My Inner Fag Hag is Seething

By Bedhead in Accidental Seriousness, Arnold Schwartznegger, Modern Fabulosity, Smoking Bolts

LARagMag

I can’t help but join in the discussion about Proposition 8′s screwing over of the gays and lesbians that had previously been granted the right to marry by a so-called “activist court.” The majority of California voters are, apparently, total assholes, but this issue should never have ended up on a ballot in the first place. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from the invasion of their rights by state law. Equal Protection, motherfuckers, have you heard of it? An initiative that seeks to strip rights from minorities is, statistically speaking, going to pass, and this is bloody wrong: “If allowed to stand, Prop. 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority.” In other words, if a ban against gay marriage were to occur, it should have been left to elected officials, that is, the legislature, to decide. It’s fucking amazing how easily people forget that the U.S. isn’t a democracy but a republic.

L.A. Rag Mag’s Alex (shown above at one of last night’s protests) and Lynn speak out on California voters’ banning of gay marriage through the passage of Proposition 8.

West Hollywood packed with perfectly dressed protesters, shouting their message of defiance in the time of defeat, and yielding traffic over major intersections in our city. It was great and sad and encouraging all at the same time… We can hear the helicopters circling right now.

The notion of police helicopters at a Prop. 8 protest is patently absurd, but they’re only doing their job as dictated by all of those douchebag voters. MK at Popbytes adds to the discussion:

i’m so very disappointed, sad, and angry about proposition 8 (aka proposition hate) passing in the state of california which is unfortunately a huge step backward! i can’t believe that what the high courts deemed as unfair & discriminatory was allowed to be voted on by the public… finally please don’t even get me started on all the millions of dollars poured into this effort – it’s a total shame – there’s seriously many more important & pressing issues to focus on other than denying gay people the right to marry (and like marriage is so fucking sacred & lily white in this country to begin with…ugh)

Exactly. This bill was passed as a result of a $73 million campaign. Further, the majority vote who banned gay marriage is, ironically, composed of a majority who, generally speaking, can’t be bothered keep their own hetero marriages together. Celebitchy wonders if a bit of projection may be going on here:

I was really shocked that this measure passed. I was also surprised by how quiet celebrities were about it. It didn’t seem like it got any national attention until Brad Pitt donated $100,000 against the proposition. I found it so preposterous – and I thought California was so liberal – that it didn’t occur to me that it could pass… If someone feels two women getting married threatens their own marriage, then I’m sorry their marriage is so easily threatened. But no one else should be denied equality and a happy, legal marriage because of it.

Yeah, California is a very liberal state, but the passage of Proposition 8 has amazingly little to do with so-called party lines. Gabby Babble points out that a very public opposition to the discriminatory bill was declared by several CA Republicans, including former Congressman Tom Campbell, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Indeed, this is not a party issue, and, as secular as marriage is these days — hell, it’s basically a contract — gays and lesbians should not be denied this right under the Equal Protection clause. I smell an eventual Supreme Court case.



28 comments

This is one thing I truly believe Canada has got right.

11.06.08 | 6:00 pm

[...] Prop 8 sucks! – ABH [...]

11.06.08 | 6:06 pm
josh

ARRG! The fact that prop 8 managed to succeed pisses me off so much, and I’m depressed that so many people supported it, Like at school today many of my classmates said the exact same “OH NOES TEH GAYS WILL RUIN MARRIAGE AND COURPT TEH CHILDRENS!” bullshit

Damnit and here I was starting to think that, maybe we have progresed from thinking that gays were evil or shit and start to see them as human beings. “sigh”

