Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll

Comments (55)
OIFVetAtUSC wrote:

[Quote] …no statewide initiative to legalize gay marriage has ever won a majority vote. [/Quote]

Well then, reason enough to dispute the polls. Americans have long tolerated gays and lesbians who like to “play house” by co-habitating together, but they do not accept “legal marriages” between gays and lesbians. That continues to be proven in one voting referrendum after another.

May 20, 2011 10:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carpentr2 wrote:

So when will the religeous right recognize that god creates gays just as he creates straights. Why would he keep creating either if it were a mistake?

May 20, 2011 11:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Luckily, as more older voters (with rigid moral/value ideas) die off, they’re replaced with more tolerant individuals. Until then, best of luck bigots, the tide is turning.

May 20, 2011 11:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kenincalif wrote:

For all you people who like to cite that same sex marriage has never won voting referrendum as evidence that this poll is flawed: Do you not understand anything about polling?? This poll reflects attitudes NOW, in 2011. There has not been a referrendum on marriage since Maine in 2009. The article clearly states that attitudes have CHANGED. A vote from two or more years ago does not tell us how people feel today. It’s like saying that because Obama won in 2008 that he’s guarenteed to by the exact margin in 2012 because people never change their minds. Are you people really that stupid that you can’t understand that?!?

May 20, 2011 11:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
grandpaez wrote:

Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 enough said.

May 20, 2011 11:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hyhybt wrote:

Anybody know where to find reasonably-current polling broken down by state?

May 20, 2011 11:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jorsch wrote:

@OIFVetAtUSC: Your comment makes you sound like a huge bigot. Gay people shouldn’t be tolerated, they should be accepted. E.g. you should feel the same way toward a straight person as you do a gay person. If you don’t, then you’ve got some issues of your own to figure out. Good luck with that!

May 20, 2011 11:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

We think we can disobey the Lord and escape his wrath? God does not create “gays”. Those participating in those activities choose to do what he has outlawed.

May 20, 2011 11:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
btrask3 wrote:

Here is another example of THE MEDIA using their bully pulpit to bend opinion by referring to a “POLL” and then using words like MAJORITY…

We all know that POLLS are flawed, and can be manipulated by the bias of the person(s) who commissioned the “POLL”.

It seems like Reuters has joined the New York Times in their far left liberal bias.

For me, the FAMILY is the most important glue that holds America together. Encouraging the breakdown of the Family with a bias story like this one, is very harmful.

Divorce has decimated the FAMILY and now our children are looking at two daddies or two mommies and asking… were did we come from?

It’s hard to tell them the truth… and expect them to be well adjusted adults.

May 20, 2011 11:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
idlespire1 wrote:

@OIFV The majority is ALWAYS against giving a minority their rights. Just because you do not approve does not make you right. get a grip. as the article says, the majority of young people don’t see it as an issue. We’ll just wait for the older generation to die off and we will be fine. If we keep your god out of our lives, we’ll be fine.

May 20, 2011 12:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

Has a man ever given birth to a baby? Until that happens my vote is 1 man plus 1 woman equals marriage.

May 20, 2011 12:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
inverse137 wrote:

@granpaez…uhh, your counter argument is western mythology? Your not the brightest knife in the drawer, are you?

May 20, 2011 12:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
inverse137 wrote:


inverse137 wrote:


inverse137 wrote:


That “glue” has a 50% divorce rate.

You should lay off the rhetoric and start learning facts.

Idiots annoy me.

May 20, 2011 12:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
inverse137 wrote:

The good part is that all the idiot bible thumpers will be gone after tomorrow…..HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

May 20, 2011 12:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
FredFrosty wrote:

Mariage = The union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
There is no such thing as gay mariage. No media outlet, judge or polster has the right to re-define words. This has NOTHING to do with rights. In Canada they got rid of the first part of the definition and now the polygamists justly ask: If you can redefine the first part(man and woman), you can redefine the second(exclusion of all others).

May 20, 2011 12:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
druiz2727 wrote:

“…no statewide initiative to legalize gay marriage has ever won a majority vote”

Exactly. So why do people insist on continuing to poll this? Put it to a popular state-wide vote and it is voted down every time. Stop creating these silly polls. America has already spoken. Wait 10 years and try it again. Totally fine, but come on. No means no. Stop trying to force it into law overnight.

May 21, 2011 1:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paulflorez wrote:

Civil marriage and Religious marriage are two different things, they are not the same.

Gay religious marriage is not banned. There are many churches which will marry same-sex couples. So, it has nothing to do with stopping gay religious marriage, as churches are already marrying gay couples.

Gay civil marriage is banned though, and for one simple reason: the demonization of Gay Americans by anti-gay social conservatives. It has nothing to do with protecting religious marriage, otherwise they would have banned gay religious marriage as well. They want Americans to see Gay Americans as evil, they want Americans to hate Gay Americans and shun Gay Americans.

And it worked when Gay Americans hid in the closet. While Gay Americans were hiding, anti-gay social conservatives told lies about Gay Americans, they told lies that made Gay Americans look like monsters.

Now that Gay Americans are not hiding anymore, Americans are seeing that anti-gay social conservatives were lying to them, and still are lying to them, and they’re not liking it. Especially the younger generation, the younger generation grew up with gay peers, and they know the idea that their gay peers are evil or are unacceptable or should be shunned is a big fat lie. Nothing angers the younger generation like being told what to do, especially using lies, by the older generation.

One day, the anti-gay social conservatives will regret their actions, as the weight of shame lays heavy upon them, and they join the racists, who opposed interracial marriage, in social exile.

Argue all you want, yell, scream, cry foul, debate… the evidence is clear. America isn’t eating your tripe anymore. As more Americans refuse to eat your tripe, in a desperate attempt you’ll start shoving it down their throats, but that will only hasten the coming of equal rights of gays.

May 21, 2011 1:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
stopard321 wrote:

It appears that the homosexual marriage is accepted. The next step for the LGBT movement will be bisexual marriage because we absolutely must not discriminate bisexuals. Besides, there is a precedent. Bi-sexual marriages cannot be distinguished from polygamy. Progress cannot be stopped!!!!

May 21, 2011 1:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
izzyis1 wrote:

Now you know the meaning of agenda driven pure propaganda, and if you believe the “polls” I have a bridge for sale.

May 21, 2011 2:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
izzyis1 wrote:

So you will know when you get to meet G-d.

May 21, 2011 2:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MrPlaneman wrote:


You know you can’t just cherry pick the parts of the bible that suit your needs, right? Leviticus tells us to put to death many more people than homosexuals; rebellious children, people that sleep in the same bed as a woman having their period, people who work on the sabbath… So hope if you ever had kids that you killed them the first time they went against your words…

May 21, 2011 2:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TxCharlie wrote:

I would vote “yes” just to make the gays shut up about it and give gay guys one less excuse to march down main street while dressed in pink hot pants with plastic see-through buttocks windows and toting a Gay Maggiage signs.

Just the facts, I swear!

Oh, and I never saw so many people with hands on each other’s buttocks walking through the Midway at the Texas State Fair on the unofficial State Fair Gay Day…

Just saying… There’s three things I notice at the state fair: Guys holding girl’s buttocks, Guys holding Guys’ buttocks, girls holding each other’s buttocks, generally with an extreme lasck of bras.

Which can be rather enjoyable, actually.

May 21, 2011 2:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Exp wrote:

Perhaps we can politicize and justify to ourselves that this is about equality but as someone once told me, nature has funny way of making corrections … it’s all part of evolution. For example, we can politicize and legislate that the law of gravity is no longer valid but go on top of a 20-story building and then jump off and you’ll find yourself accelerating towards the ground, you’ll hit it and hurt, if not kill yourself. Are we justifying homosexuality in same way? Nothing to do with religion, it’s all about natural pro-creation. Good luck and best wishes to all with their own political agendas … I just want people to start thinking science instead of politics.

Garciahome wrote:

Tolerance for alternative lifestyles and for civil unions (to provide for each other) is increasingly acceptable. This does not mean the majority of society has acquiesced that people with this lifestyle can use the social institution of marriage. What kind of poll was this? No one answers their phone anymore without screening calls and I sure hope this was not a flawed poll by using only social network methods.

