Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

California needs to get back on the gay rights track [Most commented]

June 27, 2011 |  4:02 pm

Marchers hold signs thanking Gov. Mario Cuomo for keeping his campaign promise and legalizing same-sex marriage during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26. Credit: Jemal Countess /Getty Images The Times editorial board praised the New York Legislature for becoming the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage Friday. However, while New York is helping blaze the civil rights trail, California "is stuck in reverse," though the board noted that polls show sentiment toward gay marriage has shifted from slightly opposed to slightly in favor since the 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

The New York legislation's success was also due in part to support from lawmakers with gay and lesbian friends and relatives, a well-organized campaign, and from donations from Republican billionaire Paul Singer. Here's an excerpt from Monday's editorial:

New York's historic vote should help speed things along. With its large population -- third in the nation, behind California and Texas -- there will be more same-sex marriages than ever and more opportunity for Americans to observe and grow accustomed to them. Many of those couples will move to other states where they will press to have their rights recognized.


Today it is New York's turn to bask in the knowledge that it has moved the entire country forward in the ongoing struggle for equal rights for all. California should learn lessons from New York's victory and quickly put itself back on the right side of history.

Readers  mostly stuck to picking apart each other's arguments, with some offshoots of conversation about bisexuality, polygamy and, as always, some erroneous arguments.

Civil union should be good enough

The article says "WE" believe..... and "WE" feel this way..... Who is "WE"? If this issue is going to end up on the ballot again, it will once again get shot down. The gays will still refuse to accept it though, and some liberal judge will once again overthrow the will of the voters. When will California gays realize that most people in this state don't believe in their wanting to get married. Why isn't a civil union good enough? NO! They want to get MARRIED.

Gays these days are calling anyone that disagrees with them on this a hater. I am not a hater and I am not a religious nut. I just don't agree with gay marriage. If you want to see hate, just look at the hate that will be directed at me for stating my opinion here. 

--LAzyPD 2011

Separate the religion from the law

The fact is, marriage is as much a civil institution as a religious one, if not more so these days.  And in matters of the law, religious beliefs or texts should not play any role.


The "right" to marry isn't a right

This is yet another "progressively" manufactured false issue. There is no "right" to marriage of any kind, be it heterosexual or gay. Interesting how anytime a "progressive" thinks something is "unfair," it morphs into a Constitutionally defended "right" somehow. Which is about the only time they ever pay attention to the Constitution. I don't care what your sexual preferences are. Really. I won't poke you in the eye with my "heterosexualness;" please feel free to stop poking me in the eye with your "gayness." I. Don't. Care.

--Shawn P

Marriage only between human male and female

 I'll say this again, "marriage" can ONLY BE between a human male and female.   Human because the act of "commitment" is reserved for only those with critical thinking, capable of improving upon the previous generation.   Male and female because a marriage is a "union" both physical and emotional.   Only a male and female can unionize in a manner that is designed to produce the continuation of the species.   Any other construct is a "relationship".  

 Secondly, I don't think "marriage" is what homosexuals are really after.  I believe that the goal is "formalized legitimacy" and "marriage" is the closest and strongest thing that approximates that end-goal.   The problem is that even if the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is constitutional, it will never be accepted in the hearts of conservative believers, much the way abortion has never been accepted.   


Let's hope future generations don't repeat this bigotry

[…] As any other civil rights struggle, the US will have marriage equality eventually, no matter who is against it. Nobody can stop it.

As a guy from another country, I had never understood why it took the US so long to give blacks what they deserved by birth, how so many people were against African American rights (and so in favor of violence and discrimination) and, mostly, how many said nothing to support those rights a few decades ago. Now I can understand because I hear and read the same non sense arguments against gays, the same stupid violence, and the same dehumanization of people -- to make them an easy target -- that have the same hearts and needs as anybody else.

It's worth saving these comments to make future generations understand why it did not happen before.

--Pablo G

"Sanctity of marriage" is already ruined anyway

Straights have thoroughly botched marriage. Gays could do no worse.



Should illegal immigrant workers have more rights?

Does the U.S. need China?

Who takes Michele Bachmann seriously?

Alabama's harsh immigration reform law

Obama: Another disappointing black politician?

--Samantha Schaefer

Marchers hold signs thanking Gov. Mario Cuomo for keeping his campaign promise and legalizing same-sex marriage during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26. Credit: Jemal Countess /Getty Images

Comments ()