I'm getting a little tired of these preachy columns about gay marriage (see Emily Glauser's from last quarter). Nice tag, by the way--if everyone who's against gay marriage is not "sane," we better make some room in the mental ward for Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and--oh, that's right, EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT, including the ones you apparently voted for.

But yes, I'm also sick of these assholes who have been married two-plus times (Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc.) babbling about "the sanctity of marriage." I live in DC right now, know people who work on Capitol Hill, and half the people pushing an extreme anti-gay agenda are married men who are fucking everyone under the sun. I wonder if Bill Clinton had Monica between his knees as he signed the Defense of Marriage Act? Just sayin.

this is the second time in the past few years that the people of California have spoken in favor of banning gay marriage. Unless democracy is no longer justifyable, you need to accept that even in California the will of the people is to pass proposition 8.




get over it.

KonigHund, minority rights are just as integral to the effectiveness and greatness of democracy as majority rule. Just because a slim majority (that is growing slimmer everytime this is taken to a vote) were scared into voting for Prop 8 by people telling them their kids were going to be indoctrinated with the "gay agenda" in schools doesn't mean that gays should just "get over it." It means they should fight even harder to achieve equality. THAT'S the beauty of democracy, the freedom to protest the tyranny of the majority.

Denim,
There have been several issues put up before the voters allowing the chance for gay marriage to be put into law. This is how the minority gets a chance to argue their case and make the changes thye believe are better for all as a whole. In this case, the gay marriage amendment has been brought to the voters of California, and they, in a free, democratic election, spoke quite clearly. Unless they were holding guns to the voters heads, I highly doubt anyone was 'scared' as you put it into votin one way or another. They can try again in 2 years during the next election to try to pass another gay marriage amendment. But for this period of time, the people have spoken, and the will of the people must be acknowledged by all on both sides of the issue.

I don't think you understand.

A minority opinion can never win a vote. That's why it's a minority opinion.

Whether they're allowed to argue their case is immaterial. If they can sway the majority to respect their rights as a minority, then that is all fine and dandy but more often than not, they cannot. When interracial marriage bans were overturned it was not through the ballot, it was through the courts, because at that time the majority opinion was against interracial marriage. Today, if it were taken to a vote, the minority of people who wish to marry interracially would very easily sway the majority to their side because we live in a society that accepts that (as it should).

Today we obviously do not live in a society that accepts gay marriage. But why should gays have to wait and wait and wait for the times to change? You should not have to convince someone that you have a right to something. You should not have to turn out enough votes to have a right to something. That isn't fair.

And when I talked about voters being scared into voting Yes on Prop 8, I was refering to the ads and other information put out by the Yes on 8 campaign to convince parents that if they didn't vote Yes, their kids would be indoctrinated with "gay ideas" in school. That they would be taught about gay marriage. Many people who weren't bothered by gay marriage felt threatened that the issue was going to be shoved onto their family's plate and that they were going to have to handle it at home.

Saying that the will of the people must be acknowledged by all on both sides is just unfair. By that logic, abolitionists should have never worked to free slaves. They instead should have just kept putting the issue up for a vote every few years. It is useless to sit around waiting for 2 years before you get your chance to fight for your rights again. Gays should use every avenue available to them to have these ridiculous laws overturned.

Did you seriously just say that this is a preachy column Ashley? Because I'm pretty sure EVERY single one of your columns are preachy-right-wing-I-want-to-be-the-next-Ann-Coulter trash that has EVER been on The Post.

So not only has chicagobobcat admitted to being a loser who has to work at Borders long after graduating college, but he doesn't even read Herzog's columns.

https://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Columns/2008/11/12/26371/

^Not Ann Coulter.

Go back to your 8 dollar per hour job ya loser.

Love ya ASH

Unlike some, I plan on paying my way through college and law school. So while I work at Borders, I am only a Junior in college and therefore cannot get a much better job. I'm sorry that I can't take mommy and daddy's money whenever I want

Well this went and got stupid really fast.

to get back on topic, I submit the one man who is feared by the boogeyman and all things communist...

CHUCK NORRIS! and his thoughts on the pro-proposition 8 hypocricy

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81195

Why is this an issue?

I don't understand why this gets people so heated.

If you don't support gay marriage, don't have one. We're not talking about an issue where one party is incapable of defending itself. I mention this only for those slippery-slopers who insist that this is the first step in people marrying animals and vegetables.

We are talking about two, consenting adults trying to take an emotional bond and turn it into a legal one.

