David visits The View on “Cross your legs and grab your knee” day
Pierce started off admirable, noting that he was never in-your-face with his gayness and that him and his partner of 25 years Brian always kept a low profile. Then he said “We got married very quietly last October 24 and thought that was fine, and then suddenly the state of California said, ‘no it’s not.’”
Actually, the truth is that the state of California said “no its not [fine for anything but a male-female couple to be legally recognized as married here]” in 2000 when Proposition 22 was passed with 61% of the vote. The only reason prop 8 existed was because the California Supreme Court overstepped the bounds of the judiciary and in a 4-3 margin decided to hell with the will of the people and allowed same sex couples to wrongly hijack the term “marriage” away from democratic society. Hyde Pierce said about his marriage that “what we thought was a very private decision turned out not to be”. Um, doy. Maybe you shouldn’t be getting married if you don’t know what marriage even is. The whole point of marriage is public. Whatever you do in your single life is as private as you want it to be, but marriage is a public declaration and as such, *the* public at large has a right to prevent its definition from being monkeyed with if it chooses. It chose. In the year 2000. and Prop 8 simply re-instated the will of the people, whose rights to define social institutions with words they see fit was stripped away for a few months before the election, yet whiney-HydePierce claims just the opposite.
Oddly, after acknowledging the “mixed bag” of the court ruling that allowed him to “make the cut” and remain married, Pierce went on to whine some more saying “Can you imagine if you’re married the people in your state getting together and saying, no you’re not… It was a very angry-making decision… It’s none of your business.”
We don’t know why Pierce hates democracy so much, but since he already had admitted that that isn’t what happened, wtf is this dude crying about via that example? Instead of a bunch of “angry-making” people coming along and telling David and Brian they weren’t married anymore, the ruling did the opposite and said that all who received marriage licenses during the brief period where they were legally issued, are still just as legally married as ever. The ruling Pierce was referring to only said was that it was perfectly legal for the citizens to amend the state constitution to define state-recognized marriage as between a man and a woman.