David Hyde Pierce On His Marriage, Prop 8 Anger (VIDEO)

David Hyde Pierce talked about his anger over Prop 8 on "The View" on Thursday.

Pierce married his longtime partner last year, but has always stayed quiet about his personal life until now.

"Brian and I always kept a low profile, we didn't hide our lives," Pierce told the ladies. "We got married very quietly last October 24 and thought that was fine, and then suddenly the state of California said, 'no it's not.'"

Pierce went on to say, "Can you imagine if you're married the people in your state getting together and saying, no you're not... It was a very angry-making decision... It's none of your business."



WATCH:

Follow HuffPo Entertainment On Twitter!

Send us tips! Write us at [e-mail] if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team.

Comments

[StrayTalk]

When I was growing up I heard all the SAME tired arguments made against interracial marriage. I was also called a n...lover by more than a few (white) young peers because I refused to condemn MLK at the time when it was VERY popular among certain circles (incl some church folk) to do so. Basically the right to marry is a civil rights issue plain and simple. No church in this country will ever be forced to marry gay couples. So all you "religious" people-- It IS none of your business. By the way I have been in an opposite (straight) marriage for over 30 years. (funny how some people assume you are gay on HP when you defend the right for all to marry!)

[Vieux Charles]

"We got married very quietly last October 24 and thought that was fine, and then suddenly the state of California said, 'no it's not.'"


Mr. Pierce needs to review the courts findings. Prop 8 has no retroactive effect on same sex "marriages" before the referendum.

[brandalucia]

Our system is set up quite wisely: the American voter decides issues put forth by ballot measure. That liberal judges decide their one vote supercedes that of 10's of millions of voters, such as happens in Calif. 9th circuit so often is an abomination.

Voters are the deciding factor even though liberals are unhappy with that; they find it FAIR for ONE judge to overturn tens of millions of voters...what can you say? And Soniasoto agrees with them.

[JDJase]

Actually, if you knew anything about constitutional law at all, you would know that there is no right to vote on an issue that affects a small number of people.

But, I wouldn't expect you to know anything more than what you pick up from conservative talking points.

[Benjamin Johnson]

It's called Oppression of a Minority, and it is not moral, ethical, or constitutional.

[stylenease]

Unfortunately, your argument is bogus. Tens of millions of people, as you mentioned, can not vote to disenfranchise a minority of their right to life, liberty and the persuit of happines, or deny them equal protection under the law. So you're incorrect at best, and downright ignorant of the Constitution at worst. Gay Marriage will be the law of the land, eventually.

:) Keep on smilin'.

[Hawaii5-0]

My favorite argument used by the anti-gay marriage groups is that, "gay marriages threaten traditional marriages." Isn't that like saying, "My marriage is SOOOOO fragile, that letting gays get married would tempt my spouse into leaving me for someone of the same sex. Can't let that happen. We have for make sure they live in repressed denial of who they really are so we can maintain our image of marital bliss." If your marriage is threatened my someone else getting married, you are in deep dooo doooo.

Really, the same arguments were made when couples of different races started to intermarry. Look where that got us. Obama, Tiger Woods and the fastest growing demographic group in America. Living in Hawaii, most people deal with racism with more humor than offense. Many inter-racial people refer to themselves as Heinz 57 (57 ingredients/races) and no one really takes offense at racial jokes because you are making fun of yourself at the same time. It's a much better attitude and the same should go for gay marriage.

[cruisepuppy7452a]

One more thing, as the aunt of a gay niece, if she announced her desire to marry? I would be the first to offer to throw her the largest reception, party known to man kind. Weddings are happy events, and should not be seen as only for those who are in a church, or who read the bible. I refuse to read a bible, follow anyone's laws. Its sick. The public has a right to marry whom they choose, where they choose, and nobody has a right to take that away from them. Its about privacy issues. Stay out of my bedroom and I will stay the hell out of your churches. Nobody is going to tell me or my family who they can marry, or where. If they chose to marry in a sewer, on a submarine, on a mountain top it will always be seen as a legal marriage, and no right wing or catholic is going to take that away from us.Marriage is marriage and love is love, and if those cannot see beyond this, its thier myopic view of the world and life.

[Vieux Charles]

Actually, it's NOT about privacy issues. In fact, just the opposite. Your niece can still 'privately' marry whomever she wishes.

[LeftRight]

NO, she cannot!! She WISHES to marry another woman, but you are obviously scared that you might be a closet gay person, so you want to limit her right to marry whomever she wishes to just a man!!!

[Jakealoper]

Hey, if you want to change an existing law, you get people to vote on a new law. It may be complicated and take a long time. The gays however, used friendly judges to overturn laws based on personal convictions, not legal precendent. So the people responded with even a tougher law, affirming the status quo. It's called democracy, and that is more important than placating a bunch of self obsessed babies. I would have voted for it if I lived in Cali just to teach these degens a lesson.

