Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

You Gotta Give Them Hope


By Brian Leubitz

As this trial goes on, it is viewed in the context of two adults who love each other wanting to share their lives together. But there is so much more than that to the issue of marriage equality, it is about the entire nature of what it means to be different in California or America as a whole. In his testimony, Dr. Ilan Meyer, discussed this issue:

Columbia University professor Ilan H. Meyer, an expert in mental health issues among gays, lesbians and bisexuals, testified that gays and lesbians were more likely to suffer from mental disorders than heterosexuals because of discrimination.

Proposition 8 sent “a message that gay relationships are not respected, that they are of secondary value if they are of any value at all,” Meyer said. He also said the 2008 measure made the public statement that it was OK “to designate gay people as a different class of people in terms of their intimate relationships.” (LA Times)

It shouldn’t be all that surprising that there are mental health concerns associated with the stigma of being a second-class citizen. You could look to the doll tests that were used in Brown v. Board of Education and know that much. Being marginalized by society causes the marginalized to lose self-esteem.

That’s why this case is so important to LGBT youth. Studies have repeatedly shown that LGBT youth show much higher rates of suicidal thoughts and higher rates of suicide attempts. This is not a mere coincidence. This comes from having to hide a big part of who these teens are, and being told that being gay is to be less than a full human.

This trial very may well be one of those moments that allows some teen out there a moment of hope. And, as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today, we should also remember Harvey Milks words, “you gotta give ’em hope.”


  • 1. Chris  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:08 am

    I'm sorry. That's what I think of every time. I read anything new on this site. I feel so little in this fight as a single straight person. I feel like I'm in the audience of some horrific, tragic ________. I'm not the one hurtin, yet I'm not the one inflicting the pain. Maybe I'm not the only one.

  • 2. Chris  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:10 am

    Maybe I should proofread.

  • 3. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:01 am

    You can't make people accept people who are different by forcing them on others. In fact, you do just the opposite; you push them away. And with this particular issue, it is particularly divisive, because the traditionalists feel that something is being taken away from them; that their marriages would somehow become cheapened. That one of the most important insitutions that all societies have is being threatened. Is that what gay people believe is going to make them feel accepted?

    Gay couples will never be able to reproduce in the way that nature has designed for heterosexual couples; therefore, gay people will always be perceived as different, whether they can get "married" or not.

    Rather than expend so much energy on the impossible task of trying to get the world to believe that the 2% of homosexuals in the world are the same as everyone else, I think homosexuals should embrace being different: Accept civil unions, be proud that rather than reproducing, you can act as the saviors for those children who would otherwise be facing a life in an orphanage.

    Rather than try to bastardize marriage to be what suits you (in the same way that you hijacked the logo of Protect Marriage), and piss off a lot of people; why not commit yourselves to being accepted as who you are? Are you so insecure in your lives that you have to emulate heterosexuals' lives?

  • 4. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:33 am

    George, based on that argument we would still have segregation. I think the case that is being made here is that the belief that something is being 'taken away' from the traditionalists is irrational – because nothing actually IS being taken away from the traditionalists. They can still get married as they always could.

    Certainly there are differences between us all and we should all be proud of who we are. But there are no laws saying that Jews and Mormons cannot get married. The fact is there is no rational basis for denying that right to a select class of people and that is what this case is about.

  • 5. RAL  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Very well put Laura. The traditionalists DO have reasons for denying gays and lesbians marriage equality, they're just not good reasons.

  • 6. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:21 am

    George, that was an awesome post and those are my sentiments exactly.


  • 7. Warren  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Not insecure at all. As long as felons, child molesters, rapists and elderly and sterile people can marry the person they choose to I find it offensive in the extreme that I as a law-abiding, high-tax paying and contributing member of society am told that I cannot. 48% of the voters are already convinced of the right I have to equality, but frankly their opinion is as irrelevant as the the other 52% who don't think that way, or were confused into thinking that way as this is not a direct democracy but a country founded on laws and the rights of man. To discriminate against one group of people out of irrational fear and dislike for those people as prop 8 does is plainly at odds with a constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law.

    Further your are correct in stating that gay couples will always be perceived as different to some degree from non-gay couples but I perceive a young Orthodox Jewish couple living in New York very differently than I perceive a childless straight couple of two seniors living on a ranch in Wyoming. In fact those two couples are far more different than the suburban Episcopalian lesbians living in Santa Cruz are from their middle-class agnostic neighbors who shop at the same stores, go to the same theaters, etc. Still the fact remains that only one of those four couples is barred from marriage.

    Further, as I alluded to above the task is not impossible. Last time around 48% of the voters went for equality. That included 68% of all voters under 30. Go to any college campus and do a random sample of the students to hear their issues on this matter. It is clear that in 30 years this will be a non-issue and everyone will wonder why it took so long. But it'll be a bumpy ride to get there with views like yours which are always expressed so loudly.

    So convincing the world we are the same as everyone is an impossible task because no one gay or straight is the same as everyone else. Every couple is different. Some have kids, some don't. Some couples adopt kids even thought they are biologically able to have their own out of a matter of conscience. Drunk people get married on a whim in Vegas and others get married in a temple after years of courtship. The key element is that the state is not involved in WHY or who is getting married. This is why prop 8 is so insidious and dangerous. It allows for an arbitrary classification to be used in denying people a fundamental right and there is no reason to not extend it to other groups.

    I emulate no one's life but my own, but I do demand that the state that I support through my taxes and my good standing in society treat me equally as is guaranteed in a constitutional republic. Your logic is flawed on its face and while it may seem to superficially justify state enshrined disapproval of my desire to marry the person I desire under scrutiny of any kind it is plainly feeble reasoning.

    I would rather ask you are so insecure that you care so much about how the state treats people you will never meet and never really have to think about, and yet seem to obsess over?

  • 8. M Berry  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Warren, very well put. 🙂

  • 9. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Get a civil union and fight for whatever rights you feel that the civil union doesn't provide. You are different from 98% of the population because the couplings that you desire (or choose) are not a procreative. That's not a bad thing; it's just a fact. You shouldn't be mistreated on that basis, but you shouldn't be treated as thought your something you're not.

    Let's dispense with the notion of man and woman, and call all of us men. That way, we wouldn't need women's rooms anymore. Why should guys be the only ones with urinals hanging on their bathroom walls, and why should women have to suffer with tampons in their bathrooms just because they menstruate?

  • 10. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:19 am

    False analogy. Is that seriously your argument?

  • 11. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:21 am

    No, I'm not making the men's room argument seriously. Just making the point that we do treat people differently in this country.

  • 12. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Yes. For legitimate reasons. So far I have failed to hear any legitimate arguments against gay marriage.

  • 13. Apricot  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:50 am

    George, really?

    Hearing you talk is fascinating. Your understanding of the world gives us a window into your subconscious.

    The reason we don't put urinals in women's restrooms is because they wouldn't make use of them. I don't know if you know this but women can't pee standing up. More toilets are put in women's restrooms out of human necessity, not solely for the sake of treating them differently.

    We don't treat people differently just for the sake of their difference. We appeal to the needs of individuals. Some people need different things than others. However, all humans beings deserve the same basic human rights. A better analogy would be getting rid of all women's restrooms because women don't have penises and are therefore inferior. By extension they don't deserve to urinate in public places.

  • 14. Laurie  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Warren, Good letter.

    Goerge, I especially liked Warren's question, are you so insecure… obsess over people who you will never meet and never really have to think about?
    Your procreation comments are such old and proven ridiculous statements. Procreation has little to do with 2 people, straight or gay, wanting to marry. Both straight and gay couples may want to be parents, but that's not the main basis for marriage.

  • 15. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:59 am

    in the way that nature has designed

    George fully reveals his lack of critical thinking with this one phrase.

    By "nature" in this context, you mean "natural selection." And natural selection is cruel sonofabitch, and nothing we should be praising.

    Natural selection "designs" organisms with one criterion and one criterion alone: Each gene wants to propagate itself. Even at the expense of other genes. The well-being of the organism? Irrelevant, unless it relates to propagation. The happiness of the organism? Suffering of the organism? Irrelevant. The well-being of the species? Please, that doesn't even have a tenuous relationship to natural selection.

    What natural selection has "designed" for us is totally irrelevant. The sole criterion used to determine that "design" is one which none of us directly give a shit about. (Note that natural selection does not directly select for the individual to reproduce, it selects for the genes to reproduce. The fact that your children are similar to you is a irrelevant to the genes; each gene only cares whether a copy of itself exists or not in the offspring. So even the desire to pass on a piece of ourselves to the next generation is merely a byproduct of nature's "design" rather than some inherent part of it)

    There are only two ways you can say that natural selection's "design" is inherently good and something we should adhere to: Either a deep misunderstanding of evolutionary biology (as even many fairly well-educated people have — the "good of the species" has nothing to do with natural selection, for example); or else theistic explanations. Given your position, I'm guessing the latter.

    So stop saying "nature's design", because anybody who understands evolution and is being honest with themselves knows that "nature's design" is bullocks. Say what you mean, George: "God's plan". Or do you not want to put your religious bigotry on full display?

  • 16. Warren  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:11 am


    But I daresay George might be of the ilk that thinks the world is 6,000 years, that all species were dreamed up at once and it's because of a flood 5,000 years ago that 99% of them are now extinct, that 'micro-evolution' happens while macro-evolution doesn't, that radioactive isotope dating is a clever trick, not replicated and accepted as fact by even high school students with honest teachers; that physics, geology, biology, cosmology and chemistry are to be rejected when they prove things contrary to what some bits of parchment scribbled down by frightened and ignorant farmers in the ancient Middle East say. I would hate to live a life where my mind was closed to the awesome power, structure, size and age of the cosmos we emerged from, yet that is what the vast majority of people who share his views endure.

  • 17. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Quite possible, though I'd be satisfied if George just came out and said as much Arguing in favor of YEC is a lovely way to discredit oneself.

    I would hate to live a life where my mind was closed to the awesome power, structure, size and age of the cosmos we emerged from

    Right on!

  • 18. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:22 am

    By nature, I mean sperms and eggs make babies, not natural selection.

    I've no evolutionary argument for marriage; my argument is that kids should have the rights to know and be raised by their moms and dads and experience that unique bond and associated knowledge that only people who share genes can experience.

  • 19. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:24 am

    "By nature, I mean sperms and eggs make babies, not natural selection."

    Um, what? What does the physical process of reproduction have to do with anything? You still seem to be missing the point that reproduction is not and as far as I know never has been a prerequisite for marraige.

  • 20. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:26 am

    As for the second part of your argument, I suppose you're against adoption, then.

  • 21. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:50 am

    If they (propH8ers) are so worried about all these poor kids growing up "right" why are they letting all those 1000's of them stay in those orphanages?

