Which is everything that the gay community opposes.”

another example of gross characterization coming out of lazy breeders.

since you don’t participate in the gay life of the city, as i do, shut up and pay attention for once: thousands of us sit around here AVOIDING the slutty crowd you see on your tv screens, with the same distaste that you feel. with nowhere to go since you assholes have taken away the possibility for us of finally securing a normal future with one other. and btw those people on tv are your fucking neighbors crashing our city every year. idiots.

Second, If MM feels entitled to define his own beliefs, he should respect others’ similar right. I have told him many times that I am not a leftist, and my record proves it no matter how many times he writes insultingly and derisively to the contrary. I have spent nearly 30 years criticizing the gay left, including in several articles on FrontPageMag.com for which I have been excoriated by many gay leftists. If I were a leftist I would not have been published by David Horowitz. That, of course, does not mean that I am not wrong for some other reason. Anyway, I am proud of what my country did last week, and I am not going to let people like MM ruin it for me.

LOL! No, ROFLMAO! And I’m almost 50… I hate teenage acronyms.

But still, I guess I have to give you credit for trying. And — again — I do seriously love the cop-out that it’s no one’s fault except the ‘No on 8′ crowd than Proposition 8 passed, even as you bend over to defend the Pro-8 crowd in the process. It totally makes me laugh, and we need more laughs these days.

The GLBT movement has to understand who votes against gay marriage (e.g., for Prop. and why they do it. When Prop. 8 wins even as a fairly moderate guy like John McCain loses California by a huge amount, you know it’s not just a bunch of hardcore right wingers voting for it.

Ahh, but there’s the rub. It’s FAR easier to scapegoat.

To do that would beg the question: “The gayLeft is doing something wrong?”

It’s time to nix gay marriage as the #1 animating policy issue for gays and move toward marriage equality, civil unions and tax benefits.

BTW, isn’t BarryO supposed to deliver those federal marriage benefits to gay partners in the first 100 days? I think that what’s Richard Rosendall and the gayLeft screed were promising in exchange for an Obama vote.

And I am sure that people would favor the addition of a group that strongly supports monogamy, that comes out against promiscuity, and that loudly speaks of the virtues of fidelity, commitment, and values.

Which is everything that the gay community opposes.

Perhaps if you didn’t have gay liberals proudly proclaiming their infidelity to the national media and saying that it is “impractical” for gay men to be sexually monogamous since “men are pigs”, the climate would be significantly better.

Number one: Because I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between men and women, and the simple fact is that the law prevents no one whatsoever from participating in this institution. Gays have precisely the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else. If they don’t want to, they don’t want to. Marriage remains marriage. The discrimination they claim simply does not exist. They are not shut out from the one man, one woman institution of marriage in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I wish a hell of a lot more of them would participate!

Number two: I strenuously object to judicial dictatorship.

Number three: Any claims that the institution of the legal fiction of “gay marriage” will have no effect on me are simply ludicrous. There is an obvious track record wherever it has been instituted. The age-old teachings of churches against homosexuality become (by force of law) “hate speech” and “discrimination”. Children are taught in school that there is nothing whatsoever wrong about homosexuality, and that whoever says otherwise is a retrograde bigot. Children in school are conditioned in various subtle ways to find homosexuality alluring. Etc. The behavior of outraged gays against the Mormons (both in the No on 8 commercials and in their protests/riots), and the strong financial support of the teachers unions for “No on 8″ only serves to confirm all of this for me. It is my conclusion, as an informed, socially aware, and serious Catholic, that the institution of this legal fiction will result in persecution of my Church and its members. It is my right as a voter to take this into consideration.

Number four: This whole fight over the word “marriage”, which already has a clear millenia-old meaning, is really a fight for coerced approval of the homosexual lifestyle. The fact is, I don’t approve. I am absolutely willing to live and let live in terms of homosexuals having any relationship they want, and privately calling it anything they want. But to hell if I’m not going to fight being forced by the state into calling a vice a virtue.

Number five: I believe that homosexuals have been offered an immense amount of compassion and tolerance over the last several decades. It appears that in exchange we are offered little more than threatening hate and outrage. It makes it very difficult for me not to want to thwart their holy cause.

Number six: Gay activists have attached themselves far too strongly to the whole panoply of left-wing causes. To the extent that the left wants to be a monolithic and revolutionary force, I am inclined to vote against it whenever and wherever I can.

I don’t get this line of argument. Marriage is on the ropes, so gays should get involved as well??

Marriage is tough, very tough. Gender differences define marriage such that women pretty much dominate the institution. Wives are statistically the ones who file for divorce, they get custody of the children, and they get equal or more of the community property.

With marriages stacked against men, many men are choosing to not marry. Women haven’t exactly advocated for men in law/policy to make marriage more acceptable. Thus, couples are cohabitating as the first option. For myself, I’ve came from a tough divorce. I married again for my religious beliefs. If I were an atheist, I probably would not marry.

Coming back to gay marriage, I voted for Prop 8 because I was against this constant judicial creation of rights. The legislature or the people should decide. We should also improve upon the institution.

I see gay marriage as a trojan horse. It’s designed to undermine marriage further and it loses all meaning and social relevance as well as reverence.

Jane, you’re absolutely right. Removing patronizing assumptions about one’s opponents such as how fearful they are might begin to neutralize the atmosphere.

Elephant, agreed and I meant to address that with:

“Could it just possibly be that those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage simply remain unconvinced that same-sex marriage is of such a social benefit that it merits changing the definition of an ancient tradition…”

But the point of my post is to emphasize the fear exhibited toward faith, particularly the Mormon religion. I’m not a Mormon and consider much of all religions pure hokum, but if we compare statistics of Mormons with those of gays, I wonder who we need fear, if that’s a term we’re now injecting into the debate.

I can’t speak for all young straight Christian conservatives, but I do think that we as a group tend not to view gay marriage as all that threatening. I think we tend to feel more threatened by courts that feel emboldened to enact huge cultural changes and by a GLBT movement that is uninterested in why religious organizations have any opposition to the changes they seek.

The GLBT movement has to understand who votes against gay marriage (e.g., for Prop. and why they do it. When Prop. 8 wins even as a fairly moderate guy like John McCain loses California by a huge amount, you know it’s not just a bunch of hardcore right wingers voting for it. The GLBT movement has to figure out why this passes in blue states as well as red. You understand; they don’t.

Social change can be a good thing, but is frightening to *some*. You need to reassure *those* who *might* fear such change…

Emphasis added, answering the above comments. Let me further point out that in CA, we only need 51%.

This is exactly what the problem is. The vitriol has to be removed from the process. Also, the in your face kind of social change must be negotiated. I think many people don’t want their small children read stories such as “King and King.” This may mean that marriage is simply left out of the curriculum until middle or high school. Gays have to realize this is tough stuff for straights to accept. I think we have to talk about the parameters. I think it is fair and reasonable. I could go on and on, please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am basically on your side.

As a liberal, in discussions of gay marriage, I’d always concentrated my calm, respectful conversations on the ways in which gay and lesbian couples are not protected in the same way as heterosexual married couples. The point American Elephant made about telling people what gay marriage could offer society in addition to traditional marriage is a point that had never dawned on me, and I must thank him or her for that, and will bring that to the table in local efforts to appeal to fair-minded individuals open to discussion.