1. Ann wrote:

All this hating on black folks because of prop 8 is getting on my damn nerves.

70% of african americans voted against gay marriage in california…but people, I read that the exit polls that were conducted in California all came from LA from a sample of 2500 black people. 2500 PEOPLE…Come on this is hardly a majority in state that boasts a population well into the millions.

The truth of the matter is this- while there are blacks who aren’t supportive of gay rights they did not single handedly defeat prop 8. Let’s lay the blame where it should be with all the white christian conservatives who worked tirelessly to raise money to defeat this bill. The Mormon church being the main culprit to lead the charge.

And true to form, the real opponents of prop 8 are content on sitting back and letting the Blacks take the fall instead of standing up and saying- yeah we did that shit!

just my 20 cents…

Ann

2. DCI74 wrote:

“And the analogy is clearly imperfect between the two civil rights issues: one is just straight up racism; the other is a mixture of gender roles and sexuality, plus a big dollop of creamy bigotry on top.”

That has always been the sticking point for me. If I walk into a room of strangers there is nothing I can do to avoid being identified as a black man because it doesn’t require any kind of disclosure at all. However my sexuality does and that is why it always bothers me when some people make the comparison between the struggle for African Americans in this country and the LGBTQ community.

3. Derwin wrote:

DC,
Ever heard of the “flaming fag?” (I hate that word,) But its symbolic of some of the personality of some homosexuals (and bisexuals), who literally can’t help themselves from acting feminin. Its who they are. I’ve worked with students from pre-school through college, and believe me, you are who you are; white, black, gay, straight, bi, or otherwise.

Why should people hide who they are? With your logic, you would excuse the half black person for “passing” as white. We should all be allowed to be who we are.

4. DCI74 wrote:

Derwin let me be clear, I don’t have any issues of contempt towards the LGBTQ community and yes I know what you are talking about. My point has nothing to do with hiding anything and it’s also not about passing. It’s about the basic crux of the discrimination and the differences between the two. Most of the gay women I know don’t act masculine and most of the gay men I know don’t act feminine so the only way you would know their sexual orientation is if you knew them personally or if they were doing something that would give you a clue i.e. walking into the movies holding hands with their partner. Meanwhile my blackness is obvious, that’s the point I’m making. I’m not judging nor stating people aren’t entitled to live their lives, just for me there is no comparison.

5. anne wrote:

At last we can discuss some of these issues openly without necessarily looking prejudiced. Another grouping that encourages discrimination by appearance: gender.

But since the exit polls mentioned were of such a small sample, I would very much like to read what African American readers feel about this issue.

6. jordan wrote:

DC – I think it’s important to make some comparisons between the gay right’s movement and the civil right’s movements. It’s important to remember that not so long ago people were making similar “it’s gross and unnatural” arguments about race mixing.
But, I think you’re right that the comparisons between the struggle of African Americans and queer people aren’t always satisfying, nor are the comparisons between Feminism and civil rights. Sometimes comparisons can even work against seeing each struggle for it’s own sake within it’s own history.
So, you’re right – the inescapable-ness of being black is central to African American’s struggle and the potential to closet one’s true self is central to the struggle of gay people. But universally, an aversion to be being silenced, hidden, devalued or comprismed seems to run through all of these struggles in their own way.

7. DCI74 wrote:

I hear you Jordan and again I’m not advocating that anyone be forced to live in silence. To me there are similarities on a very basic level but when you dig below the surface and look at things from a historical context, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the implementation of Jim Crow laws, subsequent institutionalized racism and it’s repercussions the differences far outweigh the similarities.

8. Tanya wrote:

Well said DC, well said!

9. Tanya wrote:

There has been legislation banning gay marriage in CA since 1977. In 2000 an overwhelming majority of Cali citizens, AGAIN, confirmed the appropriateness of the ban.

It was totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL for 4 judges to UNDO the democratic will of THE PEOPLE. Those judges had no right to take up an issue the people already spoke their peace on.

Prop 8, for a third time, bans gay marriage. The people voted, and the will of the people MUST stand!

10. Tanya wrote:

It annoys me to no end that these gays for blaming Blacks for the passing of Prop 8; and not just b/c I’m black, but b/c it is just ILLOGICAL!!!

First, I’m not very reliant on Exit Polls, but Exit Polls suggest the 70% of Blacks voted in favor of the ban. However, the Exit Polls also indicate that Blacks comprised only 10% of the overall vote!!! ONLY 10% of the overall vote! If you fail to understand what that means, let’s look at the numbers:

5,419,478 people voted FOR Prop. 8

4,908,887 people voted AGAINST Prop. 8

That means the total number of people that voted was 10,328,235.

And guess what?!?!? Only 1,032,836 of that 10 million were Black!!!!

Out of that totally number of 1 million BLACK people that voted, 70% voted in favor of Prop. 8. That means ONLY 700,000 Black people voted for Prop. 8.

What the hell is 700,000 out of 10 MILLION?!?!? Not a damn thing!

Those 700,000 Black people played NO role in the final outcome. 700,000 people can’t control the outcome of anything.

How can you put the blame on 700,000 Black people, when MILLIONS of WHITE people voted for Prop. 8, and therefore, clearly controlled the majority??????

