Prop 8: No Way in Hell Is This Over

• From my reading I don't believe the CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop. 8. They have considered 9 other cases challenged on similar grounds and have only overturned 3, which were considerably more questionable than Prop. 8. If Prop. 8 is not overturned, I wouldn't be surprised if the LGBT community attempted to qualify a competing constitutional amendment - for example, one defining marriage as a comittment between persons to love and devote themselves to one another. However, such an amendment would likely from necessity be too vague to withstand legal challenge. James

• The statement has been made, "Prop. 8: No way in hell is this over." Maybe so. Perhaps LGBT's and their supporters do not wish to accept without contention what the voters of CA have approved. However, be assured that any attempt to cancel Prop. 8 will be countered by far more strength than was asserted in its support this November, and the margin of defeat of such efforts will be far greater than the margin of defeat for opponents of Prop. 8. James

• I do not believe the argument favoring Prop. 8 was framed in the most convincing context. This argument was that if Prop. 8 was defeated, school children would be instructed that both homosexual and heterosexual marriages were equally healthful and desirable. This argument is correct and expresses an important reason for favoring Prop. 8. However, a more important reason for the passage of Prop. 8 is that if marriage were judged legally valid for homosexuals, a basic element of the foundation of society would be cancelled, which is that in marriage a man and woman are joined together to form a unit oriented toward the procreation and support of offspring. To cancel this major element of basic social construction to satisfy interests of homosexuals that can be adequately addressed by other procedures, is clearly unwarranted. James

• The question is asked, "What is the status of homosexual marriage entered into in CA before the the passage of Prop. 8?" My answer is that it is the same as for the question, "What is the status of ownership of GHB purchased before it was outlawed?" The clear answer to this question is that it is illegal. James

• Johan- "Separate but equal" has never worked. Pick up a history book. It's kinda like separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. I'm straight, but I wish that I didn't have to be "married" to gain benefits. Unfortunately, the majority believes "Marriage" is a religious tradition (even though the IRS believes it to be a tax status) and I do not want to be unilaterally affiliated with a religious lifestyle because I hate religion more than anything...but, unfortunately, I'm stuck with it if I want tax exemptions/hospital visitation, etc. I wish I could be in a "domestic partnership" but with equal benefits as "marriage". I would love that. ...Maybe some day. Also, it's not "ignorantly trampling on the beliefs of others" when there are a lot of churches and religious institutions who support gay marriage and human rights. (Episcopal, Church of Religious Science, etc..)

• <i>"Gay people in domestic partnerships are denied a host of rights from institutions ranging from their own employers to the their health insurance providers to the Internal Revenue Service--and the denial is based PRECISELY on the fact that those institutions DO NOT recognize domestic partnerships as the equivalent of marriage."</i> <b>Mark</b> In response to: <i>"What you should be focusing your efforts upon is the battle to bestow the same rights to Domestic Partnership unions, as those enjoyed by those who are bound by "Holy Matrimony"; instead of ignorantly trampling on the beliefs of others and wondering why you are disliked in many quarters."</i> <b>Abel</b> How pathetic you drama queens and Mormon bashers are when you miss the answers to your own questions sitting right under your noses. Stop wasting your time and learn to choose the right battle. In case you've missed it, nobody gives a damn what you do with your penises and mouths. Hets simply don't want to be unilaterally affiliated with your lifestyle. Grow up.

• <i>"Gay people in domestic partnerships are denied a host of rights from institutions ranging from their own employers to the their health insurance providers to the Internal Revenue Service--and the denial is based PRECISELY on the fact that those institutions DO NOT recognize domestic partnerships as the equivalent of marriage."</i> <b>Mark</b> In response to: <i>"What you should be focusing your efforts upon is the battle to bestow the same rights to Domestic Partnership unions, as those enjoyed by those who are bound by "Holy Matrimony"; instead of ignorantly trampling on the beliefs of others and wondering why you are disliked in many quarters."</i> <b>Abel</b> How pathetic you drama queens and Mormon bashers are when you miss the answers to your own questions sitting right under your noses. Stop wasting your time and learn to choose the right battle. In case you've missed it, nobody gives a damn what you do with your penises and mouths. Hets simply don't want to be unilaterally affiliated with your lifestyle. Grow up.