This should be a simple thing. Two people want to get married. They swap rings. They say I do. Ta Da!

I feel sorry for the gay community in that they have to sit back and watch straight people make a mockery of marriage, abusing the privilege in extremely public settings (Britney Spears' annulment, anyone?) while they are forced to obey the ruling of others.

How is it that people who are not gay have a say in this argument? The only people I think that should be ALLOWED to vote on this are people who are either gay, or an immediate family member of someone who is gay. If the community involved who is actually feeling the results of the measure decide against it, then no- there shouldn't be any gay marriage. But I don't think that's the case.

If we are simply maintaining long-standing traditions, as the all-knowing and wise adviser Chuck Norris claims opponents to gay marriage are, then we should still have slaves. We shouldn't have any women in any position of power outside of the kitchen. We shouldn't let folks of another race use the same bathroom or water fountains as those in the majority. We should all hate the Jews. Men should keep their hair short. No work should be done on Sundays. Men shouldn't trim the sides of their beards. We shouldn't play football, as it involves touching the dead skin of a pig. We shouldn't have pork rinds.

As time progresses, hopefully it's obvious that people become more accepting of those things that they once did not understand.

Or we can stick to our guns and let the majority have control forever.

dcdidit,

for the same reason that we have male politicians trying to tell women whether or not they should be allowed to have abortions

What about the 70 percent of blacks and 52 percent of Hispanics who voted to ban gay "marriage"? Both groups are christians who don't want gay "marriage" shoved down their throats. In fact, they're estimating that an unusually high number of black voters, who came out for Barack Obama, put Proposition 8 over the top. Let minorities vote, wind up with a gay marriage ban.

But everyone at The Post is too pussy to say that.

By the way, checkout boy, if you want abortions, we better stop Mexican immigration to this country now. They're Catholic and hate abortion.

I just checked the record. If only whites voted, there would be gay marriage in California (52 percent against the ban). And a higher percentage of blacks in California voted to ban gay "marriage" than the percentage of people who voted to ban it in the redneck states of Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas.

This also shows what a joke it is to compare gay marriage and black civil rights. Obviously blacks don't think they're comparable. I believe it was a black minister who invented the phrase "don't compare my skin to your sin."

DCDIDIT:
"The only people I think that should be ALLOWED to vote on this are people who are either gay, or an immediate family member of someone who is gay. If the community involved who is actually feeling the results of the measure decide against it, then no- there shouldn't be any gay marriage. But I don't think that's the case."

go back and read what you said. Only gay people should be allowed to vote on it? You are kidding right? that's known as mob rule. As for the second part of your statement, the people who would be effected by it, aka the people of California, did get to vote on it.
It's called Democracy, and it is what our Republic is founded on, thanks to the founding fathers in 1776.

Nice argument, dcdidit. How about this? "Only slave owners should have been allowed to decide whether slavery should be legal."

Of course, if you really must compare dcdidit's argument to slavery, the more correct analogy would be that only slaves should have been allowed to vote on it. I'm not saying that this statement makes any more sense than the first, but the point is, an oppressed minority should have control over its own liberation.

I think the overall point is that dcdidts argument does not make sense when looked at logically. both ougrad2003 and eosborne are correct.

I'm really so sick of hearing about how blacks and latinos voted in higher numbers for Prop 8. Do you realize you sound like you're incinuating that they voted that way because they're black or latino?

The NAACP never got up and told its members to vote against Prop 8. They didn't dump millions onto the Yes on 8 campaign. There wasn't an concerted effort to sway either of those racial groups to vote one way or another. It just sadly happened. There's no way to find a face of the black or latino yes on 8 campaign. Who would you protest? How do you try to convince them otherwise? You can't go down to the First National Church of Black People and protest. Because there isn't one.

Saying "if only whites voted there'd still be gay marriage in California" makes no sense. If you can show that had blacks and latinos voted in PROPORTION to whites then gay marriage would still be legal, that would be a point worth making.


But I have to admit saying that only gays should vote on the issue is pretty stupid.

Let's back up, find a statement we can all agree on, and reason our way from there. How 'bout this:

Issues which affect an entire population should be voted on, and until a more effective means of consensus building can be achieved, majority rule must be the standard for this type of voting. Issues which affect only a minority, and can be dealt with without affecting the majority need not and should not be voted on. This would allow one group to determine the fate of another without repercussions for itself, and is therefor undemocratic.

Everyone in agreement at this point?

The heart of the issue then, is whether or not allowing same-sex marriages will have any negative effect on the general population. The opposition to gay marriage falls into two categories - that it should be illegal because God says it is wrong, and that it should be illegal because it will have detrimental effects on society as a whole. The former has no place in a multicultural democracy. The latter, while I completely disagree with it, is legitimate grounds for putting up a vote.

Here is where the discourse breaks down. On one side, that of the slim majority that supports prop 8, there are two rationales - one grossly undemocratic (in my opinion) and the other democratic, but misguided (in my opinion). The other side is significantly more united in its reasoning - that gay marriage will not harm society - and therefor believes that the vote should not have been taken at all. This isn't black and white; there are no fewer than three parties arguing, each with an entirely different set of values and criteria.

With this in mind, arguing over majority rule will get us nowhere, so here is where the discourse needs to take place. Would the legalization of same-sex marriages have any detrimental effect on the general American population? Are those who say no justified in appealing to non-democratic means? If gay marriage is not dangerous, are those still opposed justified in appealing to democratic means? When America gets its shit together on these questions, then we'll be getting somewhere.

ok, lets get this out in the open... Justin Joo (may I call you JJ for ease of writing) has written a great article pulling on the heartsrings about how "it isn't fair!"

But what if the 14 words in prop 8 only regurgitate a law already in existence in California? If it is not a new bold attack on a group, but an addendum to seal a loophole to stifle confusion?
SO, here is what the bills actually say and what their power really is. You are claiming it takes away rights, when all it does is solidify a law that has been on the books since 1977.
Proposition 22 was a 14 word addition to the original bill which would merely close a loophole. In California law it was already on the books that marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman. So what you are protesting is a law that is already in existence.
When Prop 22 came before voters, California Civil Code section 300 defined marriage as:
“a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. “
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:
“A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. “
Advocates of Prop 22 described section 308 as a "loophole," apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state. After passage, Prop 22 added a new section, codified at section 308.5, that reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. “ which, btw, is the exact same wording of the original, prop 22. What both 22 and 8 do is make sure another state cannot force California to accept outside decisions. Contrary to popular fear-mongering, no rights are taken away by the bill. Why should Massachusetts dictate California law?
What it does not do:
Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.
However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

What it does do:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved..
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

to Chicagobobcat: Please do shut the fuck up. I like how people are still selectively responding to only a few of my columns, so it doesn't interfere with their robotic, "ANN COULTER WANNABE LOL!!!1", pre-programmed responses. Go check the archives from this quarter and then come back to me, moron.

By the way, these liberal columnists are all politically correct drones. They have no courage. If they care so much about gay rights, how about they take the Democratic leadership to task for refusing to publicly support gay marriage? Quote from Joe Biden during the Vice Presidential debate:

"Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. We [Sarah Palin and I] really don't have a difference."

Oops, I think Biden just said that Barack Obama's position on gay marriage is the same as John McCain's and Sarah Palin's!

But don't expect these drones to point that out. It might hurt their pea-sized brains to blame anyone besides "religious fanatics" for gay marriage bans.

Ashley, If you really want to avoid comparisons to Ann Coulter, you really ought to stop using number one from her playbook - sweeping, illogical generalizations about fictional strawman liberals. The fact of the matter is of course, that supporters of gay marriage ARE taking the Democratic leadership to task, and Republican leadership for that matter. This really isn't an issue of political parties at all, because we realize as well as you that the two parties aren't so far apart on the issue. When Justin expressed his relief over the Obama victory, it was because of the myriad other issues that Obama stands for, not because he or any other gay rights supporters see the Democrats as a cure-all for all our problems.

So is it any wonder that he didn't bring up the fact that the Dems aren't supportive of gay marriage? Support for gay marriage is a minority opinion. We accept that. That leaves us two options. We can appeal to the supreme court, which I feel is justified by the reasoning I laid out in my last post, or we can, as konighung suggested in his second post, make our case for the next time the vote comes up.

Making our case is precisely what is going on here. I think it's rather silly that Konighund would criticize us for complaining, then invite us to make our case (did he think we would just wait patiently and hope that the next results are different?)

This is a cultural issue. Justin dealt with it on cultural terms, rather than appealing to either party. That's not cowardice, it's how you build a grassroots movement. I don't suppose you can look past partisan politics long enough to see that though. As long as you keep hurling insults, we'll keep comparing you to a certain Ms. Coulter.

I did not post that comment. It looks like someone is on my username again...

Then I do apologize for the personal remarks. The content of my argument remains the same though.

Well, I do agree that only certain groups are being targeted as "agents of hate" or whatever. NO ONE is accusing Obama of "hate," even though he said in an interview in 2004, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." He has never backed away from that position. I mean, sure, when he meets with gay-rights groups he'll talk a good line about overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and blah blah blah, but his official stance during the campaign was anti-gay marriage. Is Barack Obama hateful? Is he a homophobe? I haven't heard anyone say that--even though churches in California are being harassed for holding the exact same position.

As for gay-rights groups taking the Democrats to task: NOPE. When I was in DC, people from the Human Rights Campaign (a pro-gay marriage group) were passing out campaign literature for Obama-Biden...a few days after Biden made it clear that their position was the same as McCain-Palin's. As long as gay-rights activists are going to storm churches and put out ads showing Mormons ripping wedding rings off lesbians' fingers, how about they also have a few unkind words for anti-gay marriage Democrats?

I'll agree with that. The Dems seem to be between a rock and a hard place, sacrificing ideological consistency to avoid political suicide. In the past few decades, the they've had to avoid the hot button cultural issues since single-issue voters tend to fall right. Is it cowardly? Yes. Could they do otherwise? Not at the moment. They'll start standing up for gay rights when the portion of the population that agrees with that reaches the critical mass that will allow them to carry an election.

That means the issue at this juncture, barring supreme court intervention, the gay marriage issue is primarily a cultural one. If my side wants to win, it will mean winning over the opposition. That means engaging in vigorous discourse to dispel the myths about the supposed gay anti-family agenda. So while people like konighund cover their ears and criticize us for making a stink, you'll have to expect a lot more articles like this one in the future, not to mention more demonstrations like the ones that followed the prop 8 victory. And yes, I do hope that those articles and demonstrations start to call out the Democrats more aggressively.

Yes, I agree. Supporting same-sex marriage IS political suicide--at least for anyone who wants to get elected outside the Boston or San Fran areas. Historically, supporting civil liberties always has been politically unpopular.

As for gay marriage "destroying the family," you're also right--from what the available evidence tells us, it's just plain old bullshit. The only two states with gay marriage (Massachusetts and Connecticut) have some of the lowest divorce rates and the lowest percentages of single-parent families in the country. There are a lot of reasons for that unrelated to gay rights--a high average income, more educational attainment, etc.--but I think it's safe to say that gay marriage hasn't ruined straight marriages and straight families in those states.

Meh. If I ran this country, the entire U.S. would be governed like the state of Nevada, maybe with Texas' tax code. Lots and lots of things would be legal that aren't, including gay marriage.

On a humorous note:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Watch it.

I found some links. As of 1994, Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the US, followed by Connecticut.

http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

On the flip side, some of the states with the strictest anti-gay legislation have some of the highest divorce rates. Arkansas--which has a gay marriage ban and also just passed a ban on gay adoption--ranked second-to-last. That's incredible to me.

Of course, this list is from 14 years ago, but I think it says a lot. The most anti-gay states also appear to have huge numbers of broken heterosexual marriages.

I just wanted to swing in here and clear up a few points of discussion.

First up, I am aware of Obama/Biden's (as well as pretty much the entire Democratic party's) opinions on gay marriage. My expression of relief for Obama's election was based more on the fact that I didn't want McCain in office and less so that I wanted Obama. In my eyes, he is simply the lesser of two evils if you will.

Secondly, to those who said things like "the voters of spoken" or "this is democracy in action" etc etc, my point in the column wasn't so much the vote itself, but the mentality behind it. I feel that there shouldn't have even been a vote. That at this point in history, people should realize that gay people are threats, and a marriage between two of them won't destroy the universe and that the focus on gender over love when it comes to marriage is ruining its sanctity more than homosexuals are.

John McCain is a hero and a Great American. He spent several years locked away in a tiger cage serving our Country. Show a little respect for goodness sakes.

Looks like Obama just invited anti-gay evangelical pastor (and highly influential Prop. 8 supporter) Rick Warren to give the prayer at his inauguration. Obama could have easily chosen a more "progressive" religious leader, or at least one who isn't so vocally anti-gay, but no go. Can one of our liberal columnists write a column next quarter crying about that?

I would offer money to see one of them give up their sanctimonious attacks on "religious fanatics" and criticize Obama. Once again, he's no friend of the gay-rights movement.

sigh...
It's too late to change the decision and I don't think any more articles on this topic are necessary in the immediate future. If anyone feels the need to voice their opposition, symbolic though it may be, you can go here to sign a petition as I did:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/against-Rick-Warren