    Next thing you know they are going to be coming around with vans taking all the kids in single parent homes or they would rather if they weren't just a bunch of homophobes using all this BS as an excuse…

  • 22. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Very true. We should be replacing orphanages with gas chambers, since the children will never be allowed the right to live with their biological parents.

    Children of single parents, too, should probably be taken to the gas chambers, since they won't be with both bio parents.

    Hmm, what else . . .

    Oh, yes, if a pregnant woman's sperm-provider leaves the picture before the child is born, the child should be aborted, as it will not grow up with both bio parents.

    And if the mother dies while giving birth, the child must be put to death.

    We can also get rid of all agencies devoted to removing children from unfit parents. How can the bio 'rents be anything but fit?

  • 23. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Quite right. And all those kids being sexually abused by their parents should just be told to shut up because mommy and daddy knows what is best for them.

  • 24. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:51 am


    well put and from a legal stand point this is precisely why the supreme court will vote 5 to 4 in favor of reversing prop 8!!!!

    This does not diminish normal peoples aversion to your choices. We want you to steer clear of our children, and it is our children you need convince that your nasty sex acts are normal.

    Marriage equality and then what? Lesbians look attractive? HIV infections rates go down? Teen suicides eliminated?

    I think you're getting ready to wake up the sleeping giant…of anti gay sentiment.

  • 25. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Pretty sure that giant has been awake for a long time now.

  • 26. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Great post, but you forgot something. Homosexual organisms are killed off in nature for obvious reasons.

    We avoid quoting scripture on this because we are people of faith and you obviosly reject the bibles teaching.

    See concerning natural selection it's us human who are able to delay or countemand it because we are the highest form of life. Gays can live freely, inseminate each other, have civil unions and be protected under the law. But, it still comes down to your unnatural sex acts being the death of you.

    We wouldn't have this conversation if you people weren't trying to force acceptance of your choices.

  • 27. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Oh, proton, my dear clueless, bigot…. where do I begin?

    First, darling boy, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom — of which humanity is a member of!

    Second, there are *millions* of heterosexuals who also partake in the *same* sex acts you accuse as being "unnatural".

    Is being left-handed "unnatural", my dear?

    Proton, my dear bigot, you'd best keep an eye on your kid's minister, your family members and your youth leaders, if you want to find pedophiles, love! The FBI and legitimate researchers have proven that 98+% of ALL pedophiles are — wait for it…. HETEROSEXUAL!

    Once again, you wallow in the lies told you by bigots hiding behind religion! What does your bible have to say about bearing fase witness, eh?

  • 28. Apricot  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:30 am

    "This does not diminish normal peoples aversion to your choices."

    Normal people or people like you? Quite frankly I hardly consider straight people who are obsessed with homosexuality to the point that they take time to post in pro-gay websites normal by any stretch of the imagination.

    In addition, Don't forget. Prop 8 passed by a 3% margin – that's hardly most 'people' anyway.

    "We want you to steer clear of our children, and it is our children you need convince that your nasty sex acts are normal."

    Let me teach you something about Gay people and Marriage equality supporters that you may not realize. We don't care about your kids. Nobody said ANYTHING about kids until your side kept mentioning them. This is about marriage equality for consenting adults – your kids have nothing to do with this.

    But I know what you're trying to say. You're worried that the next generation isn't going to have the same anti-gay sentiments that you have. While that's nobody's direct goal, that's clearly the inevitable result. It wouldn't be the first time that bigotry from a former generation becomes lost in time.

    And let me put something under the microscope when you said 'nasty sex acts.' That to me says everything about why you're here. Lets not beat around the bush anymore – you think homosexuality is disgusting, it makes you uncomfortable and you want all those faggots to go away. You'd keep these feelings to yourself if it wasn't for the fact that some in your church and a laundry list of excuses keep you from feeling as if you can actually do away with gays and NOT be a just a bigot in the end. That's why you hide behind your children because you know damn well that your own personal bigotry is NOT a good enough excuse to take away someones rights – it's unamerican and you KNOW that.

    If you believed in what you're doing, you'd just come out and say it – you wouldn't have to make excuse after excuse for it – it's the children, it's 'nature's intention' – it's not my own personal disgust, heavens no! I don't think even you believe the crap you're saying. I believe you want to though.

    "I think you’re getting ready to wake up the sleeping giant…of anti gay sentiment."

    I hate to break it to you but 40 million dollars in advertising later, Prop 8 was really the best your side could do. If they had more then that they'd be able to hold themselves better in court. They'd have better arguments, actual studies, but they don't. Clearly their bag of tricks has run dry. The only thing they can do is do the same thing again and hope for a better result next time.

  • 29. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Not to get involved with a troll, but personally I don't want or need your acceptance.

    By living in this country, and following its laws, I demand the same rights.

  • 30. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Civil unions give you the rights.

  • 31. Alan E.  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:00 am

    The same way that bathrooms and water fountains were the same for black people.

  • 32. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:06 am

    George, there are only civil unions in the state of New Jersey. There are a handful of states with domestic partnership laws that may or may not give the same state rights. However, due to the Defense of Marriage Act, there is no possibility of full federal rights – even for states who have passed marriage equality. You might want to inform yourself.

  • 33. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Separate is not equal. Simple as that. Even if it supposedly grants the same benefits, it's still a different thing.

  • 34. Rick  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:28 am

    George claims that civil unions give us the same rights as marriage. George, any advice on how I can get the same spousal Social Security benefits in a civil union as one gets in a marriage? Separate and VERY unequal.

  • 35. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:18 am

    If Civil Unions and DP's are the same thing George then why don't you get one if you want one and let us get married like we want to?

  • 36. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:25 am

    If your fight is for rights, then why not fight for what is missing from in civil unions instead of redefining a centuries old institution? Because you want acceptance?

  • 37. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Because a civil union is not and will never be treated equally to a marriage, George.

  • 38. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:52 am

    George is your team is so cool with DP/CU why when it comes up do you all fight just as hard as you do about the Marriage bit?

  • 39. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Any rights granted by a civil union that are representative of rights granted a marriage should be denied. NOM has made that clear with plenty of their press releases.

    Anything that looks like a marriage must be prevented. DP & CU are fine, so long as they have none of the rights of marriage.

  • 40. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:43 am

    George, what part about the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law do you NOT understand, darling?

  • 41. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

    You don't need to trample on 6,000 years of human tradition to make yourself feel better.

  • 42. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Proton, honey, America was created in 1776! There *is* no 6,000 years of tradition.

    Remember, darling bigot… the USA is a *secular* nation! All our laws are *secular*! All our courts are *secular*! All our legislatures are *secular*!

    The Constitution was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority! The ONLY one doing the trampling are bigots like YOU — trampling on the Constitution like it was so much toilet paper!

  • 43. Another Ray  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Why not embrace our differences and forego marriage equality? ONE (among MANY OTHER reasons): $$$

    For example, it costs me about a $1000 a year in taxes on my partner's health insurance benefits. My straight neigbor next door pays $0.00 dollars per year on his wife's health insurance benefits. After 10 years he has $10,000 in his pocket. I have -$10,000 in mine.

    There are millions of dollars forfeited in pensions denied to surviving partners … some who have spent a lifetime together.

    Do you support yourself or do you live on a trust fund George? Do you have any concept of retirement planning?

    Give us our TAX equality and then we'll decide amongst ourselves who wants to embrace being different!

  • 44. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Another Ray — George just wants you to embrace your differences. Your straight neighbor having an extra ten grand in his pocket is just another way in which you are different. You should be proud of your $10,000 loss, because it is a symbol of who you are!

    /end sarcasm

  • 45. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:25 am

    My wife and I deal with a marriage tax penalty – we pay more together than separately.

  • 46. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Their it is right their. The money not living natUrally the way you were created.

  • 47. Rick  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:27 am

    George writes, "Rather than try to bastardize marriage to be what suits you…"

    With all due respect, George, wasn't that the same logic used to oppose inter-racial marriage? Explain that to ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who's married to a white woman.

  • 48. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:46 am

    DIfferent from Blacks; heterosexual Blacks can procreate. That's a huge difference when the institution you're talking about was founded on the basis of men and women making children. Seriously, do you think marriage would even exist but for the fact that men and women create kids?

  • 49. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Except for sterile couples and others that are heterosexual but can't or don't want to have children. You seem to be ignoring that point completely.

  • 50. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:23 am

    The ability or desire for a couple to have children has never been a requirement to become married. Why is it an issue now?

  • 51. Rick  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:34 am

    George wrote, "Different from Blacks; heterosexual Blacks can procreate." That logic doesn't hold up to history. There was a time (not all that long ago) when the "sanctity of marriage" prohibited heterosexual, procreating blacks from marrying each other. This was when we still had the "tradition" of slavery.

  • 52. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:44 am

    And a few thousand years ago, Hebrew slaves were allowed to marry while enslaved, but the wife and kids would be kept by the slave owner when the husband was freed. So, not really a marriage, either.

  • 53. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Evidently George never researched the reasoning behind the miscengenation laws.

    One of the reasons the bigots gave, dear boy, was due to the mistaken belief that the children of an interracial marriage would be sterile. They then claimed such sterile children would mean the end of the human race.

    Seriously — that's just one of the reasons the bigots gave to deny interracial marriage!

  • 54. Apricot  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:39 am

    "You can’t make people accept people who are different by forcing them on others."

    Nobody here cares whether or not we meet the approval or acceptance of you or others like you. We're here because, like just about every human being in modern society, we want the right of marriage. ;

    "And with this particular issue, it is particularly divisive, because the traditionalists feel that something is being taken away from them; that their marriages would somehow become cheapened."

    If you feel as though a gay person getting married somehow cheapens your marriage then that's nobody's fault but your own. Gay couples aren't going to be held accountable for your insecurity.

    "Gay couples will never be able to reproduce in the way that nature has designed for heterosexual couples; therefore, gay people will always be perceived as different, whether they can get “married” or not."

    Any minority is going to be different from the majority. That's not something that we all aren't aware of, but I know what you're trying to say. You're implying that gay people are always going to be 'outsiders' according to your eyes. I disagree if only on the premise that gay people are just people. Their lifestyles aren't defined by their marriages and their worth isn't defined by their sexuality. There are gay lawyers, doctors, senators and etc.

    "Rather than expend so much energy on the impossible task of trying to get the world to believe that the 2% of homosexuals in the world are the same as everyone else, I think homosexuals should embrace being different"

    We have, but there's a huge difference between embracing differences and embracing inferior status, I think that's what you have to understand.

    BTW, according to a 2002 poll from Gallup [take it or leave it] about 20% of men in the US are gay and 22% for lesbians. I don't know the world numbers, but I know where you got your stats from. A lot of sources from the 70s suggest that gays in the world amount to 'up to 6% of the world population'. So yeah, you're certainly a little out of date.

