Miss California: Champion of Federalism on Gay Marriage?

I do think she was trying to appeal to federalism there... but it didn't seem all that sincere and was worded in the worst possible way... I think it's pointless to ask her for a follow up...

She needs to admit she answered poorly when put on the spot... not because of her position... of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if she was asked about Rhianna's beating like one of them... and she didn't do as bad as Ms AZ...

This isn't going to be another Roe v. Wade, it's going to be another Loving v. Virginia. Conservatives will whine about it for years, becoming increasingly quiet as they die off. Eventually right-wing pundits will accuse their opponents of being homophobes.

She made a stupid statement and she lost because of it. Many candidates for beauty queen have done it before. Certainly everyone has personal ideas about many topics but they use their heads in public not to look foolish.

A couple of things come to mind here...

The purpose of the evolution of two separate genders from our very distant roots of asexual reproduction, "budding" if you will, was to reproduce the species in such a manner as to foster a greater genetic diversity and thus survival of the species. The AI industry has found that mammalian sexuality is malleable to such an extent via associative conditioning, that if you take a normal male animal and present him with estrus cues such as an estrus female present nearby or a rag soaked with her estrus urine, you can "train" him to release onto other male animals, a dummy mount and so on. In no time at all he will come to prefer the sights, smells and sounds associated with the new "passion-object" and not even an estrus female presented right in front of him to mount. Yes, it's true.

Taken forward, comparative pschology, championed by people like Darwin, Pavlov and Skinner, to name the most prominent of scores, we can extrapolate that because we are also, factually, mammals, we too are subject to the same ability to be "trained" via our first sexual experiences to only prefer a certain set of stimuli from then on.

So the gay argument holds some water in that they are partly right, they cannot be retrained. With the AI industry careful steps are taken to not "spoil' a good stud animal by allowing him free access to females before he is trained. It is better if their drives are first frustrated a little by no access and then the only "normal" sex they can experience is that which is foisted upon them by environmental factors...in most cases their human handlers and a very specific regime set up for the collection of semen in a safe environment. Once trained, they are like push-button...very easy to get to climax by just the sounds and smells of the "first" associative environment..

Another thing human psychology and comparative anthropology teaches us is that humans are social-learners. Probably moreso than any other animal species. Now, add that social-contagion factor to the fact that sexual-preference can be conditioned by environmental pressures.

And then read this article: http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf... "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review"

If deviant sexuality becomes mainstreamed, we can deduce, logically, that the numbers of deviants within a given population will rise. Greg Piper's argument above is correct. The frog will slowly boil in the pan but not from what is originally thought: a process of higher reasoning. Instead, that frog will slowly boil in the pan because over generations we can predict that deviant sexuals within our population [and therefore empathy towards themselves essentially] will rise, via associative conditioning and environmental pressures, to such numbers that the way Prop 8 tried to define "normalcy" will indeed be seen as "abnormal"' because by then it will be...

...Higher reasoning has very little to do with socially-manipulating powerful and malleable sexual drives..

My last point is that not everyone opposed to gay marriage is a christian zealot. How many christians you know believe in comparative psychology and evolution? Yes, that's right. Thinking people also object. However, no matter what your background, you will be hounded being called "homophobe" and so on, and witch-hunted like the beauty-contest girl for having a lucid opinion that opposes the gay tidal wave of special-interest pressure.

I would love to ask Prejean what she thinks about the lagging push to enact a federal ban on gay marriage. If she’s in favor, we could at least fault her for her false sincerity.

No offense to Prejean intended here, but why wouldn't we just assume that she prepped for a beauty pageant and not a political science exam?

The stupidest thing about this whole brouhaha is that her answer wasn't substantially different than Obama's during the campaign. That either shows massive hypocrisy on the part of people like Perez Hilton, or it shows that we pretty much assume that our politicians don't mean what they say and they just pander with their answers on issues like this.

