rmc says:

As long as the fundamentalist Christian dogma is allowed to affect policy, citizens will never be on equal footing.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 11 2008 @ 8:39AM

Lew says:

While your points are well made, the eternally dismal tone in your articles remind me very much of...a Republican. I mean, every damn thing you write is angst-ridden and, in general, condemning of anything with which you don't agree. Lighten up, Alice. Straight folks aren't all SOBs, and perhaps you should have spent more time campaigning in CA to help on the Prop vote. Or, you could just write about your anger and blah, blah, blah.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 11 2008 @ 2:24PM

Scott Lindsley says:

This Prop 8 issue is another example of the recent method of 'Might Makes Right' politics in America. Foisted, this time, by the straight and intolerant SOB's in and around California (I'm sure each of them are very nice people in person, eh Lew?).

This is, of course, due to the over emphasis on the idea of 'Democracy' and the under emphasis on the broader, less bumper sticker friendly concept of our system of government which was designed to be a Constitutional Democracy (Or Constitutional Republic).

A simple mob rule democracy is when two wolves and one sheep vote on what is for dinner, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.

And in response to Lew, who is ironically unhappy about your being unhappy about Prop 8, being upset about injustice, regardless of the angle, is a good thing.

Pray that when they come for the straight white dweebs there will be someone left to stand up for them too.

Peace!

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 11 2008 @ 4:43PM

Debbie Porter says:

I think the proponents of Proposition 8 were voting on whether or not CHURCHES should acknowledge same sex marriages instead of whether or not the STATE should.

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 11 2008 @ 5:19PM

Jake says:

I wish I could vote for gay rights, but I don't have that freedom. But I always wonder: if a person is raised in a non-hetero household, will they grow-up any differently than had they grown-up in a "normal" household? Not that I'm anti-gay, I've always been pro-gay, but I wonder

Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 11 2008 @ 5:41PM

Scott in Seattle says:

Domestic partnerships are already recognized in CA, among many other states, so the equality in the legal sense is there. That said, who cares if someone wants to marry someone else, regardless?

To Krist's point, the only 'sanctity of marriage' is what the two in the relationship make it. If an old lady wants to marry her cat, I could care less.

Churches already have the right to decline a particular marriage.

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 14 2008 @ 7:26AM

Edward Allen says:

"Considering these real threats to marriage, it makes no sense to assault a healthy homosexual relationship. The passage of Prop. 8 is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority". Homosexuality is "unhealthy" and "unnatural" and it is an offense to any sane mind to even consider marriage between two men or women. Marxism must destroy all sense of normalcy and homosexual same sex marriage is being used as a tool to achieve that objective as well as destroy the family which is another plank of the "Communist Manifesto". Homosexuality may be normal to you Jack but in reality it's a mental illness. I believe live and let live but don't assault me with your warped Communist idiology. So I applaud the great American's that defended our Republic in Cali., Arizona and Florida by defending marriage and our Country against Communism. The war for freedom and individual sovereignty is only begining with the selection of Barack Hussein Obama or as he's refered to by friends, Barry. Show us the birth certificate. Long Live the Republic!!!

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 14 2008 @ 12:52PM

milos jefferson III says:

I'm of the opinion that if you have a problem with homosexuality, than marry someone of the opposite sex. Experience suggests that if nature or the creator has issue with something - they stop making it. Many of these 'issues' have their roots in economics, not morality. As a species, we are struggling with the excess of success - a few thousand years ago, the situation was much different.

and I don't care whether Eleanor Rigby really existed or not - either way, it's an incredible song...

-- let's chat

Posted On: Monday, Nov. 17 2008 @ 6:16AM

Tessa says:

Nice to hear a straight man comfortable enough with himself to be able to discuss what the real issue here is. Being gay does not make you dysfunctional. Prop 8 is an injustice, but I do not believe it will stand. I hope that change does come as Barack promises.

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 20 2008 @ 10:34AM

Jack says:

I legally married my partner in California August 1. I was active in the no on Proposition 8 campaign. I'm not going to let some religious nuts take my rights away and neither should you. The Mormons put millions of dollars into the Yes on 8 campaign. I say tax the church when they get into politics!!!! And homosexuality is not a mental illness Mr.Allen you don't know of what you speak!!!

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 27 2008 @ 12:27PM

Tori_Fox-Hunter says:

Krist has things entirely backwards. Prop 8 came about precisely to combat judicial usurpation and the tyranny of a cultural minority.

First of all, there are three things that need to be distinguished here: biological sex (male and female), gender (masculine or feminine) and sexuality (hetero- or homo-, etc.). The notion that marriage discriminates against self-identified "homosexuals" is simply absurd. No one in this country posseses a single right by virtue of self-identifying as "heterosexual". In other words, neither "heterosexuals" nor "homosexuals" are legal persons in any sense. (Not only is there no scientific evidence demonstrating that "homosexuality" is biologically innate, there is no evidence indicating that "heterosexuality" is innate either.) Biological sex (male or female) is the relevant category: No male (whether self-identifying as "hetero-" or "homo-") has the right to marry a person of the same sex; no female has a right to marry a person of the same sex. That's simply what "marriage" means, and has meant for thousands of years, long before the concepts of "heterosexuality" or "homosexuality" ever came into existence in the late 19th century. Hence, there can't possibly be any discrimination on the basis of "sexuality". (And if you think there is, show me the state where a "heterosexual" male is allowed to marry another male.)

Obviously, then, the issue centers around how marriage itself is defined. Is it a union of one male person and one female person (as every legal system in the US has held until some recent activist judges took it upon themselves to issue a redefinition), or is it a union of any abstract person with any other abstract person? Whatever the answer, Courts themselves aren't authorized to make this decision -- because they're there to interpret laws rather than make them. Only the people or a legislature can legally define (or redefine) marriage. That's the judicial usurpation that a majority of CA voters shot down with Prop 8.

Now, let's be clear about this: "sexuality" is a category that gets thrown around a lot by the discourses of marketing, psychiatry, pornography and sexology. It is a very widely deployed concept. But that doesn't make it a LEGAL concept. And self-identifying as "gay" or "straight" doesn't obligate anyone else to recognize you as such. Krist refers to himself as a "heterosexual". Fine. But this isn't a legal category, and I'm under no obligation to consider him "legally" heterosexual. And he's certainly not at liberty to label me as "heterosexual" or what not. His hidden assumption is that we possess compulsory public sexualities. We don't. Which leads into the cultural tyranny exercised by gay activists who claim that we do.

It's beyond dispute that a vast majority of marketing and media ideology is suffused with heterosexual libidinal mechanisms. Sex sells and is probably the most widespread method of consumer manipulation and purchase triggering. If heterosexual lust is ok as a marketing apparatus, gay activists feel, then shouldn't homosexuality also be ok as a public ideology?

The key ambiguity is the word "public". An informal public economic mechanism is not necessarily a formal legal mechanism. What gay activists want to do is elevate an informal economic mechanism (which isn't binding on everyone) into a formal legal one (which is binding on everyone). In other words, everyone will be obligated to legally acknowledge homosexuality as constituting a public legal identity.

I know it's been trendy for some time to be in favor of "gay rights", but being "hip" doesn't actually amount to reasoning. If Krist can't see the cultural, economic and political confusion involved when a cultural and marketing minority tries to force everyone else to treat it as a legal entity, he should really sit down and try to think things through again.

Best,

Posted On: Thursday, Nov. 27 2008 @ 3:26PM

Verna says:

Some of these comments scare me. "Homosexuality is a mental illness". What about homophobia? Prop.8 is an example of why religion should never get a hand in government.

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 28 2008 @ 11:46AM

Jack says:

Massachusetts and Conneticut allow gay marriage. And New York recognizes same-sex couples married elsewhere. Even Canada and the Netherlands allow gay marriage. In 20 year(I hope less)people will be saying "can you believe that once people thought it was not ok for people of the same sex to marry". The only reason people really care about it is relgion. Separation of church and state meant something to our founding fathers and we should not forget that. People in Califorian had the right to marry someone of the same sex and then a church from another state puts millions of dollars into a campaign to take away that right. I was legally married and I am not going to let some religious nuts take away that right. Just think how you would feel if that happened to you?

Posted On: Friday, Nov. 28 2008 @ 11:05PM

Robin says:

It is not a 'trend' to support human rights.

Recognizing the right of consenting adults to marry each other does not threaten my own sexuality.

It was not gays who had caused my parents to divorce, they grew and changed as people--because they are people.

And the people behind proposition 8 and other anti-same sex marriage measures are merely using 'protect traditional marriage' as a shield to avoid having to deal with their own sexual issues. After all, a return to real traditional marriage would then have to ban.

1)Heterosexual no-fault divorce
2)The right of anybody (including myself) with epilepsy to get married. Our bans were only lifted in 1982!
3)Interracial Marriage
Interreligious Marriage.

This does not sound like the type of America which I want to live in--or raise future children in either.

Posted On: Saturday, Nov. 29 2008 @ 7:59AM

Dave says:

I voted to keep marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. There are "legal" reconized unions of individuals already-(man to man and woman to woman and anything else I guess will go until it gets to man to boy or to name your animal) So what rights are "being taken away" by saying and keeping the term marriage 1 man and 1 woman? I have yet to hear what rights were taken away! As for if Prop. 8 had failed churches would have surely been sued by the ACLU and or Gays for not wanting to live up to their regilous beliefs of 1 man and 1 woman to be called marriage and refuse to "marry" any other combination of humans or species. Where will it all stop, When an 30 year old man wants to marry a 12 year old boy? I gues that might fix the prison population in Ca. !

Posted On: Friday, May. 29 2009 @ 12:32PM

Joe says:

Pedifiles wanted it to pass! They should be able to marry (molest) andy one they want!

Posted On: Friday, May. 29 2009 @ 12:39PM