Just because you think the election is a dead horse that needs no more beating, doesn’t mean that we (the media) will not continue to pound on its mangled body until there is nothing left of it but a bloody, tangled tail. Since the only thing more fun than endless pre-election speculation is endless post-election evaluation, I am going to join in the fun.

Since there is already too much coverage of the Republicans bemoaning massive losses, I am going to stick with California’s Prop 8. Actually, this horse is not dead, and it needs the hell beaten out of it until the Supreme Court make its decision on the matter. In my previous letter, I encouraged you to write me and justify a ban on gay marriage without citing religious reasons or tradition. Nobody bothered to do this, but plenty got all nitpicky about how I expressed my disdain for the passing of Prop 8. Since I said I would print the letters, here they are. But just because I am printing them does not mean that I agree with their positions, nor am I backing down from anything that I said in last month’s letter. Well, there is one exception. When I said psychopathic Mormons and Christian wingnuts, I meant to say morally bankrupt and bigoted self-serving dickheads. Better?

I understand that you are angry because you didn’t get your wishes of keeping gay marriage but we live in a democratic society and the majority of the people have voted. It’s as simple as that, you can keep on being angry and judgmental toward people that simply disagree with your opinion, but that won’t change a thing. - Amaru, San Jose

Amaru,
Of all those who criticized me for this editorial, you are the only one to whom I can simply reply “you are wrong.” You can never expect the majority to protect the rights of a minority, and without the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution, civil rights advances would be impossible. Oh, and belief in equal rights for all is not an opinion, it’s a moral obligation and I think it’s kinda in the Constitution. - Owen

Your article about Prop 8 omits truth and facts. Using the past tense about blatant discrimination against Blacks underscores your fallacies big time. Hypocrisy and contradition! [sic] I, a Black male, experience bigotry today just like Blacks did 20 or 50 years ago! Short and sweet—follow me around for a week, then try and assert that gays experience equal or more bigotry than Black!!! Stop the Bullshit. - Alvin, city not given

Alvin,
Yes, the use of past tense when referring to any type of racism is incorrect and a huge oversight on my part. By no stretch of the imagination do I believe that racism is “over” or should it be ignored. As far as the comparison goes, it was not intended to be so direct, and I mentioned that the bias against gays is not nearly as bad as it ever has been (or is) against blacks. However, gays are experiencing a new era of discrimination in their push for equal rights. That is the message that I am trying to get across, not that the black civil rights movement is over and the gay rights movement is the exact same thing. - Owen

I live in San Francisco and was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area and I in no way supported Prop 8. Your “slippery slope” argument is the same one that the religious right uses when it frames gay marriage as the gateway to marrying one’s dog and legalizing pedophilia. My biggest problem with your article is your harsh use of language toward the religious element involved in the campaign and it only goes to show your ignorance. No On 8 waited until far too late in the campaign to frame the argument as one about RIGHTS. Far too much was focused on “look how happy we are as a gay couple” instead of saying it’s an issue of CIVIL RIGHTS. - Joliene Wade, San Francisco

Joliene,
On the harsh language, see the intro of this letter. On the slippery slope thing, please turn up your sarcasm detector: that’s exactly why I did it. I do agree that the No on 8 campaign dropped the ball on the whole rights thing, and so did I for not mentioning it. - Owen