Image via Wikipedia

This rejection statement was avoid from Supreme court of USA. and was only in the borders of California. The supporters of Prop 8 has vowed to appeal.

Instead of expanding the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, the court based its decision on a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that said a majority may not take away a minority’s rights without legitimate reasons.

“Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the court.

This statement wont take effect immediately because prop 8 supporters have a week to appeal in court and 90 days to file a petition to supreme court for review.

the ruling presented “the most difficult set of facts” possible for ProtectMarriage because the decision “so squarely fits” the high court’s precedent in Evans vs. Romer, the case that struck down the Colorado measure. said the lawyer David Boies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/proposition-8-is-overturned-and-obama-catches-a-break-on-gay-marriage/2012/02/07/gIQAQCCswQ_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

David Burrowes, one of the organisers of the campaign against the reform, told The Independent he is “cautiously optimistic” the proposal will be defeated in the Commons because it would “fracture” the institution of marriage. Mr Burrowes, parliamentary aide to the Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, insisted there is strong opposition to gay marriage across the Conservative Party spectrum.

“Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and woman has historically been viewed in this country,” he said. “There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.

“Gay marriage is a debate we don’t need to have at this stage. It is not an issue people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about,” he continued, adding: “It is important that there is a reasoned debate around how we view marriage rather than about homosexual rights. It may open up old wounds and put people into the trenches; no one wants that.”

He denied that dropping the plan would jeopardise Mr Cameron’s modernising credentials. “There are many other ways that the Conservatives can show we are a modern party – not least our social justice agenda. This is too important an issue to decide in terms of where it positions our party.”

Announcing his backing for gay marriage, Mr Cameron told the Tory conference last October: “Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

The Tory backlash emerged as the party’s modernisers set up a new backbench group to support the agenda Mr Cameron mapped out in opposition on issues such as the environment and poverty. The 301 Plus Group is worried that there is now too much focus on Europe, immigration and spending cuts.

Kris Hopkins, MP for Keighley, said: “We need to build the confidence of those who might not class themselves as natural Conservative voters. It is about advancing the ideas and aspirations of the modern Conservative Party and delivering for voters of all political persuasions across our country.”

Gay marriage is strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats, who have pressed the issue inside the Government even though it was not included in the Coalition Agreement. Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities minister and driving force behind the change, will go ahead with a consultation process on marriage laws in March, to be followed by legislation.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, accused Tory opponents of the reform of slipping back into “old-fashioned homophobia”. He said the same predictions about a threat to marriage were made before civil partnerships were legalised in 2005 but had failed to come true.

There is no question that American’s want nothing to do with a system like that — but then there are American Social Conservative politicians who apparently buy into certain aspects of an Islamic style theocracy.

It’s hard to believe that people who are running for the post of President of the United States — president of ALL the people — openly oppose the free choice of a large group of those people; in effect declaring that their personal and religious preferences should become the law of the land.

Rick Santorum did exactly that by stating on National television that he not only opposes gay marriage but he would support a Constitutional amendment that would declare all existing same sex marriages null and void.

When did gay rights and specifically gay marriage become any concern of the Federal government? Obviously it is becoming a part of Rick Santorum’s “platform” and that, to me, shows that he is not a good choice to become president of ALL the people.

The same could be said about the Abortion issue! The people who are in contention for the Republican nomination — apparently all the candidates — feel that their personal preferences (that is to say their religious preferences) against this perfectly legal procedure should become the law of the land and that the rights of woman should be abandoned in favor of biblical concepts.

Like citizens and political commentators, politicians have every right to express their views but when they make statements like we have heard in this election cycle that they want to use their elected positions to further, and even codify their personal moral convictions, it’s time for responsible Conservatives and voters to ‘take them out behind the wood shed.’

Back in May of 2008, Ed Morrissey of “Hot Air” blog fame wrote a an excellent, thoughtful piece titled “Time to return to the first principles of conservatism?” Apparently only a few Conservatives were tuned in:

<blockquote> “What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution.” </blockquote>

Morrissey went on to say:

<blockquote>”Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.”</blockquote>

and he concluded:

<blockquote>”It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.”

Amen to that Brother Morrissey!

 Now, in case the jury is still out (drum roll)on whether he is or he isn’t well, he is.  Fabulous that is! Of course he is now a newly wed.  A married man and married to a man.  That answers that one.  Sorry ladies, and I guess gentlemen too, now. It’s a done deal. 

He married his boyfriend, Victor Voronov. The couple tied the knot last week,  in a civil ceremony in the Big Apple.  They are now planning to have a much larger celebration this coming summer! Now Johnny, you aren’t doing this to steal attention away from the summer Olympics are you?

The new Groom, Weir is 27 years young and his new husband is Georgetown Law graduate. Johnny has his show “Be Good Johnny Weir” (did you know that Kelly Ripa and her husband Mark are the producers of this show?), and work on his clothing line.  Victor is 28 years young. They wed at  New York City courthouse on December 30.  Both sets of parents were in attendance as the couple exchanged vows.  The are both taking the last name of Weir-Voronov. 

Both men are just beaming and look forward to a long happy marriage.  A bright future lies ahead!

Here’s another thing I don’t get: Apparently some people can get married, but others can’t because the government doesn’t approve of their chosen spouse. The reason given for denying marriage to people who are somebodies brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter, is that it protects the family. Whose? Whose family is threatened by a couple of guys who want to buy a condo and raise show dogs together? And what about kids? Who wouldn’t want to be raised by people who are fiscally responsible, contributing members of society who put home and family first?  That sounds like a Rebublican dream if it weren’t for those pesky homosexuals…

One more thing: If you are an immigrant in the last fifteen years and you aren’t currently here ‘legally’, you are about one-hundred and fifty years too late. Back then you could have snuck in with all the grandparents of the very same people who are trying to throw you out. What really gets me is that the people who are being thrown out are hard working people who pay taxes and just wanted a better life for their kids, not criminals. (Sound familiar Irish?) What’s more they are actually doing things that ‘Americans’ aren’t willing to do. Oh, they could. They won’t. That’s different. Picking fruit and vegetables is done by migrant workers because when locals are hired to do it, they quit within a day. Check that out, totally true and there has been tons of attention to it on NPR and farmers organizations.  Not so much in the Rebublican primaries.

Okay I lied, there’s one more thing. When did peaceful protest become illegal in this country? Why are people bitching and laughing at the ‘Occupy Wall street’ people? Look at it this way: If you are worried about all those people who are unemployed being criminals, or kids not having enough to do because they can’t find a job, well look no further for a solution! Even if you don’t agree with them, they have the right to say it, and do it, as long as they are abiding by the law. The Tea Party’s first protest, anyone remember that? They all had guns, and nobody said boo about it. From what I’ve seen, these guys are pretty much unarmed. And yet they are the dangerous ones? I’m confused about what is dangerous. The pen truly is mightier than the sword.  Or mightier than Sarah Palin with a hunting rifle.

The “institution” or “sacrament” of marriage is a complete fabrication, a socio-economic construct, created during a time when the only way a man could get his neighbor to stop having sex with “his” woman was to mark her as his property.  Long before church weddings, this was done in the presence of the town council, or village elders, or his fellow cave-trolls, to gain public recognition and enforcement by whatever body was in charge at the time.  The only way to get the “rights” of marriage enforced was to emplace them under the threat of punishment for anyone not respecting it.

That’s right, even when we wore breechcloths and lived in caves, people could only be officially married with the support of the government.

The public bonding ceremonies were created LONG before any religion decided to start calling it “holy”.  The kind of weddings we think of today became the vogue much, much later in human history.  The only women who still think weddings are “romantic” are the ones who have no idea what the ceremony actually means, where it comes from, or what kind of perpetual servitude they are pretending to sell themselves into.

Fun fact:  There are gay men and women in this world — perhaps in your very neighborhood — who are protesting for their right to be chattel as well.

Where did the image of the big, fancy wedding come from?  Not where you think.

There was a time in our history when it was not safe for the daughters or wives of anyone with money to be seen in public.  At a time when “diplomacy” was done by kidnapping as well as by the sword, it was commonplace for an aspiring nobleman-to-be to simply kidnap the daughter or wife of the leader of the opposing group.  For most of us, when somebody else has stolen your daughter and is threatening to kill her, that person has gained an incredible amount of power over your life.

