David Hyde Pierce says he married longtime partner - Yahoo! News

mixed wrote:

Still don't understand why stars like these didn't come out before the Prop 8 vote.

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
But Prop 8 has awakened a giant. It will turn out to be the biggest mistake its proponents ever made!

Chago wrote:

<quoted text>
awakened a monster? really? maybe a little one?
check this out;
I'm guessing that gays are about 1% of California's population, I did the math, look below;
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California's population (2008 est.):
36,756,666
10% of that would be:
3,675,667
36,756,666 x .1 = 3,675,666.6
0.1% of that would be:
36,757
36,756,666 x .001 = 36,756.666
according to an LA Times article;
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-m...
only 18,000 gay couples married during that 5 month window, even knowing that there was a possibility that prop 8 would past.
that means only 36,000 gay people are married
that figure is closer to 0.1% than 10%,
0.1%= 36,757
if marriage was so important to gays, why did only .001 of Californians eligible bother to marry?
could it be cold feet? a little shyness? not ready to make such a big commitment?
or could it be that gays are really only 1% or less, but because many are actors/actresses in movies/TV or activists that are so bigger than life that it makes it seem that they are really a larger proportion than their 1%?

Chago wrote:

<quoted text>
awakened a monster? really? maybe a little one?
check this out;
I'm guessing that gays are about 1% of California's population, I did the math, look below;
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California's population (2008 est.):
36,756,666
10% of that would be:
3,675,667
36,756,666 x .1 = 3,675,666.6
0.1% of that would be:
36,757
36,756,666 x .001 = 36,756.666
according to an LA Times article;
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-m...
only 18,000 gay couples married during that 5 month window, even knowing that there was a possibility that prop 8 would past.
that means only 36,000 gay people are married
that figure is closer to 0.1% than 10%,
0.1%= 36,757
if marriage was so important to gays, why did only .001 of Californians eligible bother to marry?
could it be cold feet? a little shyness? not ready to make such a big commitment?
or could it be that gays are really only 1% or less, but because many are actors/actresses in movies/TV or activists that are so bigger than life that it makes it seem that they are really a larger proportion than their 1%?

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
They were single, Or they were waiting for the right time after all most people plan there wedding months if not years in advance. Or they wanted to be with their partner longer. Why dont "normal" people get married as soon as there daiting if they can?

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
First, almost no one claims that 10% of the population is GLBT. Kinsey's original claim was that 10% had had an exclusively homosexual period during their lives, not that 10% were gay. And it is well-known that his studies lacked methodological soundness.
But it's also more than 1%. But really, what does it matter? 18,000 happy couples is 18,000 more couples pledging to take care of one another for the rest of their lives.
Finally, what percentage of the heterosexual population marries in any particular year?

Chago wrote:

<quoted text>
awakened a monster? really? maybe a little one?
check this out;
I'm guessing that gays are about 1% of California's population, I did the math, look below;
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California's population (2008 est.):
36,756,666
10% of that would be:
3,675,667
36,756,666 x .1 = 3,675,666.6
0.1% of that would be:
36,757
36,756,666 x .001 = 36,756.666
according to an LA Times article;
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-m...
only 18,000 gay couples married during that 5 month window, even knowing that there was a possibility that prop 8 would past.
that means only 36,000 gay people are married
that figure is closer to 0.1% than 10%,
0.1%= 36,757
if marriage was so important to gays, why did only .001 of Californians eligible bother to marry?
could it be cold feet? a little shyness? not ready to make such a big commitment?
or could it be that gays are really only 1% or less, but because many are actors/actresses in movies/TV or activists that are so bigger than life that it makes it seem that they are really a larger proportion than their 1%?

Chago wrote:

<quoted text>
awakened a monster? really? maybe a little one?
check this out;
I'm guessing that gays are about 1% of California's population, I did the math, look below;
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California's population (2008 est.):
36,756,666
10% of that would be:
3,675,667
36,756,666 x .1 = 3,675,666.6
0.1% of that would be:
36,757
36,756,666 x .001 = 36,756.666
according to an LA Times article;
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-m...
only 18,000 gay couples married during that 5 month window, even knowing that there was a possibility that prop 8 would past.
that means only 36,000 gay people are married
that figure is closer to 0.1% than 10%,
0.1%= 36,757
if marriage was so important to gays, why did only .001 of Californians eligible bother to marry?
could it be cold feet? a little shyness? not ready to make such a big commitment?
or could it be that gays are really only 1% or less, but because many are actors/actresses in movies/TV or activists that are so bigger than life that it makes it seem that they are really a larger proportion than their 1%?