11.06.08 | 6:53 pm
uncletim

I have to be the one voice of reason here. Look, if you want to be angry then fine. But calling people who have a different opinion than you do haters and bigots and shit is just ignorant. All of you so very “enlightened” people with your high and mighty tone of justice and morality make me sick. Not because you believe what you believe, but because you crap on everyone who believes differently than you do, progressive my pimply white arse!! You and people like you are the least tolerant, least progressive people on the planet! Now to the point… Firstly The F’ing 14th Amendment!?!?? Are you F’ing serious? If that is the best argument you can come up with to support your position, I think you may want to study the constitution and a little thing called “original intent”. Give me a break! Secondly the people opposed to recognizing legal homosexual marriages are not the ones infringing on some established standard, its the other way around. Whatever your opinion on the subject there is no argument on whether there was ever such a thing as homosexual “marriage” as an institution in this country. Since you are all so interested in the truth, let me give you some from a supporter of Prop 8. This was never about hate, or bigotry, or denying anyone’s right to love, live with, be joined to, or otherwise enjoy a life with someone of the same sex. This is and has always been about people like me not wanting to have your beliefs and your ideals, and your sexual preferences shoved down my throat, taught in my schools, infringing on my freedom to practice the religion of my choice without being called names that are really to vulgar and distasteful to be repeated by people who would call themselves decent. This is about not wanting a sacred institution desecrated, and redefined to suit a particular group’s civil rights agenda. And to those of you who got this far and are now seething and calling me every of the afore mentioned and then some, FYI… I DO NOT hate homosexuals, nor would I deny them or anyone else equal protection under the law. I would not deny gay couples the right to be joined together for life if that suits them and be granted the same rights as any married couple under the law. But I have absolutely had enough of this made up crap and all of your delusion induced rage toward me and other decent people who disagree with you.

11.06.08 | 6:59 pm
Matt

This had NOTHING TO DO with party affiliation…you’re correct. Take a look at the percentages by race. Hmmmm….

11.06.08 | 7:23 pm

Uncletim, I graduated from an accredited law school, and therefore I know plenty about the U.S. Constitution. “Original intent” of drafters of a law, whether it’s from the Constitution or a mere statute, is something that courts, not voters, have the power to determine.

Furthermore, just as you state that I have no reason, your logic is also severely flawed. Per the Bill of Rights, the institutions of church and state are entirely separate, and no law should discriminate on the basis of religion or lack thereof. This is about secular marriage, not anything about a religious ceremony at all. Sure, don’t let gays get married in your church, that’s up to you. However, to deny them secular marriage, which is a contractual right guaranteed to minorities — that’s unconstitutional.

11.06.08 | 7:39 pm
paris herpes

I voted against Prop 8, and so did most people in SF…but I am fucking madder as ALL HELL that it passed. This totally sucks ASS…we’re so going to repeal that crap…I think A TON of people confused morality with the fact that ALL people should have the right to marry AND divorce. IT’s totally deplorable that CA is a liberal state, yet this Proposition passed (aside from other ones that got defeated as well). WE vote for our first black president (58% of CA voted for him, ok?!) yet we don’t recognize gays as citizens with rights?! It’s totally ridiculous!

11.06.08 | 7:44 pm
geomatic1

Slow down, everyone. Where is it written that to be able to get married is a “civil right”? Do first cousins have that right? Do pedophiles have that right? Do would-be polygamists have that right? Let’s not let your emotions hijack your reason here, people.

BTW, tyranny of the majority is a bitch, eh?

11.06.08 | 7:55 pm

Geo, I see what you’re saying, but the states statutorily treat the “institution” of marriage as a set of contractual and property rights between two consenting adults. That excludes polygamists and minors from marrying. Pedophiles are free to marry other adults (if they can find another adult stupid enough to marry them). I have no argument for marriage between cousins other than most states are already covering this within their statutes.

We’re talking about recognized minorities here, not criminals.

11.06.08 | 8:00 pm
paris herpes

Last I checked marriage isn’t even in the Constitution…AB, is that correct or not? I could be wrong…but if it says “two people” and not “man and woman” then….what’s the issue?

11.06.08 | 8:03 pm

Yeah, marriage laws are for the states to decide, by legislature or by courts. Not by voters.

I think that the “issue” here is that no one wants others’ religious beliefs rammed down their throats, unless they’re talking about their OWN religious beliefs.

