Gothamist: Upper West Side Prop 8 Protest Planned for Tomorrow

truthspeaker23

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:44:08 -0500

By shovel: Gays have a much richer heritage throughout the history of this planet than all current religions, especially Mormonism! Why anyone takes Mormon myths and legends with more of a grain of salt than Scientology is beyond me. Give one example of anything that you say. In Sodom and Gomarrah the homsexuals inherited death, because the wages of their sin was death. In every civilized society, the collapse and destruction of the society coincided with the perverse growth of homosexuality and incest. Besides, every gay person on this planet owes their origin to a heterosexual activity. To the contrary, not one single heterosexual can contribute their existence to homosexuality. When homosexuals are able to procreate and populate themselves then they can be called a race. Until then it is just a sexual activity particpated in by 2% of the population. I would guesstamate that asexuality is an activity participated in by 98% of the population. Since a lot of lesbians and gays can be clinically termed paraphilias, should they be given the right to marry the object of their affection. I think not, because marriage is defined, and despite what one may desire, just like a drivers license they must meet the qualifications.

truthspeaker23

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:28:44 -0500

By fauxfetus:In the case of incest, a person is not predisposed to fall in love with a relative the same way a person is predisposed to fall in love with a member of the same, or opposite, sex. First, you are just making things up as they pop in your head. In regards, to pedophiles marrying kids. In some countries the age of consent is 12 and is Hawaii it is 14, that means that they can not marry in California even though they are predisposed to fall in love and want to marry. In the case of incest, a person is just as predisposed to fall in love with a relative, and it has happened many times before, as a person is to fall in love with the same sex. Many psychiatrist have defined both as neither sexual or eros, but projections of disorders rooted in trauma. Yet, I have known lesbians who were in love with a woman, but fell in love with a man and married that man. Ask Ellen Degeneres about that. I personally knew a lesbian, living with a girl, who fell in love with me, while I married to my wife. Do your research, this matter was already addressed. It was not a revision, but an addition. If the constitution had said that marriage is between any two consenting adults, accept blood relatives and those who lack mental competence, then it would have been a revision. It carried the same weight for approval, a all the other ballot initiatives, including the one that said that a child does not need her parents permission to have an abortion. What homosexuals have done is what paraphiliacs do, they have attached love to an object and attached affection to that love. The father who loves his daughter,paternally is sincere in that love, when perverted it slips into eros and the sexual boundary is penetrated. In regards to under age girls, I may look at a 15 year old girl, who is fully developed, but I have control and discipline so as not to even entertain that thought. My sister may be attractive, but all she will ever be is an attractive sister who I love as a sister. Facts and truths lead to knowledge: A common argument is that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable. For example, neuroscientist and homosexual Simon Levay stated: "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."[3] Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused. [4][5][6] This data prompted the journal Science to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families".[7][8][9] However, in regards to psychosocial and biological theories in regards to the origin of homosexuality, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated in 1994: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".[10] Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "born that way" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organisations, who politicise the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.[11] Roman 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly (not good or suitable but perverted), and receiving in themselves that compense of their error was meet. 28- And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. 29- Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 -Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents

fauxfetus

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:26:40 -0500

"It would be like the gays trying to prescribe their only meaning to Hannuka and asking the courts to support it." This comparison makes no sense. The holiday has no legal significance whatsoever. If the handicapped wanted to redefine the meaning of it to replace your paddle balls with meat balls day, they sure as hell could do it, and it really wouldn't change anything at all. What's important are the laws to protect the couple, such as postmortem inheritance, hospital visitation rights, joint tax filing, and so on. To argue that it opens the doors for polygamists makes no sense because every single law regarding marriage would have to be rewritten since every single law related to marriage concerns the relationship between two people. Children are not mature enough to make legal decisions, which is the purpose of the age of consent, and thus cannot enter a contract. Anything that is not human cannot consent or sign a contract either. In the case of incest, a person is not predisposed to fall in love with a relative the same way a person is predisposed to fall in love with a member of the same, or opposite, sex. For example, a man could potentially fall in love with his sister, and he could also potentially fall in love with another woman. On the other hand, a man could fall in love with another man, but in most cases he would not be able to fall in love with a woman, completely barring him from his legal right of marriage. This is why the slippery slope argument is useless. A revision of the California Constitution requires a two-thirds vote by the state legislature before it can be voted on by the public, which did not happen, and is partisan-neutral reason why Prop 8 should be repealed.

