Reactions to story from SFGate

• 

  Its a Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, GAY Day

  http://www.alandwilliams.com/ee/index.php/weblog/its_a_gay_g...
  130 days ago in blogging out loud · Authority: 21

  Hell yeah, were all gay today. Nothing more to say, except pass me that pitcher of Mai-Tais, will ya? We got around to watching Sordid Lives: The Series even though the DVR cut off the ending and you can color me unimpressed. Too much dialogue recycled
• 

  Lies, exaggeration and fabrication on Proposition 8

  http://guydads.blogspot.com/2008/07/lies-exaggeration-and-fa...
  129 days ago in Guy Dads · Authority: 38

  The “battle” in California to pass Proposition 8 and revoke the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is getting nastier and nastier. The religious and conservative extremists are going to spare nothing including the truth, respectable research and scientific evidence in order to justify their stance. They are launching a multi-million-dollar campaign against gay and lesbian people in California based on lies and making things up.For example, I received a recent email from the American Family Association. In their email plea for money and support, they scream, “Liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California, each by a 4-3 margin, have already forced homosexual marriage on their citizens! There is nothing in current law which would keep one judge from legalizing marriage between three men, or two men and four women, or any other combination.”“Liberal activist judges?” Really? In California, six of the seven judges are Republican and were appointed by Republican governors.“…forced homosexual marriages on their citizens?” Wow, that sounds dangerous and deadly…like a shotgun wedding? Are homosexual marriages mandatory now?The last sentence about group marriage is just nonsense and exaggeration. There are lots of laws against group marriages.The SF Chronicle reports that backers of the proposition said: 'If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage,' supporters of Proposition 8 said in ballot arguments that went on public display this week at the secretary of state's office. It's all nonsense and scare tactics, opponents of the measure said Thursday. Steve Smith, strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said opponents of the measure will decide by next week whether to sue, which is the only way a ballot argument can be changed before the election."UPDATE: Equality for All (a coalition of civil rights, faith, choice, labor and community of color organizations working to stop and defeat any ballot measure, especially Proposition 8, that has the intent to discriminate against LGBT Californians) has a few ways to help:Sign up to volunteer. We need people like you to help spread our message and get involved. Make a donation now. Make your money count early on. Tell your friends, your family, your co-workers, your neighbors. They need to understand the challenge we face, so they can get involved, too. Register to vote. This issue will be decided at the polls. Be sure you’re registered, and that your information is current, to make sure your voice is heard. With your help, the message of basic fairness, fundamental freedoms and equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian couples will be carried to all fair-minded Californians.Labels: activitism
• 

  Commentary on Gay Marriage Today

  http://x-nc.blogspot.com/2008/08/commentary-on-gay-marriage-...
  113 days ago in My UnKnown Blog · No authority yet

  I have always been one who felt that everyone should be allowed to be who and what they are. As long as no one is getting hurt what's the problem? Of course this isn't how the vast majority of the human race feel. It's the basic situation of "Us" vs "Them" syndrome. "We" can't be right unless there's someone who is wrong. Once example of this is the whole Gay Marriage issue. The so called "
• 

  A bunch of marriage news

  http://johnaugust.com/archives/2008/a-bunch-of-marriage-news
  128 days ago in johnaugust.com · Authority: 353

