Gay people should be able to get married as much as they want.

They have the same obligations, thus they should have the priviliges as other citizens.

As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Swampthing in Korea: Gay people should be able to get married as much as they want.

They have the same obligations, thus they should have the priviliges as other citizens.

As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Everyone's terrified of "catching Teh Ghey" from gay people being allowed to marry, as if that means that suddenly they'll be having massive public orgies or something.

THAT'S gay.

Grow up, people.

Gee, subby. That's some fine headline writing there. Where do you stand?

Ludovicus: Swampthing in Korea: Gay people should be able to get married as much as they want.

They have the same obligations, thus they should have the priviliges as other citizens.

As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Everyone's terrified of "catching Teh Ghey" from gay people being allowed to marry, as if that means that suddenly they'll be having massive public orgies or something.

THAT'S gay.

Grow up, people.

Don't worry, I'm sure it will be overturned in the courts.
That's what happens to all propositions that are passed by the people, but that Liberals don't like.

/Libertarian. Thinks gays should marry.
//and be miserable.

Ludovicus: Swampthing in Korea: Gay people should be able to get married as much as they want.

They have the same obligations, thus they should have the priviliges as other citizens.

As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Only when I pay them

Swampthing in Korea: As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Marriage and sex have nothing to do with each other. Ask any married Farker.

Ludovicus: Swampthing in Korea: Gay people should be able to get married as much as they want.

They have the same obligations, thus they should have the priviliges as other citizens.

As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Everyone's terrified of "catching Teh Ghey" from gay people being allowed to marry, as if that means that suddenly they'll be having massive public orgies or something.

THAT'S gay.

Grow up, people.

Untrue, I caught the gay just the other night. There I was, walking hand-in-hand with my Christian girlfriend, then I saw two dudes making out, and Bam! next thing I know I'm knee deep in cock.

It takes a whole mess of balls to use the ballot measure system to take rights away from specific groups. I really hope this gets stuck down in the courts. And I hope the Mormons lose their tax exempt status over this.

Ludovicus: Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Much too much for my taste. I want to break out the hose every time I see a couple who must show the *ENTIRE* world how much they *LOVE* each other. Please, stop practically dry humping in the middle of the frozen food section at Target. I am trying to get to the pizzas without losing my lunch.

1) They still have their 'co-habitation' rights

2) Funny that they think its great when the public passes amendments they like but when the public votes against this, there's something wrong with the populace

3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

And forget about giving my any grief, Ive been to gay committment ceremonies

michaeld5: Don't worry, I'm sure it will be overturned in the courts.
That's what happens to all propositions that are passed by the people, but that Liberals don't like.

It's interesting how Obama's victory is considered a mandate because he won over 52% of the popular vote, yet the results of the prop-8 vote aren't considered the same despite being supported by 52.3% of voters.

For the record, I think gay people should be able to marry, but I just find it funny that the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it goes their way.

If they were to just let them get married they wouldn't be so keen on attracting all this attention.

mekki: Ludovicus: Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Much too much for my taste. I want to break out the hose every time I see a couple who must show the *ENTIRE* world how much they *LOVE* each other. Please, stop practically dry humping in the middle of the frozen food section at Target. I am trying to get to the pizzas without losing my lunch.

I gotta agree with that.

Sure, fooling around out-doors can have that thrill element, but ya gotta keep it quiet and subtle.

It loses it's effect if you openly frottage in public.

/Is frottage a verb?

Yanks_RSJ: It's interesting how Obama's victory is considered a mandate because he won over 52% of the popular vote, yet the results of the prop-8 vote aren't considered the same despite being supported by 52.3% of voters.

For the record, I think gay people should be able to marry, but I just find it funny that the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it goes their way.

Or, alternatively, it's based on the principle that certain things (like what rights people should have) aren't meant to be decided by a popular vote.

The government needs to be totally out of the marriage business. The government should provide civil unions, the church should provide marriages.

MArriages don't get you gov't benefits of civil unions and civil unions won't be recognized in the church's eyes.

Simple.

Yanks_RSJ: For the record, I think gay people should be able to marry, but I just find it funny that the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it goes their way.

I think it's more of a question of whether the "will of the people" should matter when it's abridging the rights of the rest of the people.

I think that the gays should have equal rights, whether you call it marriage or civil union makes no difference to me. That said...

I find it very amusing that this has happened in "the most progressive state in America". I mean these people are walking around now like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out who did it. There are alot of "progressives" who voted for this thing. Stabbed in the back by their own kind.

/I guess democracy only works when you are in the majority.

mfaby: 1) They still have their 'co-habitation' rights

2) Funny that they think its great when the public passes amendments they like but when the public votes against this, there's something wrong with the populace

3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

And forget about giving my any grief, Ive been to gay committment ceremonies

1) Living together isn't the same thing as marriage. There are fundamental differences in rights, tax laws, and financial status.

2) I could draft a measure requiring child molesters to be tortured to death, and it would get at least 90% voter approval, but it would still not be constitutional, regardless of the will of the people.

3) So what?

4) So what?

5) It's wrong because it discriminates without reason. Two consenting adults of whatever configuration have always been defined as "a couple", but only ONE configuration is allowed to marry - that's discrimination. Hell, if you want to make it a sexual discrimination issue, aren't women allowed to do anything a man is allowed to do? Why can a MAN marry a woman but a woman can't?

6) You're an idiot and a bigot, and probably shouldn't reproduce but if you do, I hope your children are gay.

Happy Holidays, douchebag.

Biological Ali: Yanks_RSJ: It's interesting how Obama's victory is considered a mandate because he won over 52% of the popular vote, yet the results of the prop-8 vote aren't considered the same despite being supported by 52.3% of voters.

For the record, I think gay people should be able to marry, but I just find it funny that the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it goes their way.

Or, alternatively, it's based on the principle that certain things (like what rights people should have) aren't meant to be decided by a popular vote.

And who gets to decide what those things are?

mfaby: 3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

Stupidest argument of all time. The Catholic church down the street will not marry my heathen ass. Never would. I can sue them now? Can I sue the LDS for not letting me have a Temple Wedding? Bullcrap.

alsih2o: The government needs to be totally out of the marriage business. The government should provide civil unions, the church should provide marriages.

MArriages don't get you gov't benefits of civil unions and civil unions won't be recognized in the church's eyes.

Simple.

What would be the risk that there will be people who apply for "civil unions" who aren't sexually involved with their partner. For example, two heterosexual women roommates who do it so they can file joint tax returns. I wonder if this possibility has ever been considered.

/Oh, I'm OK with gay marriages. Live and let live.

Yanks_RSJ: And who gets to decide what those things are?

The judiciary, that's their job.

A case of tyranny of the majority. Oh well, I really do think the majority of people will change their views on this and soon. It's already changing. In ten years a majority of states will have gay marriage on the books. More and more people are coming out of the closet and once it affects people close to you, your views start to change.

This is why the more moderate Human Rights Campaign ten years ago told the more progressive GLAAD to stop pushing marriage so much and to focus on civil unions. Sometimes it makes sense to go slowly. Prop 8 was close, ten years ago it wouldn't have been.

attackingpencil: Yanks_RSJ: And who gets to decide what those things are?

The judiciary, that's their job.

Precisely.

Yanks_RSJ: Biological Ali: Yanks_RSJ: It's interesting how Obama's victory is considered a mandate because he won over 52% of the popular vote, yet the results of the prop-8 vote aren't considered the same despite being supported by 52.3% of voters.

For the record, I think gay people should be able to marry, but I just find it funny that the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it goes their way.

Or, alternatively, it's based on the principle that certain things (like what rights people should have) aren't meant to be decided by a popular vote.

And who gets to decide what those things are?

The California state legislature.

dmatt33: What would be the risk that there will be people who apply for "civil unions" who aren't sexually involved with their partner. For example, two heterosexual women roommates who do it so they can file joint tax returns. I wonder if this possibility has ever been considered.

The exact same risk of an opposite gender couple marrying for the same reasons. Guess what? It happens. Greencard marriages. Faghag marriages. It happens. We do not ask for the slightest bit of proof of sexual relation to issue a marriage license to two people of opposite genders.

Marriage =/= sex.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: I find it very amusing that this has happened in "the most progressive state in America". I mean these people are walking around now like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out who did it. There are alot of "progressives" who voted for this thing. Stabbed in the back by their own kind.

Look to the group the supported Obama by the largest percentage, christian black people.

Oppression is wrong, except if people are gay, apparently.

Biological Ali: attackingpencil: Yanks_RSJ: And who gets to decide what those things are?

The judiciary, that's their job.

Precisely.

For the record, the Judiciary DOESN'T make law.
Rather, they decide what laws conform to the letter of the Constitution, and which ones don't (at least the Supremes do.)
Law, and protections, come from the Legislative branches of our varied states and federal guv'mint.

Yanks_RSJ: And who gets to decide what those things are?

We already did. 14th Amendment. Laws must treat every type of person as "generic citizen". This one isn't. It's discriminatory against women because it bars them from a right explicitly granted men, marrying a woman.

mekki: Ludovicus: Gee, how often do *straight* couples put their activities in your face?

Much too much for my taste. I want to break out the hose every time I see a couple who must show the *ENTIRE* world how much they *LOVE* each other. Please, stop practically dry humping in the middle of the frozen food section at Target. I am trying to get to the pizzas without losing my lunch.

this.

cant stand PDA. in fact i wrote a thing on it in college called "SUCK FACE? SUCK THIS!" which was just a reason to not do it.

all people said was "if they love each other, why not show the world?"--my answer was that if they needed to prove it, the love wasnt there

and other people said "when you love someone, you just dont care". so love makes you a douchebag. duh.

i had 2 friends in college who started dating. they knew it was kinda awkward for me, and regardless if i was around them or not, they didnt even hold hands. they were vehemently opposed to pda as well.

its only acceptable of the couple is really ugly. then its just funny. i saw the most mis-matched couple on the bus. he was such a turd. and she was so goddamn trashy. it was amusing. not offensive. he had about 30 facial piercings and was still wearing his hairnet from work with 2 tattoo sleeves that were all faded.

dmatt33:

What would be the risk that there will be people who apply for "civil unions" who aren't sexually involved with their partner. For example, two heterosexual women roommates who do it so they can file joint tax returns. I wonder if this possibility has ever been considered.

/Oh, I'm OK with gay marriages. Live and let live.


I know heterosexual people who got married in college for the financial aid benefits. They didn't even live together. So that already happens. People already do it for citizenship as well.

Mail-order brides ring a bell?

False argument. This is ALREADY the case and is used as a benefit by only heterosexuals OR homosexuals pretending to be married to heteros for the benefits.

I shouldn't have to be exposed to teh ghey frotteurism as it affects me.

mfaby: 1) They still have their 'co-habitation' rights

2) Funny that they think its great when the public passes amendments they like but when the public votes against this, there's something wrong with the populace

3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

And forget about giving my any grief, Ive been to gay committment ceremonies

Hey moron, the constitution is to protect minorities from the majority.

mfaby:

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?


You have to be a troll. What is wrong with allowing gays to marry? Try not to use the is ought fallacy.

mfaby: And forget about giving my any grief, Ive been to gay committment ceremonies

The "Some Of My Best Friends" argument is so lame.

mfaby: 5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Defining marriage between a man and a woman is a more restrictive definition than defining it between two persons. The latter definition encompasses the former. Thus, logically if not legally, the burden of proof to justify their definition is on the person arguing for the narrower definition.

That was the best possible headline on the subject?

/PS: merrily

I'm glad they decided to do this AFTER the proposition passed, instead of making a big deal about it beforehand.

/Posting signs in West Hollywood and San Francisco is RETARDED
//No on 8 raised a ton of money, where did it go?
///Shame Obama didn't speak out strongly against 8, but then how could he? He and Biden (and Palin, and McCain) have all stated they're against gay marriage.

mfaby: 1) They still have their 'co-habitation' rights

They have cohabitation in the state they get the union in alone. There is no portablility, and if a family has to move to a state that doesn't recognize the union, then forget it. Couples have to files separately for federal tax benefits. Social Security/other federal death benefits aren't awarded to a surviving partner. Marriages have 1,049 federal and state benefits, while unions have 300 states level ones, and depending on the state, and even that number is shaky.

2) Funny that they think its great when the public passes amendments they like but when the public votes against this, there's something wrong with the populace

I agree, the people have spoken and all that can be done is wait and not be a dick about it.

3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

There should be. Marriage ceremonies should be made at the digression of the religious institution. If gay marriage is legal it would be of the state, and there's that handy little thing, separation of church and state.

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

it just goes to show that people are idiots, whoever they are

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

what's wrong with changing that definition? Other states and countries haven't fallen apart because of it. I know it might open the door to other things, but that pandora's box was opened when the state came to handle marriage to begin with

And forget about giving my any grief, Ive been to gay committment ceremonies
you have some good points and some not so good ones, but this was the one that ticked me off. Just because you've been to a commitment ceremony isn't some sort of moral bullet proof vest you can tout around. Your opinions should stand on their own, and not justified just because of who you're friends with. even if you said you were gay, you should still be called on it.

I, for one, have yet to see a single compelling reason to ban gay marriage. Every argument for the ban is based on fear.

mfaby: 3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

This is a lie. Unless the church sells or rents their space for weddings to the general public, the churches can't be sued for discrimination.

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

This little anecdote was based on a blog post that sounded like it was a gossip piece written in high school. "The sister of a friend of a reader said..." is not a good source, especially when the only only non-hearsay based evidence they provide, a newspaper article, doesn't mention anything about racism or bigotry being directed to anyone. Not even the Mormons who were responsible for both financing the "Vote Yes on 8" campaign and creating the "A no vote means your kids will be taught to be homosexuals" ads.

5) What is wrong with defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

It ignores the many, many religions that define it in a manner that recognizes same-sex marriages. And to head off that "it's just a few 'no name' religions that do that" talking point I can see coming, Reform Judaism is one such religion and it has more practitioners in the West than Orthodox Judaism does.

If your marriage is on such shaky ground...that what another couple do has an effect on it...you need to spend more time concentrating on your relationship.

I'm so busy focused on my own marriage, I don't have time/energy to concern myself with another couple.

The only reason why your nose would get bent out of shape is if you stuck it in someone else's business.

/define it as a contract between one unmarried adult and another unmarried adult

mfaby: 2) Funny that they think its great when the public passes amendments they like but when the public votes against this, there's something wrong with the populace

The funny thing is that prop 8 called for not amending the state constitution, but rather altering it. To alter the Ca constitution, the state legislature first has to approve any changes by a 2/3 majority and then it is passed on to people for a vote.

3) Apparently there was no protection to keep churches from being sued for refusing to perform 'gay marriage' ceremonies

Horseshiat. Freedom of religion, the state will not interfere with religious ceremonies conducted on church property.

4) Interesting to learn that blacks overwhelming voted for the amendment and now gays are calling them 'n*ggers' and saying blacks need to stay out of West Hollywood.

Making this one up? Blacks did vote in favor of prop 8, but as far as racial epithets being used in WeHo, you're making that one up.

Barbigazi: It takes a whole mess of balls to use the ballot measure system to take rights away from specific groups. I really hope this gets stuck down in the courts. And I hope the Mormons lose their tax exempt status over this.

And the blacks that came out for the first time to vote for Obama while voting to oppress gays lose their welfare. No state funding so one minority can try to climb up out of oppression by standing on the back of another.

Thought experiment:

Two people are arguing over the definition of the term "baseball player".

Person A says "a baseball player wears a cap".

Person B says "a baseball player wears a cap and a pinstriped uniform".

Now, under other logical rules, all Person A has to do is find a counterexample. A baseball player not in pinstripes.

Except, we're busy defining a baseball player. Person B logically if not justly can say, "he's something else, not a baseball player". ("Nor is he a true Scotsman").

Person B added the restriction. Person A agrees that persons with pinstripes are baseball players. Should it fall to Person A to explain why people without pinstripes can be baseball players? Or, should it fall to Person B to explain why pinstripes are a obligate component of a baseball player?

Wow didn't think this would get greened. I submitted this with a different article but same headline yesterday. Was this instant-greened?

Subby here. Where do I stand? I voted yes on the proposition. Alot can be said about Prop 8 but I'll keep it short by saying that the No on prop 8 people didn't do nearly enough outreach to the black community. Yes its hypocritical for blacks to vote to take rights away. Human beings are hypocritical, no one is immune. Its part of the human condition. The mormons and Knights of Columbus ran a hell of a campaign. The Gays/lesbian groups simply did not. They were outspent. Advertisements work.

More importantly though, alot of black people are ashamed of voting yes and next time I think this comes to legislation, gays will get the right to marry.

Finally, whites and hispanics voted to pass proposition 8 also, so don't scapegoat blacks.

/Flame on.

Lawnchair: Swampthing in Korea: As long as gay men keep the sex and the fisting and french-kissing out of my face.

Marriage and sex have nothing to do with each other. Ask any married Farker.

Hey..you just reminded me of foobies!

/married

California perplexes me. The people there are perfectly willing to put up with absurd property values, high taxes, insipid regulations on everyday things, no immigration control, and a complete loss of 2nd Amendment rights, just so long as the gol'dam queers ain't gettin' married!

Freedom and equality is so overrated.

The main reason to allow gays to marry is that it will piss off the islamic fundys, it being a clear symbolic difference between them and us. Showing that there will never be reconciliation between their view vs our view that human rights are absolute.

Right now this one factor makes you and them more alike that you might want to think about.