Countdown to California’s Prop. 8 Showdown
Unless something very strange happens, California’s electoral votes are already spoken for. In fact, we might know the next President long before the California polls close.
But regardless of the national election, there are many reasons why Californians should go vote on November, 4th. For many, Proposition 8 (the initiative to ban gay marriage) will be the signature issue on the ballot.
We have reported on attorneys from Orrick and Proskauer staking out positions on Prop. 8. Yesterday, the Daily Journal did a thorough breakdown of Prop. 8 campaign spending.
The California Marriage Protection Act has prompted more than 2,600 attorneys, judges and law professors to write checks totaling at least $1.6 million, but the committees that oppose the measure received 14 percent more money from the legal community than those who support it, an analysis by the Daily Journal shows.
No Biglaw firm took an “official” stance on the issue, but the Daily Journal reported that attorneys at Knobbe Martens, Sheppard, Mullin, Latham & Watkins, Richter & Hampton and Kirkland & Ellis led in terms of individual contributions.
Additional Prop 8 campaign info after the jump.
A majority of attorneys who gave money were against California’s proposed ban on gay marriage:
Individual donations from the legal community to No on 8 committees outnumbered those to Yes on 8 committees 3-to-1. The ratio doesn’t surprise groups working to defeat the measure that have targeted attorneys as likely allies.“We knew that lawyers understand how important the law is and would appreciate the enormous significance of changing our Constitution to discriminate against a group of people,” said Shannon Minter, the legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
But there is a vocal minority of the California bar that oppose gay marriage:
Attorneys who contributed to Yes on 8 committees were often sole practitioners and law firm partners in San Diego and Orange counties. Two sole practitioners are general counsel to the two largest committees that support the initiative, Protect Marriage and the National Organization for Marriage.In all, more than 600 attorneys, judges and law professors generated $738,000 to support the Yes on 8 campaign. Attorneys contacted for this article cited religion, family and judicial activism as the reasons for their support.
But, having reported on Orrick’s internal email battle over the issue, it is worth pointing out where the firm puts its money:
While Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe attorneys raised far more to defeat the initiative than support it, tax partner Dean Criddle’s $5,000 contribution to Yes on 8 prompted an angry e-mail from of counsel Cameron Wolfe, according to the popular legal blog Above the Law.
Californians will be giving the rest of the country a reason to stay up late on election night.
Same-Sex Marriage Initiative Polarizes Legal Community [Daily Journal]
Earlier: Gay Marriage Debate Comes To Proskauer Rose
Orrick’s Internal Battle Over Proposition 8
(163) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
First to be very open and accepting.
I think Knobbe Martens, Sheppard, Mullin, Latham & Watkins, Richter & Hampton and Kirkland & Ellis are firms and not attorneys. Not sure...
Second is the new FIRST, my friends!
~ John McCain
Knobbe Martens is a great attorney, what are you talking about
The support for Yes on 8 is surging out here, thanks in part to two effective ads featuring Prof. Richard Peterson of Pepperdine law school.
Sorry folks, looks like butt piracy and carpet munching won't be enshrined in marriage in Cali Caliente. Of course, civil unions and the benefits therein will still be available.
Hope it happens -- not because I don't like teh gayz, just because I want judges need to learn a lesson.
5
Why don't you give us your name so we can know who would make such offensive remarks.
Coward.
6 here, please treat my typos as blinding rage against activism and not stupidity.
@6 Motion denied.
Uh 5 really?
Considering that every major newspaper including the San Diego Tribune (conservative San Diego) has seriously dissed prop 5 and Feinstein lent her big willy style to the "No on 5 Campaign", you could not be more wrong.
Doubtful that any amendment would stand against US constitutional scrutiny anyway, marriage is a legal status, silly rabbit, not only a (dead) theological one.
Uh 5 really?
Considering that every major newspaper including the San Diego Tribune (conservative San Diego) has seriously dissed prop 8 and Feinstein lent her big willy style to the "No on 8 Campaign", you could not be more wrong.
Doubtful that any amendment would stand against US constitutional scrutiny anyway, marriage is a legal status, silly rabbit, not only a (dead) theological one.
5 might be a jerk, but he isn't wrong: the polls don't lie.
Elie = ass raper
I am voting YES on 8 because I SUPPORT Gay.
Only someone who truly hated gay people would subject them to the worthless and dead institution that is the American Marriage.
And Prof. Peterson can suck a bag of dicks.
I think you need to brush up on the prop majority needed for a constitutional amendment. Polls ain't lying about that.
Your Daily Journal link is no good. As far as we know, your quotes come out of your ass.
How can there be a post about gay marriage without a quote from the esteemed former Thelen partner, Tom Glass Cock?
I like to treat gays like I treat mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them shit.
tulane2L
Anyone who thinks 5 is a jerk should vote with their wallet at http://www.noonprop8.com
16 - Simple majority of the electorate at-large is all that's required.
Also, 5, CA has never had civil unions. It's domestic partnerships.
And I would hope that butt piracy and/or carpet munching already are "enshrined in marriage" or else I feel really sorry for a lot of straight married people.
22 - 5 here. Point well taken; let me clean it up. By voting for Prop. 8, CA voters will clarify, in regards to the institution of marriage, that ass raping and carpet munching shall be performed only between one man and one woman.
Vote for the chocolate starfish.
uh, 10 , really? "Doubtful that any amendment would stand against US constitutional scrutiny anyway, marriage is a legal status, silly rabbit, not only a (dead) theological one. "
Would that scrutiny somehow find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage legal status somewhere in the emanations coming from the penumbras of the US Constitution?
uh, 10 , really? "Doubtful that any amendment would stand against US constitutional scrutiny anyway, marriage is a legal status, silly rabbit, not only a (dead) theological one. "
Would that scrutiny somehow find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage legal status somewhere in the emanations coming from the penumbras of the US Constitution?
Hadn't heard about the Sheppard/Latham merger. Must say I'm surprised that Sheppard got first billing.
Poopin? In a hat? OH YEAH!
#1 Fucking rules! Either frontwards or backwards.
Any attorney that opposes gay marriage doesn't understand our Constitution, equality, or their oath and should be banned from the practice.
To #29 -- Good old liberal fascism...if someone disagrees with your view of what's right, then they should be stripped of their rights. It always amazes me how liberals are allowed to bully their world views on everybody and want to strip rights from anybody who opposes them.
STAND AGAINST LIBERAL FASCISM.
6: It's called common law, or did you completely miss that at your TTT school.
19:
that line was funnier when Mark Wahlberg said it about the feds in The Departed. lameass
How can I apply for a SA position at Sheppard, Mullin, Latham & Watkins, Richter & Hampton? Sounds like a great place to work.
-nervous T-10 1L
"Sheppard, Mullin, Latham & Watkins, Richter & Hampton"
Unless the market has produced some catastrophic split-up at SMRH, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton are still one firm. Can I get a proofread, Elie?
I'm a big law associate - voting YES on Prop 8 to protect and restore traditional marriage in California. If we're talking about "rights" - in California same sex couples have all of the same rights as married couples.
This is one of those unique issues in which Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin and most of America agrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Hmdcy_lvQ&e
why would a straight person be upset about gays getting married? don't be afraid of change! (if you are, you can snuggle up to your FOX News; it'll protect you from the scary truth!)
#30 - There's this document that a bunch of liberals sat down and wrote called the Constitution...maybe you've heard of it?
Oh wait a minute...that document was written by a bunch of white property owning old men who didn't want to pay taxes...and they said that equality and equal protection was the law of the land. Now that's liberal facism.
Douche.
Remember when this blog used to have stuff about bonuses and layoffs and insider info on firm happenings?
Remember when Lat left?
Remember when the new EiC started posting the same article 14 times because he didn't have anything else to talk about?
34 -
It was funnier the way 27 said it.
I don't care about grammar or typos, but HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY POSTING A WORKING LINK to the story on which you base your freaking blog posts??
29:
Barack Vader: "Proposition 8 will pass. And I'm an attorney who believes marriage = man & woman only . . . . Good, I can feel your anger. . . I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"
Whats a Mark Wahlberg?
Do gay men also have to schedule annual gynecological appointments?
41: that was the emperor's line on the death star in return of the jedi...get your nerd facts right, wanna be.
Darth Obama
This isn't rocket science, why do you think there are such mitigating capacities as pocket-firearms? Smith & Wesson makes a .38cal revolver with a short barrel and a shrouded trigger {so it - the trigger, won't get caught on clothing and discharge when it's not intended to do so}. It - being a revolver, is reliable, won't jam and doesn't have a slide that has to be pulled back. You simply carry it in your overcoat/jacket pocket and if/when you sense vulnerability you put your hand in your pocket. Heck, since you don't have to **** a slide {like on a semi-automatic}, you can fire it right from within your pocket. OK, so, you'll have a small exit hole to sew up.
Remember, it's ALWAYS better to be tied by 12 than to be carried by 6.
-Smith n Wesson
30 - exactly what right of yours is being stripped away by not banning gay marriage?
46 - 30 here. I was referring to 29's comment, reproduced here since you can't follow the explicit reference:
"Any attorney that opposes gay marriage doesn't understand our Constitution, equality, or their oath and should be banned from the practice."
Banning someone from practice would be stripping a right, no?
46 - It's the complaint that anybody who votes Yes on Prop 8 should be prohibited from practicing law or limited in some other way because they disagree with you. It is the same for a lot of liberal causes. Only religious freedom if it agrees with the liberal cause. Only freedom of speech if it is liberal speech. Etc. etc. etc.
Is practicing law really a "right" in the context of this argument? It's more like a licensed privilege that can be taken away. It's not like you have a constitutional right to practice law.
I used to like being a liberal, but #30 is a right. I have an eerie feeling that many of my fellow "liberals" would take away our right to free speech, etc... if people said/did the wrong things.
The biggest problem with liberals nowadays is that they feel like they have a monopoly on caring about other people. They don't realize that conservatives and people who disagree with them care about people too(obviously some don't, but a lot too) , but they just think that different things are right for people. A lot of liberals also think that their good intentions justify them being an idiot and not thinking about the issues.
Also, #29 is an idiot because at no time in our history, save post 2000, would any court or legislature in the US legalized gay marriage.
Discriminating homophobe. Practicing law is a privilege granted because an individual has an understanding of the Constitution. the incorporated human rights and liberties and the concepts of FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, and JUSTICE for all, not just us fundamentalist elitist jerks...all of which you fail to comprehend and hence have no business practicing law.
What does former Thelen partner Tom Glascock (aka Glass Cock) have to say about Prop 8?
49 has it correct - say a lawyer advocated overthrow of the government and violated the lawyer's oath to support the Constitution and laws of the US and the state granting the license, that lawyer could be banned from the practice by that state taking away the lawyer's license to practice law in the state, but such a ban would have nothing to do with the lawyer's rights - not even the right of free speech.
"FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, and JUSTICE" - Ok people have different definitions for those words and your definition isn't necessarily the right one. Those words can just easily justify a communist state as well as an Islamic theocratic state as well as a libertarian state. If you can't put content to those words, you're like one of the victims of the Reign of Terror wondering what went wrong when your head is on the chopping block.
Also, once again, its not settled (or even seriously argued) that gay marriage is allowed under the US constitution.
53 - lawyers have advocated worse things and not gotten disbarred - see, for example, Ramsey Clark.
Should a lawyer get disbarred for advocating Roe v Wade being overturned?
You liberals are nuts.
51=TTT
Marriage grants certain rights to heterosexual couples. Equality under the law requires all people to have the same rights. Ergo, gay couples should be allowed to marry in the same manner as straight couples. Extending those rights does not infringe on anyone else's rights, but may offend their religious beliefs, which the government is prohibited from considering in legislating under the First Amendment. Hence Gay Marriage is both fair and just under the Constitution, regardless of Foudners intent.
Why do straight conservatives give a f**k about this issue? Live and let live. Be Christian and don't judge other people.
Can we have another post about law firm politics? I don't mind all the Obama e-mails sent out at my firm or the fact that associates find it necessary to decorate their offices with Obama stickers but I do find it annoying that many of these people just expect you to vote for Obama and get angry when you express any kind of support for McCain's policies.
A well-regulated bakery being necessary to the feeding of an ATL hack, the right of Eli Mystal to keep and bear donuts shall not be infringed.
Does this indicate a collective right on the part of Eli's chins to donuts ?
Serious question here -- if Prop. 8 passes, will Elie not be able to marry a man or a woman?
30 here - Last I checked, no interpretation or part of the US Constitution granted same sex couples the right to marry. The right to marry is not universal (see: incest) and therefore your blanket assertions about the Constitution are ridiculous. Moreover, before 2008, California statute did not support same sex marriage based on the ballot initiative in 2000.
Just because you think equal protection requires states to recognize gay marriage doesn't necessarily make it so.
Implicit in 29's statement is the notion that "if you don't agree with us, you can't be part of OUR profession." Who are any of you to pass judgment on someone just because they disagree with you?
61 - he'll be able to marry a box of Entenmann's. The bride will wear powdered sugar.
62 - Untrue. I'm saying there are requirements for our profession that you EPICLY FAIL to meet.
Just because you think America is an inherently Christian nation doesn't necessarily make it so.
I am intrigued by the thought of a gay Elie. I like big tits and I'm sure that he has DD's.
I wouldn't fuck a gay Elie's with Tom's Glascock.
64 is so convincing. Bald assertion and allcaps are enough for me. Constitutional ass-bangs for everyone !
Elie is actually married. However, I think NY should amend its constitution to prohibit Elie from marrying and save us all from a bunch of baby Elie's populating what is still barely a respectable state.
Why do straight conservatives give a f**k about this issue? Live and let live. Be Christian and don't judge other people.
Why do straight conservatives give a f**k about this issue? Live and let live. Be Christian and don't judge other people.
I've met plenty of women married to gay dudes. They are all miserable because their husbands won't stop doing all the laundry and making them a romantic dinner every night.
67 - And carpet munching for none? I like to do both to my girlfriends. Will you Constitutionally prohibit me?
With all the ass-banging haters out there you'd think we're all not getting any. Too many billable hours to get a little kinky?
Huffington: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/10/29/1029bbdeaths.html
72 - damn straig... uh, hell yes. You should be stickin', not lickin'. It's in the Declaration of Independence somewhere.
No on 8! If you're against gay marriage, don't get one and shut the &%*# up!
Amen 75.
And yes 74, it is. It's called "the pursuit of happiness clause" and it applies to alot of other things that have been taken away from us by Puritanicals Christians. And it applies and has a legal force equal to the Constitution that some "Originalists" fail to recognize.
75 here. I forgot to say: Yes on 2!
I look forward to the appointment of Justice 76 to the Obama Supreme Court. It will inaugurate a new school of juridical reasoning known as Asshat Konstitooshunalism, named after the two locations from which its logic is pulled.
76 - it would make me really happy if you would shut the fuck up. Go pursue that.
#35: No, gay couples do not have the same rights as straight couples in CA. They are not allowed to have their government recognize their commitment to one another as a marriage. They are required to only have their government recognize them as members of a civil union. If you support separate but equal, that is fine, but please take five minutes tomorrow to ask a black person where you live what they think about separate but equal and whether they think it is okay?
Then, do us a favor, step in front of the first fast moving vehicle you see.
80 - I still don't see the problem. Separate but equal could work.
If the right really want to end gay sex....they should allow them to marry. Married people never have sex.
76, they cant take away a right you never had.
81 - separate but equal is against the constitution
84 - it depends on your interpretation
Why do straight conservatives give a f**k about this issue? Live and let live. Be Christian and don't judge other people.
86 - I just can't do that, the liberals won't leave me alone so why should I leave them alone? You are the ones who wants government involved in everything we do. Everyone's business is the governments business from your perspective. So now, this is my business. And why do you assume that all conservatives are Christian?
If Jesus were alive, he'd definitely kick it with HIV+ gays. Seriously.
How many of you actually practice in CA?
Also, I like how persuasive the right is with their argument about Yes on Prop 8. Just look at their statements that gay marriage will have to be taught in schools... wait, CTA said that's no true.
Well their argument that catholic priests will be forced to perform gay marriages or risk loosing non-profit status definitely persuades me.
Also, they video-conferenced that Swedish pastor who was arrested for not performing a gay marriage. I don't want my pastor to be arrested for not performing gay marriages.
Good arguments all. Glad to know the old, fear mongering right has changed their ways.
Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve
HTMFHYTTTSEF
Is there any truth to the rumor that Elie has been cast as Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo in the upcoming live action film version of South Park?
Intelligent rhetoric followed by pisspoor slogans.
I like the "pursuit of happiness" clause angle. It is the Declaration of Independence so textualists would have to dig it...combine it with rights reserved to the people (and unenumerated) and there's something there.
I'm extremely confused on how this is getting support. The Supreme Court already ruled that gay marriage is protected and then people want to re-write the constitution so that it is? It's f***ing absurd to call this anything but discrimination.
93 here - I meant "re-write the constitution so that it is not".
Former Thelen partner Tom Glascock (aka Glass Cock) has called a press conference for 9 am tomorrow to discuss his views on gay anal sex and proposition 8.
I think the real vote here is.
A. Vote no because you're a closed minded ass if you really are against gay marriage. or
B. Vote yes because all the vote no people are so fucking anoying and righteous that it'd be worth it to watch them cry.
Personally, I'm torn.
History has proven discrimination to be a losing stance. Whether this prop passes or not, in 10 years you all will look foolish. see Dred Scott.
History has proven discrimination to be a losing stance. Whether this prop passes or not, in 10 years you all will look foolish. see Dred Scott.
Is it possible to both (a) be aware of Elie's existence and (b) believe in a god?
96, the real close minded people are the people like you. I don't think there is anyone who disapproves with gay marriage yet cannot see how those that support it can feel that way. Yet, you cannot possibly see how anyone can be opposed to it?
You do not have to hate gay people to be opposed to gay marriage. Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage hate the concept of gay marriage rather than the gay people getting married. Those of you that equate one with the other are the close minded ones.
I have been in love before and know what a great feeling it is. I would never want two people who love each other, whether heterosexual or homosexual to be apart. However, weddings have always been a religious bond between man and woman, and I do not believe that should change. Until my church begins voluntarily performing gay marriages, I will always oppose any measure that can possibly impact its tax exempt status.
#100, paragraphs 1 and 2 are dead on. You lost me at paragraph 3. Allowing same-sex marriage in CA does not force anyone's church or religious institutions to marry gay people. All it requires is that two, loving men or women can go to the county clerk and get to call their loving relationship the same thing that opposite sex couples do. Gay marriage would not impact your church's tax exempt status either. There is a difference between CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage, and you are conflating the two.
I should have invited you to MY gay wedding, because you would have seen how beautiful and touching it was for two people in love to express that in front of friends and family, and to know that the State treats their love as equal.
#100, paragraphs 1 and 2 are dead on. You lost me at paragraph 3. Allowing same-sex marriage in CA does not force anyone's church or religious institutions to marry gay people. All it requires is that two, loving men or women can go to the county clerk and get to call their loving relationship the same thing that opposite sex couples do. Gay marriage would not impact your church's tax exempt status either. There is a difference between CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage, and you are conflating the two.
I should have invited you to MY gay wedding, because you would have seen how beautiful and touching it was for two people in love to express that in front of friends and family, and to know that the State treats their love as equal.
This is Tom Glascock (aka Glass Cock), former Thelen partner, and 102, I'd have preferred to have seen the honeymoon. Va va voom!
Who cares about the gays. Phils win!
What a piss poor showing by a group of putative attorneys and law students. One hundred comments about an issue which - though emotional - is bottomed in the law, and not one single well-reasoned legal argument. Moreover, somebody actually cited the Declaration of Independence to support their argument! Did I miss that day in Con Law when we talked about that document's binding force on the legislature or judiciary? Are there certain penumbras and emanations from the DoI that guarantee unenumerated rights? Shouldn't you be off writing a law review article? Maybe Larry Tribe can co-author it with you.
As people have alluded to, the real disappointment is that arguments are now cast as good vs. evil, instead of being discussed based on their substantive merits. Instead of arguing from the strengths of their position - and their certainly are credible arguments to be made for gay marriage (equal protection, privacy rights) - people simply resort to name calling and moral superiority. This is disheartening in society and large and downright pathetic for people training to be, or practicing as, lawyers. I would love to see someone get up in court and call opposing counsel a bigoted asshole that doesn't care about other people. Even more, I'd love to see someone arguing before the Supreme Court call Scalia a bigot or homophobe instead of arguing the merits of his case. I wonder how that would've worked out for the attorneys in Lawrence.
Look 105 -
The Supreme Court already ruled on it. This is about re-writing the constitution to change the language of the document, because some people don't like what the Supreme Court had to say. Arguments about equal protection, penumbras, etc. are no longer really at issue. The only thing left is for the electorate to decide if we like the constitution the way it is or if we want to revise it.
99: Elie ate God.
Blah, Blah, Blah. Suck it, 105.
35, Barack Obama and Joe Biden both OPPOSE Prop 8. Each has said that he does not believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal, but nonetheless, both oppose writing discrimination into a state constitution, as Prop 8 does. So maybe you should reconsider your vote - you don't have to approve of marriage for same-sex couples in order to believe that our constitution should continue to protect all of us equally. Obama and Biden get this.
50, contrary to your assertion that at "no time in our history, save post 2000, would any court or legislature in the US legalized gay marriage," the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional (sex discrimination, under Hawaii Constitution). Baehr v. Lewin - look it up. Further, would you have called a person an idiot for, say, having expected lawyers to understand that anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory only a few years after Loving v. Virginia? I would hope no, but I guess your answer is probably yes. Go back to school...except I suspect you're still IN school.
110th!!!
Oh yeah. So, who do I see about getting my prize (you know, for posting 110th)?
These pretzels are making me 111th! Suck it!
Awesome.
I may not be an elf, but I'm one-hundred and twelfth!
(Seriously, though, about that prize?)
The best response to the prop-8 issue: http://justmarvy.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-defense-of-marriage_06.html
Being married isn't really that big a deal, who cares. I only got married for the health insurance. I'd rather live in sin. It's more fun and no pressure. It's funny that this is even an issue.
I am not a supporter of the Gay Aids. Its too gay.
i really don't like the idea of a court taking this much control, but i agree with their position...glad im not a cali voter.
#100:
If weddings always have a religious connotation or bond, then get them the fuck out of my government. If what you're saying is true, government should be eliminated from the business of "marriage" altogether.
Keep your rosary out of my ovary, bitch.
Hey, we need another reminder to bid on the date with Kash at tonight's auction at GULC.
The main problem I have with the same-sex marriage debate is people refusing to call the issue what it is. Same-sex marriage advocates love to call this an "equal rights" issue, as if to imply that homosexuals are being denied the same rights that heterosexuals have.
Fact is, homosexuals aren't looking for equal rights, they're looking for extra rights. Right now, gay people have the exact same rights I do. They can marry any single, consenting, adult, non-incestuous person of the opposite sex.
Fact is, homosexuals don't want that. They want to marry someone of the same sex. Fair enough if that's your desire, but :"equal rights" doesn't entitle you to it. How is that an equal right? Straight people don't have that right, so who are you trying to be equal to?
If you want same-sex marriage, that's fine. Acknowledge that you;re trying to change the law and do so through the legislative process (which we all learned in third grad civics is the way to change laws). Don't claim it's a matter of "equal rights," because it's not. No one has ever had the absolute right to marry the person of their choosing, even if that person wants to marry them back. We've always restricted marriage (outlawing polygamy, incest, child-marriage, same-sex marriage, etc.).
@106- you're making 105's point for him by employing superficial analysis that fails to support your conclusion.
please provide a cite for the proposition that the SC has "already ruled" on whether a state should recognize same sex couples in the same manner as hetero couples. and please don't show say Lawrence.
What is funny is all of you are suppose to be attorneys that secretaries actually have to take direction from. What a bunch of morons
Maybe I've missed something, but aren't gay men allowed to marry women?
Bingo 122! Sounds like equal rights to me. The right to marry same-sex would be an extra right. If someone wants that, let them get it through the legislature, not the courts. That's the proper way to do things.
YES ON 8.
If you want to make up something new that's like being an Eagle Scout, but for girls, then call it something different. Don't change what being an Eagle Scout is for all those people who previously received it.
If you are gay and you want to make up some new sort of union that's protected by the state, then do it but call it something different.
YES ON 8.
-Big3 Associate, Los Angeles
The true answer to this whole issue is this: Allow any two people, straight couples or gay couples, to be legally "married" as far as the state is concerned. State marriage is between two people, period--gays can marray and enjoy all of the benefits and status that is entailed. But once we start messing with whether it's a Constitutional right, we're entering a realm where we might be forcing religions to sanctify gay marriages against their will, and the state should NOT be mandating anything like that to religion (I believe that's actaully in the Constitution somewhere...). The whole problem is that we've made this a Constitutional fight--the state should recognize the marriage of any two people, and religions should be allowed, as they always have, to perform their own ceremonies and sacraments as they see fit. When Henry VIII couldn't get the Catholic Church to give him what he wanted regarding marriage, he started his own religion that allowed it. Maybe that's what we need here (though I also see potential problems with somebody starting the Church of Gays or something like that).
I don't have a birth certificate because I was born outside of the US (to American parents). Instead, I have a consul report. I have the same rights as other citizens, but the government calls my document something else.
I want the right to have the government call my document a birth certificate. Anyone who doesn't agree with me should be disbarred for failing to uphold the constitutional principles of fairness, equality and justice.
119, your argument is stupid. That's like having an office with only right handed supplies (scissors, whatever) and saying, "we don't discriminate against lefties. They can use any of our right handed supplies."
The point is, gay people don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. It wouldn't work out. Just look at Larry Craig's marriage.
If marriage is redefined it will effect everyone. Look at Mass. "Gay marriage" is being taught in kindergarten without parental consent. I personally don't want to give up my rights just because someone wants to change marriage. Why aren't homosexuals happy with civil unions? They don't have to take marriage. Proposition 8 protects my right to keep marriage between a man and a woman. What is next, threesomes, foursomes? How will they argue that? What many want is to disintegrate marriage altogether and take it out of society. What will really happen if Prop 8 isn't past is children will lose rights. Look at the studies. Marriage between a man and a woman as we know it benefits society. There is no denying that. Look at the facts. This is not just for our generation but for the future generations as well. unitedfamilies.org
125: Only between two people? What if I'm bi-sexual. Only letting me marry a woman isn't fair because I can be simultaneously attracted to a man. I should be able to marry both a man and a woman. I'm hoping after No on 8 passes that my rights will be next in line to be shown as protected under the constitution.
Also I have a friend who is truly in love with her cat. This is no joke. To her the cat is like a husband. I think it's unfair that she is being denied her rights to be with the one she loves, not to mention that she doesn't get the tax benefits that gay and straight couples are afforded. After my bi-sexual rights are guaranteed, I hope that hers will be next in line.
Fools like 122 and 123-
Read Loving v. Virginia. That logic doesn't fly.
128: Good points!
The truth is, liberals don't like to feel "guilty". If society has any sort of norm that says that you should be married before you start having sex, or before having kids, or whatever, and they don't want to do it, then their goal will be to destroy that norm. They don't believe in sin because if they did they would have to feel guilty. They don't believe that life could possibly start in the womb because if they did they would be murderers. So if they can create social norms that remove those beliefs, they can live a much more blissful life in their platonic caves.
These people don't really want to be married. Look at how many gay couples in California have NOT gotten married. It's incredible. This isn't about people wanting to be married. It's to get rid of the idea of marriage as something with an ounce of holiness left in it. It's already been whittled down to practically nothing with rampart divorce, abuse, people who do not honor their marriages, but this they hope will be the final death to the idea and the end of guilt.
Don't ignore the animals-- What about CA's Proposition 2??
http://www.yesonprop2.com/
This important measure would outlaw some of the worst abuses of farmed animals in CA: veal crates for calves, gestation crates for mother pigs, and battery cages for chickens--all of which are so small that the 20 million animals so confined cannot even turn around or stretch their limbs!
VOTE YES ON PROP 2!!!!!!!!
Hey 132, Prop 2 for farm animals rights is good but it doesn't go far enough. Why aren't they allowed to marry? That's messed up. As long as they love eachother, we shouldn't allow some ancient definition of marriage to stand in their way.
The next logical step is to allow marriage between brothers and sisters - don't laugh, prohibitions against incest are on their way out - there are no good reasons for prohibiting marriage between sisters and brothers.
“The adoption of same-sex marriage would topple a long-standing system of shared values. It would change assumptions and expectations by which society has long operated–that men and women are not interchangeable, for example, and that the central reason for marriage to provide children with mothers and fathers in a safe and loving environment. . . .My foreboding is that a generation after same-sex marriage is legalized, families will be even less stable than they are today, the divorce rate will be even higher and children will be even less safe. To express such a dire warning is to be labeled an alarmist, a reactionary, a bigot and worse . . . .but it is not bigotry to try to learn from history, or to point out that some institutions have stood the test of time because they are the only ones that can stand the test of time.”
Jeff Jacoby in Boston Globe
An email I received this morning says it best. This is why I am voting No on Proposition 8. Read the email for yourself and then try to justify a yes vote.
Friends-
Many of you have received solicitations from me for various causes in the past-- some of you have even been so gracious as to support those requests!! However, I assure you that this email is different-- it isn't a request to help a particular candidate or charity that I support; but rather a plea-- a very personal plea-- to ask you to do what you can to defeat Proposition 8 in California (and similar ballot measures in Florida and Arizona).
Those of you receiving this email may be Republican, Democrat, non-political, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, young, old, black, white, latino, gay, straight, married, single, rich, poor--- The only thing I know for certain that you all have in common is that we are all human and I consider all of you my friends.
I'm gay- you all know that. What you may not know is that I've been called some of the worst names I've ever heard; had things thrown at me; had supposedly righteous people tell me I would burn in hell; and lost what I thought were good friends-- all because of who I am. Let me make this clear-- I cannot choose to be straight just as you cannot choose to be a different race. Since coming out, I've understood that hate comes in all sorts of forms. Sadly, I've learned to live with knowing that some people, whether they have known me for years or have never even met me, will judge me not on my character or personality, but on a single piece of me that I cannot control. And while it hurts to say- and undoubtedly hurts even more to experience- I've learned to be hated.
However, I'm also lucky enough to have learned to be loved and to love. I wake up each morning next to the man I dreamt about the night before. Just as all of you in your relationships, I respect, honor, and learn from Brian. I smile at his sight (even before he does his hair!), laugh at his jokes (even when they may not be funny!), and yes- I even still get those love butterflies when he holds my hand. The past 4 years and three months have been filled with some of the best memories of my life. I consider myself incredibly lucky to be in a position to share the rest of my life with someone that I love.
Those of you that are straight and are lucky enough to have found this type of love are privileged to be able to marry and make a commitment to each other. You experience the rights and obligations that our government and community expect of a committed couple. You need not worry that if your spouse gets sick that the hospital may not allow you to visit. You don't have to worry that if your spouse passes away you may not have the right to decide how to honor their life- or that you may not have any rights to any of the property you shared during your life together. Your love is recognized and you in essence are treated as a couple by your government and all those in your community. Brian and I love each other no less- yet are treated as strangers under the laws of the United States.
California joined Massachusetts (and now Connecticut) in recognizing that there is a fundamental right to acknowledge love between two people. Yet there is now a strong push to reverse course and amend the state constitution to deny the GLBT community the honor of marriage. Proponents of Proposition 8 are fostering misunderstanding and fear to mask what I have learned to live with-- hate. I challenge anyone to tell me why my love for Brian should not be treated like any other couple's.
In 1968 the Supreme Court said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Until this case (Loving v. Virginia)- if you can believe it- interracial marriages were illegal in some states. Forty years later, the GLBT community is now facing our civil rights battle. And, like so many of the movements before, we are forced to refute lies, calm unsupported fears, correct misunderstandings, and - rather than simply learning to live with-- actually confront hate.
I do not live in California (or Florida or Arizona)- so I cannot use the power of my vote to battle hate. Those of you that do live there, please-- please-- please vote for love and vote NO ON PROPOSITION 8. I realize that we are in a tough economy and that money is tight. However, if you can spare even $5 or $10, please donate to the No on 8 campaign (www.noonprop8.com). Sadly, many proponents of Prop 8 have very deep pockets and their measure is extremely well funded. They are using their resources to instill fear and misunderstanding in voters. Brian and I have donated to the No on 8 campaign, and we would be honored if you joined us in this fight to combat fear. The current polls are not great- and unless we have sufficient funds to reach voters to counter the misperceptions with facts, in less than a week, language crafted based on hate and misunderstanding could be carved into California's constitution.
Finally, do what I'm doing today. Don't simply live with hate-- help us stand up and defend equality. Ask all those you know in California (and Florida and Arizona) to vote NO ON PROP 8! Election day is one week away- we need to win this battle.
I hope you all are lucky enough to find someone to share your life with. And I hope that you never are attacked or discriminated against based on that love. I'm not so naive to think that we can eliminate hate from our population- but I am hopeful that together we can at least ensure that the documents that grant us our fundamental rights - our state and federal constitutions - are not used as a tool to deny rights. I'm also hopeful that one day you will join Brian and me at our wedding- I promise an open bar and plenty of dancing-- but most of all, I promise that you will witness that our love is no different than that between a husband and wife.
Please- join us in standing up against hate. www.noonprop8.com Thanks for anything and everything you can do over the next 6 days.
134: There is a good reason to prohibit incest, and it's the high risk of birth defects.
But, while this might be a good reason, it's definitely not good enough. We don't prohibit people with genetic disorders or women over 40 from having kids. We don't force people with incestuous tendencies to produce children with someone they're not related to. We don't allow incest where either person is incapable of having children.
The only thing left is the icky factor.
Really, what's wrong with separating the legal status of marriage from the religious institution of marriage? If 131 is so concerned about preserving the "holiness" of marriage, the solution is to keep religious marriage as it is, where each religion gets to decide for itself what it chooses to sanctify as "holy matrimony." Religions are allowed to discriminate; women cannot become Catholic priests, for instance. The Mormon religion (a hot topic here lately) has very strict conditions that must be met to enter into a "holy" marriage that is approved by the church. All of that should be totally separate from what the State recognizes as marriage, because the state should not be allowed to discriminate and should extend the same basic rights to every citizen, period (See 14th Amendment, for those of you who seem to have forgotten it existed).
However this Prop 8 vote turns out, it will have the effect of either forcing religions to sanctify marriages against their will, or allowing the state to deny basic rights to a large chunk of the population; either outcome is wrong.
With a few exceptions, no one reading these posts would believe that the commentators were trained as lawyers. Any 'Joe Six Pack' could come up with most of the arguments, particularly the anti-gay-marriage ones.
128
LEADING LEGAL SCHOLARS REJECT PROP 8 ARGUMENTS: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/voterguide/20081030-prop8letter.html
Prop 8 is not about teaching in schools and it does not affect religion at all. Look at the above letter from 49 law professors in California revealing the pro 8 arguments as pure lies.
Prop 8 is is about eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry in the eyes of the state, not your church.
You asked: Why aren't homosexuals happy with civil unions? -- It is a simple separate is not equal argument. Can you honestly answer these questions for yourself : Would you be happy if you could only get a civil union rather than a marriage? Are you married? If you truely believe civil unions were equivalent, would you divorce your spouse and enter into a "civil union" with him/her -- do you feel that is equal? Think it will go over well with your spouse? Would you feel like a second class citizen if you had to invite all your friends and family to your civil union ceremony instead of your wedding? Would you rather trust your private/family issues to an untested set of statutes hastily drafted to create a new legal instutiton or would you rather just got with tried and tested marriage rights?
The point is this : CA allows people the right to marry the person they love - it is unfair to give that right to straight people but not gay people.
128
LEADING LEGAL SCHOLARS REJECT PROP 8 ARGUMENTS: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/voterguide/20081030-prop8letter.html
Prop 8 is not about teaching in schools and it does not affect religion at all. Look at the above letter from 49 law professors in California revealing the pro 8 arguments as pure lies.
Prop 8 is is about eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry in the eyes of the state, not your church.
You asked: Why aren't homosexuals happy with civil unions? -- It is a simple separate is not equal argument. Can you honestly answer these questions for yourself : Would you be happy if you could only get a civil union rather than a marriage? Are you married? If you truely believe civil unions were equivalent, would you divorce your spouse and enter into a "civil union" with him/her -- do you feel that is equal? Think it will go over well with your spouse? Would you feel like a second class citizen if you had to invite all your friends and family to your civil union ceremony instead of your wedding? Would you rather trust your private/family issues to an untested set of statutes hastily drafted to create a new legal instutiton or would you rather just got with tried and tested marriage rights?
The point is this : CA allows people the right to marry the person they love - it is unfair to give that right to straight people but not gay people.
“Gay marriage is not some sideline issue, it is the marriage debate . . . .The consequences of our current retreat from marriage is not a flourishing libertarian social order, but a gigantic expansion of state power and a vast increase in social disorder and human suffering.”
Maggie Gallagher in National Review
105 - The DOI doesn't have any binding legal authority? So you're a British citizen and a Tory right? Yeah...kiss my National Archives.
105 - The DOI doesn't have any binding legal authority? So you're a British citizen and a Tory right? Yeah...kiss my National Archives.
124 - Most Eagle Scouts I knew were gay.
Hey 132, Prop 2 for farm animals rights is good but it doesn't go far enough. Why aren't they allowed to marry? That's messed up. As long as they love eachother, we shouldn't allow some ancient definition of marriage to stand in their way.
If you read the In re Marriage Cases decision, the (slim) majority reached its "constitutional" decision by interpolating up from "lower" statutes, such as anti-discrimination laws and, ironically, civil union statutes. Yet, at the same time, it refused to give equal dignity to Prop. 22. In other words, the Court derived a higher-level rule from lower-level laws. Justice Baxter, writing for the dissenting minority, identified the problem with the majority's analysis as follows:
"The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute."
Understanding what the Supreme Court did, and why, is important to understanding why this proposition not just about "equality." It also is about separation of powers, the appropriate role of the judiciary, and about the freedom of society to decide for itself what relationships it wants to promote through the legal construct of "marriage."
At what point do I become a bigot? I will be honest, although I have other reasons for supporting my position; my first reason for supporting Proposition 8 is religious beliefs. But I believe that it is okay to let our individual morals guide our voting. As such, I support the proposition in the same way that I would support a number of other issues that I feel are morally related. If there was a measure legalizing prostitution, I would be concerned about its impact on society—but my first reason for opposing the measure would be moral and religious beliefs. Similarly I would oppose measures expanding gambling, legalizing recreational drugs, or any other vice. It would seem that each of these measure would “infringe on somebody else’s rights.” After all, doesn’t prostitution involve a consensual interaction, and doesn’t the prostitute have a “right” to determine what she wants to do with her body. Still, I would oppose such a measure legalizing prostitution, because I believe that it is morally wrong. Here I stand on election eve, in support of Prop. 8, and thus have been labeled a bigot and a homophobe because I plan to vote in accordance with my beliefs.
At what point do I become a bigot? I will be honest, although I have other reasons for supporting my position; my first reason for supporting Proposition 8 is religious beliefs. But I believe that it is okay to let our individual morals guide our voting. As such, I support the proposition in the same way that I would support a number of other issues that I feel are morally related. If there was a measure legalizing prostitution, I would be concerned about its impact on society—but my first reason for opposing the measure would be moral and religious beliefs. Similarly I would oppose measures expanding gambling, legalizing recreational drugs, or any other vice. It would seem that each of these measure would “infringe on somebody else’s rights.” After all, doesn’t prostitution involve a consensual interaction, and doesn’t the prostitute have a “right” to determine what she wants to do with her body. Still, I would oppose such a measure legalizing prostitution, because I believe that it is morally wrong. Here I stand on election eve, in support of Prop. 8, and thus have been labeled a bigot and a homophobe because I plan to vote in accordance with my beliefs.
147, 148, 149- you became a bigot when you decided you were better than gays and deserved to be treated better. You became an idiot when you could only post multiple times to a comment board. You are probably the same type of person that doesn't want to vote for Obama because you think he is a black muslim but will end up voting for him while thinking you are voting for Bob Barr.
150--Well that's what you learn from stereotyping. 147 and 148 are not the same poster. I actually have already voted for Obama, knowing full well that I wasn't voting for Bob Barr. And although I oppose the practice, I do not think I am better than gays--I known a number of gay individuals that I think are perfectly decent people.
But your comment does perfectly illustrate my point. The moment I take an opposing and somewhat unpopular stance, I get labeled and judged by those who hypocritically accuse me of doing the same.
147 and 148 were posted by different people (I posted 147). That said, I tend to agree with 148 generally. 150 is another example of the ad hominem nature of most of the arguments from the No on 8 side. Please note that the separation of powers issues, and the troubling constitutional analysis engaged in by the majority in In re Marriage Cases, are solid non-religious, non-morality-based arguments for supporting Prop. 8. Those issues may not be as emotionally charged as the typical arguments we see in this debate, but they are real and significant.
Don't you know 148 that you're only allowed to have moral beliefs until someone calls you a bigot? It's silly to think we're allowed freedom of thought and expression in this country.
Reality is, you're exactly right. There are a lot of legal issues in this country that come down to "because I think it's wrong." Sometimes history proves our beliefs right, and other times it proves them wrong. We get into foul territory, however, when we dismiss someone's beliefs as a valid reason for their position on an issue. I would think liberals, of all people, would be willing to respect beliefs that are different from their own. Not the case here.
127 - Your argument is stupid. Allowing civil unions would be akin to also having left-handed office supplies. Permitting gay marriage is more like expecting your employer to make everyone right-handed.
Remember, this isn't about having a comparable institution for both (or all) constituencies. This is about redefining the single institution to accommodate all different "interpretations" of marriage.
One more thing - liberals love to dismiss the slippery-slope argument that if we allow gay marriage, why not incest, polygamy, etc. Just once I'd like to see a well thought out answer that explains why the same logic gay marriage advocates use can't be used by polygamists and others.
Secretly, I think most true gay marriage advocates don't have a problem with polygamy or incest. They just won't say that publicly because they need votes from the moderates who don't realize that's the ultimate destination of all this marriage "liberalization."
all the no on 8 folks, your problem boils down to this -- not a single one of you would have passed a logic and rhetoric class freshman year of college. you assume that you have a constitutional right to do whatever it is that you want to do, to "be who you are," but such an assumption is ridiculous. serial killers, child molesters, kleptomaniacs and firebugs all have to pretend to be something they're not (namely "people ruled by abhorrent tastes"), so what makes you special? you've got one leg to stand on: being sexually attracted to members of your own gender, while deviant in every sense of the word, is palatable enough to debauched post-modern america that you hope to slip past what remains of moral censure.
it's nice to sit around and think that we all have a constitutional right, founded under equal protection, to self-actualization -- but we don't, and what's more you know it. so you sling mud and call anyone who points this out a bigot. bigotry implies malice and a somehow incorrect basis for the beliefs to which you object, but you haven't told us why homosexuality is something that should protected.
that's the sad secret y'all try to keep hidden: there's no difference between your policy stance and plain old hedonism: i should be allowed to do whatever it is that i want to do. this isn't a concept enshrined in any governing law which courts or lawyers are bound to respect, but rather a political judgment about what government policies you support. so man up and admit the obvious -- you want to be "yourself," society disagrees. the rest of us think you ought to tamp down your appetites, and the only way you'll ever get to pursue your own definition of pleasure is through the courts because the legislatures won't hear your petition. if you win, mazel tov, really, but cut the shit about it being a moral victory and a great day for civil rights. it's a great day for relativism, and that's it.
No On 8 prompted a bunch of lesbian law students (and their S.O.s) to film a dance video to Get Ellen [DeGeneres] To Give. Ellen eventually gave $100,000 (and you should too!). It's work appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUgvXuSp6p8
all the no on 8 folks, your problem boils down to this -- not a single one of you would have passed a logic and rhetoric class freshman year of college. you assume that you have a constitutional right to do whatever it is that you want to do, to "be who you are," but such an assumption is ridiculous. serial killers, child molesters, kleptomaniacs and firebugs all have to pretend to be something they're not (namely "people ruled by abhorrent tastes"), so what makes you special? you've got one leg to stand on: being sexually attracted to members of your own gender, while deviant in every sense of the word, is palatable enough to debauched post-modern america that you hope to slip past what remains of moral censure.
it's nice to sit around and think that we all have a constitutional right, founded under equal protection, to self-actualization -- but we don't, and what's more you know it. so you sling mud and call anyone who points this out a bigot. bigotry implies malice and a somehow incorrect basis for the beliefs to which you object, but you haven't told us why homosexuality is something that should protected.
that's the sad secret y'all try to keep hidden: there's no difference between your policy stance and plain old hedonism: i should be allowed to do whatever it is that i want to do. this isn't a concept enshrined in any governing law which courts or lawyers are bound to respect, but rather a political judgment about what government policies you support. so man up and admit the obvious -- you want to be "yourself," society disagrees. the rest of us think you ought to tamp down your appetites, and the only way you'll ever get to pursue your own definition of pleasure is through the courts because the legislatures won't hear your petition. if you win, mazel tov, really, but cut the shit about it being a moral victory and a great day for civil rights. it's a great day for relativism, and that's it.
Morality is stupid. Anarchy is better, but tends to fall apart when anarchists attempt to organize.
You would oppose legalizing recreational drugs because you first and foremost get your morals from religion. What do you think Moses was taking when he spoke to God through a burning bush...beer?
I thought conservative philosophy said live and let live. Each man according to his own beliefs et. al.
After reading 136 I cried. After reading 157 I cried some more. How can you compare him to a serial killer? Are you really that ignorant? I'm straight but stand with 136.
159: You expect us to believe you are straight? Good one.
I am a straight pregnant married woman. My brother is gay. If my brother married another man, would that threaten my own marriage? ....wait for it....NOPE! Straights will continue to get married, have babies and generally live their lives. GROW THE F*CK UP. Vote NO TO H8TE-Vote NO on 8.
Here's a different angle:
I am a straight pregnant married woman. My brother enjoys sex with prostitutes. If my brother has sex with a prostitute, would that threaten my own marriage? ....wait for it....NOPE! People that have sex for free will continue to get married, have babies and generally live their lives... yet we as a society have decided that prostitution is not acceptable and not something we want to promote. GROW THE H*CK UP. Vote YES TO SOCIETAL STANDARDS - Vote YES on 8.
Why are you so afraid of gay people? Not long ago, slavery was acceptable...denying women the right to vote was acceptable. Times change and societies change, dumbsh*t. Would you also like to deny the right of interracial couples to marry? , Sorry to break it to you, but gay people are here to stay and in my family both heterosexuals and homosexuals are promoted and accepted and loved. Either deal with it, or continue to be in denial and just turn up the volume on The 700 Club.