Tag(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (6 comments)

They Can't Answer a Simple Question: What the Hell's it to Them if Gays Marry?

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

Hardly. Considering the divorce rate, we’re perfectly capable of doing that ourselves. We don’t need no help a’tall.

Most of us don’t give a rat’s ass who marries whom, as was supported by a Field Poll last month showing that 55 percent of likely voters are opposed to Prop. 8.

Supporters of the Constitutional amendment have their own poll conducted by Lake Research Partners showing that Prop. 8 is leading by four percentage points.

To further prove their point, supporters of Prop. 8 stand behind and tout voter approval of Prop. 22 in 2000, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, which was later overturned by the court.

But that was eight years ago, and many minds have broadened and changed since then, realizing the none of our lives have changed because gays can marry in California.

The sun still rises in the east every morning; birds still chirp, dogs still bark; the Earth still rotates on its axis; there are still 365 days in the year except for once every four years to even out Earth’s rotation; all’s right with the world.

Only life for gay couples has changed, and now -- as the worn out joke says -- they can be as miserable as us hetero couples.

Not a clue

Even with anti-Prop. 8 support and fund raising by Ellen DeGeneres, Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg, other high-profile people and $1 million contributed by the California Teachers Association, I don’t have an inkling of how Prop. 8 will fare at the ballot box.

In a way I hope it passes and gamble that the courts will again put these holier-than-thou, up tight asses in their place once and for all by declaring passage of the Constitutional amendment un-Constitutional!

Source: http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_10757963?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Sandy Sand began her writing career while raising three children and doing public relations work for Women's American ORT (Organization for Rehabilitation through Training). That led to a job as a reporter for the San Fernando Valley Chronicle, a (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION by Meryl Ann Butler on Wednesday, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:40:32 PM
Phewh! by JC Garrett on Wednesday, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:01:02 PM
A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE IS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE by rhalfhill on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:59:31 AM
I wonder the same thing by camanokat on Wednesday, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:52:18 PM
Loud and Clear by Sandy Sand on Wednesday, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:42:06 PM
Marriage Reform by Stokey Pipes on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM