue of being true."

If 100% of all gay folks were Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams, that might make an iota of sense. Wait. No. It REALLY wouldn't. May an *iota* of sense. But what about the gay doctor and the gay school teacher who don't much care about writing a play and would just as soon trade that option in to... you know... get married? Are you all for making them suffer because you want "The Glass Menagerie 2: Rose's Revenge"?

Meanwhile, I'm looking for a legitimately recognized dictionary that includes "capacity for childbearing" in the definition.

While I'm looking for that, I'd like you to politely send e-mails to all those old folks who get married after 40 or 50, straight folks, that their marriage isn't valid because they aren't baby-making machines anymore...

comment #33

Josh Massey says ...

"Homosexuality and marriage are incompatible because of the lack of a natural childbearing facility."

So should it be illegal for heterosexual couples to get married and not have children?

comment #34

K. Bowen says ...

Should four or five judges be able to enforce by judicial fiat a new definition of marriage upon a society? Well let's reverse it. Should a judge have the power to forbid gay marriage? To say that they have the power to do one is to strongly imply that they have the power to do the opposite. I don't think they should. I think it's appropriately a political question. To change it should require the advocates to persuade the majority of Americans of its wisdom and to have that opinion reflected in by legislation or referendum, as it did yesterday. I know, democracy and majority rule. How quaint.

As to traditional, has a marriage ever not consisted of a union of a man and a woman? Yes or no?

AM i a bigot? Hahaha. Oh, please. Strangely, i'm a bigot that believes in civil unions. They extend many of the rights of marriage to homosexual couples while preserving the basic character of marriage. In the old days, we called that a sensible compromise.

Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. To change a law should require people to pesuade amajority of people to their belief.

Gosh, all my crazy ideas.

THis conversation is already tedious.

comment #35

Woodrow says ...

I am a vegetarian. From now on, you must refer to tofu as "filet mignon." It's unfair for you to get to eat meat while I can't. If you call my tofu "filet," I'll feel better.

comment #36

Craptastic says ...

K. Bowen,

What if someone told you that you couldn't marry the person you love? How would that make you feel?

You really need to think about that...and others.

comment #37

themathnerd says ...

Biblically, polygamy was NEVER God's intention for marriage but because of our sinful nature (which includes God's people) we see it appear throughout the Old Testament.

As a Christian, I'm a firm believer that God's original design for marriage is between a man and a woman but still, I voted NO on Prop 8 due to it's divisive and discriminatory nature.

I'm actually quite that sad it passed because many churches across the state simply lied to their congregation members instilling fear such as possibly losing tax-exempt status if Prop 8 doesn't pass or even witnessing a rise in perversion & crime.

As a Christian, I do apologize for our ignorance and even laziness to research the issue. But again as mentioned before, even we as Christians are sinners.

comment #38

K. Bowen says ...

If I were married but fell in love with someone else, then the law would tell me that I couldn't marry them.

comment #39

K. Bowen says ...

I mean, there are Mormons that consider themselves married to multiple women, but the law doesn't recognize all of those marriages, either.

Likewise, there are ministers that will perform gay marriages. The question is whether the state wants to recognize those marriages.

comment #40

frankbooth says ...

I completey agree with Tommy's logic.

Tomorrow, we'll pull out half of Scorsese's teeth so he can get his old hunger back. Then we'll cut off David Fincher's thumbs.

Ron Howard will require something a bit more drastic, so we'll kill one of his children in front of him. Imagine how the suffering will improve him as an artist!

Joel Schumacher is gay, and he can't get married, which is why his films are perfect. We'll leave him alone.

comment #41

Fien Print says ...

themathnerd -- There are multiple old testament instances of God actively condoning polygamy, if not outright encouraging it. Rachel and Leah, for example, are both considered matriarchs and no punishment comes to either of them or to Jacob for having married them both. Granted that Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah, but God didn't tell Jacob to get a divorce before marrying Rachel. God also is comfortable with rewarding adultery. Yes, Sarah gives Abraham permission to sleep with her servant to get a child, but there's no reason why God says that Hagar's child will also have a nation made of his people.