• >>Not that you'd ever be invited into private family exchanges, Mark, but we have already had those discussions (GASP!) WITHOUT YOUR INTERVENTION, and achieved a general family consensus that "Domestic Partnerships", function to bestow the same general status and convey the same general rights upon a same-sex couple. The semantics do not have to be identical to achieve the true goal - not that the bulk of the "no on prop 8" crowd would ever be objective or mature enough to admit it. Well, it's very nice that you achieved a "family consensus", Abel. Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality, fact or law. Gay people in domestic partnerships are denied a host of rights from institutions ranging from their own employers to the their health insurance providers to the Internal Revenue Service--and the denial is based PRECISELY on the fact that those institutions DO NOT recognize domestic partnerships as the equivalent of marriage. Voting to worsen the lives of a class of people because you don't happen to like who or what they are is discrimination. Don't delude yourself that it's anything else. And don't kid yourself that you can hate the sin but love the sinner--not when you take action to make the "sinner's" life worse. It sounds like you and your family have experienced considerable discrimination. I'm sorry to hear that. Happily, if someone kicks you out of a restaurant, you have legal recourse. It'd be nice if we did too. When you walk down the street at night, do you worry that people will beat you up, spit at you or call you filthy names? Do you routinely turn on the television and hear yourself reviled by self-appointed guardians of morality? Do you consider holding your wife's hand in public "stooping" to inappropriate behavior? No? Then spare me the lectures on how rough you've had it. Nobody in this country has a monopoly on suffering. It's a shame that that the hard times you've had have left you determined to make yourself feel better by setting yourself above a group of people that currently suffer being treated like third-class citizens. A lifetime of abuse makes some people intensely sympathetic; it turns others into abusers. So we will rely on the courts rather than a hatemongering citizenry to protect us, just as you did, something you never addressed or acknowledged in your extremely long post. I think you're the one who needs to read up on history. I would recommend starting with the full text of the Loving V. Virginia decision. And as Seneca so aptly points out, Mildred Loving, a true American hero, understood EXACTLY what this is all about.

• Seneca: Thought about Canada off and on for the past eight years. But now I'm 40, and I believe Canada has an age cap on new immigrants set at 39, only because they don't want a slew of people moving up there as they get older, taking advantage of all that awesome free health care..... I can do you one better...American boys can blow off other people's heads in foreign countries at age 18, but consume alcohol? Not till you're 21, son!

• ...well, we would be poorer.. but at least gays can marry!

• Rich, one more thing: You are absolutely correct about your statement of letting the states decide on women's rights or slavery. If the states (men) voted on whether or not to allow women to participate in civic matters...I'de be screwed...Women are second class citizens according to the bible! (And the bible endorses slavery) Even from the very begining, the Anti-Federalists argued that, " The application of the greatest good for the greatest number should NEVER be allowed to jeapordize the constitutional garuntees of a minority." Unfortunately, the Anti-federalists lost. And many minorities have suffered at the will of the majority. I still think my favorite policy was sending boys to war at age 18, but not letting them vote until they were 21... ...Maybe we should move to Canada...I hear that our dollar matches theirs now.

• I agree, Rich.... Ignorance has always been the enemy of knowledge. I voted No on 8, and one lady told me that the Rapture was coming and that my soul was in danger. I replied with, "Well, on that day, I will be having lots of premarital sex". She was appalled and flat out told me I was going to hell.. I then asked for some leeway because at least I was straight...but she still told me I was doomed. Although, I still say we've come along way; the numbers were much closer this year. ...And as for the diddling of innocent altar boys, don't worry.. The Knights of Columbus are paying that off too.

• I wrote this in the "Protest Prop 8" blog, but I thought it would also be appropo here. Since the LDS (aka Mormon) church is/was the main funding source for "Yes on 8", y'all might want to form a protest at the Mormon Temple, located @ 2300 Bonita Cyn. Dr. in Newport Beach (it's located between MacArthur Blvd on the west & the 73 toll road on the east). This is the main Mormon temple for Newport Beach, just like the main temples in Los Angeles (where they held protests yesterday) & in San Diego (just East of the I-5 fwy & visible from it). So y'all might want to consider that, in addition to the "regular" Mormon churches. Of course, I'm sure the other Xtian churches--mostly the evangelical/fundamentalist types--will also enjoy the "Sunday Serenade" of protests, this weekend.

• Seneca: You've hit exactly on what I've been saying for 15 years, ever since the marriage issue first surfaced in Hawaii: what the fundies are REALLY afraid of is that somehow they'll be forced by the big, bad, evil gub'mint to hold queer weddings in their places of worship - which has never, EVER been the case. But y'know what happens when the closed mind starts a-wandering....overactive imaginations....unfounded fears running rampant.... Men in long, white wedding gowns! Anal sex in the church pews! The diddling of innocent altar boys! (Oh, wait - those are the Catholic priests, not the gays . . .)

• It's hard to beat the world's largest and wealthiest interest groups; The Mormon organization and "The Knights of Columbus" Catholic organization. It's good to know that while churches get federal tax exemptions and property tax exemptions, human beings get denied their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I have to hand it to the "yes on 8" advocates for using children as leverage, that was ingenious! Especially on the street corners, you clever dogs! Most of you may recall the case Loving vs Virginia. Mildred Loving was a black woman who was married to a white man. Some states acknowledged it, Virgina did not. Virginia won. When it was taken to the Supreme Court, they said "MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT". Mildred Loving died 3 months ago, but before she died, she mentioned this issue about denying marriage based on race AND gender. She said this: "Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights." -Mildred Loving And as far as people getting angry about the 70% black population voting "yes on 8", it's probably because of a strong religious commitment to their community... but it will never cease to amaze me that a group who was discriminated against themselves can turn around in an instant and discriminate against a minority...The same thing happened with the feminist movement. Women did not want discrimation from men, but the original feminists were white women and they discriminated against other women of color. Simply amazing. Let's see what the Supreme Court says about this issue =) Have any of you talked to God about it yet? What did he say? Did he say give more money to monopolize marriage and build giant cathedrals? I'm in. Ofcourse, that is marriage as it relates to religion. Marriage as it relates to the law is like this: Churches have the right to refuse ANYONE, gay or straight, whether prop 8 passed or not. To be married, you don't have to go to a church. You have to sign a paper in court. What you do with your stupid religious traditions is up to you, but civil unions do not offer the same benefits as a marriage. I know plenty of churches who would marry gay couples, but they can not give them tax exemptions or beneficiary benefits, the courts have to. In this case, the Supreme Court is going to, just like in Loving v Virgina. I would love it if our country follows what Sweden does. Anyone in Sweden, gay, straight, or non-sexual, can file a "partnership" and attain equal benefits. From that point, a straight couple can choose to uphold their religious traditions and go to a church and let the churches recognize them as "married", but the law does not. I'm straight, but I'm getting offended by "marriage" being redefined by church standards and so exclusive. If the churches want to monopolize that word, go right ahead, but give everyone equal rights, and don't put me in a position to become a supporter of such discrimination unless I have to forgo all the benfits I can receieve from a traditional "marriage". Seems like an unjust ultimatum. Right, isn't that all you bible people care about.. the word "Marriage"? You guys can have it. And then, kindly, go to hell.

• Abel: You never answered how the civil rights movement advanced without the help of lawsuits and protests.

