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

[Luvial]

There must be equal protection under the law. When will the opponents of equal rights propose bringing back human slavery, too?

[IndependentMeans]

It is in the works.

[swpeace]

In the very near future we will look back at this time of discorse with disbeif, the same way we look back at the 60's when inter-racial marriage was against the law in some SO. states. I think when this is presented to the Supreme Court, on a federal level, the issue will be settled and gay marriage will be.

[rdsoxs86]

He hit the nail on the head. It is none of the churches business. If the Evengelicals and Mormons don't accept gay marriage, they have the right not to perform them.

[AtTheMoon]

mormons won't let you marry in their temples if you drink coffee, so who cares who they decide should marry...

[Cycadeoidea]

I care when the LDS spends $MM on political initiatives.

[Robin Whiteside]

Here's the thing: Lots and lots of churches not only sanctify but actually perform marriages of gays. I think it will take a big push by churches, like the United Church of Christ, the Unitarians, many Methodist and Episcopal churches to settle this argument. At least, it would help shut up the bigots.

[Cycadeoidea]

The churches that confuse tradition for values will never catch up.

[llisa]

I know an elderly lesbian couple who have been together since they were in their twenties. Always "roommates". The sister of one of them lived with them in a separate part of the house (after her husband's death) till her own death a few years ago. I imagine that was to keep people from talking. Just three women sharing a house, for expenses, you know.

One has gotten pretty feeble now, so they moved together into an assisted living facility.

If this were a heterosexual couple, they would be celebrated for the longevity of their marriage, maybe have their photo in the paper on their anniversary.

It is past time to recognize this kind of commitment.

[Rebecca]

I'm with you on this, David. Because the precedence seemed so natural and then to have it somewhat, sorta, kinda, not legal anymore...what the heck? Glad to know some folks got in before the limbo stick went too low!

[Georgiapundit]

Their not even "struggling", they have rights. Who cares about marriage. This is all a joke. 1. the people of California voted against it. 2. I will not take any of this seriously until they actually hold a serious protest in areas where protest is needed.

Here's an idea: you all in California should get on a bus and travel down south to fight for the rights and equality of young gay males living on the streets because of rejection from their own communities.

Now, that's struggle.

[HaloGuy]

Good call, but its all the same argument.

[Dynamohum]

It is all valid. You are correct up to a point. It is tragic how many teens are turned out of their homes for something that they have no control over and many times end up committing suicide. It is tragic. But like the other poster said: "It is part of the same argument".

[hereitis]

i still have not have not heard from any repub or any religious person as to why gay marriage is an affront to heterosexual marriage . . . and i mean logical fact-based reasoning . . . not the tired old adam and eve not adam and steve argument and not some cherry-picked biblical quotes. repubs and religious fanatics really do have the most difficult time with the concept of live and let live. their mantra is i will let you live your life as long as you live your life the way i tell you to live your life.

[iawill]

The matter should not have gone before the California Supreme Court in the first place. The people VOTED and that should have settled the matter. While I know the gay community and their supporters were upset that Proposition 8 passed, the vote was the will of the people of California! While many did not like the results, it is what it is -- the WILL of the people! The citizens of california exercised their right to vote and did so. There have been many propositions and laws that have been voted IN that people have not liked over the years, but we have to live with the results. To have the courts take action on every matter when we are on the losing side, defeats the purpose of the vote speaking on our behalf.

If the citizens of California want to stop persons from voting on certain legislation, they need to write another proposition to have it placed on the ballot so that certain matters will no longer come before a vote!

[lostintheBronx]

Would you have put civil rights for black Americans in a ballot in Alabama in 1960?

[SaulBloodworth]

I‘m not even sure if t would pass a secret ballot today

[Dynamohum]

Ever notice how incredibly quiet and void of comments it gets?

[Ides]

It takes a 2/3rd California Congress vote to change the Constitution, which Proposition 8 does.

[Awake-and-Sing]

No, the California constitution can be re-amended by a simple majority vote, which it will be in 2010 or 2012.

[AliMac02]

Regarding your last suggestion (or was it a challenge?) -- oh, honey, we citizens of California WILL be writing another proposition. Oh, yes we will.

[madisonhack]

It's the court's responsibility to side with the minority when the majority is wrong. Blacks would still be using segregated facilities and unable to marry whites had it been up to a majority vote. You probably fail to realize that all law is open to interpretation and is generally written that way on purpose....for the sole reason that otherwise, it wouldn't pass.

Next on the agenda is going to be a case to the SCOTUS based on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. There's precedent here and it is being argued by David Boise and Ted Olson of Bush v Gore fame. Time for the "activist judges" to overturn their precedent rulings?

You guys can't have it both ways.

[MiddleRiver]

It's nice to say "the people voted," but when it comes to the majority taking away the rights of the minority, it' not that simple. Look in the mirror. Is there anything about you for which you could be discriminated? Left handed people should not be allowed to drive? Children of Irish immigrants shouldn't own property? People who ever bought a porn magazine can't become teachers? Think about it - the "people" could vote on unfair laws that would hurt YOU. Think.

[slpmom]

I could not agree more. I am stunned that the Calif. supreme court didn't decree that the entire situation is not an issue that could be decided by voters in the first place. Maybe someone should start a Prop. 9 to deny blondes the right to go to college, or brown eyed males the right to drive. Civil rights are not up to voters to bestow or deny.

[1logicalthinker]

Oh NO! Now I can't drive, I can't own property and I can't teach anymore. CRAP!