[Seth Harris 1]

Two things:

From Thomas Jefferson: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

And Loving v. Virginia (1967) in which the right to marry was ruled as protected by the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I believe these two things take gay marriage out of the realm of an issue that can be voted on.

[Vieux Charles]

Your problem (and the court's) is that 'marriage' is legally defined by the people of California (as history and reason demand it should be) as a union between a man and a woman. So your argument doesn't hold. A gay man isn't denied equal treatment under the law, nor is he denied the "inalienable right" to marry - a woman.

[LeftRight]

First, it IS a legal precedent for the courts to overturn laws based on them being unconstitutional.

Second, you're right, it SHOULD be difficult to take away the rights of a minority, so difficult that IT CANNOT HAPPEN AT ALL!!

[Tommygun264]

The granting or denial of basic civil rights should never be subject to majority (or mob) rule. Segregation didn't end because it was popular with the people, it ended because it was wrong and those evil "activist judges" you love to demonize did the right thing. Slavery didn't end because it was put up to a vote. How about if the majority passed a law making your chosen religion illegal or denying people of your particular ethnic heritage the right to vote? Would you just have to live with discrimination here in the home of the free? People used to learn in school about the way our government works and the roles of the various branches of government, including the courts. Are you too young to have benefited from this, or are you just willfully ignorant?

[RobinsRoads05]

I decided a very long time ago that who gay and who isn't and how they conduct their lives is absolutely none of my business.the people I make friends with are people that I admire, trust and enjoy, I don't peek into their bedrooms and they give me the same respect.
what is my business is how the laws in this country are delegated. and I am outraged.

[johnbdonovan]

I'll make you a deal: I'll stay out opf your bedroom if you stay out of my bank account. Marriage means that the whole society has to contribute to benefits, and only the male-female variety deserve that.

[wheresthebeef]

Sez you.

[LeftRight]

First, I'll stay out of your bank account, but not out of your paycheck.

Second, WRONG, ALL marriages deserve to have state sanction, whether the people in them are both sexes, or just one!!

[MagicalPossibilities]

Who are YOU to decide who deserves what???
And your argument is baseless. What benefits? Gay people are much LESS likely than straight couples to use public welfare, for one reason, because most programs such as AFDC and Medicare are only available to families with children.

[AguynamedWayne]

Gay people pay taxes too. Actually we pay higher taxes than heterosexual couples who are given legal tax benefits that gay couples are denied.

[duncansdad]

You couldn't be more wrong. The social security benefits that my gay partner has contributed to all his life will not go to me upon his death. Where do you think it will go? To the spouses of heterosexuals. So its you who should stay out of our bank account.

Perhaps gays should stop contributing to social security entirely. We could contribe that same money each week to a personal retirement account and prevent out hard earned dollars from going to those who voted to take away our rights. I'm sure that not having our gay dollars to shore up the social security system would have a profound effect.

[brandalucia]

So, 6% of the population who are gay should be allowed to destroy the centuries long meaning of what marriage is? That is fair? Majority rules is just one factor here.

[LeftRight]

So, that 6% not destroying anything is justification for the majority to withhold their civil rights??

[light2you]

no one says it more simply and eleqoently than this 9 year old boy...about Prop 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnpyh-nRibc

[imsosure]

Oh he's so sweet, I could just gobble him up with whip bream all over and some of my buddies.

[dgscol]

He would do better if he changed his name.

[SaddieMcCall]

People used to defend laws prohibiting interracial marriage - citing that it was not good for the children, and how the children born from these relationships would suffer because society would not accept them. Now people are saying the best place to raise children is with a mother and a father. Well, the fact is there are gay couples (or singles) raising children; there are divorced and widowed parents who are raising children alone; there are grandparents raising children, etc. Children thrive when they are loved. If people truly believed in marriage as being good for society; then they should embrace gay marraige to encourage committed relationships, and someone who will be there to care for their family through the tough times.

[johnbdonovan]

Certainly love is the most important factor in raising children, and it should be remembered that fathers and mothers love in different and complementary ways. In my own experience as a father and as a son, as well as in the experience of those I've observed around me, the mother is able to comfort a small child more effectively, a father is able to discipline an older child more effectively. In the wider society, these differences are important to us collectively, because boys without fathers are much more likely to have run-ins with the law and girls without fathers to seek male affection in the form of promiscuity. The statistics about this are stubborn. The lack of a mother undoubtedly has consequences of equal magnitude. Obviously we can all point to exceptions; my grandmother grew up without either parent and turned out well. But we experiment with these things only at our great peril as a society.

