Nice post Elie

People who oppose gay marriage are fucking morons. This is possibly the simplest issue out there. There's only one reason why people oppose it: hateful, ignorant, overt bigotry and homophobia.

I pity the fool who thinks that a stay legalizing gay marraige affects a churches Federal Tax Exempt status.

Mr. TTT

Knocked your first post of the day (blatant spelling errors.) Well done on this one Elie.

Why even bring this up for debate? Equal protection means equal F'N protection. Anyone who opposes it should be shot for treason.

Dude, could you please tell your dads to stop flirting with me?

The polling shows Prop 8 is going down.

Can someone please offer a rational, non-religion-based argument against gay marriage?

go skadden!

55-45 on Prop 8. Fail.

I don't the children being infected with the gay aids and stuff. Its contagious that gay aids.

Latest polling data on Proposition 8:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_10493647

7:23 - Don't forget cooties. Highly contagious.

9: I agree with you but constitutionalists (Scalia, Thomas...) would say the 14th amendment when written did not intend gay marriage so we cannot become further evolved! Again, I AGREE WITH YOU

9 here. With respect to 15's point, I realize there is a legitimate debate about whether gay marriage should be brought about by the courts or by the legislatures.

What I want is a good argument against gay marriage as a matter of a policy. If I am in the shoes of a voter and not a judge, why should I vote against gay marriage?

Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household.

16: There isn't. Just like there wasn't with slavery, or anti-suffrage, or interracial marriage bans, or desegregation. In fact, it's hard to believe this is even an issue in our society.

Why would his partners care about him pissing off some law students? This guys brings in a fair amount of business, doesn't he? Well, that's that. Rainmakers can take any type of political position they want.

7:36 - I support gay marriage. But comparing a lack of gay marriage to slavery is a bit much.

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

Pretty good post.

17, would it be better for children to have a mother and a father who both graduated from GULC, or to have two dads?

16 -- there is none. Any conversation with an anti-gay marriage person results in them making some stupid statement of their logic (?) along the lines of the following: man/woman has always been "marriage". Why should definition be changed to include man/man woman/woman - why then not have three people or man/animal. There has to be some limit to what marriage is and society decided what it is. A man and a woman. Period.

Therefore, not worth having such "policy" debate as such "logic" gets frustrating and is full of simple disgust of homosexuals.

LOL 23

17: In that case, divorce and legal separation should be illegal and baby daddies should be forced to live with their baby mommas. To take it even further, widowed spouses should promptly marry the next person of the opposite gender, for the kids.

I don't want to get aids.

Aids = TTT

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

24 - What about the point about the raising of children in households with parents of both genders?

17 - Following that logic, should we make divorce between parents illegal? After all, that too leads to children growing up without one gender present in the household.

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

26 - That's a straw man argument.

Divorce, separation, out-of-wedlock births, and deaths of spouses happen. This is the real world.

But our laws and social policies should not ENCOURAGE them. That is what gay marriage does.

Better analogy is slavery and abortion.

Why do you think Kennedy pissed off the Federalist Society? Clearly they had scheduled a debate on the issue, so one would think they planned to have someone defending gay marriage there. Having an open debate and the free exchange of ideas does not always equal pissing someone off.

Can't say I find many of the policy arguments against gay marriage convincing, personally. I think the most basic policy argument is just that people find it an immoral lifestyle--whether religiously motivated or otherwise. With that in mind, the thinking is that it should be the voters in a democracy who decide whether to allow it or not, rather than the courts.

Why can't gay people just settle for "civil union"? The benefits are basically the same. Why do they insist on "the M word"?

17: What "research." I believe the consensus among researchers is that you are wrong.

im all for gay rights, but every time i think of some guys sweaty rod going balls deep into my butt i get the willies.

So what if opposition to gay marriage is grounded in pure disgust for homosexuals? How is that not a valid ground for a democratic vote? Not a position that I'd support, but that's the price of having a directly democratic process for legislation.

And anyone who thinks that this kind of debate "pisses off the Federalist Society" has been in the Huffington Post circle jerk for too damn long.

29--nobody is stopping hetero couples from having kids. do you want to talk about "best". maybe outlaw out of wedlock motherhood as that is statically worse for kids. Kids are best indeed with traditional family -- bust any other home with some love and support and most important stability beats being sent from one foster home to next, back to a kids shelter, etc. (though I have most respect for these hgomes and foster parents)

35 - Why don't you just settle for a civil union then and never get "married"? Would you actually and honestly be okay with that? My guess is NO. And why should anyone have to "settle"

"The issue of gay marriage, he added, 'is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century.'"

No. The issue of abortion (denial of personhood to living people) is to the 21st century what slavery was the the 19th century.

Denial of civil marriage to gays sucks but it isn't quite the same.

21, 28, 31 -- I don't think anyone is comparing "gay status" to "slavery."

But the rights of slaves and homosexuals to marry are quite comparable. In fact, they're identical in that slaves were prohibited from marrying other slaves and homosexuals are currently prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex (in every state and territory of the United States save California and Mass.).

37's comment is immature, but there is actually a profound point embedded within it. Such disgust or outrage is a legitimate basis for policy making.

Richard Posner writes:

"Mill famously argued in On Liberty that an individual has no valid interest in the activities of other people that don't affect him except psychologically...."

"But that is not a good economic argument because there is no difference from an economic standpoint between physical and emotional harm; either one lowers the utility of the harmed person."

"The issue is more complicated to the extent that some of the outrage is based on fear that making homosexual relationships respectable by permitting homosexual marriage will encourage homosexuality. Most people don't want their children to become homosexuals, and this aversion is a factor in the utility calculus."

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/07/the_law_and_eco.html

32: Homosexuality happens in the real world as well. Gay marriage does not encourage it.

42 are you f*cking kidding?!

yeah 43, thats what i was getting at.

-37

#42, horrible analogy. Slavery laws prevented just slaves from legal marriage, marriage laws keep all persons from marrying the same sex. Don't screw up our argument with your ignorance.

More from Judge Posner:

"[I]f the homosexual-rights lobby dropped marriage from its agenda and put all its effort into lobbying for civil unions, many states would soon recognize them, and eventually the federal government would follow suit and grant parties to such unions the legal status of spouses for purposes of social security and other federal laws; when that happened, there would be no practical difference between civil unions and marriage."

"Why so much passion is expended over the word 'marriage' baffles me. After all, even today, and even more so if civil unions were officially recognized, homosexual couples can call themselves 'married' if they want to."

The point raised by 48 is a good response to the argument offered by 40.

wow, 42, grasping at straws there.

Hey 37 - Don't knock it 'til you've tried it....

;-)

Accord, #38 para 2. Fed Soc panels are always balanced, and they'd feel cheated if someone didn't come advocate the "other side." Nobody pissed them off by disagreeing with them. (Calling them unfit for service on the federal bench, a la Sen. Schumer, on the other hand, pisses them off.)

Plus, on gay marriage, Fed Soc is on both sides. It has a few social conservatives and a load of libertarians.

What is more of a constitutional right --- Abortion or Gay Marriage?? [Strictly a constitutional question for the "Federalist" crowd out there]

35, if you're ok with giving all the benefits, why do you insist on withholding the "m" word?

For a while, it was fun to watch the train wreck that is Elie. But it's old, and this blog sucks! It's become Elie's personal soap box. Maybe I wouldn't mind if he weren't so stupid. I'm out.

I suspect the prop will fail and it may not be too close. I think that at least 1/3rd of all votes in the state come from the LA area and the SF Bay Area- both liberal HQ for the state. The inland part of the state may hate gay marriage...but there are not enough of them to turn the tide of state opinion. I'd also remind folks that the gov vetoed at least two bills allowing SSM. So, if the votes of the legislature are in any way reflective of the people that put them in office (we have term limits here so there is quite a bit of turnover in Sacramento) then it is obvious the will of the people has changed since the initial proposition limiting marriage to a man and a women. Why the anti SSM folks can't get this is puzzling. Moreover, in California same sex couples (SSC) have much of the state rights I enjoy as a married hetrosexual man. As California has granted more rights to SSC's the voters have observed no unraveling of the social fabric, no cataclysmic event, no swallowing of the state into the fires of hell. Everything pretty much stayed the same except some old ladies in Frisco finally got the right to take some state tax breaks and decide when their partner should be able to die in accordance with their wishes. Not really a big deal at all in the grand scheme.

