Mother Jones - Comments for "Anti-Gay Measures Victorious Nationwide"

By the way non-gay people, the ultimate agenda of these religious Xian soldiers is to 1. make ALL abortion illegal.
2. Define ANY form of family planning, including the PILL, condoms, and probaly coitus interuptus as ABORTION and hence illegal. Bring back "stoning to death" as a form of capital punishment. In short, you short-sighted people, they want to run YOUR life and take away YOUR rights NEXT!.

I donate to several activist groups. Each donation card says that since the group seeks to change laws, my donation is not tax-deductible.

The Morman and Catholic(a church which can NEVER resist trying to control governments) churches poured big money into Calif. to deny gay rights, they should lose ALL tax-exemptions, from proptery taxes, to IRS taxes. You wanna play, you gotta pay!!!

There was a time when Catholics had no voting rights in both the colonies and in England. And Mormons were burned out of their towns, Perhaps that was a GOOD THING.

So many issues to comment on here...First, it just goes to show why Prop 8 passed when there are is much ignorance, misinformation and simple bigotry even in the posts of readers of a hallmark of liberalism, such as MoJo.

Ira C's Freudian rant, Vasu Murti's comment, "Conservatives do have a point, however, when they argue that if we legalize same-sex marriages, what's to stop us from legalizing incest or polygamy?" and DY Foley's common misunderstanding about the nature of marriage.

Enough has been said about the whole Freudian thing. In a nutshell, APA removed homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM back in 1973 and other similar remnants in 1983.

Vasu Muri seems to be supportive but has fallen for the straw man argument so often presented by conservative homophobes. We say there is no reason to prevent two consenting adults from legally marrying each other and they fight back by saying society must be saved from everything from incest, pedophilia, and bestiality to the fall of the church. The other point made in Muri's post is that the definition of marriage should not be changed simply for the sake of PC. Food for though, marriage has been in a constant state of flux and has taken many forms throughout the world. Here in the US, it has been used as a means of uniting property, wealth and power; to ensure a male centric bloodline; inclusive of polygamy until 1878. Even the notion of marriage has changed as it wasn't always about virtuous things such as love. That's a notion that came to be as recently as the 20th century.

But even with all of that revelation, we have to understand the concept of marriage in the West is not one institution but two and here we hit on DY Foley's comment. Not ONE of the 50 states or the US Federal Government recognizes the institution of religious marriage. Only civil marriage is recognized. While we allow ministers, rabbis, priests and other clergy to act as officiants in a wedding, they aren't necessary. A Justice of the Peace, a deputy to the clerk of courts or a friend (most cities and states have a way of deputizing someone for a day so a friend or relative can officiate your wedding) can marry someone as well. It's why the church cannot marry you until you have the civil marriage license and why they all say "by the authority invested in me by the state of _____, I now pronounce you husband and wife." It's the right of CIVIL marriage we are looking to obtain. There are plenty of churches willing to marry Queer couples and there won't be a mad dash to Catholic churches, Mormon churches or Orthodox temples when our rights are granted.

Incidentally, the reason "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are unacceptable is that they are not equal. Neither in the rights they afford couples, the robust nature of the wedding bond in a court of law (for example with property rights, blood relatives have a better chance of successfully claiming rights to an estate left to the surviving partner in a CU or DP than a wedded spouse) nor in status and acceptance. CU's and DP's will always be seen as "less than."

The only right and wrong is people trying to control the lives of those they don't agree with. Black people of all should empathize with that. I don't buy the racial or religious part of this controversy.

From another viewpoint, with the overpopulation in the world and the inherent problems this is causing and will continue to cause, people should welcome gay marriages which do not contribute to overpopulation. Perhaps we should put a proposition on the ballot banning bearing of more than two children or heterosexual marriages leading to children. Perception is everything - and my perception is that bearing more than two children is irresponsible in this world of increasing population, compeition for resources and wars to gain territory and resources for a surplus population. Continuing this kind of behaviour in societies will lead at some point to annihilation of the human race and/or Draconian policies to stop reproduction.

Humans cannot seem to get past the shortsightedness of their own prejudices and will destroy themselves in the process.

75% of Black women in California voted YES on 8. We are not wrong. You people are the true racists.

Social progress doesn't happen overnight. Opponents of Prop 8 sent out an e-mail with the subject header reading: "We Will Not Give Up".

Part of the e-mail reads:

"Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn't a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

"Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history."

As Morrissey says, "These things take time."