[LeftRight]

You might be right, were it not for the minor little fact that study after study after study etc... has shown that Love is the ONLY factor that matters!! Kids growing up in a single parent household where the single parent has to work several jobs will be underloved. Kids who grow up in dual parent households, NO MATTER THE SEX OF THE PARENTS will not be!

[Linda Brown 1]

I am originally from VT where civil unions were first enacted I support gays and lesbians getting married, love is love, and so many gay people lived a lie, case in point, the governor of NJ. He could not come out because of his political career, he marries a woman, has children and saw male prostitutes on the side where was not fair to anyone involved. When his secret came out, his family was devastated and his reign of Gov came to an end. Now he is openly gay, like he should have been the minute he knew he was. I have gay friends and they are happily married, some have children and they are leading normal lives. As for CA? You give it then take it back? I can understand DHP's anger , but hang in there David, this too shall pass especially when other high profile celebs decide to come out fighting, like Ellen and Melissa Etheridge and even though I do not live in CA all gays and lesbians have my deepest support, not everybody has teeny minds and I can't stand Miss CA! I think she is as fake as her boobs and her remark about marriage, shows you that she is narrow minded and somebody I would not consider a role model because people I admire accept people for who they are and that is what I have taught all the children in my life and we are all God's children, straight or gay.
's

[wilray]

At first I thought DHP was gay. However, the only thing I heard was that he was straight. And of course, his character played well with Frasier Crane. Niles and Frazier were the epitome of metrosexuals. But to complete the circle Bulldog who seems completely straight is played by Dan Butler who is completely gay. I guess that's why they call it acting.

http://www.nndb.com/people/627/000047486/

[cheappleats]

I'm a liberal. I'm a student of primative health; dietary, posturally, socially, and emotionally. Gay marriage by definition devalues the opposite sex. Gay marriage is a reckless deraveling of primitive social and emotional well-being of the tribe. Homosexuality have near universally been deemed unhealthy in primitive cultures. Who is more healthy-modern day people or people from primitive cultures? In fact, modern-day people are degenerating in every way with respect to health.

[ZoeyMO]

Huh? We're supposed to reject gay marriage because it's not "primitive" enough for you? Sorry, but that's a load of crap. And how does my brother marrying his husband devalue women? As near as I can see, him marrying a woman because society tells him that's the "healthy" thing to do would be devaluing women.

[wilray]

Liberal primitive ??? People use to live to the ripe old age of 40 in primitive cultures. So much for primitive.

[KillgoreTrout43]

Oh yes, let's all stay in our caves. Numbnuts.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

Primitive cultures also believed the sun revolved around the Earth.

We have made this thing called social progress. Civilization has no need of your vile bigotry and intolerance. You are no liberal.

[crat4ever]

I don't think he will get your point. I bet he DOES believe the sun revolves around the earth...and that man rode dinosaurs, and that the world is 3000 years old.

[ehandler]

Mr. Liberal...

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. And basking in "liberal" credentials, while spewing nonsense, is an insult to other liberals. And other humans. I encourage you, like the non-"liberals", to grow up.

[TheBlackCat]

Biblical law states that if a man rapes a virgin, he is legally obligated to marry her.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29


Why is it that the Christians aren't fighting to make it compulsory for rapists to marry virgin victims, as that is what the BIBLE states to be law in regards to marriage?

And if they argue that well, that law was written for the times and isn't applicable to modern society, then why don't they extend that mentality to ALL Biblical law?

[BlackWidowPilot]

Biblical literalism is the stock-n-trade of the authoritarian and the scoundrel. The passage in Leviticus that the quack right is so fond of as their excuse for denying those who are gay the human right of consenting adults to marry is consistently taken out of context:

http://www.guerrillascholar.com/cogito/?p=78

Christian is as Christian does, and to willfully ignore the teachings of Christ in favor of the very Old Testament laws Christ defied with His Ministry on Earth is the height of dishonesty.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

[cruisepuppy7452a]

I say it again, its nobody's business but the people who are choosing to marry. I dont' care if various religeons find it offensive, that is thier issue. The Bible isn't the last word, nor should it be. Hello, only those who choose to but into others personal lives see it that way. Personally I don't care if gays choose to marry or not, its thier business, thier privacy rights and i won't play god telling them not to do it. As a straight, herero sexual female who is in a very monogomous relationship with her favoirite gay, I see nothing wrong with gays wanting to marry, raise families. This is another case and reason why we should not allow relitious groups to dictate how others choose to live, how we choose to live. Go crawl back under the rocks from which you came and leave us alone.

[TheBlackCat]

I should clarify that as the Christian right.

As I live in Massachusetts and most Christians I know are pro gay marriage.

I apologize for the generalization.