So those men with money and power began to lock up their women in the castle, keep, house, hovel, lodge, or whatever dwelling he could fortify.  It eventually reached the point where a woman in a truly rich family could only look forward to being seen in public three times during her entire life:

1.       Her debutante ball (or coming-out party) at age 16, during which she was expected to select a mate from a roomful of likely hopefuls she had never met.

2.       Her wedding.

3.       Her funeral.

All other times, for the entire duration of her life, a “rich” or titled woman would be locked up on the family estate and guarded with as many arms as the patriarch could afford.

For the debutante ball, the resources of the household were dedicated to making you look as delicious as possible, for the express purpose of pimping you out to anyone you could entice.

For the funeral, the guest of honor could hardly be considered to be having a good time — or even considered a participant, except in a rather grisly way of looking at things.

Of those three times, only one time was the occasion even marginally an occasion for rejoicing on the part of the girl:  the wedding.  The wedding was a huge party, accompanied by a huge dowry, to celebrate moving out of one fancy prison and into another fancy prison, now belonging to a different man.

Interestingly enough, common everyday women were of no political importance, and were therefore in much less danger of being kidnapped.  Because of this reduced danger, they had very few of these restrictions, and were normal functioning members of local society.  This also meant they didn’t have any money, so they didn’t have the big fancy wedding circus the rich gals got.  In their minds, this meant that getting a fancy wedding like that made a girl “special”.

The weddings of the rich were held in the local church, but not because of how holy and revered the sacrament of marriage was supposed to be.  During the period when weddings became what they are today, the church was the only fancy building with a hall.  Everybody else is living in mud huts or a lodge house with a dirt floor, and that’s not a very auspicious venue for a rich guy’s daughter’s wedding.  The nobleman paid a big pile of cash to the local clergy — think of it as renting the hall — and put on the big parade in the most fancy building available.  Usually, the only fancy building available.

The only day in a rich girl’s entire life where she was permitted to wear jewelry in public, or even to be out in public, was a public display of how rich your daddy is before you are given as owned property to a guy you met only once before, if you were lucky.  The blessing was given by the local member of the church who preached that all women are inherently evil, women are the starting place of all sin in life, and should never be allowed to speak in church, and should be flogged when they disobey their male masters.

For many of the same reasons, a large dowry would be paid by the bride’s parents.  No, the groom wasn’t buying the bride — quite the opposite:  the bride’s family was paying the groom to take her.  She’s a huge expense on the household, due to housing, fortification, food, clothing, servants, and paying all those guards to keep her from being kidnapped.  Now the groom’s family will get all those bills, and the bride’s father is getting a good deal if he only has to make one more big payment to get rid of the drain on his resources.

Every organized religion I know of has jumped on the bandwagon, has adopted the “sanctity” of marriage as part of their doctrine, telling the world how “holy” and “special” in the eyes of [insert favorite deity here] it is to be dedicated to the life of just one person.  But it’s all a bunch of hooey invented by the all-too-human people who set up the religions in the first place, because marriage was a social norm before any of those religions were invented.

Still sound romantic?

We are supposed to be much more civilized now, more modern, and have much more consciousness of our freedoms.  So why do we need the government’s permission to have a long term relationship?  And why do women start planning and imagining at around age 8 the wedding ceremony that symbolizes being sold as a slave?

Do you truly believe that men and women are of equal value?  Abolish marriage.

Do you want to remove the image of women as inferior beings, slaves, and property?  Abolish weddings.

Do you believe that a child can only be properly nurtured in a home with a mother and a father?  I have seen much more damaged caused to children raised in a home where the parents stayed together only out of a sense of duty to the child.  That child grows up seeing a loveless partnership where the parents can’t stand each other, but who stay together only because they were told they have to because of the kid.  Those children grow up with hideous emotional scars, horribly repressed, and unable to form their own healthy relationships.

Want that to end?  Abolish marriage.

I know we have all met people in our lives who have been divorced.  Men and women whose lives, livelihood, finances and even psyche have been destroyed by the horrific wrenching rending assunder of what they thought was a holy institution ordained by their god.  The people I know who have been divorced at least once outnumber those who have not.  In nearly every case, the couple’s finances are destroyed for years afterwards — sometimes even for life — and no one escapes divorce without emotional trauma.  Both men and women will often become very bitter and resentful, giving up completely on ever having another long-term relationship, because of it.  Their kids see what it does to their beloved parents too.  What do you think the children learn from the experience?

Want that terrible pain, suffering and heartache to end?  Abolish marriage.

Want the marriage tax to end?  Abolish marriage.

At the time the different books of the bible were written and collected science had not yet been realized.  the books of the bible were written between, about, 2000 years before christ and 200 years after; modern science wasn’t realized until around the seventeenth century.  What is understood now scientifically could not have been realized at the time the bible was penned. 

     In recent years attempts have been made to discover a gay gene(s).  After analyzing the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 households, in families with two or more gay bothers, researches have noticed that a cluster of the same genetic pattern formed on the 7, 8, and 10 chromosomes in 60% of gay men.  So, considering the scientific discovery of a possible gay gene, and the timeline between the writing of the bible and modern science we cannot ignore the ignorance of the bible on the subject.  

I have heard that it was simply semantics, that the word “marriage” is sacred, and it implies a religious ceremony and the only disagreement with the union is the term.  They would instead be considered “civil unions” while maintaining all the legal rights that would be available to anyone who is married.  This, however, is a slippery slope, similar to that of the introduction to the idea of building a mosque near ground zero because:  A.) There would still be people who would have problems with it.  B.) By referring to them as civil unions are they being treated equally?  Is making the compromise, in either case, still equality?  Well, yes, of course it is.  But I believe all religious beliefs should be blind to the issue so I do not see the problem with the reference to marriage.  

There are some who believe that gay marriage infringes on the sanctity of marriage, however homosexuality cannot abuse marriage any more than heterosexuality already has.  We televise and mock the institution with network reality shows like: the Bachelor, Bridezilla, and the Next Joe Millionaire; and, our ridiculous divorce rate(46%).  The government does not question the intent, quality of, or the level of commitment that one might have for another before acquiring a marriage license.  I, a man, could feasibly, this evening, both meet and marry a woman having known her only a matter of hours and without being accused of whether this would affect the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of God.  We could go to one of the 50+ wedding chapels in Las Vegas, the marriage capitol of the world, and easily get a license, $60 and a photo ID.  I believe that the foundation of the sanctity of marriage that is spoken of has long been questionable.  The truth, as a result, is that religion has no place in the debate of gay marriage.  Granted, religious institutions developed marriage but once it was recognized by the restrictions and the laws of the United States government it can no longer be subject to those of any religious ramifications; congruous to the separation of Church and State.  And, therefore all religious complications regarding the matter should be blind to the issue.  To deny the legal right of marriage to anyone is to ignore equality of men before the law.  Gay marriage is not unconstitutional which means that the United States does not acknowledge a different between a man being married to a woman, or a man being married to a man (or woman to a woman). 

What is it that we are afraid of?  It is basic human nature to fear what we do not understand but to allow that fear, or misunderstanding to influence how we react to and treat people is unnecessary.  Unless we can find a way to accept a person for who they are, regardless of who they are, we will always find ourselves in an internal conflict arguing for the sake of arguing with little reason for our words or actions.  Accepting someone free of religious, political, cultural, ethnic or sexual affiliation is the only way any of us will find the freedom that we all seek.  And, all you have to do is try.  

I remember an incident where a friend of mine had a good friend in office whom she felt very comfortable with. When she quite by accident discovered he was gay, she didn’t feel quite so comfortable. After this initial reaction however, she realized that the said friend was a very warm person, extremely sensitive, trustworthy, and so on and so forth: qualities that are not readily found in everyone. She gradually came to terms with “everything”, and they are still good friends.

If two people of the same sex are comfortable with each other and happy in each other’s company, is this better or worse than:

• Indiscriminately opening fire on innocents?
• Mentally torturing and emotionally blackmailing someone who was once close to you?
• Stealing, cheating, murdering, looting?
• And so on and so on?

Is it better or worse than:

• Lying?
• Going down a one-way street?
• Throwing your garbage in front of someone else’s front gate?
• And so on and so on?

You judge for yourself. And again, each one is entitled to their own opinion.

