Comedian Ellen DeGeneres said she was “saddened beyond belief” at the decision by voters to ban the newly-won rights of gays and lesbians to marry in California.
But singer Melissa Etheridge sounds downright angry.
Etheridge, 47, who did not get to marry her partner Tammy Lynn Michaels before the Nov 4 ballot, suggested in a blog post that she would no longer pay her California state taxes because, as a lesbian, she did not now enjoy the same rights as as other Californians.
“Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen,” Etheridge wrote.
DeGeneres and her longtime partner, actress Portia de Rossi, were among the roughly 18,000 gay or lesbian couples who married in California in the five-month honeymoon between same sex marriage becoming legal and then being banned in a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8.
The popular chat show host married de Rossi in August in the most high-profile same sex marriage since such unions were declared legal in California in May.
“I was saddened beyond belief. Here we just had a giant step toward equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away,” DeGeneres wrote on her website
“I believe one day a ‘ban on gay marriage’ will sound totally ridiculous. In the meantime, I will continue to speak out for equality for all of us,” she added.
California authorities say marriages of gays and lesbians between June and November will remain legal. Hundreds of gay rights activists held street protests in Los Angeles and San Francisco after the Prop 8 vote and have filed several lawsuits in a bid to overturn the decision.
Trackback
104 comments so far
Previous | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | … 1 | Next
The recent election has left me feeling many emotions. I have felt anger, sadness and joy. Obama won, so I feel hope and joy.
- Posted by P McCreaI am angry because a certain segment of our population feels that they have the right to impose their religious dogma on the rest of the population. This is a prime example as to why there needs to me a firm seperation between religion and government.
From what I understand these biggots are using segments in the Bible to back up their hateful behavior. This makes it very clear to me that the Bible has no value for me nor is it a book I will ever read.
The really sad part is that I know that some of these biggots are my neighbors, my co-workers, and possibly my friends. I do not want to know who they are. If I do, I can never look at them in the same way again. I will always remember that they think it ok to treat others in a way that is less than equal as a human being and less than as a citzen of this country.
Ek, what you posted is almost identical to many things I’ve posted on other boards…and very true. No religious ceremony should convey an legal rights. That includes marriage.
- Posted by AlanHere’s the logical follow-up to Prop 8. Stay tuned…
- Posted by Righthand Manhttp://www.protectrighthandedness.com
In responds to Monroe’s comments , if you were a true Christian you would remember that the word is God and God made marriage between a man and a woman, Don’t you think that God would get upset if you keep breaking his laws and ways, he would take away his grace and protection , if some you love keeps hurting by doing the things that you told not to do eventually you would get tired of giving them chances and you would leave the relationship, do you think God would allow everybody to keep on sinning and then go to heaven?? Yes JESUS CHRIST died on the cross , he paid the price for all us, we have a chose to make, either go our own way or drop everything and go with the Lord Jesus Christ God. God would have to apologize for Sodom & Gomorrah, and the other disaster that happen when we walk away from the word, Christ hates the sin not the sinner , I am not prefect and I trust JESUS CHRIST, let the sin go move to Jesus Christ. You still have rights as a human being
- Posted by o in sofloI can’t believe that such ignorance still exists today. I am appalled by some of these close-minded comments. Religion is the great divider and in this day and age, very un-necessary. Brainwashing at it’s best. Dignan and Jake said it best… using facts to support their stance. Where do the hypocrites get their so-called facts? Some old out-dated book written by man to control other men, women, etc… They’ll never learn with their minds closed to the real truths out there. The ones based on science, history, and nature. The prop won’t stick… it’s illegal… was illegal to even be included since the Legislature can only add props to ballots.
- Posted by JasonI’ll keep this short because this is a dumb subject kept alive by biggots.
**** IF your were for prop 8, then read this please *****
Gay marrige is not = to polygamy
Gay marrige is not = incest
Gay marrige is not = beastiality
Gay marrige is not = Any other wild relationship you can think of.
Gay marrige is common and is a healthy union that is socialy acceptable and also conductive to a nuturing home. Expand the term marriages and then allow for distinction with phrases such as homsexual or hetero sexual merriages and afford them all the same rights and responsabilities as is demanded by any society that claims to be just and free.
Society is not asking to recognizing polygamy, incest, or beastiality. Some change in tolerance does not mean a complete change in tolerance.
I’m just blown away by peoples logic that since we shoulden’t allow incest that it means we shoulden’t allow gay marrigages?