    "Accept civil unions, be proud that rather than reproducing, you can act as the saviors for those children who would otherwise be facing a life in an orphanage."

    The minute I accept civil unions is the minute I drink from a colored water fountain. Never. [I'm black BTW].

    "Rather than try to bastardize marriage to be what suits you (in the same way that you hijacked the logo of Protect Marriage)"

    I like how you held ALL OF GAY PEOPLE accountable for what the webmasters of this one site has done with their logo design.

    "and piss off a lot of people; why not commit yourselves to being accepted as who you are?"

    Here's the problem though, George. Our view of 'who we are' isn't the same as your view of who we are. To you, being inferior is a fundamental part of being gay and embracing inferiority means being true to ourselves. Pardon my french George but you can kiss my ass on that one. Being gay does not mean being any less than human. We should have our rights if only on the grounds of that statement.

    "Are you so insecure in your lives that you have to emulate heterosexuals’ lives?"

    Are you so insecure that you feel gay marriage existing is a threat to your heterosexual life? [BTW, I love how you somehow twisted wanting equal rights to being insecure. The hell?]

  • 55. A  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Well said Apricot

  • 56. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Awesome post Apricot!

  • 57. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Oh my goodness thanks so much for some truth in this madness. Their argument using comparisons to racism is continuing to remain the shallow creek they stand in.

  • 58. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Please tell me oh bigoted one…. what's the difference between "ni**er" and "fa**ot"? What about k*ke and d*ke? How about g**k and ch*nk?

    One of my favourite quotes comes from Mel Boozer, who was the first African-American to be nominated for Vice-president by any party at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. He said and I fully quote: "I know what it means to be called a nigger. I know what it means to be called a faggot. And I can sum up the difference in one word: none."

  • 59. pbrim  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:51 am

    I am a straight married woman. My husband and I "will never be able to reproduce in the way that nature has designed for heterosexual couples". (God knows, we spent 15 years and thousands of dollars trying.) While I was going through infertility treatment, a lesbian co-worker and her partner were also trying to conceive. At one point, we were even going to the same doctor. They succeeded with far less medical intervention than we went though in failing. So why is it OK for us to be married but not them?

    Marriage is not about children, but even if it were, that is all the more reason to allow every parent (or potential parent) to marry. Our society has built a system to support families and provide protection for their children — and then tells certain families and certain children that they don't deserve that support and protection. We announce loudly that children are valuable and society must protect them — and then tell certain children, "All except you". How can that possibly be a moral thing to do?

  • 60. Rachel  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Thank you for pointing that out! Seems the ProProp8 side forgot all those children in the rush to protect the straight couples children, not the children who need it….

  • 61. Shira  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Let's translate that post: "You're inferior to us, so just embrace it, accept a reduced set of rights, and here, why don't you take the kids we heteros either don't want or were too irresponsible to care for in the first place? We don't want you replicating your gay DNA."

    Gosh, I don't know, George. I've always kind of felt like LGBT people are the next step in human evolution. We're not going to contribute to overcrowding, and we're not going to accidentally have kids we can't support – and yet, hey look – last I checked, I still had a uterus and two ovaries. Well gosh! Reproductively speaking, I guess I actually have an advantage over hetero women. Straight women have to search for a spouse based on whether or not they think he's going to contribute good genes to their child, and then they're stuck living with the guy even if they can't stand him. I mean, that's why straight women get married, right? To obtain genetic material for procreation? Because hetero marriage is solely about procreation, not about love. I mean, that's what your side is saying. Well, I'm guess I'm a little luckier than that – I can find a spouse who I LOVE, and who I think will be a good and supportive PARENT to our child. Then I can shop around for the best genetic material on the market, and we can have a beautiful, intelligent baby when we are *ready* and able to support it. Gay people reproduce responsibly. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is. Nature has spoken, and she says, "Hey breeders – take a step back. You're killing me here." So I guess by denying us access to the rights and privileges of marriage, you are only standing in nature's way.

  • 62. Shira  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Are you so insecure that you can't accept that somebody else might be able to do marriage/procreation better?

  • 63. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Excellent words & heartening thoughts.
    Except when you include MLK.

    Our struggle for civil rights is not the same as African Americans' struggle for civil rights.

    They were owned as slaves.
    We were burned at the stake.

    Further: MLK was a homophobe.
    I know so many people look to MLK for inspiration, but during this crisis when we are looking at securing our rights wholly & without compromise, I'm personally offended.

  • 64. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Oh, puhlease. Anybody out there care to be a slave instead of gay in this country? You lose all credibility with such a statement. I'm offended by your pathetic self-pity.

  • 65. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:43 am

    George why not just go back to the homepage where everyone believes like you do. You know the one with the logo that we "hijacked" from you guys after it was "hijacked" from the Jewish group who actually created it.

    And by the way I am offended by your pathetic argument that we should just except the scraps that you wish to hand us. Might as well get used to the fact that we will achieve our Equality here in America.

  • 66. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:36 am

    My apologies for hitting your hot button, George. These are not times for me to go willy nilly posting knee jerk reactions.

    Personally, I don't feel anyone should be slaves or burned at the stake. Period.

    Credibility, however, is not necessarily something I need to strive for. There are much brighter and more learned individuals posting wonderful insights here.

    However, during our struggle for civil rights, I have landed on quite a few blogs by AA individuals berating the 'gay community' (granted there is crossover, admittedly from the blogs & from myself) for hijacking theirs.

    Once again, many more knowledgeable, insightful people have stated these viewpoints, so it is inappropriate for me to review these on this thread.

    As a white male (gay, yes…but white male priviledged nevertheless) I do not live the day-to-day struggle that people of color face. I cannot speak for anyone else's insights, but I try to keep an open ear. What i have heard & understand is that individuals (not entire groups…individuals) have sought to educate me and those in my situation that their struggle is their own, and we should have ours. There *is* a difference in our struggles, as William Tam has made clear with his comments that 'civil rights' are only for skin color (or something along those lines) and does not include what he considers mutable characteristics such as being gay.

    For my comment about MLK being a homophobe, please feel free to Google 'Bayard Rustin'. Because of MLK's actions distancing himself from Rustin, and the information I have gleaned from sites & blogs discussing the civil rights struggles from both an AA standpoint and a gay standpoint, I do not find as much similarity. Further, usage of MLK's images & words to inspire the LGBT community is a slap in the face to those who feel the LGBT community needs to have our own struggle and not hijack theirs. And if MLK was a homophobe, he was not speaking for us.

    Thanks for your judgement of my credibility. As mentioned before, there are others with more education & insight. That, however, hardly precludes me from commenting on a blog that is relating issues that personally affect me. Lack of credibility apparently has not stopped you from posting intentionally inflammatory messages.

    As such, thank you for determining my self-pity to be pahetic. I will be sure to refer to this condition to my therapist.

  • 67. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:54 am

    oh, [email protected]
    George's flame bait post hadn't been on my refresh before I responded.

    hook – line – sinker


  • 68. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:03 am

    George why not just go back to the homepage where everyone believes like you do.

    As much as George pisses me off, remember: One of the strengths of our side is that we tolerate dissent. Allowing George to make his pathetic arguments in this forum shows that we are not afraid of debate, like the other side is. The other side knows their house of cards crumbles as soon as they let reason in the door. But we know that our case is rock solid, and letting an idiot in the door isn't going to undermine it.

    So I say, let him blather on.

  • 69. Kevin  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:14 am

    And the rest of us are offended by your laughable inability to think critically through these issues. The most glaring example of which is the fact that prisoners are allowed to marry; prisoners do not procreate. The elderly are allowed to marry; the elderly do not procreate. The sterile are allowed to marry; the sterile do not procreate. People who just don't want to have children are allowed to marry; these people do not procreate. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a legal condition placed upon marriage regarding two individuals' desire or ability to bear and raise children.

  • 70. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Thanks for letting me blather, James. I'm not hear to create trouble as much as I'm trying to work through this issue in my mind. I have a gay business partner, I have two close gay friends who are in committed relationship, and countless gay acquaintances, all great people.

  • 71. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:31 am

    If you care about these people, then why are you arbitrarily preventing them from having something they want, something which affects nobody but them?

  • 72. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:32 am

    You must not think they're all that great if they don't deserve the same rights as you.

  • 73. RAL  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:53 am


    I strongly support and encourage you to voice your views here. I'm glad your trying to engage and work through some of these issues.

    Just a quick reaction to your "I have gay friends" statement: Do you not see how ridiculous and defensive this makes you look? I'm speaking ONLY for myself here, but anyone who holds the views you do would specifically NOT have my permission to call me a friend — especially not for the cheap purpose of scoring points in an online forum or to exempt themselves from charges of bigotry. I use words like "bigot", "hate", "homophone", etc. very sparingly. I think they halt discussion, rather than promote it, but, please — "gay friends" ? you're making it hard. Work with me here…

  • 74. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:33 am

    RAL –

    I have a gay friend who is a catholic priest; he's against gay marriage.

    I've never discussed the marriage issue with my gay friend partners; they come to my house and eat with my wife and children, we go to their house, and none of us has ever brought up the subject. I don't even know whether they care about marriage or not.

    I don't share everything with my friends; though I have managed to share my conservative views with my liberal friends, and they are all still talking to me.

  • 75. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:34 am

    "A" gay friend. One person is statistically insignificant. Even if he actually exists, that proves nothing.

  • 76. RAL  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:57 am


    I think the problem I'm having with your "gay friend" comments is that you seem to be offering them as some sort of exemption.

    I have gay friend[s] — ergo, my position with respect to marriage and gay people can't be bigoted. Not true.

    Truth A. does not necessarily negate truth B.

    I actually sense the earnestness in your plea not to be considered a bigot. I sympathize with you.

    I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of your friendships, but the people I form friendships with embrace my FULL humanity. Recognizing and supporting my right to choose a partner and have that publicly acknowledged and respected through marriage is important to me. If somebody does not support my full humanity, I'm really not interested in having them as a friend.

  • 77. george  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:28 am

    RAL –

    I'm not seeking an exemption because I have gay friends. Not to get all semantic, but I guess it depends on how one defines "bigot," as to how I am perceived. If it's that I have strong opinions on the subject of gay marriage, then I'm a bigot. But to suggest that I am against homosexuality or have a hatred towards homosexuals is just incorrect, else, why else would I have gay friends?

  • 78. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:56 am


    Drop that "gay friends" argument. It's old and marks you as a bigot. I first heard it in the 1940s when it was "Some of my best friends are Jewish ." In the '50s it became "Some of my best friends are black . . . . " Now it's "Some of my best friends are Gay."

  • 79. John D  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:17 am

    MLK was a homophobe? That's news to me. It'd be news to Bayard Rustin too.