11. Tanya wrote:

*Edit

It annoys me to no end that these gays *are blaming Blacks…

12. Lisa wrote:

Tanya, thank you for doing the numbers. Math is not my best subject and I appreciate you breaking it down. Please send those numbers to all media outlets to shut them up.

13. R.oB. wrote:

Some things I took away from the Prop 8 fiasco:

1) For some reason, people thought black people were monolithically left. Surprise! They’re not. In this case they are, in fact, more conservative (bigoted?) than the general population. Another great blogger said that no group was ever ennobled by oppression. Black people are no exception. Misogyny was quite rampant in the civil rights movement. So this comes as no real surprise, but it truly is embarrassing giving the historical significance of the election and that of miscegenation (mixing) laws.

2) DC, all too often black people like to compare oppression as if because one was historically “worse” if somehow makes current oppression somehow less ignoble. It doesn’t. While there is no comparison to the bigotry both groups have faced in general, it is truly a historical irony that on this civil rights issue the bigotry and oppression is identical. The same dubious biblical reasoning, the same ignorant bigotry, the same legal maneuvering were all at work in miscegenation laws. The only thing different today is the target.

3) What makes this debate so scandalous is that this is about the civil rights of love. The opponents of marriage want to keep talking about sex because its an easy way to play up a dubious notion of deviancy. It’s an effective shell game, but a shell game nonetheless. Here’s a news flash, you don’t need to be married to have sex! What’s at stake here is an official acceptance of a bond of love and if God is love, that would put God in the mix. And we Christians can’t have God anywhere we don’t say He is. That’s the real scandal.

4) Civil rights should never be left to the majority. That’s precisely what minority rights are all about. Black people of all groups should know better.

5) Viscerally, I’m really hating on the opponents because they are messing with people’s kids, their loved ones, their most intimate and trying personal moments. I have a 7 month old. It really hit home when I thought about being gay and having people mess with my seeds.

14. R.oB. wrote:

P.S. To the gay and lesbians on the list: On #5, I’m not trying to say I know what it’s like to be gay and targeted this way. Just trying to walk a mile in your shoes to coin a phrase.

15. Logic wrote:

“Why should people hide who they are?”

That is the fundamental difference, they can hide whereas we can’t.

From what I understand, its more an issue of semantics rather than civil rights. Don’t civil unions provide the same “rights” as marriage? If so, then what’s the difference?

The fact is that marriage and gay marriage ARE two different things. Shouldn’t we name them differently.

Sexuality is a choice, whether subconcious or not. On that fact alone, it is not comparable to being Black in America.

16. james wrote:

logic, you are right, it certainly is a matter of semantics. civil unions do provide many of the same legal rights as marriage, so why should it be called something different? why should any marriage between two human beings be denigrated and disrespected by the refusal of the government to grant the proper term and respect for the union? that is truly what gay people are after: dignity and respect for their love and unions on par with heterosexual unions.

marriage-bans are unconstitutional. eventually, they will all be overturned.

17. Logic wrote:

It should be called something different because it is different.

18. derwin wrote:

Who is the government to tell us who we, as consenting adults can and cannot love and enter into agreements with (which is essentually what a marrige is)?

19. Deacon wrote:

Civil Unions do not provide the same rights as legal marriage, there are over 1100 tax breaks that married couples get that civil unioned same sex couples and straight couples living together don’t get. If marriage is a religious issue then why do you have to be licenced by the state to get married, doesn’t getting a licence make it a legal issue not a religious issue, hense the separation of church & state. No matter what the exist pole numbers are the fact is the white LGBT community didn’t make an effort to reach out to the black community to explain what the real meaning was behind prop 8, using the nubers given the question not asked is what percent of that 52% was the black vote the voted to pass prop 8. What the California Supreme Court did was reverse a law the in fact was unconstitutional, prop 8 is an attemp to add legalized discrimination to California state constitution. This is not about if you agree or disagree with homosexuality, the greater issue is the rights of the individual to marry whomever they choose to marry and have the same rights as everyone else. As a black gay man I delt with both racism from white gays and homophobia from my own people, I don’t equate one to be the same as the other because they’re not. I fight for my civil rights as both a black man and as a gay man so I undersatnd where each is coming from. For the gay community they need to make a better effort to reach out to the black community, and the black community needs to deal with the issue of homophobia and stop acting as if gays don’t exist, and using the bible as a crutch and excuse for discriminating against gays.

20. james wrote:

logic, even if i grant to you that, yes, to me, a homosexual relationship seems somewhat anatomically different than a heterosexual relationship, there are no ethical, scientific or legal reasons for discrimination or constitutional bans against marriages between certain consenting adults.

21. Tanya wrote:

Hey Lisa,

Please rest assured that all of the media outlets are fully aware of these facts and figures!

I got that information from Edison Media Research and the California Board of Elections.

Edison Media Research is the one of the premier polling companies that focus specifically on exit polls. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and FOX all pay Edison to do the exit polls and have first rights to the info. Not only that, but all media outlets, especially the top ones, have direct contacts at all the States’ Board of Elections. So the media can tell you how many red-heads voted in the election and who or what they voted for!

They know Blacks didn’t hold the majority vote in passing Prop 8, but seeing two “minority” groups hashing it out is pure entertainment; so they feed into the ignorance of gays blaming blacks!

22. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I have to admit, I didn’t understand anything in your post, and your point 5 confused me the most.

“It really hit home when I thought about being gay and having people mess with my seeds.” – Rob

What do you mean?

23. Tanya wrote:

Logic,

You made some great points in #14!

Specifically this:

“Sexuality is a choice, whether subconcious or not.” – Logic

24. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

Hope you’re well!

“Civil Unions do not provide the same rights as legal marriage, there are over 1100 tax breaks that married couples get that civil unioned same sex couples and straight couples living together don’t get.” – Deacon

That’s not exactly true!

In this country we have something called Common-Law Marriage, and every state recognizes it. What that means is that even if a couple is not legally married, as long as they have been living together and have merged assets for 10 years (every State has a different year recognition, but 10 years is the average) they are considered married and treated as a married couple under the law, and therefore, have all the tax benefits of legally married licensed couples.

I’m not sure if the law is as specific as to identify the gender of the couple living together to be eligible for those benefits, but I doubt it. (I’ll look it up.) So if gay people really want the tax benefits of a married couple all they have to do is live together and merge their assets for 10 years!

In addition, gays always make the argument that they want to have their partners visit them in the hospital and make medical decisions for them, and that they want their partner to inherit their property and possessions when they die, and they claim marriage is the ONLY way to assure this. – WRONG!

If they want their partner to make medical decisions for them when they’re sick, and have special visitation in the hospital, all they have to do is give their partner Power of Attorney and they will have all of that. Anyone can give Power of Attorney to anyone they want. There are people who give Power of Attorney to their neighbors, friends, brothers, sisters. You can give those legal rights to anyone you choose, regardless of gender.

Also, if they want to assure that their gay partner gets full and total rights to their house and assets when they die, all they have to do is draw up a Will. You can leave all of your stuff to anyone you want, as long as you put in in your Will. People leave millions of dollars to their dog in their Will, and the government/State has to acknowledge it. (I’m sure you all have heard of the NY Hotel Heiress who left millions to her dog when she died!)

The only difference is that with marriage these rights are automatic, but they are not exclusive to married couples. Giving Power of Attorney and designating property and assets in a Will is a free right that ALL Americans, gays included, have, free and clear!

So all in all, gays are NOT denied any rights (like black people were). Gays can still reap all of the legal benefits of being married, without have that marriage license.

As Logic mentioned, this is ONLY about semantics, NOT civil rights. They just want that marriage license to FEEL ACCEPTED. They just want to FEEL like they are equal (even though they are already treated equal). They just want to FEEL like what they are doing and the life they are living it right and accepted, and having a marriage license is going to make them feel like the life they are living is right.

I, and many other GOD fearing citizens will NEVER tell the gays that their lifestyle is right by giving them a marriage license.

25. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

“…using the nubers given the question not asked is what percent of that 52% was the black vote the voted to pass prop 8.” – Deacon

To answer your question – 13%

5,419,478 people voted for Prop 8 and approximately 700,000 were Black.

So 13% of that 52% were Black! That’s it, only 13%!!!

26. Logic wrote:

“logic, even if i grant to you that, yes, to me, a homosexual relationship seems somewhat anatomically different than a heterosexual relationship, there are no ethical, scientific or legal reasons for discrimination or constitutional bans against marriages between certain consenting adults”

If the rights are the same then, I don’t see what the problem is. I agree that they should have all the rights but lets not call it marriage.

Normally, it wouldn’t even matter to me what you called it. But because I feel that the gay and lesbian community want it to be called a “marriage” just because they want the label, that makes me feel less sympathetic to the “cause.”

27. james wrote:

logic, so basically, you’re just saying no to full equality because it doesn’t feel right for you… just because these uppity queers think they have a god-given right to living out their lives with whomever they choose! well, i never….

homosexual partners are not after a special label; they merely seek what is the right and correct term for their unions, and the full legal benefits and recognition of such a union.

marriage is, by its very definition, the most accurate and appropriate word associated with people who wish to make a permanent committment to each other. there is no better word. period.

but we’ve been forced to invent a phoney, conciliatory consolation prize of “civil unions” just to appease all the bigots and slow folks who refuse to accept and understand that gay relationships are equally as real and beneficial as straight relationships.

28. Deacon wrote:

Tanya,

The process is not as easy as you want to think it is, many states will not allow you to just will your estate to your spouse if you’re gay, any family member could have that will contested and the will ruled null & void (i.e Virginia) and a Power of Attorney can be challenged in a court of law by a family member. As much as you want to think gays have the same rights you wrong, if that was the case there wouldn’t be an issue of gays wanting the right to legally married in the eyes of the laws.

“I, and many other GOD fearing citizens will NEVER tell the gays that their lifestyle is right by giving them a marriage license”

Gays don’t need you to tell us our lifestyle is right, GOD has already affirmed that for us, let me give you some advice, if you spent less time worrying about gays getting the legal right to marry you could focus your attention on the fact that affirmative action laws are being wiped of the books, or is that issue to complex for you GOD fearing citizens to understand.

Logic: “Normally, it wouldn’t even matter to me what you called it. But because I feel that the gay and lesbian community want it to be called a “marriage” just because they want the label, that makes me feel less sympathetic to the “cause.””