Go meet a few gay couples, and then a few incestuel couples and learn the difference please before you vote to commit any more crimes against your neighbors.
- Posted by SamsonIt is unfortunate that gays and lesbians are confused in their thinking…I still don’t know how they explain procreation for example. It is so natural that a man and a woman have babies…it is still Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Don’t they get it? God help us!
- Posted by j carsoIt seems to me that if you are to re-define marriage to the historically new concept of same sex couples then it is irrational to not also include in the definition other uses of the term that are historically quite common and internationally accepted including polygamy and other variations as well. As long as it is a freely made choice between adults there is no reason why polygamists should be denied the right to marry while gay people should be extended the right - especially while polygamy is common overseas.
- Posted by ViewerAlthough I am idealistically opposed to the churches claiming ownership of the word “marriage”, isn’t there some room for a workable compromise here? What really needs to happen is to complete the separation of church and state; a religious ceremony should not grant you ANY additional rights. Let’s call all legal unions “Civil Unions”, and let the Churches have the word marriage (they do after all have the right to refuse to perform rites an whomever they choose). The important thing is that committed same-sex couples be treated exactly the same legally as committed opposite-sex couples. Anything less is discrimination. I am very much in favor of family values, and I do believe children do better when they have 2 parents in a committed relationship. The reality the anti-gay marriage advocates are refusing to acknowledge is that many same-sex couples CAN and DO have children… shouldn’t their children have all the same benefits that you or I have? I’m married to someone of the opposite sex, but within my lifetime my marriage would have been illegal in several states because her skin color is different than mine. We now look back at the miscegenation laws with disgust and cannot understand how rational people could have supported them; it is only a matter of time until we look back on Proposition 8 in the same way.
- Posted by EkIf the founding fathers even heard that there was chance of legal gay marriage in America, they would have died of shame.
- Posted by Andrew DurbinAs per your article, the 18,000 same sex marriages in California are legal. Therefore, why are you calling Portia her partner.Portia is Ellen’s wife. I think you should correct your statement.
- Posted by Gerry Miccio-McCleanThe definition of the word marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You want to change the definition. Straight people are saying no, get your own term for a union between two people of the same sex. I don’t know why that is such a difficult concept for you to understand Michele. Like I said in my original comments, gays have brought this upon themselves by pushing the issue too far. They had made great strides in a very short time, but just finally went too far.
- Posted by Scott NeblemanThank you Jake. Propositions advocating discrimination towards a group of people should not even make it to vote, as it is our governments responsibility to uphold the words in the constitution. Reading through these blogs, I cannot believe the ignorance people have in regards to domestic partnership. Yes it is a step in the right direction in that it does allow us to have some of the same right as a straight couple; however, people do not reallize that the rights (per the domestic partnership) come with a hitch, not present with a marriage. For example, I have my long time partner on my health insurance (to save money) and since I am not married to her, I have to declare the portion my employer pays for her healthcare as income and am taxed on it.
I would just like to know, why is there such a problem with the word “Married”? And who cares if a church refuses to marry a gay couple, there are a million more. Until the law changes rights and priveleges to include domestic partnership along with marriage, gay people are always going to fight for marriage.
In my eyes, I must respect peoples color, ethnicity, religion, age, handicap, and sex per Civil Rights Laws. What happened to sexual orientation? This whole prop8 thing was about conservative religious groups pushing their views on the population as a whole. This is just not right. If I am made to respect you then you should stay the hell out of my business and respect my beleifs as well.
- Posted by MicheleOne last point. Some here argue that the “majority” has spoken. The Supreme Court has long held that the Bill of Rights must protect the minority against majority oppression, regarding basic freedoms and fundamental rights.
- Posted by JakeSorry guys, but your argument that the “majority” of bigots rule is insufficient as a matter of law.
As well it should be.
WOW. Orawek said, “Marriage isn’t a right.”
Dear Orawek, this is why I celebrated the election of Obama — ignorance over bigotry. Marriage IS most definitely a right. Please read “Loving v. Virginia”, wherein the United States Supreme Court found that Virginia’s miscegenation law violated both the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The “line” of 14th Amendment cases date back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
Not only is marriage a right, it is a fundamental right under our Constitution.
- Posted by JakeGays obviously don’t believe in democracy. And they shove gerbils up their butts too.
- Posted by Scott NeblemanWow. Defending the definition of marriage that has been the same for thousands of years? Like when it was an arranged affair that did not require the consent of the woman (or girl for that matter if she happened to still be a child)? Like when the woman was considered property and the woman’s property was transferred to the man to do with as he pleased? Like when it was polygamous? How far back do you want to go in your zeal to protect this sacred definition? Societies evolve, communities evolve, families evolve. Hopefully for the better. Maybe not on November 4th this time, but someday.
A lot of this argument has to do with protecting children, protecting their future. So what does that mean? I’m gay and I was a child. We all were. There are 9.5 million people under 18 in California. Let’s say 900,000 or so of them are gay. In May we told those 900,000 kids that in their future, if they wanted to, they could grow up, fall in love, get married, and have a family. Normal stuff. That’s a pretty hopeful message. In November we said no they can’t. Back to being isolated, separate, somehow being not “normal”. These 900,000 kids are 3 times more likely to at least attempt suicide by the way. But who cares about a bunch of gay kids, right? Yes on 8 doesn’t need to protect them. What will we teach them in school? That’s the issue.
We can argue about whether or not marriage is part of public school curriculum. But you know what? Whether it is or not the question of who is in your family is bound to come up. So, de facto, if some families have two dads or two moms the kids are going to learn there is such a thing as gay marriage. In fact in the US 10 million kids have just such families right now. Oh, but wait. They don’t have families at all. Families start when two people fall in love and get married and have kids and their parents can’t do that. Too bad. Yes on 8 doesn’t seek to protect them either.
So I guess yes on 8 proponents are pretty much only concerned about protecting their own kids. Makes sense. BUT…. one in ten of their own kids is gay. They don’t like that, they can try to deny that, but it is a fact just like gravity. And you take away a right from them to try to protect them? You take away a hope from them to try to protect them? That just makes no sense at all.
Someone up above asked what do we really want. Good question. Many years ago I served as best man at a very close friend’s wedding. It was one man marrying one woman, by the way. Part of my best man toast was wishing well to the “new family”. Because I think that’s what marriage is. The creation of a new family. It was one of the most moving things I have ever witnessed. It felt as sacred as anything I’ve ever felt considering there wasn’t an ounce of God in the whole affair (and yet I believe the marriage is still legal. I mean after all I had to sign something as a witness). So I can’t speak for all gay people but that’s what I want. I may choose to get married someday and I may not but if I choose to I want it to be the creation of a family. Not an arrangement, not a legal matter, not a partnership, not a civil union, a family. And you do that in our society by getting married. That act alone takes care of all of it and nothing else is necessary.
- Posted by DignanI get the fact that people feel it’s discrimination but there is no protected class based on sexual orientation in the U.S. Constitution and rightly so (it’s hardly the same as race). It only exists in some states where people have oddly voted to extend such protection. And, of course, constitutions and laws are made by the people to reflect the society’s values and are subject to change. I proudly voted yes on Prop 8. I don’t hate gays - I couldn’t care less who they have sex with but I don’t feel compelled to change my society to afford them special rights based on who they have sex with. People voted for Prop 8 because they wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman -the traditional, normal family unit. The people have spoken and spoken well.
- Posted by Steve LFather God, I pray you will touch the hearts of all the angry people here. It is evident they do no know you. Anger is not of you, only love. I pray Lord God that you will help these persons to understand that marriage was designed by you and that you are the supreme authority. Please help them to see we are not hateful, quite the opposite, but we are opposed to trying to change a divine plan. I know from experience that following your plan leads to an awesome life. It took me 50 years to figure it out. I had a brother that was gay, I never quit loving him. Will I see him in heaven, no, I do not believe I will as you are righteous and your judgment will be upon ALL persons who ever walked this earth. We will be judged according to your WORD, many will be cast down. Lord I pray today that you will soften the hearts of the angry, regardless of what they believe. Living for the next life brings greater joy than any of the pleasures in this life. Thank you for showing me that before it was too late. In Jesus name I always pray, because he is the way the truth and the life. Amen
- Posted by CindyThis should be handled as a separation of church and state. Anyone who wants civil benefits registers with the state as a couple, no ceremony. Those who wish a marriage should go to whoever will marry them, government officials such as a Justice of the Peace must marry any one, while religious denominations may marry whom they please in accordance with the tenets of their faith. They will issue a certificate of marriage. For form purposes, rather than married or single, the words registered or single could be used.
Those who reject the state could be married within their church and be recognized as a married couple by the community, but would enjoy no guarantees. “Render unto Caesar ….”
- Posted by Robert E. Brehaut