Comments: You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

So, I was talking to your favorite ex-roomie about how legally it could happen to overturn the results, and it was a pretty interesting discussion. The basic idea that Joe was saying is echoed in the SF Gate:

"The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution."

So, the point is, even if the majority of the people vote to take away the rights of a minority, it can't happen because of the nature of constitution. (Something about, its not giving rights to someone, its taking away rights already afforded.) And we're talking about the CA constitution not the US. The states retain their own choice to whether they choose to contradict themselves or not...you know, that whole states' rights thing. And that's why we have the courts as a check.

I'm not sure if I'm cool with overturning the votes. I personally don't think we're going to see gay rights really come to fruition for at least another 5-10 years and that's being very optimistic. Just like we needed all the racists to fade away so the country could do something historic like it did a couple nights ago, we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too. But I totally aqree that that feeding the stereotype doesn't help AT ALL. But people are reeling right now...give them a bit of time to recover.

Posted by SBC at November 6, 2008 12:06 PM

People will vote their conscience. Help them understand what they fear.

First off, I'm not a CA resident and have no dog in the hunt. However, if I were in CA I would have voted "yes on 8."

Second, people did vote their conscience. To assume they did otherwise is unfair. To assume they voted in fear is also unfair. There are a lot of people opposed to gay marriage for whom it is a deeply moral and spiritual issue. Their consciences will not allow them to see gay marriage as OK. That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage.

Posted by jen at November 6, 2008 12:07 PM

that's exactly why I'm advocating a campaign that shows gay people as PEOPLE from here going forward. If you change people's minds, you WILL change their votes. Eventually.

Posted by caltechgirl at November 6, 2008 12:11 PM

"That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage."

It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers. I don't understand how someone's religious convictions can be so weak that they cannot allow a secular entity recognize a gay couple because it has the same name as their partnership. I just can't see past this...to echo CTG, I see fear, not a solid conviction of religious ideas. Maybe this comes from the fact that I have a strong sense of faith in a religion that is not the dominant one in this society...maybe I'm just used to having more stronger faith than others and they're just afraid to flex that muscle further. But each time I try and step back to look at it, I see fear, inflexibility, and discrimination.


It was not long ago where society would have called my interracial marriage offensive to their spirituality and morality...and the country for the most part has gotten over it. For this reason alone, I can't idly let other people take away the rights of my friends.

Posted by SBC at November 6, 2008 01:21 PM

For some reason, it just reminds me of this oldie from the Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

Posted by Chalkie at November 6, 2008 02:05 PM
1) In order for the court to overturn Prop 8, they would have to hold that the citizens of CA have no right to amend their state constitution.

Not quite. The argument is that citizens can unilaterally "amend" the Constitution but not "revise" it, and that gay marriage is such a fundamental part of the California Constitution that anything getting rid of an institution that has only existed for half a year constitutes a "revision." I don't put it past Bi-Curious George to buy that argument, but I doubt any of the other Justices will.

The argument that the constitution can't be amended to contradict itself holds no water, because if that were TRUE, the US constitution could not have been amended to repeal prohibition or allow blacks and women to vote. It cuts both ways.

True, and I'd go one better: show me a constitutional amendment that doesn't contradict the Consitution as it existed prior to the amendment, and I'll show you an illusory "amendment" that didn't amend anything at all.

Legally married gay couples who wed between May and 11/5 are still considered married, according to state Atty. General Brown.

That would be Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. Take his opinion for what it's worth, which is not much.

Prop 8 carries neither a begin date nor an ex post facto clause, so it went into effect as soon as it was declared passed, and changes the system only going forward. So these people have no standing to sue under equal protection, since they are still legally married.

Nah. Prop 8 contains no grandfather clause. It doesn't say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, unless it was solemnized before November 4, 2008." It says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," full stop. It doesn't matter if a marriage was solemnized in a state where gay marriage was legal then or is legal now. Gay marriages are not valid or recognized in California. No exceptions.