  A bunch of marriage news It’s been weirdly under-reported, but Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that seeks to amend the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage, had its official language changed earlier this month. It used to read as follows: LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. What’s going to appear on the ballots in November is much more accurate, and makes it clear that voting for it means actively taking away existing rights: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments. I would have added, “Voting for this means you’re a dick.” But the new language is certainly an improvement. As I noted earlier, the polling indicates that the initiative is struggling: just 42% are in favor, a huge drop from 2000’s similar initiative. So its backers are already falling back on FUD tactics, the most recent being kindergartners. They warn – If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. In the words of Mrs. Lovejoy: “Think about the children!” Nevermind that the statement is factually wrong. Also, when do public school teachers give lessons on marriage, period? And are there popsicle sticks and yarn involved? It’s easy to be glib, but dangerous. The proponents of Prop. 8 — many of them out-of-state — have deep pockets and a long history of stirring shit up in their favor. That’s why in lieu of a traditional wedding registry, we signed up with Equality California, which is spearheading the opposition campaign. Frankly, we’d rather have justice than a toaster.1 But worst case scenario — what happens if it passes? That’s still up for debate. The consensus is that existing marriages couldn’t be voided, since they were legal at the time they were enacted. And to paraphrase the late Charlton Heston: you can pry my ring off my cold, dead hand. But there are reasons to believe the amendment might still get considerable court scrutiny even if it passes. The legal lingo about “suspect classes” is a bit head-swirling, but can be summarized thusly: imagine an amendment that said African-Americans couldn’t marry. You’d have a guaranteed court battle. . . . In much happier news, my friend Andrew Lippa just wed his longtime squeeze David Bloch, and the New York Times has a great piece on it. I hadn’t realized that the Times now does video interviews, but wow, it’s great. You get a much better sense of the couple when you hear them tell their own story. You’d have to be pretty hard-hearted not to want them married. Andrew is a genius composer and lyricist, and I’ve been fortunate to be working on a project with him for the past two years. Mazel Tov to them both. If you’re itching for some righteous equality but don’t have another couple to gift, the registry is still there. John and Michael August, under “J,” strangely enough. ↩
• 

  California Prop. 8: Christian Privilege vs. Human Rights

  http://www.blacksunjournal.com/current-affairs/1370_californ...
  123 days ago in Black Sun Journal - Atheism, Climate Change, Drug War, Atheist, Religion · Authority: 48