• > Good thing your counterparts 50 years ago had the > guts to stay and fight, or you'd be packing your bags. --Mark You're obviously ignorant of the Loving case, as well as the all-too-real cases of others from my era. In fact (if you must know), we protected what mattered most at the time, instead of vilifying society and allowing the solidarity of our marriages to fall victim to political grandstanding and whining. You and your partner, Mark, can probably walk into any restaurant and be served, provided you don't go ACT-UP in the establishment, or stoop to public displays of affection that I've seen heterosexual couples booted-out over. Otherwise, nobody would think anything about it in the least; and that probably applies to almost any place you can go. You see, you have to go looking for trouble before it will happen to you. Even now, not so for us. There are still restaurants, Mark, that my wife and I will not be allowed entrance to, or will be denied service in, or asked to leave. Same goes for hotels, Mark, and I'm talking about the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage as well as several notable establishments in Indian Wells. There are localities in which we cannot buy or rent a home, and schools which are not safe for our children to attend. Try buying a car in certain cities in Southern California. You can. We can't. We have received threatening phone calls and letters, and have been pointedly ostracized in churches, social functions, grocery stores, etc. We have had homes defaced, cars stolen or vandalized, children attacked, and have been attacked directly as a couple...and what happened to hundreds of dollars worth of clothing we had in for dry cleaning? Early in our marriage, I lost several jobs when key players in work places learned that my wife is not white - many times on the heels of "Excellent" Performance Appraisals. My wife still hasn't been clued-into that one. We did not take to the streets and cry to the media, nor did we emote to all who would listen in a support group. We established priorities and took care of what needed to be attended to at the time. We have acted in such a way as to preserve the peace and protect our family members; and will not stoop to answering for our actions to whinger like you. Maybe you could, instead of hoisting yourself up on your own petard, trouble yourself to read-up on the subject some time; since it's blatantly obvious that you have no first-hand experience as the direct target REAL discrimination? > I'll be really interested to see how you evolve if one > of your lovely children turns out to be gay. --Mark Not that you'd ever be invited into private family exchanges, Mark, but we have already had those discussions (GASP!) WITHOUT YOUR INTERVENTION, and achieved a general family consensus that "Domestic Partnerships", function to bestow the same general status and convey the same general rights upon a same-sex couple. The semantics do not have to be identical to achieve the true goal - not that the bulk of the "no on prop 8" crowd would ever be objective or mature enough to admit it. We give our children advice only when they ask for it, by the way, and love them unconditionally. Or, perhaps, were you looking for a rift in the home? > It was the latest in an escalating campaign > directed against the Church of Jesus Christ > of Latter-day Saints for its role in marshaling > millions of dollars in contributions from its > members for the successful campaign to take > away same-sex marriage rights. ... > During the campaign, a website established by > Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance > data and other public records to track Mormon > political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. > Opponents estimated that members of the church > had given more than $20 million, but the amount > is difficult to confirm since the state does not track > the religious affiliation of donors. > > Critics of the website noted that the religious > affiliations of other political donors are not > generally researched. ... > Leaders of the No-on-8 campaign said they did not > believe they were engaged in Mormon-bashing. "This > is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a > church that put itself in the middle of politics." --LATimes In other of my readings, anti-prop 8 folks have physically attacked others. I suppose that's being called free speech, too. That's not the democratic process. It is not respectable behavior. It's mob rule...a pack of hyenas in a feeding frenzy. Personally-speaking, I believe that the Mormon church has a lot of problems, and I soundly disagree with them on many points of doctrine, but I am willing to allow them to choose what to believe and to participate in the political process without oppression or violence from me. Your demographic, it would seem, would take me to task for allowing others their freedoms in the same way I am willing to allow you yours. (It's called "hypocrisy," if you need help putting a word to the practice.) But, to track people BEFORE Prop 8 was decided? THAT'S low! In the face of that, your accusations of hate sound more like transference than anything else. From what I read in the papers, there are enough of your adherents (in percentage-wise disproportionate numbers) attempting to terrorize others into submission, to completely discredit yourselves in my eyes, as well as the eyes of millions of others. That's your doing alone. You are hurting yourselves like spoiled brats banging their heads against the kitchen floor, hoping somebody will see your tantrum and give you a cookie. (Not to feed Rich's proclivities more than has already been done; but, you need a spanking more than you need tolerance for your tantrums, and certainly far more than you need that cookie.) Move beyond the ACT-UP phase. Do away with the diapers and pacifiers. Try dealing with life appropriately, for once. Somebody might actually make the mistake of calling your population segment mature, for a change. Homosexuality isn't a religion (though, by reading Rich, you couldn't make the mistake of coming to THAT conclusion), it's a sexual preference. Those of you exercising your right to choose your preferences and affiliations, bonding with a same sex partner, are completely free to do so; and have been free to do so without interference and condemnation from those of us who choose differently, for quite some time now. > People like Coretta Scott King, Nelson > Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu certainly > saw the parallels. You might consider the fact that they also realized that, for the two cases, construed parallels do not make for equity of circumstance. You might also admit that YOU don't have even the slightest clue what it has been like to live as a black person in this country. You don't know what real discrimination is unless you go slap somebody in the face to get a dose of it in retribution. I work in the medical profession and, as a consequence, come into contact with a huge swath of America in my new hires. One of my standard speeches to ALL new employees contains these basic rules: * Adhere to the dress code, at all times on the job, or find another place to work. * Don't offend your co-workers. If you do, they will reject you. If you can't get along with them, you probably won't last very long here. * If you act to foster an uncomfortable work environment, you are negatively impacting my productivity and my bottom line. I will remove such impediments to productivity and revenue. * Don't offend our customers. If you do so, after appropriate warnings, I will fire you. * Don't hit on anyone. If a complaint of sexual harassment is substantiated against you, you're fired...yesterday. * If you have agendas, I don't care what kind they are, keep them to yourself. I pay you to perform the tasks contained in your job description, not to save people's souls or round-out the ranks of your political movement. * It's all in the employee handbook. * Sign here. If you can read and respect others before you demand respect from them, you'll do well in our little part of the employment world. I had one crusader, a couple of years back, who blew-up at a co-worker over her expressed dislike of Ellen DeGeneres as an actress. Without listening to what this woman was saying, the employee turned it into a case of lesbian-hating and did a pretty good job of making a flamboyant fool of himself by trying to shout the woman down. No, it couldn't be because the woman is perceived to be talentless and ugly. It had to be because she's a lesbian. Everyone in the cube pits were uncomfortable with the tantrum and asked that something be done about it. He was destined for his second warning, but belligerent, so I had my payroll clerk cut his pay and severence checks and gave him his exit interview on the spot. Handing him his final due, I informed him that the woman and I were in substantial agreement: "Ellen DeGeneres is a better stand-up than she is an actress (quite unattractive, actually). We both prefer Jodi Foster as an inspired actress. I particularly liked her performance in Contact, and think that she has quite the pretty face." He, of course, tried to sue me for sexual orientation-based discrimination; when he was actually fired because of his behavior toward fellow employees. I did not hire a lawyer to handle the case for me, and the judge agreed that he was fired for being an ass hat, instead of his sexual preference. Case dismissed. If you are looking for "homo-phobia" in others, you will always find it...even where it doesn't exist. I'm positive that keeps Rich pretty busy. > I suppose you'll next point me in the direction of some of those twisted ex-gay groups, which hurt more than they can ever heal... No, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth (among other things) nonetheless. If you need psychiatric help, go see a shrink. If you don't want to be gay anymore, make different choices. If you're happy being gay, keep on keeping on. It's all the same to me: your business...but...why do YOU think that I should, somehow, care? Is that a psychological NEED for persecution, or are you just being a run-of-the-mill attention whore? As to semantics: Marriage ("Holy Matrimony", if you will) is an institution which has its roots firmly embedded in the Judeo-Christian ethic and world-view. It is an institution which; by pre-existing definition, excludes the same-sex context. Holy Matrimony is sanctioned by the church and, in such sanctioning, must conform to the definition set-forth by the sanctioning authority. Holy Matrimony, per se, is not civil or secular property to be re-defined by those outside the sanctioning body; and you will consistently meet opposition to unilaterally re-defining the institution of marriage. "Domestic Partnership" is a phrase that does not hijack the ideological property of others, and allows you to enjoy the same rights as those who are "married", in many states. What you should be focusing your efforts upon is the battle to bestow the same rights to Domestic Partnership unions, as those enjoyed by those who are bound by "Holy Matrimony"; instead of ignorantly trampling on the beliefs of others and wondering why you are disliked in many quarters. Or...is that asking too much of your community: To respect the core beliefs of others? If it is, then you have thrown away any reasonable expectation of respect in return. By the way, I consider "Marriage" or "Holy Matrimony" to be applicable to an ostensible male-female pairing of partners wherein one or both individuals have undergone SRS. To simplify that thought for you: If one has an "innie" and the other has an "outtie", it's marriage territory, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the offer of a big kiss, Rich, but I really don't know you well enough. Can we just settle for a hug?

• Bob: Heard about it, but didn't see it. I'll see if I can Netflix it... Stace: Protest march in Long Beach tonight (Friday) at 7 p.m. down Broadway, from Redondo to Hamburger Mary's. Oddly, there seems to also be a march/demonstration Sunday in, of all OC burgs, Rancho Santa Margarita - 5 p.m. at RSM lake. RSM, the WeHo of OC? Who knew?

• I've been volunteering for the no on prop 8 campaign for 2 1/2 weeks and that includes election day. Are there any protests going on in OC?

• Are there any gays/lesbians who've blogged thus far, that have ever seen the "made-for-TV", movie, "Wedding Wars" on A&E channel? It aired back in December of '06, and here's a synopsis: Shel (John Stamos), a gay party planner, agrees to organize the nuptials for straight brother Ben (Eric Dane) to Maggie (Bonnie Somerville), the daughter of Maine's Governor (James Brolin). After Shel finds out that Ben, a campaign manager for his future father-in-law, is behind the governor's speech against gay marriage, he decides to go on strike for equal rights. Shel's strike picks up steam and eventually spreads nationwide, leaving the impending wedding vows in the hands of a tacky planner and overall, in question. I know, I know, "So get to the fuckin' point Bob!", and here it is: IN ADDITION TO POLITICAL ACTION, START HITTING THE ANTI-GAY/LESBIAN GROUPS IN THE POCKET BOOK, BY BOYCOTTING/STRIKING (just like Shel did in "Wedding Wars")!!!

• Rich does kick ass. And Able: pray tell how the civil rights movement came to be, if not for protests and litigation...

• Funny how the folks on here claiming to be African-American feel insulted whenever the gay rights movement gets compared to the civil rights movement. People like Coretta Scott King, Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu certainly saw the parallels. Why can't you peeps? And yes, them evil gays actually were born "that way." Hell, when I was a spry 12-year-old, I had a HUGE boy crush on Rick Springfield. Sure, totally ashamed to admit it now, but y'know, gotta back up my argument somehow... I suppose you'll next point me in the direction of some of those twisted ex-gay groups, which hurt more than they can ever heal... Able: Cut the throat-ramming metaphors, sweetie - you're making me horny! Big, sloppy, wet smooches, me P.S. - INEVITABLE!

• Able, you say if your marriage was illegal, you'd just move? Good thing your counterparts 50 years ago had the guts to stay and fight, or you'd be packing your bags. By the way, guess why you're legally married? I'll give you a hint: It was a court, not a bunch of sanctimonious yahoos voting on a proposition. I'll be really interested to see how you evolve if one of your lovely children turns out to be gay. The day that happens, you might be less inclined to make pronouncements about whether it's a choice or not, something about which, not being gay yourself, you are utterly unqualified to comment. And lbjack, you call us "sad deluded queens" and make some disco joke that already had spiderwebs on it back in 1985, and in the same breath say that your position isn't based on hatred or homophobia? I swear, sometimes it's just too easy. Gay marriage was nowhere four years ago. Now, two states have it. In the next couple of years, we'll get a couple more--including New York, a state that's somewhat more immune to mob-rule ballot initiatives funded by polygamist sects. And Prop 8 will either be overturned in court or at the ballot box within five years. See you then, kids.

• > Gay marriage - like interracial marriage before it --Rich Kane No it's not. Don't drag us down to your level. I married a black woman and we have some lovely children. She chose me and I chose her. She didn't choose to be black and I didn't choose to be white--we were born with those indelible marks upon us, which, now, all colors use against us and our children--on sight. Were our marriage still illegal, we would simply move where it is legal, or work within the system to affect change--WITHIN THE SYSTEM. The same way the pro prop 8 people did...not ramming more act-up rhetoric down the throats of the voters. I don't care one way or another about prop 8, that's your problem; however, where I may have formerly been sympathetic to the so-called "cause", the post-election response from the anti-prop 8 contingent has made me quite intolerant of such displays of brat-like tantrums. This society doesn't need more act-up disruption from people unwilling to work within the boundaries of civil discourse. Civilized interactions within a democratic republic work sort of like a marriage, and you folks have proved that you don't have what it takes for either. Stick with domestic partnerships, as well as the generous provisions of the law for such unions, and kwitcherbitchin. You're simply manufacturing more of your own enemies.

• Rich Kane is my hero!!!

• lbjack . . . that's a pretty fruity nom de plume, yes? Inevitable, inevitable, inevitable. Giving women the right to vote would've also been voted down by almost every state around 1870. Ending slavery would have been voted down by every state circa 1830. Especially if those decisions had been left to the people, as opposed to elected officials and jurists. And disco is dead, BTW . . . One more thing: INEVITABLE. Love n' smoochums!

• Yep, you're a "Mark," all right. The idiocy and dishonesty of claiming opposition to gay marriage is hatred or homophobia, the childishness of sying no one can tell you what to do. You live in SOCIETY. If you ever grow up -- of course, who says you have to as long as you have your self-esteem -- you'll discover that you can't have something simply because you want it. Your own words make my case: See who's president? He's AGAINST gay marriage! See who runs Congress? The vast majority are against gay marriage. The defense of marriage act was passed overwhlemingly by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat. I don't know what world you think you're living in, but if you opened the door and stepped outside the disco you'd find that the real world isn't gay and that tolerance doesn't mean approval. Gay marriage, inevitable? Voted down in almost every state, including California, one of the most liberal. The only inevitability is that there will always be sad, deluded queens who think that the world revolves around them and their silly little conceits. Rich Kane and the other gay marriage advocates, clones in your sanctimony, narcissism and stupidity.

• Edward: This might've been the stupidest comment I've yet read in this war. "Useless fucking lawsuits"?!? Man, I'm sure those coloreds really irked you with Mendez vs. Westminster, Mulkey vs. Reitman, Brown vs. Board of Education, and basically ANY move forward in American ethics. What a buffoon!

• What a lot of the anti-gay posters on this board don't get, and what will undo you eventually, is this: This isn't "your" country. You don't get to tell us what we can and cannot have and what we can and cannot do, you don't get to tell us whether or not God made us the way we are, and you don't get to inflict your interpretation of God's law on the U.S. Constitution. You think because you won this one skirmish that you DO have that right, but you're wrong. And if you want proof, take a good long look at the electoral map. See who's president? See who's running the Senate? See who's running Congress? Oops! How'd all that bullying, theocratic fascism work out for you? Beat up on gays as much as you like. But you people are, literally, dying. There aren't enough of you anymore. Your ranks are incredibly strong among people over 65 and incredibly weak among people under 40. Are you beginning to get the sense that the future is not on your side? Don't get me wrong. I'm not wishing that any of you would die. I hope you all live long enough to see this ugly anti-gay hatred you hold so dear turn you into the completely marginalized relics you deserve to become. Love, Mark

• The people have'nt spoken? We did in 2000 and now again in 08. Enough of this fucking bullshit!. You want to be together, Fine, Whatever, If you went about it the right way, It could MAYBE happen. Going behind the citizens backs with these usless fucking lawsuits, Are not helping your cause. Get of your ass and write an initiative and lets vote on it. A judge ain't gonna change it this time!

• Gay marriage is inevitable. Inevitable. Inevitable. Inevitable. Love, me

• Sexual Know Nothings can join Mexican Know Nothings in living in their fantasy world. Pendejos.

• African-Americans voting for Obama voted for Prop 8 in huge numbers, over 70% voting "yes." In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if their high turnout is what put the measure over the top. I wonder if Is this the elephant in the room all the liberals screeching about Mormon interference, of all things, are too cowardly to discuss?

• This article is full of Cowshit. Wops, you may prefer Bullshit.

• Masonic temple rituals exposed ohhh I mean Mormon temple rituals exposed here... http://www.lds-temple.org

• LDS people thought blacks were cursed but, changed there mind as time went on. LDS people thought you should marry multiple woman but changed there mind as time went on. I denounce any past,present or future involvement with this hyprocritical cult. Hey, church stay out of politics. The church is disgusting and wrong...go to this site to know the truth http://www.lds-temple.org/1990temple.mp3

• Like when Brokeback Mountain didn't get the Oscar which its fans insisted THEY deserved, now the queens are screeching about the "hate bill" and the "tyranny of the majority," those bigots who denied us our weddings. No, there will NOT be the gay holocaust you've predicted. Domestic partnership is still reality, gay sex is still decriminalized, additional rights remain specified by different communities. And Girls, you can still hold that wedding you've dreamed of since you were little boys. We homosexuals have won all the rights we need to lead happy, dignified lives. Well, except for the fact that, being terminal drama queens, we have to keep ourselves center stage in our own show, the continuing drama of gay marriage, with ourselves the stars. After the AIDS drama, and the Laurence v Texas drama, both of which were triumphs, after Matt Shepherd gave us our universal martyr.... We still won't shut up. No, WE WANT MARRIAGE! Why? If we were for a moment honest with ourselves, no good reason. We still can get all the rights we need without it. But we want it. Why? Because marriage itself is our right! You know, the self-evident kind, the one that says We want it, because, well, We want it! And if we don't get it, then we'll be mad and sad and we'll pout and stomp our feet. But will not getting it change a thing in our lives? Really? Well, no more than the toy we can't have or the gown we can't wear, the way we can't get. Whaaaaaaa!!! Which is exactly what happened after Brokeback Mountain and is exactly what's happening after Prop 8. You girls have been on stage since Stonewall and AIDS and Act Up and Gay Pride, and now reasonable, NON-HATING people have decided that that's far enough and that, No, you can't appropriate and redefine an inherently heterosexual institution, with your flaky, self-serving, deceitful arguments. Rich Kane threatens, "We'll be baaaaack." That means those of his ilk, the screechers, the drama queens, the histrionics the insulting, the tarring of opponents as bigots and haters will continue. Yes, the arrogant, overweening, self-dramatizing gay marriage advocacy refuses to give it a rest, take their past triumphs, go home and GET A LIFE. In the words of the sorely missed and rare voice of gay reason, Randy Shilts, "The band plays on," because the cast can't bring themselves to leave the stage of the Chorus Line they've produced for themselves and to which through the years they've become hopelessly addicted -- Judy and Marlene and Edith, the tragi-comic heroines of their own show -- what the French call, "travesties." What I call, terminal narcissists. And that's all gay marriage is: the fancy, by some gays and lesbians, of playing house like they did as infants. But they can't play homosexual house in the world of grown ups, so instead of moving on, they whine and throw tantrums. And because, to give the devil his due, Dick Cheney is right in calling us a nation of whiners -- that we are an infantilized society -- these gay marriage whiners feel empowered. Which I suppose will fuel their continuing noisome presence in the years to come. Gay marriage: the trivial has become a moral crusade. A fatuous age indeed!

• stop comparing being gay to racial issues. Gay is not the same as being black. God made me black he didn't make you gay!! It's not the same! Stop comparing my black experience to you gay experience!! It minimizes the black experience. Stop using us to legitimize your life.

• Uh, Mormons.....WE'RE NOT READY TO PLAY NICE. Perhaps you "YES-to-HATE" folks need to experience some of the pain, trauma, and suffering the LGBT community experiences as a result of their legal assault on our FAMILIES. Oh no...I'm not suggesting ________ , but I do like the idea of having a Mormon's wedding and/or reception crashed or punk'd: The male pianist who suddenly goes into a rendition of WE SHALL OVERCOME during the bridal march as his male page-turner (lover) deep-kisses him. The photographer who "accidentally" loses all wedding portraits. The baker who "accidentally" spills garlic in the wedding cake. The protesters dressed as circus clowns who suddenly appear as the bride and groom exit the church. Oh - I could go on, but then I'd just seem EVIL. But you know what? Just try to have a wedding without a gay person being involved....it's not like we EVER sing, play the piano or organ, bake wedding cakes, take photographs, cater receptions, make wedding gowns, or anything you'd actually care about...

• Coming from the right - it is not about gays it is about a �bible based� theology defending a God ordained covenant from thousands of years ago. Semantics ��..not hate! God has defined the institution of marriage in scriptures long before we where an arrogant country with lawyers etc. You �no on 8� group are looking more and more evil by your response and post election antics. The true issue is between church and state and marriage is a �church thing�. Let it rest � the theological semantics of saying your married is more of an attack on scripture than it is on the people that �try� to follow it. For Christians this is not an issue of judgment - it is an issue of a forced theological defense and it will only drive us apart and force us to fight. Best regards Tim

• To the group of Know Nothings (not Mark)who suddenly splurted up on this blog in the past hour (re-directed from the Reg blogs, apparently): I'm sure your next move will be to amend the state Constitution to outlaw divorce - which affects children in a very real way, far more than any perceived threat a pair of married same-sex adults do . . . What do your gay and lesbian friends think about your POVs? Ahhh, right - you don't have any . . . Gay marriage - like interracial marriage before it - is inevitable, and there is nothing the fundies can do to stop it . . .

• I can't believe any credible newspaper allows a homofascist pig like you to write a column. The bottom line is that you have a problem with living in a free country with a democratic form of government. You want to force your perverted views of marriage on the rest of the population, I suggest you get ready to pick up a gun and fight a civil war. Because many of us have NO intention of living in a judicial dictatorship run by homofascist.

• yes on 8 is about common sense ... men are not meant to be with other men ... women are not meant to be with other women ... children are not physically made in those types of relationships ...marriage is about biological truths ... man is meant to be with a woman ... a woman is meant to be with a man ...

• Jeff, the "will of the people" isn't intended to strip minorities of rights they deserve. That's what's known as the tyranny of the majority, and it's completely the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be. One reason we have courts is to protect minorites against the will of the people when the people are bigots and fools. We will try again, and we'll win. And "deal with it" is the last refuge of a bully who doesn't have a real argument to make..

• San Francisco probably shouldn't have forced this issue because it's caused a backlash against the homosexual marriage movement across the whole country. Currently Americans simply don't see this as a civil rights issue and aren't willing to treat it as one. I'm not sure if that pervasive feeling will ever change or not, but certainly it looks like pushing this issue - at least in this decade - is more counter-productive than not. California may have just barely passed its own marriage protection amendment, but most states have passed similar constitutional amendments handily. Now almost every state in the union has specifically precluded homosexual marriage. What is more, the trend is for states to strengthen (not back away from) those protections where they already exist, for example by placing them in-constitution where before they were just on the law books. It's silly to suggest that the country is trending towards changing its mind on this issue when really the San Francisco bay area is pretty much out there on its own on this one. Sure, judges are sticking their necks out here and their, but the people are chopping those necks off left and right as soon as they get to the pools.

• yall lost, get over it, try again if you like, but the will of the people have spoken, the state constitution has been changed. Now suck it up and deal with it.

• Hey Joe Blow, If you don't care one way or another whether gays can marry (more than fine by me) then you could have at least voted "no" in order to try to give people the option of making their own choice. With what was clearly going to be an extremely tight margin, your decision to abstain from making a decision on this point was a de facto vote to support the elimination of the option completely. And Rich is right, this is going down. If not now, then soon. What a shameful, shameful decision on the part of many Californians who I believe shall one day be viewed in much the same light as we now view people who were/are against interracial marriage.

• Publius: First Pistons election night...and LAST. But let's get together and do lunch again sometime! Ellen: Thanks, yerwelcome!

• Good post, Rich!

• Don't forget that a few million ballots are still sitting in county clerk's offices around the state waiting to be signature verified and opened. My hunch is that it will tighten in the next few days. The people who procrastinate and mail their ballots at the last minute or turn them in on election day have proven to be politically different from those who mail them in early. What's up with some CA counties refusing to perform same gender marriages already, BEFORE the election results have been certified? And Election Night at Pistons, Rich, now that's a first!

• by any means necessary; seriously, fuck the will of the people. they've are wrong more often than they are right. these is is a human rights issue. and by the way.. WTF with all you weekly people living and/or hanging out in the LBC?

• I never doubted you were a nut job but seriously is it had not passed by 51% you would be happier than a pig in s**t give me a break. Oh and by the way I don't care either way if gays can marry, I didn't vote on this prop because I don't care one way or the other.

TotalComments: 52