OTOH, I do think a gay couple that legally married in California prior to Prop 8 could make a decent argument that since the marriage was legal in California at the time it was solemnized, it remains legal in Massachusetts or Connecticut today (assuming these states generally recognize gay marriages performed in other states).

Posted by Xrlq at November 6, 2008 08:22 PM

Good for you taking a stand. Hang tough - it's never pretty when civil/social change happens...

Posted by Richmond at November 9, 2008 04:33 PM

SBC: "...we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too"

Nice. Anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe?

I would have supported gay marriage before, but seeing people acting like a bunch of petulant children has cost the movement MY vote. Grow up.

Posted by bristlecone at November 10, 2008 06:10 AM

Dropping the term 'homophobia' in most discussion would be a start. There are a *lot* of people a) feel its not the govt's business what other people do in their bedrooms, b)don't wish gay people any ill,c)are willing to support civil unions of some sort but d) think it is 'wrong' or at least 'abnormal'-- for which latter position non-religious arguments can be made, e)don't buy the blanket form of the 'just made that way' argument (and think legal gay marriage would fully enable indoctrination by the public school on the issue), f) don't want a foundation of all societies, far back into prehistory, redefined so gay people can, by court order/fiat, be granted a sign of approval for their way of life by people who don't feel that way, and whom they failed to persuade.

Sorry, but gay is not the same thing as 'black', even in objective terms of evolution.

One particular gene gives immunity from malaria -- two copies of the same gene causes sickle cell anemia. The latter is collateral damage of the former -- and for the affected *individual* it is certainly not fine and dandy even if it is 'natural'. We can recognize the dysfunction of it w/o making any moral claim about the person. Another example -- some people are born blind -- do we feel the need to give them driver's licenses in the name of fairness? Or to redefine what a drivers license is so we could adopt the pretense that sighted and blind 'drivers' are the same?
Surely what might be termed 'behavioral sterility', precisely if it is involuntary, might be arguably considered a dysfunction and not within healthy variation?

People can have sincere, thoughtful arguments and disagreements without slurring the one side as 'homophobic' -- that paints their views and irrational hysteria and therefore not worht considering or engaging.

Big counter-productive mistake.

Posted by newscaper at November 10, 2008 06:34 AM

To keep referring to those who voted for Prop. 8 as homophobic is neither constructive nor accurate and makes about as much sense as saying those who voted against Obama are racists.

Gay marriage is not viewed as a threat to traditional marriage. It is viewed as validating a lifestyle and a choice( see Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, et al) that a majority of people view as sinful.

Posted by patrick at November 10, 2008 06:41 AM

While you are correct that any constitution is what the people say it is (else consent of the governed is a myth), your voting rights analogy is erroneous. The U.S. Constitution never prohibited either women or blacks from voting. Guaranteeing suffrage did not contradict or repeal anything in the Constitution, other than curbing the states' latitude in determining suffrage.

Posted by j.a.m. at November 10, 2008 07:10 AM

And then there was the "blame the blacks" crowd. White gays have a house full of dirty secrets. If you're gay you'll know.

Posted by Jon at November 10, 2008 07:33 AM

If the gay marriages made between the State Supreme Court ruling and the election are still valid but marriage is between a man and a woman, then divorce can only be between a man and a woman.

Many of you guys and gals are going to regret getting mixed up with heterosexual sexual politics when you find there is no way to legally divorce. Having been married (heterosexually) three times, I don't see what the urge is.

As to the constitutional issues, a court proclaimed a "right" that was novel and by no means explicit and not recognized by the authors of the constitution nor by the general population. The voters corrected the judges with one method open to them - the initiative. The only other method of the voters expressing their legitimate power is by recall of the judges who voted for the decision and their replacement by judges who read the constitution the same way that the majority of voters do.

Posted by Whitehall at November 10, 2008 08:30 AM

It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia.

Sure.

However, this is a bad strategy.

It doesn't help one's political cause when one dismisses the other side's position as a mental problem. I'd suggest that those who can't put themselves in the place of the opposition should chill for a bit, and let others who can represent their side for a while.

Among other hobbies, I am a target shooter. Some of the rifles I use have been banned in California and elsewhere as "assault weapons," primarily because they look "scary." They don't function as machine guns (part of the definition of an actual military assault rifle), but their military underpinnings allow me to take advantage of tax-funded engineering that the military does (accurate rifles are expensive enough as it is). The problem is, they look like what our military uses currently, so it's easy to get support for "keeping them off our streets."

Now I know that a lot of this support is based on emotions and ignorance, since many supporters of such bans would bristle at bans on other firearms.

However, does it do any good to just write people off as emotional and ignorant, when they can vote?

Not all of us can empathize with the other side, or see the logic in our opposition. That's fine. Strategically, though, those of us who can't should try to find people who can, to help persuade.

Posted by BarryD at November 10, 2008 09:32 AM

There is an easy resolution for this. Have the state record civil unions only, for everybody. That actually is what the state does at this time.

It's really not the state's business to enter into a religious discussion. Survey after survey has shown that a majority of people are willing to grant gays the right to a civil union. In point of fact, whatever is recorded by the state IS a civil union governed by the laws of the state and NOT the laws of the relevant church.

The distinction is particularly clear in the cases of divorce, where the Catholic church refuses to recognize the dissolution of a civil union.

The word marriage carries strong religious connotations, and raises all kinds of issues which the various churches resolve in different ways.

So, let the states record civil unions, and leave the discussion of what constitutes a marriage to the individual congregations.

Posted by Valerie at November 10, 2008 10:27 AM

I'm down with the civil union thing myself. Gay or straight, that's all marriage is in the eyes of the law. A contract. Then it would be up to the churches, temples, etc. to decide who they agree to "marry" or not.

Posted by caltechgirl at November 10, 2008 11:49 AM

Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic".

On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom.

But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me".

Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that will be won, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house). I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by William Kovacs at November 10, 2008 11:53 AM

"It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia."

And it's very hard for me to see the 'phobia' charge as anything but an ad hominem attack deeply rooted in ignorance. Does either view tell us anything other than about where we are standing?

The problem with the whole 'phobia' charge is that I would have voted 'Yes' to prop 8. But explaining that with 'phobia' runs hard into the fact that I can sit down and eat dinner with a gay couple. I can work with a gay man. I can and have been friends with gay and lesbian people. Partly it's because I don't really see them as 'gay'. I see them as men who are having homosexual contact with each other.

If I couldn't be friends with everyone who did something I didn't approve of, I'd soon find myself striking the whole world off of my list of possible friends. My relationship to a gay man is similar to my relationship to a female friend who bounces from one overwrought serial relationship to another. I don't approve of that lifestyle either. But if anyone needs a friend that doesn't want to get in bed with them, it's someone like that, so what am I supposed to do?

There are some people out there just wierded out over the whole idea of homosexuality, but they hardly constitute the whole of the opposition to gay marriage. And for that matter, people who were wierded out by the whole concept don't necessarily support it once they stop being wierded out by it.

Really, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage don't do so because they fear gays, but because they pity them. That's going to be alot harder of a position to overcome than fear, and it is going to require the gay community to do a number of things it currently finds totally heritical: stop being a community, stop claiming that you are gay because of genetics (or epigenetics if you aren't the gay equivalent of a flat earther), stop adhering to a sterotype, and generally stop acting as if your life was defined by your sexuality. In other words, you are going to have to stop acting like 'gays' and start acting like 'people'.

And even then, there is going to be a certain percentage that is still going to look at your behavior the same way they look at someone who is alcholic or addicted to drugs. That's not 'phobia' or even 'bigotry', and to be frank the whole ridiculous argument that you are gay because of epigenetics of some sort reinforces the whole idea that this is just disfunctional behavior.

Posted by Celebrim at November 10, 2008 12:01 PM

you guys lost a long time ago. the villain, if you'd like to go and have a chat with him, is SF Mayor Gavin Newsome. when he decided to violate the law by issuing licenses to people who were by law prohibited from receiving them, he lit fire that is currently burning you. instead of using his bully pulpit to lobby for californians to change the law by vote, he cut them out of the discussion. how many of the people who voted against you were only there because they felt pushed there by the CA Supremes. how many would have gone the other way if they were asked first, and not simply slapped upside the face with a wet fish?

so we should ask ourselves who benefits. first, Newsome benefited by making sure that all those REALLY far leftists who voted for Matt Gonzalez, the wacky lefty Green party guy who got 47% to Newsome's 53%. for those who don't get it, that means that the guy who introduced gay marriage in the US was the conservative in the mayoral race in 2003!!! the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else.

Posted by Sean at November 10, 2008 12:14 PM

gay marriage is such a fundamental part of the California Constitution

Yeah, that would be why no one ever heard of the "right" before 4 judges decided to invent it, because it's a fundamental part of the Constitution.

In 1972, the CA Supreme Court claimed that the CA Constitution's protection against "cruel or unusual punishment" meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional. CA voters responded by passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that nothing in the Constitution forbade the death penalty. The CA SUpreme Court upheld that Amendment.

So, we have
1: Court squints really hard, and finds a "right" in the CA Constitution, for a small group (convicted murderers) that suits their personal preferences.
2: Voters say "you guys are full of it", and pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the illegitimate decision.
3: Court defers to the will of The People.

BTW, just so we're clear here: being a "minority" doesn't give you more rights than being part of a majority. That would be an absurd negation of democracy.

Posted by Greg Q at November 10, 2008 01:32 PM

Wow, didn't realize there were so many responses to my comment. I'll try to take them one at a time.

bristlecone -- I'm sorry if I offended you by using that term. I honestly didn't realize it charged up people the way it did. And not everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe -- there are plenty of people who believe that there should be no legal marriages in society or think there should only be civil unions, etc. that has nothing to do with treating a gay union differently in the eyes of the law than a straight one. But, I will say this -- if you're going to change your vote because of how other people act as opposed to what you believe in, you need to "Grow up" more than I do.

To the others, who combined a lot of the same points:

1) A reiteration of the apology for using the word homophobia...though I'm curious why no one is all getting upset with the word racist except for I think one. I wasn't meaning it as a slur, btu as a way to describe people who don't support the full integration of gay rights in society. But perhaps I can better describe it this way with some specific examples that have cropped up in my own life:

I think someone is racist when they work with people of all races, eat with them, socialize with them, but then turn to me and tell me that I really shouldn't marry outside my own race/culture.

I think someone is sexist if an employer highers more females because he feels like he can keep them in line easier.

I think someone is homophobic when they fear that the sanctity of their marriage is at risk by the STATE recognizing a gay marriage.

So for all of you don't fall into that last category, I would most likely not refer to you as homophobic. Someone mentioned that they thought the majority of people don't fear the sanctity of their own marriage, that makes me feel a lot better actually. But to those who think its sinful...why? And there are plenty of things that are sinful to a group of people that is legal under the law -- i.e., alcohol consumption, sex before marriage, birth control, working on the Sabbath, eating meat, etc. Just because something is sinful to you or people who share your belief, should we deny the rest of the population who doesn't?


2) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that? I'm ok with people feeling actually uneasy with gay activities, but I take issue with people who would take away rights that should be treated equally across the board. In fact, I know plenty of people who get visibly sick if you talk about gay sex, but they would never vote to take away their rights.

As for the blind argument -- the blind aren't given driver's licenses because they are physcially unable to perform a certain task. Please tell me who being gay makes on physically unable you to support and love another person the way a man and woman does in marriage. Or is about the sex in the end?

And just to let you know, homosexuality has been witnessed in almost 1500 species at this point.

3) I wasn't trying to make a strategy to convince people to support gay rights. I was talking they way I talk when I'm in CTG's home or office, wasn't trying to be politically correct and didn't even realize the word angered so many people. I will try to post more PC again and I'm sure you'll all call out CTG when she isn't writing PC either. And again, I'm sorry to offend the ones who posted, but I think there are "homophobes" - people who fear gays -- in society, and I do hope their views fade away like racism did over time. Again, I think this is going to take a lot more time than the gay community may wish it were like CTG said. Desensitization to the subject in a way. I actually think that a good chunk of society has become a lot more open than I would have though a decade ago.

Posted by SBC at November 10, 2008 01:48 PM

) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that?

Well, let's see. We have a 14th Amendment to the Constitution that was passed to ban racial discrimination.

We don't have any amendments passed to ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, and CA doesn't, either.

So yes, the law should treat "gay" differently than "black".

Posted by Greg Q at November 10, 2008 02:26 PM

My opposition to gay "marriage" is nuanced (heh).

I don't believe the government should be in the business of redefining words. That is Orwellian.

Marriage, as it is nearly universally understood, means the union of a man and a woman.

Why do gays want to co-opt the heterosexual's term? Gays need their own word/concept.

Can a group of people who form a "community" become married in the eyes of the law? Why not?
Where does the redefining end?

Posted by mockmook at November 10, 2008 03:03 PM

Losers. Everyone thought the rally to block traffic was lame.

Posted by left coast liberal at November 10, 2008 06:45 PM

In re: "homophobia"

I think the problem people have with this term as opposed to "racist" or "sexist" is that "homophobia" means "fear of (gays)." Yes, I know that's not quite how it's meant anymore, but that's still how it's interpreted. If we could come up with some different term, that might help.

But as it is -- we're not "afraid" of them. So when we state our beliefs about the gay lifestyle or whatever and then get told "You're homophobic!" it makes us go "Huh?" Then we try to explain that we're not afraid, and get told again "You're homophobic!" You can also substitute in "full of hate" or "hateful" or "You hate me" or "You hate gays" in there as well.

But the thing is... we're not afraid, and we don't think we're hateful either... so being told that we are just makes us go "You're delusional!" And thus we have a very hard time giving your arguments the shrift they properly deserve.

As another poster stated: Stop acting like "gays" and start acting like "people who happen to be gay" and you'll win a lot more converts to your cause. Dropping "homophobic" and/or "full of hate" into every argument just isn't the way to do that.

I'm straight, but I think it's just as flattering if a guy tries to hit on me as if a woman does. I just tell them I'm not interested, same as I would for any woman who I'm not interested in.

If I lived in California, I don't know how I would have voted. I think the best actual solution would be the whole "government does civil unions, religions do marriages" dichotomy, and as such, I probably would have voted for the proposition simply to be in opposition of the redefinition of the word "marriage." But that'd really be my only reason. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or who you do it with, or what you call that person you do it with either.

Something many people don't know is that Salt Lake City actually has a "domestic partner" program for its employees. You can designate *anyone* as your "partner" -- be it a spouse, a relative, a friend, or whatever. Many gay people who work for the city thus have full benefits of a "civil union" right here in the heart of "Mormondom." As I recall it, the (Mormon-dominated) City Council unanimously approved the plan, and (to my knowledge) the church didn't make any statement one way or the other about it.

There was a bit of controversy about it for about 2 weeks. Nobody's cared since.

See how nicely that worked? Govt calls it "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage" and nobody cares. . . . . .

Posted by JC at November 11, 2008 12:48 AM

Democracy sucks when your side loses. I guess if these celebtards don't pay their taxes it's ok for me too? No?

Posted by Bandit at November 11, 2008 05:57 AM

Posted by: newscaper at November 10, 2008 06:34 AM

^^ What he (or she) said, esp. points a, b, c, and f.

I'll never understand what makes people think "in your face" tactics have ever convinced anyone of their points of view. Blocking traffic? Hey, that's REALLY convincing! (Not.)


Posted by Beth at November 11, 2008 01:17 PM

Protesting at Mormon Temples ,calling Blacks the N-word because they supported Prop 8 by 70% margins...

Why don't you direct your ire at the religion that voted for Proposition 8 by a probably 100% margin....That's right: Muslims..What did you say?..I didn't hear you?....

No, you go after the soft target mild mannered Mormons...Totally gutless...

Posted by sirpatrick at November 11, 2008 08:13 PM

Let's get a few things out on the table:

Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. To protect the important institution of the family we should protect traditional marriage.

That's the Prop 8 pro side. Now you may disagree with this or agree with it (I stand on the agree side) ... BUT ...

There is NOTHING 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay' about the above statements. support for Prop 8 was NEVER a 'hate' thing, it was always a "Whats wrong with keeping marriage the way its been for 2000 years of civilization" thing. No hate, no 'phobia' just pro-family and pro-traditional-values.

Ad hominem is a well-known fallacy and the 'hate' charge on the pro Prop 8 side is PURE AD HOMINEM.

It is disgusting, insulting and beneath contempt for gay-activist extremists to be so violent, pissy and outrageous in calling anyone who happened to disagree on this hatemongers. oh, and the N-word stuff an the violence at Saddleback church sure showed class. not! THEY are the 'hatemongers' with such vile and personal attacks.

And to do it after the vote makes them out to be vile, violent, hateful and *impotent*.

Worst of all worlds. I THINK IT SHOWS TO MANY PEOPLE THAT THEY DID THE RIGHT THING IN SUPPORTING PROP 8. IF THE PEOPLE WANTING THIS ARE SO EXTREME, VIOLENT AND BIZARRE, ITS SURELY NOT THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR SOCIETY.

Posted by Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 09:54 PM

1) Even the Greeks who celebrated homosexuality confined marriage to a man and a woman. Marriage was for procreation and homosexual lovers were for recreation. And these homosexual relationships were long term committed relationships.

2) I'm willing to bet that a large portion of us who voted yes on prop 8 would be willing to vote in favor of civil unions, which already exists in many places. The gay community however insists on marriage. This is partly an effort to destroy conventional morality, partly an effort to force acceptance of a lifestyle. Many of us are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior without endorsing it. This is not good enough for homosexual activists.

3) Even if I was in favor of homosexual marriage I would have voted yes on Prop 8 because it was a "right" created by judicial fiat, directly opposed to the will of the people. There is no Constitutional right to homosexual marriage, in either the State or Federal Constitution.

4) It is not an issue of equal rights either. I have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. Homosexuals have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. That's the definition of equal.

5) If you allow homosexual marriage, by what possible standard can you deny polygamy? State interest? Morality? Majority opinion? Does anyone seriously think that Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons and hippie communes won't immediately start pressing for the rcognition of polygamy?

Posted by gahrie at November 11, 2008 09:58 PM

"the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else."

ROFLMAO! HRC are purely one of the liberal special interest group arms of the Democrat-liberal-establishment complex, designed not to advance any agenda except the electing of Democrats. Actually achieving the agenda would be a real bummer for them. gays need to stay on the plantation with the blacks, union members, welfare recipients and govt workers, or the whole 'system' breaks down!

Posted by Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:04 PM

"It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers."

You dont see it, but others do see how Govt recognition impacts societal mores. We know this from looking at how divorce and welfare laws impacted family structure and breakdown. And borken families are harder on kids, its well known. So concerns about what will happen to family structure when marriage is redefined are NOT irrational.

What is YOUR phobia with having some allowance and recognition for the more important role of man-woman-marriage-based families, over and above other family units?

Why are you afraid to recognize the importance of traditional family in the raising of children etc.? Or acknowledgement that this would be a legit concern?

Why cant you be open-minded enough to see the importance of marriage institution from the traditionalist POV, instead of ignoring their reasons and insisting that you can detect motivations of those with a difference POV? (hint: you cant)

Being "PRO-TRADITIONAL-MARRIAGE" is not necessarily "anti-gay".

Posted by Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:15 PM