SF Chronicle
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Meanwhile they also marched on the Mormon church asking for people to attack it.
William Amos on November 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
She is saying that 70% of blacks are dumb.
Mark1971 on November 8, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Wow for once I agree with Pelosi. These are the people, after all, who voted for Dear Leader.
rbj on November 8, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Actually that may have been true–had Prop 8 lost.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM
who? the blacks and hispanics?
Phoenician on November 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM
And have begun to lash out at blacks as well.
I’m surprised that the same *gag* gracious gestures that the 52-percenters from the POTUS election are supposedly extending us losers who backed McCain does not apply when they find themselves on the losing side of a vote. /sarc
The reality is that the No on Prop 8 failed to make their case, choosing instead to rely on emotional arguments and vicious attacks on their opponents. I probably would have voted No on 8 when I first moved to SoCal two years ago, but after watching and listening to the people pushing for gay marriage in this state, I voted for it.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Pelosi knows California voters are dumb, they keep voting for her.
Buford on November 8, 2008 at 4:50 PM
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”
Jim Treacher on November 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Uhhh… Prop 8 won. Gay marriage lost.
Tacitus_SGL on November 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM
You’re not too far off, Madam Moonbat. They did vote for Obama after all.
Hey, voters approved assisted suicide in Washington…but voters all over America voted for that, too. /Limbaugh
Black Adam on November 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM
The ones who aren’t calling black stupid for the loss are calling us “n*****rs” for not toeing the mark. :::shrug:::
I’m betting that they won’t be “protesting” down by my house.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Prop 8 is a disaster all around. Gay marriage shouldn’t be made unConstitutional, but it happened because the California Supreme Court decided to legislate it from the bench.
If the court had stayed out of it, Prop 8 would never have happened and the matter could be taken up in the state legislature when it belongs. IMHO, of course.
Tuning Spork on November 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Thank you so much. But you knew what I meant.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM
That’s the same reason Obama won, Pelosi
CanadianGuy on November 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I agree with Pelosi. Any voters who keep sending her to the House time after time must be dumb.
Lehosh on November 8, 2008 at 5:00 PM
BTW, 70% of black California voters voted for Prop 8.
About the confusion: my 87 year old aunt was going to vote no, thinking that ‘no’ meant no-on-same-sex-marriage.
My step-dad says that Jerry Brown was behind this(pardon the pun), deliberately making it so that Yes meant No and No meant Yes. Even I got confused above, as we saw.
That’s why I use voter guides.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM
A constitutional amendment became necessary because the libs in power refuse to follow the will of the people.
The No on 8 people were taking heart in the closing of the gap between the 2008 vote and the 2000 vote, but I think that’s just because of how they (I believe Jerry Brown’s office) phrased it. Instead of it be phrased as the definition of traditional marriage, it appeared on our ballots as taking away homosexuals’ rights. That alone, plus any libertarian types who might oppose changing the constitution, probably accounted for the apparent shrinkage of opposition to gay marriage.
The proponents of gay marriage have not made their case of why domestic partnerships or other legal arrangements are not sufficient, nor have they explained what their vision for marriage is… would the majority advocate for polygamy? what about marriage between same-sex siblings?
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Great minds.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”
Confusing!
Greenhelmet on November 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Greenhelmet,
I’m not sure if we are disagreeing or not. I would say that the official voter guide was phrased in a way to try to defeat Prop 8 and was somewhat confusing, but not in the way San Fran Nan implies.
This is the text:
Most people don’t like taking away rights. This was clearly an attempt to kill Prop 8.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:11 PM
LOL. In a way she’s right. My mom works at a hair salon. She tells me that a lot of her customers (Spanish speakers) got confused and accidentally voted in favor of gay marriage. You see, THEY VOTED NO because they thought there should be NO GAY MARRIAGE.
BUT, YOU HAD TO VOTE YES ON PROP 8 TO RESTORE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE.
Pelosi is right; Prop 8 shouldn’t have been that close in the results. Whites were split on Prop 8, but Hispanics support traditional marriage by large margins.
El_Terrible on November 8, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Note to Pelosi:
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you (or elects you in this case)….
mjk on November 8, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Ha Ha Nancy. Let’s look at the scorecard. Where voters get to decide the definition of marriage, One man/one woman: 30 something, gay marriage: goose egg.
Just be glad this wasn’t a social issues election, Nancy. Barry would be sitting in his illegally purchased manse commiserating with Billy Ayers about how it went so wrong.
Mallard T. Drake on November 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM
That explains how she got in office.
Wade on November 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM
As someone who voted “yes” on prop 8, I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. This should be an issue decided at the state legislature, not by constitutional amendment, but the court involved itself and effectively shut off the entire democratic process, save for the ability to use initiatives to employ constitutional amendments.
Judicial activism effectively set itself up for failure here in the Golden State.
Tacitus_SGL on November 8, 2008 at 5:15 PM
True. I especially liked the commercials phrasing: “no matter what you think about marriage, IT’S WRONG to take rights away”
Greenhelmet on November 8, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Libs in power NEVER have to follow The Will Of The People. They are in power precisely because we, The Sheeple, are too stupid to know what it good for us (i.e. massive taxation, unchecked immigration, free rides for parasites, etc.)
GeneSmith on November 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM
No, he’d be in court trying to overturn it.
Jim Treacher on November 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Wonder what they think about taking away the right to own slaves?
Wade on November 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I’d rather see the issue decided by legislatures, than by amendments or courts. Most people’s vision of marriage is a lifelong commitment through sickness and health to share love and burdens and in most cases to raise children. If this is what a gay couple wants, then it seems positive.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Next election they will have a ballot measure to give more constitutional rights to minorities by only requiring 10% approval to pass a constitutional ballot measure.
pedestrian on November 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
On the contrary, Pelosi, the voters were exactly dumb enough to know what they were voting for.
RightOFLeft on November 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Yea, hahaha, I loved those commercials. You know, the ones that never talked about marriage, they talked about Japanese interment camps and discrimination. And I think San Francisco’s mayor was arguing that if they ended gay marriage they would go after interracial marriage next. Ridiculous.
El_Terrible on November 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Kind of like the college student morons that thought they were opposed to women’s suffrage.
nottakingsides on November 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Yep. As I said earlier, if I had been asked to vote on this two years ago, having just moved from Indiana (where it is not an issue, but where benefits for domestic partners are pretty widespread already) and before the courts and Newsom did their thing, I probably would have voted against Prop 8.
But, between the way that gay marriage was forced on Californians, the quickness with which “bigot” and “homophobe” was thrown around to dismiss and smear Prop 8 proponets, the failure of gay marriage advocates to explain how polygamy or marriage between same-sex relatives could be prevented once marriage was redefined in this way, and their failure to convince me that domestic partnerships were not sufficient… I began to have doubts. I am not such a purist that I was going to stop myself from voting for Prop 8 based purely on arguments about the inadvisability of using a constitutional amendment to do so. The gay activists and their supporters forced our hand.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Interracial marriage would have failed to get a majority of votes in many states, probably all the way up to “Loving v Virginia”. Curtailing someone else’s freedom is an inexpensive way to support tradition.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I have no problem with gay couples and gay families. Whatever my personal beliefs are, I would never try to stop people from forming a family. However, by using the institution of marriage (as opposed to domestic partnerships and legal arrangements to ensure legal rights and responsibilities) the door is wide open for polygamous marriages and marriages between same-sex siblings. I do not think our (U.S.) society is ready for either of those things.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM
“Wonder what they think about taking away the right to own slaves?”
Let me set my deLorean for the 1850s and get back to you on that
Greenhelmet on November 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM
You’re kidding right? As corrupt as legislators are today, the outcome would be decided to the left’s favor everytime.
darwin on November 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Not so far, that is why courts have been doing it or forcing legislative bodies to do it. Facing election every few years the state reps have mostly been against gay marriage so far.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Then they’re subject to the will of their constituents which would reflect the results of Prop 8. In other words, you’re saying they’d vote the same way. I doubt it … there would be tremendous efforts to intimidate and threaten legislators from the left.
darwin on November 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM
You gotta love liberals.
“I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
In other words, you disagree with us, and you’re attacking freedom ITSELF. Liberals are some of the only people twisted enough to view changing the very definition of marriage as it has existed since it began as diminishing freedoms in some manner. The founders, of course, would be appaled by idiots like Pelosi.
TheBlueSite on November 8, 2008 at 5:37 PM
The primary reason I’m happy this won is that the courts tried to undermine the democratic process and were ultimately defeated.
That gives me confidence in the integrity of my democracy. As to homosexual marriage? I personally don’t care that much. They DO have civil union in California and have effectively all the rights and privileges associated with Marriage. So all they were fighting for is a title that honestly, they probably don’t deserve.
This has been a hard thing for some people to get. That there are limits what you can claim. This has happened on the right and left. Marriage really is for families and ultimately for children. Biology makes that impossible for homosexual couples… adoption and artificial insemination aside.
