CBS’s Rodriguez Shows Support for Gay Marriage

CBS’s Rodriguez Shows Support for Gay Marriage

By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
September 16, 2008 - 16:02 ET

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed ‘Star Trek’ actor George Takei and his partner Brad Altman about their wedding following California legalizing gay marriage and asked: "George, how was the wedding? Was it everything you dreamed of?" At the end of the segment, Takei declared: "And may sweet equality live long and prosper," making the Star Trek Vulcan hand sign. Rodriguez showed her solidarity, making the hand sign back and replying: "Let me do it. Same to you." [audio excerpt here]

During the segment, Rodriguez asked about the California ballot initiative designed to overturn the state supreme court’s decision to legalize gay marriage: "But there's this proposition on the November ballot, which you're very familiar with, Proposition 8, that may allow California voters to essentially nullify your marriage if they vote for it. George, talk about what that would mean for your marriage and for you emotionally." Takei replied by denouncing the ballot initiative, yet praising democracy:

Well, first of all, we're not going to let it get there, we're going to fight it tooth and nail. Because it's against the basic fundamental ideals of democracy. You know, we're a pluralistic society and there are many, many faiths and beliefs here. Now we respect everybody's faiths, their right to their beliefs. But there's no right for any one faith group to write those -- their own particular beliefs into civil law that applies to everyone. That's not democracy. That's not the way it works in the American way. And we are going to make sure that democracy prevails here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Rodriguez followed up: " So does that mean that you're going to try to keep it from ever getting on the ballot or you're going to make sure it doesn't pass?" Takei explained: "Oh, no. It is on the ballot." Rodriguez then asked: "That you cannot change?...So what you're going to do -- So how will you fight it? Will you start a petition or something?"

Maggie Rodriguez, CBS Altman later added: "I'm optimistic that Proposition 8's going to be defeated on November 4th on the California ballot." Takei then warned of potential unfair opposition:

However, you know, I warn everybody that we must not be confident. We've got to fight and run scared, because we don't know what kind of last-minute campaign they're going to throw at us. That's the way it happens in elections, and so we've got to be prepared. We're vigorously raising funds. We asked our guests for no gifts, but contributions to the HRC Wedding Registry and also to the Japanese American National Museum where we got married. It's -- and we got married in the democracy forum. We -- very consciously we chose that venue because we wanted our union to be in the forum of democracy.

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM TEASER:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Also coming up, 'Star Trek's' Mr. Sulu, George Takei got married, he married his long-time partner in California and this morning they're going to join us for an exclusive interview.
DAVE PRICE: That is very cool.
8:40AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: As we learned over the weekend, George Takei, Mr. Sulu from 'Star Trek,' married his longtime partner Brad Altman. They join us exclusively this morning from Los Angeles. Gentlemen, good morning and congratulations.
BRAD ALTMAN: Thank you very much.
GEORGE TAKEI: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: George, how was the wedding? Was it everything you dreamed of?
TAKEI: It was exquisite. It was magical. It's something we're going to remember for the rest our lives.
RODRIGUEZ: Brad, you've been married two whole days now. So how's married life?
ALTMAN: It's great but we've been busy sending out thank you e-mails to all of the musicians and singers and entertainers that helped make our wedding the best day of our lives.
TAKEI: He is obsessed with details.
RODRIGUEZ: A lot of people there or-
ALTMAN: About 200 people. It was a packed house.
RODRIGUEZ: Oh wow, big, big wedding. So let me ask you, George, what does this change legally?
TAKEI: It has made us equal to everybody and that makes a world of difference. We feel just fantastic.
RODRIGUEZ: Give me some examples, Brad, of how it has made you equal in the eyes of the law.
ALTMAN: Well, it's like any -- we're a long-term, well-established couple, we've been together more than 21 years and now in California we have marriage equality. Marriage is a fundamental right for all Californians and I'm legal and George is my husband and it makes a world of difference.
RODRIGUEZ: But there's this proposition on the November ballot, which you're very familiar with, Proposition 8, that may allow California voters to essentially nullify your marriage if they vote for it. George, talk about what that would mean for your marriage and for you emotionally.
TAKEI: Well, first of all, we're not going to let it get there, we're going to fight it tooth and nail. Because it's against the basic fundamental ideals of democracy. You know, we're a pluralistic society and there are many, many faiths and beliefs here. Now we respect everybody's faiths, their right to their beliefs. But there's no right for any one faith group to write those -- their own particular beliefs into civil law that applies to everyone. That's not democracy. That's not the way it works in the American way. And we are going to make sure that democracy prevails here.
RODRIGUEZ: So does that mean that you're going to try to keep it from ever getting on the ballot or you're going to make sure it doesn't pass?
TAKEI: Oh, no. It is on the ballot.
RODRIGUEZ: That you cannot change?
TAKEI: That we cannot.
RODRIGUEZ: So what you're going to do -- So how will you fight it? Will you start a petition or something?
TAKEI: Oh, well, no. We're -- it's on the ballot and it is going to be -- there is going to be a campaign. I think basically, the majority of Californians are fair, decent-minded people, and they will recognize the beauty of our marriage, the truth of our marriage, and they will not take it away from us.
ALTMAN: I'm optimistic that Proposition 8's going to be defeated on November 4th on the California ballot.
RODRIGUEZ: But-
TAKEI: However, you know, I warn everybody that we must not be confident. We've got to fight and run scared, because we don't know what kind of last-minute campaign they're going to throw at us. That's the way it happens in elections, and so we've got to be prepared. We're vigorously raising funds. We asked our guests for no gifts, but contributions to the HRC Wedding Registry and also to the Japanese American National Museum where we got married. It's -- and we got married in the democracy forum. We -- very consciously we chose that venue because we wanted our union to be in the forum of democracy.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright. George Takei and Brad Altman, thanks for joining us again this morning.
TAKEI: Thank you. And may sweet equality live long and prosper.
[RODRIGUEZ AND TAKEI EXCHANGE STAR TREK VULCAN HAND SIGN]
RODRIGUEZ: Let me do it. Same to you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

What exactly is the problem

September 16, 2008 - 16:21 ET by JasonC

What exactly is the problem here? Your phrasing - "Takei replied by denouncing the ballot initiative, yet praising democracy" (my emphasis) seems to suggest that these two stances are at odds one another. But it's quite clear from his quoted remarks, as well as those of his husband, that they are able to articulate coherent, reasonable, and obviously personal reasons for being opposed to the initiative. All I can think of is that you're reading this as them saying that the initiative has no right to be there in the first place. I do not see that happening anywhere here. They, like anyone else, have every ethical and political right to organize and rally against the passing of a law that they feel is wrong, particularly one that flagrantly discriminates against them.