11.06.08 | 8:05 pm
geomatic1

“WE vote for our first black president (58% of CA voted for him, ok?!) yet we don’t recognize gays as citizens with rights?! It’s totally ridiculous!”

Don’t forget that even Obama has said he is not in favor of gay marriage. A huge percentage of Hispanics and Blacks who voted for Obama also voted for Prop 8. Besides, why all the focus and anger being directed at California? Remember that there are forty-three states that have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex. Like it or not, this is the will of the people, not just in the land of fruits and nuts, but all over the country. You know, “power to the people” and all that.

11.06.08 | 8:40 pm

It’s true that I haven’t mentioned other states, but I’m merely arguing with the fact pattern that California has provided for analysis. I’m not even talking about Obama, am I? I didn’t vote for the guy, and he has nothing to do with what I said.

The issue is that, by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a state cannot bestow a right upon its citizens and not allow a recognized minority to also have that right. A judge interpreted that the marriage laws (made by the state legislature) of CA allowed for gay marriage. As much as people argue against the reality of the matter, marriage as recognized by the states has nothing to do with religion. Go look at your state’s statute — is says nothing about God. That’s why judges can perform marriages too. A state recognized marriage is, essentially, a civil union. If you so choose to have it sanctified by your religion, that’s up to you.

Marriage is not a civil right by itself, but what makes gay marriage a civil rights issue is when this right bestows contractual and property rights (as most state marriage laws do) to hetero couples by letting them marry, yet these rights are denied to gay couples.

Back in the day, “power to the people” allowed for many atrocities, including spousal rape, slavery, and countless other horrible things. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy, and I know that you know that already. We elect our legislators and many of our judges. The rest of the judges appointed by elected officials. The power that the people truly have is to elect our representatives to make and interpret laws for us. This is not mob rule.

11.06.08 | 9:40 pm
pandelume

Gays are not denied a single thing. They can get married any time they want.

11.06.08 | 9:54 pm
Zoe

::I have to be the one voice of reason here.::

Wait, weren’t you just the one arguing that other people shouldn’t be pushing their beliefs on everyone else and that it’s others who claim to have an ‘enlightened’ view? And you were just saying that people are ignorant who don’t listen to others opinions, yet you’re claiming to have the only reasonable one in here? Talk about hypocrisy at it’s best.

:: But calling people who have a different opinion than you do haters and bigots and shit is just ignorant. ::

Anyone who denies equal rights to another citizen is obviously prejudiced.

::All of you so very “enlightened” people with your high and mighty tone::

Wait, didn’t you just say you were the only voice of reason in here? High and mighty my foot.

:: Not because you believe what you believe, but because you crap on everyone who believes differently than you do::

Wait, aren’t you now crapping on people for having different beliefs than you do?

::You and people like you are the least tolerant, least progressive people on the planet!::

You’re right. We’re the ones posting on blogs saying people should deny others the same rights everyone else has.

::Secondly the people opposed to recognizing legal homosexual marriages are not the ones infringing on some established standard, its the other way around.::

Are you saying that people should never challenge rules or laws or established standards like Whites being able to own slaves or women not having a right to vote? Because we all know people vote without hate and that the mainstream has always done the morally right thing.

::This was never about hate, or bigotry, or denying anyone’s right to love, live with, be joined to, or otherwise enjoy a life with someone of the same sex. This is and has always been about people like me not wanting to have your beliefs and your ideals, and your sexual preferences shoved down my throat, taught in my schools, infringing on my freedom to practice the religion of my choice without being called names that are really to vulgar and distasteful to be repeated by people who would call themselves decent. This is about not wanting a sacred institution desecrated, and redefined to suit a particular group’s civil rights agenda::

Are you completely insane??? How can you say this isn’t about bigotry or that you don’t hate homosexuals when you are voting for legislation that denies them the same human rights everyone else, including SERIAL KILLERS has in our society? Not to mention following it with hate by saying you don’t want to hear anything about homosexuals and you don’t want to even hear them spoken about. It’s called a reality check, everything you said echoes of full-fledged bigotry. No one is trying to shove sexual preferences down anyone’s throats, anymore than straight people try to hold hands or kiss in public or have their rights. Gay people are just trying to live their lives honestly and in the same manner as anyone else. How would homosexuality be taught in schools exactly, anyway? Worse yet, to insinuate that homosexuals somehow infringe on your ability to practice religion – we live in America. Freedom of religion was written into our constitution, and you have every right to believe what you want. Gay people could care less if you’re religious or not (though religious people sure care if you’re gay). Religion isn’t an excuse to hate. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but he did preach that you should love your neighbors and treat them as you’d like to be treated, but clearly you didn’t get that memo. Not to mention the Bible also lists eating shrimps and lobster as an abomination, so I guess you’re going to hell as well. Frankly, I know plenty of religious people who support gay rights and equality and there are numerous churches, more opening every day, that allow gay members into their congregation and preach unity, and there are plenty of religious people who are gay.

::FYI… I DO NOT hate homosexuals, nor would I deny them or anyone else equal protection under the law. I would not deny gay couples the right to be joined together for life if that suits them and be granted the same rights as any married couple under the law.::

You’re comment makes absolutely no sense in light of all the contradictions and hypocrisies you just stated. Obviously you are denying gay couples their rights under the law.

::But I have absolutely had enough of this made up crap and all of your delusion induced rage toward me and other decent people who disagree with you.::

If there’s such thing as reincarnation, maybe you’ll be born as a creature who has your rights threatened and taken away from you and we’ll see how you react to it.

11.06.08 | 11:27 pm
uncletim

I was totally pissed off yesterday when I wrote what I wrote so for that I am sorry. But my central point still stands.

Ms. Bedhead, I appreciate your clarification. But two intelligent people can still disagree over the framers/amender’s intent. BTW, I am only answering you because the other commenter who broke me down line by line only goes to my larger point. the you who believe what you believe claim to be the enlightened, tolerant ones, and almost without exception that tends not to be true.

You wrote: “Uncletim, I graduated from an accredited law school, and therefore I know plenty about the U.S. Constitution. “Original intent” of drafters of a law, whether it’s from the Constitution or a mere statute, is something that courts, not voters, have the power to determine.

Furthermore, just as you state that I have no reason, your logic is also severely flawed. Per the Bill of Rights, the institutions of church and state are entirely separate, and no law should discriminate on the basis of religion or lack thereof. This is about secular marriage, not anything about a religious ceremony at all. Sure, don’t let gays get married in your church, that’s up to you. However, to deny them secular marriage, which is a contractual right guaranteed to minorities — that’s unconstitutional.”

But you are incorrect in one thing and your lack of insight is precisely the reason why this keeps getting overturned by the will of the people. This is about much more than “secular marriage”. This is about the very foundations of our society being shaken. Right or wrong, that is a fact. If homosexual marriage becomes mainstream and accepted as it has in Massachusetts it WILL be taught to our children. It WILL affect what my pastor can say from the pulpit. And If I base my logic on what I hear now, “You are a gay hater and a bigot, if you do not agree with us”, then it will become a hate crime for me or anyone else to say as much in public. I and many others do not want that. The argument you make is the same one I saw on TV leading up to the election, and it is misleading and false, a half-truth. I am not an alarmist, I am a realist and if you are honest you have to admit that not only are the things I listed possible, but probable. It scares the crap out of me that we may one day live in a society where I might one day be accused of a hate crime and serve jail time for calling the act of homosexual intercourse a sin. Can anyone say Orwellian??

At any rate, I want to let you know Agent that I actually like your blog a lot. I also very much respect you and your opinions. You seem as though you are a pretty cool person. What angered/angers me deeply is being called a hater because I disagree with you. People can still love each other and disagree…

Again let me say, I do not hate homosexuals, in fact I love them just as I love any man or woman born of God. I was reluctant to say this before for fear it would take away from the point but I have friends that are gay, even a few who voted yes if you can believe that. I would NOT deny them their rights under the constitution to Life/Liberty, etc… as long as doing so does not infringe upon my own. I support civil unions that give any couple of any sex the rights granted under marriage. But I will not be bullied, goaded, or otherwise forced into re-defining the word “marriage” in order to gain your acceptance.

11.07.08 | 12:38 pm
Jeff

It seems to me like the real crux of the matter is whether or not homosexuals are viewed as a legitimate minority on par with African-Americans etc. All of the legal points that Agent bedhead brings up only apply if homosexuals are regarded as legal minorities.

The problem is that minorities of race are based on irrefutable biology (Never mind the fact that race is a social construct, it’s a social construct that can be seen with the naked eye), and minorities of religion of long since been legitimized by society-at-large for centuries now.

Homosexuality is viewed by many as nothing more then a pattern of behaviors, not a legitimate minority. Those many, as of now, happen to include a large portion of state constitutions and the US constitution. Arguments for for marriage based on the Equal Protection Clause have no legs.

What I’m saying is that the gay rights movement needs to approach this from a different angle. Except for a few liberal bastions on the east coast where society already views gays a a genuine minority, gay rights will make very little progress for legal equality via the courts.

What there main focus needs to be on is discrimination laws such as ENDA. That is muuuuch more important then marriage. It will write sexual minorities into the law books as well as maintain a national dialogue about the legitimacy of gay rights without threatening people and causing them to become reactionary.

11.07.08 | 1:44 pm
Antandbee

“If homosexual marriage becomes mainstream and accepted as it has in Massachusetts it WILL be taught to our children. It WILL affect what my pastor can say from the pulpit. And If I base my logic on what I hear now, “You are a gay hater and a bigot, if you do not agree with us”, then it will become a hate crime for me or anyone else to say as much in public.” [...] It scares the crap out of me that we may one day live in a society where I might one day be accused of a hate crime and serve jail time for calling the act of homosexual intercourse a sin.

———

I think you’re missing the point slightly. Gay marriage in Cali is not a religious issue, like agent bed head said, state recognised marriage is simply a civil union – to do with law not religious denomination. The idea of marriage is not one that belongs specifically to Christianity or any other religion either. And as for the possible future you mentioned… no one serves jail time for stating their opinion – unless of course it is in a context in which they seem to be inciting hatred against a particular group. It’s called freedom of speech… A Jewish person would say that eating pork is a sin. That’s their particular opinion and they’re allowed to express it… as long as they don’t act to limit the rights of pork eaters they’re within their rights. And what is with this idea about homosexuality being “taught” in schools? Sooner or later kids are going to learn about homosexuality – the state recognising gay marriage isn’t going to change that.

The real outrage for me anyway is that prop 8 actually removes rights already granted… Since when is it OK to take away rights from a minority? IMO gays are a legitimate minority, religious people get equal rights and after all what is religion but a “pattern of behaviour”? Scripture does not actually acknowledge that one can be homosexual – it only talks about indiscriminate sexual appetite. This way of thinking is obviously flawed and out of date and I would be tempted to think that anyone who doesn’t regard gays as a legitimate minority desperately needs to update their way of thinking.

11.07.08 | 2:47 pm

Unless I am mistaken, the framers of the Constitution originally intended slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person and made no provision for women to vote. So the Originalist line is fairly selective (unless anyone here is advocating a return to slavery and abolishing the franchise for women and anyone failing a property qualification in which case my apologies for misunderstanding your position).

11.07.08 | 3:09 pm
Jeff

@antandbee. Finish reading a comment before you reply to it. I was not stating my personal opinion, i was just stating the way I interpret the current legal situation and were the argument currently seems to be stuck at. Maybe if people actually listened to what someone says, thinks about it, and calmly responded to it in a logically coherent matter we could actually make some progress. Pragmatism over emotion people.

11.07.08 | 3:24 pm
ununcletimcletim

Jeff is right about one thing. The debate should be approached from a very different angle so that you can make your argument as he says:

“without threatening people and causing them to become reactionary.”

The problem is women can’t stop being women, people of color cannot wipe off the pigmentation, and therein lies your difficulty in convincing me or anyone else that being homosexual makes you a legitimate minority. for example even if I agree that some homosexuals are born with a definite tendency toward the same sex, not all are. Many homosexuals decide to become gay later in life. In addition I have met personally many “formerly” gay men and women. I won’t go into why they changed or what that says about them. But as long as there is even one man or woman who was not “born gay” who either embraces the gay lifestyle and begins sleeping with and/or having intimate relationships with members of the same sex exclusively, or any member of the gay community that one day decides they are not gay anymore your argument for a “legitimate minority” will always fall flat.

For my part I wish the reactionaries on both sides would let those reasonable enough to differ without hate figure this out so that we can move on to other things.

BTW, thank you to everyone who commented on my posts politely and did not label me a hater, that means something to me and you have my respect.

11.07.08 | 3:58 pm
paris herpes

wow…great points were made here!

11.07.08 | 8:01 pm

I think Jeff’s argument has many merits, but I also think that a reactionary response would occur on certain issues, including this one, no matter what.

Uncletim: I am of the belief that people are born gay, and, sure, many people switch between “acting” that way versus not. However, suppressing one’s true orientation doesn’t really do anyone any good, and gay person that I know who has tried to “go straight” has either given up on pretending pretty quickly or has been extremely unhappy in the long run, such as after they’ve married someone of the opposite sex and made children, and that is a real mess.

Anyway, homosexuals aren’t really born with a specific physical characteristic, and they certainly don’t come out with “GAY” stamped on their foreheads. So, nobody except the person in question can truly know whether they, specifically, were born that way, grew into having those feelings, or just woke up one day and actively decided to behave that way. Sexual orientation is intangible and, sure, people can choose whether or not to be true to themselves or not. However, the gay friends that I have say that they’ve always known it, but some of them chose not to “come out” until later in life.

Just because some people can decide to start or stop “acting gay” doesn’t necessarily invalidate my argument. C’mon, people can start or stop “acting religious” any time they want as well. Sexual orientation and religiousness are very different matters, but both are equally intangible and reflected by outward behaviors. If homosexuals’ rights shouldn’t be protected just because you can’t “see” their gayness like you can tell the race and sex of a person by looking at them, then, in the same way, a person’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be protected either. After all, religiousness is intangible, and anyone can wake up, say, tomorrow and decide to switch religions or not be religious at all.

Obviously, we’re never gonna change the other’s mind here, uncletim. However, I do think that the sharp slippery slope that you fear isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be. It’s not like any teacher will ever be able to demonstrate homosexual sex in the classroom. No one will teach your kids or convince them to be gay if they’re not already that way. That’s my opinion, and I realize you fear some Orwellian scenario, but the checks and balances of our system will prevent that sort of thing in the long run. Between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and their differing powers and manners of quashing overreaching branches, that’s a big safeguard. I truly believe that the goodness of most people will prevent any sort of Orwellian scenario from taking root. Besides, if anything like that started to happen, the ever-changing sociopolitical tide that occurs with every Presidential and Congressional election would considerably slow down any dramatic change. It happens all the time, and it affects all sorts of issues, not just minority rights. I mean, in 8 to 12 years, we’ll probably have a Republican president again, and the balance of the Senate and Congress can change every few years with very little notice. That’s part of what keeps the nation in balance, so to speak.