I'm not saying God is Pro Polygamy or Pro Adultery. I'm just saying that in the Bible marriage means a lot of different things and God is flexible.

K. Bowen - No. The law would tell you that you have to divorce your first spouse before you can marry the second. Through a series of active choices on your part, you could do that a dozen of times without ever ruining the sanctity of "traditional marriage." Marriage, in fact, requires nothing of you other than that you be single and of the opposite gender, as of now. Love? Faith? Devotion? Those have nothing to do with the current legal definition of marriage.

comment #42

corey3rd says ...

So sterile people should never be allowed to marry? And if a couple doesn't have kids and she gets tubes tied or he gets his snipped - then the marriage should cease to exist?

At some point, the concept has gone beyond the tradition. Ever notice Jesus doesn't talk about the McRib in any of the Gospels and yet it is the ultimate food of God.

Has anyone here felt their marriage was destroyed by Sulu getting hitched?

comment #43

K. Bowen says ...

I thought i would those examples to make the point that society does restrict certain relationships from marriage despite the presence of love, rather than go into the more inflammatory ones.

comment #44

MDOC says ...

"Has anyone here felt their marriage was destroyed by Sulu getting hitched"

My wife refuses to watch Star Trek with me, does that count?

comment #45

DarthCorleone says ...

K. Bowen>> I agree it's tedious listening to the claptrap of you, tommysunshine, and MDOC. That's about all we'll agree on with this issue.

Should four or five judges be able to enforce by judicial fiat a new definition of marriage upon a society?

If the current definition is unconstitutional, then yes. That's obvious.

They extend many of the rights of marriage..."

We don't live in a country where we shortchange citizens with "many of the rights." They receive all of them.

In the old days, we called that a sensible compromise.

No, in the old days, they called that "separate but equal." Look how that worked out.

Your clinging to this "majority rule" as being the absolute authority on this is simply wrong. As I said above - South Carolina? 1820? Care to put slavery to a vote? Think it would coincide with our current concept of "constitutional?"

tommysunshine>> Your inane "childbearing facility" comment has already been debunked. Try again.

As for your moronic Oscar Wilde/Tennessee Williams remark, setting aside the wisdom of Fien Print above, I have an idea. Let's turn a blind eye to any organized crime activities, because without the mob we would never had great art like The Godfather and Goodfellas. Believe me - there will always be plenty of suffering in the world to inspire art without legislating that it hang around.

All I hear from you Prop 8 supporters over and over is this tired adherence to a "traditional" definition. That's your only justification. You hide behind the banner of "semantics" to obscure your discrimination. The world is rife with faulty "traditions," and discrimination against homosexuality is a very old one that needs to go. Humanity is not static. Wake up and smell the prejudice.

Sometimes I wish I could time travel to two or three centuries from now when I hope the human race will have finally recognized your views for the antiquated crap that they are and the idea of depriving anyone of civil rights is a faint memory.

comment #46

DarthCorleone says ...

frankbooth>> Clever. :- )

comment #47

MovieBob says ...

The fact is, as any genuinely honest demographer will tell you, the African American and Latino communities are generally much MORE negative on gay rights than Whites are. It's only incidentally a racial thing, it's really about culture and how each group manuvers politically. The political "power-base" of the white community is in local/national political offices and business associations, which tend to be largely secular and reflexively pragmatic. The political power-base of the Black Community flows from Churches. The Latino community works from a similar foundation - so many are 1st-to-3rd generation immigrants from devoutly Catholic latin nations.

If traditional voting models - i.e. low turnout among minorities - had held, Prop 8 might've been defeated... but they did not hold because so much of Cali's minority community was energized to turn out to vote FOR Obama; and while they were there a majority of them also opted to stick it to gays. Awful, sad, dispiriting... but also likely to be true.

Look at those exit poll numbers someone else linked to: Black voters went 70% FOR Prop 8, black WOMEN even more decisively so. In a sad, ironic way one could say that Gay Marriage in California was "martyred" to Obama.