Gay marriage is not about the lable, it’s about the rights that come with the lable….

Jame my man you could not have said it any better than that…

29. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

“…many states will not allow you to just will your estate to your spouse if you’re gay…” – Deacon

What State is that???

You are terribly ill-advised Deacon. Any American in any State can will anything they own to anyone, and even to any animal, and the State HAS to acknowledge it. And Yes, even in Virginia!

But of course anyone can contest a Will. If Tom Curse Willed his estate to Katie, I, as someone not related to Tom, can contest that Will and say he promised the it to me, and I can say the Will was wrongfully altered. And Katie will have to fight me in court for it. Anyone can contest any Will and/or any Power of Attorney. So the fact that someone can contest a gay person’s Will and/or Power of Attorney, doesn’t make it any less valid, b/c straight people’s can be contested too. This is America! Anyone can contest anything! That’s a freedom we have here.

“As much as you want to think gays have the same rights you wrong, if that was the case there wouldn’t be an issue of gays wanting the right to legally married in the eyes of the laws.” – Deacon

The ONLY reason gays want the word marriage attached to their unGODly union is b/c it will make them feel better about themselves, it will make them feel like what they are doing is right. IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE LABEL. Period.

Gays already have ALL the same rights as married couples. Common-Law Marriage, Power of Attorney, and a Will, affords them ALL the same rights.

Marriage is an institution under GOD, and a homosexual relationship is against GOD. PERIOD. The Bible is very clear. You can fool yourself as much as you want, but GOD does not support homosexuality. He said it is an abomination. According to the Bible, you and all your gays friends will burn in hell; whether you are “married” or not!

30. Deacon wrote:

You may think you can lay claim to just anybodies will but merritless cases like that would get thrown out of court and you’d be laugh at for filing it, and no gay couples do not have the same rights under the definition of Common Law Marriage. And if it’s all about a lable why is it heterosexuals need that same lable you say gays want to affirm them and there relationship, unlike you I don’t need a lable to define me, GOD has affirmed me of who & what I am along time ago so if anyone is fooling themselves it’s you.

So you can keep your institution under GOD, I want the right owed to me as stated below:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

You seem to forget that those word apply to every US citizen, and when the remaining 48 following the direction of Massachusetts & Connecticut I want you to cling to that bible you cherrish, your going to need it.

You seem to forget that blacks had to jump a broom to symbolize thier commitment to eachother before the white man gave us the right to marry in this country.

31. Logic wrote:

If its about the rights then let it be about the rights…not the terms.

“so basically, you’re just saying no to full equality because it doesn’t feel right for you… ”

It always amazes me how people seem to take what they want out of “comments”. James, where did I say that I wasn’t for equal rights? Nowhere!

“but we’ve been forced to invent a phoney, conciliatory consolation prize of “civil unions” just to appease all the bigots and slow folks who refuse to accept and understand that gay relationships are equally as real and beneficial as straight relationships”- james

Like I said, semantics. Its also funny how because we disagree, I’m somehow slow to accept gay relationships and I’m a bigot.

I guess I’m a bigot because I refuse to accept men who enjoy child pornography too. Yeah I went there.

32. james wrote:

logic, not sure why you went off into child pornography. probably because that noiton is part of your deep-rooted fears of homosexuals. or perhaps you were sexually abused as a child. again, i really don’t know. however, child pornography is illegal and immoral because the children are not a consenting adults.

logic, let me be real clear here: you are not being asked to accept men who enjoy child pornography. in fact, i would hope that you call law enforcement officials should you ever come across anybody viewing such material. but if you are invited to see two guys exchanging vows at the local courthouse, i suggest you get them something nice for their kitchen. perhaps some potholders.

33. Logic wrote:

My point was to say that because some people view certain things in a different light does not mean that they are bigots or don’t understand.

Ad hominem attaacks are useless james. By using them you reduce the credibility of your arguments. Keep to the subject.

I don’t fear being called a bigot when I know that I am not.

34. james wrote:

logic, the entire arguments against homosexuals marrying are based in/on ad hominem attacks and bigotry.

35. Logic wrote:

How so?

So you admit your attacks are ad hominem in nature?

36. james wrote:

logic, arguments againsts homosexuals being allowed to develop traditional families are not based in any kind of reason or scientific evidence, and usually wind up attacking the characters and/or circumstances of homosexuals, which makes these arguments ad hominem in nature.

i’ve not attacked you at all. i’ve attacked your unreasonable notion that the word marriage should somehow be reserved for heterosexual unions simply because of the physical differences based upon the sexual anatomy brought into the marriage, making a mockery of marriage as being merely the sum of its sexuality. that is what i’m attacking.

37. Logic wrote:

You said that I was bigot. That’s not an attack.

“unreasonable notion that the word marriage should somehow be reserved for heterosexual unions”

That’s been the case for thousands of years, yet you deem it unreasonable.

“making a mockery of marriage as being merely the sum of its sexuality”

Not the sum total but a component. Your reaching now with your arguments.

38. Deacon wrote:

Question to heterosexuals:

“What effect will gay marriage have on your individual life, what’s going to be taken away from you because two people of the same sex get married?”

You would think the loss of Affirmative Action across the county would be more important to african americans than two consenting same gender adults wanting to get married.

39. james wrote:

okay logic, you are right, i apologize for calling you a bigot. it’s not right and does effect my credibility. it won’t happen again. regardless of who has been allowed to enter into marriage contracts in the past, i am more than willing to take a chance on further dignifying the lives of homosexuals by fully recognizing and respecting their unions as marriages at the state and federal level.

40. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

“You may think you can lay claim to just anybodies will but merritless cases like that would get thrown out of court and you’d be laugh at for filing it…” – Deacon

LOL! You are exactly right! And that’s my point. If you Will your home to your gay lover, there is NO ONE who can EFFECTIVELY challenge it. The State HAS to honor your Will, regardless of who (or what dog/cat/pet turtle) you Will it to.

You said that “gay” Wills can be challenged, and so, a Will wasn’t good enough, and that’s why you want marriage. Well, “straight” Wills from married couples can be challenged to! And as you stated, merit-less challenges get laughed at and thrown out! A “gay” Will is safe, and it affords you all the same rights, and satisfies all the concerns gays have that they think only a marriage will protect.

And YES, gay couples have all the same rights under Common-Law Marriage as straight couples do!

You do make an excellent argument in #29 about liberty and the pursuit of happiness! But, unfortunately, it’s not a winning argument.

You, nor I, are as free (liberty) to do *whatever* makes us happy in this country. There are standards and morals that must be preserved and upheld. Homosexuality is unnatural and against every religion, specifically the religion this country was founded upon. The Holy Bible makes the strongest and final argument against homosexuality, and that’s why so many people, the majority of people, will not support it, and neither will our laws.

If you want to live with your gay lover and share your assets and property with him, you can. If you want him to have final say in your medical treatment and receive all of your belongings after you depart, he can, and no one, not even the State or Federal government can prevent it.

So what else do you want???

41. Tanya wrote:

James,

“the entire arguments against homosexuals marrying are based in/on ad hominem attacks and bigotry.” – James

That is so ridiculous. People are against homosexuality b/c the Bible, their GOD, and their religion, tell them it is wrong.

It has NOTHING to do with the character, personality, or personal background of a gay individual. It’s not about the people, it’s about the lifestyle (the act), that is against something bigger than personal feelings, it’s against GOD.

42. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

“What effect will gay marriage have on your individual life, what’s going to be taken away from you because two people of the same sex get married?” – Deacon

I don’t think that question is very relevant, b/c it doesn’t directly effect me if John Doe has 5% limo tints on the windows in his car. But it still IS against the law!

But to answer your question, gay marriage takes away LIFE!

If gays are allowed to get married it will encourage homosexuality. More people will fell compelled to experiment with homosexuality (b/c it will be viewed as accepted) and more people will become gay and get married. The more gay couples we have the less life there will be b/c gay people can NOT produce life. There is NO fruit that can come from gay people b/c gay people can’t have kids.

If everyone was gay, the world as we know it, and all mankind would die out.

That effects us all!

We, as human beings, do all we can to prevent animals from becoming extinct. So we need to do all we can to prevent ourselves from becoming extinct. Preventing gay marriage, protects and preserves human life!

43. Deacon wrote:

Tanya your argument is irrelevant, if you think gay marriage will encourage homosexuality then what’s been encouraging homosexuality up to now. If you really want to stop homosexuality tell heterosexuals to stop having gay children. Just because you had to make a choice to be straight don’t hate because gays accept the fact GOD made us gay, I understand it was a difficult choice for you but you made it now live with it.

44. Logic wrote:

“don’t hate because gays accept the fact GOD made us gay”

That’s nonsense.

I think homosexuality is more a derivative of environment/rearing than biology. Look up twin studies.

Homosexuals always say that its not about the sexuality but the person that they love.

My question then is, why can’t a homosexual man love a woman and vice-versa?

If love is the primary driver behind your decision to love another man, then why can’t you love a woman? If you can make a convincing argument for this, than I will become a champion for gay marriage?

If its not about the sex, then you should be able to love anyone, man or woman.

45. james wrote:

logic, we’ve already argued this–to death. i have no interest in going over beliefs about where homosexuality comes from; it’s irrelevant to this discussion about extending to homosexuals full and equal marriage, for which there is no proof whatsoever that extending equal rights on this issue would be harmful to our society. all the arguments against extending these marriage rights are prejudicial and unconstitutional. that’s really quite it. you will see. this issue isn’t just going to go away because folks like you and tanya are resistant to this change. the history of america is about enlarging freedoms and limiting unhealthy traditions; sometimes too slowly, but always in the direction of truth and justice.

46. Deacon wrote:

Who said gay men don’t love women, have you ever been to a Patti Labelle concert “HELLO!!!!!”.

“My question then is, why can’t a homosexual man love a woman and vice-versa? If love is the primary driver behind your decision to love another man, then why can’t you love a woman?”

Where’s the logic behind that statement? In what sense are you taking about love, romantically, familial, ask yourself why can’t you can’t love another man, do you choose who you fall in love with, did you choose your sexuality. Why is that for heterosexuals homosexuality is a choice but heterosexuality isn’t. Love works the same for everyone the only difference is who you love/fall in love with. Honestly I don’t think any argument will convince you homosexuality is not a choice or that gays should have the right to marry persons of the same gender, to believe that would challenge everything you were taught to believe about homosexuality and I don’t think your up to that challenge.

47. Deacon wrote:

Who said gay men don’t love women, have you ever been to a Patti Labelle concert “HELLO!!!!!”.

“My question then is, why can’t a homosexual man love a woman and vice-versa? If love is the primary driver behind your decision to love another man, then why can’t you love a woman?”

Where’s the logic behind that statement? In what sense are you taking about love, romantically, familial, ask yourself why can’t you love another man, do you choose who you fall in love with, did you choose your sexuality. Why is that for heterosexuals homosexuality is a choice but heterosexuality isn’t. Love works the same for everyone the only difference is who you love/fall in love with. Honestly I don’t think any argument will convince you homosexuality is not a choice or that gays should have the right to marry persons of the same gender, to believe that would challenge everything you were taught to believe about homosexuality and I don’t think your up to that challenge.

48. Logic wrote:

” ask yourself why can’t you can’t love another man, do you choose who you fall in love with, did you choose your sexuality”

I never said that I couldn’t love another man. I refuse to, and you can choose who you fall in love with.

I like how neither of you answered the question. Case closed.

Heterosexuality is the default “choice” if you will. Because it is the natural way to propagate the human race.

“i have no interest in going over beliefs about where homosexuality comes from; it’s irrelevant to this discussion about extending to homosexuals full and equal marriage”

But it is relevant. Because if it is choice, then laws should not be changed to accommodate these choices, especially when the vast majority of Americans are against it. That’s the whole crux of the argument.

49. Deacon wrote:

Plain & simple gay men do love women, we’re not sexually or romantically interested in woman, if we were then we wouldn’t be gay, hence the attraction to persons of the same gender. Why don’t heterosexuals want to be in a same sex relationships.
It’s good to know at least one heterosexual admits that being straight is a choice, and by you stating you refuse to love another man I take that to mean you’re a gay man that chose to be straight because by refusing to do so means the attraction to men is there but you’re afraid to act on those feelings.

It’s a good thing that back in the 1800’s a majority of Americans didn’t get thier way other wise blackfolk may still be on the plantation & women wouldn’t have the righ to vote. Let’s be thankful that we have people on the bench with the intelligence to understand two people of the same sex getting married is not going to cause the end of the world.

“Because if it is choice…” Being gay is not a choice, but since you think it is prove it……

50. james wrote:

logic, i’m sorry, but i’m not buying “the vast majority of americans” argument either. polls, when it comes to basic human rights, are irrelevant. we’re not talking about a homosexual bailout here. marriage, in our society, is a basic human right and must be available to everybody equally.

however, logic, even if you do believe being gay is a choice, a choice that, for me, would never be easy to make considering how i might become a target of hate, why is that choice not honorable enough, not respectable enough, not dignified enough to warrant full and equal rights to a marriage license? after all, we are talking about two human beings simply expressing their committment to each other. what’s actually the rub?

51. Logic wrote:

“by you stating you refuse to love another man I take that to mean you’re a gay man that chose to be straight because by refusing to do so means the attraction to men is there but you’re afraid to act on those feelings”

It means that you can control who you fall in love with. Nice try though.

“It’s a good thing that back in the 1800’s a majority of Americans didn’t get thier way other wise blackfolk may still be on the plantation & women wouldn’t have the righ to vote.”

You don’t choose to be black though, hence the difference. That’s why it needed to be legislated.

“Being gay is not a choice, but since you think it is prove it……”

The burden of proof is upon you, since science states that it is not biological.

I’m done. Get married if you want to. I’m tired of arguing with people who can’t logically construct their arguments. Leave emotion out of it, and argue the merits.

52. Logic wrote:

“after all, we are talking about two human beings simply expressing their committment to each other. what’s actually the rub?”

No rub, if its that simple then why the need for legislation. Civil unions will do just fine because if you have the same rights, why do you need the term? Its a battle for symbols, not rights.

53. james wrote:

logic, the term of civil unions has the whiff of jim crow about it. in other words, it stinks. the word, in this case, is the right, because the word marriage engenders a certain amount of respect and dignity that civil union currently lacks. to me, civil unions sound like they are for second class citizens.

logic, science has not stated anything definite about the origins of homosexuality, and neither has science predicted the downfall of humanity should gays obtain their full and equal rights. in fact, most science has predicted that by enabling homosexuals to grow up in an open and stable manner, with the prospect of full and mainsteam life, such as heterosexuals can enjoy without fear of repurcussions, they would probably report less mental and physical health issues. also, more adoptions would probably occur, thus providing more stable homes for needy children. in other words, full and equal gay marriage is a win-win situation for everybody.

54. Logic wrote:

You win…sike.

Just kidding. Honestly I could care less. But, if I had to vote on it, I would probably keep it how it is, mainly because I think its just semantics. Good luck to you James and Deacon.

55. Deacon wrote:

Logic in all seriousness I have to disagree with you, science hasn’t proven homosexuality isn’t biological, there’s a study by Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University, his study suggest that birth order could influence sexual orientation, Dr. Alan Sanders, Dr Simon LeVay neurologist and researcher of human sexuality found that everything from prenatal hormones to brain composition to genetic makeup is linked to sexual preference, as further studying is being done there is proof to argue homosexuality is biological/genetic.

56. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

Just admit that the ONLY reason why you crave a man’s love is b/c your daddy never showed you any love!

People are gay b/c they have mental and psychological issues; usually deeply rooted in childhood experiences, and mostly linked directly to poor parenting. PERIOD.

Gays need counseling not a marriage license.

57. Tanya wrote:

Timaree,

I find it very interesting that when you did that piece on people being sexually attracted to handicaps and turned on by their “stubs”, that you were open to, and accepting of, it being a psychological “problem”, since it is outside of the norm.

But you seem to treat homosexuality as though it is not a psychological problem, even though it IS outside of the norm as well.

Also, in regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

58. Tanya wrote:

Timaree,

I find it very interesting that when you did that piece on people being sexually attracted to handicaps and turned on by their “stubs”, that you were open to, and accepting of, it being a psychological “problem”, since it is outside of the norm.

But you seem to treat homosexuality as though it is not a psychological problem, even though it IS outside of the norm as well.

Also, in regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

59. Tanya wrote:

Tim-tim-a,

I find it very interesting that when you did that piece on people being sexually attracted to handicaps and turned on by their “stubs”, that you were open to, and accepting of, it being a psychological “problem”, since it is outside of the norm.

But you seem to treat homosexuality as though it is not a psychological problem, even though it IS outside of the norm as well.

Also, in regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

60. Tanya wrote:

I find it very interesting that when Tima did that piece on people being sexually attracted to handicaps and turned on by their “stubs”, that she was open to, and accepting of, it being a psychological “problem”, since it is outside of the norm.

But she seems to treat homosexuality as though it is not a psychological problem, even though it IS outside of the norm as well.

Also, in regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

61. Tanya wrote:

I find it very interesting that when Tima did that piece on people being sexually attracted to handicaps and turned on by their “stubs”, that she was open to, and accepting of, it being a psychological “problem”, since it is outside of the norm.

But she seems to treat homosexuality as though it is not a psychological problem, even though it IS outside of the norm as well.

62. Tanya wrote:

Also, in regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

63. Tanya wrote:

In regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books (“the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”).

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

64. Tanya wrote:

In regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books – “the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”.

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

65. Tanya wrote:

In regards to this piece, the arguments made for banning gay marriage are NOT the same arguments used to keep anti-miscegenation laws on the books – “the Bible says so”, “it’s unnatural”.

No where in the Bible does it say that a white can not marry or mate with a black. But that Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination!!!

66. Tanya wrote:

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

67. Tanya wrote:

There is nothing unnatural about a white man mating with a black woman (or vice-versa) b/c all the RIGHT PARTS fit in all the RIGHT PLACES. All the parts that were intended to “meet”, and intended to produce children, CAN; regardless of race.

68. Tanya wrote:

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

69. Tanya wrote:

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two penises can NOT mate. Two penises were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

70. Tanya wrote:

However, it is unnatural for a man and a man to mate b/c two male parts can NOT mate. Two male parts were not intended to “meet”, and can NOT produce children, no matter what you try.

Inter-racial relationships are accepted b/c they are GODly. Homosexual relationships will NOT be accepted b/c they are unGODly. PERIOD.

71. Tanya wrote:

James,

If gays adopt children, those children will suffer. They will grow up messed up and gay themselves; mostly likely both, but definitely one or the other.

Just wait till Rosie’s kids grow up, you’ll see.

Gay can’t even deal with their psychological issues (that’s why they are gay), so there is no way they will be able to deal with all the psychological developments kids need to be guided through.

There’s more to parenting than providing a home and a meal you know! There’s alot more parenting than just giving “love”.

72. Deacon wrote:

“Deacon,
Just admit that the ONLY reason why you crave a man’s love is b/c your daddy never showed you any love!”

Wow guess I don’t need those therapy sessions anymore…

Tanya I understand that you lack rational thought and you have to lash out with ignorant assumptions of things you know nothing about.

You should seek professional help about your psychosis with homosexuality. Each time I read one of your pseudo intellectual rants all I can say is “DAMN, she was really hurt when that man left her for another man.”

73. Tanya wrote:

“psychosis with homosexuality”

Yeap! That’s you!

I noticed that you didn’t respond by saying I was wrong. I noticed that you didn’t say your dad loved you and that you had a good relationship with him.

I’m sorry you had a father that didn’t give you the love every child deserves. But being with a man is NOT going to permanently cure you of that pain. Being with a man is NOT going to replace your father. But I know it helps you feel better for now, and that’s why you cling to homosexuality and that’s why you defend it; b/c homosexuality comforts you.

But it won’t comfort you in hell. You’ll know the truth when you’re face to face with your burning fate down under.

“My people shall perish for the lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you..” – Hosea 4:6

You’re not even smart enough to realize your living a lie. You are not even respectable enough as a “Deacon” to respect GOD’s word and not lay with a man as a woman. You don’t even have the knowledge to realize that GOD has rejected. And so did the good people of California! And so will the good people of the USA!

FYI – None of my ex-boyfriends have ever left me for a man. I only date men who come from stable and happy homes and who are stable mentality. So nope, no homos in my past relationships!!!

74. Deacon wrote:

You want to go there don’t you, did your daddy leave the family for another man like your old boyfriends did? My only daddy issue is that I dated a guy who was into leather and he wanted me to call him daddy and that wasn’t happening, no daddy issues here nor am I’m gay to compensate for love you think gay men don’t get from thier fathers.

I am smart enough to know GOD favors me and blesses me everyday, so if i’m going to hell save me a spot because I know you’ll get there way before I do, judgemental people seem to get to hell faster than homosexuals.

FYI: For any woman to focus as much hatred towards gays as much as you do it’s obvious a man left you for another man, the faster you deal with it the faster you’ll get over it. The men you dated couldn’t have been too stable, if they were wouldn’t you still be with them.

It’s interesting that you’ve never replied as to why you don’t focus your energies on affirmative action an issue that’s really affecting african americans, WOMAN, minorities in general, but the comprehension(the act of grasping with the intellect) needed for such an issue is most likely beyond your understanding.

75. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

You silly rabbit! I’m not JUST against men marrying men, I am also against women marrying women!

I’m against homosexuality b/c GOD is against it and he clearly stated that death will become homosexuals and their blood will be on their OWN hands!

I am annoyed and disgusted with flaming feminine gay men (they’re just gross and boisterous), but if The Holy Bible never stated that homosexuality was an abomination, I would have nothing against them getting married!

GOD has rejected you, and he knows best, so I will not support you! PERIOD!

In order to get equity you have to give equity (that’s a legal theory). Gays do not deserve the term marriage b/c marriage is a term GOD gave to officiate the love of a MAN and a WOMAN. You can not expect to get GOD’s term (marriage) if you are not going to live by GOD’s Will.

76. Tanya wrote:

In regards to Affirmative Action:

What nonsense are you talking about it recently becoming extinct or something??? There have NOT been any new or major changes in Affirmative Action. That’s just some nonsense the gays are making up b/c they think blacks prevented them from getting marriage, and they want to try to distract blacks with something else.

But as I’ve expressed in the ‘Shop previously, I’m not a strong proponent of Affirmative Action. I always saw it as a deficient crux that only solidified us as second class, and second capable.

Obama didn’t need Affirmative Action to get into Harvard. He didn’t need Affirmative Action to become Senator, and he didn’t need it to become President. And guess what, I didn’t need it to go to school, or to get a job, or to start a business.

So I don’t think its necessary, and I would love to see it die!

But if you want all the white people at your job to doubt you and say you’re only there b/c of Affirmative Action, then you go fight your own battle to keep it prevalent. I wont join you in that fight either!

77. Deacon wrote:

Your disgust with homosexuality has nothing to do with what the bible says about homosexuality, it the fact a you fell in love with a man and he was gay. That same text you cling to about homosexuality being an abomination says the samething about shellfish but I don’t see you ranting and raving over that. Like I keep telling the faster you come to terms with the fact a man left you for another man the faster you’ll get over it.

“There have NOT been any new or major changes in Affirmative Action. That’s just some nonsense the gays are making up b/c they think blacks prevented them from getting marriage, and they want to try to distract blacks with something else.”

That right there shows how ignorant you are to what’s going on with affirmative action…..

End of story……..next topic

78. Tanya wrote:

Deacon,

Please rest assured that I have NEVER fell in love with a gay man. I DON’T EVEN KNOW ANY GAY MEN!!!

Shellfish is an abomination, but shellfish are not asking to be recognized under marriage.

Listen, I don’t want you thrown in jail and/or fined and/or punished for being gay. If you want to be gay, I’ll prayer for you, but “DO YOU”!!! If people want to eat shellfish, they can “DO THEM”!!! But I don’t support it.

I just do not want your unGODly relationship recognized under the same scarament and under the same institution as marriage.

If you are still eligible for all the same benefits, then WHY is the WORD marriage so important to you?

I don’t want the WORD marriage associated with gays b/c marriage is of GOD and homosexuality is an ABOMINATION!!! Period.

Further, seriously, I am not aware of any RECENT threats or changes to Affirmative Action. The most recent I’m aware of is the two 2003 cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, but that was over 5 years ago. If you know of something more recent, like within the last year or so, then please, inform us all.

(But I doubt you know of anything. You’re just full of hot air.)

79. james wrote:

tanya, the first time i married my wife was in 1996, a civil ceremony at the courthouse; it had nothing to do with god; it had to do with getting her on my company-supplied health insurance. ten years later, the second time i married my wife was in a catholic church. we only paid for the one license, from the state; the government has no idea that we got married again. the church did not charge us anything for the marriage, but we did give the priest and the organist a donation for their blessing and services.

please notice how god and the church are separate from the state. that is the law and constitution and entire basis of our country, despite any neutral and completely innocuous mentioning of god on our currency and in our pledge of allegiance…. one nation, under god, does not mean one nation under jesus christ, our savior and lord of the bible, nor does it mention allah, buddha, krishna, jupiter, zeus, isis, thor, or the pope. homosexuality is not an abomination as you continue to claim, but legally, morally, ethically, emotionally, and spiritually equal to hetersoexuality; therefore, marriage, the institution our government recognizes and charges for licenses, must be extended to homosexuals.