34 Comments

1. Kevin
   Posted January 6, 2011 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

   It's probably irrelevant what the people think. It's inappropriate for people to vote on the civil rights of a minority. It's better for the courts to decide what's appropriate.

2. Don
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:31 am | Permalink

   Spoken like someone whose agenda is backed by the Communist Party USA.

   "Be it further resolved that the Communist Party step up its efforts to work for full equality for LGBT people; and,"

   "Be it further resolved to establish a National Commission of the Party on the fight for LGBT rights and equality."

   "Adopted by the 28th National Convention of the Communist Party, USA, Chicago, IL; July 1-3, 2005"

3. kieran
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 2:12 am | Permalink

   Majority of people also supported slavery in the 1800s. Majority of people also supported segregation in the early 1900s. People have opinions that are funny when we look back on history; remember how much "good" Strom Thurman thought he was doing when he filibustered against the civil rights act?

   Fact of the matter is, it's not a matter for a majority to decide, because when the rights of the minority are to be protected by the majority, the minority ends up marginalized.

4. Bluprntguy
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 6:01 am | Permalink

   Wow. Using prejudice against "communists" and linking them to gays and lesbians in a transparent bid to incite more animosity and prejudice against gays and lesbians. That's classy.

   P.S. I doubt this comment will be posted as NOM censors all comments like true Americans...

5. ConservativeNY
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 6:27 am | Permalink

   Just so long as they legislate from the bench in your favor, right Kev?

6. Marty
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink

   Kevin thinks "civil rights" were carved in stone on Mt. Sinai and handed down to Moses. And they included a right to SSM apparently lolmao!

   Actually, they were proposed, enacted, and ratified by the constitutional process. In other words -- they were voted on.

7. Don
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

   Well, let's not overlook all of the contributions to our society by gay culture. There's.... um, well, there's.... Well, anyway, I'm sure that there must be some really big contributions somewhere by gay culture. Maybe murals on walls in San Francisco.

8. kieran
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

   Marty, you are aware that the Emancipation Proclaimation wasn't voted on, right? You know, not voted on, but dictated by President Lincoln?

   You do realize segregation wasn't voted on by popular vote, right? That Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ended it, declaring it unconstitutional? Sort of like how Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Yet I don't see any of you protesting Brown v. Board of Education on the basis that "It should have been voted on," or that the judges at the time were "Activist Judges".

   And Don, homosexuals have contributed much to society. Leonardo da Vinci, for example, gave us the Mona Lisa, as well as numerous scientific inventions and advancements. Amazing what you can find if you look.

9. AP
   Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

   It's no surprise that Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supports the LGBT agenda. Remember, Karl Marx said that 3 things must occur in order to create a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat . They are: 1) Breakdown of the family unit. 2) Elimination of all private property. 3) Elimination of religion, which he described as "the opiate of the masses". The LGBT agenda breaks down the family unit in many ways, and directly contradicts a majority of religions. Not only can gay people not reproduce, there are issues which create problems in many families when a person announces that he/she is of the LGBT variety. In communist countries, the only permitted religion is obedience to the state, and the LGBT agenda helps them achieve that goal.

10. Don
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Kieran:

    You do realize that African-Americans secured the right to vote through a constitutional amendment, right?

    You do realize that women secured the right to vote through a constitutional amendment, right?

    You do realize that the 14th Amendment was already in existence when African-Americans and women sought and secured constitutional amendments giving them the right to vote, right?

    You do realize that homosexuals are not seeking a constitutional amendment to secure a right to homosexual marriage, right?

    Oh, gee, Kieran, I was talking the homosexuals of today, the ones who are seeking "equality" rather than painting the Mona Lisa.

    Isn't it amazing, Kieran, how da Vinci managed to do all that he did without homosexual "marriage". Maybe we should do a study on the correlation between the absence of a homosexual "equality" cause and the contributions to society by homosexuals.

11. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    You do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation predates all of those, right?

    Homosexuals of today? Well, Elton Jon has contributed much with his music. http://www.famousandgay.com/ If you want to investigate further, since a laundry list isn't necessary. If you want to backtrack further to try and still be right, please, by any means, attempt.

12. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Even Elton John said the quest to redefine marriage was an empty goal. I had a lot of respect for him when he said that.

13. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    And also, what would a correlation do? Any good statistician knows that correlation does not equal causation.

14. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    "A June 8 article at Big Hollywood takes a closer, via Elton John, look at gays who think that marriage is a special relationship to which only mixed gender couples should be entitled, and asks whether a desire to reserve marriage for the straight majority--while denying it to gay and lesbian families--makes a person a gay-hater.

    The article begins with a quote from Elton John, explaining the singer’s view as to why voters in California repealed the then-existing right of gay and lesbian families to enter legal wedlock. "Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage," the quote reads. "I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership." Adds the quote, "Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

    The article, an opinion piece by Steven Crowder, does not address the inherent suggestion of "separate but equal" forms of legal union for gays and straights, but rather focuses on blaming "liberals" for condemning Elton John as a "hypocrite," or, as Michael Musto put it, a "whore." Crowder wrote that, "when Elton John speaks the truth, it disrupts the sensationalized narrative that the media and Hollywood have been setting for years; If you don’t support gay marriage, you must secretly despise gay people."

15. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I can find quotes from famous straight people that gay marriage should be legalized. What good does quoting someone else's opinion on this matter?

16. Don
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Kieran:

    You do realize that The Consitution itself was adopted by a majority vote, right?

    You do realize that all amendments to The Constituion were adopted by a majority vote, right?

    Well, Kieran, if the opinions of others don't matter than neither do your opinions, right?

17. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    You just reminded me how much I liked Elton John. Does his opinion bother you?

18. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Neither do yours, Don. And Don, that laid a foundation. It took a presidential decree to get black people the right to not be slaves - i.e. in order to grant a disenfranchised group of people a basic right, it took the act of one man. Not a majority vote. Don, you lose.

    TC Matthews, his opinion is his opinion. It doesn't bother me just like the opinions of heterosexual people who think gay marriage is a right don't bother you.

19. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Kieran, I love that we all have different opinions. It's what the debate is all about. Ideas. Not hate.

20. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    I should clarify, TC. I don't see the point in quoting the opinions of our arguments helps matters, since you and I can quote others until the end of days, but it proves nothing of our own ability to reason and formulate logical and cogent arguments; merely it shows are ability to quote the reasons of others verbatim without thought behind it.

21. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    opinions of others in our arguments***

22. Don
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Kieran wrote: "Don, you lose."

    Who do you think you are, Kieran, an Iowa Supreme Court judge, LOL!

    It took a constitutional amendment for African-Americans to obtain the right to vote and that amendment was voted on, right?

    It took a constitutional amendment for women to obtain the right to vote and that amendment was voted on, right?

    Homosexuals, however, are seeking to avoid trying to obtain a constitutional amendment, right? Why? Well, because, just as with a vote of the electorate, they know they can't prevail in getting two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate to propose a homosexual marriage amendment, right?

    So rather than follow the same process used by African-Americans and women to obtain the right to vote, they seek to use the courts and the 14th Amendment, right? The 14th Amendment was around before the 15th and 19th Amendments which gave African-Americans and women, respectively, the right to vote but African-Americans and women didn't attempt to get the right to vote under the 14th Amendment. Only homosexuals consider themselves so special and terminally unique that they are not compelled to follow established legal precedent, right?

    Kieran, you lose, ROFL! Just kidding. I'm not an Iowa Supreme Court judge, Kieran.

23. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    So tell me...the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to homosexuals? The constitution doesn't apply to homosexuals?

    And also, you miss the point that the Emancipation Proclamation came before the 14th Amendment (hence the legal precedent). Or the legal precedent of Brown v. Board of Education, where judges can legislate. And that it took a war to get people to change their minds regarding slavery. But, since African Americans went through it, maybe homosexuals should try and get a civil war.

    Sorry Don, your basic logic is that "other minorities went through a lot of stuff, so current minorities should have to overcome the same obstacles." Am I right?

24. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Kieran, Elton John has an opinion quite different than your own, and quite similar to mine. If he says it, it's just another differing opinion in a sea of differing opinions. If I say it, I must be full of hate? Interesting point of view. Just saying.

25. kieran
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Where did I say you must be full of hate? Now you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Just saying.