In a Miss America beauty pageant, like life, the contestants need to jump through a series of hoops to demonstrate their skills. Carrie P. was presented a hoop, in the form of a question, by a gay man, who wanted to hear only one thing. Carrie P. failed the test, miserably, and in doing so, insulted everyone who had their right to get married voted away, and their supporters, by a bunch of religious zealots.

As for your fantasy hypothesis about what Carrie P. said, there is nothing democratic about a bunch of religious zealots abusing the ballot process, and using it as a weapon against an entire class of individuals to strengthen their religious beliefs, and hate. I hope the California Supreme Court will destroy proposition 8!

Next, women will be wanting to wear slacks.

Does anyone else find it as hilarious as I do that a woman who has strutted her stuff for money (okay, I know: it's a "scholarship") is being either lauded or derided, depending upon one's point of view, for her moral judgments?

Why on EARTH are we even listening to her? She's basically whored herself out for money which, in my book, doesn't qualify her as an ethicist.

As a gay man whose first "experience" was with a woman, this is nonsense. Thus your argument about "deviant" sexuality is also nonsense. There are documented examples throughout lower classifications of mammals and other species of same-sex attraction so this is catagorically not a "learned" behavior, rather innate...put there by our creator if you will.

Marriage on the other hand is not innate - it is a behavior man created eons ago as a means of recognizing the life-long relationship between two people. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, women having children out of wedlock, and other societal norms changing, the term "marriage" has, indeed, changed over time and is by no means protected from the march of time. When government dipped its toe into the water, the main purpose was to protect property. Since then, in the US, nearly 1500 rights and priviledges have been awarded dependant upon marital status. Denying these rights is wrong. It is as wrong as denying rights based on age, gender, race, creed, and eye color. This is what the argument is about -- and the only way to undo it is to remove all of the marriage statutes and take government out of marriage. Otherwise, it is discriminatory and, as a country founded on equality, we have an obligation to ensure equal protection under the law.

You see...

The proponents of free speech and equality want the pagent girl shut-down.

You can speak freely, only if it agrees with the radical left [or neocons].

And hence my objections to radical agendas in general, like gay marriage.

Give me a break, Sil. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be able to speak her mind on gay marriage. What we are saying is that she can expect to be judged for it, just as would have been the case if she had condemned interracial marriage.

Yes, people are "saying" that she should experience compelling and severe [like losing the contest she'd worked her whole life to be judged unbiasedly in] consequences for speaking her mind, which is the same as saying she shouldn't speak her mind. Do you think readers are that brain-dead? Your word "judged", does that include labelling [lambasting/punishing] her as a "homophobe", or perhaps a "hater" or disqualifying her based on her religious beliefs? Because last time I checked, not only is there a right to free speech, but there are also clauses protecting an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness..

I personally detest beauty pageants and everything about how they thing-ify women. But this is America, it is her choice, and the rules of the pageant were to compete in front of a panel of impartial judges. In America, impartiality means putting your own agendas out of the arena.

"As a gay man whose first "experience" was with a woman, this is nonsense. Thus your argument about "deviant" sexuality is also nonsense. There are documented examples throughout lower classifications of mammals and other species of same-sex attraction so this is catagorically not a "learned" behavior, rather innate...put there by our creator if you will."~phillyjoe

******
Your first experienceS, plural, are what count. Although some evidence suggests that classical association can be gleaned on the first experience, repetition is essential for the behavior to become [preference] reflexive.

There are negative conditioning parameters as well. If a male experiences negative consequences of a natural urge with a woman, he may become frustrated or "turned off" to women in general. We know this and are very careful with the stallions especially. They will approach any mare as a youngster but can be quite put off if the mare kicks, bites or exhibits any other negative behavior that male horses do not like. Some stallions become utterly put off if the experience is severe enough psychologically and will be very reticent to approach another mare..

Using comparative psychology, we can extrapolate that if a young male human has an experience that to him [for a far more complex and varied set of learned psychological likes and dislikes] seems distasteful or hurtful, he would, via associative learning, naturally be expected thereafter to veer away from females in general if the first one or few "taught" him to avoid them. And if that same male "learned" that sexual release with inanimate objects or other males were more pleasurable....viola...you have an "innate" [just kidding..lol..] homosexual man.

We can expect and in fact the scientists who did the study in the link above found, that since society tends to form what an individual experiences as "likes" and "dislikes" based on a whole host of spoken and unspoken reward/punishment systems, that if homosexuality gains mainstream status, becoming homosexual will come with a new set of rewards, instead of set of deterrants like it used to.

And therefore we can expect a rise in human populations of deviant-sexuals. Humans are different from animals in one significant way as to this debate in that our social structures are way more complex with a whole subtle array of "rewards" and "punishments". Evidenced in this debate, intrinsic within it in fact are the numerous cases of pro-homosexuals coming forward, often in groups, "attacking" posters by name-calling and overt hostilities: calling them also "stupid" "zealots" "ignorant" and so on... ie: negative reinforcement for not being pro-deviant-sexuals.

Human societies are funny malleable things. California was right to put this to a vote and should abide by the majority will in this case, unless they want the majority will to change significantly via brow-beating...

It's all what you want for our future generations...depends on how you view the issues..

What we are saying is that she can expect to be judged for it, just as would have been the case if she had condemned interracial marriage.

So, Ryan, what was your judgment when Obama said the same thing- that he personally thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman?

Racial and sexual-orientation is the difference between innate and learned.

While being born with a certain body part colored a certain way is innate and unchangeable, sexual orientation is all about taken something one is born with and changing it after birth by the environment.

One is about body parts, another about behavior. Belonging to a specific behavioral group does not a minority make. Recognizing that human behaviors can be contagious, especially when messing with the most powerful drive of all: sexuality, we must be particularly careful not to be swayed by the loud squeaking of this particular special-interest wheel.. What we need to pay attention to in this case is the other three wheels of the cart that will fall off without a sound..

Greg P, You've view of DOMA is way off. Congress invited the USCCt to intervene when Congress expanded federal legislation via DOMA which effects a state's [exclusive] right to make family law for the first time in history. Essentially DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional because 1] family law is traditionally a state's and 2] DOMA treats legally married couples in CT different from legally married couples in UT, but both are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. Thanks, Congress and Clinton for the distraction of DOMA. Bad law, bad policy, bad bigotry.

>>Racial and sexual-orientation is the difference between innate and learned.

I'm sure you actually believe the tripe you're pushing. Luckily we live in an enlightened age that realizes that people are born with a sexual orientation, much in the same way they are born with, say, left-handedness.

Anti-human-rights groups that trot out the tired and disproven canard that sexual orientation is exclusively a learned behavior are just using it as a way to deny a certain subset of people of a basic human right.

The use of the word "purpose" in discussions of evolution is inaccurate. In this case it suggests that the user believes in some director of evolution. A better word is "function."

It would also be great if people stopped using the inaccurate story of the frog in water (http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp).

I thought that a man whose parents' marriage was illegal in 22 states when he was born might have learned something from it, and was disappointed to find out that Hope and Change is such a douchebag.

Oh, so much here.

First, Sil -- humans are actually different than horses. I know it's hard to believe, but that's actually true. We're also different from frogs. We can learn from chimps that there is evolutionary advantage to killing your neighbor's kids and for men to sleep with as many women as possible. But, we are not chimps, and we don't consider those things "right" just because it will further the species.

Also, I don't care whether being gay is innate or learned; I think it's a mistake to think of it in those terms. Sil, you must never have talked to a gay person, seriously. We see every mammal out there exhibiting homosexual behaviors, but as I say above, we are not animals, and it doesn't matter anyway. We confer civil rights to people who make all sorts of choices. We know for darn sure that religion is a choice, and we're not allowed to discriminate on that basis. Sure, if we as a society become more tolerant of gay people, we'll probably see more gay people -- not necessarily because there will be more gay people, but because gay people won't fear for their lives/reputations/jobs/etc due to their sexual orientation. Crazy, that.

As for the original post, there were many ways she could have stated her opinion on the topic without coming off like she did.

This: "Remember that marriage policy until 1996 was wholly a matter for the states." Just not true. Already mentioned, loving vs virginia.

