George Clooney Slams Prop 8

George Clooney has spoken out to E!'s Ted Casablancas about the passage of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California:

"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."

Clooney joins a growing list of stars speaking out including Melissa Etheridge, Harvey Fierstein, Ellen Degeneres and more. Drew Barrymore and James Franco also joined a crowd rallying against its passage.

Comments

[Fastcad]

Call me what you will, but don't call me Gay. There was a time when the word 'gay' meant having a good time. Now its meaning is Homosexual. Its OK, I will never miss using the word 'gay' to describe a wonderful party. Yet, I will miss the word 'Marriage." Marriage means a union between a person with a 'Y' chromosome to a person with a 'X" chromosome to make babies. Now, XX and YY do not make babies, even if science can make it happen, it is not natural.
For thousands of years, everyone knew the meaning of "Marriage" and expanding or changing this meaning will not change the condition of 'XX' and 'YY' relationships, they are not a Marriage.
If marriage becomes to mean 'Gay' then can we change civil union to mean 'XY' union.
Unlike gay, marriage is not about having a good time.

[Treehuggindirtworshiper]

Men are xy.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

"Call me what you will..."

OK, how about lGNORANT?

Your tired logic has been refuted so many times that you have to either be lGNORANT or else you've long since given up on logic and are just digging your heels in.

First of all, marriage has NOTHING to do with making babies. If it were, then we should logically next put a ballot initiative up that says infertile people cannot marry. People past child-bearing age cannot marry. People who simply CHOOSE not to reproduce cannot marry.

Secondly, people absolutely did NOT "kn(o)w the meaning of marriage" for thousands of years since it has changed many times during that period. It used to confer ownership of the woman to the man. It used to allow one man to marry multiple women (but never the opposite) and it used to be reserved only for members of the same race.

And thirdly, even if we DID use your disproven claim that marriage has meant only one thing for many years, that doesn't make it right. We used to have slavery. We used to not allow women to vote. We used to not allow African Americans to use the same facilities as whites. But we learned that we were wrong and society changed to adapt to that new enlightenment.

The only thing I agree with you on is your last line ... marriage is not about having a good time!

[Rindy]

PEOPLE STOP COMPLAINING AND POUTING. THEY VOTED ON PROP. 8 AND MAJORITY RULES. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. SOME OF YOUR HETEROSEXUAL FRIENDS VOTED YES AND SOME VOTED NO, INCLUDING YOUR RELATIVES. THIS IS A FACT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS A CHURCH PEOPLE THING AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THING BUT ALL HAVE VOTED ON PROP. 8 THAT WANTED TO VOTE. SOME PEOPLE WENT TO THE POLLS AND SKIPPED THAT SECTION AND ONLY VOTED FOR A PRESIDENT. JUST STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! I GUESS OTHER GROUPS CAN JOIN YOU TO AND BEGAN TO POUT. POLIGOMY GROUPS / GROUPS THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE WIFE/ AND OTHER GROUPS CAN JUST JOIN THE BAN WAGON WITH YOU. IT STILL NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ON PROP. 8 AND IT IS A LAW NOW. IT IS CLEAR AS DAY WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. PROTEST/ MARCH EVERYDAY IF YOU HAVE TO JUST TO GET IT OUT HOW DISAPOINTED YOU ARE. IT STILL NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE VOTE IS IN.

[fltnsplr]

Hey, Rindy! Maybe if you stopped using all caps you wouldn't seem like such a screaming complainer yourself! Also, you're dumber than dirt; please learn to spell.

Finally, just watch Prop 8 be overturned someday pretty soon.

Do I sound intolerant? Maybe I learned from all the Prop 8 supporters!

PS I feel sorry for you...because you were obviously a special needs child.