So it is not surprising that prop 8 is going down to a defeat. Those opposing SSM have a high bar which Raoul articulated pretty well-who cares if two people who love each get married. How does it hurt me as a married heterosexual? They have been unable to articulate this coherently without sliding to fear mongering and patently offensive and un-PC anti-gay rhetoric so they will most likely loose.

On Volokh there was some really good stuff on SSM a while back in terms of the question of what will happen with churches that refuse to perform SSM's. I suspect that churches will be given a good deal of latitude though. Marriage is both, in the eyes of a church, a religious commitment, and a state action. When you get married you have to go and get a form (from the county) and after the ceremony you get the priest and witnesses to sign the document and then you are really married. So it isn't clear to me that if a church denies you access that it is an undue burden...just go to another church (Unitarian for example) or don't get married in a church. Does someone have a right to get married in a church or does some one have a right to marry? I think in Cali we will probably go for the latter but we will see.

Finally, there is a real questions of what happens when people from Cali move to other states that ban SSM's for the purpose of challenging SSM statutes that don't recognize their marriages. Also look for eventual challenges to DOMA (the oddly named defense of marriage act of 1996 (I think)) which bans federal benefits to SSC's. When we get enough states approving SSM's then we will get a serious challenge to this plainly discriminatory law. Either way we will end up in the SCOTUS within the next 10-15 years on this issue barring a serious legislative fix.

Actually, 55, Elie has been getting better and better.

Should people who have been divorced be allowed to weigh in on the sanctity of marriage debate? It seems that those (conservatives) who were given the right to marry, and then chose their spouse poorly, should now keep their mouth shut when it comes to this debate.

17, I'm sure research also shows that children "do best" when they come from high income families. Does that mean poor marriage should be banned too?

What does "do best" even mean?

35, i don't think that the rights are the same for civil unions and marriages. i am not positive, but i think that civil unions are based in state law, provide varying degrees of rights and protections depending on the state, and don't necessarily extend beyond the state lines. civil unions don't provide federal protections. e.g., civil union or not, a same-sex partner isn't considered a spouse entitled to health plan benefits or pension protections.

17 - Let's just assume that your statistic is true. Does it necessarily mean that the children are worse off because they have two parents of the same gender? No. Your statistic does not prove causation. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the negative impact on children comes from outside sources (i.e., people who judge them) or from having parents that constantly have to justify their civil union. I wonder if this statistic would remain true if society was a little more worried about treating all people with respect and dignity and a little less worried about who they choose to marry.

Additionally, it is possible such studies would find the same so-called negative impact on adopted children (because often children of same sex couples are adopted).

By the way, why do people pick on Elie? That crap is so high school. If you feel that you can write better posts, then get off your ass and do so. Otherwise, shut up and stop trying to make yourself feel better by talking smack about him.

- Not Elie (but a fan)

"Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household."

First, as pointed out above, I think the "research" shows that children in gay households show up just as well-adjusted (or ill-adjusted) as children in two-parent hetero households.

But, more to the point is this: the right of gay couples to marry will not encourage or discourage the raising of children in gay relationships. Gay couples who want kids but can't get married will still have them; gay couples who don't still won't have them.

At its core, the gay marriage debate is about giving equal legal status to gay relationships. Call it a civil marriage for everyone, or call it a civil union for everyone, I don't care. But separate but equal is inherently unequal. Yes, I think I read that somewhere once.

Why the bash on 42? Slaves couldn't marry slaves. Homosexuals can't marry homosexuals (at least those of the same sex anyway). Where exactly is the logical inconsistency in stating the rights of those two groups vis-a-vis marriage is comparable, if not identical?

9: Best analogy is to interracial marriage.

My story: I'm super-religious and have felt it in my gut and have even tried to come up with legal arguments in law school, working with visiting scholars fighting gay marriage, state by state, but you know what? It's impossible to come up with justifications that don't parallel the religious, moral, or bigoted arguments by the segregationists of the 1960s who opposed interracial marriage. Now I'm a lot older and wiser, and I am in an interracial marriage. If this is how gay partners must feel about permanent commitments to each other, and I'm sure it is, then I can't begin to argue with them. I would be a hypocrite indeed.

So, step 1: State by state laws permitting gay marriage. Family law doesn't belong as a constitutional amendment (either for or against).

Step 2: A SCOTUS case like Loving vs. Virginia making it so nationwide.

#64=applicant praying he can get into GULC

What has me ROFL is that if gay marriage is defeated in California, it will probably be OBAMA'S FAULT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21gay.html

OH THE IRONY.....

The tax-exempt argument is a red herring - one example jumps immediately to mind: an orthodox synagogue that refuses to permit intermarriages. In fact, I'd say that' the rule not only at orthodox, but also at virtually all conservative synagogues and probably a few reform temples as well. I'm not aware that anyone is seeking to revoke the tax-exempt status of any of those houses of worship, even though they refuse to officiate at a wedding that is entirey valid under secular law.

Was Elie's line about what Skadden partners would think about Raoul pissing off the Federalist Society meant to imply that Skadden's partners are conservative? If that's the assumption, I think it's misguided...

The only remotely convincing argument I've heard (from a policy perspective) against gay marriage is against the use of the M-word. The only time this makes sense, however, is when the argument is based on the premise that government has no business granting marriage of any kind--gay, straight, polygamous or otherwise.

If we get government out of the marriage game, it'll be that much easier to open up civil unions to all comers. Once the government can't grant a marriage certificate to anyone, everyone will be equal.

65 here.

P.S. This would be for state civil marriages. In contrast, each religion can and should do as it will in terms of requirements for performing marriage ceremonies. Religous ceremonies can be granted or denied couples on a cleric-by-cleric basis or religion-by-religion basis.

[departing soapbox]

42, you're an idiot. Being a slave was much worse than being gay.

since when does federalist society = homophobia? Isn't our dear leader David Lat gay and a member of the federalist society??

#72-I don't think 42 said anything about what it was like to be gay relative to how bad it must have been to be a slave. Only that the rights of gays and slaves regarding marriage were the same=no rights.

17 - Even is that IS true, preventing gay marriage isn't going to increase the number of children in one mother/one father households significantly, if at all.

73 - Many Federalist Society types are true Federalists, but a significant number (at least at the law school I went to) are just garden-variety conservatives.

Mystal is having my kid.

Balls Deep

Guys in my high school used to take on the Federalist Society all the time, it was no big deal.

- FRAT STUD

I'm gay and I would settle for civil unions.

There I said it.

The non-religious argument against gay marriage is that moral issues should be decided in a democratic way. As a society, we make judgments on who can marry with issues such as polygamy, incest, and 16 year olds dating 70 year old men. Somehow this is ok, but only "bigots" and "extremists" believe marriage should believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Personally, I am yet to hear from a gay marriage proponent what distinguishes gay marriage from these other scenarios. I also resent the constant insistence that all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in hate. I agree that unfortunately that is sometimes the case (too often in my opinion), but there are many people who respect individuals decision to be gay but are against gay marriage because they believe the practice trivializes the institution of marriage.

Ugh. Can anyone quantify how many hours have been spent by rational, intelligent folks debating gay marriage with people in the Federalist Society and conservatives in general over the past ten years? How much time has been spent researching and writing briefs and organizing campaigns? How much research has been done simply to refute the antiquated notions that children will only grow up normally if raised in a traditional marriage household?

We should demand all of this time back, just like we should demand all of the time spent on civil rights, reproductive rights, gay rights in general, etc. etc. in the past sixty years.

Conservatives, we're waiting for our time back. Please process and return immediately. Thanks.

Ask the people who want "civil unions" to describe the harm in calling it "marriage." In the end, all they have is that the idea offends them.

I find it hilarious that Posner, the king of quantification, wants to talk instead about incommensurable psychological harms when the topic is one he personally opposes.

Whether prop 8 fails as polled will depend on voter turnout. A lot of young progressives in California don't think the state needs their help to put all the electoral college votes in Obama's camp. Hopefully the same sex marriage issue will draw them out to register and vote.

80-if democracy was the path to individual liberties, we wouldn't need the equal protection clause, prohibition of slavery, desegregation, etc.

Balls

Balls Deep.

Done.

80, what distinguises those senarios from straight marriage? Think for a second, because its all resolvable within your own preconceptions.

Of course you resent being called hateful, doesn't mean you aren't.

And same sex marriage is actually going to be resolved democratically, so far the california legislature said yes, the courts said yes, the governor said ask the people, and the "people" appear ready to approve it too. Will you accept it then?

There's no reason to distinguish between gay marriage, straight marriage, and polygamy.

If GULCers ran the country, the stars and stripes would be rainbow colored already.

The only and sufficient analogy from a policy perspective is miscegenation. Posner's argument and all of its spawn here founder in trying to rationalize it. Should black+white have focused all their effort on the recognition of "civil unions" and hope for later recognition from white folk?

Game, set, match suckers.

Uh, GULC = Georgetown = Catholic school.

No on Prop h8!

It cracks me up that Elie refers to a group which is half libertarian as the Lion's Den. He really needs to relax.

Elie notes the presence of the libertarians in the Fed Soc:

"Kennedy presumably had the support of some of the Society's more libertarian members. His debate opponent, Glen Lavy of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, was the flag bearer for the social conservatives...."

GULC = GAY & Catholic = They hate themselves.

Jewce Jewton

We provide a system of incentives (financial and social) to encourage men and women to marry, stay together and raise kids, because it has obvious benefits for society. I don't see how society has the same interest in gays getting together. They can have whatever relationship with each other they want and define the contours themselves. I haven't heard an argument for why everyone else is supposed to care and subsidize them (whether financially or just by symbolically applauding their actions). If you are going to change an insitution as old as marriage, you should at least pretend to have an argument (preferably one that rises above "Love Good" and "Me Want Benefits".

Close (55-45) but will fail to pass.

#79 - you won't feel that way when you finally find someone you love.

[three snaps in a Z formation with a head twist] hAAAAy!

Gay marriage opponents--Read "Covering" by Kenji Yoshino, a Yale Law prof. Challenge yourself to read a personal story about being gay in America and the legal implications of various gay-related laws to someone's humanity and dignity.

17 writes:
Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household.

----

Since no one has pointed out the logical fallacy, I will.

17, even if gay marriage were banned, gay people could still have kids. Surrogates need no govenrment permission, just a donor.

To the extent your argument is about the welfare of kids, two points:

1) realize that the legality of gay marriage will not affect the percentage of gays and lesbians who have them.

2) Now, for the analytical trump. GIVEN that gays and lesbians have kids and banning/legalizing gay marriage won't change this (not the question of whether they should), should these children be protected by having their two parents married? If you care about children growing up in a stable household, logic dictates you must support gay marriage. Marriage increases committment and stability, which is good for children.

and that, snap snap, is what we call schooling you.

"The issue of gay marriage, he added, "is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century." Years from now, Kennedy insisted, the average person will look back and say, "How could people be so backward-oriented?" "
I am going to assume he was attempting humour when he made that comparision. I checked and I don't see any widespread evidence of gay people being owned, sold, bartered or being considered anyone's property. Oh yeah, the routine floggings are also missing. Gay folks GET OVER IT. Whatever tribulations you suffer will never rise the level of slavery, the effects of which are still being felt today.

96 and 98 = why gay marriage will never be accepted

100 comments and still no coherent argument in favor of gay marriage. At least the religious bother to make up some premises to create an argument (no matter how dubious)

94 - Why wouldn't society have the same interests with regard to gay couples as heterosexual couples? If finding a stable partner, pooling financial assets and raising children together should be encouraged for a man and a woman, why not for two men or two women? Is it because you really like gender roles and think the woman should stay home and raise the kids and the state should encourage her to do so?

By the way, being married doesn't get you much benefit from society, at least financially speaking, if you have two professionals with large incomes. Ever hear of the marriage penalty? If straight couples want to pay it, why would we stop gay professionals from doing so?

In sum, letting gay people marry means greater social justice AND more tax income for society. How often do those two interests align?! Seems like a no-brainer to me.

hey 100,98 here -- it already has, according to california polls. oh also, and the president is going to be Black, too, so be prepared for a whole tsunami of joint Black and gay finger snapping. i'm glad you feel threatened by finger snapping. scarier part? i could probably bench press you too. s - n - a - p.

103 - enjoy seething in your bubble

103--

Why did you capitalize "black" but not "gay"? Do you secretly hate gays?

LOL. oh 100, i'm not seething, i'm euphoric. how could i not be. look...

:-D

Guys in my high school used to take sweaty rods balls-deep in the ass all the time. It was no big deal.

Gay Frat Stud

106 - so you're not the gay guy at the gym crying as he channels his feelings of resentment, exclusion and inadequacy into a power lift session?

Oh 105, no. I capitalize Black because they have a discrete set of experiences that qualifies for capitalization. Try some critical race theory See, e.g., Kimberel Crenshaw, Mapping the margins in the Stanford law review for starters.

And I don't secretly hate gays, because I am one. wait, are you ann althouse -- i know you called Elie anti-Black and the other female blogger sexist. That would make you three for three!

Nope. I feel included...by my big law firm, society, my family. it's a good life. and i feel blessed.. and if people can't accept us because they're unusally fixated on personal lives, that seems to be more their issue than mine. So, I say, God bless America. and good night. Keep posting 100 and trying to seem like disparate people!

56--Nobody read your treatise. Its too freaking long. BreviTTTy.

Elie,

Get a clue. The vast majority of Federalist Society folks I know out here in California support gay marriage, myself included. Way to repeat LegalPad's "lion's den" characterization. Copying is easier than original thought, eh?

Kennedy wasn't "defending" gay marriage to the society. That makes it sound like he, or gay marriage, are or were under attack by the Federalist Society. Rather, he was participating in a debate with another, singular human being, at the invitation of the society. In case you hadn't noticed, that's what the Federalist Society does -- they foster debate and discussion. The Federalist Society can't even take a position on Prop 8.

< :-() - - - o===B

Balls Deep

It's pretty clear why Elie isn't a practicing attorney:

"Pissing off the Federalist Society"?

What, did he just bust in the door at the luncheon and start ranting about gay marriage?

Oh wait, no, he was invited to speak and graciously accepted that invitation. Even so, that sure must have pissed them off! How dare somebody accept an invitation to come speak at one of our events! Grrrr!

Retard.

And the winner is ... 113. That is f'ing funny.

Elie, you are so stupid and gay. You are the walking embodiment of everything that is stupid and gay.

Suck it Mystal.

UVA2L

Is it possible to both (a) be aware of Elie's existence and (b) believe in a god? If so, how?

As a deeply religious orthodox jew who believes homosexuality is a moral wrong . . . there is absolutely no legitimate argument against legalizing gay marriage in this country.

None.

Not from a policy standpoint, not from a morality standpoint, and not from a religious standpoint - because as a religious person, the absolute last thing I want to see is legislation based on religious sentiment.

As someone above pointed out, the "what about the kids" argument is a canard, especially given that having kids and getting married have now been wholly . . . divorced.

Same for the "divorce happens" line - well, no kidding it happens, because its legal. If divorce were illegal (as gay marriage is in most states), it wouldn't happen. Circular reasoning at best.

And on the "anti-democratic" line - so was Loving v. Virginia equally "anti-democratic"? How about Brown v. Board? One of the best aspects of the American polity is that we have recognized from the very beginning that certain things have no business being left up to a popular vote.

This blog has sucked since it became an echo chamber for the fringe left. Please go away, Elie.

This blog has sucked since it became an echo chamber for the fringe left. Please go away, Elie.

Hot damn. You went full homo didn't you? Man, you never go full homo. Everybody knows that.

Bye bye ATL

118, you are my hero and a true chaver. - a gay goy.

Tell it, 112.

85, of course straight marriage applies to my example. That is my point. The lines have to be drawn somehow, and I think the voice of the people is the best way. You are wrong that it was done democratically. In fact, the opposite was done. People voted for an initiative to preserve marriage between a man and a woman and the court threw it out with reasoning that was dubious at best. Of course I will support gay marriage if it is passed, but the burden should have been on the other side to overturn the initiative. I don't believe there was anything in the California Constitution that warranted a reversal (but I also do not think there is anything in the Constitution that prohibits allowing gay marriage).

As for being hateful, I have generally found those that accuse others of being hateful are often the guiltiest of hate themselves.

From an economic standpoint gay marriage is a plus. Society benefits when people take care of each other whether they are the same or different genders. There is no counter argument not based on religion or "it's always been man and woman." Why is it that republicans argue that gov't should govern less, unless it has something to do w/ sex? Their position is untenable.

HATE!!! HATE!!! AGREE WITH ME OR HATE!!! BOOOGEDY BOOOOOO!

118 - Wow - not everyday that you see an orthodox jew read like a Nazi. You think your argument is airtight? You're against gay marriage b/c you believe it's morally wrong? Ok, fine, that's your right, but who gives a shit?

You have the right to associate with whomever you want to, and I totally agree w/ that right, but to try to prevent two people, regardless of the fact that they may be the same gender, from possibly finding happiness together, because YOU think it's a moral wrong is, to me, just wrong. Very fascist of you.

118 - good use of "canard." So not TTT

Uh, maybe you should go back and reread 118.

128 - you are a retard. 118 was saying gay marriage should be legal.

Plus, no one is preventing anyone from "finding happiness together" as you so stupidly put it. Two guys can live like a husband and wife if they want without being legally married.

130 - hater. So TTT.

128 - 118 was specifically saying that he thinks gay marriage should be permitted, not banned. But you probably got hung up on the "morally wrong" business, which is understandable. Saying being gay is morally wrong is like saying being black is morally wrong--nothing but ignorant bigotry.

fed soc = KKK. you know it, i know it. just because a few misguided minorities might show up (and in turn spit in the face of everything their ancestors fought for), don't for a second think that if the fed soc people had their way slavery wouldn't be back in effect. terrible group. they are so much more of a threat to our daily lives than al qaeda could ever be.

Instead of asking if gay marriage should be legal, we should be askign if the fed soc should be illegal. There is no reason these rich, white elitists should be allowed to gather and preach bigotry and commit hate crimes. Where is the fed prosecutor on this?

are you a bunch of lawyer homos?

christ, i hate this country

134 & 135, those are either the best troll posts I've ever read or you have issues. I hope nobody who thinks like you ever gets elected where I live.

I want to have sex with and marry sheep, donkeys, and domestic felines...Should I be able to?

Since the beginning of time societies have imposed moral constraints on individuals...If you want gay marriage, get it through proper channels (the legislature)--don't cram it through the courts with liberal, San Fran-loving judges.

I'm going to go smoke a fag now (and that's a British cig for you PC patrollers)

Bonus news cannot get here fast enough. This site is horrible now; the only thing that can save it is a firm's bonus letter in the next 2 weeks.

EQUAL PROTECTION RULES:

1. All persons with a penis may marry any other one person with a vagina.

2. All persons with a vagina may marry any other one person with a penis.

3. Neither a penis-penis nor a vagina-vagina relationship is permissible.

Why not go the other way and get rid of marriage for everyone? Just have civil unions and leave marriage for the religious.

Government have no place regulating what is essentially a religious ceremony.

134 and 135 are my heroes.

I said: do ya love me?

And she said: no, but that's a really nice ski mask!

I used to be against gay marriage but have moved to indifference. If that's what they think they want, then have at it. I wish I could buy stock in "Gay Divorce Court." That's gonna be the #1 show on daytime TV.

You'll never be able to convince me that the reason they insist on calling it "marriage" isn't just to stick a finger in the eye of religious people.

Now, if we could only get the blacks to give marriage a try once in a while we might start seeing some improvement in the inner city.

56,
I think the answer is that no one has a "right" to be married in a particular church. The specter of churches facing lawsuits for refusing to perform gay marriages is probably something created by the anti-SSM crowd (and I am NOT a member of that crowd.

I recently got married in the Catholic Church and it was clear from the beginning of the process (and it's a rather long process with lots of classes and other requirements) that it was in the priest's indvidual discretion to marry us. He could have simply decided he did not think we should marry and refused to perform the ceremony (we actually had to do additional counseling before he agreed to marry us). It was a privilege and not a right. We could have simply married in front of a JP judge or found a less crazy church if we didn't like the rules.

Admittedly, I don't know how it would work if a priest/minister/church refused to perform, say, marriages btw people of different races -- discrimination based on a protected class. Refusing to marry persons of the same gender might be comparable to that situation. But I lean towards thinking that religious institutions have the freedom to make these decisions without state interference (just like women couldn't sue the Catholic Church to become priests).

I like 142's argument: call all marriages civil unions and let religious institutions define marriage as they see fit. Would certainly seem to placate some of the most ardent foes if the term "marriage" weren't used, and if the state isn't creating a less tier of 'marriage" with "civil unions," it shouldn't be offensive to gays and lesbians to be able to have civil unions as opposed to marriages.

As a libertarian member of the Federalist Society, I feel the man's actions are admirable. Cheers, and let society realize the true liberty of an individual's own actions. I hope ATL realizes that many members of the Federalist subscribe to his views. Indeed, the Federalist is not the 'lion's den' to individual rights ATL would make it seem.

139, you may not have sex with animals without violating criminal laws b/c these creatures are not capable of consent.

"since the beginning of time" -- always the beginning of a sound argument.

probably should have waited for the legislatures to ban segregated schools, etc. right?

132, 130 here. I was responding to 128, not 129 (which was posted at the exact same time as my post). Maybe you should look at the time stamp before you label someone a "hater."

148: Yeah... Consent... That's the issue...

Separate from the traditions of marriage and the religious traditions that existed among Western societies which developed marriage customs, there are two basic points to remember. First, from a purely animal behavior point of view, humans tend towards mating for life. I would hazard a guess that this does not substantially differ between gay and straight people. Second, marriage has become a legal institution enshrined in certain serious protections which are honored by our legal system.

I think that religious institutions should have absolute discretion over their own sanctioning of marriages, but it seems patently unfair to deny same-sex partners the official designation of marriage when this defines their rights in medical and end-of-life situations, to name just a couple.

If people are serious about keeping gays out of marriage, they ought to sponsor legislation protecting the interests of gays in such critical situations. If that were to be extended to the right of spousal privelege, however, some courts might do well to require a documented history of sweaty anal penetration or girly muffdiving in order to establish this right for gay couples, to curb potential abuse. It would certainly make for interesting discovery.

Why does anyone care about this story? Is it that remarkable that some partner gave a speech, basically?

I support equal rights for LGBT folks, but I'm tired of the gay community comparing itself to slaves et al. Does anyone even find that set of arguments convincing? Seems like the target audience would object to the comparison either because the oppression is of a different character or because they don't believe that sexual orientation is an ascribed trait.

1) Since when have homosexuals become a protected class?

2) If homosexuals can marry, how about first cousins (of consenting age?). How about polygamists (of consenting age?) And what is consenting age? How dare we as a society say that a 16 year old can't make his/her own choices. We are such bigots. Or is there something not quite right about this? Isn't the rule of law about people making choices about what moral code will govern the society?

As a traditional, theologically conservative Christian, my perspective is that both sides are missing a couple of things.

First, there really isn't a decent legal argument against legal ratification of homosexual relationships that isn't premised on the idea that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. The "it's bad for the kids" argument might have merit, but given the failure of american evangelical Christians to manage their own households, the argument that gay marriage is bad for kids falls flat. Evangelical Christians have forgotten to take the log out of their own eye before removing the speck from the eye of the rest of the world.

Second, for those supporting legal recognition of homosexual relationships, whether in the form of civil unions or something called "marriage," there's more at stake than simple legal rights. All the legal benefits of marriage could be granted to same-sex couples and there would still be a push for gay marriage. Why? Because use of the term "marriage" implies a societal ratification and acceptance of the relationship that goes beyond simple legal benefits.

Those who believe that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong or distasteful about homosexuality will not be satisfied with anything other than something called "marriage." Those who find homosexuality morally objectionable are fighting over societal ratification of same-sex relationships, not the incidental legal benefits given to heterosexual couples who marry under current laws.

This is hardly newsworthy. The Federalist Society always puts on debates and gives all sides their say -- it's a fundamental tenet of the group. Every symposium is rife with liberals debating conservatives, regardless of the dearth of liberal members.

How many times can this site jump the shark? It's like Elle doesn't even know that Nadine Strossen attends like every FedSoc event.

Balls? I like balls...

I propose a one-pronged constitutional test:

Q: Is homosexuality nasty?

A: Yes.

Outcome: Ban it.

First, this is ridiculous because FedSoc events actually like having folks from the other side of issues and I've never seen a guest of an event that was ever treated rudely.

Second, WTF is this post doing on ATL? I come here for law firm news and legal snark, not to get the host's take on the issues of the day. There are other blogs out there for that stuff, so I am told

118 is so right. If only all religious bozos would learn to separate personal moral feelings from fairness/right & wrong.

As to policy, it is simple -- gay people have just as must right to be miserable as straight people. ............... so let them get married!!

It will be funny to look 20 years from after gay marriage is legal to see that the gay marriage divcorce rate at around 15% while heterosexual divorce rate is at 50%+

I think the non-religious argument against gay marriage runs like this:

(1) Gay marriage is essentially a societal sanction on sodomy.

(2) Hence, gay marriage should be evaluated by asking whether sodomy ought to be encouraged.

(3) Human sexual acts are intrinsically ordered to the creation of new life.

(a) That is, human sexual acts culminate in events that provide the building blocks for procreation to occur; for example, men release their male seed.

(b) To put it another way, if human sexual acts are not related to procreation, then why do some people use birth control when they have sex?

(4) Therefore, any use of sexual organs that is not related to the creation of new life (i.e., that thwarts the intrinsic meaning of human sexuality) is an improper use of the sexual organs.

(5) It is clear that two men cannot naturally provide the building blocks for the creation of new life; ditto for two women.

(6) Therefore, sexual acts between two men or two women are improper, and should not be encouraged.

There are, of course, standard objections to several of these premises, and responses to those objections. The point is simply that there are non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and that supporters of same-sex marriage should stop throwing stones at their opponents, and attempt to formulate a rational policy argument in favor of same-sex marriage beyond "They love each other, and people who love each other should be able to do whatever they want."

i absolutely support gay marriage but comparing this to Slavery is fucking moronic.

who gives a shit.

lower my taxes.

Balls Deep

What is the obsession with balls? I like to take my hot tongue and lick all over them.

It's also true that gay men like to have slaves. See, e.g., The Gimp.

Not that I really think anyone will read this or care...but I have done this NYC commute from 3 diff boroughs most of my life and I constantly see:
Young teens dressed to stand out and acting/speaking/screaming openly gay about things that scare the crap out of the rest of society to even imagine there are people who think like this 24/7 among us(No, I'm not even talking about normal gay activities). I'm not saying that this is true in all or even most cases but this display is almost daily and it makes you think...is this all just for some skewed desire for attention fed to them by all this debate being conjured up through politics & media?
Sure some may say there are several diff other groups that resemble this description...but how often do they cause us to change our national laws?
Even if those I described are an exception to the norm, is society really just supposed to roll over and say sure lets make this change asap?

32: Gays are a problem in your country, not mine. Please to come to Iran for education of proper ways to treat these problems.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

167: "roll over and say sure" -- Is that some sort of not-so-subtle invitation?

169: Very funny....
I guess my point was just that regardless of people who feel we should just get over the reality and let this thing pass...change always takes time...
People see the actions I described above, associate it to the broad issue of gay marriage, and conclude "I don't want to encourage more of this." Period. I'm not saying it is right or wrong but it is natural.

In my country, in order to protect the good name of the children, man is not permitted to divorce his adulturous wife until he commits a mercy killing. This is God's will.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

99, think for a moment before you get on your seriously shaky soapbox. i assume you have had some education, because your post reveals at least a passing acquaintance with literacy. you should therefore be aware of the use of analogy.

nobody is saying that the fight for gay marriage and the fight for abolition are the SAME THING. rather, the argument is that the animus that operates on the other side of the debate springs from the same source: irrational prejudice. additionally, the denial of human rights, whether it be the right to self-determination or the right to marry a partner of one's choosing, is anathema to our country's raison d'etre. this country was founded on personal freedom. opposition to gay marriage is just the latest installment in the war against intolerance and despotism and no less a threat than slavery to our continued evolution as a democracy.

Ahmadinejad? No, Ammadinnajacket!

- Mammy A.

The opposition to gay marriage is cultural. While there may be certain externalities associated (e.g., AIDS, raising children, reduced tax revenues in certain instances) it's just cultural.

Thus, there's not necessarily a logical means/end policy relationship toward the opposition. But that doesn't mean the opposition is illegitimate. Laws banning incest and polygamy are the same way -- there's no 'logical' reason to ban them, other than the fact that people want to ban them. It's cultural.

Welcome to the USA, founded largely by Christian Anglos.

153 - re: protected class?

Why, since California ruled gays were. In fact, the most important of the marriage decision in California wasn't that gays had the right to get married, but that gays were now required to be given STRICT SCRUTINY.

suuuuck it, haters.

Also, I'm so sick of this gays can't refer to slavery.

Yeah, slavery is different in that it's.....uh, not identical.

But it's NOT different in that both are rooted in the same underlying discrimination. The resulting effects may have been massively different. But it will look like the 19th century in the way that matters; to wit, that people marginalized groups based on a morrally irrelevant trait (Blacks in exceptionally horrifying, systematic ways, gays and lesbians in ways less so, but still systematic and wrong).

If you think the issue in comparing/contrasting is flogging, you are a 1L who thinks the key to studying for your finals is memorizing the facts of the case rather than the issue on which it turns. Good luck at Georgetown, loser, and remind me not to hire you at my big law firm!

133: saying that homosexual *acts* are immoral has absolutely nothing in common with saying being black is immoral. One is a volitional action. The other is a state of being that is not a product of volitional action.

Of course, you may be getting hung up on the term "immoral". It may help to realize that to an orthodox jew, eating pork is equally immoral. It doesn't mean that the person who does it is a bad person. ATL isn't exactly the place for an in depth explanation of the theosophical rationale underlying that worldview, though.

161 - point 3 is obviously colored by religious philosophy which considers masturbation, oral sex, etc. to be outside the bounds of legitimate human sexuality. That's where the contention that there are "non-religious objections" to same-sex marriage goes off the rails.

175...look yourself in the mirror when you go home and say "The journey to legalize gay marriage=(or is somehow similar to) the journey to end slavery" and try not to laugh.
Not that I want to take sides but there are many "morally relevant" issues that are being used to support people's notions to go against this current change which have nothing to do with the complete disrespect of a minority group. (Read some of the above comments...43,48, 94,154,161,167/170)

The slavery analogy is ridiculous. Unlike a slave, gays are free to do whatever they want. The issue is whether they can get a law passed requiring everyone else to react to them in a certain way.

177 - 175 here.

I would say the journey to gay rights is the journey to black rights and would not laugh about it. Your argument is like the bowers decision that reduces ad absurdum our struggles to "the right to homosexual sodomy." It's not. It's bigger than that (that's what she said...or he said). Again, the FACTS in which that context plays out is not the same as the determinative issue on which it turns. Again, don't memorize the facts when comparing legal cases, learn to spot and apply issues.

And for the record, 60,000 gays and lesbians were slaughtered at concentration camps like saschenhausen and dachau so don't tell me we had it so great. I looked in a mirror when i was in germany's concentration camps and it reminded me of when i visited an underground railroad stop in baltimore, and you know what? i wasn't laughing when i thought of the parallels. Game. Set. Match.

178. Yes and unlike a slave gays can be white and unlike a slave gays don't live in the 18th century and unlike a slave gays aren't considered chattel.

But is that the issue? Is that determinative? Or is every wrong in the world isolated unto itself? Is there ANY relationship between the holocaust and slavery?

Yeah. There is. Jews might be different than slaves, but they're not different in that it was morally wrong to systematically marginalize them.

And in a similar analytical way, gays are like that to (though again, to a different and less severe extent).

No gay is arguing we had it as bad as slaves. What we're arguing is the moral wrongs connecting the decisions to have slavery and the holocaust are being played out in a factually different, but morally identical situation.

STop attacking the straw man and spot the harder issues.

179-Funny...Don't game/set/match me...you sound like a law student who fails to use their lawyerly judgment of finding the big picture to place a rational basis behind both sides to then determine the full argument and subsequently hold your own informed opinion. (focusing instead on the issues v. the principles).
While I certainly symphathize with you over the extreme wrongs of conc.camps, are you trying to say the main reason they were there was because of their sexual preference...I don't think that was the case but if it was, my apologies.
To the broad argument however...there is still a majority of people who see something wrong with gay activities(esp the type from 167)...this becomes associated with gay marriage legislation and people therefore oppose because they simply do not want to encourage such behavior(this goes along with the morally relevant arguments). These people are free to vote how they want just as much as you are.
Change takes time...but the argument that preventing gays from the "right" engage in the rituals of an originally religious-specific event (although govt changed this) because of equality violations is def a tough case to sell. You keep your fight, I keep mine...as is what democracy and our profession is all about.

What a worthless article.

"It's easy to praise Kennedy for defending gay rights in front of a hostile audience."

That could have easily read "It's easy to praise Kennedy for pushing the homosexual agenda..."

This article is dripping with leftist bias. I feel like I'm watching an episode of "The View."

Again, as others have pointed out, the Federalist Society INVITED Kennedy to speak, in order to provide a debate where both sides can be heard. The Federalist Society is actually a NON-PARTISAN group. Did Elie do any research on the topic? Or is Elie just parroting the same left-wing bias he undoubtedly was spoon-fed at law-school?

Seriously? Comparing slavery to gay marriage? Really? That is offensive to African-Americans everywhere.

I'm for gay marriage, but comparing it to the plight of slaves is a zealously ignorant exaggeration at best, and a slap in the face of those still struggling to overcome the effects of slavery at worst.

Obama is against gay marriage.

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

That's right. The liberal Messiah opposes gay marriage. Keep that in mind when you:

a) say that only bigoted idiots oppose gay marriage, or
b) say that Obama is not your ordinary politician.

Obama 08!!!!!!!!

118 and 142 - well done. You in particular 118. As an atheist of Jewish heritage I am very happy to see a religious Jew who is able to embrace his religion while recognizing the realities of the world. Now only if the Israeli High Court could pull that off.

props to the skad partner for speaking up. good for him.

80 - The reason that laws banning gay marriage are different from laws banning incestuous marriages or marriages between 16 year olds and 70 year olds is that in the latter, someone is being harmed by those marriages. Incestuous marriages are banned because they have a higher probability of creating children with genetic diseases. And it's improbable that a 16 year old marrying a 70 year old had much of a choice in the matter.

On the other hand, gay marriage would be between two fully consenting adults. There is no risk that they are going to pass on any genetic diseases; even if you are someone who believes that being homosexual is undesirable studies have indicated that the children of gay parents are no more likely than anyone else to be homosexual. As many intelligent posters have pointed out already, any harm to the children of gay parents is most likely caused by intolerance in the community rather than some vague harm that befalls them by virtue of having gay parents.

In summation, there is a very large difference between gay marriage and the other examples you gave.

Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run. In the short term, religious assholes will cause our nuclear codes to be in the hands of an unqualified moron because she kept her daughter from having an abortion.

161, you are a god-damned idiot. You could never hack it at my alma mater, Florida Coastal.

If were to follow the moronic "logic" from your argument, we'd have to conclude that all recreational sex is "improper", and since virtually married couples have recreational sex, we shouldn't encourage it by allowing people to marry.

More to the point, if you think you can get from steps 3a and 3b to step 4 in your argument WITHOUT invoking religious morality, I promise you that Bertrand Russell will rise from the dead and personally ass-rape you from beyond the grave, making sure to wastefully ejaculate all over the dusty ground,

and he won't even give you a reach-around.

Now, if we could only get the blacks to give marriage a try once in a while we might start seeing some improvement in the inner city.
__________________________________________

Why don't we just start with Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston?

If you want to stop homosexuals from having recreational sex, I suggest you let them get married.

If this is the equal rights issue that the left-wing radicals say it is, why does the first legitimate African-American candidate for President oppose gay marriage? Do you think he would have opposed freeing the slaves also? Do you think he would have opposed school de-segregation?

@ 190: "Why don't we just start with Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston?"

Umm, maybe you didn't read this on Moveon.org, but they are engaged...

But assuming arguendo that they had no plans to wed, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of African-Americans are born to single-parent homes. This has led to a plethora of social problems. Look it up, its rather startling.

192 - because:

a) he's trying to get elected; and
b) he's wrong.

@ 188 "Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run..."

Are you serious? That is a pathetic analogy. Barack Obama is the result of an interracial relationship. I seriously doubt he would be against interracial marriage...

...yet he is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Therefore, using your logic, either:

a) Barack Obama is an idiotic retarted bigoted moron, or

b)your analogy sucks and gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage.

I'm curious how you come out on that one ;)

This thread is gay.

Studies have shown that the majority of individuals who believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth 5,000 years ago (shortly before God created Man in His image) are married, heterosexual, church-attending white people who have never left their home state, visited a major city, read an article from a foreign newspaper, or taken a class in non-US history.

This has led to a plethora of social problems. Look all around you – it is rather startling.

To say that incest can be banned because of the *possibility* that there'll be a down-syndrome child is to say that gay marriage can be banned because of the *possibility* that AIDS will be spread. Or we'll have to watch more shows on Bravo. Whichever is worse.

That said,

Can someone please explain why "freedom" demands that gays be allowed to be treated as married couples, and polygamists cannot? No down-syndrome argument there...

"Laws banning incest and polygamy are the same way -- there's no 'logical' reason to ban them, other than the fact that people want to ban them. It's cultural. "

Incest is problematic primarily because it inherently distorts the familial relationship and lends itself to all sorts of abuse of power. It would be a very rare incestuous relationship that truly involved free consent. These are logical reasons to prohibit it, even if there theoretically could be possible outlier cases (but what if two siblings were adopted, never knew each other growing up . .?)

Polygamy is problematic because accomadating it would require reworking whole swaths of the legal system which were built on the presumption that marriage is a 1:1 relationship, including tax laws. Again, a logical reason to prohibit it.

@ 188 "Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run..."

Are you serious? That is a pathetic analogy. Barack Obama is the result of an interracial relationship. I seriously doubt he would be against interracial marriage...

...yet he is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Therefore, using your logic, either:

a) Barack Obama is an idiotic retarted bigoted moron, or

b)your analogy sucks and gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage.

I'm curious how you come out on that one ;)

"Incest is problematic primarily because it inherently distorts the familial relationship and lends itself to all sorts of abuse of power."

Ok, but these are *cultural* norms. Gay marriage also "lends itself" to a bunch of stuff, some of which voters might not like. Pointing out the stuff about incest that people don't like just proves the fact that democracy is based purely on peoples' tastes.

And "reworking whole swaths of the legal system"? That's just retarded. Yeah, sections of the tax code are never changed...[Insert hand slapping head]

And let's not forget: polygamy is not just *un-sanctioned* -- it's illegal. As in, if you participate in two ceremonies you will go to jail. If you are a polygamist, like a homosexual, you're imprisoned based on your status.

@ 188 "Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run..."

Are you serious? That is a pathetic analogy. Barack Obama is the result of an interracial relationship. I seriously doubt he would be against interracial marriage...

...yet he is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Therefore, using your logic, either:

a) Barack Obama is an idiotic retarted bigoted moron, or

b)your analogy sucks and gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage.

I'm curious how you come out on that one ;)

@ 188 "Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run..."

Are you serious? That is a pathetic analogy. Barack Obama is the result of an interracial relationship. I seriously doubt he would be against interracial marriage...

...yet he is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Therefore, using your logic, either:

a) Barack Obama is an idiotic retarted bigoted moron, or

b)your analogy sucks and gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage.

I'm curious how you come out on that one ;)

@ 188 "Stop comparing gay marriage to slavery. The correct analogy is to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

The same ridiculous religious arguments were raised in each. They will fail equally in each, in the long run..."

Are you serious? That is a pathetic analogy. Barack Obama is the result of an interracial relationship. I seriously doubt he would be against interracial marriage...

...yet he is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Therefore, using your logic, either:

a) Barack Obama is an idiotic retarted bigoted moron, or

b)your analogy sucks and gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage.

I'm curious how you come out on that one ;)

3:

"People who oppose gay marriage are fucking morons. This is possibly the simplest issue out there. There's only one reason why people oppose it: hateful, ignorant, overt bigotry and homophobia."

That is a pretty mean thing to say about Barack Obama...

Obama is above normal politics. He represents progressive change. He is for equality for all. He is 100% in favor of gay marriage. Anything less would contradict his status as the product of an interracial marriage. Therefore, those of you who say Obama is opposed to gay marriage are liars.

Debate on both sides is really just a waste of time.

Science will have an answer to homosexuality in the future, like it will have an answer to down syndrome. We will be able to fix it. Supporting homosexuality is like supporting any gentic mutation. You feel bad for them, and you do your best to give them the kind of access every person deserves, to all rights and liberties, but in the end you still strive for a cure.

We can hold a marathon for a cure. Location, San Francisco maybe?

195/200/202/203/204 et al,

Apparently in the course of failing to gain admission to prestigious Florida Coastal University, you also failed to learn basic logic and common sense.

First, any person's support or lack of support for an argument or political goal says absolutely nothing about the practical or rational underpinnings of that argument or goal.

My most favoritest politician could tell me 2 + 2 = 5 and that wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the validity of my argument that 2 + 2 = 4. It's either "right" or "wrong" regardless of what anybody says. Likewise, 188's analogy succeeds or fails ON ITS OWN MERIT, completely independent on what Obama thinks on the matter. It's a highly subjective comparison, and so not really amenable to being confirmed or falsified; yet it may still be "accurate" even if Obama disagrees with it or otherwise comes down on the "wrong" side of the debate to legalize gay marriage.

Second, and more to the point, politicians have to lie to get in office. My guess would be that Obama is pandering when he says he opposes gay marriage. Regardless, only one person in the world knows for sure: Obama.

What does reliable information about what a politician thinks tell us? It tells us what that politician thinks.
What do the things a politician SAYS about what he thinks tell us? NOTHING.
If Michael J. Fox doesn't support stem cell research, EVEN THOUGH HE TOTALLY SHOULD, what does that tell us about the practical and moral implications of stem cell research? NOTHING.

No matter how you slice it, you've failed to even mount an argument against the validity of 188's analogy, preferring instead to gleefully point that Obama supporters don't all agree on everything, and don't all agree with OBAMA on everything, as if that means anything at all. Alternatively, if you're simply trying to encourage gays to vote against Obama because it appears he does not support gay rights, I think you may be going about it in slightly the wrong fashion.

Anyway, being stupid is so very FOURTH tier.. as is quintuple posting your poorly thought-out drivel.

-T3

p.s. Nice eugenicist argument just above me. I have to wonder if this guy is allowed in the GOP, with views like that?

It is sexual "orientation" not sexual "preference." Do you really think someone chooses to be gay? Get real. Does someone choose to be straight? I don't think so. Most people would say they haven't even given it a thought ... they just are.

What is wrong with letting morals shape the way we vote? Moreover, if two people want to engage in a relationship, that is fine, but why should the rest of society be forced to endorse the relationship? This is the point where popular vote is needed. If the majority of the people chose to endorse gay marriages, then let it be the law, but if the majority doesn't endorse such unions then that should be the law. It isn't like homosexuality is being outlawed, it is a question of whether society is specifically going to endorse it. Thus the people should chose.

We should also abolish the judiciary, the Senate, all executive offices, the electrical college, and any other institution which threatens to make the final say on any issue in any fashion other than a straight, direct-democratic popular vote.

In fact, voting shouldn't even be necessary when the will of the general public is obvious. A show of hands on a crowded city street, or AK-47s firing into the air, should do just fine.

Heavily checked representative democracy = bad
Mob rule = good

208 - thanks, I thought I was going to have to type all that myself

201 - that's not cultural at all. Its impossible to argue that intrafamilial sexual relationships don't fall way on the negative side of the "free consent" line. You have kids who rely on parents to provide them with homes, food, etc., siblings who look up to one another . . . there are just way, way too many other entanglements that create an inherent power dynamic that makes such relationships suspect and unadvisable. Nor is the importance of a non-sexual family unit to raising stable citizens merely a cultural choice; its a practical reality.

208:

The GOP is a bunch of god fearing nitwits. I am certainly not inclined to throw my support to those "believers"

I support progress...Obama 08

210 - so, do you take the same position on interracial marriage (the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it, its just a question of whether society will endorse it, let them live and love without being married if that's how the voters want it)?

208: learn the lesson - idiocy is a bi-partisan disease (though it tends to be a common disease of partisans)

210: In a similar vein to 214, should the Court not have ordered desegregation of public schools?

What about identifying the substantive protections that attach to alienage, illegitimacy, gender, etc.? Should those also have been left to direct one-(man)/one-vote democracy? At what point, if any, does your argument break down?

Courts are, more often than not, intervening post hoc. The people have spoken in the first instance through their contract with their government (i.e., the applicable constitution). They have self-identified core principles of governance, and they have vested in the courts the responsibility to identify instances in which those core principles have been compromised.

When the people, either through their ballot initiatives or their elected representatives, end up betraying one or more of their self-adopted core principles, the courts have a completely legitimate role to fulfill. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about this. If the people disagree with the court, they should change their self-adopted core principles. (Indeed, isn't that what Scalia et al. have argued all along?)

So to answer the thrust of your question, within this framework of call and response, sure, people should be able to vote on moral issues. But their votes shouldn't be permitted to become the law of the land unless they are in harmony with the people's self-adopted core principles of governance.

Proposition 8 is distinguishable from desegregation of schools, and any of the other past offensive practices which previously occured within society. California Family Code § 297.5 states that "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits [...] as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." This is not a question about whether or not gays and lesbians are and will be denied certain rights or liberties. Such rights will remain in tact. Proposition 8 involves the question of whether those who object to homosexual marriages on moral grounds must equate such unions with marriages for which they have religious beliefs about. Proposition 8 is a declaration as to what society declares its morals to be, thus it should be governed by the individual voters.

"Proposition 8 involves the question of whether those who object to homosexual marriages on moral grounds must equate such unions with marriages for which they have religious beliefs about. Proposition 8 is a declaration as to what society declares its morals to be, thus it should be governed by the individual voters."

Except where it runs into that little thing called separation of church and state.

217,

Can you outline the section of California code or constitution that requires you to *think* that two men are a married gay couple instead of a couple of fags living together, which necessitates placing something in the state constitution saying you definitely have to think they're a couple of fags living together and not a married gay couple? You admit yourself that it won't have repercussions on the rights of the gay couples in question. What, then, is the point of Prop 8? Subtle condemnation of gay couples? To what end? And what is the purpose of pushing this issue again after a similar ballot initiative was repeatedly ruled unconstitutional?

And if there is such broad popular support for this, then why does the Republican gov of California call it a "waste of time" and why were millions of dollars in funding required to get it on the ballot in the first place?

***
Another thing to consider, for those who are moved by the "natural, non-religious" argument against homosexuality, is that we don't actually know that homosexuality traits don't play a natural and beneficial role among animal populations. There are plenty of plausible situations in which populations could benefit from having some individuals with latent or overt homosexuality traits, perhaps as a response to environmental cues such as overpopulation, or a shortage of food or females available for reproduction. In that sense homosexuality might be neither a voluntary choice nor genetically predetermined.

The point is that we don't know such things, because scientifically we don't know what we don't know, and no scientist would make broad assumptions on the topic without a rigorously substantiated theoretical underpinning supporting such assumptions. So it is really quite disingenuous to claim there is a scientific basis for suppressing homosexuality without firsthand, groundbreaking scientific knowledge that this is the case. Perhaps what opponents need is to fund "anti-gay" science insofar as any is possible. Note, however, that this approach has not been especially productive on the topic of creationism.

218 how can proposition 8 be considered to “run into a little thing called separation of church and state” when Congress convenes every session every year with opening prayers in both Houses. Furthermore “In God we Trust” is stamped on every coin minted by the Federal Government. The founding fathers never intended for this country to abandon morals and religious belief, rather they sought to protect against specific endorsement of churches by the government as was done in England.

219 if the recognition or non-recognition of homosexual marriages is such a waste of time, then why has the gay community pushed so hard for its recognition? Why not be satisfied with civil unions? The question works both directions.

Maybe it is a subtle condemnation, or maybe it is a sincere declaration as to the value and sanctity of marriage. Either way society should have the right to choose, and not four San Francisco judges.

I made no general claim that recognition or non-recognition is a waste of time. It was specifically remarked that gay couples in California have all the rights of married couples that are secured by California law. On the issue of whether gays in unions that already enjoy full civil rights can be explicitly referred to as married, I can't speak for gays on why they would want to insist on that designation.

However I can say I don't see the point of officially excluding gays from the designation just because they are gay. I don't really think of marriage as some sort of magical penis-vagina synthesis that is irreparably destroyed if it is allowed to turn into a peter party or magic carpet ride. Nor do I think anything in our secular marriage traditions is especially incompatible with gays participating. Even in religious marriage rites, most of the focus is on the love and devotion of the couple.

Outside of California, most states don't have civil unions and so there is plenty of reason for gays to push for marriage. Additionally, the Federal DOMA prevents the Fed government from recognizing any gay marriage. I bet this is not without effect.

Anyway, I find it very difficult to comprehend passing a law or amending a constitution to recognize the "sanctity" of anything. I don't feel our government is in the business of defining or defending the sanctity of anything. Rather, we promote ideals, and I feel it is consistent with our ideals to afford gay couples the same official recognition, at least, as straight couples. Whether society itself chooses to recognize and accept gays on these terms is a matter of individual conscience, but the government should not put itself in the position of simply enforcing people's prejudices. As repeatedly noted above, unfettered popular will is not a good thing.

You are right that our founding fathers never expected or intended that we would abandon morals and religious belief. However, we frequently arrive upon situations in which morals are at odds with religious belief. If that statement sounded paradoxical to you, I suppose all either of us can do is hope/pray for the best.

Apparently in the course of failing to gain admission to prestigious Florida Coastal University, you also failed to learn basic logic and common sense.

First, any person's support or lack of support for an argument or political goal says absolutely nothing about the practical or rational underpinnings of that argument or goal.

My most favoritest politician could tell me 2 + 2 = 5 and that wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the validity of my argument that 2 + 2 = 4. It's either "right" or "wrong" regardless of what anybody says. Likewise, 188's analogy succeeds or fails ON ITS OWN MERIT, completely independent on what Obama thinks on the matter. It's a highly subjective comparison, and so not really amenable to being confirmed or falsified; yet it may still be "accurate" even if Obama disagrees with it or otherwise comes down on the "wrong" side of the debate to legalize gay marriage.

Second, and more to the point, politicians have to lie to get in office. My guess would be that Obama is pandering when he says he opposes gay marriage. Regardless, only one person in the world knows for sure: Obama.

What does reliable information about what a politician thinks tell us? It tells us what that politician thinks.
What do the things a politician SAYS about what he thinks tell us? NOTHING.
If Michael J. Fox doesn't support stem cell research, EVEN THOUGH HE TOTALLY SHOULD, what does that tell us about the practical and moral implications of stem cell research? NOTHING.

No matter how you slice it, you've failed to even mount an argument against the validity of 188's analogy, preferring instead to gleefully point that Obama supporters don't all agree on everything, and don't all agree with OBAMA on everything, as if that means anything at all. Alternatively, if you're simply trying to encourage gays to vote against Obama because it appears he does not support gay rights, I think you may be going about it in slightly the wrong fashion.

Anyway, being stupid is so very FOURTH tier.. as is quintuple posting your poorly thought-out drivel.

-T3

p.s. Nice eugenicist argument just above me. I have to wonder if this guy is allowed in the GOP, with views like that?

"The GOP is a bunch of god fearing nitwits. I am certainly not inclined to throw my support to those "believers"

I support progress...Obama 08"

LOL - Silly liberal; Obama is opposed to gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. In fact, many African-Americans are. And he represents "progress?" (Maybe a progressive income tax) ;)

"Second, and more to the point, politicians have to lie to get in office. My guess would be that Obama is pandering when he says he opposes gay marriage."

...so much for the candidate of progress and change...

I'm gay and I resent how the left-wing "progressives" compare my plight to that of slavery or even inter-racial marriage. Frankly about 2% of the population is even gay, so why hard-core democrats want to shove their "gay agenda" down the rest of the country's collective throat is beyond me. I for one am voting for Prop 8. Maybe then all of this hoopla will die out.

@ 206
"Obama is above normal politics. He represents progressive change. He is for equality for all. He is 100% in favor of gay marriage. Anything less would contradict his status as the product of an interracial marriage. Therefore, those of you who say Obama is opposed to gay marriage are liars."

Why don't you google "Obama and gay marriage?"

Its laughable how little people actually know of Obama. And you want him to be President? Shoulda picked Hillary.

223/6 you're both responding to straw men. Your own?

The poster who said:

"it may still be "accurate" even if Obama disagrees with it or otherwise comes down on the "wrong" side of the debate to legalize gay marriage."

completely missed the point.

The radical left has painted this as a "civil rights issue," and the radical left has smeared those who are against gay marriage as "homophobic, bigoted, and prejudiced." The fact that Obama is also opposed to gay marriage does not mean gay marriage is wrong.

However, it means that either:

a)the radical left's attempt to smear Prop. 8's supporters is not only misguided and ignorant, but the radical leftists are the ones who are bigoted, and they are unable to articulate a good reason to have gay marriage.

OR

b)it necessarily means that Barack Obama is bigoted, homophobic, and prejudiced,

OR

c)Obama is a pandering liar and is doing whatever it takes to get elected. (So much for a new kind of politician)

Either way the libs lose on this one :/

In most cases it's a civil rights issue. If there are truly no rights attached to marriage in CA that don't attach to civil unions then it's somewhat moot. But this is not the case elsewhere.

Any attempts to smear all opponents of gay marriage as bigoted homophobes are certainly wrong. None of this implies anyone is unable to articulate a good reason to have gay marriage.

All successful politicans are pandering liars, Obama and McCain included. Politics is a game. If you're not cynical, you're not playing. It's not possible to please a majority of US voters on every major issue.

Attempting to insert a law into the constitution after it's been declared unconstitutional seems like pointless tit-for-tat. I don't see how people can be so hell bent on insisting that the law say gay people cannot marry, but only civilly unite, that they'll fight against their own system of government over it.

As a gay parent of 2 children and a senior associate, my children and soon to be husband deserve the same right to be legally recognized as a family and therefor provider for in the event of my demise. Don't like gay marriage, then don't marry one. Think it puts your straight marriage at risk? How, you think we are after the trophy wives of Manhattan? How about the argument that marriage is for procreating... Please call my sister and tell her that her 20 year marriage is a sham. Thank you kindly right wing-dripping in the red blood of your parties ignorance.