One more gab at Sil, just 'cause: "The proponents of free speech and equality want the pagent girl shut-down.

You can speak freely, only if it agrees with the radical left [or neocons]."

Your right to say stupid things does not in any way mean that I have to give you a shiny crown for it. There is a difference between (a) being intolerant of people due to their race, sexual orientation, disability, gender, etc, and (b) being intolerant of another person's racism, homophobia, abilism, or sexism. In other words, you have a right to say idiotic things, and I have a right to point out your idiocy. Both are shining examples of free speech.

I'm sorry to point this out, but you are doing nothing more than engaging in sophism. I am a Geneticist, and your extrapolations are so poorly reasoned, I do not even know where to begin. Sexual biology and reproduction simply occur, with or without our intervention. In the greater time frame of the species, Darwinian selection simply occurs as a blip on the radar. To make a case that we will inevitably 'screw' ourselves out of our best genetic material is really a marvel to behold, both in its complete misunderstanding of Darwinian selection, as well as an over-inflation of simple conditioning mechanisms.

You also fail to acknowledge that humanity has had periods in which same-sex attraction were socially sanctioned, celebrated, sometimes even glorified. This failed to corrosively 'contaminate' the surrounding heterosexually inclined, for if it had, your doomsday predictions would have long since come to pass.

The fact is, we are not simply endocrinally driven mammalian dreck as easily programmed as a horse. You vastly oversimplify complex scientific processes that we, ourselves, in the Genetic community are still not anywhere near sure of. You present ideas as though they are established fact, when you have nothing more than self-serving conjectures. I cannot say that I know what the presence of exclusively homosexual inclinations in the various mammalian species that we have observed engaging in it means in the longer history of advanced life on Earth, but I can certainly discount your "budding" and "Gender Competition" theories as absolute postulation. You have no idea the factual data you would need to even remotely approach such a postulation seriously. Further, even philosophers could easily impeach your arguments without any scientific notions.

You are setting out to prove that homosexuality is wrong, and inventing science to reach an established means. Science does not work that way. Politics? Sure Politics works that way, but not Science.

Sexual drives are complex, poorly understood mechanisms in the tapestry of life on Earth that may have multiple, multiple reasons for existing and manifesting in the forms it does. The preponderance of exclusively homosexual feral populations observed throughout the Mammalian spectrum, if nothing else, strongly suggest a genetic need for exclusive homosexual populations in mammalian populations and societies. Life does not grind forward simply to procreate; it grinds forward to live, and procreation is demonstrated time and again to simply be a consequence of this.

Resorting to Faux intellectualism that no critically reviewed or investigated scientist or scientific body would dare to put forward is insulting, both to educated scientists like me and the respected study of life that we in the scientific community engage in. You are a thinking person, I cannot disagree, but you're Kevin Cline in "A Fish Called Wanda," not Walter Matthau in "I.Q."

And pardon me for making a legal point, but I was under the impression that the 14th Amendment (equal protection under the law) applied to everyone. If gay people are paying equal taxes, they have every right to prosecute for equal treatment.

I have to admit that the benefits given to married folk make gay unions inevitable as an act of fairness, bemused, but something bothers me about mentioning the 14th amendment, in that we don't pay equal taxes, due to our progressive tax system.

The stupid twit is a raving xtian anti-gay bigot. That is a fact, and you can rattle on all over the place to excuse it but that's all it is. She's completely entitled to be that, and she's completely entitled to shout it from the rooftops, but she's also completely entitled to the negative fallout that she gets in return from those of us who believe it when citizens are entitled to equal justice under law.

She belongs to "The Rock" personality-pastored mega-church here in San Diego, one of the worst kind of self-centered theocracy-seeking pits of christohet supremacy, where this Sunday she was on their gigantic stage being hailed as a "heroine." That's a christian heroine, no other kind.

"I think I was representing my state, which is California, and the majority of people in the nation that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Prejean said.