[2sneaky1]

Rindy - Your argument is not really accurate. Majority doesn't always rule. Nor should it.
An example - The original California Constitution stated only rich white men could vote. It was voted on by the citizens of California and won by a majority. Of course it won, rich white men were the majority.
But that was overturned by the courts.
Why?
Because the primary purpose of the Supreme Court (state and national) is to ensure that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority. This is the case with every minority right that exists in this country. NEVER has a right been approved by a vote of the poeple. Every right has been granted by the courts.
By using your argument, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony should have been told to "stop complaining and pouting".

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

The majority does NOT get to vote on the rights of the minority. You need a better education in the 3 branches of government.

And as far as changing the fact that the vote is in, the California Supreme Court has decided to hear the lawsuit claiming the entire ballot proposition was unconstitutional from the start since it was actually a constitutional REVISION which has a much higher threshold for acceptance.

[pooh2u]

Those of you thinking our fore fathers were not christian, and this country was not formed under Gods influence, funny thing is if that were true, then why did they have "in God we trust: printed not only on our money, but inscribed on our government buildings and is even in our national theme song in this country?

[fltnsplr]

Nobody said the people who conceived this country and its legislation were not believers in an omnipresent influence which transcends human activity (excuse me, didn't mean to confuse you there) " that is to say, that they didn't believe in God. They just believed in separation of church and state.

And pardon me for laughing, but I didn't realize there was a "national theme song" out there. Perhaps there's a sitcom or a soap opera on Fox called "America" that I missed.

Anyway, I feel sorry for you too, because you're no smarter than Rindy.

[duckb63]

The framers of the Constitution had nothing to do with religious references on our money, on the Washington Monument, nor in our Pledge of Allegiance.
"In God We Trust" was added to our currency in 1864 as an attempt to calm fears and create unity among citizens during the Civil War.
"Laus Deo", meaning "Praise to God" was placed on the capstone of the Washington Monument in 1888. Its source is unknown.
"Under God" was added into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1956 in response to the Red Scare during the McCarthy hearings.
The last Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836, 28 years before the first of these changes occurred.
Lastly, contrary to your earlier post asserting the opposite, there are no religious references in the Star Spangled Banner.

[NeoObamacrat]

Unfortunately, prop 8 passed. It just goes to show, that even in a state like California (my fav place ever), there are people who want to deny the rights of others.

There is also the issue of whether or not same-sex marriages preformed in California are legal, or if they are somehow annulled. Boy, would that make people angry.
I just hoe that this 'prop 8' gets overturned as soon as possible.

[anniegirl9]

During the election, someone came up with the idea to make donations to Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin. As a gift donation, the individual in whose name it was given would receive a thank you card from Planned Parenthood. The thought was that it would contribute to a cause we found important while making a statement at the same time. Imagin Palin opening up a couple thousand thank you notes from Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it just make you smile?

I am not from the gay community, so I don't know the major organizations that fight for homosexual rights. Maybe someone could provide the name and link of a good one.

Anyway, what if we encouraged enough people to make a donation but do it in the name of the LDS? I'm sure someone knows an address where thank you notes of this kind cound be sent for the best impact. I know it won't overturn Pop 8, but we can support a cause we feel is worthy while sticking it to those who supported Prop 8 at the same time, if only in our hearts.

[sclucie]

And how do you plan to contribute for the Catholic bishops of California - who supported this Prop - and the National Archbishops - who contributed?

[mendocoaster]

Annie---A good place to start is www.aclu.org. You can learn about lesbian and gay issues not only in CA but elsewhere as well. Also many,many other civil rights/human rights issues as well.

[AZWolfster]

I don't understand this proposition business. Isn't a big part of the concept of our democratic republic that minorities not have their rights trampled on by the majority? What would have happened if Southern states had been allowed to have a proposition on whether or not they wanted to reinstate slavery in 1863? What if in 1928 males had been allowed to have a proposition re-deciding whether to allow women to vote? Why is it now suddenly okay to allow prejudiced people to withhold rights from an oppressed minority, in a way that is codified by the very government that is supposed to protect that minority?

[anniegirl9]

One of the, if not THE, main goal of the Bill of Rights was to do exactly that - protect the rights of the minority fron the wims of the majority. Of course, it has been abused from time to time over the years, but most of those cases (as you point out) have been rectified.

