web
counter
 

Yours Is Not a God of Love

By TK | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (118)



MormonProp.jpeg

8: The Mormon Proposition is a stirring, tragically depressing documentary about the Mormon Church’s massive efforts to support and pass California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative (also called the California Marriage Protection Act), which in 2008 redefined marriage in the state of California as being only between a man and a woman, effectively making marriage between same-sex couples illegal and unrecognized. Depending on which side of the debate you stand on, you will find it either silly and pointless, or obscenely infuriating and find yourself filled with a sense of righteous fury.

I found myself in the latter category. If you’re looking for an impartial review, I confess that you won’t find it here.

It’s an unbelievably in-depth film, covering the history of the Mormon church, a good bit of their philosophies and ideologies, and then their concentrated efforts to pass anti-marriage laws in both Hawaii and California. The film comes at the topic from several angles — from that of Spencer and Tyler, a sweet and sympathetic couple who both come from Mormon backgrounds who live in San Francisco; from Fred Karger, a reporter and political activist who does the bulk of the investigative journalism thanks to an anonymous source within the church; and from numerous fascinating interviews with current and former Mormon church members, politicians (including the current and former mayors of San Francisco), community leaders and other gay citizens and activists. It’s an engrossing, sometimes over-the-top and slightly propagandist film that achieves two unfortunate goals — it creates a sense of anger and frustration and ultimately sadness, and it gives an unprecedented look deep inside the Machiavellian undertakings of the church to force their beliefs into the lives of innocent, loving couples.

The story of Spencer and Tyler is particularly tragic, though no more so than the hundreds of other couples who woke up that morning in 2008 to find out that their marriage was no longer recognized. The film starts with interviews of them, footage of their marriage at City Hall, and then slowly creeps towards the tragically inevitable realization that Prop 8 is going to pass. Their devastation is palpable and gut-wrenching, as they sobbingly watch protests by Prop 8 supporters who hurl the vilest of epithets at them and then have to deal with the aftermath of the bill’s passing and the hideous gloating that came with it. They’re supported by Tyler’s adoring mother, but much of the rest of their family has abandoned them. I’m not the cry-at-the-movies type, but I admit that their story left my eyes a little shinier than usual.

Meanwhile, Karger vigorously investigates the church’s efforts to promote Prop 8. From creating and funding what are essentially PAC’s and ambiguously named organizations that don’t have plainly apparent links to the church, to organizing protests, to cajoling, persuading, and sometimes outright bullying parishioners to donating to the cause, they became a juggernaut of self-righteousness and bigotry, raising literally millions of dollars and mobilizing tremendous numbers nationwide, both Mormon and not, to rally for their cause. It’s all supported by documents, emails, and transcripts that Karger obtained, all showing the insidious, devious, and in many ways ingenious methodologies devised and used to achieve their goal. Adding additional weight and support to Karger’s claims are the interviews with former church members who explain the hard-fisted ways that they were pressured into helping, even when such help was beyond their means.

Coupled with this, Karger and directors Reed Cowan and Steven Greenstreet use much of the readily available marketing materials that the church created — fliers, videos, etc., all talking about how somehow gay marriage will affect the rights of regular people to free speech, free assembly, and will ultimately endanger their rights and beliefs. Much of it was crazed exaggeration. Much of it was just outright fucking lies.

Finally, the aftermath of the bill’s passing is shown, as well as statistics and demonstrations of what can only be described as a holy war on homosexuality and gay rights. Statistics and interviews about the staggering rate of suicide, drug abuse, homelessness, and prostitution among young gays, and particularly among young gays in Utah, all speak to the sad consequences of their endeavors.

In the end, of course, films like 8: The Mormon Proposition would hopefully change people’s minds by giving them a chance to see the effects of Prop 8 and the innocent lives left ruined in its wake. For those like me, it was preaching to the choir, so to speak. Because (and excuse me while I toss any semblance of impartiality out the goddamn window), Proposition 8 and this film have taught me, or rather reinforced my belief that Proposition 8 was a well-funded, well-coordinated, brilliantly organized and masterminded effort to destroy human happiness and create suffering out of its ashes. There is simply no other way for me to see it. No amount of explanation or justification or proselytizing can convince me otherwise. To try to justify it by saying it’s God’s will, or that gay marriage somehow threatens or weakens or makes illegitimate or less important your marriage is so baffling and idiotic that it makes me grind my teeth down to the roots.

I can’t imagine how I would feel if I woke up tomorrow morning to find out that through nothing but ignorance and bigotry and someone else’s beliefs, that my marriage to my wife somehow no longer was the equal of others. To take away the right to marry is not only hideously unfair, but also mindlessly and brutally cruel. It mystifies me that people can maintain that their beliefs are ones generated out of love when they’ve made a conscious decision to not only cast their vote, but to give their time and money to try to persuade others to cast their vote for a ballot initiative that serves no practical purpose other than to create misery and to take away the from people what could be the happiest moment in their life. It is one of the few times in modern American history that people have voted to remove people’s rights. It is prejudiced, viciously hateful, and unconscionable, brought upon us by a venal small-mindedness and a refusal to understand or recognize people’s humanity.

[Deep breath]

Pardon me. Things got away from me there. In any event, the sad truth is that Proposition 8 passed, and now there are people left in its wake trying to figure out what to do next. But of equal importance is to understand how and why that happened, to know and understand the gathering of ideas and minds that put a cleverly orchestrated plan into effect that led us to this place. 8: The Mormon Proposition is a heartbreaking film that exposes some very real and frightening truths, but also helps people come to grips with those realities, and teaches them to dust themselves off and get back in the fight.

8: The Mormon Proposition will be released in theaters and on IFC On-Demand in June 2010.

TK writes about music and movies. He enjoys playing with dogs, raising the dead, and tacos. You can email him here.

This review was originally published during the Independent Film Festival of Boston. The movie is being released in select cities today.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Review: The Killer Inside Me | When We Meet You Will See, I Will Destroy Everything of Beauty | Review: The Killer Inside Me | When We Meet You Will See, I Will Destroy Everything of Beauty









Comments

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I don't need to be Eloquent Eloquence-level funny to do it:

- I 100% support gay marriage

- I 100% support my gay parent

- People who don't support gay marriage don't seem to realize (or if they do, then they're just cruel) that over 1,000 laws on the United States books do not apply to same-sex couples. Marriage affects health insurance, mortgages, social security, nursing homes, end of life decisions, immigration and adoption. Without the legal definition of "marriage", all these things are forbidden.

- Like Keith Olbermann said "If you are against gay marriage: Why do you care? What does it matter to you? How does it affect you?"

- I 100% believe that the only reason people can be against gay marriage is they enjoy the idea of power and control over a group of people they do not understand, are afraid of, or don't want to know. It is not based in religion or love or kindness or anything but dangling something over someone else's head to make yourself feel strong and someone else weak.

Posted by: scorzi at April 27, 2010 2:18 PM

Jesus, TK, you are a much stronger person than I. I don't know how you made it through the movie; I'm not sure I can even make it through the review. Ugh.

Posted by: tamatha at April 27, 2010 2:19 PM

A-fucking-men, TK.

Posted by: chad at April 27, 2010 2:21 PM

Full transcript of Keith Olbermann's dialogue on Prop 8. Amazing and it made me cry.


"If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had! A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967!

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people! It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term meaningless?

What is this to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow PERSON.

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

Good night, and good luck."

Posted by: scorzi at April 27, 2010 2:25 PM

Oh man. I do not think I could handle watching this film. I've gradually turned into the type of person who tears up at, for example, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and My Name is Earl (seriously). A friend who's volunteering at Tribeca told me that there were people sobbing in their seats at this showing. I'd probably dehydrate.

I just do not understand the opposition to gay marriage. At all. I have never seen one coherent argument against it, and considering all of the arguments FOR it, how can people really oppose something that affects them not at all?

Posted by: SaBrina at April 27, 2010 2:29 PM

It is one of the few times in modern American history that people have voted to remove peoples rights.

I think we have to admit that the only reason this is true is that we don't usually give the public a vote on these issues. There's nothing the average person loves more than defending their life choices by depriving or denigrating the choices of others. The courts and the legislature need to be the ones tackling this stuff.

If the public voted on each significant legal change in society, most black people would still be slaves, legal working age in death trap factories would still be something like 5 years old, and rivers and lakes would still be catching fire with shocking regularity.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at April 27, 2010 2:31 PM

I agree with all the above, and as a native Californian, I was outraged that Utah-based bigots came into MY state to spread their poison.
Keep your dirty money and vile beliefs in your own state and out of mine.

Posted by: lil_a at April 27, 2010 2:32 PM

OK, what Keith Olbermann said. The little I've seen of him hasn't impressed me, but goddamn, I just started tearing up at my desk.