Mitigating this, of course, is that it's all academic now: This issue is going to the US Supreme Court, always has been. That court is 5/4 leaning-"left" now, and is likely to STAY that way given that the next one or two appointments will be made by Obama. Gay rights advocates "won" this a long time ago, it's now just a matter of how long it'll take everyone to notice.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

Bowen: "How is it homophobic to want to preserve the traditional character of marriage, the way it's been for millennia?"

Do people still have harems?

"Also if society wants to extend the franchise, it should do so through the legislative process after careful public debate. The idea that four or five California or Massachusetts judges have the right or the authority to change the most important societal tradition is fightening."

Yes. And what right did the Supreme Court have to decide in favor of black people on Brown?

"Should four or five judges be able to enforce by judicial fiat a new definition of marriage upon a society? "

Should four or five judges be allowed to do their job?

"I mean, there are Mormons that consider themselves married to multiple women, but the law doesn't recognize all of those marriages, either."

That's because those unions tend to be forced. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/11/fleeing.polygamy.hammon/index.html

MDOC: "Case closed, right? The public has voiced it's opinion, but I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore."

The public thought slavery was a good idea once, too.

"As for your SC argument, the people of SC didn't like being told their majority opinion didn't matter, went to war over it from what I recall."

And they lost, if I recall.

Belloc: "There's a reason the black civil rights movement managed to get what they wanted without provoking a national segregation amendment to the Constitutiion,"

It's because only half the country hated black people.

Craptastic: "Chickens now have more room to move but renewable energy and gay marriage get the boot."

I hear ya, buddy.

"Oh and we'll also be spending 10 billion dollars to build a fast train that will, most likely, never get made."

I was thinking of that Monorail song from The Simpsons.

"What the hell happened to this state?"

Prop. 13 happened. Anyone could now afford a house here, and they've hijacked our local economy and diversity in the process.

sunshine: "How come K Bowen is being persecuted for saying the obvious: marriage is between a man and a woman."

What about a man and a little girl like in Greece or even in Edgar Allen Poe's time?

"Homosexuality and marriage are incompatible because of the lack of a natural childbearing facility."

What about barren hetero couples?

Woodrow: "I am a vegetarian. From now on, you must refer to tofu as "filet mignon." It's unfair for you to get to eat meat while I can't. If you call my tofu "filet," I'll feel better."

Vegetarians choose not to have meat. Gay couples can't choose to be recognized by churches.

comment #49

huntermdaniels says ...

Slippery Slope=logical fallacy.

Can we ALL stop using it now? You seem stupid when you resort to tis type of silly, emotional appeal.

comment #50

HoopersX says ...

Seriously,

If you voted for prop 8 then you should move to the deep south and embrace the inner biggot you really are.

I'm not gay but I can't tell you how deeply I think anyone who voted for this prop is an asshole.

It's a word people! And government has no place in the business of religion. And this bs is nothing but forcing religion down our throats.

Fuck you and your "moral stance".

Hoopersx

comment #51

themathnerd says ...

fien print - I'm sorry but you have an extremely distorted view of God & the Bible. God never rewards adultery and all those acts of polygamy led to grave consequences:

Jacob w/ Rachel & Leah -> Eventually Leah's children ends up selling one of Rachel's child into slavery
Abraham w/ Hagar -> Isaac's descendents will always be in conflict w/ Ishmael's descendents
King David w/ Ahinoam, Abigail, Michal, Maachah, Bathsheba, to name a few -> plague, pestilence, civil war where even his own son wants to kill him
King Solomon & his multiple wives -> Divides the kingdom

The only reason why any good comes out of it is because of God's mercy on a sinful world.

There's a BIG difference between God being merciful & God being flexible. God being flexible means he's sort of OK with it and will let it pass. God in fact UTTERLY HATES sin yet he loves us so much that's he wants to show mercy to those who believe in His grace.

But a price MUST be paid for sin and that's why Jesus had to die a shameful death on the cross. OK, I think I've preached too much.

comment #52

Josh Massey says ...

Thank you for raising the level of discourse, HoopersX. We were floundering without you.

comment #53

MPNeeb says ...

Extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples (or gay marriage for the Prop 8 supporters) was approved by the California legislature twice.
And then vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger (not entirely unjustifiable as he was waiting on the CA Supreme Court).
So the courts can hardly be accused of legislating from the Bench.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of stupidity and bigotry.
And if you don't want me to call you a moron and a bigot, stop acting like a moron and a bigot.

comment #54

62Lincoln says ...

HoopersX: "If you voted for prop 8 then you should move to the deep south and embrace the inner biggot you really are."

No, please stay in California and embrace yourself. Thank you.

comment #55

Bubyubb says ...

"So the courts can hardly be accused of legislating from the Bench.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of stupidity and bigotry."

Dear Californian,

There are 49 other states, 29 of which have similar laws now. The conversation is not all about you.

comment #56

Jay says ...

People need to get on the right side of history. There WILL be gay marriage and the bigots who stood in its way will be the George Wallace of their time.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EQUAL LOVE

comment #57

Woodrow says ...

Yes, one day we will all rise up and say, "There's nothing abnormal about being gay!" And then every other species that's ever roamed the earth will say, "Say WHAT?"

comment #58

Woodrow says ...

Keep repeating: "There's nothing abnormal about homosexuality. It's perfectly natural." Keep repeating until species dies out.

comment #59

DarthCorleone says ...

Woodrow>> You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

(I figured it was time to lighten the mood with a quote from one of Jeffrey Wells' favorite movies.)

comment #60

Yuval says ...

Woodrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Keep repeating: "I'm not a bigot, I just have a clear grasp of reality".

comment #61

tommysunshine says ...

Woodrow's point is unarguable.
Look, I admire anyone who 'dances at the other end of the ballroom' for their independence of mind, the challenges they overcame growing up and for their senstivitiies
But gay adoption is like dispensing a credit card to somebody who doesn't have a bank account.

comment #62

Woodrow says ...

While we are dedeining the word "marriage" we might as well redefine "bigot." "Bigot" is now defined as those who beleive gay peopele should be free from discrimination in the workplace, be able to live with whomever they please, share property with whomever they choose, make their Social Security benefits inheritable to whomever they want, and basically enjoy every benefit of citizenship BUT believe that two dudes on top of the wedding cake ignores the reality of the term marriage and requires us to teach our children that a man marrying a man is just as normal as a man marrying a woman. The equating of the two is ignoring reality.

I know plenty of unarried women in their 40s who would like a constitutional amendment that would require the perfect man to marry them. Some people in life don't get to be married. Woe is them , but that's life.

comment #63

Woodrow says ...

Oops. please replace "redefining" for "dedeining."

comment #64

Yuval says ...

"I know plenty of unarried women in their 40s who would like a constitutional amendment that would require the perfect man to marry them. Some people in life don't get to be married. "
The correct analogy is that you and the other bigots would ban marriage for women over 40. And tommysunshine would ban it because they don't have a bank account (a child bearing vagina that likes to get together with a sperm ejaculating penis) to receive a credit card (a baby).
The meaning of words change, don't pretend that this is about the meaning of the word marriage. "oh no! Now I need to learn the meaning of this word all over again. I can't have none of that"

comment #65

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Woodrow's point is unintelligent.

It's also grossly ignorant, as anyone who has watched enough NOVA and Discovery Channel knows that animal populations of widely varying species engage in homosexual behavior. To claim otherwise is to announce you are reality-challenged.

You can keep repeating whatever you want until the end of time, doesn't change whether it's true or not.

The simple remedy for this has always been the one thing the opponents of this blithely ignore: attend the church, synagogue or mosque of your choice. For those that feel your god is bigoted against homosexuals and withholds love from them, find a place where you can pray with like (closed) minded people.

Those that feel that such h8 does not reflect their values, will find religious venues that affirm that view.

The state will stay out of it - it will either dispense marriage licenses to all consenting adults who request them or stop recognizing them all together. EVERYONE would be granted a civil union certificate and private organizations would then be the sole designators of what that union should be called.

After that, everyone can keep their noses out of anyone else's fucking business.

comment #66

iamanerd says ...