So again, I ask, is the crux of this article that you think Takei and Altman are being hypocritical (a stance which I will emphatically contest) or that Rodriguez seems to sympathize with their position (in which case, I have to ask "Who cares?" since these morning shows are about human interest topics and do not require objectivity from the hosts)?

"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.

who cares...? we care -

September 16, 2008 - 16:32 ET by TruthMonger

who cares...?

we care - it's liberal bias - and promotion of sexual perversion as well...

looking for sexual equality George? Get your ped friends onstage with you...

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Ooh, Truthie, run your

September 16, 2008 - 17:41 ET by JasonC

Ooh, Truthie, run your "gays are morally equivalent with pedophiles" argument by me again. I could use a good laugh.

excellent counter

September 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by TruthMonger

excellent counter argument:)!

very pursuasive

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Do you really want me to

September 16, 2008 - 19:06 ET by JasonC

Do you really want me to just counter-argue what you've written here? That's like giving Roger Federer a lob to mid-service court...

Articulate your position and I'll tell you why, as a person who supports homosexual rights, I do NOT feel compelled to support pedophiles.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

ok, Jason - sex is

September 16, 2008 - 19:15 ET by TruthMonger

ok, Jason - sex is designed only for married people

sex outside of marriage is fornication - sinful

only men and women can marry

peds are about fornication, among other sinful things

gays are about fornication, among other sinful things

sinfully equal

now bedazzle me - i am ready

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

ok, Jason - sex is

September 17, 2008 - 07:00 ET by JasonC

ok, Jason - sex is designed only for married people

Designed? By who? Wait, nevermind. So are married people allowed to have any pleasure from it?

sex outside of marriage is fornication - sinful

only men and women can marry

Haha, not true in Massachusetts. Marriage is as much a legal as religious institution. If your statement is based on Christianity, you would have to say that non-Christian marriages are invalid. Must suck to live in a pluralistic society, huh?

peds are about fornication, among other sinful things

gays are about fornication, among other sinful things

sinfully equal

Aha. So you equivocate pedophilia and homosexuality because they both constitute fornication, ie they are not recognized and sanctioned by your particular strain of belief.

There are a few glaring problems with this.

First, I do not see you railing against unwed heterosexual activity. Where were you to condemn Bristol Palin's moral failure, for instance? Yet, every time a homosexual topic comes up, you're there to chime in with your "homos = peds :) lololol" garbage. So why is it so different.

Second, it's rather disturbing that you condemn pedophilia according to what it is not, ie it is not godly marriage. So it's not relevant to you that pedophilia involves non-consent or at least coerced consent; that is, that it is usually (from a legal standpoint, always) rape. Or that it irreparably damages the child. Or that it involves legitimate psychiactric dysfunction on the part of the aggressor. Your problem with it is that it's "fornication". And your particularly warped sense of moral relativity, that simply because it can be stamped with the "fornication" label, and so can homosexuality - even when it takes place between two private, consenting citizens - the two are therefore equal, is lazy and hysterical and I would think that any conservative with an ounce of integrity and intellectual honesty, even if he or she is also opposed to gay marriage, would tell you you're flat-out wrong for constantly advancing that theory.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

JasonC, Being that it is

September 17, 2008 - 08:21 ET by Karma

JasonC,

Being that it is a legal instituion, what beneficial purpose does marriage serve in society? Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a long line of unemployed divorce lawyers at the soup kitchen? Could this be accomplished by not recognizing any "marriage"? Think of the simplicity in every couple, or triple, or... using "current partner(s)" on legal forms and such.

As far as the Bristol Palin/homosexuality equivalence, would you propose we teach both as natural and acceptable occurences to students in K-12?

Benefits of marriage vary,

September 17, 2008 - 08:51 ET by JasonC

Benefits of marriage vary, of course. There are legal benefits, there are those who feel it is the only way to be in a sexual relationship that is not sinful, and there are those who simply want the opportunity to declare their monogamous relationship in public. Still others have simply been conditioned by society to feel incomplete or inadequate if they are not married.

Of course, there is also reproduction, but technically marriage is not required whatsoever for that. It is generally agreed, however, that at least one of the three aforementioned benefits should be in place before children are born.

So, to answer your question, because the purpose of marriage is far-reaching and inexact, there is no simple way to justify its disrecognition. And since its purposes extend into the very heart of how the social order operates, I only see discrimination in disallowing gay couples to wed.

Concerning Bristol Palin, I don't understand your point here. My point to TM was simply that the way that he always jumps on gay issues as moral failings, despite the fact that he regards all forms of fornication as equally bad, exposes the obvious nature of his attitude toward homosexuality. Under his definition (which I think is ludicrous, by the way, I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate): Bristol = Child Rapist = Participant in a consensual gay relationship. Yet, despite this professed belief of moral equivalency, TM enthusiastically bashes homosexuals but is weirdly mum on more run of the mill, less "icky" incarnations of fornication. I'm not understanding your question about sex ed, especially since it encompasses K all the way through 12. But I don't think homosexuality has to be taught as explicitly natural and acceptable nor as an abomination. I think it should be explained in a completely straightforward manner, maybe starting in 6th grade, that homosexuals do exist in the world, and that it's not right to discriminate against them. That would really be it. Kids don't turn gay from learning about the existence of homosexuality.

Thanks for your post.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

You seem to be arguing for

September 17, 2008 - 10:38 ET by Karma

You seem to be arguing for legal status for gay marriage. So let's leave religion and feelings out of it. So, in a secular society, what is the benefit of marriage, in the legal sense?

If you, personaly, only see discrimination in not allowing gay couples to wed, would it not be possible for others, personaly, to see discrimination in not allowing multipl-partner or other forms of non-traditional marriage? Is it not generally agreed that marriage is between one man and one woman? Why is that?

My point with Bristol Palin is this. You appeared to equate the circumstances of her pregnancy with homosexuality in regards that there should be equal condemnation. One is being pushed to be acceptable and condoned while the other is not. Is it possible that there are those of us who do not condemn the individuals in either of these issues, but prefer neither be condoned or taught as acceptable?

You say there are those who simply want to declare their monogomous relationship in public. What is stopping them? Why do they need marriage? On the other hand, couldn't there be those who simply want to declare their form of non-traditional relationships in public also? Why would a secular society want to stop them from marriage?

You seem to be arguing for

September 17, 2008 - 13:48 ET by JasonC

You seem to be arguing for legal status for gay marriage. So let's leave religion and feelings out of it. So, in a secular society, what is the benefit of marriage, in the legal sense?

Tax benefits and enforced monogamy.