Posted by: SaBrina at April 27, 2010 2:34 PM

I won't watch this, it will make me throw things. But great review TK.

Posted by: Julie at April 27, 2010 2:34 PM

TK, NEVER apologize for expressing your true feelings, especially about something as rephrensible as Proposition 8 and the ignorant, frightened, control-freaks who pushed it through. I support any person's right to love whomever they choose. After all, love chooses YOU, you don't choose it.

And, scorzi, thank you for posting that full transcription. KO put it beautifully.

For this, and so many myriad other reasons, how America can show it's face around so many other nations, where people have rights, where they have healthcare, decent childcare, vacation/sick/maternity leave....so on so on so on........amazes me.

Pogo said it best..... We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Posted by: dammitjanet at April 27, 2010 2:48 PM

Keep on keepin' on for civil rights, my American amigos. It's happening!

Posted by: Ranylt at April 27, 2010 2:49 PM

Hate, fear, and a refusal to understand others can be unfortunate results when people oversaturate their lives with religion (i.e. what their religious leaders tell them to think). The result of Prop 8 was depressing and, sadly enough, almost predictable. What actions in the history of religious zealotry (of which radical Mormons are the creme de la creme in this country) made us believe they wouldn't do ANYTHING to get this passed?

I am ashamed of what the citizens of California allowed these crazy motherfuckers to do. What were they thinking? I move away and less than a year later it all goes to shit.

Oh, and I'd love to see those Mormon dicks (zing!) try to nullify my marriage. You'll get my wife and our marriage license when you pry them from my dead, cold hands.

Posted by: Kballs at April 27, 2010 2:52 PM

If anyone's interested, there's another amazing documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So for free on youtube. It follows four families as they deal with their adult gay and lesbian children, and they interview clergy from different religions and historians about what the Bible really says about gay marriage. Lots of clips from evangelical churches, Billy Graham, Anita Bryant, Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who doesn't believe being gay is wrong), and lots of others. It's in nine parts and the music and clips are great.

Posted by: scorzi at April 27, 2010 2:58 PM

This is really depressing. I'm glad I don't live in America.

Posted by: Steph at April 27, 2010 3:01 PM

For The Bible Tells Me So trailer. Watch the doc on youtube. Great piece of film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBR0dq0XXk

Posted by: scorzi at April 27, 2010 3:02 PM

Cunts.
Go Olbermann.

Posted by: actwithoutdoing at April 27, 2010 3:02 PM

I still have hope that in my lifetime, at least, gay couples will finally be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples are. And that maybe my grandkids will wonder about my generation, who lived in a time where hate and ignorance were so readily accepted and view it as some strange, scary and distant history they can barely understand--much how my generation views the pre-Civil Rights era.

Posted by: Lindsay at April 27, 2010 3:13 PM

Great review, TK. You really shine as a writer when you're worked up. And KO's commentary is one of the few things I like about him.

crying at work is frowned upon.

fuck

Posted by: Stella at April 27, 2010 3:14 PM

Sounds to me like a bunch of whiney fags bitching about God's will. Suck it up, bitches (you should be used to it by now)!

Posted by: superasenteisjustjoking--relax at April 27, 2010 3:18 PM

OK, you've made me cry at my desk AGAIN. There's only so much that I can pass off as allergies, ya know.

Posted by: Drake at April 27, 2010 3:25 PM

Thanks for the review, TK. This is an issue over which I've raised quite a bit hell, and I'll try to make a point of checking this documentary out, as the Mormon church has been of particular historical interest to me for a while. How they maintained their tax-exempt status after some of the tactics they used in the Prop 8 battle is particularly irksome.

And thanks, scorzi, for including the Olbermann statement.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at April 27, 2010 3:27 PM

TK, you are so full of awesome that it's staggering. :) I'm so glad to have you on my side. I won't watch the movie because it will make me stabby, but thank you for sitting through it and writing a brilliant review. :)

Posted by: Maxine Dangerous at April 27, 2010 3:31 PM

TK, that was extremely well written and perfect. I cannot see this or I will completely lose it, but I am so glad it's out there. I just hope some of the people who were hoodwinked into voting for this hateful bill actually watch it. It is completely ridiculous that it passed, even by the tiny margin that it did and I am so very glad that people are not letting it go. We cannot let horrible, bigoted legislation stay on the books, especially when it was pushed through by lying bastards who don't even live in the state being governed.

Posted by: lumenatrix at April 27, 2010 3:40 PM

Count me among the crying-at-my-desk crowd. Beautifully written, TK. Amen, huzzah, and kudos.

Posted by: ShinyKate at April 27, 2010 3:48 PM

This review and the trailer alone had me practically sobbing at my desk. Needless to say, I don't know if I could make it through the movie.

I went to the Boston anti-Prop 8 rally after it was passed but to be honest I didn't really understand what it was I was rallying for at the time. I go to the most gay-friendly college in America (there are actually more gay men at my school than straight men) and the one couple shown in the trailer remind me so much of my best friends that I burst into tears just watching them. It's devastating and disgusting to think that there's that much hate out there.

Posted by: penelope at April 27, 2010 4:31 PM

The bumper sticker said it well: “Focus on Your Own Damn Family.”

8: The Mormon Proposition, reflects the efforts of those that created it and us that are in it, to hold OUR church accountable for the pain they knowingly inflicted on OUR families.

- The documentary IS NOT about disagreeing with their moral standards or their right to spend their money on issues they feel are important.

- It IS about hypocrisy; how our church (that says it is all about “being honest in our dealings with our fellow men”), knowingly created and funded dishonest ads to promote their own moral agenda; and (by their own admissions) hid their involvement. The Church stated in their own documents, that if the voters knew the extent of the Church’s involvement, it would negatively impact the vote.

- This documentary does not claim that the LDS Church did this alone, even though at its strong urging, its members (only 2% of the voters) donated over 70% of the money contributed and over 90% of the volunteer efforts.

We would hope the displeased members of other groups, be they Catholic, Protestant, African American, Latino, Baptist…, would hold their leaders accountable as well.

Please see it before you criticize it.

8, opens in selected cities June 18th, and on VOD. Available on DVD July 6th.

Watch the new trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/8themormonproposition/

Posted by: Linda Stay - Moms For Equality at April 27, 2010 4:38 PM

SaBrina:

The sad thing about Olbermann is that he can deliver these brilliant monologues that are so spot on, but then he gets into all this other clownish stuff that devalues his message terribly. I'm die-hard leftie and I find him hard to bear when he does the "worst person" and "McCain in the membrane" stuff. I wish he'd realize he doesn't need those kinds of crutches.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 27, 2010 4:52 PM

TK-
Glad you're a friend. You couldn't be more right.

While this is a HORRIBLE event, I would argue it will be their high water mark. Time is against those who pushed Prop 8 through, and they will ultimately fail. This is fuel to those of us who believe in equal rights.

Even worse, these people will have to justify their hateful actions before God / Yahweh / Mother Nature / Fate / whatever you believe in. I'm guessing this won't be looked upon to well in the final accounting of their life.

Mr. Yuck (Madcity)

Posted by: Mr. Yuck at April 27, 2010 5:01 PM

oye, I just saw the trailer... I don't know if my little activist-wannabe heart could take it.

Posted by: soto at April 27, 2010 5:12 PM

Thanks indeed, TK, and thanks everyone. "Impartial" doesn't mean 'insensate,' which one would have to be to attempt neutrality on this issue.

While the passage of Prop 8 was a terrible, terrible blow to many of us, it has had the beneficial side effect of bringing more people into the action. This isn't an issue about gay people, it's about humanity and democracy. The emotions expressed by everyone here shows a universal reaction to injustice.

Posted by: Corvus at April 27, 2010 5:18 PM

Gay marriage is THE civil rights issue of our generation. I can only hope that more people get involved.

Posted by: Stella at April 27, 2010 5:40 PM

It's been said before, I'll say it again, Gay people should have just as much right as straight people to make each other miserable.

Posted by: captainfireypants at April 27, 2010 5:46 PM

Just reading the review makes me all clenchy...

TK, you hit one of the nails on the head for me: the whole "letting gay people marry devalues the institution of marriage/somehow harms my marriage" argument. What? Huh? It just don't make no sense. Never has, never will.

Fortunately, I think we will win this war, eventually. We're bloodied, but not out.

Posted by: MM at April 27, 2010 6:52 PM

"Focus on your own damn family" is the best line I've seen in weeks. I've made it my Facebook signature.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 27, 2010 6:58 PM

Excellent job, TK. One of the best I've read on this site.

I'm ashamed to be from Utah sometimes but know that we're not all a) Mormon or b) cruel, heartless bastards deriving pleasure from refusing a deeply meaningful right to a group in society based on our own personal belief system.