26. TC Matthews
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Glad to hear it Kieran. Glad to hear it.

27. Don
    Posted January 7, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Kieran:

    The Constitution came before the 14th Amendment, obviously, and The Constitution was adopted by a majority vote. So, the majority vote trumps everything.

    Homosexual marriage is relevant to neither The Constitution nor the 14th Amendment. There is nothing anywhere in The Constitution granting or protecting the right to homosexual marriage.

    Well, Kieran, if homosexuals want to try a civil war they should bear some facts in mind about the U. S. Civil War. The reason The Confederacy lost was that North had more men. Homosexuals constitute less than 3% of the population and heterosexuals constitute more than 97% of the population. I think you'll agree that those don't sound like good odds for a civil war.

    Kieran wrote: "Sorry Don, your basic logic is that "other minorities went through a lot of stuff, so current minorities should have to overcome the same obstacles." Am I right?"

    Nope! What I'm saying is that, first of all, a precedent for legal procedure has been set and you want disregard that legal precedent.

    Secondly, I am saying that the reason why you don't want to follow that legal precedent is because you can't get two thirds of the U. S. House and two thirds of the U. S. Senate to propose homosexual "marriage" as a constitutional amendment. If African-Americans and women could get that support for their right to vote then how is it that you can't get such support for homosexual "marriage"?

    Lastly, I'm saying that not only can you not get the necessary support from the U. S. Congress for a constitutional amendment but that also each and every time that homosexual marriage has been put to a vote it has lost.

    You don't have the support of Congress. You don't have the support of the electorate. Failing in those things you are seeking to do a contrived end run around both Congress AND the people by legislating homosexual marriage or by having judges declare it. That is NOT the democratic process and that is NOT how America and democracy work. That approach is anti-American.

28. Michael Ejercito
    Posted January 8, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    It's better for the courts to decide what's appropriate.

    Baker v. Nelson

29. Ian
    Posted January 8, 2011 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Totally expected heterosexuals would be for heterosexual-only marriage. Heterosexuals have always been about themselves, everything must be heterosexual-only or else.

30. Don
    Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Ian:

    Even if you're right, so what, LOL!

31. kieran
    Posted January 10, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    The 15th amendment was adopted by the north. Several states in the south were told to accept it or not return to the country. So your "majority" is misleading.

    And again, it took the Emancipation proclamation (not something voted on) before the 14th and 15th amendments were passed.

    Court Ruling: Goodridge v. The Department of Public health. More recent than the one you quoted of Baker v. Nelson.

    And who says Perry v. Schwarzenegger is un-American? That's awfully judgmental of you, Don. Going through the courts is a legitimate way to accomplish things related to civil rights; Courts are the third branch of government, not voters. This is not a direct democracy, where voters can decide to take away rights of others because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

32. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    LOL! It is you who are misleading, Kieran!

    You want to look at a situation where part of the U. S. declared it's withdrawal from the Union and use THAT as your case? I don't think so, LOL!

    The fact still remains that The Constitution iself was adopted by a majority vote.

    So what if it took the Emancipation Proclamation? We aren't talking about slavery. When have homosexuals ever been subject to slavery as were African-Americans?

    Kieran wrote: "And who says Perry v. Schwarzenegger is un-American? That's awfully judgmental of you, Don."

    Last I looked there were no laws prohibiting people from making a judgement.

    Kieran wrote: "Don. Going through the courts is a legitimate way to accomplish things related to civil rights"

    Oh, so now you want to play games. Your statement conveniently assumes that homosexual marriage is a "civil right", something which has yet to be determined.

    Kieran wrote: " Courts are the third branch of government, not voters."

    "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - Declaration of Independence

    "The governed" trump all branches of government and may even dissolve government and reconstitute it if they so desire. There is no authority higher than "the governed".

    Kieran wrote: "This is not a direct democracy, where voters can decide to take away rights of others because it makes them feel uncomfortable."

    Oh please, Kieran, stop with the loaded statements, will 'ya? You conveniently assume "rights" and you conveniently assume a motive of "being uncomfortable". Give it a break!

33. Marc
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Don, there is also NOTHING in the Constitution granting or protecting the rights of women.

34. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Marc:

    We aren't talking about the rights of women though, are we, We're talking about homosexual marriage.