[cloudminder]

IF DAVID WANTED TO MARRY BOTH DAPHNE AND STEVE

WOULD THAT BE OKAY

IF HE WAS BISEXUAL AND IN LOVE WITH BOTH OF THEM AND MONOGAMOUS WITH BOTH OF THEM?

[SaulBloodworth]

I believe, multiple marriages should only be legal for Mexicans as a means of getting as many wives as possible into this country. So, no.

[cloudminder]

lovely, ladies and gentlemen

lou dobbs has joined us in the comments section....

[onnyang]

now that's a funny comment...

[jonathanu]

If both Daphne and Steve consented, I personally would have no problem with that. But nobody is talking about polygamy. Polygamy is a totally different issue.

I would avoid posting in all caps. It makes you seem like a nutbag.

[onnyang]

not nutbag...
the implication is that you're yelling!!!

[MiddleRiver]

It's not the caps - it's the nut bag contents.

[surlyguvna]

What about people who have been married more then once, are these the next batch of folks on the hate tour? What difference does it make to you? Will your house burst into flames? Will the moon suddenly come crashing down on earth? No it won't, stop pretending it will. Also, you may want to consider this, at the end of time, when you stand before God and are asked what did you do with the life given to you...what will you say? That you spent most of your life hating others because they are different? Consider what God's reaction will be. Love is love regardless of other people beliefs. Judge not other, least yourself be judged pal...there's are no cop out with God buddy.

[cloudminder]

you are assuming my post was anti gay

yet, it was pro bisexual

so who is the one who is really judging...

[tfred]

You stupid pud. First of all we have laws against bigamy so they could be denied the right under those terms. That is as stupid a comment as the ones I've heard neocons make that if this law passed people could marry their dogs. Actually a dog might be preferential to a neocon.

[Dynamohum]

Very.

[Quaoar]

If all are nonrelated consenting adults I have no problem with it.

[SaulBloodworth]

What! Niles Crane is gay? Who would have thunked! So now we know why we have never seen Maris...

[Freenation]

this was news to me too....

[Madison007]

LOL - oops in caps...not yelling just laughing out loud is that ok.??? Did they ever show Maris?

[seachild]

how could ANYONE not know he was gay????????????????

[kmich718]

Wait a minute. Isn't it the Republican's who are saying they don't want Government telling the people what to do? What is this then if not Government interferring with the people??? Why aren't the Repubs up in arms over this?

[HaloGuy]

Because the Republican Party has been hijacked by religious extremists.

[onnyang]

amen!

[oafishcad]

I pray that all of the anti gay bigots have a gay child in a straight marriage, or have a straight child that marries someone gay. That's what you want isn't it? For gay people to marry the opposite sex? Or do you just want gay people to be miserable? I don't see doin unto others as you would have them do unto you anywhere near their bigotry.

[Rickter]

He's Gay? Oh my God! What do we do! Is the part where the world explodes, my marriage and values are destroyed, my children are preminantly marred, and everything that is good in life is gone forever?

Oh wait, you mean life goes on? Well, wadda ya know. Good on him and his husband, hope they are very happy. Next issue...

[Dynamohum]

25 years of marriage is really great. A role model for the gay community. We are out here and we aren't going away, especially without our civil rights and benefits.

[LandOfPinot]

Marriage is a personal decision, whether you're in a same-sex relationship or otherwise. The problem is that the issue is now "owned" by a religious, conservative fringe. The same (conservative) people that tell you that government is too big and should not step into your private life want to impose their own rule when marriage (and abortion) is/are concerned. Nobody's forcing a heterosexual person to marry a gay person, so what's the problem, really? Having said this, however, I think the gay community is doing itself a disservice to show extravagant displays of "affection." When I saw the movie "Milk", I really liked the theme, but I was turned off by the few segments showing extreme scenes (I want to be quick to say that I also dislike such moments in movies involving heterosexual relationships). If the gay community wants to win over a still very skeptic population, it needs to show pictures of healthy gay families (there are many) and normal gay communities, not the outrageous stuff you see at the Gay Parade.

[cloudminder]

the movie MILK did not have outrageous scenes

i guess you are surrounded by vineyards and very sheltered cause in The City (SF) -- what was in the movie is common place

[LandOfPinot]

Cloudminder, maybe your mind is buried in the Castro microcosm! That's exactly my point! The population at large is turned off by outrageous Castro scenes (as much as they would be by rue St Denis or Pigalle scenes at three in the morning, if you know what I mean). Show a regular gay-parents family (that shouldn't be too hard to find), and you'll convince a lot of people that gay marriage is no threat to anybody. Show the Castro at night and your cause is lost. I'd be curious to see how the gay community is going to present their "case" in Fresno!

[HaloGuy]

There is also the argument that the flagrant displays of sexuality by gays is a response to the suppression imposed upon us by those who find us repulsive.

I think that once we are allowed the same rights and privileges as straight couples have we will finally be seen as normal to the public, and you will see a toning down of the excessive sexual expression we see today.

Or not - what defines us is our sexuality, so heteronormatization of gay relationships may do nothing to change how we express ourselves.

[LandOfPinot]

You make a good point, but I have a few gay friends that lead a very "normal" life by what you'd call "heterogeneous" standards. The point right now is that the gay community needs to win over a majority of the population to gain equal rights, and the best way to do it is to play by the perceived majority's rules.

[Zofomofo]

Would you advise African-Americans to act more White to earn their rights?

[breakingpoint]

he's gay?

I didn't know and I don't care, he's smart and funny.