[florestanchi]

I agree, but the process for amending the California Constitution seems appallingly casual, especially as compared to requirements for amending the US Constitution where the Bill of Rights ultimately resides.

Once a Constitution is amended, courts are constrained. A law that could have been or previously was stricken down for lack of constitutionality is now constitutional, and must generally be upheld. The only potential opportunity for the judiciary to strike down that law as unconstitutional is if the newly adopted amendment directly contradicts standing provisions of the Constitution in question. In the course of reconciling conflicting provisions, the courts might choose to assign greater weight to the original language, especially if it comports with common law principles that have been reified over time by judicial precedent.

I fear that the only means of reversing this injustice is to further amend the California Constitution not merely once, but three times, and over two election cycles. In the first election cycle, an amendment must be proposed to repeal the amendment ratified by Prop 8, and an additional amendment must be adopted to explicitly define homosexuals as a "suspect class" for the purpose of ensuring their absolute entitlement to equal protection under the law. In a second election cycle, a third amendment should be adopted to bolster the legal requirements for amending the constitution. The campaign to persuade voters to support any one of these issues is undoubtedly tantamount to moving mountains. I very much hope it will come to pass, and soon.

[pooh2u]

AZWolfster, Probably because this great nation is based on Gods word, slavery was defeated because God was against it, as far back as Moses time on the earth. Women were as you call it allowed to vote, because the majority of this nation won the vote to grant them that right. You should know that, if you read your history books or listened in Class when you went to school. When you say that a big part of the concept of our democratic republic that minorities not have their rights trampled on by the majority then the election this year would of had a whole different outcome, because according to the news media and bloggs the christian minority got trampled on by the majority of this so called democratic republic.

[gregsf]

This great country was based on the words of men. Not God's word. Anti-abolitionists (pro-slavery people in the US) used the bible to *justify* slavery. Early Popes, including Pope Gregory I, had slaves. In his case, boys from Britain. And to your second point, the Constitution protects the minority from being treated differently under the law... Perhaps some in the Christian minority felt that they "lost" the election, but they did not lose their civil rights.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

Your analogy is specious. Nobody voted to deny rights to Christians.

[Papago12]

I've been with my partner for 17 years and we have no desire to have our relationship called a Marriage, we have power of attorneys and there are ways of deducting items from your income tax purposes. We fell that institution has been dragged thru the mud enough and straights have certainly given it a bad name, 62% end in divorce and that figure is not made up...thats real. Who wants to be a part of something thats broken. We're partners in life and thats enough. How many of you have parents that are seperated, or married more than once....millions...so I say keep it to yourselves...Partners works for us!!!

[firstfreeze]

finally some sense and unfortunate truth on us heteros

[Artemis34]

You may find that you are "common law" spouses, depending on your local laws. So, you are legally married if you like it or not.

There are so many issues here.

If you want your partner, who is a foreign national, to immigrate to the US, you have to get legally married.

If you want all the money you've paid into socially security to benefit your partner when you are gone, you have to get legally married.

And I'd think if you really love & respect your partner as you imply, you'd want your partner to be well cared for when you are gone, and that package includes social security surviving spouse benefits. If you do care about your partner, I'd recommend both of you see an attorney and an accountant to validate your assumptions.

The list of things you cannot work around is too long. If you are cynical for your own relationships, please allow others the freedom to be positive and hopeful.

[Beca]

Here isw the point, Papago12, every American has the right to received ALL freedoms, rights, benefits, and protections granted to all Americans under our US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The point is that everyone in this country should have the right and freedom to CHOSE how to loive their lives--married or not married. Your don't believe in marriage, and that is fine--it is your choice and you are free to live as you feel works best for you. However, the fact that people in the GLBT communities don't have the freedom to chose marriage or not--that means that people in the GLBT communities are being denied basic civil rights that other Americans enjoy and take for granted. Power of attorneys do not provide the same protections and benefits that legal marriages grant--legal marriages grant over 1,200 benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections. Under the law, family members (blood family) can override any power of attorney contract unmarried life partners might have. If one partner has homophobic or hostile family members, and that partner passes away, the blood family can legally challenge whatever legal protections the partners outlined under their own power of attorneys contracts--they can take your hous away, your kids, inheritance, etc. The only way to protect on'es partner is to have ALL the same rights, benefits and protections currently granted to legally married heterosexual couples.

[pooh2u]

Beca, your information is wrong, as I personally know a hetrosexual family, who when the woman lost her husband, still lost her home, inheritance and married priviledges to the mans first family. I also had a sister in law who lost everything, even her husbands social security went to his first family and she is now living on welfare, while his first family lives off of his wealth. As far as the tax system is set up, living outside of marriage benifit more then those that are married and is the very reason why more elderly people opt to live together then to marry.

[lorenzo48]

thank you

[lorenzo48]

my straight parents spent 63 years together in a hellish psychodrama kept together bye old school Catholicism, if you want to talk about having your rights violated you should have been a witness to this holy of holy "marriages"

[MissyPat]

George, where were you months before the election? Why didn't you and your friends have a fundraiser to outspend the Mormons and Catholics. And I'm sure the religious right was there to support the ban, too.

Too bad there isn't a HELL. If there were, I'd wish all of them to spend eternity there.

[berrycooda]

What makes you think there isn't a hell.....

Elton John (on TV) said he thinks that civil unions are just fine.

You don't need a marriage certificate to prove you are together.

Can't the people who are fighting for this over and over.....follow Elton's lead for civil unions.
Why is it so important to prove that you are the same as a male and female when
we know and you also know that it is not so...

You may (in your heart ) or wherever.... feel like male if you are a female and visa versa...
but you can't change the fact that anatomically that is not correct.

Women get breast enlargements all the time but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't
really the ones they were born with....

[scruff]

Why does everyone get in such an uproar about the word marriage? Of course Elton John says he is OK with civil unions. Just about every country in Europe has a government backed civil union, and then a separate church "marriage" ceremony if they so choose. In the US, we have decided that we will have one service, and clergy members can sign the legal document (marriage license) issued by the government. I have plenty of friends who did not choose to have a church service, so they technically, would have a civil union...but they call themselves married. Semantics, people.

Rights are rights. And they should be equal.

[Beca]

It's not about a piece of paper or a certificate to prove you are together, it is about the 1,200 rights, benefits and protections currently granted to legal marriages in this country! It is about equal rights and the freedom to marry if one wishes. There are many heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage, does that mean then that marriage should be completely abolished in this country--for everyone?
Actually, that might work! Perhaps if heterosexual people were denied that basic right to marry if they wish, then they might understand how it feels to be denied a basic right of being an American.

[jnik]

He probably thought. "It 's California! Itcan't Happen Here" like most California Libs. Don't ever underestimate the Right's power to incite and inflame!

[CM51]

News for you, I'm not disappointed you are. I exercised my right to vote on this issue twice.

[obmark]

Shortsighted bigotry is truly disappointing, absolutely.
The year 2000 75% vote to deny equality; 2008 52%.
Is a trend discernible from your vantage point? Or is it too dark up there?

[berrycooda]

Equality.....

Male and male are equal to each other.
Female and female are equal to each other.

Marriage has always been considered as a male and female.

Why does it have to be changed.

if they want it bad enough, let them change their name put on a disguise and
get married....I won't tell.

[weatherwaxx]

And does your marriage feel safer? The best way to 'protect' marriage is to be kind to your spouse, not bash people who are doing nothing to you.

[CM51]

Yammer yammer yammer.

[Southrnbelle]

I'll bet he does!!!!!!!!!!!

[CM51]

Why all the yammering now? Where were all of you No on 8 folks back in 2000 when 75% of the voters said Marriage is between a Man and a Woman only? Furthermore, where were all of you and Hollywood - Cloony, Spielberg, and Pitt, etc., when the military's answer to gays was "Don't ask don't tell"?

Seems you only want to fight for what suits you.

It isn't as though this country has denied you a place to go and get married, Massachusetts, Connecticut. People go to Vegas to marry, why not make Massachusetts or Connecticut "your" Las Vegas.

I exercised my civil rights at the ballot box.

California made its choice twice now. If you don't like it Move!

[obmark]

Why yammer indeed! Actually, battles over civil rights typically go on for years if not decades. This is no different. Prop 8 will one day be seen as a skirmish in the battle for equal rights. You rightly cite the 75% vote in 2000. This time around it was far less. Next time, well, you know! Who will be yammering then?

[Beca]

If your basic civil rights were being denied because of your height (say you are too short for what is acceptable in America), would you be fine with having to wait perhaps your entire life to be able to enjoy the same civil rights, freedoms and protections as say the rest of your family and neighboors? Would it be OK with you to NEVER get the opportunity to be treated as a full citizen in America because you are too short and there are many Americans who find you unacceptable as a full human being? Many Americans who, say, feel that if you are able to marry and have children, you will be making more "short" people--the horrors of it all! therefore, they have enacted constitutional amendments to deny you the right to not only marry but to procreated with anyone because of your undesirable height? How would that be OK?
Is this really Ameirca? This discussion shouldn't even be happening in this country!

[colhiet]

Cowards move. And I'm no coward. I intend to stay and fight for what's right. And just so you know, it's not just "us" homos that are showing up to these rallies and posting their outrage over this discriminatory amendment... many, many heteros are sick of seeing their sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, co-workers, neighbors and friends getting bashed in the ballot box.

It's a marathon, my friend, not a 50-yard dash. The fight continues and we're not going away.

So not sorry to disappoint!

[Machun]

Another one of these trolls that believes in mob rule. Not me. You move!

[Machun]

Another one of these idiots that believe in mob rule. i'm not moving anywhere. but you need to go. you're on the wrong side of history sport. like it or not.

[2sneaky1]

Yeah that's right -

Sorry Susan B Anthony, want to vote? Move.
You too Mildred and Richard Loving. Want to marry someone of a different race? Move.
Oh and don't forget that Martin Luther King Jr. guy. He really needs to MOVE.

California along with many many other states have "made their choice" multiple times in the course of history.

Now it's our turn.

I CHOSE EQUALITY!!!!

[pooh2u]

sneaky, ummmm that is exactly what all of the forieghners that come to this country have done. Moved out and even so much as snuck across our borders, for the freedom of choice that America provides. No one ever said we perfected equality in this country. It would be nice, but no where in history around the world has ever perfected total equality. As the saying goes " you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" with age you will someday understand that it is an impossible feat to perfect, Even Jesus Christ was unable to promote total equality on this earth. Although he does promise us total equality in his kingdom!!!!! And you know what, he is powerful enough accomplish that promise!!!!!

[canow]

If you live in California, you can tell your state legislators to pledge their vote against Prop. 8, should the California Supreme Court determine it to be a revision to the Constitution:http://capwiz.com/canow/issues/alert/?alertid=12187831&type=ST&show_alert=1

The legal case against Prop. 8 is better than a lot of the stories out there are admitting. Here's some of the legal background: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/11/prop-8-postmortem-part-1-dissecting-history.html

[SinisterK9]

Thank you for being one of the only people around here to post useful information. So many people are complaining. So many people are doing USELESS things like picketing the LDS churches etc. The vote ALREADY occurred. Protesting them now does nothing. If you want to make a difference now, then talk to your elected representatives and your local government.

Personally I don't know how I feel about gay marriage, but I encourage those who want to make a difference one way or the other to do something productive instead of just name call and whine.

[anniegirl9]

I agree that people should talk to their elected officials, but demonstrations have their place as well. How much longer would the Civil Rights movement have taken if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had not marched the streets with sympathizers over and over again?

[sclucie]

There are two sane people left!!! Hurrah!!!