May 21, 2011 2:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
daniwitz13 wrote:

EVERYONE mistake discrimination and use it in the same breath to Marriage. They are two separate issues. It is a given that there should NEVER be discrimination against Gays. But the right of NOT being discriminated against is NOT saying you have a RIGHT to Marriage. They are NOT the same. To have a preference for the same gender, is NO DIFFERENT than preferring blonds, preferring a certain race, preferring animals to humans. There is NO difference. No one should care what the hell you prefer. NONE of these preferences is a RIGHT to Marriage. May as well (and you don’t give a damn) have SAME TRANS-GENDER Marriage, SAME RACE marriage, SAME RELIGION marriages, It is a slippery slope. At 3% of Mankind though, Homosexuality is an aberrance.

May 21, 2011 3:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
larrybjones wrote:

For those that say something about homosexual couples in regards to children, this is nothing new. Americans have had children raised by gay couples that many would see as well rounded outstanding individuals. It doesn’t matter if you have two dads or two moms, as long as there is love and support.

Also in regards to civil marrage, its more than just the recognized union by the government. Its also about the equal treatment for life partners. Imagine not being able to insure your spouce because someone else says your union is wrong. Its amazing the hoops that gays have to go through just to get the same treatment as married couples.

May 21, 2011 3:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
larrybjones wrote:

@daniwitz13 where are you getting 3% from?

May 21, 2011 3:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jzyehoshua wrote:

@inverse37 – And no-fault divorce like gay marriage is a recent invention that began in 1970s California. The same movement that started no-fault divorce is the same one that started gay marriage. So if you’re criticizing divorce, you’re criticizing your own crowd.

May 21, 2011 5:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jzyehoshua wrote:

@carpentr2 – God made murderers just like he made non-murderers, but that doesn’t mean he intended murderers to become murderers. A person’s lifestyle choices don’t mean God meant them to make those choices, or condoned them, he just gave us free will to make them with.

May 21, 2011 5:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jzyehoshua wrote:

It’s ironic that the NBA is putting out commercials recently trying to discourage the use of gay to mean disgusting, saying that it’s improper. I guess they think it’s gay to use the term ‘gay’.

In all seriousness, it’s ironic that the homosexual community tried using language to their advantage, describing themselves with a term, ‘gay’, that originally had a positive meaning of happy. Ironically, American culture then naturally conformed the meaning as negative, associating it with a connotation of disgusting, so that they now need to combat the new meaning. The nature of this change somewhat shows just how naturally revolting people recognize their lifestyle to be.

May 21, 2011 5:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OIFVetAtUSC wrote:

@inverse137, apparently only you and “a couple of others” in this entire forum have reverted to name calling in the usual desperate bid to support the notion that same sex couples should be considered “married couples.”

The gay and lesbian movement, through the oddly named Log Cabin Republicans and their sleeper friends in the liberal courts, continue to trying to dip low in their barrel of lies, fantacies and legal deceit to claim that homosexuality is a good, normal and healthy state of being. It is not. It is nothing more than an abnormal and alternative lifestyle

Likewise, regardless of this skewed poll, most Americans do not equate “pretend marriage certificates,” regardless of how they are obtained and viewed by a few states, to the definition of marriage which is defined as 1 man + 1 woman as accepted throughout world history.

May 21, 2011 9:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cru wrote:

Before citing Leviticus, do read on to the rest of the chapter:

That’s right, the bat. In a list of birds.

May 21, 2011 11:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cru wrote:

“to the definition of marriage which is defined as 1 man + 1 woman as accepted throughout world history”

If you read, you’ll see the word marriage used in more context than simply cross-gender pairings of humans. If you want to be as broad as “throughout world history” then you’ll have to accept homosexual pairings in Rome, as well as the polyandrous (multiple husbands) of Tibet.

Bottom line: you don’t get to define bonds between people, or the bonds they make with their makers.

May 21, 2011 11:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ugg wrote:

If 90 percent of Americans agree the sun should rise in the north and set in the South. It may happen in their minds but in Nature, it will not happen. Marriage is an institution created to make babies. A Great Commander once said; Go forth–Multiply and fill the earth. —That was not a suggestion; it was a Command from a very important commander. He instituted the Sacrament of Matrimony when he spoke of this institution. This is probably why the sex urge is so powerful in many people. In humans the command is so strong, when guidance is lacking’ it can create perverted actions, causing heart aches among many. The word pervert sound vulgar but is just means a lie or unnatural. This is why the bees pollinate the fruit trees so life can multiply. This is why many various animals force themselves on to the opposite sex of other animals so they can multiply and fill the earth. Many humans have great sex urges so that they too can multiply and fill the earth. Because of these urges, in most all specie of life, in every corner of the earth, these imbedded urges are strong reproductive desires, put there by their commanded, to multiply and fill the earth. In humans, God gave people a free will, to command his or her own sexual desires and urges with or without the sacred institution of Matrimony. God gave us all a conscience and the Ten Commandments to live by. Each person may use his free will to guide his actions as to how he or she intrepid and follows the laws of God. It is not my obligation to force my desires onto my brethren. It is not my Government’s Obligation to change its laws to satisfy my way of serving God and is not my Government obligation to change its laws to satisfy my brethrens way of life. No matter what Our Government does in regards to uniting friends in unity for life, what they do between one another is their business and their obligations to God is none of any of our businesses. Distorting the laws of Our American government, jumbling them to mean different things will not matter. A Government is like a Company, it can be dissolved anytime and life will go on. If this is all about Medical Benefits and Tax Benefits then let Our Government address the benefits and be sure they don’t discriminate benefits by blaming and change the laws relating to Marriage, the Sacrament of Matrimony.

May 21, 2011 11:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
reaper94 wrote:

That’s the social tendency, and it obviously doesn’t astonish me too much.

May 21, 2011 11:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OIFVetAtUSC wrote:

Jzyehoshua wrote:

Well said Jzyehoshua. Contempt, and even open hosility for the sanctity of marriage comes in many forms. The “notion” and fallacy of same sex marriage is as immoral and unacceptable as heterosexual adultery, infidelity and human sacrifice. It is a return to the paganism and immorality of those crude civilizations that paralleled Judeo-Christian cultures. Even the Greco-Roman culture of 2000 years ago conformed to the Abrahamic faiths almost at once through the teachings of a few.

May 21, 2011 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cru wrote:

Marriage, as a contract with God, has no real relevance to the legal discussion. The sacrament happens within your place of worship. Law is separate from what you consider sacred.

We live in a country with freedom of religion. Therefore, any arguments to say that same-sex marriages are not sacred are hollow.

What is happening is that you have people in the same long-term cohabiting relationship as a married couple, but without any of the benefits married couples enjoy. You can try to skew it into an institution for child rearing, but there are plenty of sterile or simply childless couples to negate that argument. HOWEVER, if you really want to take things into the territory of children, you must recognize that homosexual couples can adopt.

If children are adopted, but without parents that can share the same legal advantages as heterosexual couples. Then your argument has even less of a leg to stand on under equal protection. Likewise, it increases the imperative that they be given equal rights for the sake of the children.

If you try to argue in favor of the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, you have to contend with the reality that is divorce. It is patently absurd to consider your word sacred to the point of exclusivity, as it infringes upon the religious freedoms of others. Consider if Catholics reserved the word ‘Easter’ so that protestants would have to call it something else.

Finally, logically you want more stable family units. It’s counter-intuitive to actively work to keep one kind of stable family unit from forming, simply because you don’t like the way it looks. The function is still the same: Two unrelated people establishing kinship in a long-term committed relationship that often share resources and may or may not be guardians of minors. This is not “changing the definition,” it’s not even expanding the definition. It’s just acknowledgement that you don’t stop reading a dictionary after the first entry.

May 21, 2011 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hyhybt wrote:

btrask3 : Certainly, it’s possible for polls to be biased. But you seem to be equating “biased poll” with “poll which yields results I don’t like.”

druiz2727: the purpose of polling is to find out what people THINK, not what they THOUGHT months or years ago. People change their minds, as you can see by looking at the exact same poll taken year after year showing results moving in a consistent direction. By your logic, we should elect people for life too: if we wanted them in office the first time they ran, why ask whether we still do every few years?

daniwitz13: Equal protection means laws must be applied equally. If Barney can marry Betty, But Wilma cannot because Wilma is a woman, that’s sex discrimination, plain and simple, just exactly the same as if you made it illegal for her to become a lawyer for the same reason. That she could marry Fred, or become a secretary, instead is irrelevant.

OIFVetAtUSC: on what basis (again, other than it happening to show results you don’t like) are you calling the poll “skewed?”

May 21, 2011 12:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I kinda doubt this is true as every state that has had a chance to vote on marriage being between one man and one woman has passed it overwhelmingly, perhaps this is a survey of liberal judges who thwart the will of the people.

May 21, 2011 2:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OIFVetAtUSC wrote:

hyhybt, this questionable poll does not correspond to voter response during recent election referendums. That is a fact. Further, there have been voter referendums more recently than 2009 with the same results. The notion and fallacy of same sex marriage is rejected by mainstream America and likewise, most of the legislators in the U.S. Congress, statehouses and general assemblies across America. That is why gays and lesbians try to circumvent the voters and the legislature and navigate only among their few well placed friends in the Courts. Judge Williams and Judge Phillips were two examples of that back door strategy that fortunately failed.

May 21, 2011 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
101flyboy wrote:

Anti-gays love to make up a whole bunch of garbage of why they make a non-issue a big one. The reality is, first of all, the “people vote against it” quip that all anti-gays use fails miserably. By people, you mean gays and their ardent supporters, and extremist social conservatives. The OVERWHELMING majority of people don’t care either way. The reason why same-sex marriage has struggled to pass on ballots is because most people who vote tend to be middle aged and older, and older people tend to be anti-gay by and large. The gay communities’ strongest ally, people teenage-30yrs, don’t vote with regularity. That’s what that all comes down to. People in positions of power in America tend to be anti-gay, either because they are against homosexuality or because they like the power they hold over gay folk. So when the gay community seeks out the legal system to grant their required rights, that’s because equal rights are NOT SUBJECT TO VOTE, it’s a requirement, and the thought that heterosexuals have the right to dictate the rights of homosexuals is the ultimate insult.

So, anyone who uses that argument clearly has no clue, and really could use an education on this subject. Secondly, anyone using religion to justify their views, come off it. This has nothing to do with religion/morality. Not everyone thinks the way you do. Nor do they have to. America isn’t a theocracy. Society is not 24/7 God central. The Bible is not the constitution. Ultimately, your beliefs are yours, it’s a personal thing. Stop forcing those beliefs on others. Live and let live.

At the end of the day, gay acceptance has increased because of increased visibility, awareness and education on the REAL issues. People can put a face on the hardships that gay folk face in terms of discrimination and more and more, society is standing up against this barbaric treatment. There are zero reasons to be anti-gay and these studies that show a majority who accept marriage equality are simply a natural progression of a maturing society.

May 21, 2011 5:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
redbird wrote:

All men are created equal. But not all unions are created equal. The state recognizes traditional marriage because it provides a benefit to the country. Gay marriage does not provide a benefit to anybody except the 2 people getting married. Civil unions, yes. Marriage, no. No money should be taken from my pocket to benefit a gay marriage, since that marriage is not beneficial to the country.

May 21, 2011 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jprjr3 wrote:


They didn’t ask me.

May 21, 2011 7:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Asdf wrote:

marriage existed long before christianity and will exist long after it. i dont care what your religious texts dictate in your life, keep your religion off public policy. america is not a theocracy, it was not founded as one, and it will never be one.

May 21, 2011 8:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ChrisHarding wrote:

About time! :•) Homosexuals deserve a legally binding union.

May 21, 2011 8:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hyhybt wrote:

OIFVetAtUSC: There have been NO voter referenda recently. Also, electoral results, while important because that’s where decisions are made, do not represent what the public in general thinks, but only what those who show up on election day think… and only at that time. Those in favor of gay marriage are harder to get worked up over it, because those *directly* affected are mostly gay people. Those opposed are far easier to scare into showing up with claims that the existence of legally married gay couples would somehow harm children, destroy opposite-sex marriage, and various other blatant lies. And, just as polls *can* be crafted to generate the desired results, ballot measures *always* are. This particular poll is worded as carefully down-the-middle as it’s possible to do.

Now: what about poor Wilma and Betty?