    Rustin was one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He studied nonviolent resistance with Gandhi and then later taught these techniques to Martin Luther King, Jr. He was an out gay man during in the early 1960s. Strom Thurmond made a claim that King and Rustin were lovers.

    Coretta Scott King said that she believed her husband would have supported gay rights.

    There certainly are enough homophobes out there, but let's reserve the label for people who have done something to merit it.

  • 80. Chris  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:32 am

    I was wondering that as well. He seemed to be a pretty all around equal rights guy.

  • 81. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:50 am

    …or, perhaps, we could find our own inspirations within our own community who speak for our rights, rather than hijacking the words of other civil rights struggles.

    i won't suffer you through copy/paste festivities to support any claims. I'm not sure a debate on this issue is productive, but my understanding is that MLK had to distance himself from Rustin. As stated, I'm not the educated/insightful one. This is merely my understanding from the information I have gleaned.

    Homophobia was very common in those times, and I'm sure MLK's alleged response would be acceptable at that time. I wouldn't fault MLK for being a homophobe. His focus an leadership was exemplary, but his fight was not for LGBT rights.

  • 82. Brian Leubitz  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:18 am


    The fight for civil rights is universal. See, the important part of justice, is that if it isn't available for all of us, it is not available for any of us.

    Dr. King was no homophobe, Coretta Scott King fought for gay rights before she passed away, and there is every reason to believe that Dr King would have done the same. As a previous poster pointed out, Bayard Rustin was a critical member of his team, and was an openly gay man.

    I'll go ahead and be optomistic here and hope that you weren't saying that it was better to be a slave. I assure you plenty of slaves died, were raped and brutally treated by hands of their "owners."

    We find common cause with the leaders of other civil rights movements because while the history may be different, the end goal is the same: Equal rights for all. And that's what Dr. King's dream was all about. We do ourselves no service by ignoring or criticizing his record.

  • 83. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    WRT to saying slaves were better – I didn't say that. As your response is well thought out and constructive, I'm confused by your interpretation.

    As I stated in my post:
    – our struggle is different
    – plenty of heterosexual & homosexual members of the AA community have pointed out that the LGBT community is hijacking their struggle – enough so that as a priviledged white male, it is my duty to listen and not infer my own prejudices on what people in other life experiences may feel.

    I apologize if I was unclear. I'm terribly embarrassed that anyone would find that my statement was inferring that being a slave was better.

    And I'm actually saddened by the fact that since my simple statements above were construed so horribly, my next point will be amazingly lost: slavery was abolished, although rights against the AA are still forthcoming, there is legality on their side.

    We , as members of the LGBT community, do NOT have legality on our side.

    Plenty of slaves died, were raped, brutally treated (and it really hurts to type that…it makes me nauseous that this is a part of our history AND our reality), but in my lifetime, I haven't heard of the police breaking into bars frequented by the AA community and brutally beating them, witholding them against their will, or arresting them in public for holding hands or kissing. I AM aware that just like LGBT leaving bars getting followed by the police, DWB (Driving While Black) is still apparently a source of suspicion in many parts of our country.

    I guess I'm kind of hung up on a sequential timeline and don't see the struggle for civil rights for anyone as time independent absolute.

    There would have been no march on Washington without Bayard Rustin. However, later in MLKs career he was forced to distance himself from Rustin because of Rustin's sexual orientation. This is my understanding. It doesn't sound so wonderfully wholesome as everyone is tending to believe it. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

    I'm also saddened that this point will be overlooked, probably due to my inability to communicate properly: I dont' hold this against MLK's image or feel it lessens his achievements in the slightest, any moreso than I hold the current British Government responsible for what happened to Alan Turing. We can find common cause, but I feel that swarming to MLK's words preclude us (the LGBT community) from finding our own leaders, our modern Harvey Milks, while pissing off plenty of people whose struggle *they* construe as different from a deeply personal experience. A struggle that includes experiences that I cannot judge as correct/incorrect, valid or not – it is only my position to listen & support.

  • 84. Apricot  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:45 am

    You can compare gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 60s but you really can't compare gay rights to slavery, man. As a black gay male even I won't go there.

  • 85. Alan E.  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:58 am

    There is no comparison indeed, and black slaves didn't have the option to hide the reason they were being discriminated against. There is one exception, though, and that is the same reasons for slavery and racial prejudice are being used against gay people.

  • 86. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Good post…

  • 87. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Nope! *Wrong*, JimB!!!!

    MLK had a deep friendship with Bayard Rustin, who was gay!

    Rustin taught MLK the philosophy of non-violent confrontation, and assisted him in running the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and organized the 1963 March on Washington.

    His widow Coretta Scott King was 1000% in *favor* of marriage equality!

  • 88. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Thanks for the update Marlene.
    I'll check my sources closer next time. Thanks for clarifying that.

    As noted in other posts, I'm aware of Rustin's accomplishments that you mention.

  • 89. TPAKyle  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:37 am

    George, in his thoughtful post, makes an excellent argument for continuing the fight for marriage equality.

    Someday such attitudes and beliefs will be looked upon as unsophisticated history and part of the growing process our country had to undergo to create a society where everyone is viewed as equal.

  • 90. Chris  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:38 am

    So his attitude and belief isn't looked upon that way now?

  • 91. TPAKyle  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Unfortunately, not by everyone.

  • 92. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Not even by the majority, as it would seem.

    I think a lot of us get a skewed vision of American public opinion by virtue of self-selection, i.e. we choose to hang out with people who are not bigoted assholes, and therefore we don't meet the bigots. It goes doubly so for those of us living in traditionally liberal areas, i.e. cities and coasts.

    I'm constantly having to remind my wife of this. She's like, "How can these people get elected?" Well, you haven't hung out with the typical person in middle America, have you? When I go to visit my sister in Utah, I get a reminder of how the other side thinks… Nice people, mostly, but soaked in a culture that is just plain

  • 93. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    "unsophisticated history" give me a break..

  • 94. James Sweet  |  January 18, 2010 at 4:01 am

    A challenge to our friend George, because I still have not heard anybody give a satisfactory answer to the "what about sterile heterosexuals?" question. Can you answer that one, George?

    No, you can't. Because the reproductive argument is stupid.

  • 95. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:03 am

    The argument presented to me in the past has been that, even if the reproductive organs of opposite-sex couples don't work, at least they have the right parts!


    Opposite-sex marriage is appropriate because they have the proper distribution of body parts to make children.

    Same-sex marriage is inappropriate because they do not have the proper distribution of body parts to make children.


    Opposite-sex couples who cannot, or do not want to, have children should be allowed to marry, because they have complementary genitalia.

    Same-sex couples who are raising, or want to have, children should not be allowed to marry, because they have matching genitalia.

    From this, the right to same-sex marriage is fundamentally grounded in two ideals:

    children are the entire purpose of marriage, thus it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples

    –the presence of and/or desired for children are completely, utterly unimportant when deciding if a couple may marry

  • 96. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Poor John Bobbitt. I guess he can't marry anybody by that logic.

    BTW, it is perfectly legal for two same-sex people to get married if one of them changes sex through surgery. These couples apparently have all the 'right parts' except they cannot procreate. At least not with each other.

    MrHCI, I hope you didn't fall for this logic.

  • 97. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:23 am

    I addressed that very issue on my blog recently.

    I believe it depends on the laws of the state, as I think some will not allow gender on birth certificates to be changed retroactively. Thus, you might end up with a woman who had sex reassignment surgery 10 years ago and now wants to marry a man but her birth certificate says she's male, so no marriage.

  • 98. Apricot  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:56 am

    What I hate most about that argument is that it erodes down marriage to be solely about genitals. The purpose of this most sacred of traditional institutions is to acknowledge that the party involved has a penis and vagina. k . . .

  • 99. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Mr. HCI — We also need to remember our intersex members of the sexuality spectrum! Just who are *they* allowed to marry, eh?

    Hey George — If someone has XO chromosomes, are they male or female? What about XXY, XXYY, etcetera…. what gender is someone who has missing or extra chromosomes?

    There are people who look, sound, and act like natal females, yet their genetically XY, but suffer from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. You can pump enough testosterone through their system to make Arnie look like a girly-man, yet their body rejects it. If tye're attracted to men, is it a "same-sex" marriage?

  • 100. Mr. HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Hey Marlene,

    I briefly addressed intersexed marriage rights at the end of my blog post, actually.


  • 101. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:22 am

    James –

    Marriage is a public institution, as well as a personal one. Society values that married couples give their children the gift of knowing and being raised by their mom and dad. It is designed to provide a stable environment wherein the children are cared for (and don't become an obligation of the state).

    Any male-female couple that chooses to marry is viewed as procreating or capable of procreating or having procreated (in the case of older folks) by virtue of the difference in sexes. Procreation is implicit in the union: men and women make babies. All male-female couples – whether they procreate in fact or not – project to society this ideal relationship: the only relationship that is capable of producing children and the one that gives children the opportunity to know and be raised by their biological parents.

    Interestingly, what's the first question people ask when they hear about a couple divorcing: "Do they have kids?" Because that's the whole point; no one cares whether people merely in love stay together; what they care about is what's best for the kids.

    Frankly, I don't see why people who don't want kids bother to get married; they can contract for whatever rights the government gives (which, btw, we pay more in taxes as a married couple than we would if filing separately).

  • 102. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:27 am

    George, are you, by chance, a 66yo, self-loathing, closeted, Catholic homosexual who lives in Massachusetts? Your arguments against same-sex marriage are practically word for word the same ones he uses when arguing with people.

  • 103. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Ignoring all the other problems in your logic: gay people can have kids, just not biologically with each other – although with the way science is going, even that's not out of the question. Should we not allow these children to live with married parents just because it doesn't fit your personal notion of the "ideal" family?

  • 104. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:12 am

    George, I can tell you why people who don't want kids bother to get married. They are in love. That is why most people get married. It is the basis for all good marriages.

    The fact that you did not know that, suggests to me that you do not understand love, or its importance in a marriage.

    Having children and being parents are important in most marriages, but a successful marriage lasts long after the children are gown and gone off. It's called love.

  • 105. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:35 am

    waxr –

    Love, schmove, it's the stupidest sole reason to get married. Gay marriage aside, I think people are eff-ed up over their reasons for getting married. Clueless. No wonder the divorce rate is so high. I think we need to fix that; set realistic expectations instead of these Hollywood fantasy perceptions of marriage.

  • 106. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:36 am

    It seems we may have come to the root of the problem.

  • 107. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:41 am

    George is right. Love should have no bearing on marriage.

    Let's go back to the old ways:

    1) women are possessions, to be traded by fathers in exchange for goods from the future husband


    2) women are prizes of war

    See, no love at all! Just an economic transaction or an example of pure, unadulterated lust, the way it was originally intended.

  • 108. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Heck I think that we should start stoning those Adulterers as it says in the Good Book too

  • 109. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:41 am

    MrHCl –

    I didn't say love should have no bearing on marriage, I said it's bad if it's the sole reason for marrying. But, one could argue that love is not even a precondition: My grandparents' marriage was arranged. 60+ years of marriage, 3 kids (all of whom stayed married), lots of love over the years. Not sure how infatuated they were with one another, but definitely loved one another.

    I find the marriage vow to love one's spouse interesting. Makes one wonder about the notion of people wanting to get married because they love one another. Sorta sounds like the cart's before the horse.

  • 110. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Do I understand correctly, then, that you're saying people should learn to love each other after they are married? Loving each other should not be a prerequisite for marrying?

  • 111. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Because the world can always use another loveless, abusive marriage.

  • 112. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:55 am

    John…Don't mock him now he may become upset!

  • 113. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Do I really need to explain the difference between sarcasm and ad hominem?

  • 114. Jane  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:55 am

    George, I would seriously hate to be your gay friend.

  • 115. Kevin  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:23 am

    "Marriage is a public institution." Exactly. And as such it ought to be equally available to all individuals regardless of their sexuality. The idea that procreation is or should be implicit within marriage would be laughable were it not for the fact that gay men and lesbians have families too. These families are just as deserving of the protections of the state as any other families are, and we know that these protections cannot be equitable with anything less than full civil marriage.

    "No one cares about whether people in love stay together" — I just feel sorry for you at this point.

  • 116. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:19 am

    The first question I ask when I hear about a couple divorcing is "who cheated on whom?" If I know the relationship has been rocky (and especially if it's been abusive emotionally, physically, or sexually), my question is often "why didn't she get out sooner?" My reaction, if I know that the relationship has been rocky is "thank goodness she and the kids are getting out of there."

    Having known plenty of friends who came from troubled marriages, the ones whose parents divorced are generally happier than the ones whose parents stayed together in an unhappy marriage "for the sake of the children." Kids sense strife whether they see/hear the fighting or not.

    Of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of whether or not we should grant equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

  • 117. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Furthermore, George, unmarried couples can NOT "contract for whatever rights the government gives."

    From a logistical standpoint, there are well over 1,000 marriage-related rights/privileges/benefits at the federal level, plus more at the state, county and local level, not to mention those administered by private businesses (employer benefits, club memberships, etc.).

    Even if contracts could be drawn up to cover all of them, and plenty cannot legally be contracted, it would take many years and a huge sum of money for a couple to get over a thousand legal contracts drawn up.

    Or, they could go to the courthouse and get an official marriage license and be done with it.

  • 118. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Many of them don't apply to all people, e.g., a bunch of them are veterans rights.

  • 119. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:46 am

    And plenty are NOT.

    In addition, plenty of gay men and women have served in the armed forces. And those veterans' spousal rights are denied same-sex couples.

  • 120. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:10 am

    I don't know what the rights are; they had no bearing on my decision to marry. I think it's a bd idea for them to have a bearing on marriage. But I recognize how you feel ripped off (even though many a single person is deprived of these same rights), so I say, ok, go get a civil union and push for however those rights are deficient instead of messing with my marriage by changing its definition to something that it was never intended to be.

  • 121. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:14 am

    No one is trying to mess with YOUR marriage, George.

    Civil unions are not comparable. Separate but equal is a lie.

  • 122. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Nobody's messing with your marriage. In fact, all this does is increase your options. Regarding "changing its definition to something it was never intended to be," what does that even mean? As an abstract concept, marriage doesn't "intend" anything.

  • 123. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:21 am


    If gay people could get married, would it have changed your decision to get married? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

    Also, we ARE pushing for more rights to be included with civil unions/domestic partnerships. However, this will take a long time and the Defense of Marriage Act would need to be repealed to make it a reality. Does that seem fair to you? You didn't have to go create some laws so that you could get all the rights that go along with your marriage.

    Additionally, it just makes no sense to have two separate forms of marriage. Separate but equal has never been fair.

  • 124. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:33 am

    The fact that you actually believe that the Gay couple down the street getting married will mess with your own is just precious! LOL Typical and Hilarious!

  • 125. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Michael, while I agree that's a silly belief, I think that sort of response doesn't accomplish anything, and probably only serves to drive away the moderates.

  • 126. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Oh John come on already…He probably hasn't even read the testimony. Do you think that we are going to change his mind? Give me a break.

  • 127. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:15 am

    But it still accomplishes nothing, and might turn away people who are actually on the fence. Maybe not here buried in the comments, but as a general rule.

  • 128. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:19 am

    I am sorry that I am not going to try and hold his hand as you would like to when he is trying to blame us somehow for the mockery that they have made of marriage.

  • 129. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:27 am

    I just think that ad hominem responses are useless at best. Logically refute his argument rather than calling him an idiot for believing it.

  • 130. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:44 am

    My post was misplaced..

    John I did I call him an Idiot? I said his comments were laughable. I did not call him an idiot. And I was wondering when the whole Incest, Polygamy etc stuff was going to come up and What do you know…..It did…Just like right our of the script that they use. Good luck with your outreach program there Tiger…

  • 131. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:47 am

    You may not have explicitly said it, but the tone was certainly less than polite. Even if you don't have any respect for the argument, you should generally show some for the person making it.

  • 132. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Yes I see your point. When we are told that we are going to cheapen his Marriage, be the downfall of Marriage, going to usher in Polygamy, Incest and the basic destruction of America we should just stay sweet and maybe paint him a rainbow pretty picture and sing him "Kumbaya" instead of deal with reality of the absurd arguments that are clearly already disprove with the testimony that he either ignored or didn't bother to read!
    Because that tactic has been doing so well for us for all these years….

  • 133. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Ok, I'm not even going to respond to most of that. As for your last point, do you really think insults will do any better?

  • 134. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Exactly how did I insult him? This is a comment thread he posts I responded. You do it your way and I will do it mine. I noticed also that a few of your little posts were not without scorn. I also don't appreciate being told how to act on a forum for us.

    Had I really insulted him or called him an idiot I would take your council great one. However you taking a comment and making it into something it wasn't is your issue not mine.

  • 135. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Either you're just not getting my point or I'm not communicating it properly, so let's just drop it. This argument obviously isn't accomplishing anything.

  • 136. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:52 am

    No I get what you are saying and if I had done the thing that you think I did then I would agree. When you see a post from me that actually insults someone then please be my guest to point it out.

  • 137. Kevin  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:24 am

    That's the point. Civil Unions DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, confer the same rights as marriage!!!

  • 138. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:27 am

    George: Nobody is messing with your marriage. If same sex marriage is accepted, it will not affects your marriage or your rights.

    It is you who are trying to keep others from marriage.

  • 139. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:31 am

    George, Nobody is messing with your marriage. If same sex marriage is accepted, it will not affects your marriage or your rights.

    It is you who are trying to keep others from marriage.

  • 140. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:07 am

    It cheapens my marriage. I entered an institution that until very recently was perceived as the ideal way to bring children into the world and to perpetuate society.

    But I see people getting divorced for selfish reasons while their kids are left without one of their parents, and I think how terrible it is for the kids, innocent victims of their parents selfishness. I hear of women getting pregnant not knowing who the fathers are, infertile couples contracting with strangers to produce kids for them. And I think it all sucks for the kids, and in many cases for the moms who are often the ones who dispense with careers in reliance on what was once deemed to be a sacred (and I know that's a religious word, but it's also used secularly) bond.

    So, much as I sound like a bigoted guy who just doesn't want gay people to get married, my real beef is with the way society and the law has allowed the institution to be chipped away at so that e.g., people can get married tomorrow and get divorced the day after. Once you let gay people get married, what's left of this great institution? Not much. And that's where the slippery slope comes in. How will you fight the sisters that want to marry their brothers? The sons that want to marry their mothers? The man who wants to marry the 10 year old? How soon before consent is no longer required, and we allow the nutcases to marry their dogs (and they are out there)?

    And what negative impact does all of this have on my kids? "Are going to marry a boy or a girl when you grow up?" Why wouldn't they perhaps become gay (and be deprived of having a traditional family) like friends of mine have chosen (yes, chosen!).

  • 141. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:10 am

    It only cheapens your marriage if you choose to perceive it that way.

    Then you should be fighting divorce, not gay marriage.

    Slippery slope fallacy. Not even going there.

    Anecdotal evidence. Plenty of studies out there show that it is not a choice, and I trust them more than you.

  • 142. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:11 am

    If it "cheapens" your marriage, I feel sorry for your wife.

  • 143. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Wait, your non-existent gay friends chose to be gay, George?

  • 144. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:21 am

    The slippery slope comment is a weak argument. You cannot say if A therefore B. Each one of those things would have to be discussed and rationalized on their own merits. But legalizing gay marriage would not contribute to that rationalization.

    Also, if marriage has been 'cheapened' over time, that should not affect your marriage either. Your marriage should have the same meaning to you regardless of whether your neighbor gets a divorce.

    What cheapens marriage is a marriage based on a lie. Why should a gay man marry a woman because that is his only choice?

  • 145. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:40 am

    John did I call him an Idiot? I said his comments are laughable but I did not call him and idiot.

  • 146. Dave in Canton, MI  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Why are you so obsessed wit keeping the word marriage for yourself?

    Marriage changed a lot between now and proto-human history. Marriage used to involve total ownership of the wife (wives) I suppose you find that acceptable too.

  • 147. Johan  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Hi everyone. Been a follower of the Prop 8 ordeal, even though I don't live in the USA (I live in The Netherlands).

    That said, I have a few questions for George. Do you have (or plan on having) kids? If so, would you say that you unconditionally support them? If so, would you still unconditionally support them if one of them came out to you as gay / lesbian / bisexual and wanted to marry his/her same sex partner? Would you support their wish if they wanted to children of their own?

  • 148. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Hi Johan –

    I have kids (I got married to have them, but I do love my wife, too). Not sure what you mean by support. Financially, they're covered until their 18. I love them unconditionally, and I would still love them if they came out to me as gay and wanted to marry someone of the same sex.

    But, as I believe environment can affect whether one becomes homosexual or not, I take some responsibility for whether they grow up gay or not. I counsel them now that if they want kids, they should get married because that's what's best for kids: having a mom and a dad just like they do. If they decide they want kids after marrying someone of the same sex, I would encourage them to adopt a child who does not have a mom and dad.

  • 149. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:17 am

    You're undermining your point now. If they adopt a kid, wouldn't it be better for that kid to grow up in a stable household with married parents?

  • 150. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:30 am

    If your kids choose to marry someone of the same sex and then adopt kids, wouldn't you want your kids to have all the rights of a married couple? Wouldn't you want your adoptive grandchildren to have a married same sex couple as parents, rather than just one parent adopting and the other parent being the partner (with no obligations). If same sex couples are allowed to marry, adopting children would obligate both parents in a marriage to love and protect them.

  • 151. Johan  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:35 am

    George, could you clarify something for me. During this whole thread, you are incredibly defensive about traditional marriage and claim that same-sex marriage "cheapens yours. Yet, in your reply to me you write that "they decide they want kids after marrying someone of the same sex". Which sounds contradictionary to say the least.

    Would you mind eleborating?

  • 152. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Hey Laura –

    I'm not sure how attached I would feel to adopted grandkids (I have adopted nieces, and there's definitely a different feeling between them and me as compared to my nieces born to my sister). Haven't really given this notion much thought, to be honest. Much to chew on in your comment – thanks for that.

  • 153. Mr.HCI  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    I do hope you keep your feelings to yourself about your adopted nieces. Think how awful it would be for them to know you see don't regard them as real.

  • 154. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Johan –

    Not sure I see the contradiction. I love my kids, so if they make choices that I disagree with or turn out differently than I expected, that doesn't mean I won't still love them. The act of two people marrying doesn't cheapen my marriage; it's the change in the law that cheapens it, so, if they're allowed to get married, then my marriage has already been cheapened.

    I'll still be friends with my gay friends if they decide to get married (I won't like the law and I won't like what it means for society).

  • 155. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I really hope your marriage isn't so fragile that a law which doesn't even affect it hurts it somehow.

  • 156. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:13 am

    How sad to think that someone else having the same commitment that you already have cheapens yours.

  • 157. Scott  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Yes, thanks Laura.

  • 158. Kevin  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:28 am

    If you believe that marriage has been eroded in recent decades by all the Britney Spears of the world then doesn't it make sense to honor the claim that gay men and lesbians are making to this institution? Does it really sound to you like all of us are trying to denigrate marriage, to marginalize it into a pithy throw-away bundle of rights? Honestly, why would we fight so hard for that? Doesn't it make far more sense that we believe in marriage too, that we want to sanctify our relationships within this institution with reverence and dignity? I don't see how that cheapens or erodes marriage in any way. It only goes to show how deeply and fundamentally important it is in the lives of all citizens, gay or straight.

  • 159. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:42 am

    "I have kids (I got married to have them, but I do love my wife, too)."

    You cheapened your marriage when you got married to have kids, rather than out of love. Parenthood lasts only a few years. Marriage is supposed to last a lifetime.

    Here's another question for you: if there a law which prevention you from marrying the person you wished, you would fight to get that law changed.

    BTW: Earlier you complained about taxes being higher for a married couple than for a single person. That is usually not the case, but if you find your joint tax is too high, you can opt to file separately.

  • 160. Frank  |  January 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm


    My wife and I had a kid. Then we decided to get married because we loved each other and wanted to celebrate it with our community. Ten years later my wife realizes she is gay. Now the main impediment to us getting a divorce is that she can't get health insurance, which would be easy for her to do if she were allowed to marry her current girlfriend. So I guess you could say that not allowing same sex marriage has "cheapened" my marriage in a way.

    But in this divorce my daughter will actually, in all probability, be gaining new parents that very much love and support her. And I want her mother and her new girlfriend to have the same rights to raise our daughter and take care of her as parents should be able to.

    In all of this I have heard countless stories of men and women who married opposite sex partners because they wanted the "legitimacy" of a traditional marriage. If you look at it that way then conferring second class citizenship to the LGBT community only serves to increase divorce and increase unhappy marriages. Because lets face it, whether or not the main reason to get married should be to procreate a loveless marriage is not one that can or should last.

    All I can say is that I really fail to see how any marriage is strengthened by denying people the right to get married.

  • 161. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Your a good man Frank! A darn good man.

  • 162. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Johan for goodness sakes focus on the nastiness of Amsterdam and the HIV rates out thei, and exlploding Muslim immigrant population out their.

    We are striving to hold natural hetero behavior as the standard, and absolutely we hold gay marriage as a threat.

    Johan I believe people who have gay sex, whether they are 50 year unattractive women, or HIV positive men are not condemned to live this way forever.

    Gay behavior is a choice and it is nasty one.

  • 163. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Your comments are so ridiculous and false it is utterly pathetic. You should really look up the information that you post. By the way simpleton you should be using "there" not their. While extremely amusing to to see you struggle with the English Language I suggest you use the internet to educate yourself about topics if you wish to be taken seriously!

    Choosing to remain this ignorant should be a crime.

  • 164. Johan  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    You do realize that in a 2007 estimate, the overall (of the total population) HIV/AIDS percentage in The Netherlands was 0.2% versus 0.6% in the United States? Meaning that when ranked among other countries on the world, NL holds the 107th place (with number 1 having the most percent wise) and the USA the 68th place. (source:

    Now, I don't have the exact figures when it comes to the gay population. But considering that the USA and NL are similar in terms of medical care and the overall male/female sex ratio is similar as well, I think the percentages are likely to be comparable in the gay population.

  • 165. Johan  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    Interested in the "and the HIV rates out thei" comment, I've did some more searching on HIV rates in the male gay community (as males are most at risk). I'll post it here merely to acknowledge that my earlier statement that infection rates between American and Dutch gays are comparable seems to be incorrect. This thread is no longer very active, nor very ontopic anymore, so I'll leave it with this.

    At the end of 2007, out of all the gay men that visited an STD clinic, 3.1 percent was tested positive for HIV (which is a decline from 4.5 percent in 2006). – Source:

    On the other hand, an American mid-2008 article calculated the prevalence of HIV among American gay men at approximately 12 percent. – Source:

    I agree with Michael that you should look up things first before blurting out random statements.

  • 166. Will  |  January 18, 2010 at 6:21 am

    The times, they are a-changin'

  • 167. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:18 am

    I was a left-wing liberal until about 5 years ago in my early forties. You get older, you get wiser.

  • 168. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 7:57 am

    When is your next Birthday then? Can we expect an immediate change?

  • 169. George  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:01 am


  • 170. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Well good to know you have a sense of humor…

  • 171. Apricot  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I've head that before. Wisdom comes from experience, not solely the passage of time.

  • 172. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Very well, wisdom does come from experience, so why do gay men keep passing HIV to each other?

    If you cared about gay (male) youth you would advocate they get help and avoid the deadly gay lifestyle.

    We want to save your lives from the lies and emptiness of gay existence. You don't need marriage you need help!!!!

  • 173. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:17 am

    George — I'm so sorry to hear that you feel marriages of people unrelated to you & unknown to you will cheapen your marriage. Are you drawing up divorce papers so that they can be filed as soon as the definition of marriage is expanded? We all know marriage is not being "redefined" since marriage is a union of two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. The shape of one's genitalia really shouldn't matter.

    As for your argument of marriages not making sense if the married people involved can't breed with each other, I'm a bit puzzled.

    One of my friends had to have a hysterectomy when she was in Jr High because of cancer. I'm pretty sure she was straight. In your estimation, should she have been allowed to get married to a man even though there was zero hope of her conceiving a child of her own?

    If a young male loses his testicles to cancer while in his 20s, should he be allowed to marry later in life?

    I have a number of straight friends who are married, but have no intention of having children. If any of those people has had surgery to prevent unintended conception (either through vasectomy or tubal ligation), should the affected marriage be annulled?

    If elderly people who have chosen never to procreate decide to get married at the age of 80, should they be allowed to?

    On another point, since you seem to be under the impression that civil unions or domestic partnerships are just as good as marriage, how would you feel about ending your marriage (since it costs you more in taxes, anyway) & entering into either a civil union or a domestic partnership?

    Oh — and since you believe homosexuality is a choice, please let us know exactly when it was that you chose to be heterosexual. I'd be very interested to know how early you came to that decision and if you were ever tempted to become homosexual (or even bisexual).

    I'm really curious as to how these things work. I'm a straight woman (perhaps better defined as marginally bisexual since I'm attracted to some women), but I can't for the life of me remember "deciding" to be straight. I am happily married to a man and have been for almost 10.5 years. We have one beautiful child who is being raised to believe that all people are equal and that people should be free to love/marry their soulmates.

    I will also strive to teach her that bearing children is a choice rather than an obligation. I will also be teaching her that love rather than pregnancy is the very best reason to get married, that pregnancy by itself is not a reason to get married, and that pregnancy is not even a reason to have a child if she's not ready for the responsibility of parenthood.

  • 174. pepper  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Hey George. I live in the Netherlands, a country in Europe where weve had gay marriage now for almost 9 years. We have no brother-sister marriage, no child-adult marriage, no animal-human marriage, no 3some marriage, no polygamy etc All illegal (and some are criminal, as you know ofcourse). Also, I think youre a very selfish person. Yes. For wanting others to have not the same rights you have because you cant handle them to have the same rights you have, because theyre gay. If you feel it devalues the meaning of marriage, then that is *your* issue, not theirs. You should actually be happy, having read your posts, there are many people, that do value the institute of marriage highly. And its those people you want to deny the right, because they dont fit your defininition? I mean who are you to deny them that? I wish the US government was as human to its own gay&lesbian citizens as mine is and grant them, by constitution, equal rights to marriage, non-discrimination etc. People like you, George, would have a hard time where I live. Within now and maybe 20 years max, you will live in a state with gay marriage, and you will have no say in it, then you will have to deal with your views on marriage without controlling others lives. I cant wait for that to happen.

  • 175. Marlene Bomer  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

    George, darling…. I'm *50* and have been a staunch liberal my entire life! "Wisdom" does not equate intelligence, nor does it insinuate leaning more conservative, either!

  • 176. Go_proton77  |  January 18, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Well let's see a lifelong liberal, and a 50 year old lesbian. You can choose a new path, you've got 20 years to go!!! You are not condemned, brush your hair, get into a size 8 dress and embrace your feminity with a man!!! You have 25 years to go…you are not trapped.

    You people think were anti gay bigots who wish you suffering. Well I have love and desire for you to come in from the darkness and live the way your were created. You were built for a man and offspring!!!! Not gay cunnilingus.

    You are a beautiful and special person in the eyes of a man, if you choose it. 50 is nifty and with a new frame of mind you can come in from the cold.

    You have free will choose wisely lady…..

  • 177. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:00 pm


    Honey I have NO attracton to a man! None, zero, nada, non, nyet!

    Darling boy, I was *created* this way! I was born left-handed (which was once considered "unnatural), and I'm a lesbian AND transsexual (*also* once considered "unnatural" by the legitimate scientific community)!

    The ONLY darkness I was in was during the short time I thought I was the only one and ignorant, which was about the time I was 7 to 9 years old.

    You see, my darling bigot, I knew I was transsexual at an early age like many of my brother and sister transolk.