Marriage has more than one definition througout time, especially its use in English. Not all of them refer to gender of those involved.

That's beside the point. My concern is that people miss the point when it comes to this issue. It has been made to deal with religion when marriage is not a religious institution in the US. It is a government sanctioned union. It is something people apply for a license to do. You may have had a lovely time at the religious ceremony, but the state united those two folks when they paid for the license (blood tests even!). Why can't two men or two women sign this same legal contract? Please explain it to me without using morality or religion, two things we don't legislate here. Murder was frowned upon before the Koran or Old Testament, fyi. Religion wasn't breaking any new grounds. That's morality, along with anyone's issues with homosexuality. It is not the law.

comment #67

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

It's frightening how easily you could dial back the clock to 1963, make this about miscegenation (an actual issue used against civil rights advancement) and have that the subject K. Bowen, tommysunshine and Woodrow are so blithely ignorant about.

Hey, it's up to you how you teach your children about 2 grooms on top of a wedding cake - but ignoring the reality of homosexuality isn't going to make it go away. In fact, it's pretty much apparent that that particular barn door is open for good now: gay weddings are here to stay. There have been gay weddings for decades, whether they were recognized or not. Now, they will be seen as an act of defiance.

But again, what you teach you children is up to you - the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with it. But what a wonderful day of schadenfreude for me and others when your child - despite your attempts to shield them and vilify gays - becomes one of the 10% that comes back for the holidays to say "Mom, dad, I need to tell you something..."

Wonder which will win out that day, your love for your child or the hate long festering in your soul. Sadly, I don't hold out much hope for your kid.

comment #68

DarthCorleone says ...

Woodrow's point is unarguable.

Uhhh...yeah. Unarguable. That's why we've shot down each and every single one of these arguments against gay marriage that you have presented in a rational way. Funny how you guys just keep trotting out these inane general "truisms" like "But gay adoption is like dispensing a credit card to somebody who doesn't have a bank account. " but don't bother to respond to a single specific point or refutation that we have made. Logic is tough to argue, I know.

The "bank account" in your metaphor, by the way, is love. That's all you need (John Lennon). And love transcends sexuality.

Woodrow>> "that a man marrying a man is just as normal as a man marrying a woman. The equating of the two is ignoring reality."

Normality? Have social conventions been static across time? Do they always do the right thing? Do they immediately give a voice and freedoms to the oppressed?

Regardless, you're the one ignoring reality. Men have been "marrying" men, and women have been "marrying" women. Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and obscure it with all the shouting you want. Your kids will walk down the street and see same-sex couples holding hands someday. You can't shield them from it.

But, hey, stay in that foxhole of ignorance as long as you want. I frankly would prefer that your closed mind keeps out of civil society as much as possible.

comment #69

Joshua Mooney says ...

Without miscegenation, no Barack Obama.

Wow, there are some seriously fucked-up bigots on this thread! And many more of you who've confronted them with more skill, facts and passion than I can manage. Thank Christ.

So I'll just go back to the beginning here--- where "K. Bowen says ...
How is it homophobic to want to preserve the traditional character of marriage, the way it's been for millennia?" --- and state the obvious (when I'm done laughing again), which is that "K. Bowen" seems to have no knowledge AT ALL about human social history. Well played, idiot.

comment #70

Rev. Slappy says ...

I agree with themathnerd about the lying churches did in this election cycle. I am a consistent church goer, but my church is gay welcoming and affirming. I was appalled at the religious right's gleeful willingness to lie and impugn character in this election. When the McCain camp said they would lose if the election were about issues so they decided to assassinate Sen. Obama's character, the religious right help spread lies and falsehoods about a good man. They also shamelessly lied about prop 8 and exploited children to make their point.

comment #71

DarthCorleone says ...

Deathtongue_Groupie>> Well said, sir.

comment #72

D.Z. says ...

tommy: "But gay adoption is like dispensing a credit card to somebody who doesn't have a bank account."

Well, we already did that to people who wanted to own homes, so I guess there's no reason we can't let gay people get hitched.

"requires us to teach our children that a man marrying a man is just as normal as a man marrying a woman. The equating of the two is ignoring reality."

