« I got nothin'. Fortuntely Jon Stewart is not so constrained. | Main | My gay agenda for today, plus: Fresh hate mail! »

06 November 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Wow. Just...wow. The sheer nerve of some people just astounds me.

To sum up that comment:

I am so sorry Christie, I know how hard you worked on this, and I was truly and bitterly disappointed to see California actually PASS this. But don't lose hope, and press on regardless. We know change is coming.


I was at the same time elated with the possibility that the US had finally gotten some tolerant sense about it with the election of Barack Obama, when I heard the news about the passing of Prop 8.. and I got a big dose of reality.

That even though the country may be willing to overlook a man's race if they think it may save their own ass (let's be realistic here... while this election certainly does speak of much racial healing, it was more a referendum on taxes and the economy than anything else).

This is evident in the passing of Prop 8, and the banning of gay adoptions in other states (Florida and Mississippi - although for some reason if you're a gay single parent in Mississippi, THAT'S ok, but if you're in a loving, committed relationship with a same-sex partner, that's NOT ok - wtf?)

How anyone can quote the former repression of "their race," claim this election to be a good thing (while using all capitals to point out that somehow now African Americans have become responsible for everything that's ever happened to them and yet spelling out "mr obama" in small letters...) and yet support the suppression of another minority group at the same time.

I also find it interesting that the writer claims "if he does not he will be thrown out on his butt by the same electorate that gave him this chance," and yet Bush got not one, but amazingly, beyond all logic, TWO terms, and we're still awaiting the impeachment hearing.

I find the tone to be condescending, rude, ignorant and childish. I could understand if the writer hid behind religion at least, but he (she?) doesn't even offer up a valid argument for the defeat of Prop 8 and the people who support it, be they gay, lesbian, transgendered or straight!

Incidentally, a perfect example is my very own aunt... who recently, much to my utter disgust, joined a facebook group dedicated to "Keeping Marriage Between One Man and One Woman." The behind the scenes story is that they belong to some crazy Mormon cult and he has had (and is still having) countless affairs that not only she, but her family, friends, and children are all aware of. However, her religion and her religious adviser has told her that God's will is for her to support her husband in his time of weakness, and to try and work harder to make him happier at home so that he doesn't feel the need to go elsewhere to feel fulfilled.

I, of course, immediately joined a "support Prop 8" group (despite the fact that I'm Canadian and straight) and sent her an invite.

Gay people aren't ruining the sanctity of marriage, straight people are.

To hell with the right to marry for gays, I vote for gay rights, and a constitutional ban on straight marriage. When we can prove we can keep our divorce rate higher than the present 50%, we can earn our rights back. After all, apparently, the constitution can be read to mean damn near anything (phone taps all around!) and if note, re-written to suit the current agenda.

Come on up to Canada. We'll happily get you hitched, in the honeymoon capital of the world. :O)

Carrie K

Oh wow. So *that's* their problem with same sex marriage. Huh. I felt better thinking there was some actual reasoning involved.

And it's not like it was trounced in the polls either. Hopefully the lawsuits will work.


My apologies... I meant to say that I joined a "Vote No on Prop 8" group.

Our retriever died very suddenly and in our arms Tuesday night, and I am still in a devastated shock. Having trouble keeping my thoughts straight. I'm sure you understand.

Take care, and chin up. The change is coming.


I keep asking myself how people who don't want government telling them how to live their lives don't seem to have a problem telling the rest of us how to live ours. Whether it is sexuality, stem cell research, religion in school etc. Whatever happened to the golden rule? This jerk probably shows up to Church every Sunday but has never bothered to read that Bible (s)he probably waves around like a sword of righteousness. We know by the tone of the email that (s)he hasn't read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Hopefully this will end up in court and be struck down as unconstitutional and illegal and this jerk can choke on his/her own bile.


It's not often the UK gets to say we're way ahead of the US, but here a woman just lost a discrimination case when she claimed she was fired because of her Christianity after refusing to unite a gay couple. It was right that she lost - if you can't do your job because of your faith you're in the wrong job. My fiance is Jewish and you don't see him processing pork for a living.

Besides which, anyone who dares call themselves a Christian - myself included, and I'm proudly Greek Orthodox - should understand that a civil ceremony that allows two people, whatever their gender, to make a legal obligation to each other is only just. It is simply that: just and fair to every person on this earth.

I sincerely hope that the various lawsuits and appeals that are springing up do their job - no one has the right to vote on anyone else's equality, otherwise we've lost all meaning in that precious word.