The point being that the relationship is fundamentally different between homosexual couples then between heterosexual couples. This sense of entitlement to change the rules and redefine everything is not exclusive to the left though. Both sides have factions that wish to hijack core principles to their own ends.
Karmashock on November 8, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Push me and I’ll push you back…harder.
Christien on November 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I think it already was.
Now it has been decided by the people. Twice. Let’s see if the people are overruled again.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Based on the way the prop was worded, I am sure more people thought they were voting against gay marriage when they voted no.
Since this is the third or fourth time California voters nixed gay marriage, you can’t say it doesn’t reflect the wishes of the majority of the voters.
Blake on November 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I was right. The CA legislature tried to overrule Prop 22 in 2005 but Arnold vetoed it (something he did right).
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Except Sarah and her little puppy…Comedy central said that’s okay
rich801 on November 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Legislatures have been consistently against gay marriage and most will continue to be that way in the near-term. At some point that will change since younger people tend to favor gay marriage more than older people, and gay couples are more commonly living married lives with or without the word marriage on the paperwork.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Baldilocks,
You weren’t confused. Whoever wrote this headline was. That’s the point the Tacitus guy was trying to make, I think.
Patterico on November 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Yep, from what I’ve seen in my short time here, the CA legislature is completely out of control. We had to use the constitutional amendment.
I did a lot of research before deciding on this issue, and even at a site like GayPatriot which is generally pretty conservative-leaning (from a gay perspective), I never saw what rights “marriage” endows that cannot be endowed via legal contracts. And, I have started to detect at whiff from several blogs that many gay rights proponents do have an anything goes attitude towards all marital arrangements, including polygamy. So these ads that they ran implying that without gay marriage, domestic partners would be kept from the bedside of their dying partner or children would be ripped from homes seemed really disingenuous to me.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Californians, if this statement, insulting to your inteligence has truely insulted you, I implore you, in 2010, go to the polls and show Ms. Pelosi you know exactly what you’re doing when you cast your ballots: vote GOP and help punch a hole (or hopefully completely eliminate) her majority in congress.
They say the best revenge is living well.
I say the best revenge is taking away what the POS who wronged you holds most dear, which in this case, is her power.
SuperCool on November 8, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Got it. Thanks Patrick.
See what I mean. Damn you, Jerry Brown!
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I’m saying that the legislature would likely be pretty close to the same outcome as the proposition. My point has less to do with gay marriage per se, than a general dislike for ballot initiatives.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM
C’mon, the
idiotsracists in PA re-elected Murtha, this statement by San Fran Nan is not going to stick for two years.Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:56 PM
In California, it seems like you could just have another proposition, or have written Prop 8 to say “marriage is between two (not three) people”. It seems illogical that the proposition process is enough to protect against gay marriage, but that it would be ineffective in preventing polygamous marriages.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 5:56 PM
From what I’ve observed here, the legislators are not that responsive to their constituents… or perhaps it’s just that the way the districts are drawn, the libs have a lock on the majority and ignore those of us who are in more conservative areas.
And ballot initiatives are just a way of life in CA. That’s not going to change.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Based on what principle?
If “marriage” is some sort of natural right, as the proponents of gay marriage seem to be arguing, then what argument could be made for restricting it to two people? And, since some religious groups advocate for polygamy, it seems to me that those folks have an even stronger case than gays do for the “right” to marry.
Once you decouple marriage from how it has been traditionally defined in this country — as well as from procreation and child-rearing — and make it a “right,” then it’s a right anyone can claim. Two siblings of the same gender — who have no potential to produce a child together (and hence risk no genetic defects through their union) — should be allowed to marry under the arguments gay marriage advocates are making.
If people want to build lives together, fine. But that does not require redefining marriage.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Actually, some people might have been fooled – Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown changed the wording on the sample ballot to make Prop. 8 appear as it was taking away “rights” when it was restoring the legal definition of marriage.
corona on November 8, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I had to call my husband last night to find out where his train was going, Long Beach or Los Angeles hub (he’s an engineer), after I saw a huge protest heading through an area of Long Beach where you drive fast to avoid the random rock thrown at your car.
I dunno about you, Baldi, but this SoCal native is about ready to jump ship and move to Arizona. lol
Trace on November 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
They’ll f around and get an extra orifice if I know some of my fellow black Californians as well as I think I do.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM
From the article:
I find the approval versus disapproval percentages fascinating.