Ignoring reality, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three

Deathtongue: "The simple remedy for this has always been the one thing the opponents of this blithely ignore: attend the church, synagogue or mosque of your choice. For those that feel your god is bigoted against homosexuals and withholds love from them, find a place where you can pray with like (closed) minded people."

Note. Orthodox Jews =/= regular Jews.

comment #73

Josh Massey says ...

"the religious right's gleeful willingness to lie and impugn character"

Not sure how you're blaming this one on the religious right.

comment #74

robbiefantastic says ...

man, it is threads like this one that make me glad to be canadian....where we recognize everyones right to live the life they choose. the hard line religious groups tried to have the same sex marriage law reversed so our prime minister called a referendum on the subject. the law stood up with a healthy majority. myself and many other people i've spoke to on how they voted on the subject were all in agreeance. we may not believe in gay marriage, but that's my personal choice since i'm not gay but who am i to stop someone else from living their life the way they see fit......

comment #75

Mjs says ...

Because the Mormons had a hand in it.

comment #76

MDOC says ...

It's legal to marry your cousin in CA, but not your sister? I love my sister, why can't we be happy together? Who is the government to deprive me of the wedding we deserve. I'm sick of living in this biased backward country too. Hopefully soon people will realize how ignorant they are and my sister and I will live happily ever after.

comment #77

mizerock says ...

At least no one brought out the old "next you'll let people marry their pet" argument here. Or did I not read carefully enough?

"If Jesus returned to Earth and saw what was being done in his name he would never stop vomiting."

comment #78

btwnproductions says ...

Backing up some: Oscar Wilde's marriage, and fathering of two children, coincided with the most noteworthy period of his career.

Going way back to the beginning: I saw MILK this morning, and was greatly moved; kudos to Gus Van Sant, Sean Penn, and the cast and crew on a biopic well done. But its first appeal will be to the "base," fanning out afterwards based on end-of-year accolades. It would not have had much impact on Prop. 8. (Biopics are better at winning awards than boxoffice.)

comment #79

Joshua Mooney says ...

[Woodrow says ...
Oops. please replace "redefining" for "dedeining."]

Hey Woodrow, you illiterate, why not fix the six other grammatical errors in your post while you're at it? I can barely make it through your fifth-grade prose.

Try to find the two grammar errors I've intentionally inserted in my own comment here. It's a kind of... test.

comment #80

DarthCorleone says ...

MDOC>> Your astute, incisive level of Swiftian satire is staggering! Simply staggering! How can I argue with such wit and indepth analysis?

It's already been rightfully attacked here, but I love how you brilliant people that want to ban gay marriage resort to the old "slippery slope" whenever you're backed into a corner.

Debate the issue we're talking about. Not some straw man that you decide to equate to it. Incest is a completely different issue.

comment #81

Bocephus says ...

Turns out proposition 8 probably won't stick. A friend of mine who is more legal-minded than me explained it:

"Major" changes to the constitution require the legislature to approve the amendment before going to a vote of the people. I'm not clear on if it's a simple majority or a greater percentage to clear the legislature for a constitutional amendment. Prop 8 did not go to the legislature first. The No on 8 folks actually petitioned this before a judge before election day, but the judge decided to just let it go and see what the vote yielded. Now that it's passed it's going before the same judge. The Yes on 8 people contend that this qualifies as a "minor" change to the constitution. Yeah, taking away rights of a significant percentage of the population is a minor change.

The best we can hope for is that the judge throws it out and that it then goes through proper channels. Even if the legislature passes it and it goes for a vote again, things should now swing in our favor. First, Yes on 8 give HUGE amounts of money to this. How many of those pocketbooks have we drained and will they be able to raise that much money again? Second, the people that opposed the proposition but were complacent because they thought there's no way it will pass, have seen that it will pass and must now be stirred into action. Third, hopefully the reverse is true and the Yes on 8 people will be more complacent because they are confident it will pass again and so they'll either throw less money at it or just not get out and vote. And last, if it does get thrown out, at the very least it gives us another year for people to get married and the more legal marriages there are the stronger our foothold to fight this issue."

comment #82

Bocephus says ...