Gay people have proven themselves to be productive and responsible citizens, and not simply part of the culture of degeneracy with which they have long been stereotypically associated. There are tens of thousands of domestically-inclined gay couples in America. Yes, they could publicly express their monogamous commitment without it being called marriage. But the very fact that they are denied the recognition that any straight person can have, often many times over, is a slap in the face. Like it or not, marriage, not civil unions or other euphemistic arrangements, is the accepted way by which people in our social order make romantic commitments. I propose that we allow gay marriage as a big step toward transcending our history of ostracization and violence against homosexuals, and also because it would cost us nothing, monetarily or otherwise, to do so. I think that anyone who feels that it would cheapen or demean their heterosexual marriage is a fool who ought to examine his own relationship if it is so easily threatened.

Why other forms of non-traditional marriage do not fall into this category:

Multiple Partners: By definition, this would preclude monogamy, which is the foundation of marriage in our society.

Adults marrying Children: We have perfectly legitimate laws protecting children from the sexual advances of adults, and they preclude any discussion of a pedophile's "rights". That is why TM's ad nauseum argument is ridiculous.

People marrying animals: Animals cannot give consent or understand what they are entering into. Besides which, the number of people who would actually do this is negligible.

Incestuous Marriage: Society has a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding. Aside from that, frankly, I don't really have a problem with it, if that's how people really want to swing.

You misunderstand my remarks about Bristol Palin. I do not condemn her either (although I take serious issue with the way she is being turned into an ideological tool for her mother's horrendous political platform, but that's obviously a debate for a different board). My comment was that, according to his very own model, TM ought to be condemning Bristol Palin. And I'm sure he would make some off-hand remark about teen pregnancy being sinful, but he surely has not lept to condemn that behavior and compare it to pedophilia every chance he's gotten.

Homosexuality is acceptable and should be condoned, because there is no stopping it. It is not a choice (even if acting upon it sexually is), it does not affect other people in any quantifiable way, and its morality is at best debatable. Teenage pregnancy, on the other hand, is based solely on one's actions. It is not merely the product of heterosexuality. It can be reduced with education about the obvious negative sides of getting pregnant so young, or contraceptives, or even, in some cases, abstinence-only education. Homosexuality is not an action in and of itself any more than being straight is. The question is, when a handful of kids in any given school admit to themselves that they're gay, what sort of environment do you want them to be in? Or to come out to? One in which they must feel ashamed and afraid of homophobnic reprisal, or one in which they can deal with it constructively?

I think I answered this above.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Tax benefits and enforced

September 17, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Karma

Tax benefits and enforced monogamy.

Why give tax benefits just to married people? I'm sure everyone enjoys tax benefits. Why enforce monogamy? Who gets to make the rules?

Like it or not, marriage, not civil unions or other
euphemistic arrangements, is the accepted way by which people in our
social order make romantic commitments.

Like it or not, one man and one woman is the accepted definition of marriage in our social order.

Multiple Partners: By definition, this would preclude monogamy, which is the foundation of marriage in our society.

I believe a majority would say "one man and one woman" is the foundation of marriage in our society. Monogamy in and of itself is not.

Incestuous Marriage: Society has a legitimate interest in preventing
inbreeding. Aside from that, frankly, I don't really have a problem
with it, if that's how people really want to swing.

What is society's legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding? Wouldn't this have been impossible to avoid to get where we are today if Darwinism is correct? Since the number wanting to do this would be miniscule, what harm would it cause?

I'm glad you don't condemn her. Parallel thoughts with yours, I take serious issue with gay-marriage being turned into an ideological tool for the Democrat's horrendous political platform. Different ideologies, different values, but you're right, it's a debate for another board.

With this line of thought you seem to infer homosexuality would be the prefered method of sexual release, at least for the "young", for the simple reason that no unplanned pregnancy can occur. Snarkiness aside, it sounds like a win-win strategy for the Democrat platform.

I didn't think either of our positions would change here, and I think I'm correct. It's interesting though; to try to see how others think. Other than calling some on this side of the debate "fools" for thinking as they do, you've been civil.

JasonC

September 16, 2008 - 16:39 ET by MrShy

Whether the legal statutes of "marriage" should be revised to include the union of two men and two women -- no longer representing one man and one woman -- is not about discrimination.

Read the post below... I think that says it to a tee.

EDIT: I also agree with TM, above. To many -- and I mean many -- homosexual sex is a perversion. Liberals/PC types hate to hear that, and equate it with some form of hate-type discrimination. It's NOT.

NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun

hear hear - it's a health

September 16, 2008 - 16:48 ET by TruthMonger

hear hear - it's a health issue actually - spiritual, emotional, and physical health - a rapidly spreading social virus right now- globally infecting us all

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Do you have any facts to

September 16, 2008 - 17:08 ET by JesseJacksonIV

Do you have any facts to back up that analysis of homosexuality?

why yes, and thank-you for

September 16, 2008 - 17:29 ET by TruthMonger

why yes, and thank-you for asking:)!

here's a good one...

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

The Bible isn't really fact

September 16, 2008 - 17:38 ET by JesseJacksonIV

The Bible isn't really fact you know.

how is the Bible not fact,

September 16, 2008 - 18:39 ET by TruthMonger

how is the Bible not fact, i ask you?

do you have any facts to back this up..?!

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

i win again someone

September 16, 2008 - 18:43 ET by TruthMonger

i win again

someone please gimme a challenge here:(

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Well, if you're going to be

September 16, 2008 - 18:51 ET by JasonC

Well, if you're going to be cocky, I must point out that the burden of truth is on YOU. For you, it is a matter of faith. If you have proof beyond that, we'd all be happy to see it. I could show you a piece of paper on which was written:

Dear Humans,

Homosexuality is OK.

-God

...but it woud be up to me to prove that it's "fact", not up to you to prove that it is not.

Parenthetically, that might be the most absurd reductio ad absurdum argument I've ever attempted on this site.

And besides which, the bible is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this conversation anyhow.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

nope - the burden is on you

September 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by TruthMonger

nope - the burden is on you to demonstrate that homosex is ok - as it goes against thousands of years of morality - starting with the Bible

its as relevant to me as your pro-homo faith is to you

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

There is no burden. They

September 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by JasonC

There is no burden. They do what they want to do (sleep with the same gender). I do what I want to do (sleep with the opposite gender). What they do doesn't hurt me or anyone else who chooses not to be involved in it. And if they want to consecrate their commitment to monogamy, they should be able to. Just like any individual choice that Americans pride themselves on being accorded the right to make by virtue of a certain foundational document.

Simple as that.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

this is not

September 16, 2008 - 19:26 ET by TruthMonger

this is your morality

mine is different

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Jason C, Actually, it is

September 16, 2008 - 22:34 ET by Liberallies

Jason C,

Actually, it is a matter of faith on your part, if this is what you believe, that the Bible is not real.

You have zero proof to show that the Bible is not true, right?

Your argument can be used against you.

Again, the burden of proof

September 17, 2008 - 09:11 ET by JasonC

Again, the burden of proof is on you. You can't just link me to random passages that decry homosexuality and say case closed. That is not argument. If you're going to say that one book's perspective is the end-all-be-all of a cultural (not theological) discussion, it is absolutely up to you to demonstrate that that text's arguments are not only worth listening to but worth considering the only think worth listening to. People who quote the Bible on this site very rarely articulate such things. They cut and paste a link and thing that they've argued something. But they have not. Again, take my ridiculous 'piece of paper' example to TM. It would be obscene to demand that he 'prove' it's not real rather than for me to prove it is. The problem is that those who use the Bible to justify any and all social issues tend to have only their faith in it to go on. And that's fine. I'm not interested in talking people out of their faith. What I will not sit back and accept without a fight, however, is those who inflict that faith upon the culture at large when they can't even reasonably argue for it. Or when those people veil their anxiety concerning homosexuality in absolute nonsense like "homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia because they're both perversions. It is irresponsible, unintellectual, and lazy. Unfortunately, it is also TM's stock and trade, so I've been compelled to argue against it over the last 15 hours. But telling me I have to 'disprove' the veracity of Christian philosophy in order to have this conversation is beyond absurd.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

JasonC, No, no, you are

September 17, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Liberallies

JasonC,

No, no, you are the one making the accusation. You are putting the charge forth that the Bible is not real. The law works that those that make the accusation are the ones that need to prove their case, NOT the other way around.

You are charging Christians of using a false book to claim that homosexuality is wrong. You need to prove that the Bible is a false book.

The problem is, JasonC, that you believe that Christians are brainwashed by the Bible, right? and many Christians will tell you that you have been brainwashed by secular humanism and the materalistic, hedonistic world we live in.

You argue that it is discriminatory and not intellectually based to be against gay marriage. why? prove your case. You are too emotionally involved in this. Honestly, use logic, pure logic to argue your case. Remove the charge of discrimination, stop saying that those that oppose gay marriage are not intellects.

Furthermore, going beyond the Bible, you need to prove your case that homosexuality is good and beneficial for a community, for society.

One more thing about the Bible. It doesn't jive with your ridiculous piece of paper example, why? Because we Christians know that God is the author of the Bible. That piece of paper was but a mere man that wrote it.

However, I agree that in a secular society where we live today, you have to argue both the human side AND the spiritual side of things.

Furthermore, you need to do the same, your ridiculous piece of paper is EXACTLY what law makers in MAss. and California have done. they have grabbed a piece of paper, slapped on it that homosexual marriages are ok and shoved it down the throat of their citizens.

Question, why is that piece of paper worth more to you than the pieces of paper in the Bible?

I more or less addressed

September 17, 2008 - 13:51 ET by JasonC

I more or less addressed the remarks in my reply to you below. Pressed for time, jsut decided to combine them. But let me reiterate here that I do not see Christians as brainwashed. Especially since I am one. I simply think they must step outside of using nothing but the Bible as a point of argument if they wish for those arguments to be taken seriously. It's the same reason why Intelligent Design will never be taken seriously so long as it continues to be associated with creationism and Evangelical zeal.

Gotta run...

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Much of the bible is

September 16, 2008 - 18:45 ET by JasonC

Much of the bible is historical fact. And even if, for the sake of argument, I was to say that all of it is, that doesn't change the fact that what we take from it, the thematic content, is mutable and open to interpretation. That's why there are so many factions and denominations, yes? As any 1st-year English major could tell you, the plot is usually inarguable but the theme, the morality (if you will) to be taken from it, is always up for grabs.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

sez you:) now for the

September 16, 2008 - 18:48 ET by TruthMonger

sez you:)

now for the rest of humanity...

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

So you're asked for "facts"

September 16, 2008 - 17:52 ET by JasonC

So you're asked for "facts" regarding a wildly exaggerated characterization of homosexuality and you give one and only one - a Bible passage. The fact that that display of hubris is followed by your particular signature line portends an irony at once weighty, unintentionally humorous, and sad.

how is the Bible not fact,

September 16, 2008 - 18:38 ET by TruthMonger

how is the Bible not fact, i ask you?

do you have any facts to back this up..?!

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

i win again someone

September 16, 2008 - 18:43 ET by TruthMonger

i win again

someone please gimme a challenge here:(

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

See above, specifically my

September 16, 2008 - 18:53 ET by JasonC

See above, specifically my response to the identical post(s) you made to the one other poster on this thread who's not willing to consider gay people perverts.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

JJ4 , Heres some from pink

September 16, 2008 - 17:32 ET by upcountrywater

news

The research found that in Denmark, where gay marriage was legal
between 1990 and 2002, married heterosexual men died at an average age
of 74.

The 561 married gay men died at an average age of 51.

It claims that engaging in "homosexual behaviour" reduces life span by up to 24 years.

Most gays i know SMOKE too. add this to that

In contrast, the lifespan of a smoker is only 7 years shorter than that of a non-smoker.

I know you do not want to hear that!

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

Since when are "claims" the

September 16, 2008 - 17:45 ET by JesseJacksonIV

Since when are "claims" the same things as facts?

JJ 4 Data dude that's what you wanted, and you can't stand it.

September 16, 2008 - 18:10 ET by upcountrywater

Typical jj "claims" whaaaaaat???

data

New Study Finds Early Death in Gay 'Marriages'

Because the study relied on long-term data instead of a one-time survey, it did not have a sampling margin of error.

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

This is what you

September 16, 2008 - 18:26 ET by JesseJacksonIV

This is what you wrote:

It claims that engaging in "homosexual behaviour" reduces life span by up to 24 years.

Claims are not really facts.

Wow! One Danish study

September 16, 2008 - 17:57 ET by JasonC

Wow! One Danish study confirms all your pre-conceived prejudices! I'm convinced! By the way, what does this iron-clad information have to do with gay marriage, exactly? I mean, since homosexual behavior is the independent variable. And since when do conservatives support laws to protect people from possibly-detrimental behavior that affects only that individual? I guess you support banning trans fats too?

ignore these - the Bible is

September 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by TruthMonger

ignore these - the Bible is way more factual than scientific medicine - hasn't changed in 2000 years..

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

The Bible can be

September 16, 2008 - 19:06 ET by JesseJacksonIV

The Bible can be interpreted many different ways, depending on what church you belong to.

And what does the Bible have to do with Gay marriage laws? Nothing.

the Bible is the foundation

September 16, 2008 - 19:11 ET by TruthMonger

the Bible is the foundation of our legal system

and it sez marriage is between a man and a women only

as is healthy sex

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

TM, Modern Science is on this Earth is Because of Christanity!

