sex IS biology, get that though yours.

So somehow the sperm of a homosexual man that meets the egg of a homosexual woman is unable to produce offspring? Good work there.

Please, do learn to think. Educating you people about “Breeding 101″ gets tiresome.

My apologies, Dan. In a reading rush — or maybe one of my many daily moments of senility — I misunderstood your position. Or attributed to you something that Bruce wrote.

Ugh. I made a smiley. Shame on me! Anyway…

So you’re a writer. An activist. Unafraid to express your opinion. But… you have to be asked?

Then again I sat out Prop 8 — with the exception of a few checks — so I’ll make a deal with you, even though we might end up on differing sides (although I hope not; I am all about the ecumenical redemption.) The next time something similar — in California or wherever — comes along, we’ll both offer up our respective talents. No ‘asking,’ or second-guessing, or worrying about the particular demographics of whichever state or municipality. We’ll jump right into the fray.

They might not like your ideas, my ideas, or either of our ideas, but we can say we offered them. Then the gloves can come off. And, at least in my case, pro bono is only about 5 cents an hours less than my writing usually commands, so it’s an easy lift.

Next year in Paducah! [Okay... unlikely. But somewhere.]

It does, the sperm meets the egg and with any luck 9 months later a person is born.

And here we thought the gay left had found conclusively that biology determines sexuality.

That’s biology, not sexuality. Get that through your empty head

sex IS biology, get that though yours.

And supposedly I’m a psycho bigot for attacking heterosexual supremacy?

Yes! If you think sex that serves no purpose but the physical and emotional needs of those involved is morally equivalent to bringing new life into the world, you are indeed pyscho.

Heterosexuals arent superior to homosexuals, but heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality.

And supposedly I’m a psycho bigot for attacking heterosexual supremacy?

Heterosexuals arent superior to homosexuals, but heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality.

Howso? Left-handers are killed from using right-handed tools, so should we be banning left-handedness?

If you dont believe me, put 100 men and women on one desert island, and 100 men on another, and come back in 100 years and see which island is still populated.

That’s biology, not sexuality. Get that through your empty head.

I am opposed to the idea that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals and that their couplings deserve privileges that should be denied to homosexual couples

Heterosexuals arent superior to homosexuals, but heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. If you dont believe me, put 100 men and women on one desert island, and 100 men on another, and come back in 100 years and see which island is still populated.

Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

Ahhhh, but Livewire, that is precisely how libs view the Constitution. Thats why it must be a “living, breathing” document — so they can make it mean whatever they want it to (trashing everything it stands for by doing so).

The Yes on 8 side ran a negative campaign, entirely on offense. The No on 8 side ran a positive campaign, entirely on defense.

The No on 8 side needed to run a negative campaign too. It’s not about being the nice guys! In politics, it’s about WINNING.

I would have much rather seen us run a slimy, sleazy, negative campaign that won, than the feel good positive campaign we ran and lost.

These people worked like hell to try to stop the impossible

Oh really?

Why were there no ads attacking the Mormon Church aimed directly at the black community? It’s a church that until the 80′s wouldn’t even allow blacks to be members.

Why was virtually everyone in the No on 8 ads white, when everyone knew going in knew our challenge would be with the black and Latino vote?

Why, when a majority of the money for the Yes on 8 folks was coming from out of state, (specifically Utah) did u not run ads attacking it as a conservative coup of traditional California values, run by out of staters?

Why didn’t you stir up broad anti-Mormon sentiment by attaching the Yes folks to the Mormon Church’s history of misogynist polygamy?

The bottom line is – the No on 8 folks ran a campaign aimed at winning ACCEPTANCE, not winning THE ELECTION.

And that’s why we lost.

Our strategy SUCKED. Seriously, how do you blow a double digit lead? I don’t wanna hear that the religious groups caused it to pass. Give me a frickin’ break.

We lost because they had better strategy. This was a margin of error race, when it should have been a blow out for us.

There were about 15-20% in the middle who were movable on this issue and the Yes folks moved them to their side.

Why don’t you and your fellow leftists explain to us why, if you hate people who oppose gay marriage so much, why you’re supporting and endorsing them?

People have voted on this question three times in California — once through the Legislature when it passed the original Family Code, once through the voter proposition process for Prop 22 when the Family Code was threatened by moonbat legislators, and now through the constitutional amendment process when Prop 22 was overturned by judges who were more interested in sucking up than they were in following the law.

In short, they have followed the legislative and democratic process to a tee and jumped increasingly higher hurdles to get what they want passed legally and with the consent of the governed. When do you intend to do the same?

And as for the other “privileges” to which marriage has been likened, you need to pass a test to get a driver’s license, yet two heterosexuals can basically get married just by virtue of being of the opposite sex, unrelated, and of the right age.

Translation: You have to pass a test to get a marriage license, as well. True, you have to study more for your driver’s test but, in some states, you have to “study” for your marriage test as well, for example, by getting your syphilis infection taken care of first.

Marriage is a right for heterosexuals.

… who are unrelated, of the right age, of sound mind, healthy (in some states), etc. In other words: It isn’t a right for all heterosexuals. They have to meet certain qualifications.

I am opposed to the idea that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals and that their couplings deserve privileges that should be denied to homosexual couples

Same here. We agree on something. Probably a lot, actually. I have long been a loud supporter of gay marriage. I just don’t kid myself. A State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. Rights should never be voted on. Privileges should always be voted on. We need to engage our adversaries with respect (while still pointing out they are wrong) and win at the ballot box. Trying to gain privileges through the court system is morally wrong and makes our just cause into an unjust cause.

It easy to criticize from the side lines. In your effort to have them all resign, you might want to take into consideration there aren’t a lot of people lining up to do this kind of work. Just take a look around the country at how many jobs are available in our equality organizations. Then again, who would want to work in an environment where our own community is worse to us than the right wing?

Anyone who has a problem with how these campaigns were run should simply join the movement and do what you think is best. Then you can get beat up by your own people like the rest of our leaders.

I happen to know many of the leaders involved in these campaigns around the country and they worked their asses off to try to bring equality to the masses. They deserve a thank you instead of a kick in the ass by you people.

If you have a better plan and are willing to step forward to implement it, then more power to you. That would be awesome. But if you are just going to criticize those who are making the sacrifice, then Shut UP!

I’m against gay marriage. Just because I assume many of those who voted for Prop. 8 did so out of moral repugnance doesn’t mean that their reasons (or lack of reason) reflects on why I would have done the same. Some here seem to be very much in favor of gay marriage. That’s fine, but the idea that a gay conservative is constantly conflicted and stands in this middle ground between a radical change in our social code and a reverence for that code appears insincere.

Lawrence v Texas was incorrectly decided.

Was it a bad law? Yes. Should it have been repealed? Yes.

Was it unconsitutional? Not so much. Just becasue a law is bad doesn’t make it automatically unconstitutional.

Louisanna’s law allowing the death penalty for child rapists was wrongly decided for the same reason. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.