May 22, 2011 1:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Quizixal wrote:

Always love to read this dribble and get a good laugh from the people who actually care whether or not someone gets married, regardless of sexual orientation. What is marriage? it is a document that gives you permission to combine your taxable future with someone elses. If you truely love someone and care for them, no piece of paper, no words spoken in front of another man or woman will increase that bond. Those are merely things you do because the government and the church, (not to mention oodles of other businesses) make a boatload of cash off you and your significant other when you do decide to waste all that money in an empty gesture to tell other people, whose opinions are meaningless, that you love each other.

If gay and lesbian couple want to get the right to spend all that money on the meaningless things like extravegant weddings and pieces of paper that you pay for to state that they are in love, then by all means, let them.

May 22, 2011 10:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Asdf wrote:

@quizixal. marriage as a legal contract does a lot more than dictate joint finances, that you consider it an empty gesture speaks to your ignorance of what legal marriage is. apparently you have never been in a bi-national relationship where immigration law is contingent on that ‘piece of meaningless paper’. or maybe it is that you never had a sick spouse you couldn’t visit. but i guess when you are living in that cutesy bubble of ignorance, critical thinking isn’t really an issue is it?

May 22, 2011 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Quizixal wrote:

@Mr.Asdf sounds like your beef is with the governments that only consider a marriage legal if you PAY for that piece of paper, making it exactly what i stated, a meaningless gesture forced upon you by society, making you pay them for the privilege of calling yourself married in the eyes of church and state. Its a money driven joke that far too many people, including yourself, seem incapable of seeing through. I am sorry if you can’t see that. As for your multi-national relationship, sorry you are in that situation, but doesn’t not change what marriage really is.

May 22, 2011 4:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Asdf wrote:

@quizixal. youre opinions on marriage are two dimensional. no doubt your a libertarian who would prefer we go back to some hollywood version of the wild west.

May 23, 2011 8:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HAL.9000 wrote:



I think the issue at hand has more to do with the moral “legitimization” of the gay lifestyle not just the “legal” legitimization.

It’s like this, prostitution is legal in certain parts of the country (US) from overt (as in Las Vegas) to subtle (“I’m not a prostitute I’m a professional ‘escort.’”) Legalization or political correctness does not necessarily mean that it is “right” or an asset with civilized life.

Male/female marriage is the cornerstone of civilization being one of the oldest institutions where the only requirement was that those engaged in this contract be of the opposite sex.

Gay marriage advocates want to reinvent society’s norms just because they are not content with being accepted socially, but want to be accepted legally as well. This is a problem because society may respect your right to a private life, but it is not prepared for you to force your lifestyle down their collective throats as “totally OK….so go teach your children it’s OK as well.”

And NO, the plight of gays is not the same as the plight of Blacks looking for equality in th US history. One is discrimination based on who you are…a black man or woman. The other is based on what you do…engage in homosexual behavior.

You can argue that being gay is “who you are” but it doesn’t explain how some people manage to switch from being gay to heterosexual and claim they are not gay anymore for whatever psychological reasons.

Furthermore, overt racism is limited to certain parts of the globe with the US having a significant part of it, historically. It is not global. Shakespeare’s OTHELLO portrays a marriage between a black man and a white woman, yet no one has ever blinked an eye about that…and yet, how old is that play? So it is safe to say that heterosexual relationships between difference races has always been accepted, yet homosexuality has never enjoyed such global acceptance from an historical perspective.

May 23, 2011 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeDietz wrote:

It is interesting to see divorce and homosexual marriage talked about together. It is very important to do so. I am willing to bet that more homosexuals come from families who were separated by divorce than from good, sound families. So if divorce brought on an increase of homosexuals, what will an increase in homosexuals bring? Stay tuned… it can only get better!

May 23, 2011 1:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Tolerated? No we “tolerated” being treated like second class citizens. We “tolerated” living in silence, shame and fear. We “tolerated” accepting that most people did not view us as equal. Welcome to the the world we will no longer TOLERATE ignorant views like putting minority rights up for a vote…that is why more and more when this hate legislation does land in front of a judge its overturned. We will win Prop 8 and if it goes to SCOTUS we will win again…you are either on the right side of history or you arent…like it or not this IS going to happen…and Maggie can find another way to earn a living.

May 24, 2011 11:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse