Today on Blogcritics
Home » Proposition 8: The New Bigotry

Proposition 8: The New Bigotry

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I had not planned to write about the controversy being exploited by each side of California’s Proposition 8. I did not care who voted for it, how much money was spent on it or the margin of its approval. As far as I was concerned the issue would play itself out in public opinion and in time become just another footnote of our culture. While the California Supreme Court is considering whether Proposition 8 violates the State Constitution, it is the effort to invalidate 18,000 gay marriages that changed my mind on writing about the issue to expose it as the sheer, unadulterated bigotry it is — our new bigotry.

However, where to start has been a bugbear. Then it came to me -– Rush Limbaugh, who decided to lead the charge on the day after the election. He claimed that California’s passing of Proposition 8 told judges that they could not override what conservatives did in that ballot initiative, defining marriage as a legal bond only between a man and a woman. Although I think he is a huckster, such a digression obscures the point that Prop 8 is bigotry.

balance of justiceRick Warren came to mind next. He is more of a media magnet than Rush these days and he is smooth. He refers to a “five-thousand-year … definition of marriage” with a smile, referring to Proposition 8 as a “free speech issue.” Warren’s artful dodge is that he “objects to the redefinition of marriage.” Smooth sounding intolerance is still intolerance, which is at the core of bigotry.

By definition, “one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ” is a bigot. Bigotry is “the attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, also notes, “Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense ‘a superstitious hypocrite.’"

What I am writing about is bigotry as an ideology. The obvious form is racism characterized by hostility, a belief in inferiority and an assumption that one race is superior to another. Today that is considered a human rights violation. Another form is sexism, characterized by judgments based upon gender rather than upon individualism and an assumption that one sex is superior to another. Other forms include fascism, nationalism, ageism, classism, and pretty much anywhere narrow mindedness and stereotypes overcome logical thinking.

It is the will of 52% of a voting public over 48% that changed the stance of California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown. He has filed suit to overturn the Proposition, writing that the courts have already said that the right to marry is protected as an “inalienable right.” Brown writes further that a “tyranny of the majority” would be established if a ballot initiative could to take away an inalienable right. This is something that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 are championed by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school, and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. He argues that by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the election, the court would preserve the people's lawmaking powers. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity,” Starr wrote. “There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions." He would know since he was one of its authors.

Although I am not a lawyer, it occurs to me that there is also the pesky matter of ex post facto law; also known as retroactive law, and prohibited by the Constitution. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, defines an ex post facto law as, “A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed." In the case of Proposition 8, same-sex marriages may no longer be performed, at least for now. However, to invalidate marriages performed while they were legal makes the Proposition an ex post facto law.

The new bigotry has plenty of articulate spokespeople to espouse its specious cause. I would be interested to know what they think about repealing laws that prohibited marriages between blacks and whites. But that is the old bigotry.

Powered by

About Tommy Mack

Tommy Mack began his career in broadcasting and is a US Army graduate of the Defense Information School. He worked in Army Public and Command Information and earned a BS in Liberal Studies from the State University of New York, Albany. A marketing communications executive, Tommy became a business management consultant for a major international consulting company and its affiliates before establishing Tommy Mack Organization, a business consulting practice specializing in organization and communications management. A professional writer and blogger, he writes about politics, business, and culture.
  • Seamus the Terrible

    How come no one cares or talks about the impact to society of deviating from the “gold standard” of marriage.

    And don’t give me that “high divorce rate” crap about conventional marriage. When done right, it is still the best thing out there.

    Anyone out there want America’s kids to have second best? I don’t.

    So I’m not a bigot…just an observer of what works best and what doesn’t. Straight marriage done right…that’s the standard.

    Another thing…rights are rights to action, not rights to stuff or privileges. It means you can live in an orderly society and to have a redress of grevances when injured. Its not about all this other stuff (marriage, a job, health insurance, etc. etc.). Give me a BREAK PLEASE.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Good article, and thanks for the education on ex post facto law.

    Seamus –

    How about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It’s funny how the Republicans cozy up to the ‘Reverend’ Sun Myung Moon and the thousands of arranged marriages he makes every year between people who have NEVER met before the night they get married, but raise Cain about two people who meet and court and propose and marry, whose ONLY difference from the classic Western way of courtship lay in the fact that they’re the same sex and mostly must hide their relationship.

    Seamus – could someone convince YOU that you should only date guys, that you should marry and live the rest of your life with another guy? No? Then how can you possibly think that a true homosexual can be convinced that he MUST be attracted to ONLY women?

    Are American citizens who happen to be homosexual still American citizens? Do they not still have the SAME right as the rest of us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

    When I was much younger, I was quite prejudiced against homosexuals – such was de riguer where I came from. But the years passed, and in the Navy I watched those I knew to be gay or lesbian who were patriotic and did their duties honorably and well…but were discharged for the SOLE ‘crime’ of being homosexual. That was when I began to see the bigotry of such policies…and the authors of those policies.

    But last week I got a belly laugh! It seems that President-Elect Obama is considering an openly gay man named Bill White to be Secretary of the Navy! Whoooooo…I can just see the faces of the officers and senior enlisted….

  • Bob

    Every society must have rules that the majority support. If every rule that the majority supports is deemed tyrannical, then what’s the point of having majority rule? Just have dictators decide everything. Since when is marriage an inalienable right? I’m no constitutional scholar, but I thought it was, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Doug Hunter

    Gay marriage is an issue of morality, just like prostitution, polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. There is no ‘right’ to any of the above although they all should be legal in my opinion.

    So, on the basics we’re in agreement I just wouldn’t use the hateful tone and namecalling to people who disagree with my values. Virtually everyone’s values are ‘bigotry’ to someone else making the term meaningless without further explanation, essentially an expletive.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Same sex marriage is second best? In whose eyes? There are millions of gays who, I assume, would have a differing opinion on that one.

    Heterosexual marriage the “gold standard?” Please! I constantly wish that this country would pull its collective head out of its bible wielding, puritanical ass.

    The sanctity of marriage? Marriage?? A union that can be established in Reno or Las Vegas by a couple of blind drunk idiots at 3AM after having met an hour before in a ritual held in a drive-thru “chapel” administered by an Elvis impersonator and witnessed by Elvira. A sacred union? Kiss my ass!

    I’ve been married to the same woman for over 36 years. I love her and cannot conceive of life without her. That has nothing to do with a marriage certificate, nor the archaic rite we went through back in 1972. It IS about a relationship which, in my mind, trumps any laws.

    However, I would be thoroughly pissed if someone came forward to tell us that our “marriage” was to be nullified because some tight assed self-righteous buttheads who for whatever reasons decided to codify their disapproval through legislation, or as in the current situation with
    Prop 8 in California, through referendum.

    In a free society, which this is advertised to be, personal relationships should be none of anybody’s damn business. Christians are such fucking busy bodies. Tend to your own damn knitting, and quit trying to spread your fucking self-imposed misery to others who want no part of it!

    B

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    Stop equivocating and tell us what you really think.

    Get off the fence and take a stand, dude…

  • bob

    Hey Doug, That’s pretty much my point about majority rules. Every opposing view can be deemed as a bigitted view. So then after a majority vote, the issue is resolved to the view of that majority. There has to be a loser. The gay folks just need to accept it. Somebody will always lose. Tough nuggies.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Anyone out there want America’s kids to have second best? I don’t.

    When the choice is between ‘second best’ and being doomed for life by the abominable foster care system I’ll take second best every time.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    Waffle is my middle name.

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Bob,

    “There has to be a loser. The gay folks just need to accept it. Somebody will always lose. Tough nuggies.”

    That’s easy for you to say so long as it’s not your rights that are being affected.

    How accepting and philosophical would you be, do you think, if the shoe were on the other foot? Would you simply nod in acceptance and resignation and fade off to a dark corner and lick your – well, lick your wounds?

    We are talking about basic rights. Rights to pursue happiness. For many, that includes loving and perhaps marrying whomever they choose. Neither race nor gender should be at issue. If the government says that I cannot form a legal union with someone based upon their gender, then my rights to pursue happiness as I see it are being abridged.

    On the other hand, if government kept its stupid nose out of personal relationships, I cannot imagine how a gay couple up the street being married affects me in any way. It does not “endanger” my marriage. If my, or anyone’s marriage falls apart, it very likely will have had nothing to do with g/l couples forming legal unions.

    B

  • Tony

    Great article but I think the main point here is that the term “marriage” refers to a religious sacrament. The government has absolutely no right under the Constitution to legislate in a religious matter.

    If Churches don’t want to marry gay people that is their right as private institutions (although do receive unconstitutional tax breaks) but the government has no right to strip any American citizen of their full legal rights to union.

    This is, most definitely, the new bigotry but it is also religious zealotry at its worst. It is no different than Muslim religious beliefs that women are second class citizens. America should be ashamed at itself that we are still this ignorant.

    If the religious freaks want a government run by their own religion that create a new country somewhere without our wonderful secular constitution. And don’t give me this, the constitution has God references crap; we all knows its secular.

  • bob

    Hey baritone. The gov’t. doesn’t really care about whatever personal relationships people have. They do have a say in ‘legal unions’ in whatever shape or form. Legality is a gov’t issue.I don’t understand how you don’t see the difference. Laws are written rules that are gov’t duties. Who you hang with or live with or whatever is not their business. When you look for a legal distinction, it becomes a gov’t issue.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    No shit, Bob.

    Unfortunately for your ridiculously circular argument, government clearly does care about personal relationships, or it wouldn’t make laws (Prop 8 et al) restricting them. Capisce?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    This clearly would be an ex post facto law and Starr and his people must know it. If Prop 8 had specifically referenced and reaffirmed Prop 22, that would have been another matter – but it didn’t.

    So it’s hard to see what Starr’s true motivation is, if it’s not bigotry and/or sheer spite.

  • bob

    OK I give up. We have rules so that society can function without too much animosity. We try to set guidelines that are acceptable to the majority. Let’s get rid of all the rules and let anarchy reign. I really don’t care what the gays do, but in sympathy gov’t functions I do believe we rules that the ‘majority’ agrees on. 52 to 48, game over. I’ve lost many times in my life, and I do my best to get along and move on. To keep kicking and screaming like children ’til you get your way is a bit much.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Bob, the reason we have the rule of law rather than the straight rule of the majority is so that when the majority holds an opinion which justifies the persecution of a minority that minority has some protection under the law.

    This is why referendum systems like the one in California are so disastrous and such a waste of time.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    We have rules so that society can function without too much animosity.

    How’s that working out for you in California?

    Let’s get rid of all the rules and let anarchy reign.

    No, let’s get rid of the bad laws that deliberately unempower and disadvantage a segment of the population.

    I really don’t care what the gays do, but in sympathy gov’t functions I do believe we rules that the ‘majority’ agrees on.

    Wrong on at least two counts. The US Constitution is specifically designed – see Article 5 – to prevent ‘mob rule’. Also, the vast majority of laws are enacted not by direct popular referendum but by the federal, state and local legislatures.

    To keep kicking and screaming like children ’til you get your way is a bit much.

    So would you agree that Kenneth Starr and his cronies need to stop their shit right now?

  • jamminsue

    Marriage is a legal status, allowing such things as visitation rights when a partner is sick and other stuff like inheritance. Prop 8 intruded religious beliefs on a civil legal issue.

    IF one viewed gay marriage as a religious issue, then this is to be considered:
    One reason why tolerance was such an issue to our founding fathers was the multitude of religious groups that had found safety from persecution on this continent. What if there had been a law stating people could only worship at the Puritan church? Or the Quakers? Or the Humanists? That would have destroyed this country, and is the reason “tyranny of the majority” was originally created.
    Either way, the founding father’s ideals for this great country trump Prop 8.
    And, who said a gay couple would be “second best” parents? Parenting is a skill, not a sexual orientation. Sadly, it seems to me, good parenting skills are no longer the norm in this culture.

  • Tony

    Its refreshing to read that their are people in this country who still grasp the concept that we are a republican; not a state run by mob rule.

    The Constitution was created to prevent the popular bigotries of various times from impeding upon the rights of all citizens.

  • Tony

    *republic — wow that was a bad slip. I was on the bigotry topic so I guess that was a Freudian slip.

  • bob

    If you think that lawmakers and politicians don’t pay attention to what the majority wants, then I’ve got some swampland for you .Certainly there are times when they go against the majority to try and right a perceived wrong, but a majority of the time. Check out all the laws on the books and I’ll bet you that the majority agree with most of them. Remember immigration? They flooded the phones until they cracked under the will of the people. Most people don’t care about this gay thing, but if it opens the floodgates to something else, that’s what they’re worried about. Unintended consequences.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    This is why referendum systems like the one in California are so disastrous and such a waste of time.

    Agreed. Which is why we don’t have one in the United Kingdom. Special legislation is needed to put even a single referendum question to a public vote. It’s usually only been done when the matter involves national sovereignty or constitutional questions – issues so fundamental to the functioning of the Union that nothing short of a direct public vote is satisfactory.

    There has only ever been one referendum involving the whole UK: in 1975, regarding whether we should stay in the European Common Market. There was a vote in Northern Ireland in 1973 on whether the province should remain part of the UK or unite with the rest of Ireland; and referenda in Wales and Scotland (twice – 1979 and 1997) on devolution.

    And that’s about it, apart from a few local ones on an assortment of issues, usually whether a city should have a directly-elected mayor.

    Truly important stuff that will actually matter a hundred years from now, in other words – not parochial issues that any idiot with a bee in his bonnet and the energy to go out and collect X number of signatures can get put on the ballot.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Bob, I hate to tell you this, but on the immigration issue they still haven’t cracked under the will of the vocal nativist bigots opposing reasonable immigration policy.

    And on the gay rights issue the politicians understand that a vocal minority which is being persecuted and which votes may be a better ally than a bunch of bigots who only turn out to vote on referendums.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Remember immigration? They flooded the phones until they cracked under the will of the people.

    On what planet, Bob?

  • Sandy

    The version of ex post facto in the article isn’t entirely correct as it is not a catch-all.

    For example with a law that outlaws a certain gun. A person that owns that gun would not be charged with originally buying it, as that would be ex post facto. However, the continued ownership of that gun would be against the new law and therefore that person must…uh…”divorce” their gun. ;) The exceptions are when “grandfather” clauses are specifically written into the law. California has done both of these versions of gun laws.

    The wording of Prop 8 doesn’t carry grandfather clauses, which suggests Starr may have a legal argument on that front. And perhaps that’s why Brown’s argument didn’t try to expound on ex post facto.

    Looking at marriage specifically, there is an example in the US, which goes to over a century ago. The mormons in the 19th century had some of their members in polygamy relationships. At the time they did this, it wasn’t illegal. A series of laws were passed over time, one of which was to invalidate the previous marriages that had already been done. It went to the Supreme Court as mormons at the time said that it was protected by the Constitution. The Court disagreed.

    The California Supreme Court case ought to be interesting.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    Gretings all,

    If you haven’t had the chance to see Proposition 8 the musical, here is the (lengthy) link.

    more later.

    Tommy

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Unintended consequences.

    There are unintended consequences to every action in life, Bob, and most voters – with the apparent exception of your good self – understand that.

    For instance, take the apparently innocuous sentence ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.’ Now we all know what it was intended to mean – but just suppose some court sat down and decreed that it should be taken absolutely literally.

    Nothing else would be valid in California – not your birth certificate, not your driver’s license, not your property deed, not your contract of employment, not your bachelor’s degree. Only your marriage.

    Absurd? Yes, but it is one potential unintended consequence.

  • bob

    Native Americans were devistated. Their land stolen. We need to vacate this land and give it all back. Right this wrong. African Americans were enslaved. They were promised 40 acres and a mule. We need to give it to them. It would be trillions. End of the U.S. Let’s go back and truly right some wrongs.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Time for your pills, Bob… :-)

  • Cindy D

    Bob,

    That’s the spirit. But, I don’t think that’s going to be a practical solution.

    We Bob, people like you and me, have to take it back. For everyone.

    You may wish to begin to explore ways to do that Bob. Put those wonderful sentiments to a cause.

  • Bobby Nichols

    Post hoc, ergo prop8ter hoc… lol.

    Let me play:

    • redefine the word ‘gay’… Wait, that’s been done.

    • redefine the word ‘tolerance’… Wait, that’s been done too.

    • redefine the ‘Episcopal Church’… Oops, done.

    • redefine the word ‘marriage’… Pending in the courts (snap!).

    • A common phrase being redefined: “Tyranny of the majority”… [yet what of the tyranny of the much, much, less than 2% of society ( the GQBLT who really desire to be ‘married’ ) imposing their will upon societal mores?]… Been done!

    • Another common phrase being redefined: “separation of church and state”… often used to allow one to appear ‘Constitutionally or politically wise’. Done, done, and done !


    • redefine ‘God’ into man’s image… guess that’s being done already too by secular society and some apostate faiths. (I will keep the faith… His will be done).

    … I guess redefining ‘bigotry’ as an ethos isn’t too much of a stretch.

    I am amused with your definition of ‘bigotry’, however, in including the phrase: “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group”… Better: “One who is intolerant of those who differ is a bigot”.

    And what of bigotry? What of those who attack faith in any way… Are intolerant of those whose vote differed in any way… Those who blacklist/’out’/continue to persecute others who gave money to the (apparently) opposing cause? These attributes are especially espoused by the GQBLT community at this time. It’s the anger that betrays… yes, I’ve read the blogs (Google news and news alerts: “Proposition 8″… ad nauseam).

    Perhaps a new word to define…

    “G8″: rhymes with ‘Golden Gate'; a subset of H8…

    As in:

    “I lost my friends when I was the object of “G8″ for voting for and/or contributing money to Proposition 8. My friends say they don’t H8 me, but are now intolerant of those that think differently from what they do.”

    or further (hypothetically):

    “The HR department where I work (Google Corp. for instance) found out I was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and although I didn’t vote for Proposition 8 either way, it was perceived that my tithing helped contribute to its passage, so, I was “G8ed” and am not going to be considered for a raise because I (evidently) belong to a discriminatory group, and oh, by the way, I had better watch my step.”

    or

    “The place where I work is being “G8ed” by picketers even though those who work here donated money in opposing Proposition 8 outnumbered those who donated otherwise by 100:1 in donation dollars; and if business doesn’t pick up soon 30% of the workforce, approximately 20 employees who are GQBLT, as well as the 70% who are not GQBLT, will be out of work when we are forced to close down.”

    … Tongue in cheek: (later this very day the GQBLT community redefined the new word “G8″ as ‘hating gays’ or being in any way homophobic, ie; a “G8er”)… Not to be confused with the term “H8″, a word endeared by the GQBLT community, which is a more general term.

    My apology for using the term ‘GQBLT’ if incorrect… I read the acronym different from post to post.

    Happy New Year all y’all… See you in the funny papers.

  • bob

    You won’t validate my point. To you and others, prop 8 is the only and most important slight in the history of this republic. We are an imperfect society. Oh well. You see Holland. They want to roll back some of their liberal stances. Things were getting out of hand. Unintended consequences. In this country, once things are in place, it’s very hard to go back.

  • http://www.myspace.com/x15 Douglas Mays

    California Uber Alles…

  • Tony

    Unintended consiquences of not depriving a certain group of American Citzens the same rights afforded to other citizens? Absurd and Unamerican.

    At one time people were scared that if blacks and whites married the unintended consequences would be in the invalidation of the purity of the white race. Now the same kind of people say lettig gay people become legally bound in the way all citizens are allowed to become legally bound will invalidate the purity of “marriage.”

    Same bigots, differet era.

    “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

    The Constitution is the law of the land and that law includes the equal protection clause to ensure that simple minded discrimination never supercedes natural rights.

  • law student

    “The Constitution is the law of the land and that law includes the equal protection clause to ensure that simple minded discrimination never supercedes natural rights.”

    There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution.

  • Tony

    No you’re right there’s nothing in the Constitution about marriage. That is an excellent point. The Constitution does not comment on a religious institution because it is a secular document. Who would have thought?

    What the Constitution does guarantee is that all citizens are entitled to the same rights and privileges under law. If heterosexual citizens are able to be joined by law and received the rights (visitation, tax classifications, ect) entitled to those entering that enjoinment, then homosexual couples must also be allowed those rights.

    A heterosexual couple can be joined or “married” outside of a church as still receive these legal rights and classifications. The government has no right to comment on marriage either way because it is a religious institution — although by giving them tax exempt status this line has already been crossed — but this issue doesn’t really come down to the sacrament of marriage. It has to do with giving a minority that a Christian minded community disdains, equal lawful rights.

    Churches do not need laws like Prop 8. They can simply not marry homosexuals. It is their right as a religious body. The real intent of this law is to make sure that gay people remain an invalidated subset of a nation dominated by a perverted form of Christian morality. Like there is anything moral about persecution.

    When people say they are defending marriage they cite the bible. People who fight to allow gay marriage cite the Constitution. Its so disgusting that we even have to debate whether an American citizens are allowed to join themselves with whom ever they want.

  • vvv123

    “There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution.”

    Same for abortion, drugs, prostitution, and at one point, slavery and women’s rights. Durr, the Constitution was written a few hundred years ago, but it was written with the intent to be flexible and adaptable to new eras. Obviously, the writers could never have predicted what issues would be controversial in the future.

    Not to mention, the courts have interpreted the Constitution several times to recognize marriage as a fundamental right: Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswolf v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and most recently, the CA In re marriage cases.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    The Constitution does not mention a lot of things — like homosexual or gay. The latter has changed over time, anyway, as in the song “Am I Blue.” (…’was I gay for a day…)But I digress.

    Former Governor Browns’ legal argument has to do with the California Supreme Court’s ruling that marriage is an unalienable right protected by the Constitution.

    Tommy

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I wonder if ‘Law Student’ is one of those who would discriminate on principle just because there’s no law that says you can’t?

    I see this sometimes in the low-income housing business. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability.

    Some landlords look at this and note that the Act does not forbid them from discriminating on the grounds of – for instance – sexual orientation, economic status, or whether the family is on Section 8.

    So they do.

  • vvv123

    Tony makes an excellent point. Churches are free to decide who they want to marry within their own grounds. For example, a Catholic church has no obligation to marry a couple where one or both spouses have been divorced before. No different here.

    What a church CANNOT do is provide a business service — i.e. publicly renting out gardens or pavilions — and still expect to hide under the cloak of religion. This even goes for mom-and-pop Christian stores, Christian publishers, or any other businesses, precisely because they are *businesses*. You have religious rights when you practice religion, not when you practice business. This was made clear under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

    As an example, if I were a extremist, racist, sexist supremacist, and I was the CEO of Walmart who had a board of directors who shared my views, I couldn’t deny business to women or people of color strictly out of personal beliefs.

    In other words, it makes no sense to frame Prop 8 as religious rights legislation, especially considering there is no mention of religion at all. Those who want an affirmation of first amendment rights should petition for legislation explicitly stating so, but banning same-sex marriages in order to justify a red-herring argument is plain cowardly.

  • law student

    “There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution.”

    And there is no mention of other rights which were enumerated later by Constitutional Amendments, including the Fifteenth Amendment which guarantees that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged” and the Nineteenth Amendment which guarantees that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.”

    Rights not enumerated in the Constitution can be made constitutional by Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise they are covered by the Tenth Amendment which states, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    There is a way to guarantee homosexual marriage: It’s by Constitutional Amendment.

    So go for it!

  • Doug Hunter

    Dr, don’t make me vomit. You really think landlords set around thinking of how they can discriminate? That’s fucking stupid.

    I’ll tell you what happens to landlords as one of your precious statistics. Yes, surprise, I’ve been legally found to have disciminated.

    Most of the rentals I have are middle income/college student type new duplexes/townhomes I build myself (I don’t trust my money to wall street thieves and contractors don’t get pensions so I do what I can) I bought a small parcel with 11 older units on it from a frustrated landlord and got my only taste of ‘low income housing’. Most low income people were decent and I got along great with them just like all my other tenants.

    The world was great, then she moved in. A single mother of 2 teenage kids, a nice person with seemingly good references and a fulltime job she worked hard at evenings and nights to support her family. Just the type of person who needs a quality rental a bit below market (I don’t like to turnover so I treat people nice and charge fair prices) That’s when the break-ins, the harassment, and 2 years of hell started. With the mother working at night the kids were left unsupervised and they were hellions.

    They ran rampant through the complex eventually forcing 4 of the long term tenants out. Everyone knew who was damaging the vehicles/property and committing the breakins but no one could actually catch them in the act and they were mostly terrified of the kids (one of whom had knifed a teacher). For months I spent thousands on security upgrades for the tenants, repaired windows, cleaned spraypaint, and filed police reports trying to do the right thing and wait for proof to pass judgement. One final break-in on a christmas eve pushed me to do what was necessary. I had enough and gave the woman the notice that she needed to find another place to live. Whe calmly accepted my explanation and promised she would find something.

    Then the lawyers got involved. Some liberal douchebag with an attitude like yours took the case. Probably thought he was saving the fucking world. My taxes were paying the pricks salary and I had to pay to defend myself while holding onto a non-paying tenant who scared the hell out of everyone. The case was simple, I had no ‘proof’ that tenant was responsible even with a mountain of circumstancial evidence and the statements of every other tenant in the complex. I lost time and plenty of money for discriminating on ‘familial status’.

    The silver lining is that she had some financial issue and passed a check on a closed account 3 months after the case ended and I was able to get an eviction. Of course, the bi weekly break ins and 2AM complaints immmediately ceased.

    Ok, you’re probably not as bad as that lawyer, you just touched a nerve there.

  • mark

    Great column, thanks from a gay man, who has no personal interest in being married, but fights for those gays/lesbians who choose that stability for themselves and their families.
    Family is really the central theme from the CA Supreme Courts ruling, since gays can legally raise families, they therefore have the right to protect their families with marriage. I don’t understand how prop 8 even got on the CA ballot, doesn’t the state scrutinize anything they put into an initiative?
    The CA supreme Court said the right to marry was so INTEGRAL to a person’s Human Rights it couldn’t be infringed upon or denied by the Legislature or by initiative.(page 6 of ruling)
    So NO initiative that in fact would remove a person’s INTEGRAL right to marry should ever have been allowed to be voted on.

  • mark

    Without expo facto, all contract law would be CHAOS, and marrige is a contract between to people.
    You would never know if you signed a legally binding contract, whether a future ruling would nulify your contract. They don’t need to specificly state that contracts before a new change will be grandfathered in, it goes without saying they will be grandfathered.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    The real bee in christian’s bonnets when it comes to same sex marriage, homosexuality in general, abortion, etc., is not earthly law – constitutional or otherwise. It’s the godster! They hold to the fear that if almighty GOD perceives that they are in any way accepting or tolerant of biblically defined “abominations,” that the king of kings will not punch their ticket on the paradise express. So, they feel compelled to stand up and yell and scream and stamp their feet to assure that the big guy can see and hear that they are walking the proper straight and narrow line to the heavenly choo-choo station. It comes down to self serving bullshit.

    It also reveals that such people don’t really believe all the crap spewed about their supposed omniscient lord of hosts. If their one god knows ALL, that it should be understood that hesheit already knows what each person does or does not believe. But their faith does not carry them that far. Rather, they must stand and make noise, vote for referendums, enact laws, change constitutions to make sure that their good ole’ omnipotent ass-kickin’ god gets the message – “We don’t allow no peter puffin’ round here!” Show me them pearly gates, lawdy, lawdy!

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Perhaps they want morality to be dictated by law because they have deep inner doubts about whether they can follow their own moral code without external compulsion.

    Dave

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    Ah, the big M word — morality. Thank you Dave for that addition since the legislation of morality is a bugger every time its proponents give it a shot, well meaning but usually not.

    Personally, morality is not having to think about what is right and what is wrong. Let us eschew dithering about what is amoral or immoral, as some will. Morality is polemic.

    In the case of the proposition,the debate can regrettably turn into a pissing contest. I have observed that in such an event, a Doberman beats a Cairn Terrier everytime. It just does not stop the terrier.

    Tommy

  • Billy

    A man named Vinny dies and goes to hell.

    The Devil says to him “Hey Vinny we’ve been waitin for ya!”.

    Vinny smiles and walks with the Devil and the Devil says “I gotta ask you a couple questions, do you like to smoke?” Vinny answers “Ya, I love to smoke.” The Devil says “Good you’ll like Mondays we smoke everything cigarettes, cigars, weed everything.”

    “Now do you like to drink?” Then Vinny says “Of course I love to drink.” The Devil replies “Great we drink everything on Tuesdays you will fit in great.”

    “Do you like to have sex?” Vinny says “Hell ya sex is the best.” The Devil smiles and replies “We have sex with every type of woman you could think of on Wedesdays.”

    And the Devil finally says “Now, are you gay?” Vinny frowns and answers “NO I’m not gay! And the Devil looks down and finishes “Your gonna hate Thursdays.”

  • Billy

    There was this man who walked into a bar and says to the bartender 10 shots of whiskey.

    The bartender asks, “What’s the matter?”

    The man says, “I found out my brother is gay and marrying my best friend.”

    The next day the same man comes in and orders 12 shots of whiskey.

    The bartenders asks, “What’s wrong this time?”

    The man says, “I found out that my son is gay.”

    The next day the same man comes in the bar and orders 15 shots of whiskey.

    Then the bartender asks, “Doesn’t anyone in your family like women?”

    The man looks up and says, “Apprently my wife does.

    Enjoy!
    – Billy

  • Billy

    John invited his mother over for dinner. During the meal, his mother couldn’t help noticing how handsome John’s roommate was. She had long been suspicious of Johns’ sexual orientation and this only made her more curious.

    Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.

    Reading his mom’s thoughts, John volunteered, “I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates.”

    About a week later, Mark came to John and said, “Ever since your mother came to dinner, I’ve been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don’t suppose she took it, do you?”

    John said, “Well, I doubt it, but I’ll write her a letter just to be sure.” So he sat down and wrote: “Dear Mother, I’m not saying you ‘did’ take a gravy ladle from my house, and I’m not saying you ‘did not’ take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner.”

    Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: “Dear Son, I’m not saying that you ‘do’ sleep with Mark, and I’m not saying that you ‘do not’ sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom”

    Billy

  • STM

    Kangaroo walks into a pub and orders a beer and two whiskey chasers.

    The barman walks back with the drinks, plonks ‘em on the counter and says: “Hey, mate … why the long face?”

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Hey ya heard the one about the Polish gay guy?

    He liked women

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Gays don’t really want to get married…its all about forced acceptance of their lifestyle.

    Imagine ten years after gay marriage is legal: Children from conservative families who cannot afford to go to private schools will have to attend the state run indoctrination centers we call public schools. By then, most administration and faculty of these schools will have been browbeaten into accepting and even promoting gay marriage as an equivalent lifestyle. If they don’t, they’ll be fired.

    Note the increased number of home schooled children. The indoctrination centers apparently do not meet parents requirements (such as not having to “unteach” your child the things they learn in them).

    Does this remind you of any debate in the past, say the one about prayer in schools.

    Make no mistake…the agenda here is political. It is just another battle in the culture wars.

    If the state my wife and I were married in 32 years ago were to start issuing marriage licenses to gay people, we would find another state to get remarried in and send back our original license.

    It isn’t hate when you are making a judgment that one thing is better than another. Judging poeple is immoral. Judging impacts is not. Some folks seem to have a hard time separating those two things.

    Sex between consenting adults is legal. Living together is legal. Visiting a lawyer to draw up “marriage like” arrangements is legal. Going to a church to get married in the eyes of whatever God you prefer is legal. I don’t care if two gay people go to a gay church to get married. Couldn’t care less.

    But marriage as defined by any state should be about what is good for society. Facts are facts: straight marriage done right is best. Accept (and promote) no counterfeits.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Gays don’t really want to get married…its all about forced acceptance of their lifestyle.

    And you know this because you’re gay?

    Dave

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Hey Baritone…did you notice that in none of my posts that I referred to God or religion?

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Hi Dave,

    No…not gay. Just happened to notice that gay marriage got to be a big thing when someone got the bright idea to use the courts to pry gayness into our collective psyche.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doug (@ #42), give me a break. You have one bad experience with a tenant and you want to accuse me of tarring all landlords with the brush of discrimination?

    The vast majority of landlords and tenants are decent, fair-minded people. But for every tenant horror story there’s a landlord who’s just as much a piece of work.

    It’s human nature to discriminate. And it seems to be the nature of some humans to skirt the borders of the law as closely as possible.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Facts are facts: straight marriage done right is best.

    How do you know?

    What facts have you at your disposal to suggest that gay marriage ‘done right’ wouldn’t be just as good as its straight equivalent?

  • Jerry

    To Seamus….how is it that you are straight and seem to know what Gay’s want? As a gay man..let me be very clear…don’t flatter yourself that I want to force my marriage on you…I don’t know you…don’t want to know you…and actually it’s about me and the person I married….not you or anyone else. Mind your own marriage and do not [edited] attempt to tell anyone what I want [personal attack deleted]. I assume that you will not be sending us a wedding present!

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Jerry: You already have all the same rights as I do. My marriage isn’t a right and neither is yours. I just happen to have a different opinion than you do about public policy.

    Dr Dreadful: Marriage is about a union with the potential for family. My opinion is that if this were about what it really should be about (nurturing children) that we would look at the facts about which children are doing best and not delude ourselves about them.

    This is about altering the nature of marriage from being about the providing the healthiest environment for children to providing a legal sanction for an alternative which will actually lead to greater discrimination (against traditional families).

  • Shadow_Man

    “…connections and alliances so unnatural, that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law…” Sound familiar? It’s the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878.

    We are back to square one. People talk of the majority. Let’s do a history review on the “majority” and “morality” of the past. At one time, the majority supported slavery, and it was a moral normal thing. At one time, the majority was against interracial marriages, with 15+ states banning it. People and even the courts said that ” it was not God’s intent for a black man to be with a white woman” and “it was unnatural.” Sound familiar? At one time, California voters passed proposition 14 in the 1960’s with a 65% majority, a constitutional amendment intended to counter the Rumford Fair Housing Act enacted the year before, keeping racial segregation intact in neighborhoods, and allowing them to refuse to sell property to blacks in order to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. Sound familiar? At one time, the majority were against women voting. Sound familiar?

    In 2008, we haven’t advanced as far as we think. And yes, sexual orientation is the same thing as race and gender, as you can’t change your sexual attraction just like you can’t change the color of your skin. If you are straight and really think you can “choose” to be attracted to the same sex, you might want to re-evaluate your sexuality.

  • Billy

    What is the point of GAY MARRIAGE in California Since Civil Unions between gays has the same benefits as marriage? Really Please Think About It. Why Are They fighting for gay marriage? Can can still have a Civil Union in California.
    Gays are trying to forcibly Put their own views on the rest of the courts instead of threw the ballot box such as twice now, traditional marriage has already been victorious.

    DON’T ALWAYS GO THROUGH THE COURTS. VOTE IT OUT!!! OH, WAIT WE ALREADY DID VOTE IT OUT.

    Civil Unions = Gay Marriage.

    ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS THE POINT OF GAY MARRIAGE SINCE CIVIL UNIONS ARE STILL ALOUD?

    Keep Traditional Marriage Alive!

    CJ

  • Shadow_Man

    To those that think it’s a “choice” to be gay.

    Now within the group of people that think being gay is a choice, they fall in 2 groups.

    Group 1: The bigots, who try to find any excuse to condone their discrimination.

    Group 2: People who actually are good people, but not informed or know enough about gay people, and thus still think its a choice.

    I am speaking to group 2 here. Group 1 are bigots that will never change their mind, but that generation will die out like the racist generations. Group 2 read on.

    -Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice
    -Most gay people will tell you its not a choice
    -Common sense will tell you its not a choice

    While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that it’s biological.

    Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ.

    And it should also be noted that: “It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

    But we don’t need scientific evidence for this.

    I shall ask you this. (If you are a female, reverse the questions) When you see a naked woman, it goes up right? They turn you on emotionally and sexually right? Now how about when you see a naked man? Does your pulse raise in the same way? Are you enjoying it? Do you go up? Do you feel sexual urges in the same way? Do men turn you on emotionally and sexually? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you find men sexually attractive? Could you be happy sexually with a man for the rest of your life? If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual, and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society, knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can’t. Simple logic there.

  • Shadow_Man

    To those that say civil unions, “separate but equal” is not something to be proud of.

  • Erin D

    To all who think “majority rule” defines our government… you are wrong. Our government was crafted by men studied in and wary of direct democracy, a form of government well-exemplified by California’s embrace of legislation by referendum, or “majority rule”. Not only does direct democracy, or popular rule, lend itself to tyranny of the majority, it results in bad, ineffective public policy. Very few among the voting public possess enough knowledge of the myriad issues subject to legislation, or of the legislative process itself, to make truly informed decisions. So, we end up with laws passed based on opinion instead of knowledge.

    That’s why the founders didn’t make us a direct democracy. Instead, they made us a representative republic with several distinctly undemocratic checks on the the power of the majority. Just look at our independent judiciary, or our senate where every state has equal representation regardless of population. Or look at the heads of government agencies such as the FDA, EPA, CIA, FBI- they are all appointed to their positions, not elected.

    Prop 8 is a prime example of the problems with democracy foreseen by our founders.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Erin – Well said…and I would like to link your point to what Shadow_Man posted in #61, where he points out how prejudice subsides over time. Frankly, one wonders if such could be graphed, would the level of prejudice rise and fall in roughly direct proportion to the level of ignorance? Perhaps Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best: “Fear always springs from ignorance”…and the better-educated the electorate, the less prejudicial their positions – and the positions of their elected representatives – will be.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Out of curiosity, are civil unions in California actually exactly equal in status to marriages? Can a gay couple adopt a child and have both parents granted equal rights to that child? For that matter, can one of them give birth to a biological child and grant the other parent full parental rights to the child. These things are very difficult to do in other states, but they do come automatically with the rights of a legal marriage almost everywhere.

    And ShadowMan the argument about whether homosexuality is biological or not is inherently self-defeating. It cannot be won. Just by making it you are acknowledging that without a biological imperative you would not have a right to be gay, and that’s giving up half the fight before you even start. The truth is that polygamy also appears to be a biological imperative in humans. Where does that take us? And even if you win the genetic argument, your opponents can still say that one of the things about being rational beings is that we can overcome our biology and choose not to be ruled by biology regardless of our genetic ‘defects’. You just can’t win.

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Glenn, I don’t know if you’ve realized this yet, but Emmerson was an idiot.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Seamus @ #60:

    My wife and I have no children, nor do we intend to have any. Should that nullify our marriage? Why or why not?

    A man and a woman get married. After several years of trying to have children, their doctor tells them that they are infertile. Should their marriage be annulled? Why or why not?

    A woman marries a man on Death Row. State law does not allow conjugal visits. Should their marriage be allowed? Why or why not?

    A man and a woman in their 80s get married. There’s no way they’re ever going to have children. Should their marriage be invalid? Why or why not?

    Lastly and most important, a gay couple is perfectly capable of having and raising children. They just have to go about it a different way – for example, like the infertile couple above, they can adopt.

    Your blanket claim is that ‘straight marriage done right works best’. You provided no support for that statement – and you can’t, because gay marriage is still illegal in most places and you don’t therefore have any data showing that ‘gay marriage done right’ doesn’t produce the same results.

    And your forecast of greater discrimination against ‘traditional’ families is just speculation, not the actuality you claim.

  • Baronius

    Tommy, first article? Very cool – things have been a little quiet on the boards since the election. I disagree with your article, but I’m glad to see it here.

    What is “new” about opposition to gay marriage? For that matter, your definition of bigot, “one who is strongly partial to one’s own…politics and is intolerant of those who differ” could be applied to either side at its worst, but not necessarily true of either. So I don’t see Prop 8 as new or bigoted.

  • zingzing

    “So I don’t see Prop 8 as new or bigoted.”

    a piece of legislation that denies rights to a group of people isn’t bigoted? oh yeah, it’s just a piece of legislation that takes away rights that people already had… that’s different. ok. it’s not bigoted. it’s just… wait. it’s bigoted.

    and where else in history have we seen this type of legislation? oh yeah… i guess it isn’t new. it’s just hateful and wrong.

    people are stupid.

  • Baronius

    Zing, that’s not true. This is simple logic. Laws like age-of-consent prevent people from getting married. Laws such as those preventing polygamy narrow the definition of marriage. The gay marriage debate isn’t about preventing anyone from getting married; it’s about defining what marriage is.

    If there’s a rights issue in this debate, it’s the right to self-governance. Every time a court expands its reading of a state or national constitution, it narrows the freedom to self-govern. The freedom to create laws is a dangerous one, but it’s also dangerous to restrict it. Screaming “rights” when rights aren’t involved is a good tactic for whittling away at self-governance, but don’t for a minute think that you’re really on the side of greater rights.

  • zingzing

    “The gay marriage debate isn’t about preventing anyone from getting married; it’s about defining what marriage is.”

    either you’re talking about something other than proposition 8, or you must be kidding. if you aren’t kidding, you’ve fallen for some argument which i’m frankly amazed anyone had the balls to actually suggest.

    “If there’s a rights issue in this debate, it’s the right to self-governance.”

    what? self-governance? baronius, i am so gob-smacked by what you are saying here that i can’t be understanding you. are you really saying that removing the rights of homosexuals to be married under california law–including marriages that had already taken place, i might add–is a good thing for… state’s rights? or that making another law to remove a law (just because it is a law, which is somehow inherently dangerous) is a good thing? i thought you just didn’t like laws… so why make another? you might be thinking that’s one too many laws, but you’re making two too many laws because you don’t like the first one.

    prop 8 is bigoted (and supported by bigots) and is just a continuation of the grand tradition of american bigotry against anything different. simple.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    By the way, today has a special place in history with respect to marriage. Jan 02, 1872, Brigham Young, the 71-year-old leader of the Mormon Church, was arrested on a charge of bigamy. He had 25 wives.

    His definition: marriage is between a man and lots of women.

    Tommy

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Glenn, I don’t know if you’ve realized this yet, but Emmerson was an idiot.

    Yes, and so am I. What’s your point?

    Besides, you’ve got to agree that even if he was truly an idiot, Emerson was a pretty doggone successful idiot. As for myself, I think Tom Clancy was a class-A idiot – but I read most of his books, he’s filthy rich, and there’s quite a few who listen to him as if he, the former insurance agent, knows whereof he speaks.

    So who’s more of an idiot – Clancy? Or me?

    You’ve probably noticed that I put myself down fairly regularly. I don’t do so because I have a low self-esteem (I don’t). I do so in order to keep myself from becoming an arrogant ass. Please note that I don’t assign such to anyone else – just me.

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Dr Dreadful post #69

    I’ll take them all one at a time…

    But keep in mind that my bedrock position is that no marriage (straight or gay) is a right. Not everything that is legal is a right although we sometimes think it is.

    You and your wife may or may not have had the intent of having children, but you decided to avail yourselves of both the advantages and disadvantages of being legally married. Similarly, I’m always going to take advantages of whatever the law currently allows. For instance, I don’t agree with the principles behind every tax break I might get, but I’m always going to take them if I am eligible.

    The infertile couple and the aged couple: No their marriage should not be annulled. A man and a woman can legally be married.

    The gay couple should not be married, but the law in some states allows gay people to adopt. You already know me well enough to know that isn’t my first choice.

    I know that straight marriage done right works better than a lot of things…
    Polygamy – probably this is generally agreeable
    Serial polygamy – which we practice in our society
    I think gay marriage can just be added to the list. Are gay people less or more inclined to “divorce”?
    The point is that up to this time, the idea of encouraging man/woman marriages by providing advantages (and disadvantages) which many people will take advantage of, has been viewed as a societal plus. Are we still using that as our standard? Or has something else taken over as being a more important determinant of what should provide the basis for marriage?

    If you are making the point that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage for raising children, then fine. We have a difference of opinion. It seems that my side isn’t the one that should have to prove anything in order to add gay marriage to the definition of the “gold standard” in order to make it so. I’m still waiting for that proof.

    And finally…Unfortunately in Massachusetts there are already instances where parental responsibility is being thwarted by state authorities. There are many more where they came from.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Seamus, your linked story is from 2000. Massachusetts didn’t start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until 2004. By all means provide some of the additional cases you speak of, but if you intended this one to illustrate the slippery slope of allowing gay marriage you picked a poor example.

    As to your ‘answers’ to my questions, I was hoping for something a little less glib than ‘yes, because it’s legal’ and ‘no, because it’s not’. After all, this whole debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. You’re arguing in circles.

    BTW, did you mean to say ‘serial monogamy‘ rather than ‘polygamy’?

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Dr D

    Sorry to be brief, but I have to go back to work.

    I meant serial polygamy as in meaning that someone can have multiple spouses as long as they have them one at a time. It is arguable that serial monogamy means the same thing, so sure.

    My semingly circular argument could have been supported a little better. What I mean is that the law allows man/woman marriages for societal reasons. Society doesn’t go back and work on the exceptions to the broad standard (age, infertility). They just let them alone. Add to it that my children are grown…another potential exception. The legal arrangement does not end.

    I really gotta go. More examples of the Massachusetts thing later. I don’t think the fact that one of the things I found happend 8/9 years ago takes away from the point. Just means Massachusetts is more warmed up for what’s coming.

    Gotta go.

  • CJ

    INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT GOD HAS APPROVED POLYGAMY IN THE PAST. GOD TOLD ABRAHAM TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE WIFE… INFACT HE MARRIED HIS COUSIN! GOD GAVE DAVID AND SAMUEL WIVES! HUNDREDS OF WIVES.

    BESIDES PROP 8 IS NOT NEW OR BIGOTED ANTI HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN PRESENT FOR CENTURIES!

    CJ

  • Cindy D

    God is one fickle being.

  • http://www.politicalcrunch.net Brian Ralls

    It is funny that you say that Rush & conservatives are working on “defining marriage as a legal bond only between a man and a woman” that has been the exact definition of Marriage for all of history, it is the other side that is trying to redefine marriage, my beef is if you consider marriage to be a right then I should be able to marry as many woman as I want if they are willing! After all, you certainly could not justify denying me that right as you would be a self described bigot for doing so. There could not be any legitimate reason for defining it as only between 2 people, after all, you are forgetting bi-sexuals in this whole argument are you not?

  • http://www.politicalcrunch.net Brian Ralls

    I would also like to point out that it was the courts that over ruled the will of the people and decided that they could not wait to see if the voters would pass legislation that answered their reasoning for overturning the first vote by amending the constitution knowing full well that they there was a good chance that it would pass. Maybe you should be blaming the 9 justices for being in such a hurry to impose their will on the voters.

    At the time of the ruling gays were covered by domestic partnership laws which provides them ALL of the same benefits of a marriage other than it being called “Marriage”, so can you tell us the rationale for refusing to put off their ruling until the proposition had it’s day at the ballot box?

    After all, they do that all of the time with other rulings.

  • zingzing

    brian, civil unions DO NOT offer all of the same rights. look it up. if they did, i’d think this was a totally useless argument and that people should just get over the word. but marriage has specific legal meanings (no, not “one man, one woman,”) and until those meanings are embodied in “civil union,” gay people deserve the same rights you or i do. unfortunately, those rights aren’t there.

    it’s about rights, not the word, but if it takes getting the word to get the rights, anyone who is against it is just an misinformed person or a bigot, or a combination of the two.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Here we go again. Debate about Prop 8 is a smokescreen. Got an economic catastrophe? Don’t let queers marry. Got to get liberals out of office? They’ll let queers marry. Got a polarized nation? Blame it on the queers. Larry Craig. Jim Bakker. Ted Haggard. John Schlafly. Rick Perry. Florida State Rep Bob Allen. Yep, even us queers can blame it on the queers. Irony thy name is Republican.

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Dr D

    I’m home from work now. I was wrong. It didn’t take ten years. It has already happened.

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Here is another. In Massachusetts you can’t opt out of anything. Your only options are private school or home school. So the answer for some people in Massachusetts is “pay twice”. Once all of your tax paying life for other peoples kids and twice for your own.

    Evidently, the future is now.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I live one town over from Lexington and this is old news. What perplexes me is that when it comes to anything related to same-sex whatever and education, parents get all twisted up in the game in the land of far right fundaMENTALISM. Where are parents when it comes to quality education? Where are parents when it comes to teaching accountability, government ethics and civics? It is no wonder that with each succeeding generation we spawn a dumber version of ourselves. What would Jesus do? He’d climb up on a cross and rise up on the Third Day — not to perform a miracle but to get the hell out of dumb Dodge. My country ’tis of Thee, sweet land of lunacy…

  • Seamus the Terrible

    Silas

    For some reason, your saying this is old news doesn’t make me feel any better.

    Hey I have an idea: Let’s create such an unwelcoming environment in the public schools for children from {pick your ideology} families, that they all leave and pay for their own educations but keep them paying for the education of children from {competing ideology} families. Nice racket.

    Has anyone noticed yet that this argument can be made regardless of whether an individual is the most pious Christian or the most committed athiest?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Public education in the United States of America is a disgrace. While it’s easy to blame politicians, teachers, and labor unions the bottom line is that parents are to blame. Public education requires public participation. Unfortunately today’s parents weren’t taught anything close to personal accountability in public school when they were children. The dumber the populace the better for teachers, unions and politicians.

  • Chas

    It constantly amazes me how the gay community compares themselves to racial and gender discrimination. I hear over and over again how being gay is not a choice, that they were born this way. One major difference between homosexuality vs. racial or gender origin. A Black child is born to Black parents, as Latinos are born to Latinos, Whites to White, Asian to Asain, etc. Mixed race are born to mixed race parents. People are born either male or female, but men are always men, and women are always women. Gays are not born to gay parents. Maybe one of the parents may have gay tendencies, but biologically, every gay person has heterosexual parents, plain and simple. Gays are born from heterosexuals. Is there a gay gene? Never been found. Is it upbringing? Maybe the gay man never knew his dad, or the lesbian her mom, or they had an emotionally or disfunctional “absent” same-sex parent. Maybe it’s hormonal. I have a petuitary brain tumor that has hormonally negatively affected my sexuality. Now that I am on hormonal medication, my sexual drive has returned to normal. To compare sexual orientation to racial or gender discrimination is only a hopeful plea by the gay community to have someone else relate to them. Let’s look at being gay for what it is, a sexual orientation issue, not racial or gender, but sexual orientation. That’s all it is, plain and simple.

  • mark

    @seamus
    “Gays don’t really want to get married…its all about forced acceptance of their lifestyle. ”

    Speaking for myself, I want NEITHER, I couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ what you approve or accept….cupcake.

    It turns out when LGBTs work for and pass same sex marriage laws…it’s MARRIAGE they want.
    You and I know same sex marriage is going to be legal all across America…soon.
    Voters under 35yo overwhelmingly support marriage equality. You can’t stop this, it’s EVOLUTION.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Chas, your understanding of genetics appears to need a refresh. Genes are not always expressed, so it does not follow that for a child to be born gay both the parents must also be gay. You’re fixating on the race analogy, but have forgotten that, for example, children with Down Syndrome are not only born to two Down Syndrome parents, that twins do not only come from two parents who were also twins, or that brown-haired children do not have to have two brown-haired parents.

    Nevertheless, despite your sweeping assertion, some gays are born to gay parents.

    No, the ‘gay gene’ hasn’t been found – yet. But there are plenty of indications that it does exist, including this study. Alternatively, it may not be the expression of a single gene, but a combination of hereditary and environmental factors.

    The theory that a dysfunctional family situation in early childhood caused homosexuality was fashionable about 20-30 years ago, but there’s no scientific research to support the idea and it’s not taken all that seriously any more.

  • mark

    Since the homobigotted heteros have such a fixation on the dirty old queers touching THEIR “precious” word of marriage, in a rare moment of compromise…keep your word marriage.
    Gays and lesbian couples will use MATRIMONY.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Dr. D., percentage-wise far more gays are born to straight parents. Unavoidable fact of the relatively small gay population and the limited breeding prospects of practicing homosexuals.

    But like I said before, the genetic argument is always going to be a losing argument. Much better off sticking with the civil rights argument.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Indeed, Dave. Just imparting some ninth-grade science to young Chas here.

  • Arch Conservative

    Too bad this article didn’t get posted a day earlier. Then Nalle could have referenced it in his Blogcritics Worst of 2008.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to Dave Nalle:

    It’s quite funny how you try to condone your bigotry. Point is, you are discriminating against someone based on something they have no control over. The polygamy argument is laughable. Last time i checked, gay marriage involved 2 consenting adults, not multiple consenting adults. Good job bringing up an irrelevant thing. At least be a man and admit it, but don’t try to create some bs excuses to make yourself seem right.

    Here’s another history lesson for you. Gay marriage just recently started coming up. However, a brief history lesson shows polygamy widespread in many societies and times in the past, most often men having multiple wives. That doesn’t sound homosexual to me. So by your logic, you can say heterosexual marriages lead to polygamy. See why this argument fails? Sorry, you say it’s an argument that can’t be won. I just won it. It’s the same argument that was applied to interracial marriage in the past. And look what happened there.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to Baronius post 72:

    Read my post above on how polygamy is irrelevant.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 74 Tommy Mack:

    Lol, bigamy? Another irrelevant thing. You even said it yourself. Men with multiple women. What does this even have to do with homosexuality? Next thing you’ll be saying is Mickey Mouse makes gay marriage bad. By that logic, heterosexual marriage leads to bigamy and polygamy, so we should get rid of marriage altogether then hmm?

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 76 Seamus the Terrible:

    Lol, another polygamy argument! read my post above about polygamy, and see why that logic fails.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 82:

    Let me bring up this post to show you the “will of the people” and the “majority rules”

    “…connections and alliances so unnatural, that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law…” Sound familiar? It’s the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878.

    We are back to square one. People talk of the majority. Let’s do a history review on the “majority” and “morality” of the past. At one time, the majority supported slavery, and it was a moral normal thing. At one time, the majority was against interracial marriages, with 15+ states banning it. People and even the courts said that ” it was not God’s intent for a black man to be with a white woman” and “it was unnatural.” Sound familiar? At one time, California voters passed proposition 14 in the 1960’s with a 65% majority, a constitutional amendment intended to counter the Rumford Fair Housing Act enacted the year before, keeping racial segregation intact in neighborhoods, and allowing them to refuse to sell property to blacks in order to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. Sound familiar? At one time, the majority were against women voting. Sound familiar?

    In 2008, we haven’t advanced as far as we think. And yes, sexual orientation is the same thing as race and gender, as you can’t change your sexual attraction just like you can’t change the color of your skin. If you are straight and really think you can “choose” to be attracted to the same sex, you might want to re-evaluate your sexuality.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 90 Chas:

    Again, it is similar as race because just like you can’t change the color of your skin, you can’t change your sexual attraction. You are discriminating based on something someone cannot change. Yes, gay people come from heterosexual parents, but is irrelevant to their sexual attraction. Kids come out with features all the time thats different from their parents, so we should deny them marriage too? Yes, so far we haven’t found a gay gene, but remember, we are still infants in genetics and studies of human sexuality, but you might want to check out the links i provided and you’ll see there’s clear biological differences. Ill bring up my older post again for those of you saying its a “choice”

    ——————————
    To those that think it’s a “choice” to be gay.

    Now within the group of people that think being gay is a choice, they fall in 2 groups.

    Group 1: The bigots, who try to find any excuse to condone their discrimination.

    Group 2: People who actually are good people, but not informed or know enough about gay people, and thus still think its a choice.

    I am speaking to group 2 here. Group 1 are bigots that will never change their mind, but that generation will die out like the racist generations. Group 2 read on.

    -Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice
    -Most gay people will tell you its not a choice
    -Common sense will tell you its not a choice

    While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that it’s biological.

    Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ.

    And it should also be noted that: “It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

    But we don’t need scientific evidence for this.

    I shall ask you this. (If you are a female, reverse the questions) When you see a naked woman, it goes up right? They turn you on emotionally and sexually right? Now how about when you see a naked man? Does your pulse raise in the same way? Are you enjoying it? Do you go up? Do you feel sexual urges in the same way? Do men turn you on emotionally and sexually? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you find men sexually attractive? Could you be happy sexually with a man for the rest of your life? If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual, and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society, knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can’t. Simple logic there.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 94 Dave Nalle:

    Wait, how again, would the genetic argument be a losing argument if you prove that you are discriminating based on something people have no control over? Please enlighten me.

  • Cindy D

    Good article Tommy.

    Warren’s 5000 years definition, what kind of argument is that?

    May as well say, slavery has existed for 5000 years, let’s support it.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Mark –

    It turns out when LGBTs work for and pass same sex marriage laws…it’s MARRIAGE they want.
    You and I know same sex marriage is going to be legal all across America…soon.
    Voters under 35yo overwhelmingly support marriage equality. You can’t stop this, it’s EVOLUTION.

    Yes, it is EVOLUTION. How many years did it take for America to truly accept blacks as equal, to accept mixed-race marriages?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shadow Man, I suggest you go back and read Dave’s comment(s) more carefully.

    Dave supports gay marriage. He just doesn’t think letting the ‘anti’ brigade set the terms of the argument is very wise.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Thanks for explaining that to him, Dr. D. He also seems to have missed the point on polygamy, which I’m in favor of, not opposed to.

    From reading his posts I get the impression that he likes the genetic arguments because he thinks he needs excuses for being gay – again, a disappointing cop out.

    Dave

  • Wander

    In any case, being gay is certainly less of choice than religion and we recognize that as a right.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    Thanks for the compliments Cindy D and especially Arch Conservative.

    I made my comment (#74) for three reasons: historical event, polygamy and the Mormon Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its full name.) The first two reasons are for grins but the last was to see if anyone would bite.

    The Mormon Church’s role in campaigning for Proposition 8 is under investigation by California’s fair-elections commission. A group called Californians Against Hate filed a complaint contending that the Mormon Church provided significant contributions for the pro-Proposition campaign. California law requires that those contributions be reported. The Mormon Church did not report millions of dollars and human effort in the campaign.

    Nor does the church does not deny it. “We don’t get involved to the degree we did on this,” a church spokesperson has been quoted.

    I hope that clears things up.

    Tommy

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle


    Wait, how again, would the genetic argument be a losing argument if you prove that you are discriminating based on something people have no control over? Please enlighten me.

    It is an unwinnable argument because the anti-gay forces can always argue that we are genetically inclined to do all sorts of things which we choose not to do and that morality is all about controlling your undesirable urges. Plus, just like the evolution argument, it’s unlikely to ever go beyond a theory to any kind of absolute proof, plus so long as they can point to any gay person who has been ‘cured’ they can dispute the genetic argument.

    It’s just not as good a basis to oppose them as the civil liberty and equal rights.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    I’m going to go with Dave on this. I think he makes a good argument.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave and Cindy –

    I have to disagree. There will always, always be people who will point to ‘proof’ against evolution or against genetic predisposition of homosexuality…and no matter how specious the proof may be, no matter how great the preponderance of proof against their arguments, they will always deny evolution or genetic predisposition of homosexuality…and just like in every trial, both sides will always have SOME ‘evidence’, whether true or not.

    It’s really not that different from those who still claim even now that blacks are genetically inferior, that interracial marriage is ‘against God’s law’, et cetera.

    Personally, I have to go with the preponderance of evidence, which is year by year, month by month weighing more heavily for genetic predisposition of homosexuality.

  • Cindy D

    Glenn,

    Just to clarify. I personally don’t think sexual preference is a choice.

    If you are talking about a law, I don’t think that should enter into it. In addition to the arguments Dave made, why should someone have to validate their preference?–With any kind of proof.

  • zingzing

    glenn, i think they’re trying to say that just because it’s right and it’s true, it’s still not an idiot-proof argument.

    sometimes, the raw truth just feeds a person’s ignorance. and that’s what we have to deal with here.

    the only valid excuse for such bigotry is pure ignorance. so don’t treat it with intellectual respect, coddle it.

    they really just can’t figure it out, i guess.

    plus, they’re assholes. or pricks. or something that doesn’t turn into a gay joke. dammit. (please ignore this last bit.)

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 107 Dave Nalle:

    You seem to be missing some points. I’ll reiterate. If you support polygamy, thats your right. If you support gay marriage, that’s your right. However, there is no need to bring up polygamy in this argument, because polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage, nor does gay marriage lead to polygamy. A simple look into the history of polygamy shows majority of the relationships being one man and multiple women, so it would seem that heterosexual marriages have led to polygamy on and off.

    And why would i need an excuse for being gay? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, and if you find something wrong, i’ll gladly disprove that. Every argument (religious/morality/natural/procreation/etc) has been thrown at me, and each one can easily be disproved. As for the choice, the reason i talk about it, is so people can become educated rather than rely on ignorance. I spread facts. Evidence strongly shows its not a choice. If you feel to refute this, you can answer my questions in my post about the choice/genetics/biological.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 110 dave:

    You seem to mix up fetishes and things that you can choose in life with sexuality. Let’s take pedophilia for instance, which unlike homosexuality, can actually be harmful and is not consenting. Even pedophiles, would either prefer little boys or little girls, depending on their sexual orientation. There is a clear difference there. The other things you mentioned, again, you have a choice in those things. However, you cannot choose the color of your skin or your sexual attractions. You are also confusing sexual attraction with behavior. What is homosexuality, is based on your sexual attraction, which in turn leads to the behavior.

    I agree with the civil liberty and right approach, but fact of the matter is, the genetic argument would also help.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to 110 Dave Nalle:

    Reparative therapy is known to not work, and only leads to deeper depression. There’s a reason most doctors and psychologists are against it. Much like penis enlarger pills, it simply doesn’t work. If you were able to be attracted to both sexes, then you are bi-sexual, plain and simple. Again, this shouldn’t even be an issue, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Again, bring up something wrong and i’ll gladly disprove it.

  • Shadow_Man

    Post 113 Cindy:

    I agree, i think the civil rights case would work far better. If anyone remembers or read about history, a similar proposition 14 was passed in the 1960’s by a 60%+ majority in California. It overturned an earlier ruling that attempted to get rid of segregation. White people didn’t want blacks in their neighborhoods, so they passed prop 14. 3 years later, the courts overturned this claiming it went against the 14th amendment. The civil rights case should also work for gays, which is why the genetic argument would only help.

    This isn’t about validation of our sexual preference. This is about spreading facts and information. A lot of people out there still use the “choice” argument, and more and more evidence shows its not a choice. They tend to confuse a fetish or life choice, with sexual attraction. It never hurts to be informed.

  • Cindy D

    Shadow,

    I agree it’s not a choice. Believe me, There was a time I wished it was.

    But, say for just a moment, it was a choice. Just hypothetically. For the sake of argument. Would it be okay then to discriminate?

  • CJ

    The Mormon Church (The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints) Is Not Going To Have Their Tax Free Exempt From Them. The Mormon Church Is Just The Scape Goat, Everyone Blaming Them. To Be Honest The Mormon Church Is One Of The Few Churches That Can Take Such Anti-religious Ridicule.
    Questions

    Did The Mormon Church It Self Give Money To The Campaign?
    Did You Ever See An Add That “Was Sponsored By The Mormon Church”?
    Which Side Raised More Money?
    What Is The Percent Of Mormons Living In California?
    Did The Mormon Church Declaring “Members Who Donate Are Not In Good Standing”?

    The Answers Are No!
    There Are Currently About 1% Of The Population Who Are Mormons Which Are The Voting Age!
    Let It Be Clear The Church It Self DID NOT Give Any Money To The Yes On 8 Campaign. No on 8 Raised More Money. Mormons Already Donate 10% Freely To Their Church. Much Good Has Come Into The Would Via The Mormons. The Church Is The Biggest Contributer To The Red Cross, And They Are The First Ones On The Ground In Every Nation When A Disaster Occurs.

    I’m Shocked That You People Don’t See The Full Heart Dedication Of The Members Of The Mormon Church. Marriage Between A Man And A Woman Is One Of The Center Points Of Their Doctrine. They Are Not Bigoted, They Voted And Placed Their Time In Where And What They Believed In.

    If You Want To Talk Of Bigotry Speak Of The Damage That Has Been Done To Temples and Church Buildings Of The Mormons Around The World! NOW THAT IS A HATE CRIME. And Nothing Is Done About It. Everyone Looks The Other Way.

    Another Thing The Two Men Running The So Called “courage campaign” Who Use To Be Mormons Left Because They Couldn’t Keep The Commandments.

    BTW… What Rights Do Gay People Not Have That Civil Unions Provide In Ca?
    They Have All Rights!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    According to all accounts the LDS church organization and it’s members contributed a total of $20 Milllion dollars towards defeating Prop 8

    Get your head out of the sand

  • Cindy D

    I read that Mormons have stopped beating their children.

  • zingzing

    “Which Side Raised More Money?”
    “No!”

    funny stuff.

    “What Rights Do Gay People Not Have That Civil Unions Provide In Ca?”

    you go through all the trouble of capitalizing every damn word and then you fuck up the last thing that needs to be capitalized? shit, that must hurt.

    and go look it up, you maroon.

  • Cindy D

    It’s spelled like this zing.

    What you can’t use for political effect–that guy’s started something else off.

  • zingzing

    ha! well, i still like the looney tunes reference, but that’s ok too.

  • CJ

    Look At The Damn Facts!

    Yes On 8 Raised $36 Million
    No On 8 Raised $38 Million

    The Mormon Church ITSELF Never Gave Money, Their Members Did.
    Once Again The MEMBERS ONLY Contributed About $20 Million. The Church Did Not Take Money Out Of Their Funds.

    Gays (civil unions) Have The Same Rights As Married People Due To A 2003 California Supreme Court Ruling.
    Rights Are Equal! Just As I Said.

    Get Informed!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shadow Man @ #115:

    You’re making yourself look foolish by arguing with Dave about things which he doesn’t dispute.

    He didn’t bring up polygamy because he was trying to somehow link it with homosexuality, but because it is another example of a form of marriage which has been arbitrarily banned because it is perceived by some as ‘immoral’.

    There is nothing inherently harmful about polygamy, just as there is nothing inherently harmful about same-sex marriage. That’s the whole point.

  • zingzing

    “Gays (civil unions) Have The Same Rights As Married People Due To A 2003 California Supreme Court Ruling.”

    if you stuck the word “virtually” in there between “have” and “the,” you’d be closer. there are still some rights and benefits denied to homosexuals. go on.

    And What Is This Capitalize Every Damn Word Thing? You Think The Shift Key Doesn’t Get Enough Play?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And What Is This Capitalize Every Damn Word Thing?

    This from the guy who capitalizes nothing…

  • zingzing

    so what?

    try and type like that. it’s more annoying to do than it is to look at. i just save time and effort by not capitalizing anything. there is, at least, some logic behind my choice. but that? it’s just strange. what could the point possibly be?

    and stop being bitchy. it’s unbecoming. kisses.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I thought it was because you bit off seven of your own fingers, or something like that?

  • Cindy D

    (hands CJ a clue)

    Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage

    (or two)

    The Legal, Economic, Medical & Social Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union Law (pdf file)

    Final Report of the New Jersey
    Civil Union Review Commission

  • zingzing

    “I thought it was because you bit off seven of your own fingers, or something like that?”

    you know, i did say something like that once. but there wasn’t an ounce of truth to it. i’m a liar.

    it’s because i stuck my left pinky out once while drinking a beer and there was a car passing and my pinky got torn off. the lesson learned is to not be a poncey prig whilst enjoying one’s cheap american beer.

  • Cindy D

    bet you managed to save the beer though. gotta have priorities.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Gays (civil unions) Have The Same Rights As Married People Due To A 2003 California Supreme Court Ruling.

    Ah, that would be the California Supreme Court whose ruling that gay marriage was a constitutional right prompted the whole Prop 8 saga?

    Funny, CJ, how you’re quite happy to defer to the court regarding its 2003 decision but not the more recent one.

  • Cindy D

    CJ,

    If you’re married, in how mant states can you obtain a divorce?

  • Cindy D

    many

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    CJ, Jet is correct. In it’s 11/09 editorial, “The Prop 8 Campaign Money” (headlines are capitalized that way), the New York Times wrote:

    “Mormons were a major force behind the ballot measure. Individual church members contributed millions of dollars and acted as campaign foot soldiers. The church itself also played an unusually large role. Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . said that while the church speaks out on other issues, like abortion, ‘we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.'”

    I hope this helps.

    Tommy

  • Tom

    A few states allow civil unions, but civil unions DON’T provide the same rights as marriage. Civil unions are ONLY recognized in the state the couple resides in. Domestic partnerships are ONLY recognized on the state or local level.

    Many benefits are DENIED to civil unions at the state level, such as Assumption of Spouses Pension, Automatic Inheritance, Automatic Housing Lease Transfer, Bereavement Leave, Burial Determination, Child Custody, Crime Victims Recovery Benefits, Divorce Protection, Domestic Violence Protection, Exemption from Property Tax on Partners Death, Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse, Insurance Breaks, Joint Adoption, Joint Bankruptcy, Joint Parenting, etc.

    1,138 benefits and protections are provided by the United States government ONLY to legally married couples. All of those benefits and protections are DENIED to partners in civil unions. Among them are, according to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office: Sick Leave to Care for Partner, Bereavement Leave, Access to Military Stores, Assumption of Spouses Pension, Immigration Insurance Breaks, Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner, Social Security Survivor Benefits, Tax Breaks, Veterans Discounts, Visitation of Partner in Hospital, or Prison.

    Any benefits that are available to unmarried couples at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation for those in civil unions. For instance, under federal law, when gay employees include their same-sex partners or spouses under their health coverage, the fair market value of that health coverage is added to the gross income on which the gay employee must pay taxes. But the value of that health benefit is NOT added to the heterosexual employee’s gross income before assessing his or her taxes.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc, re Comment # 135

    Here are a link to and quote from the 2008 California Supreme Court decision (page 36 et seq of the PDF text) I apologize for not completely cleaning up the text by removing carriage returns in the PDF text, but think it is reasonably intelligible. The decision is a long one, but I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read it, to avoid purely emotional arguments which make very little sense in the context of the discussion surrounding Proposition 8.

    Although California statutes always have limited and continue to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, as noted at the outset of this opinion California recently has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation that affords same-sex couples the opportunity, by entering into a domestic partnership, to obtain virtually all of the legal benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married couples. The recent comprehensive domestic partnership legislation constitutes the culmination of a gradual expansion of rights that have been made available in this state to same-sex
    couples who choose to register as domestic partners. We briefly review the history of domestic partnership legislation in California.

    The text of the decision continues to discuss the various statutory provisions involved. The following is part of the discussion:

    Finding that “many lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians have
    formed lasting, committed, and caring relationships with persons of the same sex,”
    the Legislature concluded that “[e]xpanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered domestic partners would further California’s interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution.” (Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 1, subd. (b).) The Legislature further specified that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act “shall be construed liberally in order to secure to eligible couples who register as domestic partners the full range of legal rights, protections and benefits, as well as all of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties to each other, to their children, to third parties and to the state, as the laws of California extend to and impose upon spouses.” (Italics added.) (Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 15.)To effectuate this legislative purpose, the 2003 Domestic Partner Act amended the existing statutory provisions relating to domestic partnership by adding several entirely new provisions to the Family Code, most significantly
    section 297.5, which the legislation provided would become operative on January 1, 2005. (Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 14.) Section 297.5, subdivision (a), provides in broad and sweeping terms: “Registered domestic partners shall have
    the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
    law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” (All Italics added by the Court.)

    The few remaining disparities were eliminated by statute in 2006. Again, according to the Court,

    The broad reach of this legislation extends to the extremely wide network of statutory provisions, common law rules, and administrative practices that give substance to the legal institution of civil marriage, including, among many others, various rules and policies concerning parental rights and responsibilities affecting the raising of children, mutual duties of respect, fidelity
    and support, the fiduciary relationship between partners, the privileged nature of confidential communications between partners, and a partner’s authority to make health care decisions when his or her partner is unable to act for himself or herself.

    These legal rights and responsibilities embody more than merely the “material” or “tangible” financial benefits that are extended by government to married couples.

    The Court then proceeded to find an implicit right under the California Constitution to marry, quite regardless of the fact that in California civil unions and marriages are indistinguishable for all substantive purposes in their rights and obligations. The basic rationale for this was the social status allegedly held by married couples but not by unmarried couples.

    There are reasons, basically involving the law of unintended consequences, which lead me to think the California Supreme Court’s decision to have been unwise. My comments on this matter are here.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    RE# 139

    Tom,

    Good post. One of the most important problems I think is that regardless of rights conferred by a state. Federal rights don’t follow.

    But, also. I posted the NJ study because it shows that regardless of the civil union holding the same rights as marriage, there are severe problems that arise from the separate category.

    It is not separate but equal, but more like separate and legally equal but still unequal in the real world experience of partners and their children.

    I’ll list just one of the many reasons (They will apply to California as easily as NJ):

    The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D,

    1. You say, One of the most important problems I think is that regardless of rights conferred by a state. Federal rights don’t follow. That’s true.* So, if one state permits homosexual marriages and forty-nine don’t, there will be discrimination between those in such marriages in the state which does and those in civil unions in the states which don’t. Wouldn’t a far better solution be a Federal law granting the same Federal tax and other benefits to those in marriages and civil unions? Why wait for all fifty states to act, since it is a Federal problem rather than a state problem?

    2. It is not separate but equal, but more like separate and legally equal but still unequal in the real world experience of partners and their children. How are changes in the law going to affect these things? Are people who think that homosexuals in civil unions are wicked or at least somehow different going to change their views should those same people be married instead? I doubt it. On the contrary, I suspect that those who oppose homosexual marriage on religious grounds (and that is the only ground I have seen asserted with any frequency) will be even more vocal in their opposition to people in homosexual marriages than toward those in civil unions, since they will consider their religious views on marriage to have been trashed. People who think their religion has been trashed tend to be rather nasty.

    3. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Civil unions are not, as far as I know, limited to homosexuals; heterosexuals can also be joined in civil unions. Were the ideas suggested in Paras. 1 and 2 above about Federal solutions to Federal problems to be adopted, civil unions among heterosexuals might become quite common. People seem rather less religious now than a couple of decades ago. Even now, being in a civil union should not be deemed evidence of homosexuality. I very seriously doubt that the military, which actually has some pretty good lawyers, would so consider it. Besides, wouldn’t the better course be to get rid of the don’t ask – don’t tell policy?

    Dan(Miller)

    *The California Supreme Court declined to address this issue, since it was not properly before the Court.

  • Cindy D

    Dan (Miller),

    #1) Yes, I agree in this way: I think federal law should afford the same rights to all couples. Some “category” that included everyone. Some say marriage, should be separate from state/federal law and that it should all be civil unions (or things to that effect). Whatever people want to call it, I’d be happy as long as everyone’s union was called the same thing by the law. Probably marriage is the most likely since it has powerful meaning to people.

    #2)Are people who think that homosexuals in civil unions are wicked…, etc.

    Those weren’t the views I was concerned with. Whether the intolerant would get nastier?–I agree. I think they would. I wouldn’t base my opinion on appeasing or changing them. It’s the same as racial desegregation. Did the racists get outraged? Sure. I find them irrelevant.

    When you mentioned the court’s position regarding social status, I noticed that the problems brought out in the NJ study weren’t entirely ones of social status–particularly social status as relating to already biased groups.

    But, the social status of gay people within general society could be positively effected by same category name–let’s say marriage.

    I’ll mention just a few of the social status ones (there are many more), which will give a picture of how I view the whole argument:

    1) Stigmatization and marginalization: “The word ‘marriage’ conveys a universally understood and
    powerful meaning.”

    Gay partners found themselves having to explain the details of what civil union means and even prove their legal relationship in times of crisis, particularly in medical institutions. The pdf link in #132 recounts the anecdotal evidence. Problems like these were not atypical.

    2)Benefit to children of having “married” parents.

    “Children of same-sex relationships must cope with the stigma of being in a family without the social recognition that exists through marriage.”

    3)”For young people coming out, which is about 5 to 15 percent of the overall U.S. population, the presence of role models who have equal status via marriage in society has significant meaning both internally and socially and has potential for reducing their isolation [and] sense of stigma that gay teens face in their everyday lives. And I point out here the data on suicide among gay and lesbian teens which is about three times that of the general teenage population.”

    3) Civil unions are not, as far as I know, limited to homosexuals; heterosexuals can also be joined in civil unions. Yes, however, this civil union is still a marriage. The difference is not a legal status. But, a ceremonial descriptor (as I recall from looking this up during past discussions). Finally you could get rid of the whole don’t ask don’t tell along with the rest of the military if you like :-) I won’t complain.

    All quotes are from the pdf file mentioned. Where more arguments and, in my opinion, illuminating information can be found.

  • Cindy D

    Nice numbering lettering scheme I left you there Dan (Miller). Sorry ’bout that.

    Adding one point to my second thing marked “1”.

    The effects weren’t merely the whole thing of having to explain and prove. As if this is not bad enough. In the testimony people found the hospital staff to be skeptical, and has doubts about whether they would be included or consulted about a partner’s care. One partner describes being removed from the hospital by security. As they did not permit a visit with the partner (family only) and did not accept his claim apparently that he was the legal partner. etc.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response #119 — January 4, 2009 @ 09:56AM — Cindy D:

    Of course its never ok to discriminate. But people also need to know the fact that its not a choice either. People fear what they are ignorant or what they don’t understand. They need to know everything about homosexuality.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #120 — January 4, 2009 @ 12:01PM — CJ:

    So you’re promoting separate but equal?

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #127 — January 4, 2009 @ 14:30PM — Dr Dreadful:

    Are you his interpreter? Let the guy speak for himself. Again, many people use the argument that it could lead to polygamy, and i have to show facts to show that it doesn’t, and that actually heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy. It’s one of the weakest argument used by many in the book, i didn’t say it was his argument.

  • Cindy D

    Shadow,

    …people also need to know the fact that its not a choice either…

    Yes, I agree. But, to make the biological argument the basis of law opens the biological argument to legal challenge. The ignorant and intolerant will not be convinced by this anyway.

    I think this basis would actually help bigots by giving them a basis for argument. I think it would not serve education well either, many right wing fundamentalists are not happy about what children are taught in school. They have made organized moves to enter into local government, especially schools, so they can try to control what children learn. I can only imagine this would give them a new mission to install like minded people into school boards.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shadow Man,

    I’ve heard many ridiculous arguments against gay marriage, but never that it could lead to polygamy.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    …you can say heterosexual marriages lead to polygamy…

    Actually I would think heterosexual polygamy would only lead to a gay dalliance. After being with all those wimmin folk, a man needs to feel like a man again. They talk the talk but a lot of them there mens walk the walk straight into a local men’s room.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Actually, Silas, I’m beginning to think that Shadow Man is confusing polygamy with polyamory.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Ignorance is bliss Doc, Ignorance is bliss…

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    Greetings:

    Here is the latest news on Proposition 8.

    Tommy

  • DDR

    What gets me is that the standard we have practiced for thousands of years is now deemed bigoted. I’d say it’s rather hypocritical of all the gay marriage supporters to demand that the majority give up their comfortable norm so they can have their comfortable norm. In the end, which one is more right?
    …let the majority decide.
    …and they have.

  • Cindy D

    DDR,

    What kind of argument is that? If it’s someone’s “comfortable norm” to deprive someone else of equality and you do it long enough that makes it okay?

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    DDR –

    Slavery was practiced for thousands of years – and still is.

    Racial prejudice has always been part of the human experience and is still extant in every country in the world.

    In other words, just because humanity’s done something a certain way since time immemorial doesn’t make it right.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    What do you think Dr. King would say?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    If the majority ruled, blacks could never marry Whites, and Al Gore would’ve been president in 2000

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #148 Cindy D:

    That’s why i feel it should not be the main argument in the courts, but a side argument with actual proofs. The civil rights way is probably the best way to handle it imo. I see prop 8 getting rejected by the courts down the line. As I stated earlier, a similar proposition in the 1960’s was passed by a majority to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods, and the courts reversed the “majority” decision. That proposition wasn’t even close, it was like 60% supported it during those racist times.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #149 Dr Dreadful:

    You must be new to this issue online then. I’ve seen the polygamy argument brought up many times, but it’s easily proved wrong.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to 150 Silas Kain:

    You are under the assumption that all gay men are feminine. That’s like saying all black people are poor. A stereotype. Majority of gay people, including myself, don’t wear pink “hello kitty” shirts.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to 151 Dr Dreadful:

    Neither of those things have anything to do with homosexuality. Try again.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to 152 Jet:

    Yes the amount of ignorance nowadays is astounding. That people thing being gay is a choice. That people think being gay is “unnatural” That people think being gay is wrong. That people think being gay goes against the Bible (proper interpretations show that homosexuality is not a sin)

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #153 — Tommy Mack

    LOL, the bigots will resort to any weak argument to condone their bigotry. If it wasn’t for the “courts power”, we would still have slavery. Interracial marriage would still be outlawed. Women would still be 2nd class citizens. Racism would still be rampant. The proposition passed in the 1960’s in California by a far higher majority to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods would never have been overturned. These courts need to keep bigots in check.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to #154 — DDR

    Funny you should mention the “standard” Majority of human kind has had slavery, even mentioned since the earliest times, which was outlawed only a few hundred years ago. By your logic, we should still have slavery. The majority had opposed interracial marriage, and deemed it unnatural, and not of “God’s will” The majority were against women voting. The majority wanted slavery. The majority supported segregation and racism at one time. The majority banned interracial marriage in 20+ states at one time. The majority voted to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods in this very state at one time.

    The majority argument is laughable and a disgrace to humans, and the standard argument is even worse.

  • Brunelleschi

    Tommy-

    Good article, and way to set up the display of bigotry that appeared below your excellent work!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shadow Man @ #162:

    I know that.

    I’m just mystified as to why you think anti-gay marriage advocates often argue that gay marriage leads to polygamy.

    I’ve heard the argument that same-sex marriage is as anathemic to society – or not – as polygamy*, but not that the one results in the other.

    But I have heard, often, the promiscuity argument.

    (For the record, I think that both arguments are spurious.)

    Perhaps you’d care to provide one or two links to where polygamy has been discussed in the context you claim it has.

    * I’m talking about the common refrain of, “If you legalize gay marriage, then why not legalize polygamy? Or marriage with animals? Or children? Or…”

  • Jocko

    Here’s another Prop 8 wrinkle. Apparently Prop 8 supporters are worried about unintended consequences to themselves because of their support of Prop 8 and want to remain anonymous. Wow. Who could have guessed that citizens might be hostile about bigotry when it is encoded into law.

    It goes without saying that personal threats of violence are inexcusable in any situation, although credibility of individual reports (hmmm . . . gun violence sounds like a pro-Prop 8 threat, not an anti- one: that’s my bigotry) and hasty generalization certainly come into play.

    However, isn’t boycotting businesses that support values antithetical to one’s own a fairly common and expected outcome of bigoted behavior? I haven’t eaten Domino’s pizza for decades since finding out that the owner contributed heavily to anti-abortion initiatives.

    [edited]

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to 167 Dr dreadful:

    This is a long thread, but you can search it and find various points where the polygamy argument is brought up. Search any forum that talks about gay marriage, it will likely come up as well.

    Example

    Just type in google gay marriage leads to polygamy, and you’ll see that many people that are anti-gay marriage will bring this up. Check any forum as well that has a thread about gay marriage.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oy vey. Are we still debating this one? Ladies, and I am talking to my sisters in the LGBT community, there’s a way to win this one. It starts with flexing our financial power. It continues with us being an integral part of revitalizing America’s economy. And it ends with us achieving that which was ours all along — EQUALITY. Like all the others who have “power” in this country it comes down to the economy, stupid. So stop buying your Clinique cosmetics and start showing the world who you really are. LGBT America has disposable cash — just ask the sales clerk at Macy’s.

  • traditional marriage

    Many of us agree with equal rights for everyone, but we feel no one has the right to re-define marriage. Otherwise, who is to say what marriage is or is not?

    We feel that gay marriage will never be equal to traditional marriage no matter what law is passed. Gays will never have children through marriage, which is the core of what marriage is about. Sure some couples don’t have children, but this is the best model for adoption.

    The analogy to inter-racial marriage is unfortunate. Marrying someone of a diffent race has its own issues. I nearly did that myself. It makes a great banner for the gay rights flag, but it was stolen from the african american community, and they resent it.

    In the final analysis a bigot is anyone that is not a liberal with loose morals.

  • Cindy D

    tm,

    Many of us agree with equal rights for everyone, but…

    Equal rights, but? What kind of belief is that?

    You don’t believe in equal rights for everyone.

    Speaking of children and how marriage is all about them…

    Children of LGBT couples should feel like less than “legitimate” people (their parents aren’t really married)? Because you are stuck on a word?

    Blaming liberals for your bigotry is a nice rationalization. You don’t have to think about who it hurts.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    So help me Cindy, if you don’t stop that right now; I’m gonna… I’m gonna… agree with you. I’m not ready for the apocolypse just yet.

    (8^)

    Theres something familiar about TM’s rhetoric; isn’t there? Who wants to pick a handle that’s only relevant to one subject?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    By the way TM the “Royal We” is a nice touch.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I saw a sign once that said, “Marriage is a mutual misunderstanding”.

    All this over a word…How silly are we?

    Why not just join the rest of the hyphenated Americans that consider themselves victims. That’s how far to many in our country have come to identify themselves. I personally prefer veteran-American, I can get points on the civil service exam. You can become traditionally married-American, now you have your very own hyphen! You can’t be a victim in this country without one!

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    You know this is really starting to piss me off. WHY doesn’t American come first in these stupid hyphen?

    American-african
    American-jew
    American-veteran

    They’re saying I’m an AFRICAN etc. FIRST! and then an American. There is some patriotic blood left in me, and believe me I’m boiling over this issue.

  • Clavos

    I’m proud (proud I say!) to be a curmudgeon-american…

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Of course you are Clavos, that went without saying!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Jet – if you put American first, you’re not allowed to use the hyphen and without the hyphen, you can’t be a proper victim…sorry.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Veterans are victims? Does GW know this?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Sorry kids, but I’m an American first-and proud of it.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Like I said, it’s gets you a few points on the civil service exam!

    And actually, it’s always been American Veteran, so, probably not…but if I switch it around, then I get to use the hyphen.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I fantasize about the day that I make a valid point here that doesn’t get shit on or belittled.

  • Cindy D

    tm,

    Further, what you believe is that anyone can have sex or relationships with anyone including people of the same sex.

    As long as there is something in the law that prevents those relationships from being legitimate.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I think he ran out of quarters at the Library Cindy.

  • Cindy D

    lol Jet

  • Shadow_Man

    Post 171 traditional marriage:

    The re-defining marriage argument is laughable for various reasons. First, it does nothing to your heterosexual marriage, nothing would have changed. Second and more importantly, at one time, the traditional definition of marriage was a white man and white woman, black man and black woman, etc. In other words, interracial marriage was outlawed, people were against it, they didn’t want to redefine “traditional” marriage. You want to go back to those times?

    Second, you are adding a bogus definition to marriage. Nowhere does it say when you are married, its mandatory to have kids. I know many heterosexual couples married with no kids, and no plans to have any. Again your logic fails.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shadow Man @ #169:

    Sorry to take so long in responding: I didn’t see until just now that you had posted back.

    I think you and I have been talking at cross purposes. I have been poo-pooing the notion that a common anti-gay marriage argument is that gay marriage causes polygamy. I thought that possibly you had gotten the words polygamy and polyamory (and possibly promiscuity) confused.

    What you were talking about is the slippery-slope argument that if you legalize gay marriage, you might as well legalize polygamy. (And why not? Unless you’re Warren Jeffs or one of his cultists, it’s a victimless crime.)

    Hopefully that’s straightened things out now. (Pun NOT intended!)

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Doc, you forgot that the U.S. will fall like the Roman and Greek empires if gay marriage is allowed, also weddings to animals, not to mention earthquakes in San Francisco, and a resurgence of Anita Bryant music and Jerry Falwell rising from the dead.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I don’t think so, Jet. I used to be of that opinion, but I have acquired a far greater faith in the resiliency of our democratic institution. It’s just old mores we’ve all been grown up with and any departure from the norm appears sacrilegious. But the idea will sink in and eventually spread, at least to the point of not being overly offensive: especially since the idea of “gay marriage” is, at bottom, only a matter of equal rights. Which isn’t to say there won’t be a problem further down the line in drawing the limits. There’ll always be the eccentrics and those on the fringes who will keep on pushing to no end; and then, they’ll have to be stopped.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Any civil rights given to a minority requires bucking the “majority”. Black/white marriage, blacks serving beside whites in the military.

    Catholics and Protestants in Ireland

    Latin American rights.

    It’s something that goes against the moral fiber of our country, but looking back on the turmoils of 50-100 years ago, some can’t figure what all the fuss was about.

    Hopefully gays in the military and in public life will find the same fate 25 years from now.

    Then again maybe not.

    It used to be a sign of devil possession to be left handed.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I think we agree here, Jet. What goes “against the moral fiber of the country,” and the majority, is subject to change. New ideas, initially thought of as preposterous, become accepted and better for the wear. After a while, they’re like an old hat. I’m not defending here moral relativism. It’s just a comment on historical development of societies.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to post 189 Jet:

    We had another earthquake earlier this year after prop 8 passed. I’m convinced that if prop 8 is not overturned by the courts, Southern California will suffer a catastrophic earthquake of epic proportions.

  • Shadow_Man

    Response to Dr Dread 188:

    Yeah, that’s what i was talking about. That’s a common argument i seen, but its very laughable, because polygamy can be observed at many times and places in history, times when gay marriage was never legal.

  • apples_alex

    Silly uneducated bigots are funny.

    Seeing how 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce (usually within the first 2 years), I’m not so sure the man/woman model is necessarily the best arrangement for children. If heteros can’t even save their own marriage, they clearly are in no position to say gay marriage is bad for children.

    You want to “protect” marriage? Get rid of divorce, infidelity, domestic violence, and those quickie Vegas marriages people like Britney Spears are having….instead of trying to prevent those who WANT to get married from marrying.

    Truth is: the EDUCATED people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists–AKA people who can think LOGICALLY) SUPPORT gay marriage/adoption. Survey after survey have shown that the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay rights. Clearly there is some kind of correlation here: the dumber you are, the more anti-gay you’ll likely be.

    The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Society, and the American Anthropological Association, not to mention the vast majority of law professors/legal scholars, SUPPORT gay marriage. Clearly the more brains ya have, the more enlightened you are.

    If conservative/religious/homophobic nuts would spend a little more time in school (and learn some SCIENCE and LOGIC) and less time sticking their noses into other people’s personal lives (which don’t affect them one bit), then they might earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.

    Stopping gay marriage isn’t going to make gays go extinct, and it certainly isn’t going to stop them from having gay relationships and adopting/raising children. Get over it and start worrying about more important things in life (such as getting a college education). Yikes!

    NEXT!

  • Clavos

    start worrying about more important things in life (such as getting a college education).

    Wen did giting a colidge eddycayshun becum impoortant?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Clavos, that’s spelled “gitting”

  • Clavos

    Ewe must bee colidge edykayted…

  • http://www.shockawenow.com Shockawenow

    What kind of pervert would want to have sex with a man if your a man. Or a woman with a woman. Only idiot perverts and sickos would stand for that.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shockawenow, the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries are just something that happened to other people, aren’t they?