  Nothing is more basic to human liberty than the ability to designate one’s choice of a partner to be recognized under the law. Nothing is more important for personal freedom than our ability to define our own standards for private behavior. Nothing is more upsetting to religious conservatives than watching people freely doing both. For this reason, gay marriage rights (previous article) have become the touchstone issue of our time. For humanists and atheists, it could just be the most important legal question of this decade. We’ve seen baby steps forward toward allowance of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, and now California. But every time a court issues a favorable ruling, "family" organizations can be counted on to rally their troops to slam the door shut–in a bid to "save" traditional marriage from "activist judges" ignoring the "will of the people." Of all the smear campaigns undertaken by the radical fundamentalist right, their lumping together of the gay and atheist agendas has to be most disingenuous–as if to be atheist is to be automatically gay, and vice versa. But let’s examine this a little further. Atheists, both straight and gay, do tend to almost universally support gay rights. Why are gay rights so important to atheists? For the same reason they’re so deplored by the fanatics: because such rights are diametrically opposed to the acceptance of the concept of sin. Sin, with its accompanying payload of repression (denial), guilt and fear, is the fundamental bludgeon used by all religions to perpetuate their control. Let’s start with "original sin." Where did it come from? I take the position that whatever its origins, the bible quickly became a political document. Long before press freedom was widely recognized, bibles and other religious tracts were being printed and distributed all over the world at the behest of powerful forces in both church and state. Since resources were scarce and literacy rare, those folks must have deemed it pretty important. So much so that prior to the invention of movable type, endless generations of monks and scribes dedicated themselves to manual copying–hence the word "scripture." This was not unique to the West. To this day, a perfectly hand-copied Quran is the sine qua non of Islam. At a time of history’s maximum brutality, brought about–remember–by the "divine right of kings," it wasn’t enough to simply force obedience at the point of a spear. The church and state wanted your soul. They wanted you to feel exactly like the peasant you were. You were born that way, it was your lot in life, and you could never escape. What better way to condemn the ignorant peasant folk to a life of servitude than to convince them that all men (and women) were literally conceived in sin? By this logic, before we hapless sinners even exited the birth canal, we were in need of the church’s product: redemption. And it wasn’t the kind of sin that could be "indulged" away for money. It was so heinous that it would condemn us to eternal hell. Sexual sin could not be justified on any other grounds than something even more fundamental, the survival of the species. Hence the link was established between piety, "legitimate" sex and procreation. If you doubt this, ask yourself why every pope down to Benedict has refused to reconsider the ban on contraceptives–even in the face of plagues such as HIV. In ecclesiastical terms, the possibility of conception (and of course the church-state-centric ritual of marriage) was deemed essential to permissible sex. Though Protestants are more relaxed on issues of birth control, the die of church-sanctioned sexuality was already cast prior to the Reformation: Conception equaled holiness. (After the Reformation, Protestant priests could marry, but not Catholics). In spite of itself, the pro-conception position was actually a positive thing for the species, and–making a virtue out of necessity–it’s not really optional. Memes that discouraged reproductive behavior died out along with with their celibate adherents. So religions had to strike a bargain with their "devil." If they outlawed sex entirely, they would not survive. Many chaste extremist cults throughout history learned that lesson the hard way, and for the most part we don’t remember their names. The Shakers represent a recent example. In religion and otherwise, the fecund have survived. But happiness, (brought about through self-actualization) not survival, is the end-all of human existence (top of Maslow’s pyramid). Religions would all have you wait for their peculiar brand of paradise delayed. But whether it’s heaven, Avalon, Eden, Nirvana, the Satya Loka, or whatever, they still all promise you some form of future happiness. This is where atheists sharply differ. We are looking for happiness right here–and right now. As for survival, humanity is no longer broken up into insular tribes. Population has exploded. There is no need any longer for the human species to madly breed. Since the gay population of the world is somewhere below 10%, their failure to breed represents absolutely no threat to human survival. In fact, they’re doing the rest of us breeders a huge favor by reducing the strain on global resources. Which brings us back to the shrill rhetoric and repressive policies of the Christian right. They have been so accustomed to having Christian "values" carry the day, they have taken it as some sort of God-given fait accompli. But to paraphrase the Massachusetts Constitution, "we are a nation of laws, not gods [men]." Given our representative democracy, with a large majority of believers, it has been a simple matter through the initiative process for Christians to enshrine their theocratic principles in the law. This is what has led to 39 states adopting some form of "defense of marriage" language either by statute or constitutional amendment. [Incidentally, the threshold in California for getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot is 8% of the turnout in the previous gubernatorial election and as such, it’s among the lowest in the nation. And any amendment deemed "minor" only has to pass by simple majority.] My question is, what are the amendment proponents defending marriage from? The Supreme Court did not eliminate the benefits of opposite-sex marriage, or change the institution in any way. Yet to hear them whine, it’s as if the very nature of family were under attack: The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it. There are at least two blatant lies in that paragraph. 1) Marriage has never been redefined for the whole of society. It was only redefined for same-sex couples. The rest of society was left unchanged. 2) No one is required to teach children anything of the sort. Kindergartners are not taught about marriage at all. According to SFGate, An opponent of Prop. 8, attorney Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples in the state Supreme Court case, said California law requires only that students be taught at some point before high school graduation about the legal and financial aspects of marriage. The state Department of Education recommends that marriage be discussed in high school, but each school district designs its own program, with parental input, said Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is a pure fabrication," he said of the Yes on 8 ballot argument. "They are trying to inflame people by making up these falsehoods about kids." Of all the foul pandering and scare tactics which inevitably precede repression, arguments "for the children" are among the worst. Who could possibly vote against a clear and present danger toward children? Except when it’s not. Countless studies of kids raised with gay parents show no difference in outcome. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: A number of professional medical organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association — have issued statements claiming that a parent’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research — approximately 67 studies — looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families. Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child’s mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship. So when you remove the lies and the smoke screen, what’s left? Two things: scriptural prohibition and the "yuck" factor. That’s what some people are trying to use–right now in 2008–to codify their snobbery and prejudice against gays by taking away vital legal and human rights from a substantial subculture of Americans. Who are these bigots? The usual suspects. What do they have in common? Their Christianity. Wikipedia lists the sponsors of Prop. 8: Leading the Proposition 8 initiative is ProtectMarriage.com. This coalition consists of many organized Christian denominations including: Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, and many protestant non-denominational churches as well.[19] Other significant supporters include: National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson, Republican State Senator Tom McClintock, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain. Senator McCain released the following statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment: I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.[20] Maggie Gallagher, nationally syndicated conservative columnist and President of the National Organization for Marriage, states that gay marriage "is not primarily about marriage…. It is about inserting into the law the principle… that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture…. The next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation."[21] Adding to the fallacies and lies listed above, the National Organization for Marriage pulls out their "sky-is-falling" slippery-slope arguments. Make no mistake, there is no accommodation with these ideologues. It is a make-or-break issue for them and they know it. They are not content to live their heterosexual marriages in peace. They really want to destroy families that don’t fit their narrow definition. It seems to be the only way they can feel good about their own choices. But once the law in an influential state like California goes against them, their ideology will have to either adapt or die. Some retired religious figures (and others still active) have seen the writing on the wall, and are doing just that. Their drive for mercy and compassion has outweighed their former self-righteousness. Often times it has put them at odds with their church policy and leadership: More than 80 retired Northern California clergy from the United Methodist Church are offering to perform same-sex marriages, saying they want to help out active ministers who would risk more severe consequences for presiding over these ceremonies. Church law forbids clergy - both active and retired - from performing gay marriages. "We’re willing to challenge the injustice and contradictions of this," said the Reverend Don Fado, retired pastor of St Mark’s United Methodist Church in Sacramento. As California enters its second week of legalised gay marriage, faith leaders are mobilizing to either fight the unions or support them. During the annual meeting for the California-Nevada conference of United Methodists, 82 ministers agreed to perform same-sex marriages. If disciplined, the clergy could be defrocked, said Fado. He believes that is unlikely. With this kind of division and even "clerical disobedience" within their ranks, it’s obvious that organized religion is having its own crisis of confidence. It’s not just the United Methodists who are split, but also the Anglicans and others. But then, isn’t it clear by this dissension that there is no such thing as "God’s law?" There are only human rules and interpretations of (human originated) scripture. Organized religions have at various times opposed interracial marriage, supported slavery, or stoning for adultery, and many other archaic practices. When social mores inevitably evolve, so do the religions. Then they act like it was always that way. In this sense it does come down to a battle of human rights vs. (largely evangelical) Christian privilege. The more fundamentalist denominations seem to exist solely to perpetuate outmoded rules. And they inject themselves into the political process–often with disastrous effect. The outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential race was swayed by yet another state ballot initiative on gay marriage–this time in Ohio. We are being forced to choose what kind of a future we want for our country: One ruled by ancient texts and prejudice? Or one ruled by human rights, human pleasure (the pursuit of happiness) and human law as our founders intended. It is a real test of our democracy. Will it succumb to the tyranny of the majority? Or will we stand up, reject prejudice, and demand equal rights, Equality for All: Our challenge is clear. Those who oppose the dignity of our love and relationships are determined to deny us the fundamental freedom, fairness and equality we have worked so hard to achieve. We must get Californians to vote "No on 8," and it all starts with you. Click here and sign the pledge. "Vow To Vote No" today! Gay and lesbian couples are legally marrying in California. Many more are planning weddings and celebrations. We will defeat this initiative one voter at a time. Stand up and take a public "Vow To Vote No." Click here to sign the pledge now! A loss in November will dramatically slow, if not halt, progress toward full equality for LGBT Americans. We cannot let that happen. Please take the "Vow To Vote No" and then forward this message to your friends and family. We can win this campaign if we all dig deep and contribute what we can. As we have demonstrated time and time again: working together we can ensure fundamental freedom, fairness, and equality for all. Corporate sponsors such as PG & E are reportedly donating large sums to defeat Prop. 8. The despicable fundie-backed proposition so far is trailing by 9 points. Like countless thousands of jubilant newlywed California gay couples, may it "go down" decisively in November. Share This
• 