The 21-year-old San Diego Christian college student says she has no regrets about her answer in the Miss USA pageant. She spoke about her experience at her hometown church, The Rock Church in Point Loma, where she sent a message to stand firm in your beliefs, regardless if it's popular or not.

"It's about challenging others to when you're put on the spot, stand up for what you believe in and you don't always have to be politically correct," Prejean said.

Her pastor Miles McPherson says it was clear her words resonated.

"This last week was a big wake up call for everyone to see how intolerant some people can be and how we need to not be intimidated for standing up for what we believe," McPherson said.

The controversy is something Prejean's parents admit has brought them closer together.

"I'm very proud of her, her dad and I are very, very proud," Prejean's mother Francine Coppola said. "She stood by her god, her faith and her convictions. That's how she was raised."

Unfortunately for her, and fortunately for the rule of law, she lost because she is an amateur bigot. She'll get better, as they all do, as she gets more paid anti-gay gigs under her belt.

She's also a liar, according to the pageant, which said it tried to get her afterward to minimize the pain she caused, not to withdraw her statements. They tried to get her to say again that she didn't want to cause offense to anyone (because clearly no one believed a word of it the first time, and they shouldn't have because she is very convinced of her selfish bible-thumping answer) though she was very pleased with herself.

She does not care about anyone but herself and her own beliefs, which is why she lost. She was representing herself and proved herself incapable of representing the nation. From her unscripted words it is obvious that she cannot see gay people as even belonging to the same country she does.

"In MY country"! It's OUR country, and you creeps will NOT be allowed to take it over and rule it for christianity.

It is also a mainstream U.S. position not to tolerate the intolerant, for example racists. She wasn't even speaking for herself, she was parroting her cult of personality mega-church's pastor, and she was speaking for christians and for god.

Here's a brief local news story and part of a video interview. The entire "heroine" show on stage at church was much more revealing. http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10257540

Believe me, President Obama has caught a lot of heat for putting his personal religious beliefs above the equality of all citizens. He also is teachable. As in, he really doesn't "get it" that civil unions are far from equal to marriages. It wasn't enough for him to lose to the thoroughly top-to-bottom anti-gay party though. Trying to win an objective beauty pageant is not quite on the same level as trying to win the Presidency of the U.S.A.

Silouhette, {}Your basic premise, that everyone is born heterosexual and by environment is changed to become, for example, gay, is absolutely wrong in my opinion because no one anywhere on either side of nature vs. nurture has proven or disproven that basic premise. You are obviously starting there to prove your anti-gay point of view. Your language reveals that despite all your efforts to disguise it. So, with all your lovely pseudo-scientific b.s., you've only shown that you and the ex-beauty queen are the same as the former mental defective who sold orange juice.

@bemusedgeneticist: Sad, angry, betrayed here (by the kinds of viciously anti-gay het supremacists as are evidenced on this board and every single place where people take it upon themselves to discuss why I'm not a fully equal human being and citizen of America). Quick peck on your cheek for shining a light which reduced a silouhette's effects on me.

I shouldn't call her the liar she is without a link to the story. I believe he is telling the truth, because they know they will get their butts sued off if they are not. They called her a liar, they didn't say she twisted the truth or left something out. The pageant, officially and for print, said she is a liar.

This information was not reflected in the video with her, and she has done the opposite of wanting to or choosing to "heal some wounds." Instead, she has taken every opportunity for self-aggrandizement and personal gain by continuing to grind salt into the wounds she has intentionally caused.

The public relations agent for the Miss California pageant is taking exception with Carrie Prejean's account of what contest officials said to her following her statement on same-sex marriage at the Miss USA pageant.

Prejean claimed during Sunday services at her San Diego church that producers of the state pageant told her to apologize to the gay community and to avoid mentioning religion when she appeared on the "Today" show.

But public relations representative Roger Neal on Monday called those claims lies. Neal says he was one of the people who attempted to advise Prejean. According to him, Prejean was urged to reiterate she didn't mean to offend anyone, and to use the national spotlight "to heal some wounds."

Prejean didn't immediately return a call from The Associated Press.

http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10259109

STATEMENT
by Keith Lewis
one of the state directors for the Miss California pageant

STATEMENT FROM KEITH LEWIS:

Given the fact that Carrie Prejean's first act upon returning to California was to headline five services at a church that promotes homosexuality as both unnatural and abnormal, we stand by our concern for her individual image and look forward to a time in the near future when she can put down her personal agenda and assume the responsibilities associated with being MISS CALIFORNIA USA including promoting our official platform "The Beauty of California" which sole purpose is to embrace diversity.

Lizzie Grubman Public Relations
424 West 33rd Street Suite 110
New York, NY 10001

----

Keith Lewis is:

http://misscaliforniausa.com/producers.html

JustHisWords: My point was that some in the gay rights community are behaving as though the comments made by this pageant entrant were despicable and completely unacceptable. I'm sure some of those people felt the same about Obama, and many were disappointed in his stated stance- but I didn't see anything like the over the top reactions that we see to this. One British politician had to apologize for saying that if she turned up dead, everyone would know that he was the one who'd killed her. I mean come on- I realize some people don't find the viewpoint she expressed worthy of tolerance, but some people are going WAY too far with that and that certainly doesn't help convince people of the rightness of your position.

She is just another closed minded person.
Its just how she was raised. Exactly.
She had been through an obviously brainwashed childhood.
"Homosexuality is wrong!" thats probably what she heard her whole life.
But open-minded people (hetero, homo, and bisexual) know that the brainwashed fundamentalist christians usually don't know what they're talking about when it comes to gay rights. I am openly Bisexual and I know that being gay is not a bad thing.

What gets lost in the 'oh it's the democratic process at work' to allow the states to decide and it is OK to let the Federal System deny same-sex couples Federal rights - is the 1,138 Federal Rights that same-sex couples do not get EVEN if they get the State rights. How do you spell discrimination? You can have your little bit of state rights - 300-400 but you cannot have the 1,138 Federal rights given to heterosexuals. The Federal Gov't stays out of Heterosexual Marriage - it should stay out of same-sex marriage as well. If not - well then, the Courts were set up by our founding fathers to PREVENT this kind of discrimination.

CStanley -- If you didn't see the anger toward Obama about his stance on gay marriage, you weren't looking in the right places. It didn't make a big splash among moderates, because he took a relatively moderate view, but among LGBT and feminist circles, as well as many progressive circles, there was a lot of anger. Now, those people didn't go over to the McCain side, because he was so much worse on every other issue that progressives care about, but the wounds from the Clinton years still sting, and don't think that those in the affected communities are failing to pay attention to what Obama's doing.

I did see that and even acknowledged that in my comment. My point is the drastic difference in the degree of criticism he received vs. what is now being directed at a person who should be politically insignificant (except that she makes too easy of a target, therefore certain individuals can't resist taking aim.)

@CStanley: Don't really know how you could have missed those kinds of reactions to Obama's position on same-gender marriage, they seemed to be all over the 'net. I was outraged and so were many, many people, and they said so. We just were not going to vote for McCain no matter what, and because President Obama knows equality when he sees it regarding all the other inequalities forced on gay citizens, we also know he is teachable on this one. If we get everything the fundamentalists passed against us overturned by President Obama except national marriage recognition, we will be doing great. Under the GOP nothing would happen for another four years (not that anything national has actually happened yet) and the Presidential bully pulpit would have been used longer to attack us, instead of having a president who has set an example by including us many times in speeches to intentionally state that we are equal citizens.

The pageant loser (yes, I like the sound of that) had and has no intention of ever doing or saying anything positive regarding gay people, because her mega-church training won't allow it. That mega-church even equates being gay with pedophilia on its website. To hell with her, that church, and everyone who supports them! The British politician is gay and was on a comedy show. Later he said he would send her a box of candy -- unpoisoned.

I don't care if anyone believes in the "rightness" of my position. The words of the Constitution are what they are and will rule in the end. The pageant has said, for publication, that she is a liar. I believe them (of course, but they still would not be so stupid as to libel her).

She also is pushing the counterfeit idea that Christians are being "victimized" unfairly. In THIS country which is totally overrun by Christians! She also lies every time she repeats that most Californians agree with her, citing the passage of Prop. "H8". That is a complete fabrication. A small majority of the people who voted in that election passed H8. That is nowhere near a majority of the people in Calif. And many of the people who voted for H8 did so because of the lies from the massive out-of-state religious campaign in favor of H8 -- the same supremacist people, churches, groups, etc., that did the same thing in the same way to pass the (un-Calif.-Constitutional) state referendum against same-gender marriage.

What she said to an international audience, in response to a question she knew in advance was on the list of questions to be asked, a question approved in advance by the pageant, WAS despicable and completely unacceptable. Her "I represent the majority" cover story (taught to her by her mega-church and its cult of personality) just doesn't stand up to inspection.

Intellectual Elegance; extreme vocabularies either used to cover an underlying prejudice or a complete inability to broaden your understanding of the world around you still doesn’t make your claims true. As a gay man I can tell you there were no “Gay” role models, I had not even heard of homosexuals growing up. I had no idea that I was not the only one; yet as I got older and realized there were other gay men and women I did learn the negative reinforcement of being society’s lack of tolerance. Your use of science to justify a “prejudice” is as feeble as “A dog has 4 legs, therefore a horse is a dog”. The elimination of any number of facts can always bring the wrong conclusion, however I will commend you on your vocabulary.

I had been bullied in school, disowned by various friends and family, and yet the innate person I have been created to be had only one choice: “To thine own self be true”. Years of hiding, wasted effort in being someone everyone but myself wanted me to be, lead me to being the man I am today. Regardless of how horrific it was to face being ousted by society and a very religious family, I found my own path. The rewards of heterosexual behavior were laid at my feet, and nothing changed the person I was meant to be.

The human species is hardly in danger of being phased out due to homosexuality. A quick check of the population escalations throughout the world, and the number of teen age unwed mothers should re-assure you, the gene pool is not in any danger. Learned scholars, politicians with degrees from Colleges and Universities through out the country backed legislation that “Interracial Marriages” should be outlawed and until 40 some odd years ago it was. Would love to see you use science to justify that belief and not face public ridicule and outrage, yet this country had laws prohibiting it. Men of great educations put those laws into effect, yet through the misuse of elegant words, a bible and hidden prejudice our country put discrimination into law.

I have been with my husband now for the last 15 years; we have attended my (2) weddings for my straight brother and helped him financially after both of his divorces. We now have the respect of our neighbors, friends and family. We own property a business and employ others, yet we pay more in taxes then a straight married couple with the same income. We spend a great deal more on attorney’s to protect what we’ve built together, and have helped many friends and family by bringing them into our home and getting them on their feet again. Sit down for this one, “WE GO TO CHURCH”, we vote, and we run 2 fund raisers a year one for a children’s charity and one for an animal shelter. We laugh, cry, fight, talk; we have good days, bad days, and everything in between, and we never go to bed mad at each other, and never forget how lucky we are to have each other.

To all those say we are pushing a gay agenda down people’s throats, we aren’t, we are simply tired of you pushing yours on us. How many gay couples would go to a restaurant and actually get to be a couple in public? How many gay couples get to walk hand in hand down the isle at someone’s wedding? How many gay couples can just kiss goodbye if someone is watching? You’ve forced negative and even hostile actions on us long enough. The negative training and positive re-enforcement training for YOUR desired life for our lives is never worked and it’s not even tolerated by us any longer. Additionally based on Miss Californa's comment, it's apparent that the current level of education in Californa should be a more pressing issue than my husband and I. Actually to be honest we find your fascination with our love life a bit wierd, we certainly didn't vote or approve of your love life, or want to for that matter. Seperate is never equal; I won't tolerate signs in Resturants that say "Straights Only" or seperate bathrooms (while there are some married senators that may have a different opinion on that), and I won't look for seperate water fountains.

So let Miss Californa know it's not a choice, the only choice is "To Thine Ownself Be True!"