Sometimes...some people just nail it so on the head....

I think this is a perfect response and every gay and straight American should get behind her.

Singer Melissa Etheridge rails against the passage of the gay-marriage ban in California—and she won't be paying the state a dime.

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.

Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

…Really?

When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?

I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.” Now the them is me.

I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.

Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...

Melissa Etheridge is an Academy Award-winning and Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter.

Yep, she's a very vocal part of our community. I remember in 1993 when she came out publicly something many "famous" gays had yet to do. She lives her life free and open and sings about it elloquently too. As I have said umpteen times here and other places and to other people. I don't want to be "married" I don't care about marriage. Marriage is a religious thing, I want full rights that straight married couples receive and that can be a civil union I don't care what you call it. I'm tired of paying taxes on insurance premiums b/c Leah is my domestic partner. I'm tired of having to file single instead of joint.


BTW here is the source.... http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/you-can-forget-my-taxes/

The strange thing is that change is inevitably coming, making the current battle frankly stupid. I teach in a very conservative area, but the bulk of my students are very pro-gay rights, and many were very vocal about their anger over the passing of Prop 8 and 102 in AZ. I'm curious about many of the stories regarding minority voters passing prop 8, and the cause there.

There's been a lot of discussion in recent days in California on how the 'No on 8' campaign, frankly, dropped the ball with regard to failing to reach out to minority voters, while the Yes campaign specifically targeted those communities, and with blatantly misleading ads, at that. The No on 8 campaign spent way too much time 'preaching to the choir', as it were, and save the Samuel L. Jackson ad, ran a campaign that ignored the non-white and non-middle class - the very people who showed up at the polls in record numbers this year because of the Obama candidacy.

I have to admit that despite having been involved in LGBT activism for years and being well aware of the stronger anti-gay bias in much of the African-American community (homosexuality is often described as a 'white' thing, and the resultant denial and 'down-low' activity is of concern from a public health perspective) that the 70/30 split among African-American voters in *California* caught me by surprise. I think that Melissa Etherige is right on in framing this as a civil rights issue, and that this view will eventually prevail - much like African-American civil rights, I think we will one day look back and wonder how people could have harbored such arbitrary hate and ignorance.

To cap that point, as it were, it was interesting to see just how stark the age breakdown on the Prop 8 vote was - while the average older voter was deeply ambivalent about the issue, younger (< 35) voters overwhelmingly voted against the initiative. I remember that my first inkling about just how much the cultural gestalt was changing around homosexuality came about two years ago, via an off-handed comment by a young (straight, fairly conservative) male friend of mine about the wicked wit and temperament of a good friend of his: "He's like the gay version of me." The casualness with which this sentiment came from a young Texan hit me rather starkly and I realized that I was on the far side of a generational divide - and much like I have no clear memory, despite living right near the bridge at the time, of the dogs and fire hoses set upon the Selma marchers, or can truly assimilate the meaning of Medgar Evers being murdered the week I was born, so my friend can't remember that not so long ago I and *my* young friends risked beatings or worse for simply being caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, or that LGBT murders were publicly considered 'justifiable homicide' by the judicial system.

I do hope that Kanyli's assertion proves correct and that we are on the crest of an inevitable wave with regard to the recognition of gay rights being part and parcel of basic civil rights; Obama specifically using the words 'gay and straight' in his acceptance speech Tuesday night was a strong step in the right direction and I home that many of the folks who voted for him and against the rights of their fellow citizens take note and feel a bit chagrined in the light of our new day...

Regards,
Nydia

My wife pointed out that the protesters for prop 8 were carrying signs reading, "Separate is not equal," which should strike a chord. If they can get the case as far as the Supreme Court, I have a difficult time seeing even conservative judges ignoring this as a civil rights issue.

Marriage is a religious thing, I want full rights that straight married couples receive and that can be a civil union I don't care what you call it. I'm tired of paying taxes on insurance premiums b/c Leah is my domestic partner. I'm tired of having to file single instead of joint.



I know you know this...I just feel I have to say it because there are obviously a few people in the world who just don't get it.

Churches provide a marriage ceremony. Going through that ceremony does not make it a legal marriage and does not afford a couple any rights.

The government issues a marriage license which makes it a legal thing and affords all rights of "jointness" to a couple.

The issue has been pushed as a marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so for 6000 years, I heard it put forth specifically like that by one of the leaders who had this placed on the ballot. The state of California, let alone the United States did not exist 6000 years ago therefore this is a purely religious issue that has no other way than to be defined as a violation of the constitution as it is a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.


A church can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple it so desires to, it is the right of that church. A church is basically a club with members who donate money to it. But that club has no right or reason other than to excerpt its own control over the government of a state or the federal government through any legislation. This is simply a case of a religious organization exerpting control beyond its own boundaries upon a citizenry that has chosen not to be a part of such an organization.

I would argue that in fact the simple admission by the Mormon church that it actively supported the proposition would be proof enough that it violated the separation of church and state clause.

The Supreme Court has to be dragged kicking and screaming to afford sex-based characteristics protection as a "suspect class." To the point that they practically invented a new level of review to specifically deal with this issue, and they still are not consistent with these rulings.

If this were ever to be heard by the Court, it would never be struck down except under strict scrutiny. You use strict scrutiny if:

1. There is a race-based classification

2. There is a suspect class involved
a. Must have history of discrimination
b. Must be identifiable
c. Must be immutable

3. There is a fundamental right involved



1. Obviously not a race-based classification.

2. History? Yup. Identifiable? I dunno. Immutable? I'm not touching this one.

3. The Court has found that there is no fundamental right to being homosexual, although consensual sexual conduct has been ruled to be part of the liberty protected by due process under the 14th Amendment.

I think the Court will eventually hear it. The Court is often very reactive in its action. Public opinion can be a huge factor in deciding which cases make it all the way up the ladder. With Obama as President, the possibility (Or certainty) of appointees has pro-gay activists drooling. As soon as they have a friendly Court and a good test case, this will get heard and the ban will most likely be struck down.

This site is hyperbole-heavy (Mormons Stole Our Rights in giant print on the banner) - but I'd have to say that I agree with the basic premise given the depth of involvement by the LDS in the Prop 8 fight. If major religious institutions decide to throw their hats, and tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns, as the LDS church did with Prop 8 in California, they should kiss that tax-exempt status goodbye - it is clearly in violation of the spirit of, if not the exact letter (initiatives not being specifically mentioned) of the law barring churches from lobbying in support of candidates or legislation.

Site here: http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

And an article on the LDS financial and political involvement in the Prop 8 fight (which lists some actual figures) from the LA Times here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html

Regards,
Nydia

I know you know this...I just feel I have to say it because there are obviously a few people in the world who just don't get it.

Churches provide a marriage ceremony. Going through that ceremony does not make it a legal marriage and does not afford a couple any rights.

The government issues a marriage license which makes it a legal thing and affords all rights of "jointness" to a couple.

The issue has been pushed as a marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so for 6000 years, I heard it put forth specifically like that by one of the leaders who had this placed on the ballot. The state of California, let alone the United States did not exist 6000 years ago therefore this is a purely religious issue that has no other way than to be defined as a violation of the constitution as it is a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.


A church can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple it so desires to, it is the right of that church. A church is basically a club with members who donate money to it. But that club has no right or reason other than to excerpt its own control over the government of a state or the federal government through any legislation. This is simply a case of a religious organization exerpting control beyond its own boundaries upon a citizenry that has chosen not to be a part of such an organization.

I would argue that in fact the simple admission by the Mormon church that it actively supported the proposition would be proof enough that it violated the separation of church and state clause.


Exactly. So why people have to call it "gay marriage" just baffles me. It's not fricking "gay" marriage it's not marriage at all. It's about the gov't recognizing the union and that is all. Sadly some people in the community are just as dumb to this as are the people against it. It's miseducation all around. I don't want to be fricking married! I want a legal union with my same sex partner that affords me equal rights as straight couples. I'm not going to go bang down a church door demanding they marry me.

I firmly believe that until people in the community understand what marriage and civil union means it's just going to be a lot of stupid about "gay marriage" and ban gay marriage in the news/media.

It certainly is a civil rights issue and I think it's going to get really interesting soon. Remember that post I made back in March (http://ayonae.com/jennifer-beals-said-my-name-bitch-well-sorta-t10516.html?t=10516&highlight=jennifer+beals)the interview with Tobias Wolfe and Jennfier Beals when they read my question about domestic partnership and tax premiums? This is something I eagerly wait to see addressed in the coming months.

Meh let the homo's marry... Who cares...

I have been talking about this concept alot to my friends. What is the biggest threat to the instution of marriage? Is it gay marriage? No. It is divorce. Divorce of heterosexuals and of homosexuals. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. I believe it is the ultimate hypocracy to be against gay marriage but indiffernt or supportive of divorce. Being a child raised by a single mother I can attest to the difficulties of growing up without a father. Some will argue about the injustice of women getting the free pass on custody from divorce, but the argument stands. Children raised by a single parent have a harder time finding their way in life.

Here is the kicker. I will argue that high divorce rates CAUSE homosexuality. Boys are raised by their mothers, maybe with a sister. They are surrounded by nothing but female stimulus. Clothes, makeup, conversation, gossip, talk about cute guys, etc. There is no male role model to counteract all this female influence.

I have been talking about this concept alot to my friends. What is the biggest threat to the instution of marriage? Is it gay marriage? No. It is divorce. Divorce of heterosexuals and of homosexuals. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. I believe it is the ultimate hypocracy to be against gay marriage but indiffernt or supportive of divorce. Being a child raised by a single mother I can attest to the difficulties of growing up without a father. Some will argue about the injustice of women getting the free pass on custody from divorce, but the argument stands. Children raised by a single parent have a harder time finding their way in life.

Here is the kicker. I will argue that high divorce rates CAUSE homosexuality. Boys are raised by their mothers, maybe with a sister. They are surrounded by nothing but female stimulus. Clothes, makeup, conversation, gossip, talk about cute guys, etc. There is no male role model to counteract all this female influence.

errr. We're all entitled to opinions. However in my case my mother was a single mother and I had an older sister who is by and large "girly", "frufru", and everything in between. I have two brothers one is married, the other? was married, fathered a child and is worthless scum (that's a different topic). I can remember even as a young girl being "attracted" to both boys and girls. And when I say young, I mean earliest memories young. So, in my case definitely not the issue ;) My sister did have a hand in raising me when mom was at work, I had no problem wearing dresses, I had lots of dolls, but I also had boy toys (giggle) and I was a tomboy for as long as I can remember. To this day I am still attracted to both sexes but prefer relationships with women.

In Leah's case, she was an only child her parents are still married. She didn't have a "hard" life and she came out to her parents when she was still in high school. They were and sitll are very supportive of her and when asked if they ever suspected they will tell you... not till she told us. Unlike myself Leah has not had long term relationships with men, only women. So, is your theory only for men? I could talk about the family and upbringing of my gay male friends if you'd like? My closest male friend... his parents were still married up until 5yrs ago when his mom died of cancer. He's 40ish years old and is a hairdresser and as gay as can be :D

Or, I could tell you about some of my other lesbian friends. For each one who still has married parents I can give examples of ones who grew up in single parent homes or in homes with step-parents. Divorce sucks no doubt but it does not IMO cause homosexuality.

Personally I think women being batshit crazy causes men to go gay :P

Define bat shit crazy b/c I could possibly be lableled as such and need to know if I can start making more gays!

Do you have two x chromosomes? If so you then qualify as being crazy.

Getting back on topic though.

The Gay community has been going about this the wrong way for years. They want to take something that a good deal of Americans see as being a religious ceremony and use law to open that to everyone. Now ethically, there should be no legal difference between a gay couple, and a straight couple. I personally think they should be privy to all the tax benefits, health insurance, etc etc etc that I am. However, their union to me, is not exactly the same as the one between me and my wife. And that is the way many people feel, evidently enough to pass the ban in California one of the most liberal states in the country. However, if the Gay community came together and said look this is about rights, we want protection under the law the same as everyone else and then called it a civil union rather than marriage I'd say 90% of the people who are on the fence would go for it. It allows that distinction to remain but still allows equal rights.

As for the LDS Church campaigning for Prop 8, well I'd prefer my church stay out of politics, but at the same time you can't very well expect us to not stand against something that goes against our beliefs.

I have been talking about this concept alot to my friends. What is the biggest threat to the instution of marriage? Is it gay marriage? No. It is divorce. Divorce of heterosexuals and of homosexuals. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. I believe it is the ultimate hypocracy to be against gay marriage but indiffernt or supportive of divorce. Being a child raised by a single mother I can attest to the difficulties of growing up without a father. Some will argue about the injustice of women getting the free pass on custody from divorce, but the argument stands. Children raised by a single parent have a harder time finding their way in life.

Here is the kicker. I will argue that high divorce rates CAUSE homosexuality. Boys are raised by their mothers, maybe with a sister. They are surrounded by nothing but female stimulus. Clothes, makeup, conversation, gossip, talk about cute guys, etc. There is no male role model to counteract all this female influence.


Honestly I think there is way too much concern about the OMG why are they gay...they are gay because they are gay...I am straight because I am straight. I think it's pretty apparent that you are born the way you are born. Some are born gay and some straight. It's just who you are. No one is going to make me gay and I'm not going to make any gay straight.

Here is the kicker. I will argue that high divorce rates CAUSE homosexuality. Boys are raised by their mothers, maybe with a sister. They are surrounded by nothing but female stimulus. Clothes, makeup, conversation, gossip, talk about cute guys, etc. There is no male role model to counteract all this female influence.

Compelling but unfounded. We don't know many specifics yet but a number of natal development factors are so highly correlated with sexual preference/mate selection tendencies across all sampled populations that the whole "sex wiring by choice" or "sex wiring by education" paradigms are fairly solidly debunked. The genetic element is still up in the air.

Divorce certainly causes a lot of other problems though, or rather, is associated with them.

Govt doesn't belong in any aspect of marriage...

Start by getting them out of such by fixing the tax code so there are no such things as deductions per family member/kid....

What transpires inside the house between two consenting adults is their own damn business. It's really one of the issues I have with the current powers that be in the Republican party.

As for the LDS church being involved, sorry but that's their right to push as much as it is for the right of the Gay community to push their own beliefs.

Fighting, protesting and generally calling out the LDS ( and now Catholic Church) takes the focus off what it should be and instead gives ill light to issue. Instead fight at the core, there never should have been a vote as it's not the govt's business to tell you who you can or can't love....

Start by getting them out of such by fixing the tax code so there are no such things as deductions per family member/kid....


But then you take away incentives that are "family friendly". I know when I was married, I paid a heck of a lot lesser taxes than I do now. I know my X gets a 3K tax credit for being the CP of my son. I get to pay more taxes, even though I am contributing to the welfare of my son (child support).

Regardless, I wonder how many single, straight people would take advantage of such legislation. Would saving more in taxes, be more of a draw than the social stigma of living with a "partner"?

Not to sound anti-female, but I think women would have less of a issue with it, than men.

My point Sixee is that Joe Mr Down the Street shouldn't be getting help from the govt because he and Mrs Down the Street decided to pump out 10 kids.

That should not be the govts business at all. I shouldn't have to pay more taxes, and yes it works out this way, because they have so many dern deductions.

Fear the Arnold! (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/)

Joe Mr Down the Street

If the McCain campaign had only brought this guy into it...the possibilities...oh the possibilities

LMAO sorry the Joe this or that just seems apt with the advent of Joe the Plumber.

If the McCain campaign had only brought this guy into it...the possibilities...oh the possibilities

The media response would have been that his name wasn't Joe, it was Bill, and he didn't live down the street, he lived up the way, and he wasn't a Mr, but had had a sex change operation.....

Right.

OMG TEH MEDIA!!!!

Here's what happened:

John McCain's campaign was in the shitter. He had no clear strategy, theme, or message. So in the knee jerk fashion that seemed to dominate his campaign, he thought "Hey, some people like Sarah Palin because they can relate to her, so I'll try the same thing with a blue-collar male!"

If you're going to forego ANY type of substantive policy discussion in favor of a personality, then you better make sure this person is worth putting out there.

First off, this is a PISS POOR decision, and it offers a very clear picture on how desperate the McCain campaign really was. You are taking YOUR message, and letting it be controlled by some guy that you barely know (Hmm, sound famaliar! HI PALIN).

Second, because you are not offering any substance, the integrity of the message is literally embodied in this persona, Joe the Plumber. Unfortunately for McCain, they did not do their fact checks and apparently this wasn't the greatest guy, not to mention his pathetic grab for his 15 minutes.

Moral of the story? Stand on your own two. The strategy of trying to mobilize people who are stupid enough to vote because "Hey, this guy is kinda a little bit like me" failed miserably, and thank fucking god. Obama didn't need these lame figureheads to represent his ideas. He went out and told the American people what he felt, and they rewarded him with the Presidency.

Encouraging for Democrats, however, is that Republicans seem to be clinging to this garbage and all too predictably blaming the MSM etc etc.
Okay, keep up the same tired shit and we'll keep kicking your ass until you learn how to run a campaign beyond that of student council.

The media response would have been that his name wasn't Joe, it was Bill, and he didn't live down the street, he lived up the way, and he wasn't a Mr, but had had a sex change operation.....

LOL...you actually blame the media for the fact that Joe the Plumbers name was actually Samuel? Or that he was not a plumber? or that he wasn't actually going to buy the business that he claimed he was?

Dude, don't blame the media for telling the truth, blame the campaign organization that took some poor sucker and paid him to go along with their contrived characterization. Bottom line is he was a contrived character not a thing about him was real, how is that media bias?

Well Ainwein, thanks for making me feel like I just kicked someone when they were down!

LOL...you actually blame the media for the fact that Joe the Plumbers name was actually Samuel? Or that he was not a plumber? or that he wasn't actually going to buy the business that he claimed he was?

Dude, don't blame the media for telling the truth, blame the campaign organization that took some poor sucker and paid him to go along with their contrived characterization. Bottom line is he was a contrived character not a thing about him was real, how is that media bias?



I don't think I was "blaming" anyone. I was merely commenting on the whole situation and its outcome. It was an attempt at humor, poking fun at the whole contrived situation McCain was involved in, but I guess I failed miserably....

Simple fix on the marraige issue...don't use the word marraige. Government can only use the term civil union, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Change it on all government forms and publication...never use the word. Let the moral minority have the word, but government gives the rights to unions.

Simple fix on the marraige issue...don't use the word marraige. Government can only use the term civil union, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Change it on all government forms and publication...never use the word. Let the moral minority have the word, but government gives the rights to unions.

Agree, this issue can only be resolved by removing the religious aspect of 'marriage' and focusing on the legal aspects. Those who say government has no business are not looking at the whole picture; most of the arguments raised by those seeking equal rights have to do with legal matters that are dictated by government, whether it be local, state or federal. Medical consent (and visiting rights), shared property, insurance coverage, etc.

I think the biggest mistake made has been chasing legitimacy on the religious front rather than the legal. If you want to pick a fight challenge someone's religious beliefs, and you can argue for years and years. If you want to solve a problem there are a multitude of good processes available for challenging an issue of legal rights.

Deal with this as a civil rights issue and I bet it gets more traction than if it is presented as a challenge to the church.

There are several angles to consider here. The assumption from the religious folks is that somehow being gay is a choice, and has a negative affect on the family. The first part I won't speak to - not being gay myself, and so not exactly in the know - but as for the negative part, I believe most research has demonstrated little to no difference between conduct in families, other than gay relationships undergoing more stress because of the gay aspect and the social reaction.

The involvement of the government stems from the assumption that somehow the family is valuable to society - and I'm inclined to agree here from the research I've read and my own experience meeting dysfunctional students and families. Whether or not the government should encourage families is debatable, I suppose. Where I have trouble is the backing of religious ceremonies.

We already know that marriages have about a 50% or so failure rate, and the rate is about the same both in and outside of the church - so religion doesn't seem to play much of a role in reinforcing the family, not as much as many people want to believe.

So, marriage is primarily a religious act, at present, although the value in that seem sketchy. If the government is tampering here, it strikes me as a very simple violation of church and state. The easy solution is to shift to government supported civil unions, and leave marriage to the church. Let individual churches decide if gays should get married, or not. Or hell, let some churches exclude the straight crowd.

I take my marriage very seriously, and I dislike anything that threatens the significance of the vows that we made. I see ultra-religious groups and government tampering as far more of a threat than whether or not my gay neighbor is married, and considering the already high rates of divorce in the US, I fail to see how gay marriages which fail are actually detrimental to my own life. That's the real kick - can anyone demonstrate how allowing gay marriage actually negatively impacts the straight crowd?

I think the biggest mistake made has been chasing legitimacy on the religious front rather than the legal. If you want to pick a fight challenge someone's religious beliefs, and you can argue for years and years. If you want to solve a problem there are a multitude of good processes available for challenging an issue of legal rights.

They seem to be doing this more now, many people have already petitioned the CA supreme court for example.

It's going to be a hard fight due to how this is the only issue I can think of where it's still commonly socially acceptable to be a bigot. But soon enough this will be looked at just like how we look at people who are against interracial marriage. The fact that most young people voted against prop-8 gives me hope. As more and more people grow up interacting and being friends with homosexuals, more people will see them as normal people.

Just FYI, Keith Olbermann (of MSNBC's Countdown) made Prop 8 the topic of a 'special comment' last night. While a bit overwrought, it was evident that he spoke from the heart and given this show's penetration into middle-American living rooms I hope that it ended up giving some of his regular listeners some food for thought. Video here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

Anti-Prop 8 Civil Rights marches occurred around California and across the country this week (the support group in Dallas that I once facilitated is participating in one this weekend) and this decision may in the long run benefit the drive for marriage equality due to the groundswell of outrage and activism based on the emergent recognition that this *is* a civil rights issue and produce a major shift in the moral framing of the debate.

Regards,
Nydia

Thank you very much Nydia while a regular Olberman viewer i missed this. and as an incouragable hetrosexual(sorry Osi) I must say he summed up my feelings in a manner far more eloquent than i ever could.

I've always been against the word 'marriage' when related to gay couples(but not against civil unions with the same rights) because the term had inherent meaning. I can say that Olbermann has changed my mind.