  Tactics in restricting rights to marriage

  http://lgbtnapa.blogspot.com/2008/07/tactics-in-restricting-...
  129 days ago in The Valley's Other Fruit | an insider's guide to Gay and LGBT Napa Valley · Authority: 1

  Not that they have been pleasant about it, but backers of Proposition 8 (for this November 2008 election) have been staying fairly religious neutral in their promotion of the proposition. So much so, in fact, that in their ballot arguments, they use more fear based approaches instead of moral approaches to why people should vote against gay marriage. The Chronicle says they're taking their argument "to kindergarten": Backers of a November initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California plan to tell voters in the state ballot pamphlet that the constitutional amendment would protect children as young as kindergarten age from being taught in school about the virtues of gay and lesbian matrimony. "If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage," supporters of Proposition 8 said in ballot arguments that went on public display this week at the secretary of state's office. It's all nonsense and scare tactics, opponents of the measure said Thursday. Steve Smith, strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said opponents of the measure will decide by next week whether to sue, which is the only way a ballot argument can be changed before the election. [SFGate] Meanwhile, backers of Florida's Amendment 2 are taking us back to the book of Genesis for why voters should support keeping it to a man and a woman: Clip of FL Amendment 2 commercial embedded on the blog site.As we noted earlier in the week, support in CA lingers at 51% in support of keeping marriage open to all committed couples, regardless of orientation. Additionally, a change in wording to the ballot initiative makes note that it would amend the Constitution to take away rights from same-sex couples. When worded that way, even less people would vote for it. PS - did you notice? Apart from their argument, what caught my eye in their commercial is that the people in the FL video are white and the dude has pretty nice fore-arms. ;)
• 
  http://www.alternet.org/module/email/?storyID=92821&type=blo...
  129 days ago in Rights and Liberties | AlterNet · Authority: 74

  Got a tip for a post?: Email us | Anonymous form Get Rights and Liberties in your mailbox! Gay-Marriage Opponents Are Deeply Concerned About Your Children Posted by Tana Ganeva on July 26, 2008 at 6:27 AM. Apparently, supporters of Proposition 8 -- a measure on California's November ballot that would overturn the recent court decision legalizing gay marriage -- aren't trying to impose a retrograde belief system on the rest of us. Nor is it their intention to cement discrimination against gays and lesbians into law. Nothing like that. No, what they're trying to do is protect your children from being viciously shorn of their innocence by activist judges bent on forcing gay marriage down everyone's throat -- even the state's kindergarteners. According to an article in the SF Gate, the proposition's backers claim that if the measure fails, teachers will be required to advocate for same-sex marriage as early as kindergarten: "Yes on 8 campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said Thursday that the court decision would make instruction on same-sex marriage mandatory under a state law that requires public schools to offer comprehensive health education programs from kindergarten through high school. [ ... ] " ... In the ballot arguments, Prop. 8 supporters declared, "We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will." Read the rest of the post on the flip side » AlterNet Home » Post Tools:
• 

  It’s a Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, GAY Day

  http://www.alandwilliams.com/ee/index.php/weblog/its_a_gay_g...
  132 days ago in blogging out loud · Authority: 5

  Hell yeah, we’re all gay today. Nothing more to say, except pass me that pitcher of Mai-Tais, will ya? • We got around to watching “Sordid Lives: The Series” even though the DVR cut off the ending and you can color me unimpressed. Too much dialogue recycled from the movie, but Leslie Jordon is still hilarious as Brother Boy. I’ll keep watching, natch, but with much lowered expectations. As Sissy would say: • Speaking of LOGO, it looks like the news program will have a new face - Ross Palombo from KENS in San Antonio. I’m just trying to figure out who he pissed off to get demoted from San Francisco to San Antonio? • The Beeb asks the all-important questions, doncha just know? Things like “Why is John Barrowman gay?” Why ask why? Just lay back and enjoy him - from your couch, silly. • Ireland gets its gay on for pride starting tomorrow and one of its most famous drag queens, Titty Von Tramp, is expecting an explosion of gayness. I want video. • Another pride explosion - a first - is coming to Watsonville, CA. Get there early. We’re talking throngs of queers here. • New York’s Museum of Sex dives into animal erotica - not that kind, you sick pervs - and one of the highlights will be “Gay Dolphin Blow-Hole Sex” I always knew dolphins were fun. • Looooong-time gay blogger Scott-O-Rama says goodbye to the online world. Some people do have a life! Even though Scott couldn’t come up with a tagline for his blog, I guess I can use “Blogging Longer than Scott-O-Rama!” • Gay basher and homophobe radio talker Michael Savage was dropped from a radio station network - in Mississippi. Wha? Not over some hate speech about gays, mind you, but autistic children. So that’s what it takes? • Prop. 8 proponents who want to overturn same-sex marriage in CA take their case to kindergarten, proclaiming that kids will be taught that there is absolutely no diff between “gay” marriage and “traditional” marriage. Um, in the eyes of the law, there isn’t. I think that’s sort of the whole point. • Richard Simmons (who is NOT gay-married or gay-anything, far as I know), has threatened the United States by announcing a possible run for Congress with childhood obesity as his big agenda. It’s for the children. On that note, we’ll close with one of the big gay anthems which has been done eight congillion ways from Sunday, but one of my faves is from Ella (ella, ella, ella), which she remixed only about eight times, bless her heart. Don’t dance too hard or you won’t live forever, unlike Richard Simmons.
• 