[sepia830]

Where African-Americans are concerned with regard to Prop 8, maybe it would help if gays would stop trying to compare their struggle with ours. It is NOT the same thing. A gay man can hide his sexuality in a job interview, not so with an African-American man hiding his skin color. This would explain why, decades after the civil rights movement, African-Americans are still struggling in society. And no, having an African-American president will not change that!)

With regard to Prop 8 itself, I could care less if gays are allowed to marry. Seeing that I have made a mockery of the institution of marriage myself, who am I to judge? However, I voted YES because I did not appreciate that the people voted against gay marriage before and had their decision overturned. American is supposed to be about democracy. That being said, when the people vote for or against something overwhelmingly, the vote should stick. (How else can we honestly keep telling people that their votes really do count?) In voting, you have to understand that sometimes things go your way and sometimes they don't. (And all the George Clooney speeches won't change that. Now if it were Matt Damon saying it, that might be different....)

[JSDKoeln]

And if all of the whites voted overwhelmingly to take away your right to ride at the front of a bus, or voted to go back to the original constitution which only constituted blacks as 2/3 a human beinm how would you feel? You, as a black person, wants equal rights in your right to pursue happiness. We only want the same. The similarity between blacks and gays is just that.... we are being relegated to less than equal rights and yet you don't have the empathy nor intelligence to vote away hate. Instead you welcome and vote for it! Welcome to the world that you have been railing against all these years! Congrats! How does that hypocrisy coat feel!

[sepia830]

But I can get married.

[sepia830]

JSDKoeln...

I don't have the empathy nor intelligence? As I stated before, I could care less if you guys get married. Really, how would it affect me? But I believe in the voting system. Just because you support gay marriage doesn't make you anymore intelligent or empathetic than anyone else. Matter of fact, you sound whiny and rather pathetic--like a 2 yr old throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way. It happens--get over it.

[HopingforBLUE]

Yes it is the same!!
gay and Lesbians have had to hide just the same. Gays and Lesbians were brought with the Jews to camps, and murdered for being who they were. They have been persicuted for an extremely long time. In many states and the military Gays and Lesbians can't be open at all or they loose their job. It sounds primitave but it is true, there is no protection.

This should never been put to a vote in the first place. It violated the state constitution the first time, and it violates it this time. That is why the courts overturned it. The will of an ignorant and mis-informed slitgh majority can't be used to take the equal rights and protections away from a minority. Frankly it is sad you don't see it that way, for that's the same oppression you have described.

[sepia830]

"Gays and Lesbians have had to hide just the same"?

Did you not understand my post? That is my point exactly--the majority of black people do not have the ability (due to the color of their skin) to hide their blackness. Do you get it now? Do you see the difference?

[pooh2u]

Really, so if you believe that then I am assume you believe that American Christians, who lost their civil rights to pray in public schools, sport events, ect , should have those rights reinstated?

[obmark]

Check out the US Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, then you might begin to understand the comparison. But then again, maybe not. It's worth a shot....

[Artemis34]

sepia830 said "A gay man can hide his sexuality in a job interview, not so with an African-American man hiding his skin color."

Remember a little thing called "passing?" You know, pretending to be white, or at least not black. Is this what you really advocate? Do you think that "passing," pretending to be what you are not, is an acceptable course of action? Do you think those who "passed" felt comfortable "in their own skin" or had high self esteem?

And democracies protect the rights of all, not just the majority. In fact, real democracies protect minority rights & freedoms from the tyranny of the majority. There were many unjust laws that curtailed the rights and freedoms of blacks that had majority support, that were voted in, and rightly overturned as unconstitutional. You should not make a law that is unconstitutional and if you do, it should be struck down.

if you don't get the parallel, think only of marriage rights. Blacks were told by the majority that they were not allowed to marry whites. Do you think this is correct? This is majority rule, which is not real democracy by the way.

Human rights issues are human rights issues. We need to stand together.

[colhiet]

It's not a contest. It's not a game of "who's being treated worse." One hate crime, one firing, one denial of housing, one passing of an amendment that curtails basic civil rights is one too many.