Posted by: TWoP_Fan at April 27, 2010 7:01 PM

This is left wing propaganda that makes anything Michael Moore has made look like William Wyler's Memphis Belle. There is massive voter fraud in every California election in the form of illegal aliens voting and they routinely vote for the Democratic party candidates and tickets. The large African American populace residing in Alameda and LA counties also voted for the first African American presidential candidate in history which led to understandable record turnout in that demographic. Neither group are particularly friendly with the maricons as the Mexicans call them but since the left wing can't exactly come out and say they were defeated by the illegal Mexican and African American vote they have to harp on the Mormons, a group that makes up less than one half of 1% or 1/6 of the margin that they lost by. There is of course a huge Catholic population and the Catholic church spent money and resources telling its congregants to oppose gay marriage. The traditional African American churches also opposed gay marriage and maintained a very traditional attitude toward marriage. Mexicans and African American churches are of course verboten targets for the left wing

The fact is that Obama and Obama alone was responsible for defeating gay marriage in California. Nothing else and no one else could have gotten the people to the poles who voted for him and then voted against and defeated gay marriage other than Barack Hussein Obama. The left wing can't say that either so they're left to hilariously whine about Mormons controlling California elections in the same way right wing nut jobs talk about Jews controlling the banks and the media.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at April 27, 2010 7:05 PM

no one else could have gotten the people to the poles who voted for him

Dude, why you gotta bring Polish people into it?

Posted by: MM at April 27, 2010 7:09 PM

it's a weird sensation to sob while reading an online review. just one thing to ad: FUCK YOU "SAINT" PAUL/SAUL, FUCK YOUR HATEFUL ROTTING BONES!!! There you go, it had to be released...

Posted by: lionel bitchie at April 27, 2010 7:30 PM

Now this....this is why I love this site. Any other reviewer would simply state the pros and cons of the movie; what it got right, what it got wrong, and channeling popular opinion regarding the movie in question.

But I actually want to see this movie now, though it will probably depress me. Good work, as ever, and keep it up.

Posted by: Oracle at April 27, 2010 7:40 PM

I feel so much rage at the fact that "Christianity" has such political power in this country. I suffered through nine years of attending a Southern Baptist school in North Carolina, and me and my middle-school aged classmates were directly told by teachers that "real Christians" always vote Republican. You vote how your church tells you to vote. That Christians are persecuted because they are not allowed to force prayer into public schools. The list goes on.

It's sickening, really, how blurred the line still is between Church and State. For right-wing "Christians," having control of just Church is not enough.

Scorzi said it best. It has nothing to do with love or what God wants. It's all about wielding power over another human being, and religion provides a justification.

Posted by: Dingles at April 27, 2010 7:40 PM

Someone who clearly got lost in the Google: No one else could have gotten the people to the poles who voted for him

MM: Dude, why you gotta bring Polish people into it?

In the process of reading this great stuff and feeling so bummed out, this was completely unexpected and fucking hilarious. Thanks, MM!

Posted by: ALR at April 27, 2010 8:40 PM

Here's Olbermann's Prop 8 speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

Had to listen to it after reading the transcript above.

Posted by: Mick J at April 27, 2010 8:56 PM

Well said TK, why does someone else's personal status worry the christian Right so much?

Posted by: frank (aka frank_247 aka the lone Scotsman) at April 27, 2010 9:12 PM

I totally teared up reading this. And it was just the review! I'll probably watch this because I have a masochistic fascination that also compelled me to watch Jesus Camp.

TK, your review was beautifully written and wonderfully passionate. Totally sold me on it.

Despite the current fashionable cynicism in the LGBTQ community to say that Obama has left us (the community) behind and yadda yadda, I still believe that he'll make good on his word to bring equal rights to homosexuals. Prop 8 was a disgusting bit of bigotry, but there's a glimmer of hope:

Perry v Schwarzenegger (AKA the Prop 8 Trial) is currently ongoing. The judge sitting in judgement has suspended closing arguments while he reviews evidence. The wikipedia page on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger) is pretty encouraging and there's also the Prop 8 Trial Tracker (http://prop8trialtracker.com/).

We may see it struck down when it likely goes to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: St. Saturn at April 27, 2010 9:20 PM

I feel like I have to see this so I can get the full effect of the machine at work.

Great review TK.

As my 4 year old son would say, I'm mad, mad, mad!

Posted by: Cindy at April 27, 2010 9:49 PM

Proposition 8 and this film have taught me, or rather reinforced my belief that Proposition 8 was a well-funded, well-coordinated, brilliantly organized and masterminded effort to destroy human happiness and create suffering out of its ashes. There is simply no other way for me to see it. No amount of explanation or justification or proselytizing can convince me otherwise. To try to justify it by saying it’s God’s will, or that gay marriage somehow threatens or weakens or makes illegitimate or less important your marriage is so baffling and idiotic that it makes me grind my teeth down to the roots.


AMEN.

Posted by: stopthemadness at April 27, 2010 9:52 PM

As a social libertarian I could not possibly care less what people next door or down the street do in their bedrooms. Unless there's an orgy going on and I'm not invited.

From Wikipedia:

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
---
Notice who signed it into federal law. Notice who keeps it going (from Wikipedia):

President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of DOMA.[12][13] However, on June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America, suggesting a sharp reversal by the Obama administration.[14]

Yeah, those nutty right-wing Christians are responsible for all this misery.

Posted by: , at April 27, 2010 10:21 PM

Re: ,

And your point is that Democrats aren't as pro-marriage-equality as they should be? I'd agree with you, but it's important to not forget that they are by far the lesser of the two evils. Look at the congressional votes on DOMA, for instance.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at April 27, 2010 10:26 PM

I'm a California native and have lived here my whole life. I am adamantly opposed to Prop 8, but I have gotta say... those Pro-8 fuckers mobilized and got their hate-filled voices heard. There was NOTHING from the opposition and the whole time my husband and I were watching the retarded pro-8 commercials, we kept wondering, "Where's all the anti-8 commercials?" There were none, or barely any, and when they finally showed up a day or so before the election it was too late. Next time this issue comes to the ballot, we need to remember this and get our asses out there. Money helped get this passed, but I also feel like empathy (along with the feeling that we were in a "new America" - one that might be electing a black president) was at fault.

Posted by: fullertonregan at April 27, 2010 11:16 PM

The nifty thing about Prop 8 was that it passed by a popular majority. Which means it can be repealed by a popular majority, and there ain't a damn thing the Mormons (or the other anti-gay groups as mentioned variously above) can do about it other than piss and moan.

All that is needed is a different demographic at the polls. Fortunately there may soon be a ballot measure to legalize pot -- if nothing else, that should bring out the granola crunchies!

Posted by: Neodiogenes at April 27, 2010 11:43 PM

I personally have no desire to interfere with what consenting adults of whatever gender get up to in the privacy of their own homes, so long as it's nothing like pedophilia (but that goes without saying, y'know?).

I advocate same-gender marriage because I was married for three years. It is not my place to deny any segment of the population the opportunity to be just as miserable as I was for thirty-six months.

Fundamentalists (and yes, I will include the LDS in that category) have no desire for anyone to have any joy in their lives that they cannot control. Their allies among the "keep Government out of our lives" crowd have no qualms about jumping into peoples' beds and women's wombs, which I think is the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 27, 2010 11:55 PM

Look at the congressional votes on DOMA, for instance.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at April 27, 2010 10:26 PM
---
I am mindful that Republicans ran both houses in those days. It's also notable, from looking at those votes, that a whooooooole lotta Dems held hands with them. And then quickly pretended they were just SHAKING hands, manly handshakes, yes, VERY manly handshakes, don't want anybody back home thinking we have the gay here in Congress.

I guess Clinton could have vetoed and forced Congress to override, which it looks likely it would have done, but that would have meant standing on principle from a guy who hasn't exactly been known for embracing the sanctity of his own marriage, eh?

Posted by: , at April 28, 2010 12:17 AM

Prop 8 and its campaign is extremely interesting to me, but one thing that bothers me about the narrative that many people have created is that it ascribes the blame almost entirely to one group, as if the shock that something like Prop 8 passed in California has convinced people that only an insidious outside influence couldve made it possible.

That's not to say the LDS didn't play a significant and primary role in Prop 8's passage, but it also ignores the fact that its opponents actually raised $5 million MORE than its supporters, a particularly inciteful and backlash inciting pro-Prop 8 commercial put out by the San Fran mayor days before the election, the fact that Latino and black voters tend to lean socially conservative and were instrumental in the bill's passage, and that polls prior to the election gave oponents of Prop 8 a false sense of security by seemingly affirming what they believed about Californian voters.

Look, Prop 8 was a terrible thing and needs to be repealed. But that isn't going to happen if people keep trying to assign almost all of the blame to a boogeyman that was only part of the overall equation instead of looking inward and trying to determine how they couldve done better. In other words, don't treat the outcome as a given and respect the ability if the other side to get out their vote.

Posted by: hooooah at April 28, 2010 1:23 AM

whoops, should've rephrased about the newsom commercial, that was released by those who supported Prop 8, not by the mayor himself. Not that makes him less complicit in what he said, but I should've stated it differently, sorry about that.

Posted by: hooooah at April 28, 2010 3:23 AM

Jon Stewart said it best:
"I was against gay marriage until I found out it wasn't mandatory."

Posted by: Hammy at April 28, 2010 7:25 AM

crying at work is frowned upon.
Posted by: Stella at April 27, 2010 3:14 PM


Especially if you work at a Kleenex factory, helping yourself to some of the stock.

Posted by: piedlourde at April 28, 2010 8:39 AM

Voting about this issue is bullshit in my opinion. As someone else said, if we let people vote about a civil right, we are screwed.

This should not be about who has money to buy TV ads and who has a better spin machine or a better celebrity backing their cause. I'm don't even want to imagine what sort of ads would have been put out there by people opposed to de-segregation of schools.

Thanks for the Keith O transcript. Great words

Posted by: julip at April 28, 2010 8:45 AM

Ok...
:steps onto soapbox

To me, gay marriage is another of those issues like gay adoption or abortion....if it is not DIRECTLY impacting you (are YOU gay? are YOU a pregnant teen?) then BUGGER OFF!! It has nothing whatsoever to do with you, your life, your family, etc. I grant you that the great majority of people are dumbass fuckers, but it is NONE of my business what they are doing with their lives.

I lived with a man for 13 years, but did not marry him. In that time, if either of us were to have been seriously injured or died, the other would NOT have been able to make any decisions, get any information about the other, and so on. That bothered me. But, we made the decision NOT to get married (thank Godtopus). What about those couples, of any make-up, who are in a similar situation but are deeply committed to one another, who WANT to get married? If Joe and Tim have lived together, as de facto spouses for over 10 years, all the while WANTING to make that committment to one another, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY? Is is right that they cannot make life or death decisions for one another if need be?

I am so sick of the election ads airing in my damn RED state right now..."I'm a constitutional conservative......my religion guides me....blah blah blah...." The same people who vote against gay rights and women's rights are the same douchebags who end up getting caught with their wingwang in the glory hole at the airport or knocking up their teenage mistress.

Yeah, I wandered off there, but I'm feeling pretty murdery right now. I just don't understand WHY some people think it's ok for them to legislate how we are supposed to feel, or what people who have NO CONNECTION TO THEM AT ALL are supposed to behave.

"Focus on your own damn family" is my new motto.

:descends from soapbox, notes confused looks on faces of on-lookers, shrugs and takes another swig

Posted by: dammitjanet at April 28, 2010 9:15 AM

OK, can I just play Devil's Advocate here, and say...just joking.

Yeah, don't fuckin' apologize for this review. Imagine if this were a "black people can't marry" proposition back in the sixties. Your outrage would be equally justified. As someone else posted above, I can only hope this shit stops and our children look back on this as, ya know, one of our "crazy times" on par with pre-Civil Rights era. I know it utterly baffles me that it was once cool to hang a "Whites Only" sign wherever you pleased. Seriously? In the United States of America. I mean, one of my fucking parents is old enough to remember that (the other one is Irish, so she's got her own problems).

Oh, and any black person who opposes rights for gay people should be publicly ridiculed, educated, and then asked to defend their position on national television (I'm lookin' at you, PBS). I find that just slightly less baffling than the pre-Civil Rights era.

Posted by: pissant at April 28, 2010 9:33 AM

I was raised Mormon, went inactive years ago and pretty much left it at that UNTIL prop8 happened at which point I typed up my resignation letter and sent it in. I refuse to be associated, even in name, with the LDS church.

Also- hypocrisy much? Focus on Family when your founding prophet married 33 girls and women (yes girls, one was FOURTEEN) some of whom were already married? That, Mormon church, is a hell of a lot more of an assault on marriage than two consenting adults wanting to make a legal, lasting, public commitment to each other.

Posted by: Megan at April 28, 2010 10:23 AM

alright, look:
(full disclosure: I'm a Christian studying to be a pastor; I voted for Obama; I support the right for people who are gay to marry)

the thing that is most saddening to me (aside from the personal stories of people's rights being stripped from them, being ostracized, and all the other tragic implications of prop 8) is that there are some well-meaning, loving people who are on the wrong side of this issue. that is sad for them (because some day they will realize and be devestated), it is sad for us (who get lumped in), and most importantly, it is sad for those most affected by decisions like prop 8 (that even some people who really do love them are making decisions that harm them).

a lot of Christians have a pretty clear belief that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. what so many fail to remember is that the Christian Scriptures (and those of other faiths, I am sure), show clearly that God intended that we take care of the earth, that God intended that we don't lie, that God intended that we take care of the poor... but that doesn't mean we should force other people to conform to what we believe God told US to do. why would that be different for who gets to get married?

if someone is convinced that a behavior/lifestyle/decision of someone else is not what God intends or is even harmful to that person, the loving response is not mandating that they conform to your own beliefs, it's getting to know people, it's listening, listening, listening, it's communicating truth with grace, it's praying.

Posted by: dg at April 28, 2010 10:24 AM

dg, it's people like you who make Christians worth tolerating.

Posted by: dammitjanet at April 28, 2010 10:28 AM

dg, it's people like you who make Christians worth tolerating.

Well, that was a bit condescending, no? I would say that it's people like dg who, undoubtedly, will make this fucked up world a better place. Thank you for that comment.

There's nothing wrong with being Christian. Saying that the best of them are to be tolerated makes it seem as if most of them are lower life forms. The world is full of wonderful people of all religions. Unfortunately, it's also full of assholes, and some of them happen to be Christians. And Muslims. And Jews. And, yes, Atheists (which, for the record, I am).

To sum up: Fuck Prop 8 in its stupid ear.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at April 28, 2010 10:34 AM

I really didn't mean to be condescending to dg or any other Christian. I just meant it's nice to see someone who openly professes their faith also take such a stand.

I've had my run-ins with so-called Christians and am still smarting from the experience. So, dg, I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for any offense to any of you.

: open mouth, insert foot

Posted by: dammitjanet at April 28, 2010 10:46 AM

So here's a question for you: Why aren't lots more people Libertarians? I mean registered Libertarians, voting Libertarians, running for office Libertarians?

This is from www.lp.org and is the first thing you read on the site:

Platform
National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

Preamble
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
---
I know, I know: Libertarians don't win elections. I've used that point myself. But it's chicken/egg, isn't it? At some point you've got to say: Fuck it, I'm standing for what I believe,

If you're throwing in with either of the dominant parties on the gay marriage issue you are going to get screwed, as I noted above. Clinton screwed you. Obama screwed you. Most everyone in Congress will screw you.

Posted by: , at April 28, 2010 10:56 AM

Apologies, dammitjanet, I may have snapped a bit there too.

And comma, way to answer a question that no one asked. And way to, once again, try to make it about you.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at April 28, 2010 11:00 AM

There's nothing wrong with being Christian.

It depends on how you apply "wrong", IMO. If you're a tried & true atheist, then each non-secular belief system seems pretty damn wrong. But that doesn't form absolutes about personal behavior, so yeah, technically there are countless masses of wonderful & perfectly tolerable people of a variety of religious beliefs. They're just all wrong. :)

Posted by: the new transported man at April 28, 2010 11:01 AM

Thank you dg for eloquently explaining what I (may still) stumble to say. My heart goes out the people who suffer at the hands of these regulations, but also to the sad people whose minds have been twisted by fear and hate to misunderstand God's instruction.

As difficult as it is to pray for people who disgust you, it is our job, as God's ambassadors, to love. If I can muster up enough of God's love to pray for the people at Westboro Baptist, then disillusioned 'Christians' ought to be able to pray for homosexuals.

Try a little tenderness, folks.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at April 28, 2010 11:01 AM

And comma, way to answer a question that no one asked. And way to, once again, try to make it about you.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at April 28, 2010 11:00 AM
---
You seem to have a problem with me. Care to elaborate?

Posted by: , at April 28, 2010 11:07 AM

dammitjanet: no offense taken at all

Skewicide Blonde: here here! (to that 2nd paragraph... and last line)

Patty: Thanks, and amen!

Posted by: dg at April 28, 2010 11:10 AM

What pisses me off - apart from the obvious of course - is the criminal waste of it all.
If the Mormons had put even half that effort, money, and passion into something that improved people's lives, think of what they could have achieved! Think how much good it would have done for their image, too.

But no, they have to hate. On the ridiculous basis of which sex one's life partner happens to be, they have to hate SO hard that they cause misery and injustice for thousands, and make Mormonism a byword for intolerance.

What the fucking fuck, Morons Mormons?

Posted by: tarn at April 28, 2010 11:36 AM

OK, then.

Yes indeedy, I did try to answer the question no one asked, which is:

So what are YOU gonna do about it?

And as for it being "all about me," well, who better understands and appreciates my positions? Who better represents my interests?

Of COURSE it's all about me. Isn't it all about you?

Doesn't mean I can't understand or appreciate other people's points of view. It's why I'm here.

Posted by: , at April 28, 2010 12:30 PM

What baffles me is the hypocrisy inherent in a church that was discriminated against BECAUSE OF ITS MARRIAGE PRACTICES now would like a whole segment of the population to suffer the same fate. Cognitive dissonance writ large.

, Ron Paul? no thanks. And most libertarians that I've met (in RL and online) generally strike me as extremely self interested white guys who are smart enough not to identify with the republicans, but not enlightened enough to go vote for a black dude. Just my personal opinion though.

Posted by: banana at April 28, 2010 12:59 PM

@ ,

The libertarian thing is an interesting question for me - I have some leanings that way (I guess the best term for my political ideology would be "neoliberal.") However, I generally don't like how most of the libertarians (clearly, present company and Libertarian Party excluded) tend to prioritize their view of economic liberty over social liberty in terms of who they form coalitions with. I'd personally be much more sympathetic to the economically libertarian side of things if America's libertarians were more committed to the socially libertarian side of things.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at April 28, 2010 1:43 PM

Gay America is on the move. The battle, started over a decade ago, over homosexuals’ right to marry reached its height in 2008 with California’s Proposition 8. The heat has hardly calmed down with marches, political action committees, Supreme Court cases, and “pro” & “anti” gay groups organizing and trying to mobilize whatever or whoever they can to try and gain access into the institution of marriage, or deny that access. Evidence of just how heated this battle really is can be seen if you look at the money spent by those interested in the outcome and also the divisiveness of the issue. These days it is rare to find someone that is moderate or center oriented on the subject of gay marriage.
Why is America so divided on the issue? When polled about political standing the majority of Americans are in the center but such seems not to be the case with same sex marriage. With this issue it seems to be you fit into one of two groups; gay rights activist or anti gay marriage advocate.
The stark contrast between the two is one of the best tools the pro gay marriage carriage has been able to bring out in it pursuit of gaining what it calls equal rights in the eyes of the state. Pro gay America is successfully painting a picture that if you are not in support of allowing them to marry you are a biased, discriminatory, bigot that has a heart full of hate and wants to keep marriage as a club for the elite. Maybe Instead of saying painting a picture I should say using its box of 96 crayola crayons to create an image.
The technique of presenting the two sides in this fashion is one of the most childish ways I have ever seen to try and win your case. Gay rights advocates that view the issue like this are exactly like the kid in the grocery store who asks his mother to buy him a candy bar. His mother tells the child no and the kid throws a fit and retorts back, “it’s because you hate me huh?” does the mother actually hate her child? Of course not, so it is with the gay marriage issue. People opposed to gay marriage, for the most part, are not opposed to same sex marriage because they hate gay people and think there should be a holocaust of homosexuals; rather they also use their right of belief and adopt the creed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
They do not want to let the word marriage, and more importantly the institution, be manipulated to include those that participate in a different type of relationship and want to call it the same thing. Maybe for them it is a belief in the bible, a belief that god organized and created marriage for his two greatest creations: man and women. Maybe it is something else. Whatever beliefs they have they are strong enough to drive them to go far out of their comfort zone to defend them, beliefs and actions they have the freedom to hold and take.
I have always been a fan of calling a spade a spade and a club a club. A relationship between a man and a man and one between a man and a woman are two different things. They practice intimacy in two different ways, the balance of hormones, chromosomes, and emotions are different. One usually results in bringing new life into the world the other never does. So why is there a push to call two different types of relationships the same thing? They are not the same. I am completely okay with creating a name for a homosexual relationship, and tying to that name a large majority of the legal rights that are found in marriage. However the bluntness in me, the love of words in me is not okay with calling two types of relationships that are different, the same.
The choices we make and the genes we have are what create our identities. Those in the fight for gay marriage are claiming that the denial of letting them participate in a relationship legally called marriage is stopping them from wholly expressing their identity. However I see it like a black youth who asks his English teacher if he can write raps instead of poems. The black youth believes writing poems is acting white, an attribute that is not part of his identity. The two consist of the same things but they call it two different names because it is important to their identity. Marriage is part of the straight identity, it is the name straight people claimed for the union between a man and a woman. Let those that want to participate in homosexual unions create their own name for the union, let them further create their gay identity, be original.
Those opposed to gay marriage are not biased, discriminatory, bigots that have hearts full of hate and want to keep marriage as a club for the elite. Rather they are people that have a different set of beliefs than you do. They are people that believe that two different things should be called, well two different things. They recognize that even though sometimes two different things can consist of a lot of the same aspects the name which they call those things by can be crucial to what they claim as their identity.
Gay America, I respect the freedom you have to believe how you believe and fight for your ideals. There are many citizens of the gay community that are intelligent and huge contributors to many of the important pursuits of a better America. But please, for your own sake put your box of 96 Crayola crayons away and quit drawing the picture that those with different ideals than you are fighting their battle because they hate you. Put the box away because it makes you look like a 5 year old child whose mom said no to a candy bar. And whether we be gay or straight I think we both agree that child marriage is a bad idea.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2010 2:03 PM

TK, what a wonderful review.

I simply haven't read that infantile of a screed since, well, the last time I read Olberman. I could actually hear you stamping your feet. What a load of snivelling garbage masquerading as a movie review.

"...well-funded, well-coordinated, brilliantly organized and masterminded effort to destroy human happiness..." Yeah. That's why 7 million Californians voted for it. Grow up, sack up, and convince your fellow citizens that your cause is righteous. Or are you happier just demonizing your political opponents and preening in your morality?

And the rest of you? Raging that your fellow citizens are racist hate-filled fundamentalists? Do you understand the bigotry there?

Yes, I know it's Pajiba, and that there's only one viewpoint allowed. Shame it's an ignorant one.

Posted by: ironchefoklahoma at April 28, 2010 3:59 PM

Anonymous,

You're a bigot, regardless of how many flowery words and sciency sounding piles of nonsense you use to try to hide that fact.

Posted by: Kira at April 28, 2010 9:02 PM

ironchefoklahoma, y tu mama tambien! anonymous, ditto.

Posted by: lionel bitchie at April 29, 2010 7:14 AM

Watched this with my girlfriend as part of the Atlanta Film Festival and I have to say that nothing hurts more than having a group of people who know nothing at all about you and refuse to recognize you as a person repeatedly tell you how wrong and immoral they believe you are.

Gay marriage WILL be passed eventually. I'm not worried about that, it's just a question of When.

Posted by: Annie_Reckson at April 29, 2010 11:46 AM

Ironchefoklahoma,

Okay, I'll bite. I want you to tell me, without swearing or yelling in caps, give me your argument about why someone that is gay should not be allowed to be married (because unless I'm way off, that's how you lean.)

I'm not mocking you. Seriously explain it to me.

Posted by: scorzi at April 29, 2010 12:03 PM

TK, in all seriousness-- great review.

Anonymous and Ironchefoklahoma (retarded screen names for retarded bigots)-- yes, in fact you ARE bigots. Denying civil rights to your fellow law-abiding citizens is the very definition of bigotry. And ignorance. And hatred of your fellow humans.

Give us ONE reason-- without invoking Biblical tradition (a line of argument that is blatantly unconstitutional)-- why same-sex marriage should be kept illegal. And note: Slippery-slope arguments ("What's next? Marriage between man and child or goat or FAX machine?") won't work either. CIVIL marriage between two consenting adults should NOT be denied to same-sex couples because you, in your ignorance and small-mindedness, think "gay sex is icky".

This is ALL about stupid straight folk HATING gay people. Just be honest-- you HATE LGBTQ folk. You don't know why, but you want us GONE from the face of the earth. You look at events in Uganda, and killings of gays in Jamaica, and cheer in support. Because your church tells you so. That makes you a hate-filled BIGOT. And a slave to irrational beliefs in a wrathful Sky-Daddy. And truly un-American.

Posted by: RW in LGB at April 30, 2010 11:52 AM

Why is everyone so worked up over this, acting like it's something new and upsetting. It just seems like the logical next step in the grand scheme of christianity to me. I was raised in a baptist home with parents who taught me their view was the only right view and all others were wrong. One thing this upbringing taught me was that people have used religion and God to hate others since the bible was written. Really, whatever group or faction you don't like you just find a passage of scripture to twist around until it says that you are right and they are going to hell. If you don't like alcohol, well you can overlook the fact that Jesus drank wine and use the other scriptures to condem people who drink as going to hell. If you don't like sex before marriage than you can forget that Mary was an unwed mother and condem them too. Hating on the gays is just par for the course. And, dg, I'm sorry but I don't see what religion you are going to fit into with that attitude. You just can't say you are for gay rights and than preach for a religion that say's they will be condemned to hell for their lifestyle. I mean you can, but it smells a little too much like hypocracy to me and I'm pretty sure that the church has all the hypocrites they need right now.

Posted by: Phat girl at May 3, 2010 5:59 PM

I wonder if they will do a movie about all the black people that voted it down. No? Huh.

Posted by: djganesh at May 8, 2010 5:31 PM

wow, a bunch of people got worked up over my earlier comment about why i think that the gay community is childish when they say that those opposed to gay marriage are acting out of hate. Some of you proved me right calling me a retard,others a bigot, some asking me to explain why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to not get married without refering to the bible, (an argument that is unconstitutional) so this is about the constitution...here is my reason, in the united states constitution it does not not talk about marriage, further more the tenth ammendment gives the rights to the states to legislate for those things not mentioned in the constitution. the courts are established to interprate the constitution. In california the state surpreme court declared the law that only allows marriage between man and a woman to be unconstitutional. The citizens, with the help of other organizations mobilized themselves and in a very lawful way got enough support to have put on the ballot an ammendment to the constitution of the state of california. The ammendment would state that marriage is considered between a man and a woman in the state of california. (note: there were a lot of organizations that mobilized themselves to try and keep this proposed ammendment off of the ballot as well.) The proposed change to the constitution got enough support to be on the ballot to let the voters decide if they wanted the ammendment or not. This proposed ammendment became proposition 8. The battle started. A multi church organization, along with others began organizing and doing everything possible to convince the people to vote for the proposed ammendment. A bunch of gay rights organizations teamed up and tried to convince the people to vote no on this proposition and they organized, and planned, and fundraised, and campaigned before the election. Then on the election day californians went into the voting booths and decided that they wanted the ammendment in their constitution. Did you get that? the voters of california changed their constitution, the surpreme law of the state to declare marriage between one man and one woman. So this is my constitutional argument is that they ammended the constitution, they exercised their rights of living in a democracy, they proposed the ammendment legally, got it on the ballot legally, and then passed it legally to change their constitution to better represent the ideals of the majority of california. same sex marriage in california is not unconstitutional in california because of what the bible says, not because of what the mormon church or other church preaches, but because 52 percent of californians wanted it to be, it is unconstitutional in california because thats how democracy played out. Dont hate the players hate the game, if you are mad about the passage of prop eight dont lash out at the voters, or the organizers lash out at democracy, lash out at the u.s constitution for giving marriage legislation to the states, lash out at the legal protocol of california because truly it is the system of democracy that passed prop eight and not the mormons! and p.s. next time a natural disaster hits and the mormons are the first one on the scene helping people i hope you crtiticize their organization at those moments too. p.p.s i liked this quote talking about how pro eighters acted out of hate..."This is ALL about stupid straight folk HATING gay people." seems to me the gay folks are the haters here calling straight people stupid...wonderful way to close your argument.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM

a. Could we lose the word "retard" once and for all?

b. You know, no matter how you sugarcoat it, take umbrage and attempt to make cogent arguments in favour of denying other grownups their civil rights, all I can say is

Separate is not equal.

You are supporting Jim Crow laws.

All I can hear in your opinion is fear.

Civil marriage is a civl right granted to the adult population. It is not fair to deny it based on whatever discomfort you feel personally about and I think that ultimately the lack of legal justification for its denial will be what brings this civil right to the entire adult population.

A religion is a club and may deny membership to anyone for whatever reasons they want.


Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 11:18 AM

@ anonymous "Marriage is part of the straight identity, it is the name
straight people claimed for the union between a man and a woman.
Let those that want to participate in homosexual unions create their
own name for the union, let them further create their gay identity,
be original. "

Isn't a biologically-based pair bond part of the human identity and as
such I see no requirement for new terminology. If I am raised by my
Aunt Joan instead of my mother and father, I am still part of a family.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 11:27 AM

"All I can hear in your opinion is fear."

Okay, Mrs. Julien - this review turned into a commenters' debate, and while that pisses me off sometimes when it happens, it seems pretty warranted here. I was hoping to get through the comments section without throwing in my own worthless POV, and for no other reason than to avoid exposing my own ignorance. Then I refresh, and the sentence I read, and quote above from you, compels me to do just that.

I've been in the camp that wonders why this is such a big deal for gay people, why all the fuss and hollering, they just want to make trouble for everyone, why is that title, that need for recognition, so friggin' important to 'these people'?? See how that aforementioned ignorance applies here?

Anger, frustration, infuriated rage at something, anything really, that is expressed in such a way as TK and the commenters, such as yourself, have done, really gets my attention when I can put my thoughts on hold and just get totally involved in the arguments, reading one literate and well-constructed sentence at a time. Whether I agree with any of them or not, if these ideas and hard-line opinions can hold my interest like this issue obviously has, I can finish reading and feel as if I've gained more (helpful) information, whether or not it supports my original POV.

When reading something like this "review" ("diatribe" might be a better word), and the commentary following, can allow me to modify, or actually change my opinion.. then I lose any sense of self-discipline and just toss my feelings into the mix.

I had almost made it out of here, without harming myself or others, and I had to go & read that sentence I quoted above, so everyone can thank Mrs. Julien for my need to waste your space here:

All that I can hear now is my own fear, and what I now realize that that's basically what my former opinion consisted of- thank your God that I didn't detail it here.

Especially frightening to this middle-aged, chubby white guy who's never been married, or had children, or even a significant, lasting relationship with one of my 'preferred' gender (that happens to be female, so I've no worries, right?), it's ideas like what I've been reading here that remind me of how narrow-minded I can be.

This may be just a "whoop-de-fucking-do" to anyone reading this, but I've totally adjusted my mindset on this issue today, and I feel all the better for it - sometimes 'enlightenment' can strike you blind.

I'm not an activist by any means, but I can admit when I've had the wrong idea about something that so many people sincerely care about. This really is one of those "why does it bother you so much" issues- I'm comfortable not feeling so bothered anymore.

Bless everyone who still believes in the power of love, maybe I'll achieve that someday.

Posted by: Bill (Formerly Bill) at June 18, 2010 12:36 PM

So this is my constitutional argument is that they ammended the constitution, they exercised their rights of living in a democracy, they proposed the ammendment legally, got it on the ballot legally, and then passed it legally to change their constitution to better represent the ideals of the majority of california

Um, Anonymous, if I read your comment right, you seem to argue that people should be upset with the system rather than those who used it. How did you put it? "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

But that is just it: a majority of Californians were convinced that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. They used the system to block a right that shouldn't have been theirs to take. And their REASONS for doing so are bullshit.

The "system" you feel is at fault is only as good as the people using it. A game has rules, rules meant to keep things on an even keel. So really, a person CAN hate the player, if the player is changing the rules of the game, not even for their own benefit, but to deficit another player.

I will say this: no, just because you defend a popular opinion, it does not mean that you are a bigot for doing so. And those that automatically assume that are indeed not helping their cause.

But your argument, that Gay America should come up with their own language to describe themselves, instead of pushing to use the language already established, is at best horribly short-sighted. Even using the term "Gay America", as if it is some foreign land, belies your true feelings.

There is no rational reason to keep gay people from using the word "marriage" to describe their relationships. If anything, such a notion promotes the idea that humans should be cordoned off form each other according to whatever criteria may be in vogue at the moment. And again, it isn't like the "original" meaning of marriage is under any threat. Straight people can still use it. And it isn't like the English language is known for its immutability. So again, what logical reason is there to keep others from, not redefining, but adding new meaning, to the word?

Posted by: Vermillion at June 18, 2010 12:58 PM

Oh and by the way....gay people DID try to create their own term for their relationships, an d tried to have it recognized. I do believe it was called "civil union". They tried to get the very rights they are fighting for now to be applied to said term, in an attempt to side-step the "definition of marriage" issue. Exactly what you proposed.

I also understand that several times, in several states, such a notion was ALSO roundly denounced by a set majority. Many of them espousing the same rhetoric they espoused before: that no union between same sex partners should be considered valid.

So it isn't like your other argument hasn't been tried. But even that caveat wasn't enough for some.

So again: can you really argue that bigotry isn't a significant factor behind the opposition to gay marriage?

Posted by: Vermillion at June 18, 2010 1:09 PM

As a Californian and an atheist, I have to hand it to the @#$% Mormons. They had much better organization and way more money. YES on Prop 8 ads were on TV and radio multiple times a day (and I can just imagine what went on in the churches). The "good guys" (my definition) got outplayed.

But this should not have been up for vote in the first place--as many previous posters have pointed out, civil rights, especially of a minority group, should not depend on the whims of the majority (tyranny of the majority comes to mind).

On a different note--I have a family member who is a Libertarian and a big Ron Paul supporter, and he fits the stereotype. He is a 30-something male with a very well paying profession, which he figures he totally deserves. He was born into a well-off family, so he has no experience with people struggling to pay their bills. Big on gadgets, and treats people in the similar way (as in, he has no @#$% social skills and rubs people the wrong way).

And yeah, Mr. Small Government totally supported Prop 8, thinks women should not own their own uteruses (or is it uteri?), and voted for Dubya twice. IMHO, a Libertarian is a Republican who doesn't want to call himself one, because the GOP brand is so soiled.

Posted by: True_Blue at June 18, 2010 1:21 PM

I do not know how the majority is allowed to take a right away from the minority once that right has been granted it by the state.
It is bullshit.

This really is a fucked up country we live in at times...

(I would be happy with removing marriage as the word used to describe the legal joining of two or more adults to civil union and let the religious out there call whatever they preform at church marriage. BUT that means that your pastor or priest or rabbi can no longer act as an agent of the state. You could "marry" all you want at a church but it would not be legal until your union is preformed by a civil authority.)

Posted by: Jules at June 18, 2010 1:29 PM

@Bill (Formerly Bill)

This being Pajiba, I had to read your response twice before I
realised I was not being punked. Now that I have read it, I want to
say thank you for the time you took to write it.

Thank you

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 1:36 PM

@Jules

Isn't that kind of what they do in many European countries? You must
have a civil marriage ceremony because the religious one is not legally binding. I think that changing to this standard in the US would actually
cause almost as much fuss as the potential objection to the genders
of the people involved.

Lighthearted sidenote:

Mr. Julien and I got married in judge's chambers before traffic court
and then had a church wedding several months later. At the top of the
church wedding invitation we put, "First it was legal, now its liturgical".

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 1:47 PM

I'm a Mormon. I support my church. I love the Mormon faith. I sometimes struggle to figure out the rationale behind my church's position. It's a difficult position to hold in today's world. The arguments are complex and the issues not entirely knowable (unintended consequences, longstanding traditions, effect of family structure on society, etc.), at least by rational means.

But I'm not here to convince anyone that gay marriage is a bad idea. I tend to waffle some on the issue all the time. But I would like to just share a view that may be even more radical here than saying that gay marriage is bad. That is, the Mormon Church is not motivated by hatred. The Mormon God is a God of love and mercy. He *is* a God with expectations and requirements. The fact that the Mormon God is not endlessly permissive should not be read as proof that he is a God of hate.

I'd love it if a few people around her could consider this point: There are probably a few Mormons that hate gay people (like there are a few people in every group that do). But as a Church, Mormons don't hate gay people. Mormon leaders don't hate gay people. The leaders of the Mormon church are genuinely concerned about the effects that widespread gay marriage will have on civil society.

This is hard for many people to believe, but I'm telling you it's true. I understand there's a view that anti-gay marriage folks have peddled falsehoods and spin in this battle, and if that's true, it's a shame. But the pro-gay marriage side has a very significant falsehood that totally kills any chance for any dialogue on the issue. That is, people who support gay marriage are absolutely wedded to the notion that their opponents are motivated by hatred and insincerity. It's just not true, guys. Until you can start to accept that some of these views are sincerely held, and held in a way that is not inconsistent with being a moral, good, nice person, we'll get nowhere. Please, drop the hate trope. It's not helping anything.

Posted by: bobbleheadl at June 18, 2010 1:48 PM

Bobbleheadl--when (not if) gay marriage becomes legal, it will either be a civil ceremony, or performed by some religious sects (say Unitarians). No Mormon temple would be forced to host a gay wedding. Heck, the Mormon Church can refuse to recognize gay marriage--it's within their rights. What they should not do is use political muscle to enforce their religious beliefs.

What you are arguing is that your "sincerely held" religious beliefs trumps civil rights of a minority group. So if the Pastafarians hold "sincerely held" belief that red haired people are spawns of the devil, can they campaign to deny civil rights to the gingers?

Maybe it ain't anti-gay hatred--maybe it's simple arrogance that _we_ know what all-knowing all-powerful deity wants us to do, and this gives us the right to force others to follow our interpretation.

Posted by: True_Blue at June 18, 2010 2:02 PM

True_Blue, your reading of the Mormon position is too narrow. Those leading the anti-gay marriage charge don't argue that objecting religions will be immediately forced to solemnize gay marriages (although, let's be serious, it's not hard to imagine that resulting once gay marriage is the norm- and I agree with you, there's little chance that won't happen in the next 20 years). Rather, those who oppose gay marriage have a sincerely held belief that gay marriage will change a very complex social fabric in a way that endangers current and traditional notions of families. I really don't have any interest in arguing whether their opinion is true or not. But it's not nearly as narrow as you think it is.

I think your other point- that Mormons and other groups should not push their positions on the rest of the world- is just plain untenable. I derive my views on morality from my interpretation of the universe. For me, that involves God and religion. What does it involve for you? Maybe a different view of God or a different God or a philosophical morality without any God at all. All of us have our own belief systems, and all of us are entitled to peddle them in the public square and see which ones win. The Mormons didn't force anything on anyone. Rather, mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists . . . etc. did battle in the court of public opinion and convinced enough voters to win. Would you argue that anyone whose views are at all tinted by religion should not be permitted to enter that fray? Should American policy be made solely by atheists? How much do I need to separate my views from those of my religion (which is the basis for a huge amount of my worldview, as it is for the majority of Americans throughout all history, I'd wager) before you'll say I can be heard in the public square?

In other words, we have a check on the Pastafarians: They'll never convince a majority, and the Courts will not let their edicts stand. The anti-gay marriage crowd has overcome those two hurdles (for now). Be honest and admit that there wasn't any force involved.

All of this ignore my main point: I just want people to stop assuming, self-servingly and without evidence, that the Mormon Church is in this because they hate gays and want them to be terribly unhappy. It's not true, and it's not helpful.

Posted by: bobbleheadl at June 18, 2010 2:20 PM

Deja....vu?

Posted by: frobme at June 18, 2010 2:30 PM

I don't know if the Mormon church hates gays, but they certainly
don't like them very much. Your group has made an enormous effort
to deny them their civil rights.

Isn't American policy being made by atheists (in the truest sense of
the word) exactly the point of separation of church and state?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 2:32 PM

Mrs. Julien, by that logic, you really don't like homeless people, because you haven't given them your house. Turns out we deny things to people all the time for legitimate reasons even if we don't bear them any ill will. The point is that in a society as interwoven and complex as this, giving something to one group often results in a negative effect (real or perceived) for another group. You need not dislike someone to argue that they shouldn't get something they want.

And no, separation of church and state has never meant, either legally or historically, that people making laws, whether a legislature or a majority of citizens, need to check their moral beliefs at the door, if those moral beliefs have some component of religion as a basis. And by the way, why are my God-based moral views any more suspect than someone else's atheistic moral views? Aren't we all sort of shooting from the hip in the end?

Posted by: bobbleheadl at June 18, 2010 2:38 PM

Mormon leaders don't hate gay people. The leaders of the Mormon church are genuinely concerned about the effects that widespread gay marriage will have on civil society.

Pejorative conflation. The implication being that what we have now is civil (debatable) and that changing it will result in something that is uncivil. Since the only relevant point of societal change in examination here is gay marriage, you are basically saying that gay marriage stands to end "civil" society.

But the pro-gay marriage side has a very significant falsehood that totally kills any chance for any dialogue on the issue.

No, your generalization of it does. *You* are making the assumption that all on the "pro"-gay marriage side feel a certain way.

First off, I'm not "pro" gay marriage as an example. I'm just not against it . The way one human being decides to show love and commitment to another is completely up to them in my book. I have what you would probably consider very dim views of religion and marriage as an institution in general (whether co-ed or same sex). But that's besides the point, I recognize that my views on them are a single perspective and I can only enforce those on myself, not on others. Nor would I WISH to.

And there's the key point. You're assuming gay marriage advocates see anti-gay marriage folks as haters. It's much worse than that to me. It's easy to hate someone - religion in general throughout human history has defined all kinds of groups as valid to hate, races have, as have governments, local communities, hell probably book clubs.

No, the problem I have is the "loving and caring" people don't even bother to try to understand their brothers and sisters who feel this way. Some of them give way to the hate (even you have to admit this, the evidence is out there), but I'm convinced that before that there is little to no effort to understand.

Because if you really and truly made an effort to understand, you'd see a bunch of souls looking for love and affection, and able to find it, at least for a moment in life.

And one group of people saying "no, you can't have that. We decided."

-Frob

Posted by: frobme at June 18, 2010 2:44 PM

Am I the only one who did not see what on earth the big deal about this was? Prop 8 was 100% symbolic. Nothing was gained or lost except hurt feelings. In California, we already have civil unions for same-sex couples which are indistinguishable from civil marriage. All the restrictions on gay couples in California are due to DOMA, which is federal, and changing the name to 'marriage' in California would have done nothing.

Posted by: reeedd at June 18, 2010 2:52 PM

@Mrs. Julien

My pleasure, and I mean that in a sick way. I have this masochistic side that actually gets a thrill from acknowledging certain people that affect my thinking in a positive way when I can also expose my own shortcomings in the process.

I also can't entirely hate people who make me laugh uncontrollably when they say something that gets me at just the right time- so hard to laugh and hate concurrently, no?

& love the wedding invitation line, btw.

Posted by: Bill (Formerly Bill) at June 18, 2010 2:59 PM

bobbleheadl, you said "Mrs. Julien, by that logic, you really don't like homeless people, because you haven't given them your house."

no, it's not, at all. letting gay people get married is not like giving away your house to a homeless person. gay marriage doesn't take anything away from straight marriages. a closer analogy would be saying, "straight people can own houses, but gay people are only allowed to rent apartments."

"Turns out we deny things to people all the time for legitimate reasons even if we don't bear them any ill will. The point is that in a society as interwoven and complex as this, giving something to one group often results in a negative effect (real or perceived) for another group."

there are no real negative effects, there are only percieved negative effects to gay marriage. i have heard so many arguments both for and against gay marriage (even in this thread), but no one has given me a REAL negative effect. can anybody give me just one?

Posted by: carolyn at June 18, 2010 3:06 PM

Please people the gay fight is not a civil rights fight. Back in the earlier part of the twentieth century a gay white male could walk down the street and look at a white woman freely without having his fucking brains beaten out of his skull. And if the gay community want help in its fight they should start with not blaming black people for the vote on Prop 8.


And stop blaming Obama for don’t ask don’t tell and DOMA. Your great white hope Clinton didn’t shit for you on the gay rights front but Obama is at lest trying to do something for the gay community and you guys want to shit on him.

Posted by: Pookie at June 18, 2010 3:11 PM

slightly propagandist

slightly? really? just slightly?
Was even the smallest attempt made to present the other view?

And no, if you are on the other side of the debate you will not think this film is "silly and pointless". You will think that it is incredibly one sided and bigoted. And yes, I said bigoted (blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others).

Posted by: EricD at June 18, 2010 3:16 PM

In several of the books I've read about Mormon fundamentalists (Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer and Stolen Innocence by Elissa Wall), marriage seems to be very fluid and run by the leaders. Marriages get dissolved and women passed around at the whim of the leaders. Granted, those are the fundamentalists, but they sprung from the mainspring Mormon church. Maybe wanting to have control over other peoples marriages just seems like a normal concept in the Mormon religion?
Either way, its none of their damn business and I'm hoping the day will come soon when I can attend my gay friends' fabulous weddings instead of commitment ceremonies.

Posted by: BoatGirl at June 18, 2010 4:00 PM

Except that on the wedding invitation I wrote it the grammatically-correct way.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 18, 2010 4:47 PM

Bobbleheadl--so your argument is that gay marriage should not be allowed because it will irrevocably change marriage and "traditional" family (and not in a good way).

Guess what? That train left the station a looong time ago, when divorce became easily obtainable (and societal stigma evaporated). This was aided immensely when women started working outside the home and 2-breadwinner families became the norm.

Given that gays are a minority, and not all gays want to get married right now, the number of married gays will be small. But divorced people are all over the place. Think about the damage it does to little Timmie, when he finds out that that the 3 kids next door all have different men coming to pick them up for visitations. The mind boggles.

Posted by: True_Blue at June 18, 2010 5:25 PM

Tax the churches!

Posted by: The Mutt at June 18, 2010 6:27 PM

i have a question since you guys would seem to support same sex marriage would you also be willing to support polygamy if a law allowing it passed? my great grandfather was a servant of Brigham young and he was forced to give up his polygamous family
because Uncle Sam wouldn't support it.
i would support somebody if they were Bisexual

Posted by: Utah Dynamo at June 18, 2010 8:02 PM

Gays can't marry in California, but they (California) think they have the right to tell Arizona what to do about their immigration policies. Like California is some sort of mecca of cultural understanding. Please....

Posted by: Kris at June 19, 2010 2:43 AM

The children of the future will look back upon this era with confusion. As we look back at the era before Loving vs Virginia. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the 'justification'. I speak about this topic regularly on my YouTube channel. Stop trying to use secular laws to impose sectarian world views onto other people.

Posted by: Tetsubo at June 19, 2010 8:48 AM

These people (Mormons) believe in a religious text that originated from a moron who stuck his head in a hat and spoke 'God's revelation'. Black Mormons weren't allowed to enter the ministry until 20 years ago. And Mormons still maintain that indigenous Americans are so because they are facing a collective punishment for being evil.

Why do you expect Mormons to act logically? And in the interests of civil rights?

And can I say, from a more optimistic perspective, that I am really proud to live in a day and age where there is public uproar over Prop 8? 30 years ago, 40 years ago, it wouldn't have even been an issue. That doesn't mean that we don't have a long way to go, but still- DAYUM...in my life I cannot believe how far we've come. Keep fighting the power! *raising fist and glass of wine*

Posted by: Amanda Hugandkiss at June 20, 2010 3:52 PM

Bobbleheadl, if society was never upset we would have horrible segregation and sexism. Hell, we wouldn't even have America.

And you say that society would be changed for the worse, traditions upset, etcetera, if gays were allowed to marry. For the worse?! In the times of sexism and racism, people thought civil rights and womens' rights were changes for the worse. Look how wrong they were!––and consider that you might be wrong, too.

Posted by: blarghkle at June 20, 2010 11:10 PM

Ballot Measure 9 was a ballot measure in the U.S. state of Oregon in 1992, concerning gay rights and public education, that drew widespread national attention.

Measure 9 would have added the following text to the Oregon Constitution:

“All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided. ”

It was defeated in the November 3, 1992 general election with 638,527 votes in favor, 828,290 votes against.
- Wikipedia

In the campaign to pass Ballot Measure 9, the Oregon Citizens Alliance portrayed gays as pedophiles and rapists. The predominantly black Baptist churches were strong opponents of the measure, and were the targets of violence and racism. There's a documentary that I think is called "No on Nine" that should be watched by everyone interested in this issue. And apparently Nirvana played at a No on Nine benefit, because that's all I can find about it right now, nothing showing about the doc on the internet.

Posted by: Brenton at June 21, 2010 1:05 PM

Like I said way back at the beginning of the comments, I was raised by a lesbian mother. I want to know why this bothers people and why it bothers them that if she wanted to get married it would be an issue. Please give me concrete evidence!

The reason this issue is important (at least to my family) is that if gays are not allowed to fall under "marriage" and only civil unions, many laws regarding wills, healthcare, insurance, mortgages, adoption and immigration ARE NULL AND VOID. THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE THE SAME BENEFITS OR REAP THE SAME REWARDS. THAT is why I care! I care because I want my mother to keep her house, keep her children, and if she's at the deathbed of her partner, she has to the right to sit there and hold her hand because she is considered "kin". Right now she is not able to do that.

Anonymous and all the rest....I don't care what your religion is, just respect me enough to tell me why you don't agree with what I'm saying. My boyfriend admitted when we first met that he was uncomfortable around gays because he had been molested by a man in a bathroom as a child. He had been taught that gay men are perverts and so he kept the mindset that only a gay would do that. He understands now that that is not true. Is a religious thing? A sexual thing? A fear thing?

You all keep bouncing around something but you can't put your finger on it. When you figure it out, let me know.

Posted by: scorzi at June 21, 2010 4:04 PM

This entire thread has been enlightening to me,as a gay person,because I don't have anything especially intelligent or insightful to contribute to the table,and I do see the logic in both sides,and to classify one as love and the other hate,I accept,is inaccurate if not slightly exaggerated.

While all of you in America are somewhat lucky enough to be able to converse about this issue,I still live in a country reigned by a terribly backward,limiting and unbreakable mindset that casts us gays as being the ultimate abortions of pure evil and immorality.

I am a proud,not shameful,gay and comfortable with my own identity,but I'm also very aware that if I were to say the wrong thing about this issue,to the wrong person,just that one line,being in the country I am,I could very well end up murdered,no joke.

So to all of you,who have spoken out against homophobia and for the gays in America to be bestowed an equal and unbiased position in society,you all are heroes somewhere,to someone,and part of each baby step that goes into making this world a more livable place for us.


Posted by: nikolai at June 23, 2010 5:28 AM

Omg. I hadn't thought about this this way. I'm book-marking this so I can come back later to read your other posts. I have a number of other web pages to go look at and came across this while searching some stuff for school.

Posted by: Ginette Mccornack at December 15, 2010 6:56 PM