  I can has soapbox please?

  http://minab.vox.com/library/post/i-can-has-soapbox-please.h...
  130 days ago in Mina B. · Authority: 1

  This year, the judges of the California Supreme Court overturned the previous ban on gay marriages in this state. The decision for the ruling was based on the fact that there is no provision in the state constitution that backed up the original ruling. Since this decision, people have been crawling out of the woodwork to complain. "Activist judges pushing a pro-homosexual agenda!" They cry, while ignoring the fact that the judges in the California supreme court are Republican and decided that under the letter of the state constitution, the previous ruling was unlawful. "Well if you're going to marry a guy, why not your dog or a 5 year old?!?" A disgusting argument, not just because of the logical fallacies, but of the implication that gay people are no better than pedophiles and those who practice bestiality. Let me explain to you why it will never be legal to marry your dog or a child. Putting aside the fact that all places with gay marriage have not (and will not) legalize either bestiality or pedophilia, one has to understand that there is no way on this green earth that it COULD be legalized. Animals can not consent, therefore there will never be a provision under the law that allows you to marry one. Children to not have the mental capacity to consent, therefore there will never be a provision under the law that allows adults to marry children. Gay marriage is no different than straight marriage, because it involves two consenting adults who love one another getting married. Of course this leads to my other complaint about this argument, which is the implication that gay people are less than human. Anyone who has this belief, I encourage you to open your eyes and understand the fact that you probably know a gay person, and they're no different than straight people. "The majority of people hate this and think it's sick! Since when do we pass laws to appease the minority?!" If we lived by majority rule, interracial marriage would still be illegal, and most likely, prayer would still be in schools. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be okay with that, but it's equally ridiculous to use the rule of the majority to oppress the minority. They're going to teach gayness in schools!!! I wish I was making this one up. I really, really do. But once again people just can't seem to realize that "gay" cannot be taught, any more than "straight" can. I know plenty of people who would sign up for that "How to be attracted to the opposite sex" class if it would actually work, because really, no gay person hasn't wondered how much easier and less painful their life would be if they were just "normal". This is, additionally, why nobody "chooses" to be gay. Then again, the people that are squacking about "gay being taught in schools" are the same ones who think that giving teenagers condoms will make them have sex, disregarding the fact that teenagers are GOING to have sex, no matter what the circumstances, and that giving them condoms would keep them from getting pregnant and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Case in point, my 17 year old cousin (though she only turned 17 within the last few weeks) is 7 months pregnant. If she had been given condoms by the Michigan school system, this could have been avoided. It's not that I think children are some awful burden, but really, shouldn't she have finished high school first? She wants to be a nurse, how is she going to go through nursing school with an infant?  But I digress. Here's my real point. Proposition 8 will be on the ballots this November. If Prop. 8 passes, the language of the California State Constitution will be changed to recognize that marriage is between "One Man and One Woman". In other words, the bigots win and all the couples who got married since the rightful overturning of the unlawful bill will have it ripped away from them. Our country needs to step forward away from it's puritanical mores, and get with the 21st century. So, please, if you're in California, vote no on Prop. 8. /end soapbox.

Advertise on Technorati