Seperate but equal is a lie. Discrimination is discrimination. That's the only comparison being made. Wrong is wrong. Plain and simple.

[sepia830]

I expected someone with a vague sense of reality to bring this up. Just how many black people do you really think can try to pass for white and do so successfully? So your theory only applies to extremely light complexioned black people and dark skinned blacks are just SOL because they can't fake it?

You haven't been anyone's slave (unless you wanted to), been denied the right to vote, or have that be the history of your "people" so give me a break. Just say you are gay, you want to be respected and that you want to be able to marry---leave the comparison to black people out of it. Apparently you need all the support your cause can get so no sense in pissing most black people off by taking it THERE.

And just for the record....if you have never been black, then you are only capable of being SYMPATHETIC to the negative things we endure. You will never UNDERSTAND. Same goes for me not being gay, I'm sure...

[SinisterK9]

President Elect Obama gives one less excuse to those who would use their skin color as a crutch in society. Regardless of the past sins of America regarding slavery, which originated in Africa, this is not then, this is now. Nearly every racial or ethnic group or class on the planet has been enslaved or oppressed throughout history.

[rastignac]

movingforequalrights: You are apparently the one who knows nothing about Thomas Jefferson. He was not a Christian at all; he was a Deist, as were most of the founding fathers.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."-TJ Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-TJ February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -TJ Mar 17, 1814

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."-TJ30 July, 1816

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."-TJ Jan. 1, 1802

You obviously know precious little about Thomas Jefferson.

[pooh2u]

TJ may of wrote those things, but his other constituates must not of believed or backed him, as God is everywhere in this country, from it's very beginning. It is not only part of our constitution, it is in written in our money, it is written in our national anthem, it is engraved in all of our public buildings, you have to swear on the bible, in the courts that "you will tell the truth the whole truth so help me God" So tell me again that our forefathers did not believe in God. I see only 1 man you are talking about, apparantly the majority of our forefathers won out on that one or else there would be no mention of God in any public forum or building or even in our courts and especially written in our national anthem, or money, etc?

[which god]

pooh2u: I am a white, male, Republican in my 50s, who believes that gays should be able to marry and that they should have equal rights just the same as everyone else. I voted against Prop 8 because it is pure HATE. It denies people their basic civil rights.

All of those "fore-fathers" came to America to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION - exactly what you are trying to do now! You are shoving YOUR specific version of what YOU think religion is down everyone's throat here on this comment page! There is something called "Freedom of Religion" in this country. THE CONSITUTION specifically says...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The word "God" on money does NOT represent YOUR "Christian" God, it is the God of ALL people, be they white, black, red, brown, gay, straight, atheist, etc.. etc.. everyone! Our money does not have "Jesus" on it (so it's NOT "Christian" money - get it?) "God" is an all encompassing word that represents the creator of ALL and the highest form of LOVE. The word "God" represents ALL religions and YOU do not OWN the word "God"! So get over your self righteous behavoir on this comment page already.

[which god]

An issue of paramount importance to early American settlers was that of religious freedom, and the right to worship as they chose, or not to worship at all if they chose not to. They were fed up with that corrupted European system of government that forced religion, as well as other controls over its subjects. But old habits die hard, and even among the early settlers, religious persecution was often practice, until it was slowly abandoned by the process of removing government from the religious affairs of the people. Thus the idea of building a wall of separation between church and state was born.

This doctrine of separation was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the Constitution as they sought to establish and preserve a clear distinction between church affairs and state affairs.

By the way, there are also tons of illuminati and satanic symbols on money and many government buildings, but that does NOT prove that all our forefathers were "satan worshipers" either now does it?

It matters not what "symbols" you place on your buildings, nor does it matter if you wear a cross around your neck, nor does it matter if you go to a church every Sunday if inside you are a mean spirited evil person who wants to take away the GOD given rights of ALL Americans to persue happiness and LOVE !!

peace be to all