September 16, 2008 - 19:08 ET by upcountrywater

A wonderful book by Dinesh O'Souza "What's so great About Christianity"

Taking as my foil the anti-religious arguments of prominent atheists
like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the others,
this book will show the following—1) Christianity is the main
foundation of Western civilization, the root of our most cherished
values. 2) The latest discoveries of modern science support the
Christian claim that there is a divine being who created the universe.
3) Darwin's theory of evolution, far from undermining the evidence for
supernatural design, actually strengthens it. 4) There is nothing in
science that makes miracles impossible. 5) It is reasonable to have
faith. 6) Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders
of history. 7) Atheism is often motivated not by reason but by a kind
of cowardly moral escapism. I end this book by showing what is unique
about Christianity and how our lives change if we become Christians.

This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it
is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists
no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public
square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions
like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They
want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a
secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit
the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of
society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They
blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts
in the world today. In short, they want to make religion—and
especially the Christian religion—disappear from the face of the earth.

Hay TM like your tagline. :-)

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

true dat science is an

September 16, 2008 - 19:10 ET by TruthMonger

true dat

science is an extension of the Bible - as are all studies and texts throughout history

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

JC, Trans-fats occur in nature, that make as much sense as

September 16, 2008 - 18:50 ET by upcountrywater

banning Chlorine an element. still won't stop your buddies at greenpeace, tring to do just that.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that
stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our
public policy.

My heart broken mother, and I lived THROUGH the "gay" lie, JasonC

My brother DIED at 34, all of his "close" friends are DEAD too .

If he got" married" maybe he could of lived to the ripe old age of 52..

One SOLID study is better than a Million opinions.

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

But some jurisdictions are

September 16, 2008 - 19:00 ET by JasonC

But some jurisdictions are trying to ban trans fats because, although they constitute an individual choice, they are bad for you. Most conservatives and Civil Libertarians are pissed about it. Did you not know this?

Why is dying early from "being gay" (and by the way, homosexuality isn't what kills, it has more to do with a particular virus that happens to be more pervasive in the gay community) any different?

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Yea JC 19 to 1, OR , 33 TO 1 sounds like craps to me.

September 16, 2008 - 19:45 ET by upcountrywater

But iN' up with a very small germ

Globally, men who engage in homosexual sex are 19 times more likely to
contract HIV than the rest of the population, according to data
released at the International AIDS Conference.

Adding hydrogen to oil, ain't natural,

however it's all the same to the FDA

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

OK, so this is your

September 17, 2008 - 06:47 ET by JasonC

OK, so this is your argument against homosexuality? Against the "gay lie" whatever that means?

The stupefyingly obvious problem is that sexuality and desire are not pragmatic entities. If you (and this is assuming that you're a heterosexual male) found out tomorrow that heterosexual intercourse had, let's say a 40% risk of transmitting a deadly virus, and that homosexual intercourse was comparatively less risky, would you decide, "Well, guess I'd better be gay, just to be on the safe side"? Of course not! Because you can't flip a switch. What you are arguing against here is promiscuity, not homosexuality qua homosexuality. All we can change is our behavior. Sexuality itself is pretty much hardwired once you're about 5 years old.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Just say No to sex outside of marriage JasonC

September 17, 2008 - 13:00 ET by upcountrywater

Has nothing to do with being straight or gay..

CLIMATE CRISIS

IranianUranium

Gay marriage

September 16, 2008 - 22:54 ET by merlin61

Dear Jason: In the beginning,God created man,

Adam. God saw that Adam needed a partner and

he created woman, Eve. God created them to

procreate and populate the earth. If he wanted

to promote homosexuality, he would have created

man and man, or woman and woman. Amen

Your logic is

September 17, 2008 - 06:42 ET by JasonC

Your logic is stunning.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Mr. Shy, Excellent

September 16, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Liberallies

Mr. Shy,

Excellent point, Pro-gay Liberals are always claiming that being against gay marriage is some how discrimination.

The problem with the pro-gay agenda is that it is opening up the doors to polygamists, incestual relationships, etc....

this is such a slippery slope thing. You can't claim discrimination regarding gay "marriages" and then oppose polygamy, incestual relationships, etc.

and don't come in here talking about that it is consensual, in many States and Countries the consensual age for sex is 12 years old. Don't tell me that a 12 year old can consent to this.

How can you compare

September 16, 2008 - 18:23 ET by JesseJacksonIV

How can you compare something between two consenting adults to polygamy and incest?

A man and a woman can marry, but that doesn't mean a man can marry two women. If the law says a man can marry a man, it wouldn't mean he can marry two men.

12 year olds shouldn't be able consent ot gay or staright sex.

I really don't get the problem with gay marriage, why does it bother people so much? What gay men, gay women, straight men and women do in their own homes is no ones elses business.

If you think homosexualtiy is perversion, than so is hetero sex really, since we all do many of the same things.

I'm gonna make one quick

September 16, 2008 - 18:26 ET by Clear thinker

I'm gonna make one quick comment, and then I'm out of this thread forever...

You are one sick dude!

Let’s Gore Al Gore

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

If you think homosexualtiy

September 16, 2008 - 18:35 ET by JasonC

If you think homosexualtiy is perversion, than so is hetero sex really, since we all do many of the same things.

Well, there is one fundamental difference...

but seriously, I do not consider homosexuality to be perverted. The psychiatric establishment hasn't listed it as a paraphilia in the DSM in decades, and as far as I can tell the only people who have a problem with it are Bible-thumpers and people who feel that it somehow threatens their own staunch straightness, and I don't really see any reason to let either group influence the way I think.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

dude, you can put lipstick

September 16, 2008 - 18:37 ET by TruthMonger

dude, you can put lipstick on a pig if you want to and...

you must support beastiality, right?

ournalism is the opium of the liberals

Explain to me again why I

September 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by JasonC

Explain to me again why I should? If I'm going to take the time to obliterate your moronic yet ubiquitous "homosexuality = pedophilia/bestiality/incest" position, I want to at least be sure I have all of the pertinent supporting arguments.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

...Jason, i know that you

September 16, 2008 - 18:47 ET by TruthMonger

...Jason, i know that you declaring me a moron makes you feel better - but at the end of the day my irrefuted logic is still here - bummer dude

I've studied your kind of agnostic secular logic extensively, and I understand it - have you studied any kind of my Bible logic - at all...?

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

First of all, I don't see

September 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by JasonC

First of all, I don't see you giving an explanation. Tell me how they're equivalent. I'm waiting.

And second, basing your 'logic' on a single, highly-ideological, accepted-purely-on-faith text is actually the antithesis of logic.

Every time there's a discussion of homosexuality in society, you insist on ruining it by insisting upon the Bible; no matter what the sub-topic or the issues surrounding it, that's you answer. I wish you'd realize that it contributes nothing to the dialogue. You're against it because the Bible says you should be. Got it. After that, since it's all you have to say, why not let the people who are open to other perspectives have a discussion?

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

my original Bible link goes

September 16, 2008 - 19:08 ET by TruthMonger

my original Bible link goes to my explanation

which you dismiss as non-factual

but you apparently have no facts to back up that assertion

the heart of the argument between you and I right now is that you do not accept the Bible as fact, as truth

so what is your faith text?

you seem to be the one avoiding discussion here

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

I've accepted that much of

September 16, 2008 - 19:13 ET by JasonC

I've accepted that much of the Bible is historically accurate. But I also must insist that the sort of things you've provided a link to hinge on have nothing to do with "fact". How do you not understand this. I'll accept as fact that the Bible says certain things. But that doesn't make those things facts.

And besides which, I reject the premise that that is a legitimate, signular source to bring to a discussion about modern cultural politics. This thread, thanks to you, has spun out of control and is no longer about gay marriage, which, you know, might have actually been an interesting discussion, but is about me having to demonstrate why the Bible is not swaying me. Congrats.

I've had enough. I'm going to have dinner with my wife (don't worry, TM, she's of the opposite gender). I'll obliterate your Homosexuals = Peds nonsense tomorrow.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

won't do much good until we

September 16, 2008 - 19:24 ET by TruthMonger

won't do much good until we agree on topic reference authority

again, Jason - we disagree on authoritative factual source regarding homosexuality - solidly on topic

now our task is to debate your faith texts against mine for validity to break the deadlock

I say the Bible is the only definitive authority on marriage

therefore gay marriage is wrong, perverted, civically unhealthy

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

JesseJackson, Why do you

September 16, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Liberallies

JesseJackson,

Why do you want to discriminate against polygamist and people that want incestual relationships? this is the next step on this slippery slope of sexual depravation.

When the world accepted condomns the Church said the next step will be abortion. People like you screamed and cried, "how can the Church compare condoms to abortion. Insane!"

When the world accepted abortion the Church said the next step is euthanasia. People like you screamed and cried, "how can the Church compare abortion to euthansia. Insane!"

By the way, Jesse, heterosexual sex leads to having children. Yes, there are too many people out there that have hetero sex using contraceptives, wrong, wrong, wrong...and two wrongs don't make a right.

The day that two men having sex can result in one of them giving birth to a child, naturally, without medical aid, etc. it will be the day that I will believe that homosexuality is normal and not a perversion.

Furthermore, you claim that a 12 year old should not have anything to do with sex...AGREED!!! However, in countries like Holland and Liberal Justices in our Supreme court disagree with you. As well as the ACLU and other Liberal organizations.

when a society removes the main purpose of sex, procreation, this is what that society comes to. Demeaning the act of sex to mere pleasure.

Gay marriage does affect us all, it is the destruction of the family in America and actually the world.

Gay marriage is not just between two adults, just like a heterosexual marriage is not merely between two adults. Their families, their communities, also get involved. What you do behind closed doors is only you two, but the whole relationship, which goes much deeper than the sexual act (no pun intended) is well beyond the two adults. Marriages affect family members, communities, the cities, the State, the Federal government, etc, etc.

hmm...

September 17, 2008 - 15:54 ET by jquam

What's wrong with a little bit of pleasure? Think Well.

MrShy, I don't know which

September 16, 2008 - 17:48 ET by JasonC

MrShy, I don't know which post below you are referring to, but I will say that what you've said here does not hold water. People are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is a perversion. Gay people and gay rights advocates, however, are every bit as much citizens, however, and have the same right to try to influence the political process as anybody else. And it seems to me that if I was part of a group that a large cross-section of Middle America considered 'perverted', often without having any real context for what perversion is outside of the Bible and pop-psychology, I think I'd be pissed off enough to be motivated to act.

I am truly hopeful that the bill will be defeated and gay marriage in CA will be upheld. And I'm proud to live in the one state that already recognizes it.

Jason C, How can you call

September 16, 2008 - 23:07 ET by Liberallies

Jason C,

How can you call yourself a believer in democracy and hope that a bill which was forced down the throats of citizens by a selected group who ignored the will of the people be upheld?!

If you truly believe in democracy, regardless of ideology, you would be hoping for this bill not to be upheld. why? because it disregarded the will of the people!!!! simple as that! regardless of your ideology, you should hate this bill. It is slippery slope which we are seeing more and more in our society. A few on top disregarding the will of the people and passing laws that voters actually voted against!

how can you be ok with this?

you clearly do not believe in a democracy. You, like many Liberals, are advocating a dictatorship that disregards the will of the people and does what it believes is moral and right.

JasonC, your argument is based on emotion, no logic behind it, none at all.

Take away the emotion, take away your believes. You would be outraged, completly outraged if the people of California had voted for gay marriage and a judge or a few law makers went against the will of the people and passed laws against gay marriage, right? don't deny it.

However, here you are applauding the fact that the government of California along with a judge have decided to spit on the will of the people, give the finger to what was decided by the voters.

How fast people throw democracy overboard when it is their ideology that is on the line.

I like you JasoC, we've debated many times before (this is futbolisgreat1), but I am sadden by what I am reading from you.

Not that you support gay marriage, but that you are ok with a law to stand which was passed by a few government officials which went completly against the will of the people.

There is something much greater here at stake than gay marriage......our democracy is in danger. Good people like you have been sold a lie my friend, truly you have been sold a lie.

Put your ideology aside and let us fight together to keep this democracy alive. This law has to be overturn for the mere fact that it was created against the will of the people. Californians have voted many times against gay marriage, but the politicians and judges of California said to the voters, "screw you, you are morons. We could careless about your will and how you voted!" This should send fears and shivers down your spine JasonC.

You need to vote against this law not because it is to prevents gay marriages, but rather because IT WENT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!! it went against what voters voted!!!

Oh, hi Fut, long time no

September 17, 2008 - 06:34 ET by JasonC

Oh, hi Fut, long time no see.

First of all, I did not position myself as a staunch defender of Democracy, so please don't put that on me.

Second, the people will have the chance to exercise democracy in order to overturn the court decision. That's the whole point.

Third, I don't think this particularly counts as running roughshod over the will of the people because it does not truly affect most citizens of California. I don't see the decision to allow gay couples to marry as any different from some legislating body deciding to slightly tweak the tax code for married couples under 30, for instance. This law only affects gay people who might wish to marry. In the material, literal world, it has nothing to do with most Californians. In my view they have no right to decide whether gay couples wed or not. You can call this fascistic or anti-democracy, but that is how I see it.

And finally, constitutional quibbling aside, you cannot tell me with a straight face that this staunch opposition comes more from disgruntlement concerning the court's "going over the peoples' heads" than it does from the specific subject matter of gay marriage. Look around this message board. You're one of the few posters who's actually speaking in rational terms and expressing legitimate concerns. Most of these yahoos are either throwing out Bible verses, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles (per usual) or quoting obscure studies to prove that being gay "causes" AIDS.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

JasonC, hmmm....I hope

September 17, 2008 - 12:05 ET by Liberallies

JasonC,

hmmm....I hope you are not claiming that you are against democracy, are you?

and sorry, in the United States of America, as well as many other countries laws are passed all the time that affect a few in their private life. Example, seat belt laws. It is my body, it is my right whether I want to wear a seat belt or not, right? Can't get more Liberal and Libeterian than that. However, it was a super, duper Liberal that forced seat belt laws on all Americans, Ralph Nader.