truthspeaker23

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:38:09 -0500

No on 8 constantly tries to compare gay marriage with civil rights and slavery, insisting that the will of a minority was upheld over the will of a majority. They must be referring to their racist families, because civil rights and the abolishment of slavery was not a minority decision but a majority decision. Worldwide about 95% of the world was against slavey up to and during the Civil War. In the U.S. over 70% of America was against slavery, and the White minority group of the South opposed civil rights. The South was so over voted that they sought to count their slaves as citizens, without voting rights, so as to proxy their votes in their own interest. That is where the 3/5 person came into play,concerning Blacks. Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850. The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Equality For All

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:59:14 -0500

In the end, the democratic process must be allowed to work. There was nothing unfair about the election. Everyone had (1) vote. Everyone cast that (1) vote according to their belief and the votes were tallied providing the final result. That is the strength of our state and nation. That is the example of democracy we demonstrate to the entire world. How foolish we must look when the world sees that the very election process we hold-up so proudly before them is really for naught and the voice of the majority is ultimately unrecognized, ridiculed and overridden.

truthspeaker23

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:09:58 -0500

For you bleeding idiots who think that Gay Marriage will become a norm in America, consider the facts. DOMA- the Defesne of Marriage Act was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. not even close. It says No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs. It says the Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as husband and wife, and the word ‘SPOUSE’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

truthspeaker23

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:05:02 -0500

Interracial marriages went on since the beginning of the emerging of multiple races. Even when the Moors, Africans, mixed with the Italians and turned that whole race into a dark haired and tanned skin people. I know that it is hard for some like ChesterKatz, to conceive that the world existed way before the racism in America and the laws that came out of it. But, even if we use that screwed logic, when an person of African descent married a person of German or German married a person of Asian descent, it was still MAN and WOMAN or Penis and Vagina. To compare Gay marriage with the marriages between any man and woman is insanity from the mind of a lunatic. It is more apt to compare gay marriage, with polygamy, and incest marriage. That is why the Polygamist in Utah spent millions on the losing campaign of No on Prop 8.

truthspeaker23

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:54:22 -0500

@ChesterKatz:The separation of church and state would actually dictate that only religious people could get married and that non-religious people could only have civil unions. The word would be a protected word and the church would have the rights to it and it would be a trade mark product. Maybe, the Church will brand marriage with an ordained label from God, like the sign of the Cross. It would be like the gays trying to prescribe their only meaning to Hannuka and asking the courts to support it.

truthspeaker23

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:48:41 -0500

By ganghiscon: Did you really just compare gay marriage to pedophilia? I'm not sure that yo got your answer, but I a compare it. You think that your can throw out a statement intended to invoke an emotion, but offer no support. One of the biggest contributors to No on 8 was NAMBLA, the pedophiles, and of course the millions that cmae from the polygmaist in Utah. Also, 95% of the pedophile Catholic priests were homosexual. for By Legalist and By ChesterKatz DSM 111 and Psychosocial disorder in childhood identifies four groups, Gender Indentity disorders, Paraphilias, Psychosexual dysfunction, and other pschosexual disorders. Let's look at the Gender Identity Disorder in females. A. Strongly and persistently stated desire to be aboy or insistence that she is a boy. B. Persistent repudiation of female anatomic structures, as manifested by at least one of the following repeated assetions 1. That she will grow up to become a man 2. That she is biologically unable to become pregnant 3. That she wil lnot devlop breasts 4. That she has no vagina 5. That she has or will grow a penis. C. Onset of the disturbance before puberty.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:20:03 -0500

"African_Americans went 70-30 for Prop.8, which passed 52-48. Why don't those gay "Pink Panthers" attack a Harlem Methodist church instead? Pussies?" Maybe because California is 76% White, and only 6% black?

Legalist

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:12:27 -0500

@nik13, you know who pointed out the same thing? Bill O'Reilly. The reason he gives is not that the pink panthers are pussy, but that it would be politically incorrect. Politics does make strange bed-fellows. It's been mentioned in comments on other posts, but I think we've got it all wrong when it comes to looking at our political views through the right/left, conservative/liberal paradigm. Alternatives... NYTimes article quotes Philip Tetlock, suggesting that both political conservatives and political liberals are akin to dogmatism ("conservatism," "fundamentalism" in their conceptual, not political definitions). "Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who reviews the evidence of cognitive differences in his 2005 book, “Expert Political Judgment,” said that while there were valid differences, “liberals and conservatives are roughly equally closed-minded in dealing with dissonant real-world evidence.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/science/04tierney.html?em Similarly, The Rockridge Institute (a progressive psycho-socio-political thinktank) suggests that all people are both conservative and liberal (conceptually) to a certain extent. "Biconceptual." http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints/ThinkingPoints_Chapter2.pdf Both are informative and fun to read, and I think sorely needed in the heat that goes on in these blogs.

nik13

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:13:15 -0500

African_Americans went 70-30 for Prop.8, which passed 52-48. Why don't those gay "Pink Panthers" attack a Harlem Methodist church instead? Pussies? Politics make strange bed-fellows. Reps/social conservatives/ AAs. Obama really brought us all together.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:22:31 -0500

The people of California, Arizona, & Florida have already voted to ban gay marriage- its only a matter of time before all of America bans gay marriage. No amount of protesting will allow you to escape from that reality.

greeper

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:43:59 -0500

Jterry....wanna bet?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:23:36 -0500

Stop acting like this is a civil rights issue- this is a moral issue- Men have about the same right to marry men as men do to marry multiple women, or men have the right to marry children. Gay marriage is illegal and will remain illegal for the next 250+ years. Both the American people will vote against it, and the Supreme court will vote against it. Whining about it wont help- so just do us all a favor and move to one of the 6 countries in the world that allow it.

Legalist

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:23:30 -0500

ChesterKatz, I agree, and that's what I'm saying. Those who have supported the ban don't understand the separation of church & state / marriage/legal union, and therefore seek to try and uphold a religious institution through political means. This whole controversy exists because this country has long upheld religious rites through governmental institutions (i.e. we've legislated religious beliefs), and they still hold onto that. That's a problem in the present pluralistic society we live in.

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:23:03 -0500

@legalist: Separation of church and state would actually dictate that we not legislate our religious beliefs on others -- which is exactly what the gay marriage bans do.

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:20:52 -0500

@jterry121: It most definitely has not always been "one man and one woman". Marriage was traditionally "one man and one or more women" far longer than it was 1x1. And allowing interracial marriage definitely did change the so-called "definition of marriage" insomuch as a union between a mixed-race couple was outlawed prior to the oh-so-evil Supreme Court ignoring the will of the people to overturn those laws.

Legalist

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:01:53 -0500

For those of you who are wondering why Christians like Obama and Biden oppose gay "marriage" but give liberty to states to decide on gay "unions" (essentially, them saying "unions" are okay by me)... Their views are based on the recognition of two Christian truths. One truth is, yes, marriage is "holy" - which means that marriage, in the Christian understanding, has a HUGE symbolic significance to the Christian faith. It reflects the unity between Christ and the Church. If the definition of "marriage" were changed, it would not accurately represent the fundamental Christian truth - Christ's love for people. So for Christians, preserving marriage IS essentially loving, because it seeks to maintain the love that, to Christians, is the most important and exemplary for them - namely Christ's love for sinners. Then why don't the ignorant bastards go and ban all unions altogether? It's because of the second truth - a separation between Church & State (I'm not speaking about Catholics here). Marriage is primarily a religious institution, and not a political one. Unions, on the other hand, speak to the legal/financial rights of one partner to the others' self and possessions and love and what have you. And these rights are things that, as those who seek to uphold Christian "love" and tolerance, Christians like Obama/Biden will not deny to anyone. Both Christians who seek to ban gay unions altogether and those who hate all Christians for their denial of marriage (a religious concept) need to understand this. It would be intolerant and hateful of both sides not to do so.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:41:01 -0500

Marriage has always been defined as one man & one woman marrying. Interracial marriage didnt change the definition of marriage, which is what gay marriage is trying to do. The American people have already spoken- California , Arizona, & Florida have all voted to ban gay Marriage. Its only a matter of time before the rest of America including New York bans gay marriage. Dont like it? Move to one of the 6 countries in the world where its legal.

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:37 -0500

@jterry121: The American people spoke about interracial marriage as well. It took the courts to overturn those bans. I suppose anyone who supported the rights of mixed-race couples should have just moved out of America, right? I suppose you also think that we should still have Jim Crow laws?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:55 -0500

The American people have already spoken- California , Arizona, & Florida have all voted to ban gay Marriage. Its only a matter of time before the rest of America including New York bans gay marriage. Civil Unions give all the legal rights of marriage without redefining marriage. Gays arent being oppressed- if You dont like it, move out of America.

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:56 -0500

@jterry121 I didn't see anyone say there was no benefit in marriage. I'm just pointing out that you can't trumpet the "must prove their benefit to society" stance towards gay marriage if you can't even do the same for other similar movements. Unless you're espousing bans on interracial marriage and non-white marriage. And unless you would have been willing to support slavery, of course. Don't forget that abolishing slavery was arguably detrimental to "society". Which brings up another point -- you seem to be continually using the term "society" as a synonym for "the lifestyle of the majority". Are you saying that no rights should be afforded to minorities which don't benefit the lifestyles of straight white folk?

TSOL

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:48:58 -0500

"Why the Church of Latter Day Saints?" Because the Mormons are mostly white.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:41:59 -0500

@ ChesterKatz Then its decided- Gays cannot marry for another 250 years. Whine as much as you want but the people of California, Florida, and Arizona have spoken & banned gay marriage. Pretty ironic gays are fighting so hard for marriage when they dont even think marriage has a benefit to society. You dont like it? Move to one of the 6 countries in the world that allow gay marriage.

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:34:43 -0500

@jterry121 How does allowing interracial marriage benefit society? How does allowing blacks to marry benefit society? For that matter, how does abolishing slavery benefit society?

HolyDiver

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:33:29 -0500

All 3 areas have some of the largest numbers of immigrants(illegal and illegal) in the country. Without specific stats I still would venture to say a large number of them are Catholic. I'm sure that had something to do with it. It was not passed by an overwhelming majority either. Their vote was faith based and faith based only - and that is absolutely wrong. By the way - so black people in this country had to prove how America would benefit if they were made equal citizens? Women had to prove to America(which in this case you are saying white men) how it would benefit if they were given the right to vote or equal wages? Are you serious?? You are saying people have to prove to "America" that their acceptance as an American will benefited somehow?? I'm not even gay - I just don't care. It means nothing to me and affects me in no observable way. Nor does it you. I think its time that YOU prove to me - an American - how I benefit from your utter ignorance and propagation of centuries old, faith based, out of touch, violent beliefs?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:08:50 -0500

"A better question would be - How would gay marriage affect you - adversely or otherwise?" Gays dont seem to realize that in order for the public majority to support gay marriage, Gay people have to show how Gay marriage would benefit society. You are already being given Civil Unions- so the public has more than met you halfway on this issue. Your attempt to re define marriage will continue to be met with overwhelming OPPOSITION. Youre so focused on California & havent even addressed that Florida and Arizona voted to ban Gay Marriage as well. If a state as Liberal as California votes against Gay marriage, 90% of America will vote against Gay marriage. The Gay minority must show America how gay marriage would benefit society & how civil Unions make gays worse off, or else gay marriage will be banned in America for another 250 years.

petebfd

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:04:52 -0500

jterry- voters brought hitler to power. voters decided to secede over the ability to own slaves. voters supported the apartheid regime in south africa. the fact that people voted for something doesn't inherently mean anything from a social justice standpoint. unjust laws SHOULD be broken and protested. illegality should not stop us. to answer your questions, civil unions do not offer the same benefit and protections as legal marriage. and i don't see how ending a form of discrimination can NOT benefit society. Hugo Mego- your comments are completely incoherent. not once have you ever touched on anything that makes the slightest bit of sense. you are rarely even close to talking about anything remotely related to the topic at hand. do us all a favor and discontinue your internet service. in return, every so often i promise i will write "stupid neoliberal hipster idiots on bikes!" and "barack obama is a terrorist!" no one will miss you.

Asphyxia8

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:52:41 -0500

Color me there tomorrow night to protest! L♥VE Not H8! A-8

spaghettiking

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:41:35 -0500

All pointless speculation aside, It has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage would benefit society. How has marriage between a man or woman bettered society? For better or worse, shouldn't a couple be allowed to get married because they're in love and care for one another at that moment in time? Straight or gay, why should that not be recognized when heterosexual couples are married for so many reasons other than love: citizenship, pregnancy, money, etc. Whether or not you think those reasons for marrying are right or wrong, marriage between a man and woman is tolerated because "bad" reasons for marriage between heterosexual couples are not visible on the surface. They look just like every other straight couple. Because gay marriage doesn't fit into the conventional, "man and woman" package, people are so narrow minded towards anything different that they choose not to acknowledge it. In this day and age that kind of thinking is primitive and dumb. There is so much wasted time and energy on this issue. People are getting killed everyday in Iraq, and some Americans so worried about trivial issues- gay couples that they will never know, see, or interact with on any level. It just seems like a whole lot of misplaced anger and fear from the side that seemingly has nothing to lose.

Law Mujer

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:18 -0500

Being gay is a biological reality just like being black, asian, or any other ethnicity. Many blacks, Mormons and other people who voted against prop 8 ARE GAY themselves. WAKE UP PEOPLE... there's a high chance that your own children will be gay! Rather than "protecting" children from something that is a fact of nature, wouldn't it be better to educate and normalize gay marriage? That way, when a teen or young adult learns he is gay he won't have to experience the shame and depression associated with something that is just biology! If you voted for Prop. 8 you are condoning the discrimination that has led to sexual orientation based hate crimes and suicide. Congratulations. And just to clarify, Joe525, Apple donated $100,000 to OPPOSE prop 8. And you know who else did? Google! Two of the best companies out there. Marriage is not just a religious institution in our country, thus, we don't care whether "it is a God given right" for men to marry men. Anyways, I have a creeping suspicion that Jesus was a gay man :)

HolyDiver

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:02:40 -0500

jterry121 A better question would be - How would gay marriage affect you - adversely or otherwise? Other than the typical answer, "It says man and woman in the Bible," or, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." I have yet to hear a valid argument as to how it would directly affect heterosexuals in any way. It's all faith based.

HUGO_MEGO

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:59:40 -0500

Yes the rich pageant of gay heritage is evident whenever you stroll around the west village and see all the dvd and 'toy' shops.

shovel

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:49:46 -0500

Gays have a much richer heritage throughout the history of this planet than all current religions, especially Mormonism! Why anyone takes Mormon myths and legends with more of a grain of salt than Scientology is beyond me.

HUGO_MEGO

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:45:20 -0500

Welcome to Barack HUSSEIN Obama's Ameirkka where the will of the people does not matter. If a vote doesn't go cult of Obama's way the courts will fix it until it is the way the cult wants.

joe525

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:38:56 -0500

We should protest Apple computer. They gave $100,000 to Prop 8.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:36:51 -0500

Petebfd- you seem to forget that its the VOTERS who decide on Gay Marriage, and that 99% of the world has voted to keep Gay Marriage ILLEGAL. Petebfd - How would Gay Marriage benefit society? Petebfd - How would Civil Unions be any worse for gays? Until you can answer these two questions, Gay Marriage will be Illegal in America for another 250 Years.

HolyDiver

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:29:15 -0500

I don't get it. Everything I read and hear about Islamic fundamentalists, the Christian Right wackos, and all other fringe groups who say they base their beliefs on an "all-loving God" - tends to imply they are all waiting with bated breath for the End of Days. If you so desperately want to see Jesus float down from his fluffy white cumulous nimbus cloud and take you back home, or a whore house with a bunch of virgins waiting to fuck you 6 ways to Sunday - then why not pass the damn law and see how soon HE comes to get you? Fucking idiots.

robingee

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:22:48 -0500

People have to understand that their religion is not EVERYONE'S religion and should not affect anyone else. Grow up already. Jesus was a longhaired liberal who hated rich people and probably would not have cared if gays wanted to marry.

NannyState

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:21:24 -0500

8 billion people on this tiny sad planet and still we have idiots that are so concerned about the propogation of the human species. I could kill every Christian, Muslim, Mormon, et al. and this world would still be overpopulated. I think straight marriage should be outlawed because it promotes the very values that are killing this planet. What really drives these Christian idiots is fear. Their whole agenda is Fear: be afraid of secular humanism, be afraid of liberals, be afraid of gays, be afraid of everything. Fear is being packaged and rebranded and put out for sale by these swine so they can profit from the suffering of others. God hates them more than Satan.

petebfd

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:20:27 -0500

jterry, i need to revisit that more. your arguement basically is that gay marriage should be illegal because it is not already legal. you sir, are a fucking idiot.

petebfd

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:19:33 -0500

jterry, just because something isn't legal doesn't mean its wrong or should be denied to people. the law in these situations is rarely ever on the side of what is right. social change usually occurs long before legal change. marriage is outdate, patriarchal nonsense if you ask me, but everyone should have the opportunity open to them. but i think that is exactly what is being defended: patriarchy, heterosexual dominance, and the right to hate. that's the only right prop 8 supporters are defending. babyhitler, "jesus was gay." haha, wow i love that. if i go to this that's definately going to be my sign.

whitecastlerock

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:54:00 -0500

Oh the holy rollers are out in full force with this one. Anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to. Then they can discover the other side of marriage— lawyers, alimony, child support, divorce court. Please, be my guest. Be careful for what you wish for...

sinisterteashop

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:48:57 -0500

The good news is that this is now a national debate and anti-same sex marriage proponents have been outed. Congratulations on coming out of the closet! The bad news is that same-sex marriage seems to have eclipsed abortion as the religionists' reason to exist.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:44:21 -0500

And if Gays see Gay Marriage is this God Given inalienable right, how come only 6 countries on the PLANET have legalized Gay Marriage, and before 2001, ZERO countries in the world had legalized gay marriage ???

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:43:19 -0500

How many muslims voted against gay marriage out of religious conviction? Probably a lot.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:35:24 -0500

babyhitler - True.. I guess the fact that he repeated his idiocy should have been an obvious flag that this is just a cry for attention.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:34:19 -0500

"just factual information you can't deal with." "I read that Hitler's "SA" Stormtroopers were a gay clique" Yeah.. I just can't deal with all your "facts"..

ChesterKatz

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:33:12 -0500

Ides, so you'd be okay if we banned interracial marriage again? Because black people would still have the right to marry members of their own race, just like everyone else, correct?

babyhitler

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:30:13 -0500

why are you guys even fighting with Ides? he's like the sean hannity of Gothamist. he lost on barack and he's going to lose gay marriage. If anyone doubts gay marriage will eventually pass look at the TV and see High school musical. Zac Efron will lead the way.

Think twice

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:24:35 -0500

Love him or hate him; we need Al Sharpton.

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:23:03 -0500

"No need to repeat your inane argument." No, just factual information you can't deal with.

luiinsac

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:22:48 -0500

I, along with 1.5 Million other Obama Supporters did not vote No on Prop 8. WE ARE THE ONES WHO PUT PROP 8 OVER THE TOP and I am so pleased that we didnt give in to the Politically Correct Gestapo. Its not a matter of hating anyone but rather following the will of God. If the Government wants to include 'Marriage' in its civil agreements, then we will fight to preserve its integrity no matter what. Any failure and manipulation we see regarding 'Marriage' is due to the Hubris of Men, however the definition of the institution itself is crystal clear. MOrmons are being singled out because they are the easiest target. The Church did not devise Prop 8, did not run Prop 8 and did not donate one penny to Prop 8. It was their parishoners who donated. I would like to add that 70% of Blacks voted Yes, 64% of Catholics, 68% of Protestants and 55% of hispanic voters. What we are seeing now is religious bigotry against a church that only represents 2% of California's population. And I believe it will backfire miserably as more people will sympathize with the Mormons than with Gays.

babyhitler

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:21:57 -0500

Yeah, why do christians get such a hard on fighting gays? It's like a bully picking on the littlest kid in school. If you look at the ten commandments, protect straight marriage isn't even on it. The first 4 commandments are about sucking god's dick every day but the last 6 are in order: 5.You shall not murder 6.You shall not commit adultery 7.you shall not steal 8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife 10.You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. fighting for straight marriage isn't even an imperative in christianity and in fact it's lower on the hie-archy scale and much less priority than any of the others. Yet, right wing christians use all their time, money, and resources sounding the alarm when they hear the sound of one man's balls slapping on another man's ass. They should be first on the line protesting the Iraq war with the whole "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" but then it's too easy to ignore the Christian doctrines isn't it? You know, the word of god?

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:21:15 -0500

The gay protestors who trampled a crucifix outside a church in California are guilty of hate themselves. Hypocrites. I read that Hitler's "SA" Stormtroopers (that he eliminated as soon as he attained power) were a gay clique and chosen for their fanaticism and mob mentality. I can see that now.

ny2102

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:18:28 -0500

"Actually, equal pay was done by legislation." D'oh, you're right. The point stands.

gossipgirl

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:17:47 -0500

@ sidenote Agree.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:13:29 -0500

We get it, ides, you're a moron. No need to repeat your inane argument.

Brooklynbobby

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:13:11 -0500

Those people who criticize and ostracize gays are just projecting their doubts about their own sexuality. It's all based on fear. People who are comfortable with their own sexuality couldn't care less if gays want to marry, live together, etc., etc., etc.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:07:26 -0500

""The people" did not vote to approve interracial marriage, or women's equal pay laws to name but a few examples. The COURTS did." Actually, equal pay was done by legislation.