Homophobia

                        Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, all people of this world but to some they are the supposed “evil”, “unnatural”, and “unholy” people. These people are hated by these homophobes, people who discriminate against homosexuality or homosexuals, because of whom they are and who they love. But do people choose to be Asian, African American, and European? No they don’t; it’s not a choice. Yet people still hate gays. Just like in the case of Matthew Shepard and Tyler Clementi, these two boys just by being born a certain way are killed or are pushed so far as to kill themselves. Homophobia is a wrong way of thinking, it causes hatred, misunderstandings, and a large amount of people are affected. Homophobia needs to be stopped.

Marriage, a vow to someone you love, “I, take you, to be my (wife/husband), to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part.” but this honor, this right is taken away from them because the churches do not believe in same sex marriages. The churches consider it “unholy” and “against God.” yet it is unfair that those who love each other and want to have a future as husband and husband or wife and wife are unable to have the rightful marriage they deserve. The church’s “thoughts” or “opinions” on having same sex couples shouldn’t affect the true love and passion those people have for each other. The church says to follow God, and supposedly God created man. He created the way we are, and if this is true why is it that the church is against homosexuals against what God created. It makes no sense that people would hate people who they believe God created. The church says that being homosexual is a choice. But in all honesty it’s not, ask any of them, Karley Picone a student from Barnegat High school states that “No, no one would choose to be an outcast, set apart, what people hate. If being gay was a choice then all those kids who committed suicide would have just ‘changed back’. People don’t wake up and say ‘what’s the easiest way to be hated?’”(Picone). Another student Nicole Shershen stated her opinion on that fact, “No I don’t believe it is a choice, because no one wakes up choosing their sexual orientation either gay or straight. And no body chooses their ethnicity, and their race, so how is their sexual orientation any different? It just makes no sense.” (Shershen) gay marriages should be allowed and the people are starting to make changes.

Recently some churches around the country are changing their thoughts on the matter of same sex marriages. By allowing these marriages they are helping to opening a new chapter in our society. Allowing these same sex couples into the church is letting people know that being gay is okay. These steps are showing those who are in the church that being with the same sex is alright, and that nothing bad comes from it, it’s just like a normal relationship. Though there are still people who don’t want to have these marriages but hopefully the people and the church will change their minds. “The assembly’s committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues voted 34-18 to change the definition of marriage in the church constitution to describe marriage as a covenant between “two people” rather than between “a man and a woman” (Smith). “Since 2000, the denomination has allowed Presbyterian ministers and churches to bless same-sex relationships as long as the ceremonies aren’t described or structured as weddings. The denomination also has officially endorsed state civil unions for same-sex couples since 2004” (Smith, Peter).Seventh grader Dara Riggs states that “Homophobia is as bad as racism or sexism. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. It also says to love everyone (for who they are)” (Riggs). Though the churches don’t want those considered true marriages, it is still a giant step towards a better future for homosexuals across the globe.

One of the largest problems that homosexuals have where homophobia is a main problem is school. Students’ everyday are harassed and tormented in the halls and due to the way people where brought up no one really thinks of it as a problem they think it is just “Kids being kids.” But it is more than that! Students are causing emotional and physical harm to those kids who support or are gay. Every day in the halls students walk and hear the words “That’s so gay.” or “You’re a fag.”  And to those words make people feel uncomfortable; homophobia is a big problem in the school systems. Student Nicole Shershen responds to this problem by saying, “I do (believe it’s a problem) because it’s an issue that no one will talk or stand up for. And it’s simply not right! And students get discriminated against because of the fact that they are gay”(Shershen). Fellow student Karley Picone also had something to say on the matter, “It is a major issue because the LGBTQ community is a topic that the school doesn’t feel comfortable discussing, students don’t understand and lash out because of it.”(Picone) even as young students in high school people feel the negativity coming from the fact that the school and the people in it are discrimination against the homosexual community.  One of the major cases in discrimination and bullying against homosexuals is the case of Tyler Clementi, and 18 year-old college student whose roommate Dharun Ravi “peeping-tom”, and his friend Molly Wei broadcasted from a hidden web cam of Clementi’s sexual encounter with another man.  “Clementi’s post on his Facebook page, dated Sept. 22 at 8:42 p.m. read, “Jumping off the GW Bridge sorry.” (Friedman) Tyler Clementi was an aspiring violinist that had a future to become something great but because of bullying and tormenting from his online foes he was pushed over the edge and in the end ended up killing himself.  ‘Cause of the actions of another someone’s life was taken. But if people where properly informed and had some respect for one’s private life this occurrence could have been prevented.  People, especially young students do not have the respect for the gay life style and no understanding of it, and because of that reasoning the disrespect, the tormenting, and the bullying continue to those who are for the gay life style, and those who are in fact homosexual. These homophobes over the years have slowly crushed, cracked, and destroyed so many lives just by their actions and their words.

Many people have come to accept that bullying is a problem but most don’t take action against it, and many don’t stand up for those being bullied. Is it because they are scared, is it because they don’t want the same fate as others, or is it because they just don’t care. Many of these things come into factor when it deals with the life of a Middle and High school student. This is why schools are being encouraged to start the GSA and LGBTQ programs, these programs help and provide a sanctuary for those who are homosexual it also provides people with the information needed so that the life style could be understood.  But there are some schools that do not approve of the life style and refuse to have anything to do with it, even go as far as having no funding and having a “in closet” gay club. A Barnegat High school student said that “Barnegat is not ready for this ‘Gay Club’ to be open to the public eye”, yet what is there right to say that homosexuals should not have the right to be open and proud of whom they are. Though it was in there opinion one may quote from Lady Gaga herself, “Baby you were Born this Way” and there is nothing people can do to keep that a secret. So have the clubs be open, the schools shouldn’t have the say in what we are ready for it’s the people and the way society has changed since the dawn of time. These clubs can help so many homosexual students and by being closed off the, club isn’t able to help at its full potential leaving students to be left to suffer and with nowhere to go.  So as a community we need to have these “in the Closest” clubs out in the open for everyone to see. The gay community needs to be represented or the problem of homophobia will never go away.

As we move into the 21st century where homosexuality is becoming more acceptable it’s sad to say that it is too late for Matthew Shepard.  Matthew Shepard was kidnapped, robbed, pistol whipped, and tied to a fence left to die alone. And it was all because of one factor he was gay.  This 1998 crime was one of the most publicized hate crimes during the turn of the century.   But yet from this awful crime came a new era, an era where the gay community stepped up and in a sense took charge. New groups have been made to protect and help those who are affected and to help those who need help. “(This) 21-year-old who became an overnight symbol of deadly violence against gay people…. “(Brooke).  So many changes have been made in society already, that though homophobia is still a problem; people are beginning to accept the fact that it is okay to be gay.  In 2003, “The U.S. Supreme Court finally put an end to laws criminalizing same-sex intercourse in Lawrence v. Texas. Lawmakers at both the state and federal level continue to target lesbians and gay men with draconian legislation and hateful rhetoric. The gay rights movement is still working to change this” (Head).  With this action, this small victory many homosexuals felt better and safer about themselves and that maybe, just maybe people where coming to accept the fact that “Hey we are gay, and that’s okay.”  But still so many losses have come from all the hatred and the discrimination against homosexuality.  People may not need to agree with their life style but to put ones well-being at risk is a sick way of telling someone your opinion. Many must come to realize that they must have respect for other people’s differences and tolerate them. Because going around and verbally abusing, beating, and killing people will not change who they are. So will people finally come to realize that people will not be forced to change who they are. People will not go with what others want but for what they want. People will be free to make their life decision and live the way they want to live.  Homophobia must end in order for a small amount of peace to be left in its place, we have to change our actions towards the gay community unless all those people who died, gave their lives, committed suicide, and gave up hope, would be left in vain.

Though there is much in the world we don’t understand, and many of it is too due with the fact that people only see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. There is a chance that what is written here and all the new changes being made, that homophobia will decrease over time, more than it already has.  To stop homophobia we need to tell the peoples stories, we need to get the facts, and we need to explain what the hatred does, we have to prevent it, and do help those who are affected. The gay community has a right to be supported, and from the words of Lady Gaga,

“Don’t be a drag, just be a queen
Whether you’re broke or evergreen
You’re black, white, beige, Chula descent
You’re Lebanese, you’re orient
Whether life’s disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
‘Cause baby you were born this way
No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I’m on the right track baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chula or orient made
I’m on the right track baby
I was born to be brave”

This means that there is still hope, and that no matter what people say the gay community and everyone supporting them will not give up hope. But we still have a long way to go and the stories, the tragedies, the inspirations will all be taken with us through a life time and hat will eventually help stop this horrible that that has plagued us for too long.