11.07.08 | 8:08 pm
the Lad

uncletim

wow, your argument is so well thought out but completely lame. your opposition to this topic is not based on any need to hold ‘sacred’ whatever you feel should be ‘sacred.’ it is simply fear…yep you are a scared little person…just like all those who support your view. you’re scared if gay marriage becomes mainstream that is will shake our very foundations? you’re scared that this will be taught to your children? first, this will not shake our very foundations of society, please elaborate on how this can even be possible. second, being taught to your children in school?!??! ok, GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND BE INVOLVED IN YOUR CHILD’S LIFE!!!

i do not know why this is even a topic to be voted on or discussed. topics such as gun control for example are valid. some crazy guy next door can go by an AR15 and use me as target practice. that has a direct affect on my life. removing banking regulations…some people can abuse that and ruin the financial markets and cause my 401k to go to crap. that has a direct affect on my life. two guys ‘getting married’ and having gay butt sex…ok, that has no affect on my life whatsoever. it’s not like they’re going to make me watch now that they’re married. you also don’t want their views or way of life shoved down your throat? is it okay for the religious fanatics to do that on social issues? but i really don’t see how it is shoved down your throat! are they going to be holding their ceremonies in your house…now that would suck. see, i don’t agree with the ‘gay lifestyle’ and think it’s kind of weird to be attracted to someone of the same sex. but, it makes them happy and it has no affect on me so let them do it. if they want to participate in your ‘sacred’ event why not let them? we are all about equality here, right? get a life….live it….and if you don’t like what someone else is doing, ignore it.

11.08.08 | 7:43 am
antandbee

@antandbee. Finish reading a comment before you reply to it. I was not stating my personal opinion, … Maybe if people actually listened to what someone says, thinks about it, and calmly responded to it in a logically coherent matter we could actually make some progress. Pragmatism over emotion people.

——-

I did read your comment and I realise that you were simply bringing up another angle of the argument. I was tackling the line of argument you brought up, seeing as it is very central the issue I’m talking about – not whatever your opinion is, hence why I put “IMO”, although I guess I didn’t make that clear enough, apologies. I don’t think I was logically incoherent or irate. :?

11.08.08 | 1:28 pm
Vi

Okay, California might be blue because most of our representatives are democrats, but in reality, it is actually very RED. If you’ve ever looked at one of those blue/red maps of California voters, you’ll notice that it’s about 70% red with glowing blue in the bay area and LA. Frankly I wasn’t too surprised. But what actually pisses me off is that so many of the Yes on 8 ads (that were full of LIES) were funded by the Utah Mormons. There needs to be a law keeping states from messing with each other’s politics.

11.08.08 | 2:18 pm

A couple of observations.

I have read you for a while, very entertaining thank you. Politics and opinion are somewhat unusual here which is probably why so many comments this time.

I think a point is being missed: Homosexuals may or may not be “minorities”, but that doesn’t mean any discrimination is taking place. To my understanding, no state bans homosexuals from marriage. Marriage having been defined from time immemorial as a union of a man and a woman. What is at issue here is the redefinition of marriage.

Views vary on this, but it seems reasonable that any such redefinition should be done democratically–by elected representatives or the people directly.

I think this will happen. I think it will happen faster if judges will have the modesty to refrain from legislating from the bench.

A final note. I’m not at all sure that the initiative discriminates in any way in that all it does is codify what had been a universal understanding about the meaning of the word marriage.

Best Regards,

dbp

11.08.08 | 3:56 pm
Brad

Personally, I have no objections to gays marrying. However, there are a large number of people who object to it for whatever reason.

Wouldn’t it solve the issues about property rights, right of inheritance, etc; by calling it a ‘civil union’ with the same rights as a traditional marriage?

Eventually, the use of the term ‘marriage’ would decline until it is used only in the church ceremony, when it is believed it originated.

11.10.08 | 9:34 am
feed

NOTICE: Agent Bedhead claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise stated. All visual content is copyright of its respectful owners.

The editors make no claims or warranties as to the correctness of the information on this site. Agent Bedhead has no control over and does not endorse any external site that contains links to or references Agent Bedhead.

If you own rights to any of the images and don't want them to appear on this site, please contact us via e-mail and the images will be removed.

Agent Bedhead | RSS |

WordPress | Return To Top

Bad Behavior has blocked 101410 access attempts in the last 7 days.