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:04:34 -0500

There's no law stopping gay people from marrying someone of the opposite sex.

spnder

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:59:57 -0500

Obama is for civil unions and believes states should decided whether or not to allow marriage. We're allowed to disagree on the nuances of the issue. The problem is that prop 8 broadly denies all marriage-related rights to gays and lesbians.

babyhitler

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:58:55 -0500

Alright this shit is a moot point now. If you look at prop 8 and how it passed it only passed 52% to 48%. It's pretty much a razor thin margin. THe reason why Obama won the presidency even after the right wing conservancy is cause the right wing's base eroded and their children became more liberal. Now it's only a matter of time when gays get allowed to marry, I fucking guarantee it! I'm going to give it a timetable of within the next 4 years. Everybody knows this. The children who were taught by a gay ass dinosaur and gay ass teletubbies, and gay ass nsync are going to vote one day. And they are going to vote for the gays my right wing christian friend, the writing is on the wall. You know I'm right, you can't stop the hypercolor shining. The funny thing is how blacks and hispanics didn't want gays to marry. Which I have a feeling will happen in the year 2099 where the gays, who've finally won social acceptance and are allowed to marry, and straights will join together to vote yes on proposition 323 where they don't want human beings to marry aliens, pets, and household appliances. Thus is human nature. The cycle of hate will go on but I won't give a fuck cause I'm dead. If you can amend the bible to make it between 1 woman and 1 man instead of 1 dude and whole lot of ladies then you can amend the bible again.

dr zippy

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:58:21 -0500

If it wasn't for marriage between a man and a woman, you wouldn't be alive. My parents weren't married, yet I'm here. Plus, again, how does gay marriage interfere with the ability of straights to reproduce?

ny2102

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:56:43 -0500

Need a grade-school civics lesson profmocs? The "majority" do not get to force their will on the "minority" under our Constitution. It's not activism when judges rule on this, it's their damn job. "The people" did not vote to approve interracial marriage, or women's equal pay laws to name but a few examples. The COURTS did. When "the people" vote to discriminate, we do NOT say in America, "oh well, that's just what 50%+1 want."

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:54:48 -0500

Homosexuality is punishable by DEATH under Shari'a Law and is commonly carried out in Islamic countries such as Iran. When can I expect to see gay protests outside of mosques?

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:54:19 -0500

Because there is not a compelling reason to legally recognize polygamy, and no one, not even people like yourself who invent silly hypothetical situations to justify your homophobia, can spell out how legal benefits would work under legal polygamy.

junkrabbit

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:47 -0500

Oh noes! the gays are taking over! People will marry people of the same sex! oh no! it's disaster! "If it wasn't for marriage between a man and a woman, you wouldn't be alive"!! People totally can't have babies before they are married!! because you know, all heterosexual marriages are so sacred and lasts forever.

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:48:33 -0500

So much for 'Change' you can believe in. Why were there no protests when Joe Biden stated firmly during the debate that he and Obama were AGAINST gay marriage?

profmocs

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:46:02 -0500

Californians agreed to settle the matter of homosexual marriage in a democratic fair way. It is a denial of the citizens of California rights to a fair democratic process to turn over proposition 8 when it was voted for by the people. So the protest are against all the decent wise people who voted for proposition 8. If it wasn't for marriage between a man and a woman, you wouldn't be alive.

LBChris36

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:42:42 -0500

Prop 8 may have beenn a watershed moment, people. Here in LA (where I live), there have been massive protests every single night since the election. The numbers are being vastly under-reported or unreported by the media, in many cases. You are not only seeing massive protests in LA, San Diego and San Francisco, but also every sizeable city, like Long Beach, San Jose, Sacramento -- and even small towns and cities like Salinas and Modesto. In the heart of conservative country, Orange County, there have been protests too: Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Irvine, Mission Viejo (!?). It has really been wide-ranging with about 5-10 cities protesting each night. Add to that the protests in Washingston, Oregon, Utah, Massachusetts, and other states even though Prop. 8 applies only to California. This is not just a California movement. It has obviously started to become a NATIONAL movement, as the NY protest shows. We have to strike while the iron's hot and galvanize the LGBT community nationally to demand our right all together. Opportunities like this do not arise often in our lives. THIS IS OUR TIME. PLEASE DON'T LET EQUALITY SLIP AWAY. JOIN THE PROTESTS IS NEW YORK BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!

babyhitler

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:40:12 -0500

why do right wing christans hate gays so much when most of the shit they love is gay? broadway showtunes are gay. baked goods are gay. clay aiken is gay. Go to any right wing christians house and 99% of their house is filled with gay. oh yeah, jesus was gay. If gays are unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to marry than handicapped people shouldn't be allowed to marry according to the church.

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:39:50 -0500

@Politburo - Why shouldnt Hugh Hefner be allowed to have multiple wives?

ides_of_march

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:35:04 -0500

Shouldn't they be protesting outside some black church in South Central LA? That's it, target the lilly white Mormons who won't pop a cap in your ass. What a bunch of chickenshits. Gay people don't have the right to marry people of the same sex and guess what? NEITHER do straight people. They're all free to marry someone of the opposite sex; Gay and straight all have the SAME rights. Some choose not to excercize this right, that's all.

fakenewyorker

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:33:57 -0500

"painting these "alternative relationships" with one brush"? no friend, you are.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:32:10 -0500

"The bottom line is if you allow men to marry men, you have to look at every single alternative life style out there." Slippery slope fallacy.

other_islander

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:25:40 -0500

umm, jterry121, the age of consent is already 16 in several states, including many that ban gay marriages. it's a totally different issue. chris lee, the definition of marriage used to include one man and several wives and used to bar marriage between people of different races. even today, religious people differ over whether it includes marriages after divorce, couples who go through sterilization or who use contraception or couples who are physically unable to engage in intercourse, yet civil marriage is open to them all. the only people excluded are gays and lesbians. so tell me, how does the married lesbian couple down the street hamper your ability to marry and raise a family?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:25:16 -0500

"1. to protect children and prevent exploitation by adults. 2. to prevent genetic disease and the intransigence of familial property. 3. to prevent the subjection of women to a patriarch." You are painting these "alternative relationships" with one brush just like the Mormons paint gay marriage with one brush. The bottom line is if you allow men to marry men, you have to look at every single alternative life style out there. Why shouldnt Hugh Hefner be allowed to have multiple wives?

sidenote

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:21:22 -0500

Marriage should be an issue for each church, not a state concern. Marriage is a religious idea and should be treated as such. The state should issue civil union licenses only, and let each church sort out their own beliefs. The basis of this country is live and let live - you do whatever you like as long as it does not infringe on my freedoms. What people do in their own private lives is their own business. For a country that supports free speech for neo-nazis as an affirmation of the rights of every citizen, it hardly makes sense to quibble over two men being able to get a marriage license. It feels like the state has failed to uphold its duty to uphold the rights of the minority in the face of the majority here, and I'd be shocked if the courts don't strike all these amendments down.

fakenewyorker

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:16:45 -0500

jterry: there are rational policy reasons behind the banning of such marriages: 1. to protect children and prevent exploitation by adults. 2. to prevent genetic disease and the intransigence of familial property. 3. to prevent the subjection of women to a patriarch. is there a rational basis for denying same-sex marriage? just look to the backers of prop. 8: it's faith based, not reason based.

Politburo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:14:42 -0500

"Should a willing 16 / 17 year old be allowed to marry a 40 year old?" Irrelevant. Minors can't enter into contracts.

gaycurmudgeon

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:07:50 -0500

I am so there.

dr zippy

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:05:13 -0500

And how will gays getting married affect the ability of married, or non-married, heterosexuals from reproducing?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:03:48 -0500

"Did you really just compare gay marriage to pedophilia?" & Polygamy & Incestuous Marriage. Should a willing 16 / 17 year old be allowed to marry a 40 year old?

chris lee

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:01:17 -0500

Society projects itself into the future thru human reproduction. All societies have special magical traditions based on fertility and regeneration. That's why they reserve the title "married" for a hetero monagamous dyad. Same sex couples of course deserve "civil" rights and privileges but they should see that the resistance to giving away that title is based on the "facts of life".

pabo76

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:00:37 -0500

Wow... Keith Olbermann is represetin'!!! His comments have to be among the most impassioned honest pleas I have ever witnessed on Television. It really gives cause for hope to hear such statements being uttered across the Mainstream Media... Thanks for the link!

ganghiscon

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:57:08 -0500

Did you really just compare gay marriage to pedophilia?

jterry121

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:45:18 -0500

Why should it be a god given right that Men should be able to marry men, any more than its a given that Men should be able to marry children or have numerous wives? How many gay people would support the rights of incestuous marriage?