DCA on November 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM
This is how the CA Proposition 8 was listed on the CA ballot:
Anyone who didn’t understand that they were changing the Constitution simply can’t understand English. This is a pretty lame excuse by Pelosi for losing. It’s time for Newsom and Pelosi to face facts. It’s done, “if you like it or not”
Dollayo on November 8, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Was she talking about the black voters (70% against) or the hispanic ones (70+% against)?
Lonetown on November 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Based on the principle that Califorians can amend their constitution via majority vote, and can do so to define marriage as being between 2 people. A court may find that a proposition violates the U.S. Constitution, and could do so with Prop 8 or with a Prop that banned polygamy. However, gay couples could make an equal protection case against Prop 8 much more strongly than a polygamyst.
My point of view isn’t that gay marriage should be recognized on Constitutional grounds, but rather that gay marriage benefits gay couples and provides additional stability to communities without weakening straight marriage. Ultimately, I’d rather that marriage be defined by churches while the government simply enforced contracts, but that’s not going to happen.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM
It would seem that, to the Left, freedom means being free to do the wrong thing – and get away with it. They have no principle.
OldEnglish on November 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Nature wants babies and so do Grandparents.
Some people get the reproduction cycle and why its beneficial.
The prospect of a wildly liberal education system getting a green light to force homosexual education on their children scared the hell out of parents.
A lot of people don’t want to be in other peoples bedrooms but those same people for sure don’t want other peoples bedrooms in their kids classrooms.
Speakup on November 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM
But what about the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Don’t Muslims have a “right” to marry as much as gays do? If marriage is a natural right shared by all people (as it seems the CA Supreme Court was saying this year), then why not polygamy? and why not marriages between siblings?
You are probably a stronger constitutional scholar than I am, but I really think that once the court stepped in, the voters had to use the constitutional amendment route.
The gay marriage debate in CA seems to have followed this path.
Voters used a ballot measure (Prop 22) to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000.
Earlier this year, the CA Supreme Court overturned that ballot measure in a 4-3 decision based on a “fundamental right” to marry possessed by all people.
This month, voters changed the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. In that way, they eliminated the concept that all people have a fundamental right to marry and defined state-sanctioned marriage in a specific, traditional way (that coincidentally also excludes polygamy).
If the voters did not use a constitutional amendment and tried to define marriage through legislation, then it seems to me that the same natural rights based legal arguments that the judges used to overturn Prop 22 and justify state-sponsored same-sex marriages would be applicable to people of religious faith who want to enter into polygamous marriages.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 7:22 PM
What gets me is that this is suppose to be “for the people, by the people..” If the people have spoken, then teh courts need to stay out of it… are not those judges appointed? Probably… by activists who want activist judges who support special interests instead of the PEOPLE…
Then one can march for the “right” which was not really a “right” issue, but a definition of marriage, and get positive press coverage fawning “Oh… isn’t it bold… romantic“, if you will… meanwhile, those who march to protect the innocent lives of human beings destroyed by abortion are labeled extremists… hate-filled monsters…. right has become wrong and wrong has become right….
CynicalOptimist on November 8, 2008 at 7:22 PM
If the child’s teacher is gay or if a classmate’s parents are gay it will be in the classroom in some way regardless of the marriage definition.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 7:25 PM
i would like to b slap pelosi
she is disgusting traitor to america
she does not care about the nation
only about the votes she can prostitute herself for
*spits*
lexa on November 8, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I echo lexa’a assertion… eloquently stated…
CynicalOptimist on November 8, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Every molecule in my body exudes absolute hatred for that woman.
BallisticBob on November 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I’ve seen this a lot from the Gay marriage debate, the divorce rate is high and your all a bunch of hypocrites anyway for a laundry list of excuses.
Don’t make things worse by validating another perversity, two wrongs don’t make a right and life is not. an. excuse.
Just because someone else does something you don’t agree with doesn’t mean something else that’s wrong is OK.
Its not necessary to hate to understand right from wrong.
And Marriage and sexual orientation has no business in School, of course the Ca. education system didn’t get that clue from prop 8 voters but they damn well should.
Shut up and teach.
Speakup on November 8, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I’d agree with the teach part. I’m not a big fan of sex ed or of public schools either.
I’d disagree on homosexuality being wrong, since it isn’t illegal and doesn’t violate the harm principle developed by Locke, Mill and others. I find homosexuality unappealing, but also think some straight marriages are between people I find unappealing.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM
If thinking about what two men do during sex makes you gag, that’s normal but if your a homosexual male and the thought makes you gag, that’s common too.
Nature wants babies, homosexuality does rarely occur in nature other than with humans but that is not natures intent.
Recognizing and understanding homosexuality isn’t the same as normalizing behavior that nature designs as disturbing or does not reproduce.
That doesn’t mean Gay people are bad and certainly are not in any way second class citizens or should be belittled at all.
Speakup on November 8, 2008 at 9:25 PM
The losing side always says the people are dumb, they didn’t understand the wording on the ballot, they would never knowingly vote that way, etc.
The best thing to do: remind them Obama voters put it over the top. They only have themselves to blame.
Votes no longer count when you can pursue an issue until you get your way. There will be gay marriage one day.
tuffy on November 8, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Oh horsecrap! I voted Yes on Proposition 8 for one reason and one reason only – because I view marriage in one way and one way only. Marriage is a union of 1 man and 1 woman. Calling black white does not make black white and all the money and passion and advertising in the world will not make it so. In the same vein, calling my thought process “hateful and bigoted” does not make it so, either. The amendment became necessary because a “want” somehow morphed into a “right” and the “progressives” were persuaded that, if homosexuals couldn’t be married, the very foundations of the State of California and the United States of America.
In their never-ending quest to be termed “normal”, the LGBT folks set their eyes on the term “marriage” — apparently thinking that if they can do something that everybody else can do, they’d be seen as more like everybody else.
One huge flaw in that thought process . . . Marriage has always been defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. Even in societies in which homosexual behavior was not only accepted, but almost expected, marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Heck, even the “No On 8″ folks used the imagery of a traditional marriage -ie: one man one woman – in one of their commercials. Why’d they do that? Because marriage has always been regarded as a union of one man and one woman. Get the point, Nan?
least1 on November 8, 2008 at 10:26 PM
What other fundamental psychological-biological-conceptual aspects of reality, and which other bases of Civilization can we redefine to please an aggrieved minority?
Let’s have “death” mean “really slow living”.
And “childhood” stand for “a form of minor adulthood”, with all of the same rights, including driving, drinking, voting and marriage”.
How can we prevent people doing (or insisting on being free to pursue) anything ~ from pedophilia to polygamy to incest to bestiality~ unless the general, stabilizing standards are held?
Normalizing gay “marriage” sexualizes the society in a revolutionary way, into the grade schools and onto every medium.
People generally have enough trouble with the way kids are overexposed to overly-erotic influences in the culture without adding a new layer of confusing instability to the mix.
Civil unions give the gay community same rights, legally, without disrupting the majority’s age-old values/standards.
Pushing too hard, too fast, tends to frighten and annoy people.
And pretending that radically redefining “marriage” is not a massive disrupting shift is disingenuous, or naive.
profitsbeard on November 9, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I nominate this paragraph for the award of Dumbest Post Ever. There is no evidence anywhere in history to support the notion that “gay marriage” benefits anyone nor is there any evidence anywhere that it “provides stability” to communities.
The reason that there is no evidence for this is because there is no such thing as gay marriage. And there never can be, just like there’s no such thing as a “gay” person.
To know this truth, just ask yourself how can someone prove that he/she is “gay?” What evidence can be produced to demonstrate the status of “gay?”
[crickets]
platypus on November 9, 2008 at 1:08 AM
By that logic, which is ridiculous, wouldn’t as many anti-traditional marriage folks vote “No” thinking that meant no gay marriages?
The Dean on November 9, 2008 at 6:04 AM
Yeah, and those people are morons. I wish gays in general weren’t lopped in with these kind of militant gays. But can’t you see how people act when they have their equal rights taken from them? I don’t, and would NEVER condone attacking any church or anything or anyone else. Gay marriage is coming…little steps, little steps. Right shall prevail, it always does.
JetBoy on November 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM
How does one prove they are straight?
JetBoy on November 9, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Voters have the right to enact legislation through propositions. This is what happens when the legislature does not represent the interest of the voters.
If the state legislature had passed a law legalizing gay marriage and it was not vetoed by the governor, the voters would have put a proposition on the ballot making it illegal.
Blake on November 9, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Its a behavior, not an identity. There is not such thing as a “gay” or “straight” person, only person who have participated in homosexual or heterosexual acts.
Look, the official recognition of marriage is for the state to encourage the responsible baring and rearing of children. Those who push for “gay marriage” do so only to force others to accept their behavior, to give them back the status they feel they lost when they joined the “gay community.” It has never been about rights, but about romantic fantasies.
Count to 10 on November 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I’ll take as evidence that someone is gay a lifelong physical attraction to the same sex. If you required neurological readings they could be created.
Having seen the strength that marriage provides to people as the endure the ups & downs of life, it seems evident that gay people will derive similar benefits over living alone.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM