1 -- What about Adam?

Adam & Steve

So is spike

moiz is a virgin

spike has a big vagina

MysTTTal

bryan likes midgets

M&A at HLS is a joke

This post is confusing - how was the first message communicated? How did the replier respond? Huh?

"It seems a bit hypocritical to advocate tolerance of non-traditional marriages while at the same time acting intolerant towards expressions of alternate views."

That is not hypocritical. Advocating tolerance for one thing does not mean you need to advocate tolerance for all things. It also does not require you to tolerate those who think differently.

I advocate tolerance for blow jobs, but it doesn't mean i need to tolerate those who will not give them.

Proskauer actually filed an amicus brief for the ADL in the California gay marriage case. This doesn't seem surprising that the firm would continue to express its support for California gay marriage.

See http://www.proskauer.com/news_publications/press_releases/content/2008_05_15

I used to work at PR and this anti-8 guy is in the minority. The firm is very strongly supportive of all lifestyles.

Not only is it stupid to send political communications from a firm account, I think that there are a lot of arguments to be made that those against gay marriage are evil bigots who will be looked upon with disgust by history. So I don't really care what some stupid bigoted associate from a crappy firm has to say about being called evil.

13 et al.: I agree with you, but posts like that make me not want to be friends with you or support your social movements.

Bravo for the brave dissenter. Too bad bigotry is alive and well against nonconformists like him.

http://obamaisscum.blogspot.com/

People who think voting federal unconsitutional principles inot state protections is normal behavior are bigotted and evil.

The guys at my Catholic high school tried to vote in bans on gay marriage into our state Constitution all the time. Just because it's part of the their Catholic dogma and inherently discriminatory made it no big deal.

Elie, you're usually pretty clear but this was a confusing blog post. I'm not sure how this all unraveled. There was a blog post by someone at Proskauer? Was the response on the blog or using firm email? I don't get it. Sorry.

And by the way, the first graders were not just taken to a wedding, they were taken to a gay wedding. That's not teaching that gay marriage exists, that's promoting it. I was never taken to my teacher's heterosexual wedding on tax payer dollars.

Only evil people would ever fail to support gay marriage. Evil people like Obama and Biden.

That's not change, that's more of the same!

Here is the No On 8 campaign from Popsquire.com:

http://popsquire.com/index.php?s=prop+8

The Proskauer associate was responding to an email, which is included in the Above The Law Post.

Am I alone in thinking that it's inappropriate for first graders to go on a field trip to their teacher's wedding, regardless of the teacher's sexual orientation? It seems like the wrong relationship to establish between teacher and students....too social.

Elie, why are you defending bigots? If Prop 8 made marriage between African-Americans unconstitutional, would you be posting this crap? There is no morality in bigotry.

Elie, why are you defending bigots? If Prop 8 made marriage among two adult sisters and their father unconstitutional, would you be posting this crap? There is no morality in bigotry.

22/23: Where does Elie defend anyone in this? Recognizing that there is an ongonig debate is not a defense of either side, and neither is commenting on the prudence in expressing your views in that debate through your work e-mail.

First to say it...Elie, you didn't completely screw the pooch on this one. Keep it up.

13: your lack of support for our "social movement" is noted and we respond, "who gives a flying fuck?" promoting civil rights is not an enforceable civic duty, merely a human obligation. if you choose not to participate in the course of human events, that is your choice.

14: yes, how "brave" of the senior associate...to conform to the status quo. bigotry is nothing to be proud of, whether it's couched in religion or not. his arguments, incidentally, are total b.s., and undermine his position. that load of crap about the impact on religious freedom makes no sense to anyone with a passing familiarity with the bill of rights. marriage is primarily a civil institution; marriage equality seeks only to provide that civil institution to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. it has no impact on the freedom of religious groups to do as they please.

Keep the streak alive, Elie. More inane posts on divisive issues, please!

The religious freedom argument is really the last refuge of the scoundrel. It's complete nonsense and was demolished by the Supreme Court. In other jurisdictions, no one has required Catholic churches to marry gays, any more than Jews are currently trying to force Muslims to let them hold marriages in mosques.

If your only religious argument is "it offends my religion," well, that isn't violating your religious freedom. I'm a liberal protestant from a denomination that supports gay marriage. Is their religious freedom being violated? Of course not. Any religion can go on believing whatever it wants, whether it's that Jesus hate the gays or the Flying Spaghetti monster likes the gays or that the world is 4000 years old. But letting something happen that is against your religious creed doesn't mean you're being discriminated against.

So intellectually bankrupt. No one has explained how it threatens marriage. My getting hitched will only cause your marriage to falter if you married a secretly gay guy who notices hey, I could be happier. It won't stop me from adopting kids, which is already legal. Indeed, that grumpy associate notices that the only difference is the name. If the only difference is the name and not the effect, why are not the parade of horribles already falling upon us?

And no one has ever been able to explain why all the supposedly deleterious things that happen when the 'mos marry just haven't happened in Canada, Mass., South Africa, Norway, Spain, Belgium, or the Netherlands.

A happy homo in LA.

27: Agreed. This is why I'm not voting for Obama-Biden.

The point is, 24, is that there is no room for "debate." Allowing for the possibility of debate legitimizing morally repugnant bigotry. As I mentioned above, if Prop 8 made marriage between African-Americans unconstitutional, I doubt that Elie would be legitimizing the right of senior associates to whine about how morally wrong such marriages are.

28--that's a sort of gratuitous nonsequitor. Unless you're suggesting that their nonsupport for gay marriage is a reason to not vote for them. That's like pro-abortion women voting for Palin because they both have vaginas.

27

"Should gay and lesbian associates feel differently towards colleagues who promote "Yes On 8" views?"

The question should be, "Can gay and lesbian associates NOT feel differently toward colleagues who promote 'Yes on 8' views?" And the answer is, no, we really can't. If you believe that I should not have the legal right to marry my partner of 12 years, then I will think less of you.

So this dude writes Mr. Popsquire an e-mail objecting to the "evil" characterization, and it happens to have the firm name in it? Sheesh...no need to get our collective panties twisted.

I'm voting no on 8 btw.

> The point is, 24, is that there is no room for "debate."

Talk about the last refuge of the scoundrel.. Of course there is room for debate. The mere fact that people are debating means there is room for debate. "There is no room for debate" is a fundamentally fascist position.

21- Couple of facts. The field trip was organized by parents of the first graders who surprised their teacher. Second, the students whose parents did not agree or did not sign permission slips, stayed behind at school with another first grade class. Third, the school is a private school for the arts in SF, no need to worry about tax payer dollars.
While I have no prblem with the kids attending the wedding, it seemed like a photo op, with SF mayor Gavin Newsome officiating, that will play right into the hands of the Yes on 8 crowd.
"Them kids at that weddin' are fixin to catch the Gay AIDS, damn shame"
"They dragged these poor dears to a Lezzie wedding?"
Who has a wedding on a random weekday (read: school day)? It seems like it was orchestrated to illustrate the beauty of gay marriage, which I support, but I fear it may be the unintended Willie Horton moment for the Prop. 8 opposition.

There's nothing wrong, 33, with debating. But let's not take the position that both sides are equally valid. Just because you say something doesn't make it a valid point or a contested issue.

The simple fact is that there are no arguments against gay marriage that cannot be demolished. The "infringes my religious freedom" is a silly canard, the "it hurts straight marriage" is an empty phrase that no one can ever factually substantiate (not least because there's empirical evidence in the 7 other jurisdictions that allow gay marriage), tradition is a nonsense rationale for restricting rights (e.g. Loving v. Virginia).

Really, 33? Because it seems to me that not allowing a whole group of people not to marry is more akin to fascism than claiming Above the Law's posts on this issue legitimize an inherently bigoted position. But you seem to understand fascism better than me.

My apologies 21, that was meant for 18, but you should read it as well.

-34

... this has nothing to do with what I suppose to be the intent of the post, but I wonder who paid for this wedding. Last time I checked, most people try to whittle down the invite list, not add a busload of 1st graders.

Like the Supreme Court said, keep it in you house, otherwise we can make it criminal. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

I understand the stakes are incredibly high, but the "there's no room for debate" stance (aside from sounding fascist as someone mentioned) is not very helpful and may only serve to hurt the cause. There's a ton of people out there who are sympathetic to gays and gay right issues, but because of their religous affiliations (i.e, catholics), have not yet turned the corner yet on gay marriage. Such people need to be approached and educated, not callously shrugged off and "thought less of."

32

NO ON 8! If you're against gay marriage, don't get one and shut the *&%# up!

Yes on 2!

Uh, 39, you're a little clueless. That was sex. Not marriage. And, thanks, states can also criminalize sex between straights in public places, which, I suspect, the overwhelming majority do.

Of course, under Lawrence, they can't legalize public sex for straights but not gays. Sorry. You wanna fuck your girlfriend in public, I get to do my boyfriend right beside you.

27

People not to stop distracting from the important issues...gay people gettin married folks. Yes...That shit is gross!

People need to stop distracting from the real issues...gay people gettin married folks. Yes...That shit is gross!

35: tradition and history are relevant to debate _what_ the law should be and _how_ the law should be changed. While those facts should not always be conclusive, they deserve more weight than being dismissed out of hand. Ignore history at your own peril.

After all, isn't the gay marriage debate, on both sides, premised on the historical meaning of marriage? Why should only one side get to use that meaning?

And, if that meaning is going to change, what is the best agency for that change -- a handful of judges, or the democratic process?

Honestly, the arguments in favor of gay marriage _are the right arguments_. Trust in democracy and time that they will win out. But the way this process has played out in California is the wrong way.

35,

"The simple fact is that there are no arguments against gay marriage that cannot be demolished. The "infringes my religious freedom" is a silly canard, the "it hurts straight marriage" is an empty phrase that no one can ever factually substantiate (not least because there's empirical evidence in the 7 other jurisdictions that allow gay marriage), tradition is a nonsense rationale for restricting rights (e.g. Loving v. Virginia)."

What of the positional inconsistency argument? I'm fine if an individual says "the government should respect any marriage between consenting adults." Many times, however, that's just not the stance you hear. Instead the position voiced is, "respect all marriages between consenting adults except those between family members or polygamous marriages."

What makes discrimination against incestuous or polygamous relationships any less "bigoted" than that against homosexual individuals?

So, it appears to me that the equal protection clause "clearly" protects these other types of relationships, or it does not. If it does, fine. If it does not, why does it not and does that reason distinguish it from homosexual marriage discrimination? If there is, is this distinguishing reason so substantial that it should be allowed as sufficient reason to distinguish against one class of people v. those others?

I'm not exactly sure why there is such surprise at the thought that the equal protection clause treats "race" differently than other qualities for the purpose of protection. So, I'm not quite sure why there should be surprise at the fact that there is real debate over whether the equal protection clause prohibits discriminatory marriage laws on the basis of sexual orientation but not race.

Just my opinion though..

-social libertarian.

Social liberatrian--I see your point. Frankly, I don't have that much of a problem with letting people have the relationships they want.

But this is what is always trotted out as an argument against gay marriage: the minute we allow it, then suddenly there is a slippery slope and now we have to let men marry their cats. It's not a reason to oppose gay marriage. I'm struggling to articulate the point but it's a reason to oppose whatever supposed bad thing comes from it.

27/35/42

The main point of the article (and what everyone except for 32 is ignoring) appears to be that the associate who replied back to Popsquire somehow did something wrong by using his Proskauer account.

That is not right. Popsquire sent an email to everyone on its email list, including the Proskauer guy's Proskauer email account. The Proskauer guy repleid back ONLY TO POPSQUIRE. Of course he used his Proskauer account because that is where Popsquire had emailed him. Then, it appears that Popsquire took that email and gave it to abovethelaw so that they can make this an issue about Proskauer.

While I see nothing wrong with what the Proskauer associate did here, I think Popsquire's betrayal of trust by blasting a personal email to him all oever the internet to get his cause some publicity is simply shameful.

29: I didn't say there ought to be a debate. I said that there's nothing partisan about saying that a debate is actually happening.

-24

PS: Eat shit and die.

Can one be bigoted towards evil? Are evil people a class?

This whole thing is a joke because gays already have all of the same rights that go along with marriage in California. There are no actual rights at stake. This is really just an argument about terminology. The gays and other liberals simply want to taunt religious people by being allowed to use terminology that has religious meaning to the believers. There is no argument against this proposition that cannot be demolished.

The real bigots are the gays and other liberals trying to push gay "marriage" on everyone by judicial fiat. They are bigoted against religious people.

51--wow, buying into the idea there's a big gay conspiracy and agenda. Yes, it's not because I want to be the same as straight people, and get to say I'm married, and have it be treated the same as everyone else's marriage.

No, it's because I want to rub it in the face of the religious. Exactly. As part of the massive gay conspiracy to make religious people unhappy (aside: my religion sanctions gay marriage).

Lord, it's amazing how non-gay people can get into the heads of gay people. It's just like all the people who claim it's a choice happen to be the people who've never had to make it.

It's a reasonable response only if you don't think arguments ought to be cogent. The Yes on 8 guy is an idiot and his form of argument proves it. The fact that he's also a bigot is just icing.

LOL at 51 and 52...hello seperate but equal 51...and 52 no one is pushing anything...you probably support the Taliban in Afganistan because they are fighting religious persecution from women that want rights.

As to the men might marry their cats argument, who cares, let them. The law should only recognize marriage as an enforceable legal contract between two people and that's it. Any emotional or historical significance to marriage should be reserved for individuals or groups' private views but should have zero bearing on how the rest of us view marriage.

I love it! When you can't support your position with reasonable arguments, calling someone a bigot will make it all better. Bring it on...

-Ad Hominem

53: You can say you're married right now, and you can have your relationship be treated the same as everyone else's (well...in a few states). It's not that you want to call it marriage, it's that you want the state to call it marriage.

Also, I know a lesbian girl who says she is gay by choice because she thinks that men only get sex by abusing their power in society (or some other nonsense).

Wah! Wah! Gays are destroying marriage! Get a grip, Marys, and focus on your own relationships. Trust me, you didn't need our help to destroy marriage. You've pretty much locked that up yourselves.

Yo, but what does Joe the Plumber think about gay marriage?

The thing is, 25, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In a democracy, especially in the matter of a ballot initiative, what you are trying to do is to catch flies. If you are so abrasive and unpleasant in your rhetoric as to make me, a supporter of gay marriage, not want to vote with you, how do you propose to convince the undecided? If all you have to offer those who aren't true believers is contempt, all you will receive in recompense is defeat at the polls, in the legislature, and in the culture.

48: Remember the cardinal rule about email...don't send anything that you wouldn't want to end up on the front page of the newspaper/Above The Law!

Some might think that the associate exhibited poor judgment by not sending an email to Popsquire from a personal account.

What everyone seems to missing is that Russell "Popsquire" was a former Proskauer associate who had personal relationships with his former colleagues. I know both Russell and the individual who I suspect responded to him (definitely in the minority at the firm). If it is who I think, I thought they were friends, they went to lunch together and socialized with each other outside of work.

Russell send this guy an email at his firm address and the guy responded personally to RUSSELL (not anyone else). Instead of respecting this friend/former colleagues’ private and measured point that "adults can disagree (as you and I have responsibly for years) and while this can be an emotional issue for both sides, name calling is a little beyond you" Russell chose to try to exploit the situation to advance his agenda by leaking a private email.

Does Elie or anyone else think that this associate should have had to cut and paste an email sent to his firm account into a private email to personally respond to a former colleague? Ridiculous.

I am not saying I agree with the associate on all issues but I think Russell's behavior (and terminology) are way out of line.

27,

You're a homo.

62: There are some missing pieces of information. In the original email, the Proskauer associate cc'd his girlfriend and identified her as the person supposedly running the Yes On 8 Campaign. That's part of the "[Redacted]" on this site's post.

In doing so, the Proskauer associate was the first to expand the audience of the email communication. At that point, the dialogue was no longer only between two former colleagues.

Some attorneys might think twice about engaging in that kind of political communication on firm email.

62 is right. this popculture guy sounds like a fucking scumbag

64 = Russell Wetanson. Only person who would think adding a third person in the cc who is relevant to the private exchange who justify sharing the email with the entire world.

I'm an atheist and I'm against homosexual marriage. Advocates of the homosexual lifestyle attack "religion" because it’s an easy target.

The people who created religions sought to instill and promulgate the norms of their society by attributing them to God. That religion is now increasingly discredited does not mean that ALL of the values taught by religion should be discredited. Do we give credence to the argument that thievery ought not to be outlawed on the basis that it was a mythical God that told humanity not to steal? No. We judge that norm on its own merits. We should do the same for all norms. Therefore I do not accept the "you only oppose homosexual marriage because you're a religious nut" argument. It would be refreshing if more homosexual advocates attacked their opponents [such as me] on more substantial grounds (such as civil rights). I'll do the same; homosexuality is simply the manifestation of either a mental disease or genetic defect or both. Such manifestation is increasingly encouraged by our society.

29 -- No room for debate? Anybody who wants to debate the issue is bigoted? The issue of whether we should allow CA judges to decide that the definition of marriage should be fundamentally and radically redefined -- This is not something that should be debated???

What's happened to our society?

"a reasonable response"? Lat, why is Elie still lingering around?

Dear gays and their sympathizers,

Secede from the union and form your own gay country where you can get all the "rights" you want. Close the border to "evil" people and call lit a day. Because in America, we have something called the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS where people vote on issues. In America, people can express their views, whatever they are, and shouldn't have to worry if others think they are bigoted or "evil." Sure, I know that whatever you guys believe is right, but that's not how decisions are made in a democracy. If you don't believe in our democracy, leave. I'm not being hypocritical; I believe that the issue of civil rights for African Americans was best left to democratic processes also. If that leads to an "evil" outcome, then we should just dump the whole idea of democracy, because our constitutional system obviously doesn't work, does it?

70--So I take it you are for overturning Brown v. Board, the fundamentally undemocratic decision that it was. Also, what is a proposition but part of the democratic process? Perhaps you should rethink your positions before burbling nonsense and buzzwords which mean nothing in context.

70--So I take it you are for overturning Brown v. Board, the fundamentally undemocratic decision that it was. Also, what is a proposition but part of the democratic process? Perhaps you should rethink your positions before burbling nonsense and buzzwords which mean nothing in context.

"So I take it you are for overturning Brown v. Board, the fundamentally undemocratic decision that it was."
Brown v Board was a proper interpretation of the 14th amendment (sadly, politics in America got in the way of interpreting it correctly). Otherwise, I would say, yes, rely on the democratic process or admit that demcoracy doesn't work.

"what is a proposition but part of the democratic process?" - Obviously, a proposition is part of a democratic process. But some of the rhetoric the liberals are using is in the vein of stifling debate and intimidating others into agreeing with them. They are saying things like there is "no room for debate" and "shut the fuck up" (post 41). Those are fundamentally undemocratic attitudes. Calling your opponents "evil" is what sectarians do in Iraq.

I'm convinced that a lot of "liberals" will easily sell their country into facism, abridge free speech, etc... to arrive at a vision of America they agree with.

70 - You are absolutely right! Uh, if we lived in a Greek-style democracy. Instead, we live in a Constitutional Republic. If the distinction doesn't tell you why your argument is assinine, you might consider going back to school (and I mean High School basic government classes).

74,

Great point...in favor of 70. Basic rights, those that are not subject to the whims of the majority of citizens, are established in constitutions. Please identify the words "marriage" and "same gender" (or some equivalent) in either the Federal or the California constitution, and I will agree with your conclusions on the issue. But when judges, without authority to amend the constitution, begin expanding those rights in the constitution, and by so doing attempt to remove certain issues from the realm of public debate, that is the antithesis of a Constitutional democracy.

If you want the constitution to protect gay marriage, do it through the appropriate amending process. That is exactly what Prop. 8 is trying to do, because expansionist judges have made such action necessary.

73, you can't have it both ways. you can't contend that the CA court's interpretation of the CA constitution was "undemocratic," but then turn around and support Brown as "a proper interpretation of the 14th amendment." the only real difference between the two is that you agree with one outcome, and disagree with another.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with what will be taught in schools, whether churches get or lose funding, and whether children will come home from school gay. In fact it only has to do with the definition of the word "marriage." Nothing in Prop 8 prevents any of the lies its proponents are relying on to scare people into voting for Prop 8.

Great summary of what supporters on Prop 8 are afraid to say, but really mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qa8rDqKz9w

Let's be honest, most of the people voting for prop 8 are just afraid they'll one day be stuck in some horrid nightmare of a flamboyant gay wedding and will be expected to go all ga-ga when one of the grooms strips off his garter and throws it to the crowd.

74, your post doesn't make any sense. Please clarify what you mean so I can respond.

" the only real difference between the two is that you agree with one outcome, and disagree with another." - no its pretty clear that the 14th amendment was intended to protect people from racial discrimination. Arguing that the drafters of the 14th amendment expected to protect homosexuals is ludicrous. I'm not an originalist, but it makes a mockery of democracy to assume that the people who voted for the 14th amendment intended to protect homosexuals. Under your method of interpretation, the constitution can be warped to say whatever you want it to. Also, your evinces a complete lack of knowledge of constitutional law in the U.S.

74, your post doesn't make any sense. Please clarify what you mean so I can respond.

" the only real difference between the two is that you agree with one outcome, and disagree with another." - no its pretty clear that the 14th amendment was intended to protect people from racial discrimination. Arguing that the drafters of the 14th amendment expected to protect homosexuals is ludicrous. I'm not an originalist, but it makes a mockery of democracy to assume that the people who voted for the 14th amendment intended to protect homosexuals. Under your method of interpretation, the constitution can be warped to say whatever you want it to. Also, your evinces a complete lack of knowledge of constitutional law in the U.S.

Abolitionists are evil: If you don't like slavery, don't own one!

79/80, mostly agree with your point, but I think it should be noted that, from an originalist standpoint, Brown was clearly an activist decision. The same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also passed legislation for segregated public schools in DC, so it's hard to argue they imagined the 14 Amendment striking down the law they just passed.

That being said, I'm happy Brown came out the way it did, so I guess I'm in favor of some measure of incremental activism, even if a lot of it irks me.

77- "it only has to do with the definition of the word "marriage." Nothing in Prop 8 prevents any of the lies its proponents are relying on to scare people into voting for Prop 8."

As an attorney, I am shocked to read this assertion of yours. The legal profession is largely based on words and definitions.

Words mean something...and changing the definition of words, does have real consequences.

Without Prop 8 to solidify the definition of "marriage", schools WILL be mandated to teach about all forms of marriage.

public schools in California are required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum (Education Code §51890), without Prop 8, schools will be required to teach students about gay marriage.

In San Francisco they've already started, by taking a class of 1st graders during school hours (and bused them via taxpayer dollars) to wittness their teacher getting married: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

In Massachusettes David Parker, the parent of a 6yr old, was arrrested for attempting to opt out of the homosexual curriculum that was being taught in his son's kindergarten class.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

Finally, I just have to put this out there...If you are fine with marriage for everyone, then why not say that you in fact WANT schools to include it in their curriculum and teach about it?

77 - Enough with the scare tactics!

Were you taught about marriage in school? And how do you make the leap from teaching "the role of marriage in society" to "schools will be mandated to teach about all forms of marriage." All the education code requires is that children be taught about the role of marriage, not the types of marriage.

More importantly, if you are so concerned about "gay marriage" being taught in school then why don't you work to change the education code. Changing the current civil rights offered to every citizen of this state seems a little drastic!

if you have to use tons of vaseline, it's not supposed to go there.

comment 84 was meant for 83...not 77

"And they'll know we are christians by our love...."

Who wants to be married anyway? Straight people are just trying to save gay people from this burden. Just say thank you.

83- I addressed your concern for tax payer funds yesterday. Couple of facts. The field trip was organized by parents of the first graders who surprised their teacher. The school nor the teacher proposed the trip. Second, the students whose parents did not agree or did not sign permission slips, stayed behind at school with another first grade class. Third, the school is a private school for the arts in SF, no need to worry about tax payer dollars.
While I have no problem with the kids attending the wedding, it seemed like a photo op, with SF mayor Gavin Newsome officiating, that will play right into the hands of the Yes on 8 crowd, 83 included.
"Them kids at that weddin' are fixin to catch the Gay AIDS, damn shame"
"They dragged these poor dears to a Lezzie wedding?"
Who has a wedding on a random weekday (read: school day)? It seems like it was orchestrated to illustrate the beauty of gay marriage, which I support, but I fear it may be the unintended Willie Horton moment for the Prop. 8 opposition.

Listening to all of the angry liberals here rant about bigotry and homophobes leads me to pose this question...

Is Obama a bigot? Or a homophobe? Or is he just plain ignorant? Or is he a typical pandering politician?

Which one is it libs? Because frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at any of those answers.

Listening to all of the angry liberals here rant about bigotry and homophobes leads me to pose this question...

Is Obama a bigot? Or a homophobe? Or is he just plain ignorant? Or is he a typical pandering politician?

OBAMA OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

Which one is it libs? Because frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at any of those answers.

To 77 and the rest of you liberals who think this won't end up in the schools...

It will if the ACLU or any of the major backers of No on 8 have anything to do with it!!! (yep, the SAME backers who are running ads saying it is a lie that homosexual marriage will be taught in schools.)

Check out this link, and scroll to the bottom to read some of the statements in the amicus briefs filed in a Massachussetts case...

http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/proposition-8-who-s-really-lying-

Here is the best one, courtesy of the Anti-defamation league...

“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Gay marriage WILL be taught in schools, which DOES affect every parent with school age children. This WILL happen, which is why I am voting on Prop 8, I am volunteering my free time to call in support of 8, and why I donated to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Liberal Law Schools and Liberal Biglaw lawyers are the most intolerant people I have ever known. I attended Cornell law school and was absolutely shocked at the backlash for having original or sometimes conservative viewpoints from faculty, administration and students.

The people arguing that Prop 8 should be an exception to the "let everyone have their viewpoint" rule on the basis that there is no valid argument against racism or sexism follow the following logic:

I believe A which I think looks like B. B is universally bad and people who oppose B are universally bad, so people who oppose A are universally bad.

The problem with the above is that you can fill ANYTHING into A and racism or hatred into B and you are off to the races. The gay marriage debate is clearly not equal to the segregation movement - there are similar facets and differing facets.

Can we please open up forums and have meaningful conversations over whether incest, gay marriage, polygamy, abortion, private expressions of racism, and other issues are universally bad (I think some of those things are but I respect the fact that many disagree) rather than just calling them and everyone who disagrees with them universally bad? That is what intolerance is at its core! Can we be respectful about actually trying to understand a different viewpoint?

Many of the No on 8 people on this thread are acting under the same inclinations as religious people who are uncomfortable with someone in their neighborhood who might be athiest.

Question to supporters of gay marriage:

Should incestous marriages be legalized?

Great question.

Supporters of gay marriage will try to slap the slippery slope argument on it to cover up the fact that they have no good answer and can't hide behind wildly misapplied arguments like separate but equal.

Will someone tell “89” that Charter Schools are NOT "private schools" which don't get taxpayer funds.

Charter Schools get the same per day/per pupil public funding as regular public schools. Some charters are publicly run and others are formed and operated privately but ALL CHARTER SCHOOLS GET TAXPAYER FUNDS.

We all paid for the lesbian wedding field trip because the publicly funded charter school thought it was "a teachable moment.” When I was in school a teachable moment was learning how to read – maybe "89" should have learned to read the Charter School Act before making an argument that defeats his/her position.

What's wrong with teaching kids about gay marriage anyway? Assuming marriage is a proper topic for schools, the world might be a better place if kids learned from a young age that there are different types of love and people in the world.

Wetanson used to work for Proskauer in LA.