Liberals are pushing all over Democrat control cities laws that force people how to eat. Once again, my body, my private life. If I want ot eat like a pig and die at 50 from it, what is it to the government. yet, Liberals are forcing all of us to eat in a certain way.

Liberals are for laws that affect all of us in our private life, yet they are against a law that would affect a few, gays, in their private life? why the different stand?

If you are against laws that prohibit gay marriage, then you should also be standing up for laws that prohibit transfatty oils, that demand the use of seat belts, and any other law that affects anyoen in their private life, right?

Geez, Liberals even want to go in and force me to listen to what they want on talk radio, Fairness Doctrine.

and I am not speaking for the rest of those that you call yahoos on this message board. I am speaking for myself! Any law that goes against the will of the people is anti-democratic.

Liberals love to claim that everyone votes must count, but it seems that way too many times Liberals only like the vote of the people to count when it aligns with Liberal ideology.

The people of California have spoken through their votes more than once and have voted against gay marriage. If you want to legalize gay marriage then convince the people that it is the right thing to vote for, but do not demand that it be shoved down our throats just because you believe that it is normal and moral.

You are willing to throw away democracy in order for what you believe is moral and normal to become law.

what is the difference between what you are doing and the charge that you have brought up against Truthmonger and other Christians on this site. You claim that you do not want Christianity to rule our laws. However, you are ok with secular humanism and hedonism to rule our laws. Do you not see the hypocrisy on your stand? No insult intended.

The reality of things are that when Liberals present their believes and their way of life in its purest form to the American people, Liberals always lose. Thus, they use judges, super Liberal politicians to shove down the throat of Americans what they could not get the people of America to agree upon.

My friend, this is dictatorial, this is freaking scary! and I know you are much more of an intellect to allow this to happen.

I know it gets a bit frustrating to argue your point of view and emotions get involved, but step away for a minute.

Just re-read your post, you yourself admit that you are willing to be a fascits in order for gay marriage to be accepted. ouch! I know you would have jumped all over a Conservative that would have made the same claim to push their believes.

hmmm....I hope you are not

September 17, 2008 - 13:44 ET by JasonC

hmmm....I hope you are not claiming that you are against democracy, are you?

Not really, no.

Liberals are for laws that affect all of us in our private life, yet they are against a law that would affect a few, gays, in their private life? why the different stand?

Because they're completely different issues. However...

I am against those laws. Gluttons should be free to overeat garbage (of course, since it would legislate against a deadly sin, I assume TM is all for the trans fat law) and people who feel that a seatbelt is an affront to their freedom and dignity should be free to go head-first through their windshields. I don't think they should be penalized for taking these risks at all, so long as they don't become a drain on society when their pointlessly self-destructive behavior catches up with them.

And they'll probably vote against it again. And gay rights activists will push for marriage rights again, and so on. See, the system works.

You are willing to throw away democracy in order for what you believe is moral and normal to become law.

Not really. What I'm willing to SAY is that I think people who are so doggedly opposed to gay marriage should consider their motives and question why they care so much about preventing a large social group from having the same rights that they enjoy.

My comments on this matter stand. TM uses the Bible to justify outrageous comments to which no decent Christian I know would even give the time of day. I did not say the Bible was false. I said that much of its historical context is perfectly accurate. Where I take issue is in regard to those who use the Bible - and only the Bible - to argue points about cultural issues in a secular society. It doesn't work. And of course my paper analogy makes perfect sense, because I could tell you that I know it's from God and it would be as legitimate as you telling me you know that the Bible is God's word. You take it on faith, and I respect that. But you should respect that I do not accept it as the sole referent in a serious argument.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

Jason, Are you for

September 16, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Liberallies

Jason,

Are you for real? you can't see the hypocrisy on George Takei's statement?

He claims he wants to protect democracy, but he wants to deny the people of California their right to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal or not?

hmmm.....Jason C, remove your Liberal bias and use logica and not emotion to argue your point.

But he's not denying anyone

September 16, 2008 - 17:34 ET by JasonC

But he's not denying anyone their right to vote, or saying he wants to. He's saying that he will engage in activism and other constitutionally-protected activity to persuade voters to vote against it. Just like any grassroots organization or PAC. It's not emotion at all on my part, it's an inability to see what argument the author of this NB article is even trying to make.

We agree: let the people decide

September 16, 2008 - 19:50 ET by Captain Kirock

Then we agree: let the people decide, either through the initiative process or through their duly elected representatives. Sulu indicated that they were not going to let it on the ballot. He then changed his mind when pressed on it.

We can agree that these types of decisions should be decided by democratic means, and not imposed upon the pople through judicial fiat?

I'm sure he's disgruntled

September 17, 2008 - 06:41 ET by JasonC

I'm sure he's disgruntled that it's on the ballot, but he recognizes that that is said and done. And yes, now the vote will settle it. Three cheers for democracy. So again, what's the problem?

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

The Problem

September 17, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Captain Kirock

The problem is the judical ruling that arbitrarily allows gays to get married in California. Judges should not legislate. It's undemocratic and spits in the face of republican government.

That's the problem.

Jason C, Well, I read

September 16, 2008 - 22:44 ET by Liberallies

Jason C,

Well, I read from George Takei's comment that he wants to stop the democratic process. I might be wrong, but I believe this is how the author of this NB article read it too.

If we see the history of gay groups in America they constantly overturn the will of the people on this matter. Time and time again in California and all other States that gay marriage has been put on the ballot as a referendum, gay marriage has been rejected by the will of the people, by votes.

Funny enough, Mass. and California have both ignored and rejected the will of the people on this matter. Instead they have a judge decide what is good or bad. A liberal, dictatorial judge, supported by Liberals, Democrats, etc. These are the same people that then turn around and preach about democracy, the will of the people, etc.

We can all agree that 99% of Liberals love the will of the people when it agrees with their ideology, if not, they make sure that one judge who believes himself to be a god, pisses on the will of the people.

Well, I read from George

September 17, 2008 - 06:39 ET by JasonC

Well, I read from George Takei's comment that he wants to stop the democratic process.

Where and how do you read that. I only see a concession that the bill will be voted on, and his desire to mount a campaign against it; just like any other US citizen who wishes to influence and sway voters.

Furthermore, to claim that 99% of liberals only care about democracy when it suits their ideologies is absurd. As if conservatives are not the same way! I really thought you were going to be fair and end that statement with "people", but no it had to be a blanket generalization about the insidious liberals who just want to trample on the rights of the decent NASCAR dads and hockey moms. In this particular issue, the will of the people is irrelevant to me, because I could not care less if 99.9% of America opposed gay marriage. Even then, I do not recognize their right to have a say in it. It has nothing to do with them.

Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....

bass akwards again

September 16, 2008 - 16:28 ET by wizardjr

In a democracy the majority rules. The majority in this country do not see two men (or two women) as a marriage. Get over it.

Instead a minority wants to force it's ideas on the majority. That is tyrany, not democracy.

actually our

September 16, 2008 - 16:35 ET by TruthMonger

actually our founder's design protects the minorities and frustrates the majority quite a bit - this angle of logic does favor gay marriage - the heart of the problem lies elsewhere - moral clarity

Hitler was a minorty once, too

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

We do not live in a

September 16, 2008 - 16:35 ET by bassndude

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Homo marriage is a state issue. I know that because the constitution sayes so. It is not reserved for the federal goverment.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

And hence Takei is working,

September 16, 2008 - 17:35 ET by JasonC

And hence Takei is working, at the state level, to promote opposition to this law. Again: What's the problem? Where's the bias?

Non-Traditional marriage is morally wrong. Laws teach morals

September 16, 2008 - 16:42 ET by Daniel Baker

A Minority will always disagree with any law because they have no morals.

Protect Traditional Marriage California Get Out the Vote

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" President Obama

Umm, Dan,

September 16, 2008 - 16:52 ET by HillbillyKing

What does this mean;

A Minority will always disagree with any law because they have no morals.

I understand your stance on same sex marriage, but I fail to see how the above applies?

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

"A Minority will always

September 16, 2008 - 17:26 ET by HeavyChevy

"A Minority will always disagree with any law because they have no morals."

I too am curious by this statement can you please elaborate as to its meaning?

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

immorality breads all kinds

September 16, 2008 - 16:54 ET by TruthMonger

immorality breads all kinds of disease - mental and physical - and these diseases then can and do infect anyone - not just the pervs

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Except of course that

September 16, 2008 - 17:37 ET by JasonC

Except of course that marriage by definition bypasses promiscuity (in theory if not in practice), which is the actual cause of disease - in hetero or homosexual relationship - and so using that argument as a platform against gay marriage makes no sense whatsoever.

this is very poor

September 16, 2008 - 19:02 ET by TruthMonger

this is very poor understanding of disease, Jason - not surprising tho as that is how it is taught these days

but the truth is that all disease starts with sin - nothing else

and married individuals having sex is not sinful

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

It's NOT a "Vulcan" symbol!

September 16, 2008 - 16:44 ET by DanSchwartz

Good grief!

The split finger display is an ancient Jewish sign - The two Jewish cowboys (Shatner & Nimoy) adopted it for the original Star Trek series!

[In fact, the first time I saw it was on an etched glass panel in a door at my synagogue over four decades ago!]

Oy vey!

Please visit my Home Page at

http://users.snip.ne...

Media promotes one religion atheism Supreme Court is with them

September 16, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Daniel Baker

Our State religion is forcing its morals on us.

Protect Traditional Marriage California Get Out the Vote

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" President Obama

I'm sorry to say this, but

September 16, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Richard Romano

I'm sorry to say this, but they look like a couple of maudlin queens.

Why do you feel the need, Mr. Star Trek, to share your private life with the rest of us?

CBS News: Just Plain BS.

September 16, 2008 - 18:02 ET by deerjerkydave

TAKEI: "It has made us equal to everybody and that makes a world of difference."

Except you cannot procreate. I know, I know, society has trivialized this God given power to mean absolutely nothing. But the creation of children and raising them up to be well adjusted members of society is best and ONLY achieved by a mother and a father. Government has a vested interest in the propogation of its nation and it is best achieved through stable families united by a mother and a father. Study after study supports this.

I live in California. Prop 8 will NOT nullify gay marriages performed between now and November if Prop 8 passes. CBS news is just repeating the lies from the left. CBS news is just plain BS.

This is a legal issue.

September 17, 2008 - 00:43 ET by JWF

People named Takei are already equal. The can work, play, sleep, poo, travel, stay, fly, spit, etc in the same sandbox with the rest of us. George is misleading us on the equality hype, it is just a way to change the conversation.

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. This make it a privilege not a right.

If you want a same sex marriage, change the Constituiton, their are clear ways to do this outlined in the document itself.

gays destroy our culture

September 17, 2008 - 00:30 ET by Old Europe

I feel for Takei. so many years he fell for the liberal and Satan's lie that he was born gay and that he could do nothing about it. that he has to accept it make the best of it. the truth of the matter is that nobody is born gay but as with many behavioral patterns, it is an acquired aberration. you can teach kids how to eat unhealthily, you can spoil them to the point that they turn into spoilt brats. you can abuse them mentally and sexually to turn them into sexual predators or gays. a friend of mine was part of the gay scene until he found God. god revealed the truth about his gayness: it was all due to years of mental abuse by his mother. he realized that he wasn't born gay but that the issues he had with his mother made him turn to males for comfort. look at lyndsey lohan and anne heche: both of them had issues with their abusive fathers and now they turned to females for some tlc.

thus, takei was not born gay. even if he was: should we be lenient with an alcoholic or volatile brute because they were born that way?

the problem with gay marriages is that it undermines the value of marriage between husband and wife. it's there to have kids and a family. but by legalizing gay marriage we send the wrong signal to our susceptible kids. takei and his cohorts know that their gay acts are sinful and just morally wrong. but they were too weak to fight this sin and therefore they decided to soothe their compunctions by telling people how normal and acceptable it is. if they can convince society it's okay to be gay, they can soothe their pangs of conscience. because God gave this little voice in their head that says what they are doing is wrong and detrimental to society.gays do not procreate. all they do is having sex for pleasure. but without progeny society cannot exist. and when young kids are taught that gayness is chic, they get confused in their sexual identity and may believe they are gay. thus, more and more people are infected with this gay perversion.

another way how gays harm society is their rampant promiscuity because when men are among men, there is no female to hold them back. they just get it on. plus, there's no fear of getting anybody pregnant and therefore condoms are often not used on the spur of the moment.add to that the fact that through their rampant promiscuity and dangerous sexual practices they spread venereal diseases across society. two in three AIDS cases involve gays! syphillis is 13 times likelier among gays in SF! yes, fornication is a sin because it involves many health risks!

and let's not forget that gay marriages feel like a stale imitation of a man/woman relationship.

thus, gayness undermines family values a which are the core of society and families are what Satan is out to destroy with his lie about how gayness is normal and acceptable. on top of that, venereal diseases spread rapidly among gays which means that gays have a lower life expectancy than chain smokers.

takei unwittingly is doing Satan's service by promulgating the lie about gayness. he should have sought counselling to battle his gay addiction. there is help:

www.stonewallrevisit...