Sorry you had to be subjected to the rantings of a nut. It's politics, I think. Senator Obama was helped to victory by Latino and black voters who are largely opposed to gay marriage. Senator Obama himself has claimed to oppose it.
“I’m a Christian,” Mr. Obama said on a radio program in his 2004 race for Senate. “And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Even so he stated opposition to Prop. 8. But I think that cause will not be high on his list of changes to be made now.

Lee Wind

It's hard to not resort to name-calling right back at that guy. It is fascinating how he reveals that what really discomforts conservatives is the thought of anal sex. When we fight for same-sex marriage rights, all they hear is the word "sex" and that sends them right back to their place of fear of being gang-raped in a prison shower. We're not trying to teach anyone's children about SEX. I think we would all do better discussing our rights to same-GENDER marriage. That might not short-circuit their brains in the same way...
Thanks for fighting the fight!

Lee Wind

It's hard to not resort to name-calling right back at that guy. It is fascinating how he reveals that what really discomforts conservatives is the thought of anal sex. When we fight for same-sex marriage rights, all they hear is the word "sex" and that sends them right back to their place of fear of being gang-raped in a prison shower. We're not trying to teach anyone's children about SEX. I think we would all do better discussing our rights to same-GENDER marriage. That might not short-circuit their brains in the same way...
Thanks for fighting the fight!


whew-what a load of horse shit. It looks like Maine is adding our own version of prop 8 to grant gay marriages. I will be working for it here,and I am still stunned it didn't fly in cal.

so sorry---

dina little

Legislation should be introduced to protect churches from being forced against their convictions to marry gays. Gays could have their civil unions.

But separation of church and state should be respected and the state can not force people to recognize gay marriage as a sacrament or teach homosexuality.

Recognizing a civil union is another matter, but you can not sacramentally marry gay people...it's a metaphysical impossibility.

I noticed my post was removed.
The truth is, the gays are being bullies in this matter, and you don't like to admit it.


Your post wasn't really removed. I posted it right there on the blog so everyone could mock it.

Now let me tell you how stupid you are. For HUNDREDS of years now the Catholic Church has refused to marry divorced people. It doesn't recognize the marriages made in other churches, or at City Hall.

And yet, amazingly, no one has tried to force them to do so. There have been no lawsuits, no laws passed, no attempts to control what the Catholic Church does and who it will and will not marry.

Know why? Because NO ONE CARES what churches do. There is no relationship between civil marriage and the individual marriage sacraments and ceremonies of specific churches. There is no law to back up trying to control what they do about marriage, and what you're saying has no basis in fact, in the past, in history, in reality, or in anything anyone would ever want to do.

People who belong to different churches can ask them to change whatever they want, but the law would never get involved. Anyone who told you that's what this is about was lying to you. Your belief is wrong, and your stating it is bearing false witness.

If you actually think anyone wants any church anywhere to marry divorced people, same sex couples, non-believers... I mean, are you really so stupid, so ignorant, that you think churches have to marry anyone who walks in the door? Most churches will only marry their own members; they won't even marry people of their own SAME RELIGION if they don't belong to that congregation or parish!

You have completely confused civil marriage with religious ceremonies. The only reason the state recognizes marriages performed in churches is that it has licensed clergy members to perform civil marriages. The couple still has to get their marriage license from the state, and the state would recognize that marriage if it were performed by a justice of the peace or judge or any licensed wedding officiant, including someone who got their credential over the internet or your minister, priest, or rabbi.

But if the couple does NOT get that license, or their marriage ceremony is performed by someone not legally credentialed to officiate at marriages, that couple may be married in their church, but they will not be legally married -- as is the case with the many churches that do perform same-sex marriages. Those people are married in their church, but not legally.

Did you really not know that? I've always assumed that the people who make this argument are just being liars and trying to trick people. I don't know if you're a liar or just one of the ones who was tricked, but it's one or the other, babe. Because the FACTS underlying your argument are just incorrect.

I don't give a fuck what you do in your churches. They're yours, not mine, and they mean nothing to me one way or the other. But stay out of the constitution. Leave my civil rights alone.

And go look up the word "civil." Because it seems to me you have no idea what it means when it comes to either marriage, or rights.

Now, this is my blog and I don't care to have some ugly, vicious little troll coming in here and advocating to my face to have my civil rights taken away from me, so I'm putting your IP address in my site filter.


Wow. This makes me ashamed to be a traditional type married folk.

National hope and unity for me, but not for thee, eh.

The comments to this entry are closed.