    Unlike them, I immediately went to the library and found lots of good info, so I knew I wasn't alone and didn't wallow in self-hate and in shame like many others.

    So keep trying to spew your bile, boy…. it's ain't gonna stick on me and I've heard it from people alot smarter than you!

  • 178. Dudlyne  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm


    "You are not condemned, brush your hair, get into a size 8 dress and embrace your feminity with a man!!! "

    I'm completely offended by this assumption that being a lesbian defines me as someone who doesn't brush my hair or embrace my feminity. Clearly these are ignorant statements based on the same stereotypes that assume all lesbians are butch feminist men hater and all gay men are ultra-feminine. LGBT people are a diverse people in the same way that all of society is diverse. We do not fit these simple pigeon-holed concepts that you embrace.

  • 179. Frank  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:07 am

    For me, one of the frustrations in hearing arguments from the other side is the (often) generic nature in which they are stated as fact.

    Rather than being told that "it cheapens marriage", I would like to hear "It cheapens marriage and this is how:" and then some more detail. Without the detail, it appears to me that the people who make such generic arguements can't even substantiate the argument to themselves.

  • 180. John  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:09 am

    It appears to you that they can't because they actually can't. Simple as that.

  • 181. Laura  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Which is why I am glad this is being tried in a court of law. All the arguments that we hear here and during the Prop 8 campaign are not being used in court. The pro-Prop 8 people can't use any of those arguments in their case because they know they will not stand up in a court of law.

  • 182. Another Ray  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Well the BLOG TROLLS have certainly infultrated this discussion!

    This thread was supposed to be about the Harvey Milk (Hope) video..a remarkable and noteworthy point in time when someone touched our 'OUR' hearts.

    'OUR" hearts, not the TROLLS.

    Beware of them, they've been around a long time and they know how to pull apart a comments forum. Don't bother to respond.

    They obviuosly have no respect appreciation for Harvey Milk's legacy.

    …and the saddest part is, the trolls will still be here even after the SCOTUS recognizes the US Constitution for what it really is.

  • 183. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I know what you mean,,, Seems like we got two different ones. Or one posting under different names….. Where is that "Troll be gone Spray" when you need it????

  • 184. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Perhaps this?

    *shakes can of Scents of Humor*

  • 185. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:37 am

    We could also try knocking some sticks together like in Blair Witch maybe they will be scared away….LOL

    Sometimes they run away really quick with a big dose of TRUTH…..But doesn't seem to be working today…

  • 186. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I farted. that should scare them away 😉

  • 187. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Jim LMFAO

  • 188. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:05 am

    We would never come in contact with you if you weren't bringing your sexual choices into our childrens faces. We want you to leave marriage alone and get therapy now!!!!!! Gay sex is a choice, hetero sex is sacred and natural.

    We will not go away as long as you invade our territory.

  • 189. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Proton…. your ilk do NOT have the patent on the word “marriage” and you do NOT own the patent on the word “family” either!

  • 190. Dudlyne  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    2 people of the same sex wanting to take part in marriage does nothing but enhance marriage, i agree. It is showing that we believe in the strength of making such a committment, along with all the technical rights that come along with it.

    But what loses me is how ss marriage is equated with throwing it in their children's faces. how exactly will it be thrown in their faces? the pure existence of gay people will not disappear regardless of marriage rights. The only way to save your children from "the scary gays" is to get rid of us totally. so go_proton77 are you for the extermination of all current and future gays, including children? are you planning to be the new age Hitler, which by the way did exterminate gay people?

    Gay people have been around from the beginning of time and will never go away, because as many point out straight people keep giving birth to us and raising us as straight as possible and still somehow don't succeed. Maybe, if you allow your self to wrap your mind around the concept, there is some merit to it not being a choice. There is no way you can raise your children with complete ignorance of the existence LGBT people, so it is inherently a pointless fight.

    As lesbian of Haitian descent(born in Haiti & raised in FL), I was raised with very "traditional" values. Although many strides have been made, within the black and caribbean community, being gay is still very much stigmatized. Many are not out and know it will not be accepted. Even among the educated black community at my University, most of the gay glack and caribbean students are in the closet (only open when among other LGBT) and will openly deny it for fear of the rejection that is so deeply rooted in deeply religious roots of the black community. As pointed out by 2 D.C. pastors Rev. Dennis Wiley and Rev. Christine Wiley, this is deeply rooted in "bibliolatry"-the practice of worshiping the Bible rather than worshiping God, thus losing the spirit of love the truly permeates the Bible and Chrisitian relgion at its core.

    I urge all to read this article "Why two black D.C. pastor support gay marriage" (below I pasted the section refered to in my response)

    "We are sometimes asked what accounts for the homophobia within the African American community. This question seems to assume that the community is disproportionately homophobic compared with other racial and ethnic groups. We are not aware of any credible study that has conclusively proved this assumption. However, our first-hand experience has convinced us that homophobia within the black church and the wider community is real. And the factors that have nurtured these beliefs over the years are complex."

    "When issues of gay rights and gay marriage come up, the first question many black people ask is, "What does the Bible have to say about it?" This seemingly innocent question doesn't acknowledge that when we approach the Bible, our perspective has been shaped by where we were born, by whom we were raised, what Grandma taught us, where we went to school and what our pastor preached in church — usually conservative ideas on matters such as homosexuality. Therefore, we tend to interpret the Bible not objectively, but through the lens of our cultural and historical context."

    "The conservative strand of black religion is evident in what Harvard professor Peter Gomes calls "bibliolatry" — the practice of worshiping the Bible rather than worshiping God. It is also found in a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that focuses more on the letter of the text than on its spirit, and concentrates on passages about domination, oppression, hierarchy, elitism and exclusion rather than on the major themes of love, justice, freedom, equality and inclusion that run throughout the Bible."

  • 191. Tim  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Lots of many great points have been brought up here!
    George with all due respect my marriage (still married in Ca. by the way) and thousands like it in fair minded states have NOT taken anything from nor changed your marriage in any way.It has only changed one thing. Now I am married as well.That is it. Nothing about your marriage has changed. Just mine! Again, just incase someone missed it, JUST MINE!!

  • 192. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I like to think that the more happily married couples around, the better. I really don't give a fig who marries whom as long as people all treat each other with kindness, dignity, and respect.

    My opposite-sex marriage was not weakened, cheapened, or damaged in any way when same-sex marriage was available in California. My marriage is strong because my husband and I adore each other.

    If anything were to cheapen the institution of marriage, it would be using it as a "prize" on reality television. It really offends me that people can "win" a spouse they barely know by being on television, but that people who have been in committed, loving relationships for DECADES can't get the same courtesy.

  • 193. Colt  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I would agree with George that when people like Britney Spears divorce after less than 24 hours of being married, it cheapens the institution of marriage. However, if two committed people who happen to be the same sex marry each other, as a sign of that commitment, it does the OPPOSITE of cheapening marriage. And kids don't automatically do better being raised by their biological parents–I've known several people who grew up in dysfunctional situations, all headed by the biological mother and father. I also have friends who were raised by two moms, and they are doing as well, if not better, than my friends raised in "traditional" households.

  • 194. Dr. JOE  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Dear George,

    Would you be in favor of changing all civil marriages to civil unions and let private institutions use the label marriage?


  • 195. Jan  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:51 am


    Hi, I'm Jan. I am a bisexual atheist who is sterile and unable to procreate.

    If I marry a fellow atheist man, and enter into a godless heterosexual, childless marriage, does this also cheapen your marriage?

    What if I marry a jewish woman and enter into an interfaith homosexual marriage and choose to adopt? This would also cheapen your marriage, I gather from statements you have made.

    EVERYONE is different. Marriage is about love.

    It's not a christian institution, and never has been. Atheists, agnostics, jews, muslims, buddhists, sterile, childfree by choice, sikhs, bahai, interracial. Do marriages involving all the aforementioned cheapen your own?

  • 196. pepper  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Hi Jan, just wanted to say to you, excellent post!

  • 197. Rene and Daryl  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:52 am

    In the future a % of Prop 8 Supporters will explain why to their Gay children.

    Some parents will regret their vote and some will discard their kids from family,

    Meantime the media's coverage for Gay Marriage has exposed kids of all ages to listen and start evolving their own judgement, even if is subconsciously.

    For me those anti gay feelings are rooted from Church's interpretations.
    When kids hear at their Churches about gay people, a thin understanding and a doubt about those teachings will already exist..

    Times are changing thanks to all of us passing the word and fighting over our defeats.

    I know the gay sons and daughters of Prop 8 supporters will continue our efforts and erase their parents mistake.

    but God Dammit I want to get Married now and get my Citizenship (for wedding present i like an Apple Tablet)

    Cincinnati (Daryl and Rene 26 years together)

  • 198. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    LOL…great post

  • 199. Shell  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:20 am

    I was just reading through the discussion.

    I have heard all the arguments before, but I was thinking about the comment George made about "Cheapens marriage" – I guess same-sex marriage only cheapens marriage only if you believe that same-sex relationships are inherently lesser and unworthy.

    Regarding the comments about choice, if same-sex marriage is legal and completely equal to current marriage then having a same-sex partner is a viable choice.

  • 200. Michelle Evans  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

    After reading the testimony of the trial, it has already been shown that the more people are allowed into the institution of marriage, the stronger it gets, not weaker. This was true of interracial marriage as well as when slaves were first given that right. Change the arguments to 150 years ago with someone saying, "If those blacks can get married, it will degrade my own marriage and the whole institution of marriage. How could our judicial system allow such a travesty?"

    Instead, here we are 150 years later and I haven't heard of anyone running away from being married because others were also allowed those same rights. Same with interracial marriage 40 years ago. And since there are already several states (including the 18,000) couples in California where the same gender couples are wed, and many where they still can be, I have yet to hear of one couple who has stepped forward and said they divorced because of this. You'd think the Prop 8 supporters would be parading a whole giant list of these hypothetical divorces through the court to "prove" the point of how it has cheapened their heterosexual marriages. Hasn't happened and never will.

    If same gender couples want all the rights, privileges, responsibilities, difficulties, or whatever, of marriage, there is already an institution on the books that give those rights to them. It is called "marriage" and every single person who wants to be with another single person, and to spend their lives together, committed to each other, whether they want children or not, should have the right to enter into that institution.

    I will throw a unique perspective into the mix here. I happen to be a transgender woman who has medically and legally changed my gender all the way back to my birth certificate. I also happen to be happily married to the most wonderful and loving wife I could be. Because of the way the law works here in California, if a transgender person marries prior to transition (as a husband and wife) then that marriage stays legal even after transition (wife and wife, as in my case). This has not changed because of Prop 8, and legally I was in a same gender marriage prior to all this mess anyway. There are other transgender couples who do stay together and are creating new same gender marriages now, even after the passage of Prop 8.

    Is it fair to other same gender couples who want to marry that this can happen with a trans couple? Absolutely not! It is not fair in any case for anyone to be denied the ability to legally wed the one they love. Period. Oh, and yes, love is the best reason to get married. That's what keeps a relationship fresh and vibrant (after 28 years in our case)!

    Also in our case, because of the stupidity of the current laws, if for whatever reason we got divorced and then changed our minds, we would no longer be able to marry each other anymore.

    This whole thing is simply insanity and I hope the courts will eventually figure this out and be done with the matter.

  • 201. Michelle Evans  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Had to throw one other comment in, specifically about the discussion with George. Wondering if he has seen all the discussion happening over at the Pro-8 web site? Gee, there ain't none! That fact alone should tell him a lot about those who support Prop 8. Glad he has had an open and intelligent forum with us here, because his "side" doesn't allow this sort of discussion.

  • 202. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Michelle, their is no discussion over their because their is no roblem. You have a problem because you want your homosexual sex to be on par with my heterosexual monogomous married childrearing existence.

    Stop trying to demand that the courts give you equality, when you choose an unnatural and empty lifestyle. We would not read this blog if you people were not pulling this outrageous demand for marriage when the rest of us are trying raise kids.

  • 203. Jerry  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:47 am

    This note if for George if you're still with is this afternoon. I am glad you're here. It's been interesting to read your comments because I've been trying really hard to understand the opposition and your perspective is welcome even though I disagree. I hope that you’re learning about our (LGBT) perspective.

    I'm also glad that you're here so that you can read what is actually taking place day-to-day in the court. In my quest to better understand the Prop 8 side, I've gone to "your site" to read what your team has to say. I hope that you’ve noticed what your side isn't reporting to folks.

    I am one of five children. My parents were married for more than 50 years. My mom died of cancer several years ago. I cry whenever I think of her. Like right now.

    I am the youngest. My oldest brother is married and has been to the same woman for 30 years. They have one son. They did divorce once but then got married again.

    Second oldest has been married to the same woman for at least 25 years. They have no kids because my sister-in-law is unable.

    Third oldest is divorced. She has two kids. As a result of the divorce, I spent 7 years supporting my sister and her kids because she could not.

    The one above me is married (maybe 15 years now) with one kid.

    Then, there's me. I'm gay. While I know you may not believe me, I want you to know that it wasn't a choice. With four straight siblings, the environment argument I’ve heard doesn’t work, either. So why am I gay? I don’t know. I just am and after hating myself for half of my life, I’m now, finally, very happy and glad that I am a gay man. I have a partner, but we did not get married in California when it was legal. I wanted to ask him to marry me, on bended knee in some beautiful setting. But, it isn’t something I take lightly and decided it would be best to be absolutely certain (we have never had a single argument and I think that we should experience at least that before tying the knot!). I was also afraid that marriage would be taken away from us by people who will never know who we are.

    I want you to know how incredibly painful it was for me to come out to my parents. I was terrified. It didn't happen until I was in my early thirties. We grew up going to church each Sunday. I didn't want to be a disappointment to my family, especially my mom. So, I hid for more than 30 years. Today, at 43, I regret that my parents didn't really know who I was when I was growing up and that my mom learned about me only as her life began to end. Unfortunately, all that hiding I did wasn’t necessary. My mom and dad took time to research and understood that it isn’t a choice. They continued to love me after learning I was a gay man. I think they even loved me just a little bit more because they finally, after 30 years, knew exactly who I was. Before she died, my mom told me she was proud that I was her son. Today, I regret that she never once met someone that loved me and that those years I hid in fear because of the ill-will of society will never again be available to me.

    I tell you all of this in the hopes that you may understand how arguments and vitriol against people like me deeply affect our lives. I'm not out to hurt anyone or affect your life in any way. Quite the opposite. I am a good, kind man and I contribute a great deal to society in spite of being berated, trampled and thrown about like a piece of garbage. Fortunately, I’m stronger having known such great adversity in my otherwise normal life.

  • 204. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:57 am

    That was a very nice post, Jerry.

    About the "not proposing partially because you've never had an argument" thing — please put that out of your mind. The fact that you haven't had an argument in all that time is wonderful!

    I've been married to my husband for almost 10.5 years & we've been together for just over 13 years. We've never had an argument. You and I both apparently have really nifty relationships. I hope that you'll be able to be legally wed very very soon if that's what you want to do.

  • 205. Jerry  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Thanks, nightshayde. I love the word "nifty".

    You're right about the arguments. I thought about it for a few minutes after your reply and realized both he and I sacrafice a few personal thoughts or positions here and there for the benefit of the other and that's probably why we don't and may never have an argument.

    I've been reading blogs, articles and article comments about Prop 8 for months now and the horrible way each side of this issue speaks to the other is so incredibly sad. Above is the first time I've ever posted anything anywhere. I'm thinking that maybe I should stand up and join the conversation in the hope that minds can be changed and hearts opened up a little bit. I want to win this fight as much as anybody but I'm not sure how great a victory it would be if with our right to marry comes a divide that's even greater than the one that already exists.

  • 206. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:12 am

    You are a good kind man and you are not trapped in your choices my friend their people who can help.

  • 207. Jerry  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:30 am

    No thanks – I don't need any help. I love myself for who I am – a gay man. I wouldn't want to be anything else.

    I know you don't like the fact that we are okay with ourselves. I know you're here trying to get people upset, but it isn't working. I've read your posts and you're a total amateur at bashing. All of us on this board have been dealing with people like you for a very long time. Our skin is thick. We're stronger, better people than you. You know this to be true so you try and try to agitate us. Guess what? Doesn't work.

  • 208. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Jerry, you have free will man…you are an important person and you can make it out.

  • 209. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Jerry, yes maybe some a holes are troubled by gays who out. I am all about maintaining traditional marriage the way it is. I want you to have a full life, although I can't imagine how!

    I want the best for gay people, I just don't understand how you people can live and lust the way you do.

  • 210. Rene and Daryl  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    That help might be necessary for your family’s gay children.

  • 211. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:06 am

    This blog (the short life it has had) was a lot more fun before it was invaded today by those that for some odd reason feel the need to "present" their side.

    Sorry, but we've heard "that side" for decades, and we're really tired of it. We're not interested in your view. It's pretty obvious you aren't happy unless you are making SOMEONE miserable. Just go away.

    You have your own blog, please go there and spew your commentary.

  • 212. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:34 am


  • 213. waxr  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Let's keep this an open forum, and allow those who oppose same sex marriages to post here. It makes reading the messages much more interesting.

  • 214. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Not really. We've heard their brand of "interesting" and it's unacceptable.

  • 215. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Waxr, I am Christian and I believe you can escape this.

    Marriage on tv will not fix what's going on for you inside. Were only here for 75 years and you have free will to escape.

  • 216. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Michael we want you to be happy. Marriage will not solve your sadness.

    Marriage is a sacred and high standard and were not going to be silent.

  • 217. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:06 am

    This blog (the short life it has had) was a lot more fun before it was invaded today by those that for some odd reason feel the need to "present" their side.

    Sorry, but we've heard "that side" for decades; we can cite it by memory and we're really tired of it. We're not interested in your view. It's pretty obvious you aren't happy unless you are making SOMEONE miserable. Just go away.

    You have your own blog, please go there and spew your commentary.

  • 218. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I agree…Different Michael

  • 219. JimB  |  January 18, 2010 at 11:33 am

    even tho George's 'marriage' would cheapen mine, I still demand the right to marry

  • 220. Michelle Evans  |  January 18, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    With concern to how this affects us all, and especially how it affects individuals. Yes, the coming out process can be painful and terrifying. It can also be deadly. Just this past weekend I attended the memorial service for a friend who committed suicide because of the hatred and bigotry she had to endure. So for George, or anyone else out there who wants to tell us all to go away and leave marriage for just the heterosexuals, I say, "NO!"

    I want each and every right that each and every other person has–except for those of us in the LGBT community (what happened to "liberty and justice for all?"). I no longer want to be a second class citizen in my own country. I no longer want to see friends die because "they" don't want us in their society. This is my society too. It belongs to us all, not just a group with religious dogma and prejudice that says they are the only ones worthy of being called people. I am a human being and I am tired of not being treated like one!

  • 221. michael  |  January 18, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Amen Sister!

  • 222. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Honey, you have free will, use it!!!!!!

    Stop this madness, millions of you have made it out……you are one choice away from living naturally.

    Now do it….

  • 223. Tabaqui  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I love this video. Mr. Milk's words are so amazing, heartfelt, and true. It made me tear up a little, and it made me want to cheer out loud.

    Keep fighting – in the end, equality and compassion will win.

  • 224. Mark  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:30 am

    God bless you Harvey Milk and I thank you for having the courage already back in the 1970’s to speak up for what is fair and right! Fairness and equality will prevail in the end even though all the battles we as LGBT folks are losing at this moment eventually Love will win this war, it always conquers hate.

  • 225. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm


    free will- done voluntarily, done willingly rather than by compulsion.

    Choice- act of choosing something or somebody, a decision to choose one thing, person, or course of action inpreference to others.

    It's about choices people and we are not o.k with your lifestyle choices making you equal to us. Is this enough honest sentiment from the "other side" of the Court case?

  • 226. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    And YOU made the choice to be a bigot, darling boy, and YOU made the choice to continue to wallow in your bigotry instead of using what supposed intelligence you have to lift yourself out!

    Guess what, sweetness? We're here, we're queer, and we're not leaving — get used to it!

    I *AM* equal to you in every way — the Constitution that governs you, governs me, too, darling!

    I would just love to find a world where straights are the minority and are ridiculed and have to fight for their rights, and fear for their lives when they hold the hand of their lovers because they'd be beaten up, and be called "breeder" all the time, and be denounced on the floor of legislatures and churches for being immoral and unnatural.

    I don't know who's worse — you or George — both are equally ignoran, and both are equally perverted.

  • 227. how do you increase seminal fluid  |  May 9, 2013 at 12:56 am

    hey there and thank you for your information _
    I’ve definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this website, since I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to
    my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective exciting content.
    Make sure you update this again soon.

  • 228.  |  June 3, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    Have you ever considered writing an ebook or guest authoring on other blogs?
    I have a blog based upon on the same information you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information.
    I know my subscribers would value your work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e-mail.

  • 229. scam  |  March 4, 2014 at 5:21 am

    This website is a scam. This website is a scam.

    This website is a scam. This website is a scam.This website is a scam.
    This website is a scam. This website is a scam.
    This website is a scam. This website is a scam.
    This website is a scam. This website is a scam.
    This website is a scam.This website is a scam.

    This website is a scam. This website is a scam. This website is
    a scam.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!