I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I forgot that San Francisco is not an angry city like New York. Gays have gotten what they wanted there over the years, unlike New York, where we had to fight for everything.
If I had it my way, I never would have left San Francisco, but things change and that's the nature of this business. We have to move on. We hopefully get opportunities down the road that we take advantage of.
I think it's best if there's an amendment that goes on the ballot where the people can weigh in. Every time this issue has gone on the ballot, the people have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage as recently as California in 2008.
We don't suggest that because San Francisco lies on top of an earthquake fault that it should be moved.
San Francisco is really fun and liberal, and it's my kind of politics. It's like being Jewish in front of Jewish people.
In the end, we may be hurting the very people we should be concerned about - the inner-city poor, those who already have to live with many risks in their daily lives, those who do not have clout here in Washington.
I honestly do not know if civil disobedience has any effect on the government. I can promise you it has a great effect on the person who chooses to do it.
I'd always wanted to live in San Francisco, and my circumstances never permitted it. I'm so happy I made the move.
Besides the healthcare bill being unconstitutional and a great expansion of federal government, I think if it does not respect people's individual religious views and makes groups or individuals do things that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs, there is going to be a visceral negative reaction.
None of us takes amending the Constitution lightly. The plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied and it really is time to act.