And to the likes of Bowen and MDOC and Tommy. Spout your deranged bullshit all you want. After Tuesday, your opinion means nothing. You don't get to make us feel bad any more. Now you are nothing but a small, powerless minority.

comment #83

tommysunshine says ...

we will be back bocephus, sooner than you think. That's the thing about liberals. they get so caught up in the utopian vortex of power that they fail to spot the counter-reformationary forces gathering to fight on behalf of the majority.

comment #84

MDOC says ...

"you are nothing but a small, powerless minority"

(pointing to scoreboard) One question Bocephus, what was the result of the Prop 8 vote again? We are discussing one issue here, Gay Marriage, thump your chest all you want but don't make the mistake of thinking on this issue you are in the majority. Time and time again when people line up and express their freedom to vote, more people agree with me than you, Capish? For the time being, this country is still a Democracy and majority rules.
Obama may be an inspirational leader and the country is ready for a new direction, but by no means is conservatism dead.

comment #85

Mjs says ...

"One question Bocephus, what was the result of the Prop 8 vote again? "

True, and at one time the bigots of this nation focused mainly on black people. We've seen how far this country has come in that area. Only a matter of time until more people are enlightened about gays, less people preach your hatred, and the barriers will come down for them.

Your grip is weak, MDOC. But then, you know that.

comment #86

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Pointing to the scoreboard? Jesus, you are an absurd fucker. MDOC, i bet you were the kind of Nazi in a former (perhaps even current) life that "pointed to the scoreboard" to see how many dead Jews you could rack up in the concentration camps. You know, the kind of Nazi other Nazis looked at, and thought, "Man, i really thought i was into this whole genocide thing, but if this is what it takes, I'm not sure I'm cut out for it..."

comment #87

DarthCorleone says ...

MDOC>> I'll agree that Bocephus went a little far in extending the Obama victory to calling you a powerless minority in this particular conversation. But again you're using this "majority rules" argument as if that's the end-all, be-all in our government. Let's see what the courts decide, o.k.? There's a reason we have a judicial branch in our government. It's called checks and balances.

Incidentally, we're a republic - not a democracy. Yes, democratic processes determine much of our government, but there are unassailable precepts in our Constitution that go beyond mere "majority rule."

As for your "pointing at the scoreboard," that's just obnoxious. Let's turn all political debate into some silly football metaphor of wins and losses and throw out the important subtleties. It's that sort of mentality that puts us in bipartisan gridlock in the first place.

comment #88

DarthCorleone says ...

One more thing: check out the link that Michael posted above. Based on the age demographics, we'll have your precious "majority" in time. The prejudices of the old will die when they die, and the open minds of the young will sway the gestalt of public sentiment and pass their concept of social justice to the next generation.

comment #89

MDOC says ...

DarthCorleone,

Usually somewhere around post 88 people calm down on these debates and start to search for common ground.
It was obnoxious to point to the scoreboard. I will admit, obnoxious but true however. That being said for defending the majority vote in CA, I and others have been called a bigot, a nazi, and a racist. How do you have a civilized debate with people like this? That is the mentality that causes bipartisan gridlock.

Nobody is trying to take tangible rights or benefits from homosexuals. Marriage is a tradition, there are no inherent legal benefits to it that can not be obtained through other means such as a civil union. When asked, a majority of people favor leaving the tradition of marriage the way it's been defined for a few hundread years in this country.

All the rest is noise ,the animals being gay too, the bible, the freedom to have "a wedding". There were real battles fought for civil rights, the idea that a gay person could lose their job over it or be denied benefits is worth getting furious over. But the fact that society insists on giving a different label to the union of two men or two women than marriage isn't the same as condoning concentration camps.

I know you disagree but that is the argument. You feel that there is no difference between 2 men or a man and a women being married. I think they are slighty different and the same catch all term is not interchangeable. It's possible to condone the gay lifetstyle and support two people spending their lives together and feeling it's doesn't fit the standard definition of marriage.

comment #90

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: "It's legal to marry your cousin in CA, but not your sister?"

Gay people's children tend to be healthier than children from siblings.

tommy: "we will be back bocephus, sooner than you think. That's the thing about liberals. they get so caught up in the utopian vortex of power that they fail to spot the counter-reformationary forces gathering to fight on behalf of the majority."

Counter-reformation forces? Yeah, people really want a Catholic Church-style theocracy again. Good one.

MDOC: "We are discussing one issue here, Gay Marriage, thump your chest all you want but don't make the mistake of thinking on this issue you are in the majority."

We're a small majority right now, but if this sucker got passed twenty years ago, it *wouldn't* take a day for them to count all the votes, and it'd win by at least a 30% majority! Whether the homophobes like it or not, their influence is waning; and they'll be remembered in the same negative light as Lee Atwater. This Prop 8 result is as much a pre-destined victory for the progressives
as Bush's so-called "political capital" win [in 2004.

comment #91

DarthCorleone says ...

MDOC>> Maybe you're not a bigot, and I apologize if you take offense at that implication. However, the spirit of this law is bigoted in my opinion as is the law itself, and surely you must realize that if you removed all the bigots from your side of the issue there's no way Prop 8 would have passed. Is that company that you're comfortable keeping? Do you enjoy having their rationale used to defend your position? I find it difficult to believe that there were enough supporters pushing this argument the way you're parsing here (purely one of "tradition" and "semantics") that could have carried the vote.

As for this "noise" you're referring to, like it or not, those are the arguments that your allies are using to justify Prop 8, so I refuse to dismiss those as simple "noise." They are justifications rooted in ignorance and prejudice.

You condone the gay lifestyle. O.k. I'm glad to hear it. Explain to me exactly how same-sex "marriage" hurts society. Why is that label harmful? And why does government have any business dictating what traditions are right for one group of citizens and wrong for another for that matter?

No, this isn't denying someone a job. No, we're not putting anyone into a concentration camp. But we're not treating everyone equally. We're not giving everyone the same opportunity and respect. Words are powerful, and these sorts of examples are even more powerful in shaping the society that I want America to be.

One last thing...

Marriage is a tradition, there are no inherent legal benefits to it that can not be obtained through other means such as a civil union.

Aside from the most immediate fact that civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized in all 50 states, this is patently false. You need to do some research on that.

comment #92

tommysunshine says ...

Darth Corleone, your moniker rips off two of the most successful movies of all time and you hardly display more originality when it comes to political discourse either

comment #93

DarthCorleone says ...

tommysunshine>> Ad hominem arguments! You're the winner of the debate today! Tommy's the big winner, everyone!

comment #94

themathnerd says ...

On a side note, I have weird feeling that the passing of Prop 8 will actually help Milk at the box office because the spotlight due to the controversy is even more heated now. People who wouldn't normally watch this kind of movie might actually want to check it out. Who knows?

I honestly don't think the issue would've been as heated as it is now if Prop 8 failed but I could be wrong.

comment #95

Yuval says ...

MDOC, I'm sorry if you don't like being called a bigot, but that is what you are, if we treat the tradition of the word bigot as it was used for hunderds of years with respect (I'm actually not sure of this, but why not, you use the same iditoic arguement) and therefore you receive the same benefits of what that word entitles - ridicule.
I understand you feel very good about yourself that you condone the gay life style, I'm sure the great civil rights god in the sky is proud of you. The truth is you have a mental problem that prevents you from treating gay couples equally. You understand there's no logical reason for them not being treated equally, but your brain simply can't come up with the next logical conclusion. It has nothing to do with what you perceive as tradition. I hope you are cured of that problem in your lifetime, or at least fail to pass it on to your offsprings.

comment #96

Wiggumx says ...

Gay marriage is going to pass, people. Like it or not. It's just a matter of time. You can hate it and argue it all you want. But in just a few years.... mmmm mmmm mmmm.... it's going to be legal. And none of your excuses, ridiculous arguments, or bullshit can stop it.

comment #97

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability storage

comment #98

ewet says ...

sex
porn
free porn
porn
free sex
free sex
porno
escort bayan