Social progress doesn't happen overnight. Opponents of Prop 8 sent out an e-mail with the subject header reading: "We Will Not Give Up".

Part of the e-mail reads:

"Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn't a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 ? passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

As Morrissey says, "These things take time."

Social progress doesn't happen overnight. Opponents of Prop 8 sent out an e-mail with the subject header reading: "We Will Not Give Up".

Part of the e-mail reads:

As Morrissey says, "These things take time."

Can't a legal marriage be performed by any so called minister and aren't there plenty of people capable and willing to become "ministers"? - I understand it is as easy as getting a driving license, can even be done by mail. (Another lucrative business if there isn't one already - a correspondance school for wanna be preachers who specialize in gay marriage ceremonies.) Since ministers function in a religious capacity and religion is based on one person or group loving to tell people what to do and getting paid for it, and most ministers will do anything (except physical labor) for money, I can't help but believe there are plenty of people who would jump on this lucrative bandwagon. Get mail order minister rights from several state, and travel from state to state with a little advance publicity -- like flyers dropped from small planes like fruit pickers were solicited to come to CA during the depression (no pun intended) and perform hundreds of gay marriages in one day like Vegas. Then tell the IRS and the insurance companies to go piss up a rope.

And by the way -- In 2000 2.9 million Californians voted against discrimination towards LGBT people and against Prop 22; today, at least 5 million Californians voted to reject discrimination and Prop 8. Change IS already here, and the shift will continue as the dinosaurs die out - in the words of Gavin Newsome "Whether you like it or not." It's about time.

I stood on the corner with my NO sign several times, amidst 25-50 Mormons who were assigned a corner, dates and times, provided with t-shirts, and signs by their church. Additionally, they had cars assigned to drive by and honk. This info came from one of them who was pretty proud of it. The CA campaign was funded by out of state interests who hired evil campaign strategists who exploited the fear that is so prevelent in our society today. Lost your job and can't pay the mortgage? Can't put food on the table? Well, at least you can protect your children from the "evil gays."

I'm jazzed to see Obama won and history is made, but am saddened by the loss on many of the propositions including 1a, 7, and 10 but am especially troubled by the passing of prop 8.

To me, a yes on 8 was a yes on hate. It's as if we straights said, 'sure we believe in equality for all citizens, but us straights are more equal than you gays.' It smacks of George Orwell's book Animal Farm with their seven commandments including the seventh one that started out as "All animals are created equal" but by the end of the book was modified to read "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others" and creates terms like "animal hero first class" as opposed to "second class."

It seems the majority or powerful within every society finds a way to justify its dominance over the minority. The ultra conservative religious right-winged republicans are great for placing these hurtful wedge issues on our ballots just to get out the vote. Makes me wonder why I call myself a Christian. Maybe I should reject Jesus as son of God and as my savior in favor of God above all because Jesus would not foster hate like the Christians are doing, and thus, if they are false then maybe so is their Lord. Being a deist (like our founding fathers) has the added benefit of no longer violating God's first commandment.

While I don't pretend to understand homosexuality, I'm less threatened by it than I am by those who protect pedophiles. I'm a fairly tolerant guy but I see no reason to tolerate hate, much less to support it. It appears Christianity is evolving into hate.

"...then you to will know the many blessing that sharia law brings to all." Max

Please put your sharia where the sun doesn't shine, sideways.

If you choose to submit to an idea, that's your right and privilege. I choose not, and that is my right and privilege.

And you and I, like Ozymandias, will soon be gone and all our choices dust.

I see too many racist posts here against Black people. Muslims are against homosexuality plain and simple. Obama also believes that marriage is like what the Christian Bible states, between a man and a woman. Anymore whining about this is divisive and it must stop. The people have spoken. In Europe, sharia law is spreading, soon to come to a state near you too and then you to will know the many blessing that sharia law brings to all.

The real problem is: do we have the right to impose our personal morals upon our fellow human beings? I think not. Therefore: live and let be. If gay marriage is against our morals: no one ever kept us from choosing someone of the opposite sex. As for incest: this is harmful to the minor involved and also harmful to the potential off spring. Therefore it should be forbidden. As for polygamy: not my cup of tea. But if all parties involved agree: why not? It works in some parts of the world.
The emotions aroused by Obama's election can only be compared with the emotions in Europe after World War II. Free at last! The racial war in the US is finally over. It is about time to settle some other issues. Isn't freedom the national goal?